Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"

btw, FET is expressly not scientific.

What exactly does this even mean?  There's no evidence for it in the form of reproducible experiments?  It makes no falsifiable claims?

No, it's subject to someone else's subconscious processes, et al.

No, it's subject to conscious processes, which can be controlled and reviewed.  It can be mathematically and experimentally confirmed, making it more valuable than sensory data.

How are you experimentally confirming evidence with the same senses you told me to reject?

How are you experimentally confirming evidence with the same senses you told me to reject?

Which of the following do you think is more accurate? Measuring the width of an object with your eyes or measuring its width using a ruler?

Ski you said
“You have been gathering all the data you need since the day you were born”
False:
babies are bothered about the tits and the hugs, there is no consideration for the possible shape of the earth.
Toddlers are bothered about the mud in a plantpot, the dirt on a carpet and sticking as much stuff in their mouth as possible.

So at least 3 years of your life is spent collecting data for other means. Rather than “is, or is not, the earth round?”
“That the earth is flat is so self-evident I sometimes wonder at the ability to deny it.”

Self-evidence /= true, solipsism is self-evident to everybody in the world. furthermore the emotion that drips out  of “so self-evident” means you have some kind of sentimental attachment to it.

I sometimes wonder at the ability of a lot of people, curiosity is a good thing. Maybe you should follow that hunch.

“That you deny the data given you by your own senses, is entirely within your purview.”

I personally (I don’t know about the other guy) don’t deny the data of my senses, just their accuracy, my senses are built on certain survival instincts and so are “built” in such a way as to be bias towards certain information above others, even if that information is contradictory. The questioning of our senses and our instincts has lead to much fruitful breakthroughs in all areas of human knowledge, not just cosmology.

“I think primarily this must be a case of methodology, as Roundy has indicated.”

Firstly its “method” and secondly trusting your senses is not a method but faith.

“I find your methodology to be suspect, as no doubt you find mine to be.”

It’s not a question of his method or your method. Its whether the method to construct the theory of the flat earth is suspect or not, and converslly, if the round earth is suspect; they can both be suspect; they can both be not-suspect. But upto now I see no method used in the construct of the FET, other than “the RET is wrong therefore FET is correct” and
“look around” the first is a clear logical error called assuming the antecedent. and for the second one see above.


[edit: the last sentence is clearly using the wrong fallacy]

I'm Back! I can see you've all had quite the weekend!

So your FET is "expressly not scientific". Hmmm. Let's see, hold on a second here...

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 80,150 km (49,802 miles) Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

In the McIntyre model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs instead. These discs are being held above the Earth by photoelectric effect. See: Photoelectric Suspension Theory. The celestial bodies are also being suspended above the Earth by photoelectric effect in the Bishop model.

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

Q: "Wouldn't the Earth crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball if it's indeed a disc?"

A: The dark energy model assumes that the Earth does not possess a gravitational field. What we know as "gravity" is provided by the acceleration of the Earth.

Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

A: In the dark energy model, the magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as the RE (Diagram). The magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, while the magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The ice wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.

Are none of these statements, most of them made by YOU roundy, scientific? If they are not, why are you using scientific terminology? Dark Energy, Gravity, "Photoelectric Suspension Theory".

It seems to me that you have used scientific jargon in your slopped together explanation for your theory. That makes it "expressly scientific".

Now since I can not see through your eyes, feel through your hands, smell through your nose, or hear through your ears, all I was asking for was just something that can show me that the earth is flat. So maybe "sustained space flight isn't possible", according to you, but it would be possible to get up high enough and show me a flat earth. Especially since the earth apparently has no gravity. Makes a rocket launch much easier. So you must have something to show me.

Quote from: FAQ

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 80,150 km (49,802 miles) Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

What shape is the flat Earth supposed to be? If it is a circle, then C = (Pi) (d) and so either the circumference is wrong, or the diameter is. Assuming the numbers are correct, the Earth could not possibly be a flat circle (or an object with 1 surface being a circle)

They tell us that it is a "disc", or circle as you've said. I haven't bothered to check the math, simply because they haven't bothered to check any data they've been presented with (as far as I've seen).

Are none of these statements, most of them made by YOU roundy, scientific?

No.  They are zetetic (and btw, there have been a lot of revisions in that thread and I don't think any of that originally came from me).

If they are not, why are you using scientific terminology? Dark Energy, Gravity, "Photoelectric Suspension Theory".

Why not?  It makes it easier for the common user to grasp.  Just because the terminology is similar doesn't mean the methodology used is the same.

Now since I can not see through your eyes, feel through your hands, smell through your nose, or hear through your ears, all I was asking for was just something that can show me that the earth is flat. So maybe "sustained space flight isn't possible", according to you, but it would be possible to get up high enough and show me a flat earth. Especially since the earth apparently has no gravity. Makes a rocket launch much easier. So you must have something to show me.

Look out your window!

You cannot simply say "look out your window" You can only see so far and given the immense size of Earth compared to a human the discernable shape is not possible to be seen. Think about looking at a car from a long distance, you can make out that it is a car, but you do not know what size, shape, make, or model is untill you get a better view of it. The same can be applied to Earth. We need to get a better view before we jump to a conclusion about it's shape.

You cannot simply say "look out your window" You can only see so far and given the immense size of Earth compared to a human the discernable shape is not possible to be seen. Think about looking at a car from a long distance, you can make out that it is a car, but you do not know what size, shape, make, or model is untill you get a better view of it. The same can be applied to Earth. We need to get a better view before we jump to a conclusion about it's shape.

Meaningless analogies can be fun to play with.  So by your logic, since I can find out what make, model, size, shape, etc a car is without seeing it as a whole, I don't need to see the Earth as a whole to judge its shape.  Fantastic; that's what I've been saying!

Look out your window!

Just to be clear, this is the entirety of your evidence for a flat earth?

And I see a distinct horizon, which shouldn't exist on a flat earth.

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on July 02, 2012, 04:33:15 PM

You cannot simply say "look out your window" You can only see so far and given the immense size of Earth compared to a human the discernable shape is not possible to be seen. Think about looking at a car from a long distance, you can make out that it is a car, but you do not know what size, shape, make, or model is untill you get a better view of it. The same can be applied to Earth. We need to get a better view before we jump to a conclusion about it's shape.

Meaningless analogies can be fun to play with.  So by your logic, since I can find out what make, model, size, shape, etc a car is without seeing it as a whole, I don't need to see the Earth as a whole to judge its shape.  Fantastic; that's what I've been saying!

and meaningless claims are even more fun to play with. Unless you have the gift of far sight I doubt you would be able to pull off the make and model of a car from a long distance. By long I mean about a mile or more when comparing the size of Earth to a human it would even greater.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 02, 2012, 04:42:56 PM

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on July 02, 2012, 04:33:15 PM

You cannot simply say "look out your window" You can only see so far and given the immense size of Earth compared to a human the discernable shape is not possible to be seen. Think about looking at a car from a long distance, you can make out that it is a car, but you do not know what size, shape, make, or model is untill you get a better view of it. The same can be applied to Earth. We need to get a better view before we jump to a conclusion about it's shape.

Meaningless analogies can be fun to play with.  So by your logic, since I can find out what make, model, size, shape, etc a car is without seeing it as a whole, I don't need to see the Earth as a whole to judge its shape.  Fantastic; that's what I've been saying!

and meaningless claims are even more fun to play with. Unless you have the gift of far sight I doubt you would be able to pull off the make and model of a car from a long distance. By long I mean about a mile or more when comparing the size of Earth to a human it would even greater.

Yes, exactly.  Direct, immediate sensorial evidence is far better to judge something's properties than the view from far away.  Are you sure you're not a zetetic?

Roundy, have you decided to complete your slide into mental childhood by ignoring my posts because I'm a big meanie face?

Yes, exactly.  Direct, immediate sensorial evidence is far better to judge something's properties than the view from far away.  Are you sure you're not a zetetic?

The idea is not to view something from far away, it is to view more of it than is usually possible. Even with the flat earth theory, you must admit that humans are extraordinarily small compared to the earth, so if there was a curvature (which there is), it would be difficult to observe using what our naked eye allows.

Look outside your window, it is all quite flat.

But bendy light should cause it to appear curved.

If you believe in electromagnetic acceleration, you are in fact admitting that the earth appears to be curved.  It's either bendy light, or the earth appears to be flat.  You can't have them both because they're mutually exclusive positions.

So are you against bendy light?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on June 29, 2012, 10:17:03 AM

Look outside your window, it is all quite flat.

But bendy light should cause it to appear curved.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on June 07, 2012, 11:14:47 PM

If you believe in electromagnetic acceleration, you are in fact admitting that the earth appears to be curved.  It's either bendy light, or the earth appears to be flat.  You can't have them both because they're mutually exclusive positions.

So are you against bendy light?

Bendy light would not cause the Earth to appear curved.

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on July 02, 2012, 05:41:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 02, 2012, 04:42:56 PM

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on July 02, 2012, 04:33:15 PM

You cannot simply say "look out your window" You can only see so far and given the immense size of Earth compared to a human the discernable shape is not possible to be seen. Think about looking at a car from a long distance, you can make out that it is a car, but you do not know what size, shape, make, or model is untill you get a better view of it. The same can be applied to Earth. We need to get a better view before we jump to a conclusion about it's shape.

Meaningless analogies can be fun to play with.  So by your logic, since I can find out what make, model, size, shape, etc a car is without seeing it as a whole, I don't need to see the Earth as a whole to judge its shape.  Fantastic; that's what I've been saying!

and meaningless claims are even more fun to play with. Unless you have the gift of far sight I doubt you would be able to pull off the make and model of a car from a long distance. By long I mean about a mile or more when comparing the size of Earth to a human it would even greater.

Yes, exactly.  Direct, immediate sensorial evidence is far better to judge something's properties than the view from far away.  Are you sure you're not a zetetic?

I strive to be as zetetic as I can, far from a perfect zetetic. Have you seen my post about my version of Earth that contradicts the ice-wall model? you might have dismissed it, but I base it off my direct findings throughout my studies of navigation and oceanography(side hobby)

All I want to get across here is that simply looking out your window cannot determine the shape of Earth. To come to a conclusion that the Earth is flat because it looks flat when I am looking out my window is taking a giant assumption. And you all know that to assume something makes an ass out of you and me.

Thinking man

What is the hard evidence that the earth is round?

Thinking man

What is the hard evidence that the earth is round?

I can see you want to play devils advocate here, but the evidence of a round Earth is extensive. It is simply the acceptance of the evidence that FE rejects. The notion of a conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth a secret is the main drive for this train of thought. It is a fun topic to discuss as it makes people take a critical look at the science behind the shape of Earth, but in the end to evidence for a round Earth is to great comparatively to the flat Earth evidence. And when you look at the flat Earth evidence you find that it is mostly about perspective and assumptions rather then hard math,facts, and science.

ClockTower already compiled an excellent summary of the evidence.  It's not exhaustive, but it's certainly better than the insultingly stupid response of "look out your window" that you get from FEers when asking for evidence.

I.   Horizon
A.   Flat Horizon—An observer on the surface of a still ocean viewing sees the horizon as flat.
B.   Rounded Horizon—An observer on the surface of a still ocean viewing at a great height sees the horizon as rounded. It appears to be highest directly ahead of the viewing angle and drops equally away to both sides at a constant predicted rate, regardless of the viewing angle.
C.   The Higher, the Farther—An observer on a middle floor of a tall building watching a departing ship disappear over a clear horizon can climb to the top floor and again view the ship.
D.   Tops First—An observer on a ship approaching a port with skyscrapers will first see the tops of the tallest buildings then the rest of the city’s skyline as the ship comes further into port.
E.   Horizon below Eye Level—An observer will see the horizon is below eye level when viewing from a height above the Earth of 10,000 feet or more.
II.   Earth Based Astronomy
A.   Apparent size of the Sun—Regardless of the season, the time of day, or viewing location, an observer views the Sun in the sky as same shape and size.
B.   Sunrise and sunset—An observer sees the sun set and rise as a disk sliding over the horizon at a predicted time and angle.
C.   Phases of the Moon—An observer sees the Moon go through predicted phases (with the illuminated face facing the Sun when both are visible in the sky).
D.   Moonrise and Moonset—An observer sees the Moon rise and set at the predicted time and angle.
E.   Shadows on the Moon—At the first quarter and third quarter of the lunar phases, an observer sees shadows of features of the moon pointing in opposite direction, but always away from the Sun.
F.   Total Solar Eclipse—An observer sees a total solar eclipse at a predicted time and location.
G.   Annular Solar Eclipse—An observer sees an annular solar eclipse at a predicted time and location.
H.   Lunar Eclipse—An observer sees a total lunar eclipse at a predicted time and location.
I.   Retrograde Motion of Mars—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Mars apparently reverses its motion in the sky.
J.   Retrograde Motion of Jupiter—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Jupiter apparently reverses its motion in the sky.
K.   Retrograde Motion of Saturn—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Saturn apparently reverses it motion in the sky.
L.   Retrograde Motion of Uranus—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Uranus apparently reverse its motion in the sky.
M.   Transit of Mercury—An observer sees Mercury transit the Sun at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
N.   Phases of Mercury—An observer sees Mercury as predicted as a partially illuminated disk with the illuminated portion facing the Sun.
O.   Transit of Venus—An observer sees Venus transit the Sun at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
P.   Phases of Venus—An observer sees Venus as predicted as a partially illuminated disk with the illuminated portion facing the Sun.
III.   Radio
A.   Ham Radio Distance—A listener can hear ham radio stations from around the world.
B.   Commercial Radio Distance—A listener cannot hear commercial radio stations beyond a predicted distance during daylight.
C.   Nighttime Distance—A listener can hear commercial radio stations during nighttime that he or she could not hear during daylight.
IV.   Foucault Pendulum—An observer will see that a Foucault Pendulum’s motion rotates predictably over the course of a day based on latitude.
V.   Parallax
A.   Moon Distance—Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the Moon.
B.   Sun Distance— Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the Sun.
C.   ISS Distance—Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the ISS.
D.   Iridium Flash Distance—Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the flash off one of the antenna dishes of an Iridium satellite.
VI.   Rotation of the sky
A.   Northern Sky Rotation—An observer will not that stars appear to rotate about a fixed point in the northern sky.
B.   Southern Sky Rotation—An observer will note that stars appear to rotate about a fixed point in the southern sky.
VII.   Angle of Polaris
A.   North Pole—An observer at the North Pole will see Polaris directly overhead.
B.   45 Degrees—An observer at 45° North will see Polaris at 45° above the horizon.
C.   Equator—An observer at the Equator will see Polaris at the horizon.
D.   South—An observer south of the Equator will not see Polaris.
VIII.   Angle of Sigma Octantis
A.   South Pole—An observer at the South Pole will see Sigma Octantis directly overhead.
B.   45 Degrees—An observer at 45° South will see Sigma Octantis at 45° above the horizon.
C.   Equator—An observer at the Equator will see Sigma Octantis at the horizon.
D.   North—An observer north of the Equator will not see Sigma Octantis.
IX.   Intensity of the Sun—An observer will measure the predicted solar intensity on a cloudless day, regardless of the time of day or season.
X.   Cavendish Experiments—An observer will measure the same value of G for any sizes or shapes or materials used in a Cavendish device.
XI.   Lake—An observer will measure the predicted angle of deviation from level of a line of sight over a given, large distance over a still body of water
XII.   Zodiac—An observer will determine that the Sun appears to moves in relation to the Zodiac in the predicted manner.
XIII.   Photographs—The observer will see the Earth as a sphere in photographs taken for sufficiently high altitudes.
XIV.   Man to moon
A.   Earthrise—The observer on the Moon will see the earthrise at the predicted time and angle.
B.   Distance—Using the equipment left on the moon by the Apollo project, an observer will accurately measure the predicted distance to the Moon.
XV.   Transits of the ISS
A.   Sun—An observer will see the ISS transit the Sun at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
B.   Moon— An observer will see the ISS transit the Moon at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
XVI.   Launch—An observer will see in the sky a satellite following a successful space launch following the predicted course.
XVII.   Meteors—An observer will see the meteors from a predicted shower or storm radiate from a predicted point in the sky.
XVIII.   Lunar Eclipse Shadow—An observer will always see a round edge to the shadow on the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse.
XIX.   Commercial flights
A.   Great circle—An observer will notice that long commercial flights travel mostly along great circle routes.
B.   Times—An observer will notice that commercial flight times will not be less than a predicted minimum.
XX.   Transverse the Globe—An observer may circumnavigate the globe in any direction.
XXI.   Surveyors—When surveying large features, surveyors must account for the curvature of the Earth.
XXII.   Mountaintops—A pair of coordinated observers on two distant mountain tops within visual range of each other will both measure by line of sight the other’s position to be lower than it is measured by the other.
XXIII.   Latitude Lines—An observer will notice that latitude lines are always straight and equidistant.
XXIV.   Longitude Lines—An observer will notice that longitude lines are always straight and diverge and then converge, going north to south (or vice versa).
XXV.   Tides
A.   Daily—An observer will notice that there are two high tides and two low tides at predicted times and the Moon is high is the sky during one high tides each day and low on the horizon at all low tides at many locations.
B.   Monthly—An observer will notice spring and neap tides each twice during the lunar month, with spring tide during new and full moons and neap tide during the first and third quarter at many locations.
XXVI.   Auroras—An observer will notice auroras near the poles, and they will occur at around both poles with nearly the same intensity and duration.
XXVII.   Modern navigation
A.   Gyroscopes—An observer will note that modern navigation when aided by gyroscopes provide readings consistent with predicted results.
B.   GPS—An observer will note that modern navigation when aided by GPS provide readings consistent with predicted results.
XXVIII.   Weather patterns
A.   Weather Fronts
1.   Speed—An observer will note that weather fronts move with about the same speed in either hemisphere and in line with their internal wind speeds.
2.   Polar Originations—An observer will note that weather fronts originate from both poles with approximately the same frequency and intensity.
B.   Trade winds—An observer will note that the trade winds in both hemispheres blow at approximately the same speed, but in opposite directions.
C.   Large Storm Systems
1.   Speed—An observer will note that large storm systems move with about the same speed in either hemisphere and arrive predictably across great distances.
2.   Direction—An observer will note that large storm systems are about of equal intensity in either hemisphere, but tend to move in opposite east versus west directions within the same latitude bands.
XXIX.   Aberration—An observer will notice an apparent displacement of the position of a celestial body in the direction of the Earth’s predicted motion about the Sun.
XXX.   Earthquakes—Seismographs record earthquakes with results that imply that the Earth is spherical.
XXXI.   Sigma Octantis--Viewing of Sigma Octantis (near Crux) from several longitudes in the Southern Hemisphere means Sigma Octantis (and Crux) is in several places at the same time.

Quote from: Happy Forever on July 03, 2012, 02:30:59 AM

Thinking man

What is the hard evidence that the earth is round?

I can see you want to play devils advocate here, but the evidence of a round Earth is extensive. It is simply the acceptance of the evidence that FE rejects. The notion of a conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth a secret is the main drive for this train of thought. It is a fun topic to discuss as it makes people take a critical look at the science behind the shape of Earth, but in the end to evidence for a round Earth is to great comparatively to the flat Earth evidence. And when you look at the flat Earth evidence you find that it is mostly about perspective and assumptions rather then hard math,facts, and science.

No answer in your answer

I did not start this thread to GIVE proofs. Anything I can say has already been said. I can see that, especially after reading Cat Earth Theory's last post here.

What I came here for was to obtain information. I try to be as open minded as possible. But like many others have said here before me, the evidence strongly suggest that the earth is a sphere. And there's a whole boatload of evidence for it. I came to see if there was any evidence for a Flat Earth. So far, The most I have seen is things about perspective and point of view, which can be deceiving. Just because something looks like it, doesn't mean it is. Especially when viewing such a small portion. If i take a picture of my car from 5 cm off of the surface and post it here, there will be many things you cannot tell me. You won't be able to tell me the shape, make, model, mass, size, makeup. The only thing that you can tell me is the color, and that it "appears flat". Perhaps I drive around in a piece of paper.

So if everyone would stay on topic. I'm not here to spit facts (or fallacious statements as some here may see them) at anyone. I asked simply for some facts to be given, and in 5 pages I have seen nothing of merit.

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on July 03, 2012, 02:47:43 AM

Quote from: Happy Forever on July 03, 2012, 02:30:59 AM

Thinking man

What is the hard evidence that the earth is round?

I can see you want to play devils advocate here, but the evidence of a round Earth is extensive. It is simply the acceptance of the evidence that FE rejects. The notion of a conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth a secret is the main drive for this train of thought. It is a fun topic to discuss as it makes people take a critical look at the science behind the shape of Earth, but in the end to evidence for a round Earth is to great comparatively to the flat Earth evidence. And when you look at the flat Earth evidence you find that it is mostly about perspective and assumptions rather then hard math,facts, and science.

No answer in your answer

Don't ask a dumb question.

Is it possible that we can stay on topic? This is supposed to be a debate. Not a childish argument.

I did not start this thread to GIVE proofs. Anything I can say has already been said. I can see that, especially after reading Cat Earth Theory's last post here.

What I came here for was to obtain information. I try to be as open minded as possible. But like many others have said here before me, the evidence strongly suggest that the earth is a sphere. And there's a whole boatload of evidence for it. I came to see if there was any evidence for a Flat Earth. So far, The most I have seen is things about perspective and point of view, which can be deceiving. Just because something looks like it, doesn't mean it is. Especially when viewing such a small portion. If i take a picture of my car from 5 cm off of the surface and post it here, there will be many things you cannot tell me. You won't be able to tell me the shape, make, model, mass, size, makeup. The only thing that you can tell me is the color, and that it "appears flat". Perhaps I drive around in a piece of paper.

So if everyone would stay on topic. I'm not here to spit facts (or fallacious statements as some here may see them) at anyone. I asked simply for some facts to be given, and in 5 pages I have seen nothing of merit.

I can show you the evidence, clear, irrefutable if you really do care. 

I can show you the evidence, clear, irrefutable if you really do care. 

Just show it instead of wasting everyone's time with teaser posts.

I can assure you that I at least care and would love to see some new evidence in favor of a flat earth brought to the table.

You're picture is so nice, why a dg not a cat? 

I am doing a very imp research touching this point. I finished it as total but rewritng with more details.

Here the start is to show that the ball earth is amyth with no slight evidence, then tell you the truth and what happened to it through history.


Life is a big trick.

You're picture is so nice, why a dg not a cat? 

It started as a cat.  This is the head of a naked bicyclist wearing a creepy dog mask I thought was funny, and it isn't really related to my forums name.