Lmao, and what studies did they cite for their conclusions ??.
Nature is the de-facto authority on this, you can claim a bitchute video is better, but nobody is going to agree outside of Poal. Which is a problem for the Right, too many paranoid people in here.
As i point out in my previous post and link (the one you didn't obviously read, lol)
Did you read all the Nature one? Why should you, nobody wants to read the whole topic when it's outside of their field Can you refute every single stupid flat earth theory? I can't, I just don't know enough about astrophysics. But I can work out which explanations have more validity and go from that.
Wahahaa, i even gave you the page number for the overview of all the studies Nature has ignored (which are nearly all available on free to view PubMed). But you're " nobody wants to read the whole topic when it's outside of their field ". So you're saying 'TRuSt tHe sCiEnCe, gOY' ??. Tard confirmed ....
Wahahaa,
now, are you sure you aren't 12?
i even gave you the page number for the overview of all the studies Nature has ignored (which are nearly all available on free to view PubMed). But you're " nobody wants to read the whole topic when it's outside of their field ". So you're saying 'TRuSt tHe sCiEnCe, gOY' ??. Tard confirmed ....
this isn't your field either, you've just watched a bitchute clip where a swivel eyed loon pandered to your bias, that's also how flat earth tinfoil works.
I don't have a preferred outcome here, I just pick which explanation is more likely, it's called critical thinking. I find it saves time otherwise wasted on only reading stuff that agrees with my bias.
Who watched a bitchute video, you're wrong again. In fact you have been wrong this entire thread and refuse to even look at 'the same science' you keep citing yourself. What a faggot, lmao...
"nobody wants to read the whole topic when it's outside of their field ". 'TRuSt tHe sCiEnCe, gOY' . Lmao ....
(post is archived)