Brunette slave dominant by bondage pain swallows cumshot outdoor fucked. Brooke Waters meets her wild west lover outdoors. Wild foursome fuck party with Alina West in the main role. Anonymous May 25, at 7: Forgot Username or Password? One thing is very clear about the Old West:
Hot Free Nude Chat Room
Join RedTube Premium and never look back. Adblock users get a week free. Busty Teen Tiff Bannister gobbles gooey cum. Brunette slave dominant by bondage pain swallows cumshot outdoor fucked. Anni Get Your Cum. Webcam girl with big natural tits cums on toy. Download Video Select video quality HD p p p. Video does not play. Ads are the worst, right? Join RedTube Premium and never look back.
Adblock users get a week free. Keep me logged in Forgot Password? OR Login with Redtube Premium. Join the RedTube Community. Don't have an account? Sign Up For Free. OR Sign in with Pornhub. Alice and Loly playing with dildos. North Korea claims to have landed a man on the Sun.
Read more at http: At first sight it seems like a joke. But given the current dominant heliocentric model, why would they say this? To take the piss out of other theories? Yeah, most probably it is a joke and it was made up by one of those satirical websites, but like you said, it is interesting how they make fun of the heliocentric theory as well.
Is there a way to get email notifications from you when you post? This site is absolutely fascinating and right in line with what I have been observing and researching. Not as yet Catherine. Maybe there is a wordpress plug in for that. Found quite a few more balloon videos which show NO stars or moon, this is quite the adventure, made a playlist, the longer duration videos are at the end of the playlist, enjoy.
Googleplus might lessen the restrictions in Time so, I am just going to wait that one out. Hope Sumstuff gets the message.
Hot Milf Nude GifI had a chance to fly few days ago, and I was actually able to discern just one star. It appeared much less bright than stars normally do, but it was a star nevertheless.
The altitude was around 11 km. That probably has some effect too but it cannot make them completely invisible. There must be another explanation, because, for example, I can distinguish a star even when I stay in front of a street lamp post and the star is almost behind it tested this yesterday. It seems the eye is quite sensitive to any source of light and it adapts quickly and well to different atmospheric conditions.
There were simply no stars besides that one that I saw at an altitude of 11 km even though I tried really hard to see something for about 30 minutes. That is indeed quite odd. Yes, that is indeed odd. I have experienced the same. Sometimes you can clearly see the Moon, for example , but not the stars.
The stars should be easily visible when there are no clouds. Also, once I noticed something weird, I was in the mountains, and it was getting dark, there were no stars at all, I got a bit lower like meters and I could clearly see Venus, which was nowhere to be seen 15 minutes earlier.
There may be a clue to this in the way stars flicker. In I saw a triangular UFO once in a crowded area which nobody else could see. It also was flickering like a star but less frequently like it was on a roll of film but only present on every 5 frames of the film instead of on every one. It detected I could see it and flickered at a lower rate to say every 10 frames and then 20 and then 30 etc.
But I knew it was still there. I wonder if this has to do with the density of the aether which Steve suggests. Could it be that with enough aether density, light can propagate more and therefore be seen as solid; but with less density, light and maybe objects miss a beat. It would certainly need further thinking about.
I think that the stars are not easily seen i. Since the balloons are in motion it is hard to focus on anything, let alone zoom and focus. The Moon, on the other hand, seems to be visible. Naturally, it is much smaller as no zoom is applied. Better cameras need to be used, and apparently no one has. I found a photo of the Moon from a high-altitude balloon: Anyway, very interesting, good job.
Keep wading through; they get better the newer they are… at least I think so lol. The Bible Authorized King James is the only absolutely reliable source of truth at all in this very unreliable world. It is confirmed by logic and observation. With this as my basis I will answer:. If this concave Earth theory were true, then the Bible would say that Heaven is inside the Earth, rather than it saying that Heaven is above the Earth.
A dizzying thought even to comprehend. It seems to be a strange kind of mystical book in parts. If heaven whatever that represents is above the Earth, then does that mean it is above the ground or beyond the North Pole or under the ground and outside the Earth? Does this mean that if we travel through the North Pole we come into the land of Heaven?
Or is just a mystical reference to something else and not to be taken literally? There are stories and myths abound concerning the underworld however, but that would take a whole new article to just skim the surface. I am wallowing through mental mud at the moment. Since you are so keen on accusing real astronomers of fraud, etc.
By 30 September, its orbital elements had published by the IAU http: I invite you to produce any sources where geocentrists of any persuadion Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, or Spherical Earth made comparably accurate predictions within that same time frame. Those sources must present in detail the dynamical model used for their predictions including all numerical parameters thereof , and must have been published on verifiable dates.
Note that I need to see real math and real numbers: I invite you to produce any sources where geocentrists of any persuasion Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, or Spherical Earth made comparably accurate predictions within that same time frame [i. There will be no exact math presented for comets in a concave model I am not a mathematician.
Maybe you could look at Mostafa Abdelkader. I am sure anyone can make a mathematical model to fit concave Earth theory, especially if they know the mechanics. They found, for example, that several differing geometries fit spatial experience equally well. All could not be truths.
The key to reality had been lost. This realisation was the first of the calamities to befall mathematics. In fact, asteroids later becoming meteorites are the main part of the Sun as a sulphur lamp hypothesis. In fact, elliptical orbits like those of comets are best explained in a concave earth model which I am working on right now.
The problem with the current heliocentric model is that there is no mechanical explanation for any of it. That is not good enough. You can take the same math for predicting where a comet will be in the sky at a certain time and apply it to the concave model as well.
In fact, that is one piece of evidence for the mechanical aspect of the CM which I think I have nailed, but we will see. When you have the mechanical model, you can explain gravity, magnetism, electricity and I have at the moment 3 different types of frequencies… and there is also good evidence for this mechanic.
I can refer them to plenty of sources that explain it. Laughter is good for your soul. Invite more school kids to find evidence for heliocentric theory. I was actually talking about joining the dots or recognizing patterns. I am desperately looking for insight. The math for the model has already been done by others, but obviously not in context of a concave Earth.
It is actually probably the most complicated math there is way above my pay grade and not completely understood much of it is still theory — fluid dynamics. I was actually really surprised that a theoretical mathematical model had been devised in modern times of a concave earth as I would have thought not a single academic would have touched Concave Earth Theory with a barge pole.
And lastly, not self-pity but self-realization on our utter limitations as a human species. See Egyptian mathematician Mostafa Abdelkader for details. Still developing the model. You may be confused because of the black background to the sky during daylight hours but that is because, here on Earth, light is scattered by our atmosphere making the sky blue.
In space, there is no atmosphere so the backdrop of the sky still appears black despite very intense sunlight in the daytime side of the orbit. Bright glare is already noted in the article. It seems there is only one person who thought to actually do that… and still no stars.
Facts are facts, right… or are they assumptions? To never investigate is to never progress. You should know that anyone can do that. It is much harder to investigate on your own and to try to understand the world without swallowing all the scientific dogma. Pardon me, but do you have any idea whatsoever of how completely unconvincing and laughably unsound this argument is?
There is a simple test to determine whether we live inside a Dyson sphere, as you propose, or on a conventional planet. Just look at the fucking horizon. If you can see a horizon line of any sort, then you are on a conventional spherical planet. If there is no horizon line, then you are most likely in a Dyson sphere.
And if you cheat and do this test in the middle of a cloud of fog, then you are a person of no intelligence. Furthermore, YouTube videos do not qualify as evidence. Likewise, Wikipedia articles do not qualify as evidence although any genuine scientific papers referenced by said articles would. Your argument is scientifically invalid because you completely ignore the most basic and most important piece of evidence.
Please reformulate and retest your argument. Also, thanks for the laugh that I got as I read this ridiculous claptrap. Even though this post is horse manure, it does at least provide some societal benefit. Totalrecall, you apparently have no knowledge of the physics of springs. I suggest reviewing freshman physics. Insulting is a sign of weakness of your argument or lack thereof.
Information and clarity is one of strength and so is questioning and revising. Please read the concave earth theory article for questions and peculiarities of optics for information on the horizon. Our vision does not tell us the truth. I have already disallowed one user from posting because of insults. Consider this your first and last warning. I may edit your next posts to allow only your constructive arguments or not approve you at all.
Congratulations, you have just made an argumentum ad absurdum. If you have no understanding of basic science and yet attempt to rewrite said science, then calling your post a pile of horse manure is not, in fact, an insult. If I had wanted to insult you, I would have called you a howling ignoramus and a laughable cultist toady since basic research has found that your beliefs are indicative of a cultist of a charmingly insane fellow called Cyrus Teed.
By telling you right here and now that you are attempting to publish garbage, I am not insulting you, but doing you a favor. If you attempt to publish this claptrap anywhere other than the Internet, you will quite literally be laughed out of the international scientific community. I feel that it is kinder to nip this sort of thing in the bud so that you can fix your arguments now before you experience professional ridicule and loss of credibility.
McNair was apparently a confirmed phony. This took some research, but that paper was definitely faked. Also, he apparently conveniently forgot the Coriolis effect. You should know this. This, right here, is a lie. Religious people lie regularly—damn it, the last Pope tried to cover up thousands of pedophile priests. Here, in fact is a list of lying fundamentalists: This is just the list from the top of my head.
Furthermore, the man you call as a respectable witness, Ulysses Morrow, was a member of a cult led by a man named Cyrus Teed, which stipulated belief in a Dyson Sphere-like-Earth. So yes, he was lying. Your second example is a publicity stunt with a highly suspect device performed by a number of extremely religious cultists, with no actual scientific involvement, and therefore invalid as an example.
Your next point is an unintelligible mess of rehashed 19th-century experiments, which are always suspect due to their basis in a cut-throat age of publishing before verification which is anathema to science, but try telling that to that nitwit Richard Owen. On your fourth point: You engage in intellectually dishonest practices such as cherry-picking and using invalid sources, and you apparently have never seen a picture taken from space, or ever actually looked at the horizon in, say, Kansas.
Your arguments are unsound, and require major reformulation. I strongly suggest that you start from scratch, remove any sources produces by Cyrus Teed cultists and writers of UFO conspiracy magazines, and actually try some experiments yourself with professional equipment. Nice to see my second upset poster on this blog, but thank you for keeping it civil.
I disagree with this on the premise that there are four pieces of evidence for the Earth being concave, with two of them being nearly slam dunks. Most of it is here:. It seems that at short distances visible light is accurate enough, but at long distances it is very inaccurate. I actually looked into the flat earth seriously because optics shows us that the world must be flat.
A lake is a flat plane obviously, at least it looks that way to the naked eye. You can get a clinometer and look across the top of a series of objects of same length for several miles and see the tops of each object with a telescope as Rowbowthan has already demonstrated. The problem is this is impossible as the flags should dip downwards on a convex earth, or upwards on a concave one.
Yes, Teed made some grand assumptions which even deviated away from his initial vision. I think he was wrong on a lot of things about the inner workings of the concave Earth; but at least he actually carried out one of the most thorough experiments I have ever read about.
The arguments against his experiment are either slanderous PG , false Skeptic magazine , or made up opinion Simanek. I mean Teed HAS to be wrong as the establishment has literally nowhere else to go. I accept constructive criticism, new ideas or info. Can I join this cult or do I have to believe, or not believe, in certain things first? Doubt it; but if you show your research on the paper being fraudulent my opinion may change.
His conclusions disagreed with a concave Earth, and I htink his air current hypothesis perfectly reasonable. I agree with you. Morrow also mentions it and it is his reference to the experiment in the future which is interesting. Yes, I agree with you. His own experiment was incredibly meticulous and overseen by Corpernicans who were doing everything in their power to find fault with it.
He knew what he was up against. A very brave if not slightly foolhardy man, but definitely not a religious figure of the establishment just the opposite in fact. The thoroughness of his experiment reflects on his character most highly. This is a huge topic and a very long one.
Perhaps another article in the far future. My initial premise is that the Jesuits are to blame for a lot of this, but we are venturing into conspiratorial grounds. Ah yes, the infamous Coriolis Effect. You probably have already mentioned this in a future reply to one of my above points above about there being no evidence for the heliocentric hypothesis.
The Coriolis Effect is explained well enough here I think. This experiment was very valid as it was over seen and inspected by their adversaries and signed off by multiple people. This experiment was so thorough especially for and the ramifications so vast, it should be right up with one of the leading experiments of all time. But that is only my opinion and I respect that you differ on this.
Ridiculing the result is not scientific. Men of science would want to know once and for all what the true shape of the Earth was; after all, it is very fundamental to a lot of the sciences and their philosophical off-springs such as astronomy. Perhaps because it would end many careers and a philosophy so useful to the establishment my opinion.
I view the 19th century as the age of enlightenment and freedom in a lot of respects, especially in the arena of science and engineering. I tried to find more modern sources and only found a couple. Those facts are already well-known. No to the first bit, but yes to the second. I am thinking just on those lines.
In the mid-to-long term future I will be doing more practical endeavors and less blogging. Thanks for being civil and PG, take your time reading through the articles on this blog. There is a lot there but it should answer most of your questions. I will post nothing more as I am clearly wasting my time here. Your arguments have done nothing more than give my quantum dynamics professor a good laugh which he needed, by the way—thanks for that.
I have a dissertation to write, and if you really, genuinely believe that measurements taken using a wooden, 19th-century instrument that was left in the ocean for five months are valid, then you are clearly irrational. I strongly suggest that you actually take basic geography, astronomy, physics, and geology classes at an accredited college before you attempt to rewrite science.
Your arguments are still scientifically invalid, and you have offered no genuine, scientifically acceptable evidence to support them. Furthermore, your jokes about science being a cult remove any credibility that you had. Please take some time to think about just how irrational, unintelligent, and downright insulting you sound in your response to me.
Finally, one guy at a computer cannot overturn established theories with invalid hypotheses. Please, for your own sake, rethink how you are using your time and instead do something that reflects better on your credibility, such as working as a sales rep or joining the National Guard. You are wasting your time here and convincing no one—at least, no one who is not already an established crank.
You seem to be a decent person and mentally stable, and I really think that you can improve your life if you think about how it reflects on your credibility to associate with the likes of Alex Jones. The sun rising and setting on the horizon is only an illusion. We know the sun never goes up or down, it only appears to as it moves closer to and farther from us.
Human eyes on the ground or ocean can only see 3 miles. Yes, I think so too. The question at the moment is why? It could be bendy light or it might be how the eye receives light. The angle of the sun in the sky seems to be due to the angle of the light as it hits the Earth. It seems that under extreme magnetism which I will explain in the next article visible light bends. You miss the point: Well, we do here on this blog now believe in bendy light, at least bendy visible light.
It seems the lower the frequency the less bendy it is. See the article concave Earth theory and, above all, the comments section. Actually I know what you mean. There could just be lots of cavities instead of planets or maybe this world is a machine and we are inside it? Interesting stuff all the same.
Hey everyone, I love that people are coming up with different theories and stuff besides what is taught in government supervised schooling. Just wanted to add that I thought the spacing between the first few springs is a larger distance at the top of the slinky because it is supporting more weight.
The first spring is carrying the weight of the entire slinky. The one on the bottom is not being pulled down by all that weight, so naturally it would have a smaller distance in its spacing. Hope that makes sense. Maybe ill be able to find it elsewhere online, as one member mentioned it was borrowed from somewhere else….
I thought of something like that too. Still, playing the other side: Why is the weight there in the first place? I have to say I am a total convert to this theory, it all seems so logical. Could you explain rainbows please? I have many questions, so I must remember to note them down and come here to seek a possible answer.
In fact my partner and teen son are all converts to this theory. Not sure neet to be honest. The truth seems to be that the visibility of stars is one of low altitude only — 4 miles tops maybe? However, what they represent whatever that is must be very near the center right above the poles, either side of the center of the Earth. Take the northern hemisphere for example.
The north pole star Polaris can be seen everywhere in the northern hemisphere… everywhere and a touch below. That puts the north star somewhere right above the north pole because everyone on half the globe can see it. With this one fact Polaris can be anywhere from say 4 miles in the sky above the north pole to right at the center. The stars are seen to travel around the north star in an anti-clockwise direction by those viewing them from the northern hemisphere.
Visualize the concave Earth for a minute and that you are upside down at the north pole. The Sun moves East to West in an anti-clockwise direction and so the only way the stars can be seen to also travel in an anti-clockwise direction is that the stars are above the heads of everyone on the northern hemisphere like the Sun.
Therefore the only place the stars can be is very near the center and whatever they represent is extremely small. With the sun, moon and stars all at the North Pole center of a spiral plane? Where the ice sky meets the Earth. Steve might be better with the rainbow explanation, or maybe the conventional one is correct.
How about the Moon? He reported seeing the sky as totally black. I know there are some pictures from satellites and so on, but since they are not to be trusted, I thought it was a curious thing to check. However, when going through about 20 to 25 balloon videos there was a still from one of those videos of a circular very small object very low down in the black sky just above the horizon.
It also appears slightly higher in the sky in one of the stills on the website of the man who sent a balloon up during nighttime. If you view his website, on one or two of the high res photos you will see it. It is very, very small to how we normally see the moon however. I have no idea what is. The stars are up there, I am convinced. The problem with observing them at higher altitudes is not only the ice, which I described in my video, being attached to the glass sky and transforming from a translucent crystalline state to tranparent amorphous state daily, but also the amount of luminiferous ether or lack thereof at higher altitudes, which must somehow prevent the observers from seeing fainter lights such as stars being not immersed in the higher concentration of the ether at ground level.
Hence the high concentration of luminiferous ether allows a visual boost of the heavens at ground level, and the gradual taper off of the ether at high altitudes prevents the fainter lights such as stars from being observed. The altitude of stars is an open book for me right now. I like your theory on the stars being sonoluminescence.
This would mean that it would be the constant ultrasound source reacting with the water vapor in the atmosphere which would only put stars no higher than 8 km. Keep it mind, TR. I also like the sonoluminescene theory as here where I live, on some cloudless nights the stars are visible and not on others, and sometimes only a few are visible.
It is quite varied. The light pollution is constant where I live. If water vapor was a necessary component to make stars then this could be the varying factor. You know I am no authority on any subject Steve. I just throw evidence out there and come to a conclusion which seems likely based on that. Steve, if you find evidence of stars being nearer the center of the Earth, then let me know with a quick link on this page.
I am not sure about the luminiferous aether just as yet, so you will have to be patient on that front. Steve, how did you come to the conclusion of the luminiferous aether? If you could give me a few pointers, I will be able to have a look for myself. It may yet tie in with my next article. Great info, great website. I can be reached at contact. Simon has done good work on all this with his SSSS theory.
I see you referenced it, perhaps all of us could do a roundtable on this very fascinating subject. Your website is great too. I hope this blog helps a little too. BTW, I want to ask any pilots that may read this article if they have ever seen stars from their cockpit at cruising altitude high above the clouds at night. Hey Steve, I was having a look at a couple of your videos and I absolutely love the way you very simply describe gravity with the difference between lead and wood.
Ha, that reminds me, I ave to annotate that part because I cannot take credit for it,: I saw someone else explain that concept. Remember those slinky toys in the 80s. If you hang one from any point, the first spiral has a greater stretch than the next one and so on until the bottom slinky spirals are hardly apart much at all.
If gravity were a pull, it would be the other way round, with the bottom part of the slinky being pulled apart the most. Hang on a minute, the reason the first spiral bends the most is that the weight of the rest of the slinky is acting upon it. This behaviour would be the same regardless if gravity was a push or a pull. Your email address will not be published. August 2, at 2: August 2, at 1: August 2, at August 10, at 3: August 11, at July 8, at 2: July 14, at June 16, at May 20, at 9: May 16, at May 2, at 7: WH, What is your opinion on this video, exactly what could have happened?
May 3, at 9: April 4, at 6: April 5, at 3: March 31, at 6: March 18, at March 23, at 5: Go to the forum, sign up and pm me. March 18, at 5: February 21, at Seems he just wants to debunk it and his attempt was not genuine. February 25, at You have to test these out first very, very thoroughly. November 27, at The new forum is out. November 12, at October 14, at 5: October 8, at 1: September 21, at 3: September 25, at 9: October 13, at 3: February 16, at 5: February 22, at 6: September 2, at 8: July 30, at 4: Atmosphere the Chief Obstacle.
July 25, at 7: On earth there are three things space does not have which are needed for a real burn humans can see oxygen or medium allowing temperature, density of matter, ignition temperature or starting temperature much higher than in space thus more easily has energy transferred in to it allowing for a visible wave… Length here locally our local atoms or structures more complex formed under atmospheric pressure and can be exited enough to give off the effect light in space only chemical reactions like the sun are hot enough to create local temperature, and after my suspected ignition of the photon no wave form in space we can see as it is to cold to really burn or glow in between nm on our atmosphere.
July 29, at 3: One need not resort to mathematical concepts like say, back holes. July 29, at 8: I want to record here in this comment a very, very near full moon location tonight. July 29, at The fact that we can experience a mirage might also point to the explanation. July 30, at June 1, at 4: June 1, at 7: July 1, at And that is not happening.
So what chances we have to prove astronomy in case of flat Earth. Being 10 km up in the air we would have to be able to see a concave with height — 10 KM. Any pics of that? Never saw a one pic showing a concave Earth. Kind regards… View Comment. July 1, at 1: It is the rectilineator experiment.
February 22, at 7: July 8, at May 20, at 8:
Wild Wedding German 1: We take no responsibility for the phrases entered by surfers. Jesica Rizzo wild threesome Wild and game Ann Marie likes the awesome pleasure she gets Kylie Page Wants Wild Sex Like the anonymous, easily replaced miners and railroad workers of the American frontier, prostitutes filled a social and economic function necessitated by capitalism, but, as individuals, were largely irrelevant and forgotten.
Results for : wild west:
- Winters can be brutal on the plains, cold and bleak and beautiful, especially in the mountains.
- It looked to be around the same position as the Sun was 6 months ago.
- Bokep dillion harper hd
- I could try having a flight mapper open all the time and monitor it.
- But questioning in general is good.
- Login or sign up.
- Rule esenkas george of the jungle magnolia tagme
- Sensual massage in fresno
- west wild nude wild man
- Prostitution was also indicative of socioeconomic classes in Old West society.