The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: FlatAllTheWay on July 15, 2014, 04:50:13 PM
-
Buzz Aldrin, one of the 12 men that have walked on the Moon, published a commentary today on CNN in which he talks about the USA's space program, past and present. And he talks about possible missions to Mars in the future. Here is the article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/opinion/aldrin-my-moon-walk-mars/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/opinion/aldrin-my-moon-walk-mars/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)
Since the flat earth argument crumbles completely if NASA is telling the truth about the Apollo program, flat earthers are forced to argue that all 12 men that walked on the Moon are A) lying, B) delusional or C) brainwashed. I would like to know which option flat earthers claim and why.
-
I think most conspiracy wonks argue A) that they are well compensated shills. I think there are a few that would claim C), possibly even combining with A). I've never heard anyone claim B). I think that would make little sense, even to most nutjobs, since so many people would have to have the same delusion which would be extremely unlikely.
-
I think most conspiracy wonks argue A) that they are well compensated shills. I think there are a few that would claim C), possibly even combining with A). I've never heard anyone claim B). I think that would make little sense, even to most nutjobs, since so many people would have to have the same delusion which would be extremely unlikely.
To a rational person, A and C are almost as nonsensical as B, but of course flat earthers aren't known for being highly rational. I eagerly await some FE responses regarding these three choices.
-
Lying for cash is nothing new or even farfetched. I'm sure that's what's happening with professional shit-stirrers like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. It's just the scale and scope of the conspiracy that Aldrin is supposedly involved in that's nuts. So I can sort of see why people might buy this one if they didn't think very hard about it.
Being brainwashed is far less likely, especially for the amount of time Aldrin has been involved. While there's some precedent for it that kind of conditioning isn't all that effective nor that permanent, as far as I know. You really only see that kind of dedication in cults, and even there it's only effective for as long as you can keep people isolated from the rest of society. Aldrin doesn't appear to fit the profile of a cult member. Still, I can see some of the nuttier fruitcakes buying this due to severe lack of any critical thinking skills, which is depressingly commonplace.
-
TV actors do it all the time. They follow a script for a decent pay day and celebrity life. People will literally spit in their own families faces for the chance to get fame and fortune.
So the Apollo people who play the astronauts get told to act out a scene or scenes for a life time of fame and fortune. What harm are they doing? It's only what TV actors do, except this is passed off as real but it will never come to light that it's all faked, so they live out the lie with the trimmings that go with it.
All they have to do, is study the storylines so they can answer questions as they arise.
What would it take for any of you to follow a script for a potential lifetime of fortune and fame?
People can think what they want about whether those people are lying or not. the issue is, nobody gets to physically prove it unless someone breaks down and tells the truth.
The problem with that is, how far would the guilty persons truth go? It would go as far as a bit of tongue wagging before they were deemed insane and suffering from space dementia or whatever is bestowed upon them.
Argue all you want about this not being possible. You know it is and you also know that Armstrong displayed very weird mannerisms all the way throughout his life after his so called space jaunt. Most other actornauts revel in the fame and the money that comes their way.
Once you accept the invitation to the lie, you have to live that lie. there's no backing out freely or without consequence.
Aldrin isn't brainwashed. Aldrin struggles to keep up the ruse. Their post Apollo conference should be enough to tell any rational person that something is not right. The only thing missing from the conference, is the forehead stickers that should read LIAR.
-
If it had been a one time event.....believing that man going into space was a lie and a conspiracy wouldn't seem all that odd.
But the size and scope of not only the US's space program but other countries as well.......plus the number of people involved and all the pictures and footage accumulated over the years makes it hard for any logical person to assume it's all fake.
Just my opinion.
-
If it had been a one time event.....believing that man going into space was a lie and a conspiracy wouldn't seem all that odd.
But the size and scope of not only the US's space program but other countries as well.......plus the number of people involved and all the pictures and footage accumulated over the years makes it hard for any logical person to assume it's all fake.
Just my opinion.
Going to the moon was an event that lasted just a few years and supposedly happened almost half a century ago. If it was so easy back then with the relatively primitive technology they had, they why can't we do it today? Why did it take them just a decade to make it to the moon, but here we are, forty something years later, with far superior technology, and we can't even put a man on Mars? Think about it.
-
If it had been a one time event.....believing that man going into space was a lie and a conspiracy wouldn't seem all that odd.
But the size and scope of not only the US's space program but other countries as well.......plus the number of people involved and all the pictures and footage accumulated over the years makes it hard for any logical person to assume it's all fake.
Just my opinion.
Going to the moon was an event that lasted just a few years and supposedly happened almost half a century ago. If it was so easy back then with the relatively primitive technology they had, they why can't we do it today? Why did it take them just a decade to make it to the moon, but here we are, forty something years later, with far superior technology, and we can't even put a man on Mars? Think about it.
As far as going to Mars and landing a man there...........the moon is roughly like 385,000 KM from Earth...........Mars is like 55 million KMs away. See a difference there?
As to why we haven't been back to the moon. Great question. I think part of it is there isn't anything new to be gained by going versus the cost of doing it. And the concentration of space exploration has been in areas other than the moon.
Some alien conspiracy buffs believe we don't go back because there is life there and they don't want us coming back.
I honestly don't know the answer. Not going back doesn't prove we never went though.
-
You are correct. Not going back does not prove that we never went. However, it does cause some suspicion, and coupled with other space inconsistencies, it really brings into question whether or not we ever went there.
-
??? We never went back? What about all of the unmanned probes that we've been sending back for the last 10 years or so?
-
??? We never went back? What about all of the unmanned probes that we've been sending back for the last 10 years or so?
What do unmanned supposed probes have to do with manned missions to walk on the moon? Did you skip your meds today?
-
??? We never went back? What about all of the unmanned probes that we've been sending back for the last 10 years or so?
What do unmanned supposed probes have to do with manned missions to walk on the moon? Did you skip your meds today?
Who said that manned missions are the only way of "going back"?
-
Men in space suites is kind of the theme that got NASA all of their money, is it not? ???
-
I think most conspiracy wonks argue A) that they are well compensated shills. I think there are a few that would claim C), possibly even combining with A). I've never heard anyone claim B). I think that would make little sense, even to most nutjobs, since so many people would have to have the same delusion which would be extremely unlikely.
What happened to choice D.Wanting his family & him self to grow old. The Gemini missions I think had a bit more truth about them, even though some of the photos are faked .They would of realised during those missions, going to the moon was not possible. Gemini 11, 1st apogee (307.1 km) Period 90.56 min . space shuttle (620 km) Which I think is not true & over stated. But we will use it as a comparison to travelling to the Moon, distance 363,104 km - 405,696 km. They walked on the moon ::)
-
Men in space suites is kind of the theme that got NASA all of their money, is it not? ???
No, it is not. NASA got a good bit of their money for sending unmanned probes to places that would take too long or are too dangerous to send men in space suits.
-
It's always stunned me that people think the US Government couldn't find 12 people to keep a secret. Finding just 12 people to lie for fame and fortune is well beyond the means and scope of the worlds most powerful government (at the time).
-
It's always stunned me that people think the US Government couldn't find 12 people to keep a secret. Finding just 12 people to lie for fame and fortune is well beyond the means and scope of the worlds most powerful government (at the time).
Since when are there only 12 people involved in the Apollo program?
-
It's always stunned me that people think the US Government couldn't find 12 people to keep a secret. Finding just 12 people to lie for fame and fortune is well beyond the means and scope of the worlds most powerful government (at the time).
Since when are there only 12 people involved in the Apollo program?
Oh, I thought this thread was about astronauts.
-
It's always stunned me that people think the US Government couldn't find 12 people to keep a secret. Finding just 12 people to lie for fame and fortune is well beyond the means and scope of the worlds most powerful government (at the time).
Since when are there only 12 people involved in the Apollo program?
Oh, I thought this thread was about astronauts.
Well, maybe you should read the entire OP and not just the topic.
-
TV actors do it all the time. They follow a script for a decent pay day and celebrity life. People will literally spit in their own families faces for the chance to get fame and fortune.
So the Apollo people who play the astronauts get told to act out a scene or scenes for a life time of fame and fortune. What harm are they doing? It's only what TV actors do, except this is passed off as real but it will never come to light that it's all faked, so they live out the lie with the trimmings that go with it.
All they have to do, is study the storylines so they can answer questions as they arise.
What would it take for any of you to follow a script for a potential lifetime of fortune and fame?
People can think what they want about whether those people are lying or not. the issue is, nobody gets to physically prove it unless someone breaks down and tells the truth.
The problem with that is, how far would the guilty persons truth go? It would go as far as a bit of tongue wagging before they were deemed insane and suffering from space dementia or whatever is bestowed upon them.
Argue all you want about this not being possible. You know it is and you also know that Armstrong displayed very weird mannerisms all the way throughout his life after his so called space jaunt. Most other actornauts revel in the fame and the money that comes their way.
Once you accept the invitation to the lie, you have to live that lie. there's no backing out freely or without consequence.
Aldrin isn't brainwashed. Aldrin struggles to keep up the ruse. Their post Apollo conference should be enough to tell any rational person that something is not right. The only thing missing from the conference, is the forehead stickers that should read LIAR.
tl;dr - Actors exist, astronauts could possibly be actors, therefor astronauts are actors. Nobody can argue with that sound logic.
-
It's always stunned me that people think the US Government couldn't find 12 people to keep a secret. Finding just 12 people to lie for fame and fortune is well beyond the means and scope of the worlds most powerful government (at the time).
I'm stunned that you think that all it would take to cover up the Apollo program is for just the 12 astronauts to lie about it.
-
It's always stunned me that people think the US Government couldn't find 12 people to keep a secret. Finding just 12 people to lie for fame and fortune is well beyond the means and scope of the worlds most powerful government (at the time).
I'm stunned that you think that all it would take to cover up the Apollo program is for just the 12 astronauts to lie about it.
I never said that. The OP said something along the lines of it being ridiculous that an astronaut could be lying. I find it stunning that people think that they cannot. This is how the conversation went.
OP:This one astronaut says the moon landing happened and the other 11 that walked on the moon can't all be lying.
Me: I find it stunning that the govt can't find 12 people to lie.
RE'er: OMG! IT TAKES WAY MORE THAN 12 PEOPLE TO MAKE THE CONSPIRACY WORK!!!!!
Obviously it takes more that 12 people. At the very least there were allegedly pilots on the missions too. It's so reassuring to be a flat-earther when all the round-earthers ever do is straw-man my arguments over and over and over again.
-
Oh, good to see that you were going for the straw man argument there then.
-
It's always stunned me that people think the US Government couldn't find 12 people to keep a secret. Finding just 12 people to lie for fame and fortune is well beyond the means and scope of the worlds most powerful government (at the time).
I'm stunned that you think that all it would take to cover up the Apollo program is for just the 12 astronauts to lie about it.
I never said that.
You did - you said exactly that:
Finding just 12 people to lie
-
It's always stunned me that people think the US Government couldn't find 12 people to keep a secret. Finding just 12 people to lie for fame and fortune is well beyond the means and scope of the worlds most powerful government (at the time).
I'm stunned that you think that all it would take to cover up the Apollo program is for just the 12 astronauts to lie about it.
I never said that.
You did - you said exactly that:
Finding just 12 people to lie
...just 12 to lie about moon-walking
...what the OP was about.
I forget at times how painfully literal one needs to be for round-earthers.
-
It's always stunned me that people think the US Government couldn't find 12 people to keep a secret. Finding just 12 people to lie for fame and fortune is well beyond the means and scope of the worlds most powerful government (at the time).
I'm stunned that you think that all it would take to cover up the Apollo program is for just the 12 astronauts to lie about it.
I never said that. The OP said something along the lines of it being ridiculous that an astronaut could be lying. I find it stunning that people think that they cannot. This is how the conversation went.
OP:This one astronaut says the moon landing happened and the other 11 that walked on the moon can't all be lying.
Me: I find it stunning that the govt can't find 12 people to lie.
RE'er: OMG! IT TAKES WAY MORE THAN 12 PEOPLE TO MAKE THE CONSPIRACY WORK!!!!!
Obviously it takes more that 12 people. At the very least there were allegedly pilots on the missions too. It's so reassuring to be a flat-earther when all the round-earthers ever do is straw-man my arguments over and over and over again.
We now agree then that it does take more than 12 people, namely just the astronauts as you stated. There's hope for you yet.
-
Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to have been in on the conspiracy if the Moon landings were faked. Think of all the engineers designing, testing and operating all of the vehicles and providing all kinds of support. And all the people that would have been involved in the fake videos, fake photos, etc. And yet, to this day, not a single Apollo official has come forward to reveal the "truth" about the fake missions. Wouldn't you think that at least one person on his deathbed would say, "Before I die, I have to tell the truth. We faked the Apollo program." Nope, not a single one.
Every day in the United States top officials leak information about important things. Look at Edward Snowden. Or Deepthroat from Watergate -- that guy's leaked information brought down the President himself! Yet somehow, out of thousands of people that would have been in on the Apollo conspiracy, not a single one has leaked the "truth" -- not even anonymously. And this is what flat earthers believe.
-
You are correct. Not going back does not prove that we never went. However, it does cause some suspicion, and coupled with other space inconsistencies, it really brings into question whether or not we ever went there.
Why is it at all suspicious that we don't keep going back to the moon? NASA landed men on the moon on six different missions. Not much has changed on the moon since the last time we were there, and all manned missions are extremely expensive.
I'm sure many people have climbed Mt. Everest six times. If they don't climb that mountain a 7th time, would you say that they must be lying about having every climbed it?
-
My grandfather was an engineer for Nasa and worked on the Apollo program in the 60s and early 70s. He is enormously proud of his accomplishments. He has a medallion commemorating his participation in Apollo 11.
If the landing was faked, the engineers at least thought they designed something legitimate. The engineers designed what they designed. That happened and they wouldn't have to lie about it.
Conspiracy: NASA execs took the designs but didn't actually undertake the mission. Only a few at the top plus a dozen astronauts need bribes/threats. The thousands of people who worked on the project need not be let in on the secret.
-
My grandfather was an engineer for Nasa and worked on the Apollo program in the 60s and early 70s. He is enormously proud of his accomplishments. He has a medallion commemorating his participation in Apollo 11.
If the landing was faked, the engineers at least thought they designed something legitimate. The engineers designed what they designed. That happened and they wouldn't have to lie about it.
Conspiracy: NASA execs took the designs but didn't actually undertake the mission. Only a few at the top plus a dozen astronauts need bribes/threats. The thousands of people who worked on the project need not be let in on the secret.
Except that there have been 24 astronauts that have orbited the moon, and many many more that have orbited the Earth. According to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name), over 560. All from different countries, all from different eras. This alone makes the "they are all being bribed/threatened" argument less likely.
-
You are correct. Not going back does not prove that we never went. However, it does cause some suspicion, and coupled with other space inconsistencies, it really brings into question whether or not we ever went there.
There seems to be some confusion here that NASA only landed men on the moon once. This is incorrect.
In all, 12 astronauts set foot on the moon during the course of six landings between 1969 and 1972.
• Apollo 11 - landed 20 July, 1969
• Apollo 12 - landed 19 November, 1969
• Apollo 14 - landed 5 February, 1971
• Apollo 15 - landed 30 July, 1971
• Apollo 16 - landed 20 April, 1972
• Apollo 17 - landed 11 December, 1972
The astronauts were:
Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Pete Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, Eugene Cernan, and Harrison Schmitt.
—But then most flat earthers seldom let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-
There seems to be some confusion here that NASA only landed men on the moon once. This is incorrect.
You seem to have selective reading impediment, because I said this.
Going to the moon was an event that lasted just a few years and supposedly happened almost half a century ago.
Maybe you should make an effort to read all of the posts before you give us your commentary on the thread? Actually, maybe you should refrain from giving us your commentaries in debate threads all together? That would be nice.
-
Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to have been in on the conspiracy if the Moon landings were faked. Think of all the engineers designing, testing and operating all of the vehicles and providing all kinds of support. And all the people that would have been involved in the fake videos, fake photos, etc. And yet, to this day, not a single Apollo official has come forward to reveal the "truth" about the fake missions. Wouldn't you think that at least one person on his deathbed would say, "Before I die, I have to tell the truth. We faked the Apollo program." Nope, not a single one.
Every day in the United States top officials leak information about important things. Look at Edward Snowden. Or Deepthroat from Watergate -- that guy's leaked information brought down the President himself! Yet somehow, out of thousands of people that would have been in on the Apollo conspiracy, not a single one has leaked the "truth" -- not even anonymously. And this is what flat earthers believe.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to have been in on the conspiracy if the Moon landings were faked. Think of all the engineers designing, testing and operating all of the vehicles and providing all kinds of support. And all the people that would have been involved in the fake videos, fake photos, etc. And yet, to this day, not a single Apollo official has come forward to reveal the "truth" about the fake missions. Wouldn't you think that at least one person on his deathbed would say, "Before I die, I have to tell the truth. We faked the Apollo program." Nope, not a single one.
Every day in the United States top officials leak information about important things. Look at Edward Snowden. Or Deepthroat from Watergate -- that guy's leaked information brought down the President himself! Yet somehow, out of thousands of people that would have been in on the Apollo conspiracy, not a single one has leaked the "truth" -- not even anonymously. And this is what flat earthers believe.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It can be in some cases. If you perform an experiment and you should see "x" happen after you flip a switch, but you never see it, you can rightly say that "x" is not a consequence of flipping a switch.
This is not one of those cases.
-
Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to have been in on the conspiracy if the Moon landings were faked. Think of all the engineers designing, testing and operating all of the vehicles and providing all kinds of support. And all the people that would have been involved in the fake videos, fake photos, etc. And yet, to this day, not a single Apollo official has come forward to reveal the "truth" about the fake missions. Wouldn't you think that at least one person on his deathbed would say, "Before I die, I have to tell the truth. We faked the Apollo program." Nope, not a single one.
Every day in the United States top officials leak information about important things. Look at Edward Snowden. Or Deepthroat from Watergate -- that guy's leaked information brought down the President himself! Yet somehow, out of thousands of people that would have been in on the Apollo conspiracy, not a single one has leaked the "truth" -- not even anonymously. And this is what flat earthers believe.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of conspiracy either.
-
Maybe you should make an effort to read all of the posts before you give us your commentary on the thread? Actually, maybe you should refrain from giving us your commentaries in debate threads all together? That would be nice.
Is there any particular reason that I seem to get under your skin jroa? Is it only because you usually have no answers to any of my questions? Or do I all too often strike a raw nerve?
And I'm more than certain that most people here would agree that the contents of my posts are a lot more substantive than your usual puerile, one-liner rhetorical jokes. Why don't you—just for a change—try answering a few legitimate questions from round earthers, rather than repeatedly posting silly put-downs, presumably to avoid doing so?
-
Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to have been in on the conspiracy if the Moon landings were faked. Think of all the engineers designing, testing and operating all of the vehicles and providing all kinds of support. And all the people that would have been involved in the fake videos, fake photos, etc. And yet, to this day, not a single Apollo official has come forward to reveal the "truth" about the fake missions. Wouldn't you think that at least one person on his deathbed would say, "Before I die, I have to tell the truth. We faked the Apollo program." Nope, not a single one.
Every day in the United States top officials leak information about important things. Look at Edward Snowden. Or Deepthroat from Watergate -- that guy's leaked information brought down the President himself! Yet somehow, out of thousands of people that would have been in on the Apollo conspiracy, not a single one has leaked the "truth" -- not even anonymously. And this is what flat earthers believe.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Glad we also agree there's no evidence. You'll be thinking round in no time.
-
My grandfather was an engineer for Nasa and worked on the Apollo program in the 60s and early 70s. He is enormously proud of his accomplishments. He has a medallion commemorating his participation in Apollo 11.
If the landing was faked, the engineers at least thought they designed something legitimate. The engineers designed what they designed. That happened and they wouldn't have to lie about it.
Conspiracy: NASA execs took the designs but didn't actually undertake the mission. Only a few at the top plus a dozen astronauts need bribes/threats. The thousands of people who worked on the project need not be let in on the secret.
Except that there have been 24 astronauts that have orbited the moon, and many many more that have orbited the Earth. According to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name), over 560. All from different countries, all from different eras. This alone makes the "they are all being bribed/threatened" argument less likely.
Oh, I agree. I'm just playing devil's advocate. My point is that not everyone involved in the space program needed to also be in on the secret.
-
It's not true that only a few people at the top would have to know the Apollo missions were faked. For example, think of all the people at mission control who are continuously interacting -- via computer, voice, and video -- with the spacecraft systems and with the astronauts, while the spacecraft is sending back lots of data and images. If it's all fake, but the "guys at the top" don't want the mission control people to know it's fake, then the mission control people must be interacting with a very complex simulator without realizing it. And a big team of programmers, video experts, physicists and others would have to have developed that simulator. So no matter how you fake a massive mission like Apollo, it can never be just a few people that know the true secret.
Lastly, this brings up a point that is common to most FE arguments: just because something is theoretically possible, such as making fake videos of people walking on the moon, does not mean it actually happened that way. You have to provide evidence for your claim. For example, it's theoretically possible that Germany beat Brazil 7-1 in the World Cup because Germany put magnets inside the ball and inside their cleats so they could maintain better ball control, and that's why they scored so many goals. Should we conclude that this is what happened just because it's not impossible?
-
Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to have been in on the conspiracy if the Moon landings were faked. Think of all the engineers designing, testing and operating all of the vehicles and providing all kinds of support. And all the people that would have been involved in the fake videos, fake photos, etc. And yet, to this day, not a single Apollo official has come forward to reveal the "truth" about the fake missions. Wouldn't you think that at least one person on his deathbed would say, "Before I die, I have to tell the truth. We faked the Apollo program." Nope, not a single one.
Every day in the United States top officials leak information about important things. Look at Edward Snowden. Or Deepthroat from Watergate -- that guy's leaked information brought down the President himself! Yet somehow, out of thousands of people that would have been in on the Apollo conspiracy, not a single one has leaked the "truth" -- not even anonymously. And this is what flat earthers believe.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It can be in some cases. If you perform an experiment and you should see "x" happen after you flip a switch, but you never see it, you can rightly say that "x" is not a consequence of flipping a switch.
This is not one of those cases.
That's not absence of evidence though, that's the results of your experimentation. OR equally said, your experiments turning up results of nothing happening is not an absence of results. OR, 0 != NULL.
FlatAllTheWay is saying that because no one has come forward to say the moon landing is fake then the moon landing must have happened. By that logic, if no one had come forward to say Zeus doesn't live on a real mountain named Olympus, then Zeus is real and lives on Mt. Olympus.
-
You forgot to mention that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the landings did take place AND there's no evidence to show that they didn't. Of course putting it that way doesn't do your argument any good, so I can see why you'd leave it out.
-
Okay, lets say, for the sake of argument that NASA was in possession of a wealth in information that proved without a doubt their claims that men walked on the moon. That would STILL not mean that the fact that no one has come forward claiming it to be a hoax means that it happened.
FURTHERMORE, I can't present evidence that they didn't land on the moon anymore than you can present evidence that there isn't a plastic toy tiger on Jupiter's fourth moon.
-
Okay, lets say, for the sake of argument that NASA was in possession of a wealth in information that proved without a doubt their claims that men walked on the moon. That would STILL not mean that the fact that no one has come forward claiming it to be a hoax means that it happened.
So if I come to you with a donut, and a receipt for that donut, and nobody comes forward with evidence that I stole the donut and forged the receipt, would you then be unable to conclude that I in fact bought the donut?
FURTHERMORE, I can't present evidence that they didn't land on the moon anymore than you can present evidence that there isn't a plastic toy tiger on Jupiter's fourth moon.
That's exactly why neither I nor any other sane person would argue that there is a plastic toy tiger on Jupiter's fourth moon. And why I don't buy into conspiracy theories for which there is zero evidence.
-
Shmeggley: answer me a few questions, honestly.
Do you think there are question marks over some of the events leading up to and after the moon landing carry on?
Is there anything about it that you've seen (assuming you've studied a good bit)that you thought was odd.
Is there anything about the mannerisms of some of the Apollo astronauts that made you suspicious?
-
Okay, lets say, for the sake of argument that NASA was in possession of a wealth in information that proved without a doubt their claims that men walked on the moon. That would STILL not mean that the fact that no one has come forward claiming it to be a hoax means that it happened.
So if I come to you with a donut, and a receipt for that donut, and nobody comes forward with evidence that I stole the donut and forged the receipt, would you then be unable to conclude that I in fact bought the donut?
No, that's not logically analogous at all. Let me break it out for you:
Argument: Because no one has come forth saying the moon landings were a hoax, they must be true.
This is called the argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy. So you reply with, "Ah! But there is a mountain of proof for the moon landing so the argument is true!"
No, it's still the argument from ignorance and you can't get away from that. Perhaps if someone had said, "We have a mountain of proof so the moon landing happened," it would at the very least be logically sound. However, as stated, it's a logical fallacy and no amount of "proof" you pile on will change that.
FURTHERMORE, I can't present evidence that they didn't land on the moon anymore than you can present evidence that there isn't a plastic toy tiger on Jupiter's fourth moon.
That's exactly why neither I nor any other sane person would argue that there is a plastic toy tiger on Jupiter's fourth moon. And why I don't buy into conspiracy theories for which there is zero evidence.
Quit wriggling. We aren't discussing your belief in a plastic toy tiger on Jupiter's fourth moon, we are discussing your ability to prove it. You can't blather nonsense and hope we don't notice.
-
You are going to have to willingly ignore a vast amount of evidence to say the moon landings didn't take place, at the same time as willfully evoking a completely unevidenced conspiracy.
Why would you do this? I can only guess you are trying to protect an idée fixe...
-
Shmeggley: answer me a few questions, honestly.
Do you think there are question marks over some of the events leading up to and after the moon landing carry on?
Not really. I mean, I've heard all kinds of objections from the hoax enthusiasts but nothing with any real bite to it. What events are you referring to?
Is there anything about it that you've seen (assuming you've studied a good bit)that you thought was odd.
I admit I haven't made of studying it in depth. I think my knowledge of it is pretty average. My understanding is that in the 60's or so people decided they'd make a serious effort at landing a man on the Moon. They put a good bit of time and money into the project and it eventually succeeded. Seems reasonable to me.
Is there anything about the mannerisms of some of the Apollo astronauts that made you suspicious?
No. Buzz Aldrin punching that wingnut in the face was pretty shocking, but the guy definitely had it coming.
-
Okay, lets say, for the sake of argument that NASA was in possession of a wealth in information that proved without a doubt their claims that men walked on the moon. That would STILL not mean that the fact that no one has come forward claiming it to be a hoax means that it happened.
So if I come to you with a donut, and a receipt for that donut, and nobody comes forward with evidence that I stole the donut and forged the receipt, would you then be unable to conclude that I in fact bought the donut?
No, that's not logically analogous at all. Let me break it out for you:
Argument: Because no one has come forth saying the moon landings were a hoax, they must be true.
Look, if you want to make a straw man argument to beat down, be my guest. Have fun with it, because literally noone is making this argument. What I am actually saying is there's no good reason to believe in a theory for which there is no evidence.
This is called the argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy. So you reply with, "Ah! But there is a mountain of proof for the moon landing so the argument is true!"
No, it's still the argument from ignorance and you can't get away from that. Perhaps if someone had said, "We have a mountain of proof so the moon landing happened," it would at the very least be logically sound. However, as stated, it's a logical fallacy and no amount of "proof" you pile on will change that.
I guess there's two arguments here then if you want to put it that way. First, it's very likely people went to the Moon based on the available evidence. Second, theories that the whole thing is a hoax are very unlikely because there is no evidence for them.
FURTHERMORE, I can't present evidence that they didn't land on the moon anymore than you can present evidence that there isn't a plastic toy tiger on Jupiter's fourth moon.
That's exactly why neither I nor any other sane person would argue that there is a plastic toy tiger on Jupiter's fourth moon. And why I don't buy into conspiracy theories for which mthere is zero evidence.
Quit wriggling. We aren't discussing your belief in a plastic toy tiger on Jupiter's fourth moon, we are discussing your ability to prove it. You can't blather nonsense and hope we don't notice.
I'm not even trying to "prove" there is no conspiracy. If someone came forward with some really compelling evidence for one of course I'd entertain the idea. But since that hasn't happened yet I don't even concern myself with conspiracy theories, except to point out to people why 99% of these "theories" are stupid nonsense.
-
Shmeggley: answer me a few questions, honestly.
Do you think there are question marks over some of the events leading up to and after the moon landing carry on?
Not really. I mean, I've heard all kinds of objections from the hoax enthusiasts but nothing with any real bite to it. What events are you referring to?
Is there anything about it that you've seen (assuming you've studied a good bit)that you thought was odd.
I admit I haven't made of studying it in depth. I think my knowledge of it is pretty average. My understanding is that in the 60's or so people decided they'd make a serious effort at landing a man on the Moon. They put a good bit of time and money into the project and it eventually succeeded. Seems reasonable to me.
Is there anything about the mannerisms of some of the Apollo astronauts that made you suspicious?
No. Buzz Aldrin punching that wingnut in the face was pretty shocking, but the guy definitely had it coming.
Have you ever seen the post Apollo 11 press conference?
Have you ever seen astronauts gone wild?
Have you ever seen the few times that Armstrong has made a public speech?
What about Aldrin, apart form that punch job?
If you put those people on a lie detector machine, I'm convinced they would blow it up, apart from those that are not here anymore, who are at rest with no more conscience carrying that must have blighted their lives.
I've studied it all and better studied it and I can very confidently say that the space exploits of that time as a starter was a complete and utter fabrication.
That still doesn't prove anything, I admit that. I'll never be able to physically prove it I don't think. It requires a person to simply look through it all in which any rational person would see that it's peppered with holes.
It's about as clear as seeing paint splat onto your window, only to run out and see a kid with paint on his hands. You know he's done it but you didn't see him do it. The moonlandings are like that, only in reverse. You seen them on TV, do it...but you know it's a complete load of bollocks.
-
Look, if you want to make a straw man argument to beat down, be my guest. Have fun with it, because literally noone is making this argument. What I am actually saying is there's no good reason to believe in a theory for which there is no evidence.
FlatAllTheWay made the argument on the last page. Then I said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Remember? You can click back if you like. We'll wait.
-
Shmeggley: answer me a few questions, honestly.
Do you think there are question marks over some of the events leading up to and after the moon landing carry on?
Not really. I mean, I've heard all kinds of objections from the hoax enthusiasts but nothing with any real bite to it. What events are you referring to?
Is there anything about it that you've seen (assuming you've studied a good bit)that you thought was odd.
I admit I haven't made of studying it in depth. I think my knowledge of it is pretty average. My understanding is that in the 60's or so people decided they'd make a serious effort at landing a man on the Moon. They put a good bit of time and money into the project and it eventually succeeded. Seems reasonable to me.
Is there anything about the mannerisms of some of the Apollo astronauts that made you suspicious?
No. Buzz Aldrin punching that wingnut in the face was pretty shocking, but the guy definitely had it coming.
Have you ever seen the post Apollo 11 press conference?
Have you ever seen astronauts gone wild?
Have you ever seen the few times that Armstrong has made a public speech?
What about Aldrin, apart form that punch job?
If you put those people on a lie detector machine, I'm convinced they would blow it up, apart from those that are not here anymore, who are at rest with no more conscience carrying that must have blighted their lives.
I've studied it all and better studied it and I can very confidently say that the space exploits of that time as a starter was a complete and utter fabrication.
That still doesn't prove anything, I admit that. I'll never be able to physically prove it I don't think. It requires a person to simply look through it all in which any rational person would see that it's peppered with holes.
It's about as clear as seeing paint splat onto your window, only to run out and see a kid with paint on his hands. You know he's done it but you didn't see him do it. The moonlandings are like that, only in reverse. You seen them on TV, do it...but you know it's a complete load of bollocks.
I concede there are a lot of holes, peculiarities, and inconsistencies. But it also seems there is an extraordinary amount of supporting evidence as well.
It is quite possible the government didn't tell us the whole story. There may be some conspiracy there. But a few anamolies doesn't mean it didn't happen at all. I think it is much more likely that the moon landing did happen... but perhaps something else also happened that is kept hidden from us. The landing might even have served as a misdirection or cover for that other thing.
I think, personally, that the landing and *most* of the photos are real. A few doctored pieces of evidence, or holes, doesn't negate all of that.
Cheese with holes in it is still cheese. =)
-
Look, if you want to make a straw man argument to beat down, be my guest. Have fun with it, because literally noone is making this argument. What I am actually saying is there's no good reason to believe in a theory for which there is no evidence.
FlatAllTheWay made the argument on the last page. Then I said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Remember? You can click back if you like. We'll wait.
I checked, and you totally misreprented his argument, or badly misunderstood it, or possibly both.
-
I concede there are a lot of holes, peculiarities, and inconsistencies. But it also seems there is an extraordinary amount of supporting evidence as well.
It is quite possible the government didn't tell us the whole story. There may be some conspiracy there. But a few anamolies doesn't mean it didn't happen at all. I think it is much more likely that the moon landing did happen... but perhaps something else also happened that is kept hidden from us. The landing might even have served as a misdirection or cover for that other thing.
I think, personally, that the landing and *most* of the photos are real. A few doctored pieces of evidence, or holes, doesn't negate all of that.
Cheese with holes in it is still cheese. =)
A few doctored bits, I agree. the problem is, in it's entirety, there's a lot more than just a few doctored bits of stuff.
It's entirely up to each individual to go with what they think. We all are capable of thinking in different ways as to what looks legit or whatever.
Anyone with a clear mind and willing to spend time sifting through it all...and I do mean everything. I honestly and truthfully cannot understand how the landings, etc can't be seen for what they were...which was a crappy staged movie, deliberately staged as a crappy movie by the way, so us gullible people can't decipher what the hell is going on with clarity. It hides a lot of the effects, like wires and such like.
If you genuinelt believe they landed that piece of crap school project lander on the moon and took off from the moon in that stupid looking kettle whilst being tracked by a camera on the rover, operated by a man on Earth who just happened to pan exactly on it's lift off and ascent, despite the supposed time delay and also the supposed Earth rotating as this happens, then what can I say. All I can say is, if you believe this, then there is nothing that you are ever going to disbelieve.
-
Shmeggley: answer me a few questions, honestly.
Do you think there are question marks over some of the events leading up to and after the moon landing carry on?
Not really. I mean, I've heard all kinds of objections from the hoax enthusiasts but nothing with any real bite to it. What events are you referring to?
Is there anything about it that you've seen (assuming you've studied a good bit)that you thought was odd.
I admit I haven't made of studying it in depth. I think my knowledge of it is pretty average. My understanding is that in the 60's or so people decided they'd make a serious effort at landing a man on the Moon. They put a good bit of time and money into the project and it eventually succeeded. Seems reasonable to me.
Is there anything about the mannerisms of some of the Apollo astronauts that made you suspicious?
No. Buzz Aldrin punching that wingnut in the face was pretty shocking, but the guy definitely had it coming.
Have you ever seen the post Apollo 11 press conference?
No, but I gave seen footage of them on the Moon
Have you ever seen astronauts gone wild?
No, is it safe for work? :P Apparently it's a documentary made by the wingnut Aldrin punched. I'll probably watch it later.
Have you ever seen the few times that Armstrong has made a public speech?
What about Aldrin, apart form that punch job?
Can't say that I've seen Armstrong say much outside "one small step for man". I've seen interviews with Aldrin though. He seems very friendly and well spoken, and speaks with authority on the topic of space travel, from what I've seen.
If you put those people on a lie detector machine, I'm convinced they would blow it up, apart from those that are not here anymore, who are at rest with no more conscience carrying that must have blighted their lives.
I have no confidence at all in what you're convinced of when it comes to science and these conspiracy theories.
I've studied it all and better studied it and I can very confidently say that the space exploits of that time as a starter was a complete and utter fabrication.
That still doesn't prove anything, I admit that. I'll never be able to physically prove it I don't think. It requires a person to simply look through it all in which any rational person would see that it's peppered with holes.
It's about as clear as seeing paint splat onto your window, only to run out and see a kid with paint on his hands. You know he's done it but you didn't see him do it. The moonlandings are like that, only in reverse. You seen them on TV, do it...but you know it's a complete load of bollocks.
Well that all sounds nice and everything, but it's basically just a restatement of what you already believe. I knew you believed it before you said that though, and this latest speech doesn't move me in the slightest, except that I feel some pity for you.
EDIT: I watched the first few minutes of "Astronauts Gone Wild" and Sibrel opens with the shot of himself getting punched by Aldrin. I could watch that annoying bastard getting clocked all day.
-
Why is China working on a manned mission to the Moon? Are they going to just fake it, too?
Given that going to the moon earns a country a lot of prestige from all the people who believe it's possible, and given that Apollo doubters think it's easy to fake a moon landing, why don't more countries claim to have done it? To date, the United States is the only country that claims to have done it. Why doesn't China or Italy or Egypt or Peru post some doctored videos showing their astronauts walking on the moon?
-
It's not true that only a few people at the top would have to know the Apollo missions were faked. For example, think of all the people at mission control who are continuously interacting -- via computer, voice, and video -- with the spacecraft systems and with the astronauts, while the spacecraft is sending back lots of data and images. If it's all fake, but the "guys at the top" don't want the mission control people to know it's fake, then the mission control people must be interacting with a very complex simulator without realizing it. And a big team of programmers, video experts, physicists and others would have to have developed that simulator. So no matter how you fake a massive mission like Apollo, it can never be just a few people that know the true secret.
Lastly, this brings up a point that is common to most FE arguments: just because something is theoretically possible, such as making fake videos of people walking on the moon, does not mean it actually happened that way. You have to provide evidence for your claim. For example, it's theoretically possible that Germany beat Brazil 7-1 in the World Cup because Germany put magnets inside the ball and inside their cleats so they could maintain better ball control, and that's why they scored so many goals. Should we conclude that this is what happened just because it's not impossible?
Could you provide us all with the quantity & type of fuel that was used ?.
-
It's not true that only a few people at the top would have to know the Apollo missions were faked. For example, think of all the people at mission control who are continuously interacting -- via computer, voice, and video -- with the spacecraft systems and with the astronauts, while the spacecraft is sending back lots of data and images. If it's all fake, but the "guys at the top" don't want the mission control people to know it's fake, then the mission control people must be interacting with a very complex simulator without realizing it. And a big team of programmers, video experts, physicists and others would have to have developed that simulator. So no matter how you fake a massive mission like Apollo, it can never be just a few people that know the true secret.
Lastly, this brings up a point that is common to most FE arguments: just because something is theoretically possible, such as making fake videos of people walking on the moon, does not mean it actually happened that way. You have to provide evidence for your claim. For example, it's theoretically possible that Germany beat Brazil 7-1 in the World Cup because Germany put magnets inside the ball and inside their cleats so they could maintain better ball control, and that's why they scored so many goals. Should we conclude that this is what happened just because it's not impossible?
Could you provide us all with the quantity & type of fuel that was used ?.
It was approximately 700 litres of 5% acetic acid solution combined with 200 kg of powdered sodium bicarbonate.
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
Hilarious. Did you make that yourself?
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings? That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:
"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."
-
Why is China working on a manned mission to the Moon? Are they going to just fake it, too?
Given that going to the moon earns a country a lot of prestige from all the people who believe it's possible, and given that Apollo doubters think it's easy to fake a moon landing, why don't more countries claim to have done it? To date, the United States is the only country that claims to have done it. Why doesn't China or Italy or Egypt or Peru post some doctored videos showing their astronauts walking on the moon?
China has a history of being busted with their fake space missions.
China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1) (http://#)
edited for typo
-
If it's the same one I saw, it does look fake. Even so it doesn't mean it was all fake.
-
TV actors do it all the time. They follow a script for a decent pay day and celebrity life. People will literally spit in their own families faces for the chance to get fame and fortune.
So the Apollo people who play the astronauts get told to act out a scene or scenes for a life time of fame and fortune. What harm are they doing? It's only what TV actors do, except this is passed off as real but it will never come to light that it's all faked, so they live out the lie with the trimmings that go with it.
All they have to do, is study the storylines so they can answer questions as they arise.
What would it take for any of you to follow a script for a potential lifetime of fortune and fame?
People can think what they want about whether those people are lying or not. the issue is, nobody gets to physically prove it unless someone breaks down and tells the truth.
The problem with that is, how far would the guilty persons truth go? It would go as far as a bit of tongue wagging before they were deemed insane and suffering from space dementia or whatever is bestowed upon them.
Argue all you want about this not being possible. You know it is and you also know that Armstrong displayed very weird mannerisms all the way throughout his life after his so called space jaunt. Most other actornauts revel in the fame and the money that comes their way.
Once you accept the invitation to the lie, you have to live that lie. there's no backing out freely or without consequence.
Aldrin isn't brainwashed. Aldrin struggles to keep up the ruse. Their post Apollo conference should be enough to tell any rational person that something is not right. The only thing missing from the conference, is the forehead stickers that should read LIAR.
There is also a lot of ties to freemasonry which is an organization built upon lying and threats of death to those who dare betray the organization. They'll kill your kids, your spouse, or anyone to ensure you comply. On the other hand, if you play like a good dog, you get money and fame. The press conference was indeed a dead give away. Collins couldn't see any stars...WOW
-
There is also a lot of ties to freemasonry which is an organization built upon lying and threats of death to those who dare betray the organization. They'll kill your kids, your spouse, or anyone to ensure you comply. On the other hand, if you play like a good dog, you get money and fame. The press conference was indeed a dead give away. Collins couldn't see any stars...WOW
Citation needed.
-
TV actors do it all the time. They follow a script for a decent pay day and celebrity life. People will literally spit in their own families faces for the chance to get fame and fortune.
So the Apollo people who play the astronauts get told to act out a scene or scenes for a life time of fame and fortune. What harm are they doing? It's only what TV actors do, except this is passed off as real but it will never come to light that it's all faked, so they live out the lie with the trimmings that go with it.
All they have to do, is study the storylines so they can answer questions as they arise.
What would it take for any of you to follow a script for a potential lifetime of fortune and fame?
People can think what they want about whether those people are lying or not. the issue is, nobody gets to physically prove it unless someone breaks down and tells the truth.
The problem with that is, how far would the guilty persons truth go? It would go as far as a bit of tongue wagging before they were deemed insane and suffering from space dementia or whatever is bestowed upon them.
Argue all you want about this not being possible. You know it is and you also know that Armstrong displayed very weird mannerisms all the way throughout his life after his so called space jaunt. Most other actornauts revel in the fame and the money that comes their way.
Once you accept the invitation to the lie, you have to live that lie. there's no backing out freely or without consequence.
Aldrin isn't brainwashed. Aldrin struggles to keep up the ruse. Their post Apollo conference should be enough to tell any rational person that something is not right. The only thing missing from the conference, is the forehead stickers that should read LIAR.
There is also a lot of ties to freemasonry which is an organization built upon lying and threats of death to those who dare betray the organization. They'll kill your kids, your spouse, or anyone to ensure you comply. On the other hand, if you play like a good dog, you get money and fame. The press conference was indeed a dead give away. Collins couldn't see any stars...WOW
Well astronauts do see stars from space. In Collins case, even though there is no air and the sky is black, much of our ability to see stars depends on how well our eyes are adjusted to the low light conditions. The whole time they were on the moon, the ground was well lit, like daytime on earth. Everything below their horizon is bright, so their eyes never get adjusted enough to see stars. If any of them had thought to look up for a few seconds, they would have seen stars as their eyes got adjusted. But looking up, in those suits and helmets, may not have been as easy as we'd think. They were probably dumbfounded in the interview because they were probably thinking, "Geez, how could I have been there for two days and never even think about looking at the stars??"
I suppose the answer is discipline and the ability to focus on duties. While they were there, it was almost with the same degree of rigor as if they were actors on stage in a play. Essentially every minute of their time was carefully planned. They were chosen for the program because of the very abilities and personalities which would have kept them from being distracted by such thoughts.
It might also be fair to say that the stars and sun were the ONLY things up there that they had seen many times before and were used to. The fascination of the terrain would be compelling, by comparison, I would think. We only see the pictures, but imagine standing in the middle of all that. If they looked up at anything, it would almost certainly have been the earth. I think if I saw that, I would be completely oblivious to stars.
Besides, what is your implication when you say, "Collins couldn't see stars, WOW"? If there is something wrong with that picture, what is the problem? Are you saying the space program is fake because Collins actually went to space and couldn't see stars?
-
Have you ever seen the post Apollo 11 press conference?
Have you ever seen astronauts gone wild?
Have you ever seen the few times that Armstrong has made a public speech?
What about Aldrin, apart form that punch job?
I've now watched both of Sibrel's nauseating documentaries. What's amazing to me is that he only got punched once. He's about the slimiest character I've come across when it comes to this kind of fake journalism. I think Aldrin had it exactly right in that Sibrel is doing nothing but trying to stir up controversy to make a name for himself. His alleged evidence has been debunked over and over again. His "exclusive footage" and "never before seen pictures" have been available for decades. Even when his "evidence" has been refuted he still makes the same arguments.
How he treated those men who did nothing but do their jobs, jobs which were not only dangerous but took a high level of skill and sheer guts, was totally shameful. Think of what your reaction would be if someone came up to you and pointed a camera in your face and demanded you swear on the bible that one of your greatest achievements in your career was true, all the while telling you it was faked and that you're a liar. Those guys acted exactly how you'd expect someone in that position to act - a moment of "what the hell is this guy on about" followed by the realization that it's a setup, whereupon they get pissed.
For someone who claims to think independently and critically, I can't understand how you can fall for Sibrel's filthy scam. I mean, not only is he underhanded, he's a shit film maker. The whole time he's interviewing Aldrin he has his idiotic first video blaring away and you can't hear either one clearly. No wonder he's resorted to muckraking - he's desperate because his film career is in the toilet - which it should be. He should be flipping burgers somewhere and mopping up but apparently he thinks he's been sent by God or something to expose the evil of the world. I do get the sense at some points that he really believes what he's saying is correct, and in those moments I only feel sorry for the dumb shmuck.
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
Thanks for the major LULZ Charles! You've excelled yourself.
Anders Björkman is so demonstrably mentally deranged that he was even thrown out of one of the major conspiracy sites for his lunatic views; Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://bit.ly/1syvs8p).
I can certainly understand why someone like poor old Charles would suck up Björkman's ravings—considering some of his own lunatic theories he's posted here.
—And Charles still hasn't posted his diagram of a "leaning" plumb bob yet, or any footage of his own Foucault pendulum he promised to post.
C'mon Charles... you can do it... you know you can mate!
-
Have you ever seen the post Apollo 11 press conference?
Have you ever seen astronauts gone wild?
Have you ever seen the few times that Armstrong has made a public speech?
What about Aldrin, apart form that punch job?
I've now watched both of Sibrel's nauseating documentaries. What's amazing to me is that he only got punched once. He's about the slimiest character I've come across when it comes to this kind of fake journalism. I think Aldrin had it exactly right in that Sibrel is doing nothing but trying to stir up controversy to make a name for himself. His alleged evidence has been debunked over and over again. His "exclusive footage" and "never before seen pictures" have been available for decades. Even when his "evidence" has been refuted he still makes the same arguments.
How he treated those men who did nothing but do their jobs, jobs which were not only dangerous but took a high level of skill and sheer guts, was totally shameful. Think of what your reaction would be if someone came up to you and pointed a camera in your face and demanded you swear on the bible that one of your greatest achievements in your career was true, all the while telling you it was faked and that you're a liar. Those guys acted exactly how you'd expect someone in that position to act - a moment of "what the hell is this guy on about" followed by the realization that it's a setup, whereupon they get pissed.
For someone who claims to think independently and critically, I can't understand how you can fall for Sibrel's filthy scam. I mean, not only is he underhanded, he's a shit film maker. The whole time he's interviewing Aldrin he has his idiotic first video blaring away and you can't hear either one clearly. No wonder he's resorted to muckraking - he's desperate because his film career is in the toilet - which it should be. He should be flipping burgers somewhere and mopping up but apparently he thinks he's been sent by God or something to expose the evil of the world. I do get the sense at some points that he really believes what he's saying is correct, and in those moments I only feel sorry for the dumb shmuck.
It's absolutely fine what you think of Sibrel I'm not interested in Sibrel. Just observe the body language of the people he's interviewing.
I know it's strange how people simply say, " oh, they look fine to me, all truthful and everything...no weird guilty stances or nothing."
Just take a look at the guilt. The only thing missing on those people is the tattoo on their fore-heads that spells BULLSHITTER.
-
Bart Sibrel is nothing more than pond scum. If sceptimatic truly believes Sibrel has legitimately exposed Buzz Aldrin as a fraud, then he's even more stupid than I thought. If that's possible LOL.
-
Could we please stop with the personal attacks and have a real debate? Thanks.
-
It's absolutely fine what you think of Sibrel I'm not interested in Sibrel. Just observe the body language of the people he's interviewing.
I know it's strange how people simply say, " oh, they look fine to me, all truthful and everything...no weird guilty stances or nothing."
Just take a look at the guilt. The only thing missing on those people is the tattoo on their fore-heads that spells BULLSHITTER.
Maybe you're not interested in Sibrel, but you use many of the same arguments he does, and you've totally fallen for his line of manipulative bullshit. He staged every interview the way he did exactly to give the impression that they were trying to hide something. Of course these guys are going to be uncomfortable, because they probably could smell the bullshit coming. Of course they are going to get angry at being cornered, harassed, misled and lied to. You could see that Aldrin spotted the ruse right from the start when Sibrel asked to show him the video. And he was totally correct when he said Sibrel was doing it wrong by springing the video on him instead of discussing it beforehand, that was completely unprofessional. You know how professionals act when faced with unprofessional behaviour? They courteously but firmly point out the error being made, which Aldrin did at first. When pressed, naturally they get irritated and angry when their time is being wasted. All of which happened in the video. Aldrin was too nice to him in my opinion, he should have just trusted his instincts and refused to waste any more of his time. But I expect his curiosity got the better of him and Sibrel hadn't yet crossed the line into being rude and disrespectful.
I don't know what "guilty stances" you are talking about, if you can even explain what that's supposed to look like. To me this looks like just another case of you having made up your mind ahead of time and seeing what you want to see, which in this case is what Sibrel wants you to see.
-
It's absolutely fine what you think of Sibrel I'm not interested in Sibrel. Just observe the body language of the people he's interviewing.
I know it's strange how people simply say, " oh, they look fine to me, all truthful and everything...no weird guilty stances or nothing."
Just take a look at the guilt. The only thing missing on those people is the tattoo on their fore-heads that spells BULLSHITTER.
Maybe you're not interested in Sibrel, but you use many of the same arguments he does, and you've totally fallen for his line of manipulative bullshit. He staged every interview the way he did exactly to give the impression that they were trying to hide something. Of course these guys are going to be uncomfortable, because they probably could smell the bullshit coming. Of course they are going to get angry at being cornered, harassed, misled and lied to. You could see that Aldrin spotted the ruse right from the start when Sibrel asked to show him the video. And he was totally correct when he said Sibrel was doing it wrong by springing the video on him instead of discussing it beforehand, that was completely unprofessional. You know how professionals act when faced with unprofessional behaviour? They courteously but firmly point out the error being made, which Aldrin did at first. When pressed, naturally they get irritated and angry when their time is being wasted. All of which happened in the video. Aldrin was too nice to him in my opinion, he should have just trusted his instincts and refused to waste any more of his time. But I expect his curiosity got the better of him and Sibrel hadn't yet crossed the line into being rude and disrespectful.
I don't know what "guilty stances" you are talking about, if you can even explain what that's supposed to look like. To me this looks like just another case of you having made up your mind ahead of time and seeing what you want to see, which in this case is what Sibrel wants you to see.
Like I said, I'm not interested in what and how Sibrel went about his work. I'm not interested whether he's a sleaze ball or whatever. What I'm interested in are the reactions of the so called astronauts in answering questions that he put.
Let me make this clear.
If I was a real astronaut and I went to the moon and all the rest of it, I would be begging people to come and ask me all about it just to boast, etc.
Whataver questions were put to me, I would have been more than happy to answer them. If I couldn't, I would say I don't know.
In a post mission conference with reporters asking me questions, I would be confident in taking those questions and happy to point out everything I could recall. I would not display a childs guilty face plus explanation as if I was trying my best to tell them it wasn't me that smashed their greenhouse window. Many of those so called astronauts displayed this and not just in front of Sibrel.
Rational people that don't have to be body language experts can see they are blatantly telling lies and are showing extreme guilt doing so, plus fear.
Pilots and such like are confident people. Infact, maybe full of it. These people displayed none of this, not even close. They displayed what can only be construed as two things. Fear or guilt or both.
Take some time and study their guilt...or fear...or both.
Psychotic apollo11 press conference RKO (http://#)
-
It's absolutely fine what you think of Sibrel I'm not interested in Sibrel. Just observe the body language of the people he's interviewing.
I know it's strange how people simply say, " oh, they look fine to me, all truthful and everything...no weird guilty stances or nothing."
Just take a look at the guilt. The only thing missing on those people is the tattoo on their fore-heads that spells BULLSHITTER.
Maybe you're not interested in Sibrel, but you use many of the same arguments he does, and you've totally fallen for his line of manipulative bullshit. He staged every interview the way he did exactly to give the impression that they were trying to hide something. Of course these guys are going to be uncomfortable, because they probably could smell the bullshit coming. Of course they are going to get angry at being cornered, harassed, misled and lied to. You could see that Aldrin spotted the ruse right from the start when Sibrel asked to show him the video. And he was totally correct when he said Sibrel was doing it wrong by springing the video on him instead of discussing it beforehand, that was completely unprofessional. You know how professionals act when faced with unprofessional behaviour? They courteously but firmly point out the error being made, which Aldrin did at first. When pressed, naturally they get irritated and angry when their time is being wasted. All of which happened in the video. Aldrin was too nice to him in my opinion, he should have just trusted his instincts and refused to waste any more of his time. But I expect his curiosity got the better of him and Sibrel hadn't yet crossed the line into being rude and disrespectful.
I don't know what "guilty stances" you are talking about, if you can even explain what that's supposed to look like. To me this looks like just another case of you having made up your mind ahead of time and seeing what you want to see, which in this case is what Sibrel wants you to see.
Like I said, I'm not interested in what and how Sibrel went about his work. I'm not interested whether he's a sleaze ball or whatever. What I'm interested in are the reactions of the so called astronauts in answering questions that he put.
Again, you say that while parroting Sibrel's own arguments, but whatever. It's interesting that you fall right into line with his agenda though.
Let me make this clear.
If I was a real astronaut and I went to the moon and all the rest of it, I would be begging people to come and ask me all about it just to boast, etc.
Whataver questions were put to me, I would have been more than happy to answer them. If I couldn't, I would say I don't know.
In a post mission conference with reporters asking me questions, I would be confident in taking those questions and happy to point out everything I could recall. I would not display a childs guilty face plus explanation as if I was trying my best to tell them it wasn't me that smashed their greenhouse window. Many of those so called astronauts displayed this and not just in front of Sibrel.
It's just amazing to me that you think that what you think you would do matters one tiny bit. These are human beings and as such they all have different personalities. If you think Armstrong is acting guilty, where is your evidence that he normally acts differently at a press conference? You also have no idea of his state of mind at the time. Was he maybe exhausted, after an utterly exhilarating experience and then being brought back to Earth, debriefed, probably having every conceivable medical and physical test done on him, then subjected to endless repetitive questions from the press? How many press conferences had he done before this? It's far more likely that he's just bored! He signed up so he could fly. Obviously what he loves is flying, and mastering demanding and challenging situations, not talking endlessly to reporters. Aldrin just looks pensive, like he'd rather be somewhere else doing real work. That's my take on it anyway. I just think it's incredibly limited, and unfair, to judge these guys only on what you think they should be doing and how you think they should react. They would not give a shit how you think they should act. That you, with your extremely limited knowledge of the situation, and absolutely no knowledge of their thoughts and feelings in that moment, should be able to judge that they are guilty of something, is laughable. Are you actually saying that their "guilty look" is evidence that they didn't do what they say they did? Or are you just judging them based on your preconceived idea that they are already guilty of fraud? Again, I see absolutely nothing here but you seeing what you want to see because it conforms to your weird theory that gives you so much joy.
Rational people that don't have to be body language experts can see they are blatantly telling lies and are showing extreme guilt doing so, plus fear.
Pilots and such like are confident people. Infact, maybe full of it. These people displayed none of this, not even close. They displayed what can only be construed as two things. Fear or guilt or both.
Take some time and study their guilt...or fear...or both.
Psychotic apollo11 press conference RKO (http://#)
[/quote]
Just incredible. You are really just lapping these conspiracy theories up. Instead of just throwing around accusations of fraud, why don't you look through a telescope once in a while and actually make a real observation. Maybe look at the ISS a few times as it flies by right on schedule and see if it really looks like a balloon. Maybe look at the moons of Jupiter, and try to convince yourself it's some kind of reflection. See if you can spot any cracks in the sky next time a comet comes around that's been predicted months in advance. Seriously man, just look at the real world for once without your blinders on.
-
Like I said, I'm not interested in what and how Sibrel went about his work. I'm not interested whether he's a sleaze ball or whatever. What I'm interested in are the reactions of the so called astronauts in answering questions that he put.
Fair enough, but they are related, since Sibrel asks his questions in a derogatory and agressive way which can't help but influence the responses of the people he interrogates.
Let me make this clear.
If I was a real astronaut and I went to the moon and all the rest of it, I would be begging people to come and ask me all about it just to boast, etc.
Whataver questions were put to me, I would have been more than happy to answer them. If I couldn't, I would say I don't know.
So what? Other people might not be as attention seeking as you are. There is more than one valid response to this circumstance.
In a post mission conference with reporters asking me questions, I would be confident in taking those questions and happy to point out everything I could recall. I would not display a childs guilty face plus explanation as if I was trying my best to tell them it wasn't me that smashed their greenhouse window. Many of those so called astronauts displayed this and not just in front of Sibrel.
You are accusing astronauts of guilt because they are not behaving as you expect them to. This is a ridiculous position. Sibrel puts them in to confrontational and uncomfortable situations and it should not be surprising when they respond uncomfortably and confrontationally should it?
Rational people that don't have to be body language experts can see they are blatantly telling lies and are showing extreme guilt doing so, plus fear.
Pilots and such like are confident people. Infact, maybe full of it. These people displayed none of this, not even close. They displayed what can only be construed as two things. Fear or guilt or both.
Take some time and study their guilt...or fear...or both.
Psychotic apollo11 press conference RKO (http://#)
Sure Neal Armstrong is displaying nervousness. You are immediately assuming that this must be because they lied about going to the moon when there are hundreds of simpler and more likely reasons, like he is uncomfortable and scared of addressing what looks like a full auditorium of people scribbling down his every word. My wife used to squirm like fire was being held to her feet when talking to 10 people much less hundreds, it is pretty common really.
In short, although I cannot discount what you are saying, it is definitely not a likely and self-evident truth. You have provided nothing to support your beliefs other than hunches and in the face of many simpler and more likely explanations I have to say I am wholly unconvinced by your ideas.
-
Let me make this clear.
If I was a real astronaut and I went to the moon and all the rest of it, I would be begging people to come and ask me all about it just to boast, etc.
And this is one of the prime reasons you would not be accepted into any space program. If your sole reasons were to boast about it and make lots of money on your return, then you'd be flagged as psychologically unsuitable for such a demanding mission, and rejected permanently.
Your "assessment" of these astronauts—considering that you've never met them personally—is totally valueless. You're also very poorly equipped, if at all, in order to make any meaningful psychological appraisal. These guys were put through a massive battery of physical and mental tests prior to even being trained as astronauts. You seem to think that any old Joe Blow can wander into NASA, have a quick cup of coffee and be off to the moon the next day.
And your comment: "The only thing missing on those people is the tattoo on their fore-heads that spells BULLSHITTER" is really an ignorant—and offensive—claim. You obviously don't know that Neil Armstrong was a university professor with both a Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree in science. Buzz Aldrin has a Bachelor's degree in engineering and a science Ph.D in astronautics.
BTW, I don't recall you telling us what your double doctorates were in?
-
Watch this and see if you want to ask the man to his face if he is bullshitting.
(http://)
-
Watch this and see if you want to ask the man to his face if he is bullshitting.
(http://)
lol, would an honest man get so defensive?
-
Watch this and see if you want to ask the man to his face if he is bullshitting.
(http://)
lol, would an honest man get so defensive?
Of course you would never get upset if someone was basically calling your career a sham and you a liar right? ::)
-
Watch this and see if you want to ask the man to his face if he is bullshitting.
(http://)
lol, would an honest man get so defensive?
Yes. Being followed and insulted by a crazy man would make anyone defensive.
-
An honest man would just say, "Sorry, but I am not giving an interview at this time." An honest man does not physically attack people when questioned. That is called being overly defensive.
-
An honest man would just say, "Sorry, but I am not giving an interview at this time." An honest man does not physically attack people when questioned. That is called being overly defensive.
Did you watch the video? He did.
And the scumfuck just keeps hounding and insulting him, even after Buzz threatens to call the cops. And then he punches him after the man insults him.
More than justified.
I've worked as a freelance reporter before. That is no way to go about getting your questions answers. Ambushing someone and hounding them is a great way to make someone defensive about anything. Because you are presenting yourself as an aggressive, potentially violent physical threat.
I'd have laid that fucker out too.
-
I get asked questions all the time, and I either answer or tell the other person that I cannot or do not wish to answer at this time. I have never hit anyone for simply asking a question. Oh, but I have nothing to hide.
-
I get asked questions all the time, and I either answer or tell the other person that I cannot or do not wish to answer at this time. I have never hit anyone for simply asking a question. Oh, but I have nothing to hide.
Don't reply to my post if you are going to ignore its content.
-
I am sorry. I thought this was a debate forum. Oh, wait... ::)
-
An honest man would just say, "Sorry, but I am not giving an interview at this time." An honest man does not physically attack people when questioned. That is called being overly defensive.
Thats preposterous. You, who defended shooting someone who throws popcorn in a movie theatre thinks it is out of line to punch some twat (pardon my french) who gets in your face and impugns your character and the thing you sacrificed years and years to accomplish? You should try and use balanced criteria my friend and consider that there is more happening than what is seen in the footage. What kind of day was Aldrin having? Did he have anything to drink? Did he get any bad news like perhaps an old friend from the program was ill? All these things could fuel the desire to punch some reprobate in the face.
An honest man can behave in all sorts of ways that you would not expect and to use this as proof of guilt is actually ridiculous.
-
An honest man would just say, "Sorry, but I am not giving an interview at this time." An honest man does not physically attack people when questioned. That is called being overly defensive.
Aldrin was actually very cooperative when he first met Sibrel, and granted him an interview. Then Sibrel tried to blindside - he didn't discuss any topics beforehand, and sprang some clips from his first documentary on him in an attempt to stage a "gotcha" for his next documentary. Sibrel then jumped Aldrin in public again, and blocked his way. Aldrin showed a considerable amount of restraint. Sibrel is an unethical hack.
-
Sibrel simply asked a few questions and Aldrin flipped out. What kind of monster would act like that?
If I was lying for a living, I would probably get very mad when people questioned me about my lies too.
-
Sibrel simply asked a few questions and Aldrin flipped out. What kind of monster would act like that?
Troll harder.
If I was lying for a living, I would probably get very mad when people questioned me about my lies too.
If you were lying for a living, you would be prepared for someone to question your lies I imagine. Anger seems like an unlikely response if your entire purpose within the program is to propagate those lies.
-
I am sorry. I thought this was a debate forum. Oh, wait... ::)
It is. So debate what I said. Don't ignore it.
-
Well, you'd also get mad if you were cornered and called a liar, thief and coward in public by someone who'd already tried to burn you in an interview before, I would think.
-
I am sorry. I thought this was a debate forum. Oh, wait... ::)
It is. So debate what I said. Don't ignore it.
I did debate what you said. You simply ignore anything I say that you do not like, and then pretend I did not say anything.
Well, you'd also get mad if you were cornered and called a liar, thief and coward in public by someone who'd already tried to burn you in an interview before, I would think.
The key word here is cornered, I would say.
-
I am sorry. I thought this was a debate forum. Oh, wait... ::)
It is. So debate what I said. Don't ignore it.
I did debate what you said. You simply ignore anything I say that you do not like, and then pretend I did not say anything.
No, you didn't. Not one part of your reply addressed this:
"And the scumfuck just keeps hounding and insulting him, even after Buzz threatens to call the cops. And then he punches him after the man insults him."
Or this part:
"More than justified."
Or this part:
"I've worked as a freelance reporter before. That is no way to go about getting your questions answers. Ambushing someone and hounding them is a great way to make someone defensive about anything. Because you are presenting yourself as an aggressive, potentially violent physical threat."
Or this part:
"I'd have laid that fucker out too."
You replied to none of those things.
-
Please watch your language in the upper fora. Kids read these pages. If you want to cuss at me, you can PM me and I will not hold it against you, but keep the upper fora clean, OK?
-
Please watch your language in the upper fora. Kids read these pages. If you want to cuss at me, you can PM me and I will not hold it against you, but keep the upper fora clean, OK?
Noted.
Now can you please respond to what I said?
-
jroa Buzz was a marine before he became an astronit, come on be loyal to an old warrior buddy.
-
Marines are supposed to have an honest constitution and integrity; however, that does not mean none of them (us) can be untruthful.
-
I am sorry. I thought this was a debate forum. Oh, wait... ::)
It is. So debate what I said. Don't ignore it.
I did debate what you said. You simply ignore anything I say that you do not like, and then pretend I did not say anything.
No, you didn't. Not one part of your reply addressed this:
"And the scumfuck just keeps hounding and insulting him, even after Buzz threatens to call the cops. And then he punches him after the man insults him."
Or this part:
"More than justified."
Or this part:
"I've worked as a freelance reporter before. That is no way to go about getting your questions answers. Ambushing someone and hounding them is a great way to make someone defensive about anything. Because you are presenting yourself as an aggressive, potentially violent physical threat."
Or this part:
"I'd have laid that fucker out too."
You replied to none of those things.
Yes, I did. I responded with an argument about liars getting defensive. Did you not even read what I wrote?
-
Mate the old Aussies who went to war were a rough lot, and not shy of a bit of thieving but they sat in the pub with their mates and stood up like the 3 musketeers for each other, good bad or ugly, mostly ugly.
-
Mate the old Aussies who went to war were a rough lot, and not shy of a bit of thieving but they sat in the pub with their mates and stood up like the 3 musketeers for each other, good bad or ugly, mostly ugly.
When you have your mate's back and you expect him to have yours, you form a bond. However, that does not mean that everyone feels the same. My eldest son is a Marine, and followed after me. I would trust him with my life. However, that does not mean I have never seen a Marine be untruthful or dishonest.
People are people. Like you said, the good, the bad, and the ugly. But, if I am at a bar, and someone gets in a fight and says anything about Marines helping him, I will be there, just like I would for my family. That does not make them truthful, it just makes them brothers.
I have a disabled Marine living with me, who is having a very hard time getting his VA benefits (in case you don't know, the US VA is fucked right now). I would do anything for him because he was a Gunny in the Corpes, and a life long brother. My girlfriend gets mad at me, but I pay for everything and don't charge him rent. Please, don't tell me what comradery is.
-
Sorry mate that is not what I was about. Good on you for what you do. No lack of respect meant.
-
I was a Sargent, and I had many opportunities to fuck Marines over; yet, I have only a couple of times recommended Marines for page 11s or Office Hours. I have many times covered up for peoples misdoings, and put my ass on the line over and over.
You want to berate me for accusing one Marine of not being truthful? Really? I have had privates and corporals and even officers behind me and in front of me. I trusted my life to them, but you seem to insinuate that they could never lie.
If you ever want to know what I did in the Corpse, feel free to send me a PM. In the mean time, please don't tell me what I should or should not feel about my fellow Marines.
-
I was out of school, once I again I apologize.
-
I lost my job the other day, so I don't care as much about giving personal information. I spent 4 years in a regular infantry company, and 4 years in two different Force Recon Companies (not in that order). markjo is about the only one I actually respect here. You want to talk about people being Marines? I think I have a little more experience with that than you.
-
Well, this thread has go somewhat weird... :-\
Anyway, 25 US marines have been into space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Marine_Corps_astronauts), presumably they are all lying actors working for the conspiracy as well?
-
Can I ask you if your brothers are damn dirty liars? Because that is what you are asking me.
-
The sun is just coming up in the good old USA, Maybe some boys and girls should be asleep.
-
Can I ask you if your brothers are damn dirty liars? Because that is what you are asking me.
This is a perfect example really. Jroa, you are acting very defensively even after being apologized to twice. It seems a disproportionate reaction to some Bozo on the Internettm who is not even in front of you demanding a response. On your view, your response makes you sinister in some way. Are you lying about being a marine?
On my view I see someone who gets pissed off when something he cares a great deal about gets treated with less than the respect it deserves. Can you see how Aldrin's behavior is not proof of anything?
-
Can I ask you if your brothers are damn dirty liars? Because that is what you are asking me.
I'm asking you if those 25 marines are lying about having traveled into space.
Let's be clear here: you are the one accusing them of being "damn dirty liars", not me. I think they are honest when they say they were astronauts.
According to you they are most likely Satanists as well... ::)
-
Can I ask you if your brothers are damn dirty liars? Because that is what you are asking me.
I'm asking you if those 25 marines are lying about having traveled into space.
Let's be clear here: you are the one accusing them of being "damn dirty liars", not me. I think they are honest when they say they were astronauts.
According to you they are most likely Satanists as well... ::)
This was my doing and I have made my peace with the man. Can you all get back to the real job as in the shape of the planet.
-
I am sorry. I thought this was a debate forum. Oh, wait... ::)
It is. So debate what I said. Don't ignore it.
I did debate what you said. You simply ignore anything I say that you do not like, and then pretend I did not say anything.
No, you didn't. Not one part of your reply addressed this:
"And the scumfuck just keeps hounding and insulting him, even after Buzz threatens to call the cops. And then he punches him after the man insults him."
Or this part:
"More than justified."
Or this part:
"I've worked as a freelance reporter before. That is no way to go about getting your questions answers. Ambushing someone and hounding them is a great way to make someone defensive about anything. Because you are presenting yourself as an aggressive, potentially violent physical threat."
Or this part:
"I'd have laid that fucker out too."
You replied to none of those things.
Yes, I did. I responded with an argument about liars getting defensive. Did you not even read what I wrote?
I did. The first time you said it. Which is why I made a argument against it.
You then repeated yourself, and didn't respond to a single thing I said.
-
guv and I are good now. Let's please try to get back on topic. Thanks.
-
Fair enough - maybe just lock the thread and let it sink?
-
Let's please try to get back on topic. Thanks.
The original topic was about Buzz Aldrin being possibly brainwashed and the veracity of his claims about walking on the moon. As he he possesses an engineering Bachelor of Science degree, and a Doctor of Science degree in astronautics, I find this "brainwashing" notion extremely unlikely. Peripherally, it was noted that Aldrin was purportedly a former Marine—which is incorrect. He was actually a USAF pilot.
jroa then started out on one of his typically off-topic rants about, in this case, Marines—and being one himself—and their invariable honesty and integrity. He did admit a couple of times that Marines could and did lie at times—in order to explain Aldrin's atypical outburst when questioned with the verbally abusive tactics of a street reporter renowned for offensive breaches of press etiquette.
So... after posting half a dozen comments about Marines—not even related to the Aldrin "brainwashing" conspiracy—jroa then has the gall to say "please try to get back on topic" LOL. This is yet another example of why I posted my comments in the 'Suggestions & Concerns' forum a few days ago regarding inconsistent and one-sided moderation.
This debate is (was) about Buzz Aldrin and the proposition that he was lying, deluded or brainwashed jroa, and not about you and your Marine buddies being honest or otherwise. Please try to stay on-topic in future. Thanks.
-
At least Niel Armstrong was able to get free of his brainwashing:
LEBANON, OHIO—Apollo 11 mission commander and famed astronaut Neil Armstrong shocked reporters at a press conference Monday, announcing he had been convinced that his historic first step on the moon was part of an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the United States government.
According to Armstrong, he was forced to reconsider every single detail of the monumental journey after watching a few persuasive YouTube videos, and reading several blog posts on conspiracy theorist Ralph Coleman's website, OmissionControl.org.
-
The Onion is a US news satire organization. It runs an entertainment website featuring satirical articles reporting on international, national, and local news. Since 2007, the organization has published satirical news audio and video online, as the Onion News Network.
The Onion's articles comment on current events, both real and fictional. It parodies traditional news websites with stories, editorials, op-ed pieces, and man-in-the-street interviews, using a traditional news website layout and an editorial voice modeled after that of AP. Its humour often depends on presenting mundane, everyday events as newsworthy, surreal or alarming.
Its Neil Armstrong spoof continues the tradition of satire. (I'm assuming markjo has posted this with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek.
-
If you think that markjo posted that tongue-in-cheek, then why do you feel compelled to comment on it?
-
The Onion is a US news satire organization. It runs an entertainment website featuring satirical articles reporting on international, national, and local news. Since 2007, the organization has published satirical news audio and video online, as the Onion News Network.
The Onion's articles comment on current events, both real and fictional. It parodies traditional news websites with stories, editorials, op-ed pieces, and man-in-the-street interviews, using a traditional news website layout and an editorial voice modeled after that of AP. Its humour often depends on presenting mundane, everyday events as newsworthy, surreal or alarming.
Its Neil Armstrong spoof continues the tradition of satire.
Thanks for that Geoff, I had no idea. If you hadn't used extensive bolding I would still be confused.
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings? That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:
"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."
Thanks for discussing or at least linking to my observations why human space travel and atomic bombs do not work.
People believe in human space travel and atomic bombs because they are ignorant and accept stupid propaganda since 1945 onwards.
No big deal actually. Nobody is hurt. It keeps unemployable physicists employed and costs much less than the real, impossible things.
It would cost even less just to admit it was and is pure propaganda and that is my objective.
I am quite optimistic that with Internet and intelligent fora we will soon achieve that objective.
-
Thanks for discussing or at least linking to my observations why human space travel and atomic bombs do not work.
People believe in human space travel and atomic bombs because they are ignorant and accept stupid propaganda since 1945 onwards.
No big deal actually. Nobody is hurt. It keeps unemployable physicists employed and costs much less than the real, impossible things.
It would cost even less just to admit it was and is pure propaganda and that is my objective.
I am quite optimistic that with Internet and intelligent fora we will soon achieve that objective.
Oooh, great. Another random guy on the internet waving his hands around and telling us about ludicrous conspiracy theories and how ignorant we all are just so he can feel a bit better about all those exams he failed. Just what the world needs more of.
Have you anything substantial to add? Like taking us through how "they" convinced the 536 people from 35 different countries to lie about their space travel? Or how the conspiracy is maintained across the 11 countries who now have launch capabilities? Or how 10s of thousands of private companies think they are paying for commercial satellite use when in fact it is just sorcery used by the conspiracy?
Pro-tip: bring some actual evidence, not hand waving bullshit.
-
I find it amusing how conspiracy nutters assume that the less their information sources have to do with NASA, other space agencies, official sources (you know, the sources that you'd expect would have the most complete information about the subject), the more accurate and trustworthy they must be. ::)
-
Heiwa is lost if he thinks he has found intelligent fora. He may mean flora.
-
I find it amusing how conspiracy nutters assume that the less their information sources have to do with NASA, other space agencies, official sources (you know, the sources that you'd expect would have the most complete information about the subject), the more accurate and trustworthy they must be. ::)
And I find it bizarre that a country that was engaged in a war that cost it 58,100 lives 303,644wounded & Billions of dollars in conflict costs. Just happened to be engaged in rocketing to the moon at the same time. Are Americans that gullible they believe any & all bullshit their Government feeds them with out question.?
There is something seriously wrong with a persons IQ, not to even entertain the notion the moon landings were more probable to of been faked.
-
I find it amusing how conspiracy nutters assume that the less their information sources have to do with NASA, other space agencies, official sources (you know, the sources that you'd expect would have the most complete information about the subject), the more accurate and trustworthy they must be. ::)
And I find it bizarre that a country that was engaged in a war that cost it 58,100 lives 303,644wounded & Billions of dollars in conflict costs. Just happened to be engaged in rocketing to the moon at the same time. Are Americans that gullible they believe any & all bullshit their Government feeds them with out question.?
There is something seriously wrong with a persons IQ, not to even entertain the notion the moon landings were more probable to of been faked.
There is something wrong with a persons IQ if they don't entertain the notion the moon landings were fake? How about there wasn't something wrong with a persons IQ so he engineered a space shuttle.
-
Like taking us through how "they" convinced the 536 people from 35 different countries to lie about their space travel? Or how the conspiracy is maintained across the 11 countries who now have launch capabilities? Or how 10s of thousands of private companies think they are paying for commercial satellite use when in fact it is just sorcery used by the conspiracy?
Pro-tip: bring some actual evidence, not hand waving bullshit.
It is easy to launch a rocket/satellite = fireworks. But it is impossible to get down alive from space to Earth. You simply burn up. So the 536 persons from 35 different countries that have managed to visit space and then come back on Earth simply lie to keep their jobs.
-
Like taking us through how "they" convinced the 536 people from 35 different countries to lie about their space travel? Or how the conspiracy is maintained across the 11 countries who now have launch capabilities? Or how 10s of thousands of private companies think they are paying for commercial satellite use when in fact it is just sorcery used by the conspiracy?
Pro-tip: bring some actual evidence, not hand waving bullshit.
It is easy to launch a rocket/satellite = fireworks. But it is impossible to get down alive from space to Earth. You simply burn up. So the 536 persons from 35 different countries that have managed to visit space and then come back on Earth simply lie to keep their jobs.
Fascinating. You must have done a significant amount of research to discover that the hundreds of astronauts who have successfully landed back on Earth from orbit actually all burned up.
-
Fascinating. You must have done a significant amount of research to discover that the hundreds of astronauts who have successfully landed back on Earth from orbit actually all burned up.
Correct! And the result is shown on my popular web page - link given on page 3 of this thread. Anybody saying he/she has been in space is therefore lying. You know the job market for asstronuts is small and they do anything to get the job, incl. lying and acting.
Similar to all physicists suggesting that atomic bombs work. They lie. And their job market is minimal too. Atomic bomb designer! Only idiots aim for such crazy work. Most physicists get jobs as physics teachers and it is not well paid. But they cannot maintain atomic bombs are fake. Then they lose their badly paid jobs too.
As you maybe know I offer a €1 million reward to anyone showing that I am wrong. The Challenge is on since many years and nobody has collected it. Have a try yourself.
-
Fascinating. You must have done a significant amount of research to discover that the hundreds of astronauts who have successfully landed back on Earth from orbit actually all burned up.
Correct! And the result is shown on my popular web page - link given on page 3 of this thread. Anybody saying he/she has been in space is therefore lying. You know the job market for asstronuts is small and they do anything to get the job, incl. lying and acting.
Your web page is long on incredulity and short on facts. You not understanding how it was possible is not an argument. You not believing it was possible is not an argument. You asserting that NASA is lying, is idiotic, is fake etc. is not an argument. To base your accusation of astronauts lying on a bunch of incredulity and other non-arguments would be laughable if it weren't so insulting.
As far as your idea of the astronaut "job market" goes, that's just stupid. There weren't a bunch of wannabee astronauts looking for a job that didn't exist, you imbecile. The astronaut program selected from the already existing pool of pilots the ones best suited for job and gave them the required training.
Similar to all physicists suggesting that atomic bombs work. They lie. And their job market is minimal too. Atomic bomb designer! Only idiots aim for such crazy work. Most physicists get jobs as physics teachers and it is not well paid. But they cannot maintain atomic bombs are fake. Then they lose their badly paid jobs too.
Of course you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about, but suffice to say this is off topic and there are plenty of other atomic energy/weapons threads on this site you can purvey this nonsense in.
As you maybe know I offer a €1 million reward to anyone showing that I am wrong. The Challenge is on since many years and nobody has collected it. Have a try yourself.
Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.
-
It is easy to launch a rocket/satellite = fireworks. But it is impossible to get down alive from space to Earth. You simply burn up. So the 536 persons from 35 different countries that have managed to visit space and then come back on Earth simply lie to keep their jobs.
I'll remind you of what I said:
Pro-tip: bring some actual evidence, not hand waving bullshit.
You appear to have done the exact opposite of that request.
-
I find it amusing how conspiracy nutters assume that the less their information sources have to do with NASA, other space agencies, official sources (you know, the sources that you'd expect would have the most complete information about the subject), the more accurate and trustworthy they must be. ::)
And I find it bizarre that a country that was engaged in a war that cost it 58,100 lives 303,644wounded & Billions of dollars in conflict costs. Just happened to be engaged in rocketing to the moon at the same time. Are Americans that gullible they believe any & all bullshit their Government feeds them with out question.?
There is something seriously wrong with a persons IQ, not to even entertain the notion the moon landings were more probable to of been faked.
There is something wrong with a persons IQ if they don't entertain the notion the moon landings were fake? How about there wasn't something wrong with a persons IQ so he engineered a space shuttle.
You mean like this bullshit (http://)
23 miles up main booster separates that's 121,440 ft. 37.0149 km. That's less then half way to the edge of space. So where is the rest of the magic fuel coming from to at lest power it the next 27miles to the edge of space.?
-
It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.
-
In regards to what's his face's comment that physicists are unemployable or whatever. How about engineer's? You know the ones who take physicist's ideas and build them? They are eminently employable and can make a lot of money in all sorts of industries.
-
It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.
Everyone knows that is bunk!!! ::) I mean as soon as you let off the gas in a car it comes to a dead stop. As soon as a bullet exits the muzzle, it comes to a dead stop. Its not like things keep going for a bit after the force has been applied to them. What kind of hogwash are you spewing!!!! ;D
-
I find it amusing how conspiracy nutters assume that the less their information sources have to do with NASA, other space agencies, official sources (you know, the sources that you'd expect would have the most complete information about the subject), the more accurate and trustworthy they must be. ::)
And I find it bizarre that a country that was engaged in a war that cost it 58,100 lives 303,644wounded & Billions of dollars in conflict costs. Just happened to be engaged in rocketing to the moon at the same time. Are Americans that gullible they believe any & all bullshit their Government feeds them with out question.?
There is something seriously wrong with a persons IQ, not to even entertain the notion the moon landings were more probable to of been faked.
There is something wrong with a persons IQ if they don't entertain the notion the moon landings were fake? How about there wasn't something wrong with a persons IQ so he engineered a space shuttle.
You mean like this bullshit (http://)
23 miles up main booster separates that's 121,440 ft. 37.0149 km. That's less then half way to the edge of space. So where is the rest of the magic fuel coming from to at lest power it the next 27miles to the edge of space.?
Those were the solid boosters. They run out fast as they are made from massive thrust. The big red tank is still liquid fuel going to the space shuttle's engines. Are you really that dumb that you can't figure this out?
-
I find it amusing how conspiracy nutters assume that the less their information sources have to do with NASA, other space agencies, official sources (you know, the sources that you'd expect would have the most complete information about the subject), the more accurate and trustworthy they must be. ::)
And I find it bizarre that a country that was engaged in a war that cost it 58,100 lives 303,644wounded & Billions of dollars in conflict costs. Just happened to be engaged in rocketing to the moon at the same time. Are Americans that gullible they believe any & all bullshit their Government feeds them with out question.?
There is something seriously wrong with a persons IQ, not to even entertain the notion the moon landings were more probable to of been faked.
There is something wrong with a persons IQ if they don't entertain the notion the moon landings were fake? How about there wasn't something wrong with a persons IQ so he engineered a space shuttle.
You mean like this bullshit (http://)
23 miles up main booster separates that's 121,440 ft. 37.0149 km. That's less then half way to the edge of space. So where is the rest of the magic fuel coming from to at lest power it the next 27miles to the edge of space.?
Those were the solid boosters. They run out fast as they are made from massive thrust. The big red tank is still liquid fuel going to the space shuttle's engines. Are you really that dumb that you can't figure this out?
No need for that is there? Ignorance != lack of intelligence.
-
If you think that markjo posted that tongue-in-cheek, then why do you feel compelled to comment on it?
I pointed out that The Onion is a purely satirical news source, lest some members here weren't familiar with its modus operandi, and mistakenly assumed the posting about Neil Armstrong's spacewalk refutation was actually legitimate. I offered the "tongue in cheek" rider in order not to possibly insult markjo's intelligence.
Also, is there any particular reason you post so many inconsequential, off-topic one liners jroa? Or were you too fooled by The Onion's satirical piece about Armstrong? Oh dear. Sprung again LOL.
-
Another one of Charles Bloomington's "heroes" LOL.
Check out this site for a neat demolition job of Heiwa's silly claims: The Unique World of Anders Bjorkman (Heiwa) (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3).
The guy is a confirmed liar, and has no engineering qualification—other than the ones he's made up. Some of his various claims are so bizarre that one can only assume he's suffering from some sort of as-yet undiagnosed psychiatric condition. Possibly gross misrepresentations or delusions of reality—which are a common symptom of schizophrenia and other psychoses.
One of his claims? That the WTC towers were "very much like cheese". I kid you not! ;D
Whatever; we can safely ignore any of his rantings on this forum.
-
Another one of Charles Bloomington's "heroes" LOL.
Check out this site for a neat demolition job of Heiwa's silly claims: The Unique World of Anders Bjorkman (Heiwa) (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3).
The guy is a confirmed liar, and has no engineering qualification—other than the ones he's made up. Some of his various claims are so bizarre that one can only assume he's suffering from some sort of as-yet undiagnosed psychiatric condition. Possibly gross misrepresentations or delusions of reality—which are a common symptom of schizophrenia and other psychoses.
One of his claims? That the WTC towers were "very much like cheese". I kid you not! ;D
Whatever; we can safely ignore any of his rantings on this forum.
That's excellent. Heiwa thinks rigid steel structures are indestructible "by definition" and can therefore withstand a nuclear blast:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315786&postcount=16 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315786&postcount=16)
;)
So this is the level that Heiwa is arguing at. Like I said after reading some of his site - it's nothing but arguments from incredulity and ignorance. "200 degree surface temp on the Moon? Impossible, the boots would melt! Nuclear physics? That's ridiculous!" All complete non-arguments. And his "challenges" are just another ruse. He whips them out as soon as you try to argue against him, as though if you can't pass his challenges then his argument must be right. As far as I can tell his challenges are experiments loosely based on the Twin Towers' destruction, and have little to do with the actual events, except very superficially.
All that said, I look forward to Heiwa's input here. I'd love to see a "discussion" between him and sceptimatic. ;)
-
All that said, I look forward to Heiwa's input here. I'd love to see a "discussion" between him and sceptimatic. ;)
I'm guessing that any conversation between Heiwa and sceptimatic would probably end up like THIS (http://bit.ly/1plezf3).
-
Two loose nuts? we better torque them up. We need charlie boy.
-
It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.
LOL after 23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.
-
Another one of Charles Bloomington's "heroes" LOL.
Check out this site for a neat demolition job of Heiwa's silly claims: The Unique World of Anders Bjorkman (Heiwa) (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3).
The guy is a confirmed liar, and has no engineering qualification—other than the ones he's made up. Some of his various claims are so bizarre that one can only assume he's suffering from some sort of as-yet undiagnosed psychiatric condition. Possibly gross misrepresentations or delusions of reality—which are a common symptom of schizophrenia and other psychoses.
One of his claims? That the WTC towers were "very much like cheese". I kid you not! ;D
Whatever; we can safely ignore any of his rantings on this forum.
(http://)
-
Another one of Charles Bloomington's "heroes" LOL.
Check out this site for a neat demolition job of Heiwa's silly claims: The Unique World of Anders Bjorkman (Heiwa) (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3).
The guy is a confirmed liar, and has no engineering qualification—other than the ones he's made up. Some of his various claims are so bizarre that one can only assume he's suffering from some sort of as-yet undiagnosed psychiatric condition. Possibly gross misrepresentations or delusions of reality—which are a common symptom of schizophrenia and other psychoses.
One of his claims? That the WTC towers were "very much like cheese". I kid you not! ;D
Whatever; we can safely ignore any of his rantings on this forum.
Reads like a made up character assassination to me Geoff . Anyone in engineering knows a plane made up of aluminium would not slice though the beams of those buildings. I suggest you set up an aluminium blade in a 500t brake press & see if it will fold a 20mm piece of plate made up of the same carbon steel as the beams of the twin towers or better still a guillotine with an aluminium blade. You should know what Thermite is Geoff ? After all that railway line experience you claim to of had.
Just in case you forgot what Thermite is Geoff (http://)
-
Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.
-
Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.
Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. (http://)
-
Charlie that is what I would expect to see.
-
Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.
Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. (http://)
Piss off with the 911 crap charlie, there are loads of other forums for morons to talk about that drivel.
-
Charlie that is what I would expect to see.
What no curvature ?. Well that makes for a flat earth. The optics of the car appearing that it is travelling above the horizon, confirms what I have always suspected causes the illusion of ships appearing to sail over the horizon. That being speed variants between ship ,water surface, wind speed,direction & light intensity. Not the BS earth curvature.
-
Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.
Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. (http://)
Piss off with the 911 crap charlie, there are loads of other forums for morons to talk about that drivel.
Take it up with your mate Geoff he dragged it in to the thread . Ya soft cock retarded American.
-
Ya soft cock retarded American.
I'm British, and my cock is rock hard. As you well know Charlie boy.
-
Ya soft cock retarded American.
I'm British, and my cock is rock hard. As you well know Charlie boy.
Well if ya want to get places in this world Jimmy. Try bathing with soap. Its not the enemy you know Ya @*%# stinking POM
-
I was a non tubber once me self ,Till I found a warmer climate ;D
-
Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.
Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. (http://)
It is pretty important to note the assumptions the video makes and also to note that we do not know if it is true. Was the vehicle coming over the horizon? We don't know. Or was it that the vehicle became distinguishable from its plume? We don't know.
You should really question the spoon fed bull crap you are served.
-
Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.
Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. (http://)
It is pretty important to note the assumptions the video makes and also to note that we do not know if it is true. Was the vehicle coming over the horizon? We don't know. Or was it that the vehicle became distinguishable from its plume? We don't know.
You should really question the spoon fed bull crap you are served.
Its footage of a documented world land speed record. It wasn't shot for any other purpose then to record the event . What's your problem ,cant come to terms when faced with reality.
-
Reads like a made up character assassination to me Geoff .
I agree Charles. Only one problem; it's not "made up". Anders Bjorkman is a well-known fraudster and liar.
He and his "theories" have all been totally debunked at THIS (http://bit.ly/1c7DbyV) site—the JREF Forum.
-
Reads like a made up character assassination to me Geoff .
I agree Charles. Only one problem; it's not "made up". Anders Bjorkman is a well-known fraudster and liar.
He and his "theories" have all been totally debunked at THIS (http://bit.ly/1c7DbyV) site—the JREF Forum.
well I ran Anders Bjorkman name in the sites search. Nothing came up .Could you direct me to the particular page, that provides the debunking.
-
Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.
Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. (http://)
It is pretty important to note the assumptions the video makes and also to note that we do not know if it is true. Was the vehicle coming over the horizon? We don't know. Or was it that the vehicle became distinguishable from its plume? We don't know.
You should really question the spoon fed bull crap you are served.
Its footage of a documented world land speed record. It wasn't shot for any other purpose then to record the event . What's your problem ,cant come to terms when faced with reality.
Thanks for totally missing the point. Who other than the person making the FE aviation video said that car was coming over the horizon? I do not see any reason to assume that that is what was happening in the video, and it was stated that it was an assumption. If that is not true, the entire debunking falls apart.
My take is that the car was not over the horizon, and was not distinguishable from the dust plume behind it. Considering both the vehicle and the dust plume have some heavy gray tinting in the footage, I think my explanation is much more likely.
If I am to assume that the vehicle is cresting the horizon, then why does the video poster ignore all the frames as the car gets apparently bigger and bigger and just skip right to when it is "fully visible"? As to the dust plume, why is an exact mirror image out of place, when there is an obvious mirage in place?
The video is crap no matter how you look at it.
-
Well I ran Anders Bjorkman name in the sites search. Nothing came up .Could you direct me to the particular page, that provides the debunking.
This link lists some of the forum entries about Bjorkman: http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=anders+bjorkman (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=anders+bjorkman)
-
Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.
Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. (http://)
Piss off with the 911 crap charlie, there are loads of other forums for morons to talk about that drivel.
Take it up with your mate Geoff he dragged it in to the thread . Ya soft cock retarded American.
Apparently CB has a problem talking to guys that don't have a boner for him. ;)
-
Charlie I bet someone comes up with a bomb full of jet fuel just for buildings.
Well if you wish to believe the official story of 911. That's your prerogative.Do I have an opinion on the events of that day & who was responsible, No!. However I'm not that naive to believe planes bought those buildings crashing down.
steering away from that subject. What's your take on this you tube clip.
from a spherical earth prospective. (http://)
Piss off with the 911 crap charlie, there are loads of other forums for morons to talk about that drivel.
Take it up with your mate Geoff he dragged it in to the thread . Ya soft cock retarded American.
Apparently CB has a problem talking to guys that don't have a boner for him. ;)
Now that is funny. lol Yes I'm gay ,I'v been a lesbian my whole life. ;)
-
Well I ran Anders Bjorkman name in the sites search. Nothing came up .Could you direct me to the particular page, that provides the debunking.
This link lists some of the forum entries about Bjorkman: http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=anders+bjorkman (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=anders+bjorkman)
What a bunch of loses bag him out on a forum.Huh dont see your point Geoff. His not a civil engineer. His a maritime engineer. Does that make him a fraud ?
-
Everybody, please stop making personal attacks. Thanks.
-
It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.
LOL after 23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.
So what is the problem with the space shuttle losing 3 of its 5 engines at 23 miles? Are you sure the other 3 engines can't get it to escape velocity?
Maybe to help you understand rockets you could buy Kerbal Space Program. It's on Steam. This way you could launch your own rockets and see why multiple stage setups work better.
-
Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.
Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top.
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!
-
Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.
Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top.
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!
There are some residents of NYC who would be inclined to disagree with you and possibly punch you in the face. Maybe you'd like to visit some of the witnesses and demand that they swear on a bible that they actually saw what they say they did?
-
Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.
Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top.
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!
I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.
And so why are you arguing that the Moon is too hot for astronauts? Didn't you just say they never went there?
But if you want to go that route fine. Are you really saying that it's impossible to insulate something for 200 C? I can take a hot dish out of a 200C oven with nothing but my silicone rubber oven mitts, which don't melt at that temperature. The space suits had considerably more protection. I don't see what the problem is here.
-
It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.
LOL after 23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.
What? Why? Gravity gets weaker as you get further away from the Earth. You could decrease acceleration at a certain point and make it there; doubly so because of the gravitational pull of the moon which will dominate the tidal force at a certain distance.
I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be throwing darts at a dartboard blind-folded hoping you hit a bullseye.
-
The blindfolded dart throwing, or shotgun approach, they're all part of Thread Derailing 101. Possibly the only class Charles ever passed.
-
Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.
Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top.
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!
I can put my hand 1 cm from an oven that is at 1000 degrees C. Believe it or not there are things called heat shields.
As for the rest of your post. You sure like to live in a fantasy world. You apparently have 1 million euros in it. I bet you could run into sceptic in your world.
-
The blindfolded dart throwing, or shotgun approach, they're all part of Thread Derailing 101. Possibly the only class Charles ever passed.
Isn't Thread Derailing 101 taught by the eminent Professor Jroa ?
-
Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.
Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top.
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!
Bollocks.
-
It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.
LOL after 23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.
So what is the problem with the space shuttle losing 3 of its 5 engines at 23 miles? Are you sure the other 3 engines can't get it to escape velocity?
Maybe to help you understand rockets you could buy Kerbal Space Program. It's on Steam. This way you could launch your own rockets and see why multiple stage setups work better.
Fuel !!! The amount required where is it ? & where is the large tank that is required ?
-
The fuel is in that big tank.
-
Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.
Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top.
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!
I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.
And so why are you arguing that the Moon is too hot for astronauts? Didn't you just say they never went there?
But if you want to go that route fine. Are you really saying that it's impossible to insulate something for 200 C? I can take a hot dish out of a 200C oven with nothing but my silicone rubber oven mitts, which don't melt at that temperature. The space suits had considerably more protection. I don't see what the problem is here.
Dehydration.
-
It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.
LOL after 23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.
So what is the problem with the space shuttle losing 3 of its 5 engines at 23 miles? Are you sure the other 3 engines can't get it to escape velocity?
Maybe to help you understand rockets you could buy Kerbal Space Program. It's on Steam. This way you could launch your own rockets and see why multiple stage setups work better.
Fuel !!! The amount required where is it ? & where is the large tank that is required ?
What do you think is in the big tank?
-
It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.
LOL after 23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.
What? Why? Gravity gets weaker as you get further away from the Earth. You could decrease acceleration at a certain point and make it there; doubly so because of the gravitational pull of the moon which will dominate the tidal force at a certain distance.
I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be throwing darts at a dartboard blind-folded hoping you hit a bullseye.
I have no idea what I'm talking about.LOL I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory I'm glade you said THEORY. I understand the theory superman cant tolerate Kryptonite. The ore form of a radioactive element from Superman's home planet of Krypton & people will tell you its a fact, superman cant tolerate Kryptonite. But its not reality!!! its made up fantasy !!!. The altitude they claim the shuttle climes to, is total nonsense. a fantasy!!!!.
-
It's a ballistic trajectory. Like a bullet. Impart enough force in a relatively short time and it has enough velocity to make the rest of the journey, especially once in space where there is no drag force. This is why escape velocity even exists as a concept.
LOL after 23mile 121,440 ft. your not even half way & every ft farther requires more acceleration.
What? Why? Gravity gets weaker as you get further away from the Earth. You could decrease acceleration at a certain point and make it there; doubly so because of the gravitational pull of the moon which will dominate the tidal force at a certain distance.
I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be throwing darts at a dartboard blind-folded hoping you hit a bullseye.
I have no idea what I'm talking about.LOL I have no problem with critiques by people who understand the theory I'm glade you said THEORY. I understand the theory superman cant tolerate Kryptonite. The ore form of a radioactive element from Superman's home planet of Krypton & people will tell you its a fact, superman cant tolerate Kryptonite. But its not reality!!! its made up fantasy !!!. The altitude they claim the shuttle climes to, is total nonsense. a fantasy!!!!.
Literally the only part of this that makes sense is where you equivocate on the word theory, again showing you have no idea what you are talking about.
Maybe you can explain what physical laws are being broken by ballistic trajectories, and do so in the mathematical language rather than the cock-up that is your english.
-
I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.
If it has been done, you just have to copy/paste the answer and send it to me and you'll get €1 M.
I show the numbers in my article linked to above and find it is impossible, i.e. you get too heavy.
Only way to go to the Moon with a space ship seems to go there one way or another and then fill up your space ship fuel tank on the Moon in order to travel on.
Did Buzz do that? No! He lied about it. I link to this famous press conference in my article and it is quite obvious Buzz & Co are lying.
It was great fun though - cheating like that. Quite amusing! A great show! Imagine president Nixon welcoming Buzz & Co back on Earth on a war ship south of Hawaii (if they ever were there?). 5 years later Nixon resigned - he had been lying about a lot of other things.
If Nixon could lie, then Buzz could too.
-
I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.
If it has been done, you just have to copy/paste the answer and send it to me and you'll get €1 M.
You haven't got €1 M.
Otherwise show evidence of it in an escrow account, ready to be paid.
If you do want to set up a challenge with a prize, then you will need some kind of jury to rule on whether the conditions have been met for payment - I suggest 5 Phd engineers working in accredited academic positions.
You will also need to write down exactly what the conditions are to win your fantasy €1 M. You will then need an independent lawyer to oversee the process, handling the cash transfer etc.
Otherwise your €1 M is just empty dick waving, and you should shut the fuck up about it.
-
I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.
If it has been done, you just have to copy/paste the answer and send it to me and you'll get €1 M.
I show the numbers in my article linked to above and find it is impossible, i.e. you get too heavy.
Only way to go to the Moon with a space ship seems to go there one way or another and then fill up your space ship fuel tank on the Moon in order to travel on.
Did Buzz do that? No! He lied about it. I link to this famous press conference in my article and it is quite obvious Buzz & Co are lying.
It was great fun though - cheating like that. Quite amusing! A great show! Imagine president Nixon welcoming Buzz & Co back on Earth on a war ship south of Hawaii (if they ever were there?). 5 years later Nixon resigned - he had been lying about a lot of other things.
If Nixon could lie, then Buzz could too.
Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used. Also the burn times you estimated.
-
Your "challenges" are ludricrous and have nothing to do with the reality they purport to refute, obviously, but again, this 911 truther crap has nothing to do with Buzz Aldrin and the Apollo program. There are plenty of threads where this might be an appropriate topic, but this isn't one of them.
Hm, my second Björkman (former Heiwa) Challenge has everything to do with Buzz. Buzz needed fuel (energy) to land on and later take off from the Moon and return and land on the Earth and ... he didn't have it. Actually nobody can even walk around on the sunny side of the Moon in its vaccuum as the ground and the space suit is 200°C hot and just boils the person inside to death.
I have asked many friends of Buzz' at NASA to explain how he survived ... and to collect €1 M and all have failed. Poor sods.
The first Björkman Challenge is about structural dynamic damage analysis and has little to do with Buzz of course. There I offer €1 M to any terrorist that can destroy the strong, solid bottom of a tower by flying a plane into the weak top.
Noone has managed it. The footage seen live on US TV of it was just produced by the same people that filmed Buzz on the Moon.
Small world, indeed!
I see, the second challenge is to calculate the fuel to go to the Moon. It's been done. You saying it hasn't or that it's impossible is irrelevant. Show me the numbers that say it's impossible.
And so why are you arguing that the Moon is too hot for astronauts? Didn't you just say they never went there?
But if you want to go that route fine. Are you really saying that it's impossible to insulate something for 200 C? I can take a hot dish out of a 200C oven with nothing but my silicone rubber oven mitts, which don't melt at that temperature. The space suits had considerably more protection. I don't see what the problem is here.
Dehydration.
Please give kindly. Together we can find the cure for dehydr- IT'S WATER FFS
-
There is no water on the moon. Checkmate!
-
There is no water on the moon. Checkmate!
That's crazy. There are seas on the Moon, duh. ::)
-
There is no water on the moon.
Actually.... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8359744.stm)
-
This whole site is absolute jokes
-
Welcome Murrays mint. One thing to keep in mind is that FED is a board for serious debate, only.
FYI, TFES takes Earth shape most seriously. There are very good reasons to conclude the Earth is flat, as you will discover.
I remind you that RET spans but a snippet in time that has creatively captured many followers via a lock on education. Starting from a young age we are mostly exposed to RET. Look beyond the closed doors and windows of the science lab and you will be surprised.
-
Welcome Murrays mint. One thing to keep in mind is that FED is a board for serious debate, only.
FYI, TFES takes Earth shape most seriously. There are very good reasons to conclude the Earth is flat, as you will discover.
I remind you that RET spans but a snippet in time that has creatively captured many followers via a lock on education. Starting from a young age we are mostly exposed to RET. Look beyond the closed doors and windows of the science lab and you will be surprised.
Here are some other things that the world's educators expose us to starting from a young age:
1) 2+2=4
2) Water is made of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom
3) The universe is billions of years old
And there is a good reason why we are taught these things, which happens to be the same reason we are taught the earth is round. It's because... well, no, I'll let you figure it out.
-
Welcome Murrays mint. One thing to keep in mind is that FED is a board for serious debate, only.
FYI, TFES takes Earth shape most seriously. There are very good reasons to conclude the Earth is flat, as you will discover.
I remind you that RET spans but a snippet in time that has creatively captured many followers via a lock on education. Starting from a young age we are mostly exposed to RET. Look beyond the closed doors and windows of the science lab and you will be surprised.
I don't see how you can seriously say this when, during a time when the RCC had an iron grip on "education" in large parts of the world (which was practically church sanctioned indoctrination), and their position was that the Earth was the center of the Universe, somehow the revolutionary ideas of Giordano Bruno, Copernicus and Galileo managed to take hold. Not to mention that the idea of a Round Earth went back to Aristotle at least.
-
Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used. Also the burn times you estimated.
No, all info is in my article linked to on page 3. I just copy/paste Buzz & Co's own story available on the Internet. Buzz said (lied) he landed on the Moon but that he had difficulties finding a flat landing place and almost ran out of fuel!!! He had only seconds of fuel left in the space ship, etc. Of course they had a second space ship/rocket/fuel with them to get off the Moon but he could not use that fuel.
Evidently you could not fill up any fuel tanks on the Moon. You had to carry all the fuel with you ... and ... it was not possible. So Buzz and his bozz president Nixon faked it.
Just to show off! How clever they were.
Nixon was later caught with his pants down lying about some plumbing he installed somewhere. It was 40 years ago last week.
-
Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used. Also the burn times you estimated.
No, all info is in my article linked to on page 3. I just copy/paste Buzz & Co's own story available on the Internet. Buzz said (lied) he landed on the Moon but that he had difficulties finding a flat landing place and almost ran out of fuel!!! He had only seconds of fuel left in the space ship, etc. Of course they had a second space ship/rocket/fuel with them to get off the Moon but he could not use that fuel.
Evidently you could not fill up any fuel tanks on the Moon. You had to carry all the fuel with you ... and ... it was not possible. So Buzz and his bozz president Nixon faked it.
Just to show off! How clever they were.
Nixon was later caught with his pants down lying about some plumbing he installed somewhere. It was 40 years ago last week.
You ever think that there were seconds of fuel left that was allocated for landing yet still had fuel left allocated for lift off from the moon? Or that maybe the landing thrusters were a separate system than what was used to lift off from the moon?
-
Welcome Murrays mint. One thing to keep in mind is that FED is a board for serious debate, only.
FYI, TFES takes Earth shape most seriously. There are very good reasons to conclude the Earth is flat, as you will discover.
I remind you that RET spans but a snippet in time that has creatively captured many followers via a lock on education. Starting from a young age we are mostly exposed to RET. Look beyond the closed doors and windows of the science lab and you will be surprised.
As a round earther I take your point about the flat earthers taking the shape of the earth seriously in these forums gotham. I usually comment and/or respond with that in mind, but despite that, certain flat earthers here seem intent on disrupting any sort of ongoing intelligent debate. And I'm sure you know exactly whom I mean LOL. In fact I was disappointed that my "Moebius band within a toroidal atmospheric model" didn't draw more comment from the flat earthers here as a possible solution to a few existing flat earth problems.
I have to take you to task however when you claim that the round earth "theory" spans but a "snippet" in time. The earliest evidence for a spherical earth comes from ancient Greek sources; Pythagoras first theorised that the earth was spherical and that it revolved around the sun around 500BCE or more than 2,500 years ago. Hardly a snippet in time I would've thought.
The reason that we're taught that the earth is spherical from an early age at school is simply because it's the scientific status quo, and has been for at least 400 years. Your implication that the sciences are closeted behind closed doors is without any viable evidence. I think you may be confusing religion with science? Science is anything but a closed shop; it's continually revisiting and revising its own theories as time passes—and our knowledge of our universe increases accordingly.
Whereas the flat earthers seem mostly to reference the outdated, pseudo-scientific notions of a lay preacher who wrote a 16-page pamphlet 150 years ago—a mere snippet in time some would say.
-
Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used. Also the burn times you estimated.
No, all info is in my article linked to on page 3. I just copy/paste Buzz & Co's own story available on the Internet. Buzz said (lied) he landed on the Moon but that he had difficulties finding a flat landing place and almost ran out of fuel!!! He had only seconds of fuel left in the space ship, etc. Of course they had a second space ship/rocket/fuel with them to get off the Moon but he could not use that fuel.
Evidently you could not fill up any fuel tanks on the Moon. You had to carry all the fuel with you ... and ... it was not possible. So Buzz and his bozz president Nixon faked it.
Just to show off! How clever they were.
Nixon was later caught with his pants down lying about some plumbing he installed somewhere. It was 40 years ago last week.
Have you had a blow to the head recently?
-
If we compare sceptimatic to breakfast, then Heiwa is the lunch.
-
Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used. Also the burn times you estimated.
No, all info is in my article linked to on page 3. I just copy/paste Buzz & Co's own story available on the Internet. Buzz said (lied) he landed on the Moon but that he had difficulties finding a flat landing place and almost ran out of fuel!!! He had only seconds of fuel left in the space ship, etc. Of course they had a second space ship/rocket/fuel with them to get off the Moon but he could not use that fuel.
Evidently you could not fill up any fuel tanks on the Moon. You had to carry all the fuel with you ... and ... it was not possible. So Buzz and his bozz president Nixon faked it.
Just to show off! How clever they were.
Nixon was later caught with his pants down lying about some plumbing he installed somewhere. It was 40 years ago last week.
I will get on the bandwagon: this is one of the most vapid refutations of the Apollo landings I have ever read. It does not even merit a discussion of the truth of the matter because the "argument" is so full if holes. I am beginning to think all you have going for you is your sideshow "€1M" challenges. I am tempted to track down a physicist to do the calculation just so I can sue you you when you don't pay.
-
Welcome Murrays mint. One thing to keep in mind is that FED is a board for serious debate, only.
FYI, TFES takes Earth shape most seriously. There are very good reasons to conclude the Earth is flat, as you will discover.
I remind you that RET spans but a snippet in time that has creatively captured many followers via a lock on education. Starting from a young age we are mostly exposed to RET. Look beyond the closed doors and windows of the science lab and you will be surprised.
Well I'd be amazed if The Flat Earth Society didn't take the earth's shape seriously... You've built a whole society around it.
That snippet in time is over 2000 years, compared to our time on this planet I'd certainly say that's more than a snippet.
I will try my best to debate in a serious manner but honestly, I had no idea people genuinely still believed this sort of thing, I'm quite stunned.
So you say there are some very good reasons to conclude the earth is flat... I would love to hear some of these!
-
Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used. Also the burn times you estimated.
No, all info is in my article linked to on page 3. I just copy/paste Buzz & Co's own story available on the Internet. Buzz said (lied) he landed on the Moon but that he had difficulties finding a flat landing place and almost ran out of fuel!!! He had only seconds of fuel left in the space ship, etc. Of course they had a second space ship/rocket/fuel with them to get off the Moon but he could not use that fuel.
Evidently you could not fill up any fuel tanks on the Moon. You had to carry all the fuel with you ... and ... it was not possible. So Buzz and his bozz president Nixon faked it.
Just to show off! How clever they were.
Nixon was later caught with his pants down lying about some plumbing he installed somewhere. It was 40 years ago last week.
I will get on the bandwagon: this is one of the most vapid refutations of the Apollo landings I have ever read. It does not even merit a discussion of the truth of the matter because the "argument" is so full if holes. I am beginning to think all you have going for you is your sideshow "€1M" challenges. I am tempted to track down a physicist to do the calculation just so I can sue you you when you don't pay.
Yer its just crazy talk , thinking any Government would fake a moon landing & not spend all that collected tax payers money on a real landing instead of a ten year war . (http://)
-
Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used. Also the burn times you estimated.
No, all info is in my article linked to on page 3. I just copy/paste Buzz & Co's own story available on the Internet. Buzz said (lied) he landed on the Moon but that he had difficulties finding a flat landing place and almost ran out of fuel!!! He had only seconds of fuel left in the space ship, etc. Of course they had a second space ship/rocket/fuel with them to get off the Moon but he could not use that fuel.
Evidently you could not fill up any fuel tanks on the Moon. You had to carry all the fuel with you ... and ... it was not possible. So Buzz and his bozz president Nixon faked it.
Just to show off! How clever they were.
Nixon was later caught with his pants down lying about some plumbing he installed somewhere. It was 40 years ago last week.
So you have no reason to think it's impossible to get to the moon without running out of fuel, and instead just made up the claim. Got it.
-
Well I'd be amazed if The Flat Earth Society didn't take the earth's shape seriously
Prepare to be amazed!
... You've built a whole society around it.
Which consists of...?
-
Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used. Also the burn times you estimated.
No, all info is in my article linked to on page 3. I just copy/paste Buzz & Co's own story available on the Internet. Buzz said (lied) he landed on the Moon but that he had difficulties finding a flat landing place and almost ran out of fuel!!! He had only seconds of fuel left in the space ship, etc. Of course they had a second space ship/rocket/fuel with them to get off the Moon but he could not use that fuel.
Evidently you could not fill up any fuel tanks on the Moon. You had to carry all the fuel with you ... and ... it was not possible. So Buzz and his bozz president Nixon faked it.
Just to show off! How clever they were.
Nixon was later caught with his pants down lying about some plumbing he installed somewhere. It was 40 years ago last week.
I will get on the bandwagon: this is one of the most vapid refutations of the Apollo landings I have ever read. It does not even merit a discussion of the truth of the matter because the "argument" is so full if holes. I am beginning to think all you have going for you is your sideshow "€1M" challenges. I am tempted to track down a physicist to do the calculation just so I can sue you you when you don't pay.
Yer its just crazy talk , thinking any Government would fake a moon landing & not spend all that collected tax payers money on a real landing instead of a ten year war . (http://)
Nah mate. I never said crazy, I said vapid. Claiming that the moon landing is unbelievable because of a sound bite talking about fuel levels is about as superficial as you can get and still be on topic.
However, you sarcastic incredulity is -very- persuasive.
-
Can you please copy/paste your calculations? I do not see them in the link. I'm most interested in the thrust per engine you used and the efficiency of the engines that you used. Also the burn times you estimated.
No, all info is in my article linked to on page 3. I just copy/paste Buzz & Co's own story available on the Internet. Buzz said (lied) he landed on the Moon but that he had difficulties finding a flat landing place and almost ran out of fuel!!! He had only seconds of fuel left in the space ship, etc. Of course they had a second space ship/rocket/fuel with them to get off the Moon but he could not use that fuel.
Evidently you could not fill up any fuel tanks on the Moon. You had to carry all the fuel with you ... and ... it was not possible. So Buzz and his bozz president Nixon faked it.
Just to show off! How clever they were.
Nixon was later caught with his pants down lying about some plumbing he installed somewhere. It was 40 years ago last week.
I will get on the bandwagon: this is one of the most vapid refutations of the Apollo landings I have ever read. It does not even merit a discussion of the truth of the matter because the "argument" is so full if holes. I am beginning to think all you have going for you is your sideshow "€1M" challenges. I am tempted to track down a physicist to do the calculation just so I can sue you you when you don't pay.
Yer its just crazy talk , thinking any Government would fake a moon landing & not spend all that collected tax payers money on a real landing instead of a ten year war . (http://)
Nah mate. I never said crazy, I said vapid. Claiming that the moon landing is unbelievable because of a sound bite talking about fuel levels is about as superficial as you can get and still be on topic.
However, your sarcastic incredulity is -very- persuasive.
Not nearly as persuasive as the retarded meaning-seeking behavior people display when relating "The Shining" to the moon landings.
-
I will get on the bandwagon: this is one of the most vapid refutations of the Apollo landings I have ever read. It does not even merit a discussion of the truth of the matter because the "argument" is so full if holes. I am beginning to think all you have going for you is your sideshow "€1M" challenges. I am tempted to track down a physicist to do the calculation just so I can sue you you when you don't pay.
Welcome on the wagon. Most people find my varied article about Buzz & Co interesting and tasteful and have not find anything wrong in it. Some have tried to win the €1M Challenge but so far all have failed. So, pls track down a physicist to do the calculations for you. You probably also need a space ship designer and a rocket engine engineer to assist. Easiest ist to just copy/paste the Apollo design (if you can find it) but it is >50 years old. Better is to use a later, more fuel efficient and comfortable model.
Only problem is that it doesn't work either. Human space travel is simply impossible.
You have to use robots and even then it is extremely difficult. It is all a question of gravity. It is a tough force to balance or overcome in space. On flat Earth it is much easier.
-
I will get on the bandwagon: this is one of the most vapid refutations of the Apollo landings I have ever read. It does not even merit a discussion of the truth of the matter because the "argument" is so full if holes. I am beginning to think all you have going for you is your sideshow "€1M" challenges. I am tempted to track down a physicist to do the calculation just so I can sue you you when you don't pay.
Welcome on the wagon. Most people find my varied article about Buzz & Co interesting and tasteful and have not find anything wrong in it. Some have tried to win the €1M Challenge but so far all have failed. So, pls track down a physicist to do the calculations for you. You probably also need a space ship designer and a rocket engine engineer to assist. Easiest ist to just copy/paste the Apollo design (if you can find it) but it is >50 years old. Better is to use a later, more fuel efficient and comfortable model.
Only problem is that it doesn't work either. Human space travel is simply impossible.
You have to use robots and even then it is extremely difficult. It is all a question of gravity. It is a tough force to balance or overcome in space. On flat Earth it is much easier.
So who decides the outcome of the challenge? You? You don't think that you are a bit biased do you? With you having a lot of money on the line and all. So why not have an impartial judge decide if space travel is possible?
-
You and your website are just full of opinions, nothing more.
-
You haven't got €1M.
-
I will get on the bandwagon: this is one of the most vapid refutations of the Apollo landings I have ever read. It does not even merit a discussion of the truth of the matter because the "argument" is so full if holes. I am beginning to think all you have going for you is your sideshow "€1M" challenges. I am tempted to track down a physicist to do the calculation just so I can sue you you when you don't pay.
Welcome on the wagon. Most people find my varied article about Buzz & Co interesting and tasteful and have not find anything wrong in it. Some have tried to win the €1M Challenge but so far all have failed. So, pls track down a physicist to do the calculations for you. You probably also need a space ship designer and a rocket engine engineer to assist. Easiest ist to just copy/paste the Apollo design (if you can find it) but it is >50 years old. Better is to use a later, more fuel efficient and comfortable model.
Only problem is that it doesn't work either. Human space travel is simply impossible.
You have to use robots and even then it is extremely difficult. It is all a question of gravity. It is a tough force to balance or overcome in space. On flat Earth it is much easier.
Why should it be easier on a FE. You would have to overcome the UA, which they claim is equivalent to gravity (pro-tip: its not).
-
So who decides the outcome of the challenge? You?
Yes. But you can appeal at the TGI Nice. French law is applied.
-
Why should it be easier on a FE.
All humans are familar with FE since birth. Space 400+ kilometer above FE is something else! You can get there with a lot of effort BUT on your return to FE you burn up or crash on FE. Gravity! Very strong. Better stay on FE. I explain it in my article. See page 3 of this thread.
-
Why should it be easier on a FE.
All humans are familar with FE since birth. Space 400+ kilometer above FE is something else! You can get there with a lot of effort BUT on your return to FE you burn up or crash on FE. Gravity! Very strong. Better stay on FE. I explain it in my article. See page 3 of this thread.
Ok... You said that space travel was easier on a FE. I asked why and that was your explanation? If you ever wonder in the middle of the night, "Why is everyone against me?"; remember this thread and despair. In the meantime you can either answer my question or silently slink back to the paranoid corner of the universe you inhabit never to be heard from again.
-
Ok... You said that space travel was easier on a FE. I asked why and that was your explanation? If you ever wonder in the middle of the night, "Why is everyone against me?"; remember this thread and despair. In the meantime you can either answer my question or silently slink back to the paranoid corner of the universe you inhabit never to be heard from again.
May I remind you topic is the brainwashed Buzz. Buzz is just a simple lying scoundrel. Are you related?
-
Ok... You said that space travel was easier on a FE. I asked why and that was your explanation? If you ever wonder in the middle of the night, "Why is everyone against me?"; remember this thread and despair. In the meantime you can either answer my question or silently slink back to the paranoid corner of the universe you inhabit never to be heard from again.
May I remind you topic is the brainwashed Buzz. Buzz is just a simple lying scoundrel. Are you related?
You chose the unfortunate third option of continuing to blather... Another defeat for the FES.
-
Why should it be easier on a FE.
All humans are familar with FE since birth. Space 400+ kilometer above FE is something else! You can get there with a lot of effort BUT on your return to FE you burn up or crash on FE. Gravity! Very strong. Better stay on FE. I explain it in my article. See page 3 of this thread.
If gravity is so strong, why can I defeat gravity by simply jumping?
-
If gravity is so strong, why can I defeat gravity by simply jumping?
Gravity is a force applied on you all the time. If you yourself can apply an opposite force to gravity ... all the time ... you will float or fly. Jumping on FE is just a temporary force applied a short time after which you are back on FE, where FE applies the opposite force so you stay on FE. Basic. Buzz (topic) never understood it and had to lie and cheat all his life after his imaginary Moon trip.
-
This dude has a bad flat cookie habit.
-
Jumping on FE is just a temporary force applied a short time after which you are back on FE, where FE applies the opposite force so you stay on FE.
I can't believe this guy Heiwa (AKA Anders Björkman—Google it) has infected this forum with his loony tunes notions. He pops up all over the place proudly parading his scientific ignorance like a badge of honour, and hasn't yet realised that 99% of the rest of the world spend most of their time laughing hysterically as they (if so inclined) wade through the copious amounts of pseudo-scientific drivel he posts across the interwebs.
He's one of the first guys I'd think of if someone wanted to suggest a successor to sceptimatic or Charles Bloomington LOL.
-
I can't believe this guy Heiwa (AKA Anders Björkman—Google it) ...
Well, you just have to study my web pages more carefully and soon you will understand that I am 100% serious. I evidently publish all my findings under my own name and do not hide behind funny signatures. I also offer €1M to anybody showing how a small top of a structure can crush the big bottom of same structure by gravity force - the famous Björkman Challenges - Google it. Structural intact design and dynamic damage analysises are one of my specialities. Interesting stuff.
-
I can't believe this guy Heiwa (AKA Anders Björkman—Google it) ...
Well, you just have to study my web pages more carefully and soon you will understand that I am 100% serious. I evidently publish all my findings under my own name and do not hide behind funny signatures. I also offer €1M to anybody showing how a small top of a structure can crush the big bottom of same structure by gravity force - the famous Björkman Challenges - Google it. Structural intact design and dynamic damage analysises are one of my specialities. Interesting stuff.
You actually claim that a pancake collapse (aka progressive collapse) is impossible, all evidence to the contrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse). Shall I send you my mailing address for the €1M?
-
I can't believe this guy Heiwa (AKA Anders Björkman—Google it) ...
Well, you just have to study my web pages more carefully and soon you will understand that I am 100% serious. I evidently publish all my findings under my own name and do not hide behind funny signatures. I also offer €1M to anybody showing how a small top of a structure can crush the big bottom of same structure by gravity force - the famous Björkman Challenges - Google it. Structural intact design and dynamic damage analysises are one of my specialities. Interesting stuff.
You actually claim that a pancake collapse (aka progressive collapse) is impossible, all evidence to the contrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse). Shall I send you my mailing address for the €1M?
Can I get a cut of that money?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=feb_1297545164 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=feb_1297545164)
and
Top-Down building collapse 2 (http://#)
-
Lets go to the bahamas brohim.
-
You actually claim that a pancake collapse (aka progressive collapse) is impossible, all evidence to the contrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse). Shall I send you my mailing address for the €1M?
Your are miles off topic of course as we discuss Buzz' lies about returning to FE. No, I just claim - the famous Björkman Challenges - that a (small) top part of a structure cannot crush the (bigger) bottom part of same structure by gravity (the top is dropped on the bottom) and if you can prove the opposite, I pay €1M. You find all details about it on the net - Google.
Controlled demolition of concrete buildings on FE destroying the bottom part first using explosives and removing support allowing the top to drop into the rubble on FE has nothing to do with my findings. Pls, try to read and understand what I say and start another FE thread about it, if you want.
-
Moving the goal posts, are we?
-
Moving the goal posts, are we?
Did you expect any less?
-
Moving the goal posts, are we?
Did you expect any less?
With a million euros on the line, I guess not.
-
No, I just claim - the famous Björkman Challenges - that a (small) top part of a structure cannot crush the (bigger) bottom part of same structure by gravity (the top is dropped on the bottom) and if you can prove the opposite, I pay €1M. You find all details about it on the net...
Ha ha... this is so funny. This poor delusional dimwit seems to truly think his self-styled "Bjorkman Challenge" is regarded as a legitimate offer, when everybody treats it with the same levity as a Bozo the clown pratfall. The only reason it's "famous" is as a source of constant amusement if you're having a down day LOL.
He's obviously unaware that his silly challenge has been shown to be fraudulent a dozen times on a hundred other forums. Bjorkman has not once satisfactorily proved that he even has a million Euros ($1.4 million) to honour his challenge anyway—because he doesn't. His challenge is just a hollow arguing point that he uses in an attempt to imply that he's got absolute confidence in the pseudo-scientific drivel he fills numerous forums with.
I'm not even sure as to why he's repeatedly posting off-topic comments here anyway, rambling on about the way tall buildings falling over ad nauseam.
Maybe if we just ignore him he'll go away and annoy some other people? ::)
-
Controlled demolition of concrete buildings on FE destroying the bottom part first using explosives and removing support allowing the top to drop into the rubble on FE has nothing to do with my findings.
I'm sorry but I see no evidence that explosives were used in any of those buildings to destroy the bottom part first.
-
Ha ha... this is so funny. This poor delusional dimwit seems to truly think his self-styled "Bjorkman Challenge" is regarded as a legitimate offer, when everybody treats it with the same levity as a Bozo the clown pratfall. ...
Topic is Brainwashed Buzz and why he is lying. Buzz is just a victim of US Ministry of Love that invents things that people must believe in, e.g. atomic bombs, human space travel and a bearded arab with a turban sitting in a cave ordering twenty other arabs to hijack airplanes in USA and flying them into buildings. To be politically correct in USA (and allied countries) you must not only believe the US Love propaganda, you must spell it out. Like Buzz. I just show on my web site that Buzz is lying as human space travel is physically impossible. Heat shields on command capsules to land does not work. Like atomic bombs! Or buildings/structures collapsing from tops. And because I am rich, I offer €1M to anybody showing that I am wrong. Evidently US Love lovers are getting upset but I just feel sorry for them.
-
I can't believe this guy Heiwa (AKA Anders Björkman—Google it) ...
Well, you just have to study my web pages more carefully and soon you will understand that I am 100% serious. I evidently publish all my findings under my own name and do not hide behind funny signatures. I also offer €1M to anybody showing how a small top of a structure can crush the big bottom of same structure by gravity force - the famous Björkman Challenges - Google it. Structural intact design and dynamic damage analysises are one of my specialities. Interesting stuff.
You actually claim that a pancake collapse (aka progressive collapse) is impossible, all evidence to the contrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse). Shall I send you my mailing address for the €1M?
Rama Set your kidding right ? You surly cant think Steel H beams concertina ?
-
I can't believe this guy Heiwa (AKA Anders Björkman—Google it) ...
Well, you just have to study my web pages more carefully and soon you will understand that I am 100% serious. I evidently publish all my findings under my own name and do not hide behind funny signatures. I also offer €1M to anybody showing how a small top of a structure can crush the big bottom of same structure by gravity force - the famous Björkman Challenges - Google it. Structural intact design and dynamic damage analysises are one of my specialities. Interesting stuff.
You actually claim that a pancake collapse (aka progressive collapse) is impossible, all evidence to the contrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse). Shall I send you my mailing address for the €1M?
Rama Set your kidding right ? You surly cant think Steel H beams concertina ?
They do when they are hot. The history channel made a claim along the line that if the steel used has 0.5% more chromium, then the towers wouldn't have collapsed.
-
I just show on my web site that Buzz is lying as human space travel is physically impossible. Heat shields on command capsules to land does not work.
No, you don't show anything. All you do is make claims of incredulity, like heat shields don't work. It isn't enough to claim something, you need to explain why things like heat shields don't work like NASA and SpaceX claim.
-
No, you don't show anything. All you do is make claims of incredulity, like heat shields don't work. It isn't enough to claim something, you need to explain why things like heat shields don't work like NASA and SpaceX claim.
Off topic of course but anyway:
NASA & SpaceX say that their heat shields are made of some secret material that can absorb plenty energy (heat) without melting. SpaceX says it has a patent of the material but ... what it is, is secret. Buzz has said that he saw melted material of the Apollo 11 command module heat shield flowing past a window he was looking through at re-entry 1969. What a story! He lied through his nose.
The heat shield/capsule has also a fantastic aerodynamic design that can reduce speed by friction only in a very thin atmosphere at 100 000 m altitude. The people inside the capsule face backwards at re-entry at 9000 m/s speed, while the capsule bounces up against the atmosphere getting denser, and one way or another a 1969 model computer steers the capsule automatically down to Earth, while speed is reduced to 50 m/s when parachutes are released.
There is evidently no evidence anywhere that all these components work. My conclusion is that it is all really bad science fiction fairy tales. But prove me wrong and earn €1M with my Challenge.
The 46 kg capsule of the Stardust spaceship entered Earth atmosphere at the fantastic speed of 20 000 m/s 2006 and landed intact without heat shield somewhere in Utah a little later. Another fantasy invented by NASA/JPL.
-
Yet another argument from incredulity. Don't you have anything to actually say?
On the topic of heat shields... What is hotter? The surface of a craft on reentry or a blast furnace?
-
No, you don't show anything. All you do is make claims of incredulity, like heat shields don't work. It isn't enough to claim something, you need to explain why things like heat shields don't work like NASA and SpaceX claim.
Off topic of course but anyway:
NASA & SpaceX say that their heat shields are made of some secret material that can absorb plenty energy (heat) without melting.
NASA uses two different kinds of heat shields. Perhaps you should read up on them before you try to disprove them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shield#Space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shield#Space)
SpaceX says it has a patent of the material but ... what it is, is secret.
Who said it was a secret?
Buzz has said that he saw melted material of the Apollo 11 command module heat shield flowing past a window he was looking through at re-entry 1969. What a story! He lied through his nose.
How do you know what Buzz did or did not see? Were you there?
The heat shield/capsule has also a fantastic aerodynamic design that can reduce speed by friction only in a very thin atmosphere at 100 000 m altitude. The people inside the capsule face backwards at re-entry at 9000 m/s speed, while the capsule bounces up against the atmosphere getting denser, and one way or another a 1969 model computer steers the capsule automatically down to Earth, while speed is reduced to 50 m/s when parachutes are released.
There is evidently no evidence anywhere that all these components work. My conclusion is that it is all really bad science fiction fairy tales. But prove me wrong and earn €1M with my Challenge.
How much do you know about aerodynamics? My guess is that it isn't very much.
The 46 kg capsule of the Stardust spaceship entered Earth atmosphere at the fantastic speed of 20 000 m/s 2006 and landed intact without heat shield somewhere in Utah a little later. Another fantasy invented by NASA/JPL.
Huh? Who said there was no heat shield?
Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) was developed at NASA Ames Research Center under the lightweight ceramic ablator development program in the '80s. PICA has the advantages of low density (~ 0.27g/cc) coupled with efficient ablative capability at high heat fluxes making PICA an enabling technology for the Stardust mission. Three cores at key locations were extracted from the forebody heatshield of the Stardust Sample Return Capsule (SRC) post flight and evaluated.
-
AA. Who said it was a secret?
BB. How do you know what Buzz did or did not see? Were you there?
AA. SpaceX. I asked and a secretary told me.
BB. Buzz is quoted on the Internet saying that he saw molten material from the PICA heat shield flowing by the window of the Command Module.
I find re-entries from outer space fascinating. A module or capsule arrives, like a comet, at 9000-20000 m/s velocity and enters Earth atmosphere at 100 000 meter altitude. Evidently the direction is not vertical because then you would hit ground after 11-5 seconds; no you enter almost horisontally and then you bounce up and reach 150 000 meter altitude at reduced speed ... and then you finally drop down and land. I would expect any module or capsule to start rotate forwards around itself at re-entry due to turbulence, etc, and then the heat shield would be useless, but we are told that module/capsule is aerodynamically stable at speeds 0-9000/20000 m/s like a bullet (that rotates sideways) and that the heat shield is always at the front. However, there is no test laboratory that can do tests at speeds Mac 30/60 so what NASA/JPL/SpaceX suggest is just ... SF fantasy.
Nothing to get upset about! Nobody gets hurt and it is quite entertaining. And hero Buzz knows he is just a puppet on a string.
-
AA. Who said it was a secret?
BB. How do you know what Buzz did or did not see? Were you there?
AA. SpaceX. I asked and a secretary told me.
Oh well, it must be true if a secretary said so.
However, there is no test laboratory that can do tests at speeds Mac 30/60 so what NASA/JPL/SpaceX suggest is just ... SF fantasy.
Nothing to get upset about! Nobody gets hurt and it is quite entertaining. And hero Buzz knows he is just a puppet on a string.
Good thing we have this thing called math, and that we also know how aerodynamics work.
-
How much do you know about aerodynamics? My guess is that it isn't very much.
Hydrodynamics was my biz in the 1960's but there was no real money to make in it. I worked in ship model testing tanks in the USA 1968 and Sweden 1969.
The brother Einar Hogner of my father's aunt Ellen Hogner (she was married to the brother Gunnar of my grandfather Eric and she was my godmother) was in the hydrodynamics biz though:
http://ittc.sname.org/proc7/A%20Complementary%20Method%20for%20Evaluating%20Ship%20Wave%20Resistance.pdf (http://ittc.sname.org/proc7/A%20Complementary%20Method%20for%20Evaluating%20Ship%20Wave%20Resistance.pdf)
Little progress has been done since in the hydrodynamics biz, I am sorry to say.
Hydrodynamics study what happens to moving bodies in the interface water/air. Very complicated. Aerodynamics are much simpler - the body just moves in the air.
At a speed of 9000-20000 m/s in air any body (NASA/JPL capsule) will just disintergrate (break into pieces) or burn up, IMHO.
What do you think?
-
But if it is a rigid structure isn't it, by definition, indestructible?
Or wait, hydrodynamics... You mean the dynamics of water from the mop bucket on the floor?
-
AA. Who said it was a secret?
BB. How do you know what Buzz did or did not see? Were you there?
AA. SpaceX. I asked and a secretary told me.
It's nice to know that SpaceX hires secretaries that can keep a secret. ::)
BB. Buzz is quoted on the Internet saying that he saw molten material from the PICA heat shield flowing by the window of the Command Module.
You do realize that's how the heat shield was designed to work, don't you?
I find re-entries from outer space fascinating. A module or capsule arrives, like a comet, at 9000-20000 m/s velocity and enters Earth atmosphere at 100 000 meter altitude.
Or, like a meteor. BTW, do you know how many meteors survive entry into our atmosphere? Quite a few.
Evidently the direction is not vertical because then you would hit ground after 11-5 seconds; no you enter almost horisontally and then you bounce up and reach 150 000 meter altitude at reduced speed ...
Yes, it's good to bleed of some of that excess speed so that you have to dissipate too much heat in one shot.
...and then you finally drop down and land. I would expect any module or capsule to start rotate forwards around itself at re-entry due to turbulence, etc, and then the heat shield would be useless, but we are told that module/capsule is aerodynamically stable at speeds 0-9000/20000 m/s like a bullet (that rotates sideways) and that the heat shield is always at the front.
Ummm... You do realize that a certain amount of stability is due to thrusters on the capsule, don't you?
However, there is no test laboratory that can do tests at speeds Mac 30/60 so what NASA/JPL/SpaceX suggest is just ... SF fantasy.
What makes you think that Mach 30-60 in a very thin atmosphere is all that hard to simulate?
NASA Ames Helps SpaceX Develop Dragon's Heat Shield (http://#ws)
How much do you know about aerodynamics? My guess is that it isn't very much.
Hydrodynamics was my biz in the 1960's but there was no real money to make in it. I worked in ship model testing tanks in the USA 1968 and Sweden 1969.
So, how testing ships in a water tank qualify you to evaluate the aerodynamics of a reentry capsule?
Hydrodynamics study what happens to moving bodies in the interface water/air. Very complicated. Aerodynamics are much simpler - the body just moves in the air.
Says someone who hasn't studied aerodynamics.
At a speed of 9000-20000 m/s in air any body (NASA/JPL capsule) will just disintergrate (break into pieces) or burn up, IMHO.
What do you think?
I think that you have little faith in the abilities of people who have studied aerodynamic and materials sciences.
-
What do you think?
Bjorkman, I think—and have thought—for a long time that you're mentally deranged. According to many reputable sources (which are easy to find on the web if one Googles your name) all accredited scientists think exactly the same.
Your non-existent academic credentials, and your self-ascribed work history are all bogus, and nothing more than the results of a distorted sense of ego, or delusions of grandeur, or maybe incipient lunacy.
I can only suggest (in all seriousness) that you get some sort of psychiatric intervention, as your delusional state of mind will, inevitably, have serious ramifications in later life.
For anybody who'd "like" to read the pseudo-scientific drivel that Bjorkman spews in massive quantities, you can check his site out HERE (http://bit.ly/1Ap0wZD).
Be prepared with a pound of popcorn and a gallon of Coke though... it's a long, long read.
;D
-
What do you think?
Bjorkman, I think—and have thought—for a long time that you're mentally deranged. According to many reputable sources (which are easy to find on the web if one Googles your name) all accredited scientists think exactly the same.
Your non-existent academic credentials, and your self-ascribed work history are all bogus, and nothing more than the results of a distorted sense of ego, or delusions of grandeur, or maybe incipient lunacy.
I can only suggest (in all seriousness) that you get some sort of psychiatric intervention, as your delusional state of mind will, inevitably, have serious ramifications in later life.
For anybody who'd "like" to read the pseudo-scientific drivel that Bjorkman spews in massive quantities, you can check his site out HERE (http://bit.ly/1Ap0wZD).
Be prepared with a pound of popcorn and a gallon of Coke though... it's a long, long read.
;D
Hm - question was on topic, i.e. Buzz arrives at 11 000 m/s speed into Earth atmosphere and I suggest he burns up and dies and cannot land and boast about having visited the Moon. And you change topic and post something else. No respect.
Anyway, we are at the FEF. Just because E appears round seen from e.g. space (where a human cannot go) or on photos taken from space (photos are easy to manipulate), many persons believe there is an RE and ridicule persons suggesting the FE alternative. RE supporters seem blocked in their minds that there are alternative answers to many questions ... and get very upset.
Personally I just feel sorry for Buzz that is lying since 1969 to promote USA being no. 1 in space.
I feel sorry for you too. Your head seems flat and void of anything.
-
Hm - question was on topic, i.e. Buzz arrives at 11 000 m/s speed into Earth atmosphere and I suggest he burns up and dies and cannot land and boast about having visited the Moon.
And I suggest that it's nothing more than an engineering problem. A difficult problem, to be sure, but you have yet to give any reason that it should be an unsolvable one.
-
For anybody who'd like to check out some of the lunatic ideas that Heiwa (AKA Anders Bjorkman) propounds, check out his site HERE (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/).
Be prepared though—you'll have to wade through literally hundreds of pages of utterly absurd pseudo-scientific and pseudo-engineering drivel. Although some of his funnier stuff does lighten up an otherwise boring day.
What's even worse about Heiwa's repeated lies about Buzz Aldrin is the fact that as an academically unqualified, self-described "engineer", Heiwa is attacking Aldrin's legitimate credentials; a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, and a Doctor of Science degree in astronautics from MIT.
On September 9, 2002, Aldrin was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel on the pretext of being interviewed for a Japanese children's television show on the subject of space. When he arrived, Apollo conspiracy proponent Bart Sibrel accosted him with a film crew and demanded he swear on a Bible that the Moon landings were not faked, insisting that Aldrin and others had lied about walking on the Moon. After a brief confrontation, in which Sibrel called him "a coward and a liar", Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw. The police determined that Aldrin was provoked and no charges were filed. Aldrin dedicates a chapter to this incident in his autobiography Magnificent Desolation.
[—Extract BBC NEWS: 21 September, 2002, 07:01 GMT 08:01]
Heiwa is possibly the most renowned (infamous?) multiple-conspiracy theorist on the planet—flat or round LOL.
-
For anybody who'd like to check out some of the lunatic ideas that Heiwa (AKA Anders Bjorkman) propounds, check out his site HERE (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/).
Be prepared though—you'll have to wade through literally hundreds of pages of utterly absurd pseudo-scientific and pseudo-engineering drivel. Although some of his funnier stuff does lighten up an otherwise boring day.
What's even worse about Heiwa's repeated lies about Buzz Aldrin is the fact that as an academically unqualified, self-described "engineer", Heiwa is attacking Aldrin's legitimate credentials; a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, and a Doctor of Science degree in astronautics from MIT.
On September 9, 2002, Aldrin was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel on the pretext of being interviewed for a Japanese children's television show on the subject of space. When he arrived, Apollo conspiracy proponent Bart Sibrel accosted him with a film crew and demanded he swear on a Bible that the Moon landings were not faked, insisting that Aldrin and others had lied about walking on the Moon. After a brief confrontation, in which Sibrel called him "a coward and a liar", Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw. The police determined that Aldrin was provoked and no charges were filed. Aldrin dedicates a chapter to this incident in his autobiography Magnificent Desolation.
[—Extract BBC NEWS: 21 September, 2002, 07:01 GMT 08:01]
Heiwa is possibly the most renowned (infamous?) multiple-conspiracy theorist on the planet—flat or round LOL.
You literally posted all of this, except the Aldrin excerpt, which is interesting, 2 days ago. No need to spam the fora.
-
For anybody who'd like to check out some of the lunatic ideas that Heiwa (AKA Anders Bjorkman) propounds, check out his site HERE (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/).
... Heiwa is attacking Aldrin's legitimate credentials; ... a Doctor of Science degree in astronautics from MIT. ...
Heiwa is possibly the most renowned (infamous?) multiple-conspiracy theorist on the planet—flat or round LOL.
Thanks for linking to me and my popular web site that is mostly about safety at sea ... but also about safety in space. I didn't know that Buzz was a Doctor of Science in astronautics from MIT. But I know for sure that MIT does not teach anybody astronautics whatever it is. Maybe Buzz took private lessons at MIT? What do you with your flat brain think? Pls tell me when Buzz became a doctor. Of anything! Buzz is just a cheap lying actor IMHO.
Re the most ... mutiple-conspiracy theorist on the planet or FE (make your choice), please, do not invent things! I just use common sense when making the world better. All explained on my web site. I think you are just stupid ... but thanks for the PR.
-
I didn't know that Buzz was a Doctor of Science in astronautics from MIT. But I know for sure that MIT does not teach anybody astronautics whatever it is. Maybe Buzz took private lessons at MIT? What do you with your flat brain think? Pls tell me when Buzz became a doctor. Of anything! Buzz is just a cheap lying actor IMHO.
You should do better research:
In 1963 Aldrin earned a Doctor of Science degree in astronautics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http://aeroastro.mit.edu/ (http://aeroastro.mit.edu/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronautics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronautics)
-
For anybody who'd like to check out some of the lunatic ideas that Heiwa (AKA Anders Bjorkman) propounds, check out his site HERE (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/).
Be prepared though—you'll have to wade through literally hundreds of pages of utterly absurd pseudo-scientific and pseudo-engineering drivel. Although some of his funnier stuff does lighten up an otherwise boring day.
What's even worse about Heiwa's repeated lies about Buzz Aldrin is the fact that as an academically unqualified, self-described "engineer", Heiwa is attacking Aldrin's legitimate credentials; a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, and a Doctor of Science degree in astronautics from MIT.
On September 9, 2002, Aldrin was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel on the pretext of being interviewed for a Japanese children's television show on the subject of space. When he arrived, Apollo conspiracy proponent Bart Sibrel accosted him with a film crew and demanded he swear on a Bible that the Moon landings were not faked, insisting that Aldrin and others had lied about walking on the Moon. After a brief confrontation, in which Sibrel called him "a coward and a liar", Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw. The police determined that Aldrin was provoked and no charges were filed. Aldrin dedicates a chapter to this incident in his autobiography Magnificent Desolation.
[—Extract BBC NEWS: 21 September, 2002, 07:01 GMT 08:01]
Heiwa is possibly the most renowned (infamous?) multiple-conspiracy theorist on the planet—flat or round LOL.
You literally posted all of this, except the Aldrin excerpt, which is interesting, 2 days ago. No need to spam the fora.
Thanks Rama Set ....This could be the source for sceptimatic's information.
There is another author (Don't worry, I am not going to mention your name ! -But it could also be someone else...entirely different... you know) who has written a book with his own conspiracy theories about another subject which one reviewer has commented "Laughably ridiculous conspiracy theorizing........It's so stupid it's funny."
-
I didn't know that Buzz was a Doctor of Science in astronautics from MIT. But I know for sure that MIT does not teach anybody astronautics whatever it is. Maybe Buzz took private lessons at MIT? What do you with your flat brain think? Pls tell me when Buzz became a doctor. Of anything! Buzz is just a cheap lying actor IMHO.
You should do better research:
In 1963 Aldrin earned a Doctor of Science degree in astronautics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http://aeroastro.mit.edu/ (http://aeroastro.mit.edu/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronautics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronautics)
Hm - MIT does not teach astronautics, etc. And to become a Doctor of Science you have to write a thesis and defend it, etc, etc. Buzz never did it. Wikipedia is publishing BS. Happens all the time though. My info is censored by Wikipedia since many years. Try to link to me on Wikipedia and see what happens!
-
Heiwa you are a space cadet, practice and you could make pilot.
-
Hm - MIT does not teach astronautics, etc.
Well, they clearly do. You can stick your head in the sand and waffle on, but that won't change reality.
And to become a Doctor of Science you have to write a thesis and defend it, etc, etc. Buzz never did it.
His thesis is here:
Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652)
My info is censored by Wikipedia since many years.
They do censor bullshit, so you are probably right.
-
Hm - MIT does not teach astronautics, etc. And to become a Doctor of Science you have to write a thesis and defend it, etc, etc. Buzz never did it. Wikipedia is publishing BS. Happens all the time though. My info is censored by Wikipedia since many years. Try to link to me on Wikipedia and see what happens!
You say MIT does not teach astronautics, MIT says they do... I wonder who I should believe.
You say Buzz Aldrin never wrote a thesis, MIT has a link to said thesis... I wonder who I should believe.
Your act is pretty tired mate. You are literally just saying I am wrong with nothing to back it up whatsoever.
-
His thesis is here:
Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652)
Interesting - but 100% nonsense.
Actually, plenty of unemployed US physicists were crazy to find any job in the 1950's and 1960's and space (apart from war) was one. Normal industry and business had no use for these physicists that had produced the fake atomic and hydrogen and neutron bombs, etc. so now space was it. MIT jumped on the bandwagon.
Everything was fake, though! Like Buzz. Just an actor playing his role.
-
His thesis is here:
Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652)
Interesting - but 100% nonsense.
Great rebuttal to a Doctoral Thesis... ::)
-
His thesis is here:
Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652)
Interesting - but 100% nonsense.
Great rebuttal to a Doctoral Thesis... ::)
I see that Buzz' old Alma Mater MIT Astronautics department is still there 2014 but probably doing 99.9% Aeronautics. But maybe I am wrong. Nobody is perfect, incl. any Asstronautics doctor.
I assume that re-entry to Earth after a Moon trip à la Buzz 1969 and calculating fuel consumption of a 1969 space ship trip to the Moon and back to Earth should be easy for this Asstronautics department staff but nobody has been around to collect €1M from me at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
I wonder why?
-
His thesis is here:
Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652)
Interesting - but 100% nonsense.
Great rebuttal to a Doctoral Thesis... ::)
I see that Buzz' old Alma Mater MIT Astronautics department is still there 2014 but probably doing 99.9% Aeronautics. But maybe I am wrong. Nobody is perfect, incl. any Asstronautics doctor.
I assume that re-entry to Earth after a Moon trip à la Buzz 1969 and calculating fuel consumption of a 1969 space ship trip to the Moon and back to Earth should be easy for this Asstronautics department staff but nobody has been around to collect €1M from me at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
I wonder why?
Atleast you are now acknowledging that MIT does have a department. Where as before you were just talking out your ass. Makes one wonder how often you do talk out of it...
-
Heiwa: have you proven that you have 1 million dollars, or must everyone take your word for it? A serious offer like this normally involves putting the money in an escrow account to prove it exists. Have you done this?
-
His thesis is here:
Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652)
Interesting - but 100% nonsense.
Great rebuttal to a Doctoral Thesis... ::)
I see that Buzz' old Alma Mater MIT Astronautics department is still there 2014 but probably doing 99.9% Aeronautics. But maybe I am wrong. Nobody is perfect, incl. any Asstronautics doctor.
I assume that re-entry to Earth after a Moon trip à la Buzz 1969 and calculating fuel consumption of a 1969 space ship trip to the Moon and back to Earth should be easy for this Asstronautics department staff but nobody has been around to collect €1M from me at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
I wonder why?
Probably because you are a blow hard who denies evidence in front of his face and lies about having €1M.
-
I want this turkey's million bucks. How come there is no fight for it?.
-
Heiwa: have you proven that you have 1 million dollars, or must everyone take your word for it? A serious offer like this normally involves putting the money in an escrow account to prove it exists. Have you done this?
Heiwa: I think you should contact some of the widows in Nigeria. Perhaps you could double your 1 million dollars ?
-
I want this turkey's million bucks. How come there is no fight for it?.
A little background. In the late 50’s early 60’s space was the future with jobs and money to be made. Space needed physicists to explain how to get around in space. I was tempted 1965 to become a top physicist but physics Nobel Prize winner M Siegbahn, a family friend, discouraged me. Only research and low paid teacher jobs. So I went into shipbuilding. Much more interesting and fun. I describe it on my web site. That's where I made the millions.
In Sweden a Swedish Space association was formed and soon got more than 1000 members. But soon the gold rush was over. It was realized that there were no jobs or money in space and the Swedish association collapsed. Only UFO fanatics and similar remained there. And none has ever collected the €1M I offer to anybody proving human space travel is possible, incl. just a trip up to the International Fake Space Station.
Sweden has also a National Space Board that is very proud that a Swede – Christer Fuglesang – a physicist (!) – has been visiting the Fake Space Station. Fuglesang is a Swedish Buzz Aldrin. Just lying and cheating about his visit in space that never took place. Only job for a lousy physicist!
-
I want this turkey's million bucks. How come there is no fight for it?.
A little background. In the late 50’s early 60’s space was the future with jobs and money to be made. Space needed physicists to explain how to get around in space. I was tempted 1965 to become a top physicist but physics Nobel Prize winner M Siegbahn, a family friend, discouraged me. Only research and low paid teacher jobs. So I went into shipbuilding. Much more interesting and fun. I describe it on my web site. That's where I made the millions.
In Sweden a Swedish Space association was formed and soon got more than 1000 members. But soon the gold rush was over. It was realized that there were no jobs or money in space and the Swedish association collapsed. Only UFO fanatics and similar remained there. And none has ever collected the €1M I offer to anybody proving human space travel is possible, incl. just a trip up to the International Fake Space Station.
Sweden has also a National Space Board that is very proud that a Swede – Christer Fuglesang – a physicist (!) – has been visiting the Fake Space Station. Fuglesang is a Swedish Buzz Aldrin. Just lying and cheating about his visit in space that never took place. Only job for a lousy physicist!
You make the flat mob look sane, do they pay you.
-
I want this turkey's million bucks. How come there is no fight for it?.
A little background. In the late 50’s early 60’s space was the future with jobs and money to be made. Space needed physicists to explain how to get around in space. I was tempted 1965 to become a top physicist but physics Nobel Prize winner M Siegbahn, a family friend, discouraged me. Only research and low paid teacher jobs. So I went into shipbuilding. Much more interesting and fun. I describe it on my web site. That's where I made the millions.
In Sweden a Swedish Space association was formed and soon got more than 1000 members. But soon the gold rush was over. It was realized that there were no jobs or money in space and the Swedish association collapsed. Only UFO fanatics and similar remained there. And none has ever collected the €1M I offer to anybody proving human space travel is possible, incl. just a trip up to the International Fake Space Station.
Sweden has also a National Space Board that is very proud that a Swede – Christer Fuglesang – a physicist (!) – has been visiting the Fake Space Station. Fuglesang is a Swedish Buzz Aldrin. Just lying and cheating about his visit in space that never took place. Only job for a lousy physicist!
Even by the standards of internet fantasists you are particularly full of shit.
-
Even by the standards of internet fantasists you are particularly full of shit.
Thanks JTC for this intelligent contribution to guv about Buzz adventures in space.
-
I want this turkey's million bucks. How come there is no fight for it?.
A little background. In the late 50’s early 60’s space was the future with jobs and money to be made. Space needed physicists to explain how to get around in space. I was tempted 1965 to become a top physicist but physics Nobel Prize winner M Siegbahn, a family friend, discouraged me. Only research and low paid teacher jobs. So I went into shipbuilding. Much more interesting and fun. I describe it on my web site. That's where I made the millions.
In Sweden a Swedish Space association was formed and soon got more than 1000 members. But soon the gold rush was over. It was realized that there were no jobs or money in space and the Swedish association collapsed. Only UFO fanatics and similar remained there. And none has ever collected the €1M I offer to anybody proving human space travel is possible, incl. just a trip up to the International Fake Space Station.
Sweden has also a National Space Board that is very proud that a Swede – Christer Fuglesang – a physicist (!) – has been visiting the Fake Space Station. Fuglesang is a Swedish Buzz Aldrin. Just lying and cheating about his visit in space that never took place. Only job for a lousy physicist!
Even by the standards of internet fantasists you are particularly full of shit.
Ho Hum ! Heiwa's fantasies delusions are about what one has come to expect from an fe on this website.
-
A little background. In the late 50’s early 60’s space was the future with jobs and money to be made. Space needed physicists to explain how to get around in space.
I would contend that getting around in space is more of an engineering problem than a pure physics problem. Perhaps you should have looked into becoming an engineer instead of a physicist.
-
Perhaps you should have looked into becoming an engineer instead of a physicist.
His career adviser told him it would be easier to pretend to be a millionaire shipbuilder than a physicist.
-
Hm - MIT does not teach astronautics, etc. And to become a Doctor of Science you have to write a thesis and defend it, etc, etc. Buzz never did it.
LOL... this is so funny coming as it does from somebody with NO accredited academic qualifications.
Keep the laughs coming Heiwa and you'll put Bozo the clown out of work!
-
His thesis is here:
Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652)
Interesting - but 100% nonsense.
Great rebuttal to a Doctoral Thesis... ::)
I see that Buzz' old Alma Mater MIT Astronautics department is still there 2014 but probably doing 99.9% Aeronautics. But maybe I am wrong. Nobody is perfect, incl. any Asstronautics doctor.
I assume that re-entry to Earth after a Moon trip à la Buzz 1969 and calculating fuel consumption of a 1969 space ship trip to the Moon and back to Earth should be easy for this Asstronautics department staff but nobody has been around to collect €1M from me at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
I wonder why?
You know very well why. Nobody takes you seriously, you've never proven you even have the money, and you're already known for waffling on your challenges and moving goalposts.
-
I must thank all posters here with comments about me when topic is brainwashed science doctor Buzz.
When I was 12 years old I also believed in UFOs and atomic bombs and sputniks and Russians in orbit but I was also brought up to be polite. It seems times have changed. Now the stupid children are not expedient at all.
-
Please respond to this earlier question: how can you prove you actually have 1 million dollars? Have you put it in an escrow account?
Also, how did WWII end if not with atomic bombs?
-
Heiwa, perhaps you would garner more civility if you choose to provide some evidence debunking Buzz's credentials or accomplishments with something more substantial than incredulity and denial.
-
Hm - MIT does not teach astronautics, etc. And to become a Doctor of Science you have to write a thesis and defend it, etc, etc. Buzz never did it.
LOL... this is so funny coming as it does from somebody with NO accredited academic qualifications.
Keep the laughs coming Heiwa and you'll put Bozo the clown out of work!
Addition to the above
Keep the laughs coming Heiwa and you'll put Sceptimatic the clown out of work !
One more time . I do like that quote.:
"It's so stupid it's funny." :D
-
Please respond to this earlier question: how can you prove you actually have 1 million dollars? Have you put it in an escrow account?
Also, how did WWII end if not with atomic bombs?
1 million dollar? My Challenge is about 1 million Euro or 1.36 million dollar. All invested in shares and property, etc. Just ask my bank. Pls study my website.
How did WWII end? Japan surrendered unconditionally on 15 August 1945 and early September a document was signed to this effect on a US warship in Tokyo Bay just outside Yokohama, a town I know very well. Yokohama was 29 May 1945 destroyed exactly like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-
Heiwa, perhaps you would garner more civility if you choose to provide some evidence debunking Buzz's credentials or accomplishments with something more substantial than incredulity and denial.
Thanks for asking politely. Buzz credentials? We don't know the name of the professors that peer reviewed his nonsense thesis. Plenty of false doctors around, you know! Easy to falsify it. But a little OT.
Accomplishment! Buzz' trip to the Moon? Sorry, you must first READ my article about Buzz' lies at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) . Then you will UNDERSTAND that Buzz is just a big fraud. But he is not alone. There are 500+ other ones lying like Buzz.
BTW How old are you? Do yopu believe in Father Christmas?
-
Please respond to this earlier question: how can you prove you actually have 1 million dollars? Have you put it in an escrow account?
Also, how did WWII end if not with atomic bombs?
1 million dollar? My Challenge is about 1 million Euro or 1.36 million dollar. All invested in shares and property, etc. Just ask my bank. Pls study my website.
How did WWII end? Japan surrendered unconditionally on 15 August 1945 and early September a document was signed to this effect on a US warship in Tokyo Bay just outside Yokohama, a town I know very well. Yokohama was 29 May 1945 destroyed exactly like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Ask your bank? If you think that a bank would give account information, such as the account's balance, to someone other than the account owner, then you must not have any experience with any banks. How exactly do you suggest I confirm the existence of the million euros?
-
Heiwa, perhaps you would garner more civility if you choose to provide some evidence debunking Buzz's credentials or accomplishments with something more substantial than incredulity and denial.
Thanks for asking politely. Buzz credentials? We don't know the name of the professors that peer reviewed his nonsense thesis. Plenty of false doctors around, you know! Easy to falsify it. But a little OT.
First of all, MIT is hardly a diploma mill. Secondly, have you even looked his thesis? Page 7 lists his thesis supervisors.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/12652/28555330.pdf?sequence=1 (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/12652/28555330.pdf?sequence=1)
Accomplishment! Buzz' trip to the Moon? Sorry, you must first READ my article about Buzz' lies at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) . Then you will UNDERSTAND that Buzz is just a big fraud. But he is not alone. There are 500+ other ones lying like Buzz.
I've tried wading though that mess of a page and haven't found anything other than the same incredulity and denial that I've seen in this thread. Besides, how do you get over 500 people (not to mention thousands (if not tens of thousands) of ground support personnel) to agree on the same lie for over 50 years?
BTW How old are you? Do yopu believe in Father Christmas?
Not that it's any of your business or relevant to the discussion, but I'm probably older than you are and I still believe in Santa Clause as a metaphor for the spirit of giving. I also think that it's morally repugnant that Halloween candy is being put on store shelves 2 weeks before Labor Day.
-
Now the stupid children are not expedient at all.
Expedient? Are you sure you meant that?
-
When I was 12 years old I also believed in UFOs and atomic bombs and sputniks and Russians in orbit but I was also brought up to be polite.
How is it that you've not learned anything of substance since you were 12 years old? Most people—by the time they reach adulthood—have managed to learn at least a little bit about the sciences. Somehow you've missed this stage, and grown up in ignorance.
Well done! ;D
-
When I was 12 years old I also believed in UFOs and atomic bombs and sputniks and Russians in orbit but I was also brought up to be polite.
How is it that you've not learned anything of substance since you were 12 years old? Most people—by the time they reach adulthood—have managed to learn at least a little bit about the sciences. Somehow you've missed this stage, and grown up in ignorance.
Well done! ;D
Buzz landing the Lunar Module on the Moon was magic, I have learnt. I quote from my popular web page:
“Just prior to powered descent (actually braking all the time!) the LM crew (i.e. Neal and Buzz) managed the following important manual check on intertial platform (sic) drift at 1 500 m/s speed:
"Just prior to powered descent, the angle between the line of sight to the sun and a selected axis of the inertial platform was compared with the onboard computer prediction of that angle and this provided a check on inertial platform drift." [1-4.10.2]
Imagine that - manually checking the computer calculations using the Sun behind you at 1 500 m/s speed! On the shadow, dark side the asstronuts used stars for navigation. How to steer an LM with only one big rocket engine is described here! It looks as if it is impossible.
The LM descent engine continued to provide constant 46.7 kN braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes (???) into the mission when the LM Eagle, arrival mass 7 327 kg (16 153 lb) landed in the Sea of Tranquility at 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees, 26 minutes east longitude.
Did it take one hour to land? Did the rocket descent engine burn for 3 600 seconds? But according to [1] it was done in 756.3 seconds!
It seems total 7 952 kg fuel was used to land under very confusing circumstances.
You would expect that you could vary the 5 tons thrust to slow down or stop the descent from 1 500 m/s to say 20 m/s and change attitude from parallell to perpendicular - to have a look around - and then slowly descend the last 10 meters, but there is no indication that you could do it.
Imagine manually controlling a powerful rocket engine (thrust and direction) that can provide 5 tons (46.7 kN) thrust onto a 7.4 ton (7 327 kg) space ship in a low gravity 1.6 m/s² field. This Aldrin asstrohole was fantastically clever! An American HERO! Tilting the spaceship from parallell to perpendicular motion relative the Moon in the mean time.”
Imagine burning almost 8 tons of fuel to stop a space ship with final mass 7.3 tons from speed 1500 m/s to zero using a rocket engine that provides constant 5 tons thrust in vacuum in only one direction! When landing Buzz changed the position of the Lunar Module from horizontal to vertical and softly touched down (zero speed) just by tilting his powerful rocket engine. Never tested and tried anywhere. A miracle! The conversation during the 753 seconds landing is recorded and can be studied. It was just like parking a 7 tons car on Earth. Buzz slowed down and stopped! Easy! Not a scratch. What a joke. But I admit I believed it when I was 23 years old 1969. Now at 68 I do not believe it any more. I have learnt a little in the meantime.
-
Buzz landing the Lunar Module on the Moon was magic, I have learnt. I quote from my popular web page...
Uh... you do realise that your silly web pages get so many hits because people in this age of doom and gloom need a good belly laugh every so often. There's such a plethora of comedy material there that I'd be inclined to think you were a Monty Python script-writer in another time and place.
Seriously though, I'm rather bemused that you can still take yourself and your fanciful fairy stories so seriously—considering the numbers of people that've shot you down in flames time and time again. You're obviously either mentally deluded, astoundingly stupid or willfully masochistic.
Or all three LOL.
-
Imagine burning almost 8 tons of fuel to stop a space ship with final mass 7.3 tons from speed 1500 m/s to zero using a rocket engine that provides constant 5 tons thrust in vacuum in only one direction! When landing Buzz changed the position of the Lunar Module from horizontal to vertical and softly touched down (zero speed) just by tilting his powerful rocket engine. Never tested and tried anywhere. A miracle! The conversation during the 753 seconds landing is recorded and can be studied. It was just like parking a 7 tons car on Earth. Buzz slowed down and stopped! Easy! Not a scratch. What a joke. But I admit I believed it when I was 23 years old 1969. Now at 68 I do not believe it any more. I have learnt a little in the meantime.
Apparently being able to research the specifications of the LEM is not one of those things that you claim to have learned. There are so many things wrong that it's hard to know where to start.
First of all, Niel Armstrong actually landed the LEM, not Buzz. Secondly, the LEM descent engine was gimballed (steerable) and could be throttled between 10 and 60 percent of full thrust. Also don't forget that the LEM had 4 quads of reaction control thrusters for steering. Not to mention the fact that the LEM was tested in earth orbit during Apollo 9 and around the moon on Apollo 10.
-
I must thank all posters here with comments about me when topic is brainwashed science doctor Buzz.
When I was 12 years old I also believed in UFOs and atomic bombs and sputniks and Russians in orbit but I was also brought up to be polite. It seems times have changed. Now the stupid children are not expedient at all.
That's rich, coming from someone who builds a NASA-debunking website around calling people liars, "asstronuts", etc.
You sound just like a bully who wails about how mean everyone is the moment he's challenged.
-
The dude with million bucks? is lost in space and he thinks people cant go there.
-
Apparently being able to research the specifications of the LEM is not one of those things that you claim to have learned. There are so many things wrong that it's hard to know where to start.
First of all, Niel Armstrong actually landed the LEM, not Buzz. Secondly, the LEM descent engine was gimballed (steerable) and could be throttled between 10 and 60 percent of full thrust. Also don't forget that the LEM had 4 quads of reaction control thrusters for steering. Not to mention the fact that the LEM was tested in earth orbit during Apollo 9 and around the moon on Apollo 10.
So what was Buzz doing? Looking on? And an actual landing on the Moon of a very heavy LEM burning many tons of fuel was never tested before it was done. By hand. No computers involved.
Try to do the same thing on Earth! The LEM is not a helicopter in air. It is a heavy space ship in vacuum dropping down by gravity only controlled by a very powerful rocket engine to slow down the fall.It should work on Earth too. Try to land any rocket after a launch! SpaceX has produced plenty videos of its rocket going off slowly from ground 100-200 meters up in the air and then ... landing on the start ramp again. Apparently all by computer as nobody is aboard. Have you seen them? They are available on the Internet somewhere. Nice fake footage of Elon Musk!
I am sorry. Only in stupid science fiction fairy tales anybody can land a space ship using one powerful rocket engine like Neal or Buzz did 1969. Two space con clowns. I feel sorry for you believing that rubbish. What age you have you said?
-
You don't think that the very small amount of gravity on the Moon might make landing there significantly easier than landing on Earth?
And I am still waiting for specific instructions on how to contact your bank to verify that you have 1 million euros. I will need your name or account number, and maybe a PIN or password. Thanks.
-
You don't think that the very small amount of gravity on the Moon might make landing there significantly easier than landing on Earth?
And I am still waiting for specific instructions on how to contact your bank to verify that you have 1 million euros. I will need your name or account number, and maybe a PIN or password. Thanks.
Don't forget mother's maiden name.
-
So what was Buzz doing? Looking on?
That you didn't even know the correct astronaut just shows the lack of even basic knowledge you have about the moon landings.
And an actual landing on the Moon of a very heavy LEM burning many tons of fuel was never tested before it was done. By hand. No computers involved.
Try to do the same thing on Earth!
The moon has a gravitational pull that is only 17% of earth's and it doesn't have any atmosphere. Making it a completely different environment. Acceleration due to gravity on the moon is only 1.6 m/s/s - do you really not get this? ???
It is a heavy space ship
Not without any gravity it isn't. In space it weighs practically nothing and even on the surface of the moon it would only way 17% of what it does on earth. Surely as an expert "ship builder" you have grasped the difference between mass and weight?
Here (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/nasa58040.pdf) is a detailed technical document on the ascent and descent trajectories. Why don't you have a read through and come back when you've debunked it. Or just carry on with your igorant handwaving. It's up to you.
By the way, your website sucks massive donkey balls. It looks like it was set up in 1991 by a retarded squirrel.
-
[the LEM was] Never tested or tried anywhere [on Earth]!
How do you like being constantly called out as and proven to be a dumb, stupid lying liar, Heiwa? ;D
(http://#)
-
Apparently being able to research the specifications of the LEM is not one of those things that you claim to have learned. There are so many things wrong that it's hard to know where to start.
First of all, Niel Armstrong actually landed the LEM, not Buzz. Secondly, the LEM descent engine was gimballed (steerable) and could be throttled between 10 and 60 percent of full thrust. Also don't forget that the LEM had 4 quads of reaction control thrusters for steering. Not to mention the fact that the LEM was tested in earth orbit during Apollo 9 and around the moon on Apollo 10.
So what was Buzz doing? Looking on? And an actual landing on the Moon of a very heavy LEM burning many tons of fuel was never tested before it was done.
I'm not sure that I understand what you're trying to say. First of all, the LEM was designed to be as light as possible. And I already told you that the LEM was tested twice: Apollo 9 and Apollo 10.
By hand. No computers involved.
??? Huh?
Try to do the same thing on Earth! The LEM is not a helicopter in air. It is a heavy space ship in vacuum dropping down by gravity only controlled by a very powerful rocket engine to slow down the fall.It should work on Earth too. Try to land any rocket after a launch!
The LEM was not designed to work in earth gravity or earth atmosphere. It was designed to work in a vacuum and land in a 1/6 gravity environment.
SpaceX has produced plenty videos of its rocket going off slowly from ground 100-200 meters up in the air and then ... landing on the start ramp again. Apparently all by computer as nobody is aboard. Have you seen them? They are available on the Internet somewhere. Nice fake footage of Elon Musk!
Yes, I've seen some of them. Have no idea what it has to do with Apollo 11.
I am sorry. Only in stupid science fiction fairy tales anybody can land a space ship using one powerful rocket engine like Neal or Buzz did 1969.
Do you ever plan on providing an actual technical reason that landing on rocket power alone shouldn't be possible? Or do you think that the Harrier jump jet and F-35B vertical landing aircraft are fakes too?
Two space con clowns. I feel sorry for you believing that rubbish. What age you have you said?
And I feel sorry for you believing that you're an authority on debunking the Apollo landings.
-
I have noticed a trend on this website after being on it for a while. It is getting whackier and whackier by the minute. So the main reason I keep coming back is for the entertainment to see will be the next whackiest thing ! Keep it up FE's ! You seem to be doing very well in the whacky department ! LOL !
-
In space it weighs practically nothing and even on the surface of the moon it would only way 17% of what it does on earth. Surely as an expert "ship builder" you have grasped the difference between mass and weight?
Hm, if you read my article about the Apollo 11 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) ) fantasy trip you should note that in order to show how heavy the modules and their fuel are I use unit kilogram. It is evidently the mass of the module or the fuel that is same on Earth and Moon. Mass is always same anywhere, i.e. one kilogram is always one kilogram. Many people evidently also use unit kilogram to calculate their weights on Earth, e.g. me that weighs 88 kilogram. It is also my mass here on Earth.
I do not know Buzz body mass or weight but I am sure it never visited the Moon.
As I say above:
"Imagine manually controlling a powerful rocket engine (thrust and direction) that can provide 5 tons (46.7 kN) thrust onto a 7.4 ton (7 327 kg) space ship in a low gravity 1.6 m/s² field. This Aldrin asstrohole was fantastically clever! An American HERO! Tilting the spaceship from parallell to perpendicular motion relative the Moon in the mean time.”
If you apply 46.7 kN thrust or force F on a mass m of a 15 279 kg and later 7 327 kg Lunar Landing Module space ship to slow it down, what is the rate of deceleration a? It is evidently only 3.06 m/s² when you are heavy starting braking and a stronger 6.37 m/s² when you are light and have burnt 7 952 kg fuel and just land.
With a Specific Fuel Consumption of 0.24 kg/kNs of your rocket engine, you had fuel only for a limited time. With that fuel you have to slow down from 1 500 m/s to 0 landing speed, after you have dropped down from 100 000 meter altitude in a 1.6 m/s² moon gravity field looking for your landing spot. If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge. Note that the rocket brake force must be applied in the right direction all the time, i.e. forward. Neal and Buzz are facing backwards or sideways as the rocket engine block the view foreward. Immediately when you land at zero (vertical and horizontal) speed, you must shut off your engine. Otherwise you fly away again or roll over. If you face forward when landing and is not strapped in your seat, you will hit the floor! Maybe you were facing upward when landing, and then you had a nice view of your space ship ceiling. The door to the Moon is in the wall right. Do not open it before you have put on your space suit providing breathing air and decompressed the space ship to vacuum.
If you can throttle your rocket engine and reduce the thrust (and SFC) you have to describe it too.
-
[the LEM was] Never tested or tried anywhere [on Earth]!
How do you like being constantly called out as and proven to be a dumb, stupid lying liar, Heiwa? ;D
(http://#)
Hm, I do not see Neal landing. Only taking off ... at very slow speed. Landing starts at 1 500 m/s speed high above ground in an almost horizontal position and is zero at landing in a vertical position. I can assure you it was never done on Earth. Pls do not post ridiculous videos.
-
You don't think that the very small amount of gravity on the Moon might make landing there significantly easier than landing on Earth?
Actually to slow down a space ship from, e.g. 1 500 m/s speed to 0 requires the same (kinetic) energy anywhere. Gravity does not matter the least.
If you at the same time is accelerated by a gravity field, e.g. the Moon or the Earth (adding potential energy) you need extra brake energy to slow down. More on Earth than the Moon, of course, but in both cases the kinetic energy part is much bigger. I explain it on my web page. Study it.
-
In space it weighs practically nothing and even on the surface of the moon it would only way 17% of what it does on earth. Surely as an expert "ship builder" you have grasped the difference between mass and weight?
Hm, if you read my article about the Apollo 11 (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) ) fantasy trip you should note that in order to show how heavy the modules and their fuel are I use unit kilogram. It is evidently the mass of the module or the fuel that is same on Earth and Moon. Mass is always same anywhere, i.e. one kilogram is always one kilogram. Many people evidently also use unit kilogram to calculate their weights on Earth, e.g. me that weighs 88 kilogram. It is also my mass here on Earth.
I do not know Buzz body mass or weight but I am sure it never visited the Moon.
Yes, weight and mass are often used interchangeably on earth, even though they are not the same thing. Weight is defined as the force of mass within a gravitational field. Since the gravitational field of the moon is only 1/6 that of earth.
As I say above:
"Imagine manually controlling a powerful rocket engine (thrust and direction) that can provide 5 tons (46.7 kN) thrust onto a 7.4 ton (7 327 kg) space ship in a low gravity 1.6 m/s² field. This Aldrin asstrohole was fantastically clever! An American HERO! Tilting the spaceship from parallell to perpendicular motion relative the Moon in the mean time.”
If you apply 46.7 kN thrust or force F on a mass m of a 15 279 kg and later 7 327 kg Lunar Landing Module space ship to slow it down, what is the rate of deceleration a? It is evidently only 3.06 m/s² when you are heavy starting braking and a stronger 6.37 m/s² when you are light and have burnt 7 952 kg fuel and just land.
Did you miss the part where the LEM descent engine could be throttled to between 10 and 60 percent of full thrust?
With a Specific Fuel Consumption of 0.24 kg/kNs of your rocket engine, you had fuel only for a limited time. With that fuel you have to slow down from 1 500 m/s to 0 landing speed, after you have dropped down from 100 000 meter altitude in a 1.6 m/s² moon gravity field looking for your landing spot. If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge. Note that the rocket brake force must be applied in the right direction all the time, i.e. forward. Neal and Buzz are facing backwards or sideways as the rocket engine block the view foreward.
Huh? No. Don't forget that the moon has gravity too. Not a whole lot, but enough so that eventually the engine has to be pointing mostly straight down for the last part of the descent. While the engine is pointing down, Niel and Buzz can look out the window for a good landing spot.
Immediately when you land at zero (vertical and hirozontal) speed, you must shut off your engine. Otherwise you fly away again or roll over.
Actually, they shut the engine off about 3 feet before you actually touch down? I don't know if you have ever noticed the dangely bits hanging off the bottom of the landing pads, but those are contact sensors.
If you face forward when landing and is not strapped in your seat, you will hit the floor! Maybe you were facing upward when landing, and then you had a nice view of your space ship ceiling.
Umm... They were already standing on the floor. Apparently you don't understand how deceleration works.
The door to the Moon is in the wall right. Do not open it before you have put on your space suit providing breathing air and decompressed the space ship to vacuum.
No, the door is the hatch at the bottom front of the the ascent stage. Also, the hatch swings inwards so it's pretty hard to open it while the cabin is still pressurized.
If you can throttle your rocket engine and reduce the thrust (and SFC) you have to describe it too.
You throttle a rocket engine pretty much the same way that you throttle just about any other engine; by adjusting the flow rate of the fuel and oxidizer.
-
If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge.
I've linked it already, but here is a 31 page technical document detailed exactly how it was done:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/nasa58040.pdf (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/nasa58040.pdf)
I suggest you pass your lawyers' details on to me, so that my lawyers can commence the transfer of the 1M euros into my account.
You have one week to pay up.
-
If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge.
I've linked it already, but here is a 31 page technical document detailed exactly how it was done:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/nasa58040.pdf (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/nasa58040.pdf)
I suggest you pass your lawyers' details on to me, so that my lawyers can commence the transfer of the 1M euros into my account.
You have one week to pay up.
Thanks for the link. It is the usual NASA science fiction nonsense put together many years before the trip to make it sound feasible and later updated. There is no evidence whatsoever that Buzz managed to follow that scenario.
I like Buzz braking during 358 seconds travelling 383 km spot on - hole in one - during the landing. Without any maps. Or maybe he was on autopilot?
-
[the LEM was] Never tested or tried anywhere [on Earth]!
How do you like being constantly called out as and proven to be a dumb, stupid lying liar, Heiwa? ;D
(http://#)
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/21a_Lunar-Module-descent-stage-impossible-ENGL.html (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/21a_Lunar-Module-descent-stage-impossible-ENGL.html)
shows the CRASH!
-
[the LEM was] Never tested or tried anywhere [on Earth]!
How do you like being constantly called out as and proven to be a dumb, stupid lying liar, Heiwa? ;D
(http://#)
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/21a_Lunar-Module-descent-stage-impossible-ENGL.html (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/21a_Lunar-Module-descent-stage-impossible-ENGL.html)
shows the CRASH!
So why did you say it was never tested on Earth when it was tested on Earth? Perhaps you shouldn't argue about topics you know nothing about.
-
I like Buzz braking during 358 seconds travelling 383 km spot on - hole in one - during the landing. Without any maps. Or maybe he was on autopilot?
Actually, it was on autopilot most of the way down. When Niel noticed that the computer was going to land them right in the middle of a boulder field, he took manual control and found a clear area to land. That's the main reason that they had less than 30 seconds worth of fuel left when they landed.
-
[the LEM was] Never tested or tried anywhere [on Earth]!
How do you like being constantly called out as and proven to be a dumb, stupid lying liar, Heiwa? ;D
(http://#)
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/21a_Lunar-Module-descent-stage-impossible-ENGL.html (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/21a_Lunar-Module-descent-stage-impossible-ENGL.html)
shows the CRASH!
So why did you say it was never tested on Earth when it was tested on Earth? Perhaps you shouldn't argue about topics you know nothing about.
Hm - The Lunar Module had allegedly a mass of about 7 500 kg and was loaded with about 8 000 kg of fuel and was driven by a rocket engine that could produce 47.6 kN thrust in any direction. The Lunar Module could allegedly fly horizontally at 1 700 m/s speed and then slowly flip to a vertical position and stop 100 m above ground, hoover for a while and then land, LOL!
The contraption shown flying and crashing on Earth by Neal is something completely different. As Neal crashed it, fake dr. Buzz had to do the fake flying on the Moon.
-
[the LEM was] Never tested or tried anywhere [on Earth]!
How do you like being constantly called out as and proven to be a dumb, stupid lying liar, Heiwa? ;D
(http://#)
Hm, I do not see Neal landing. Only taking off ... at very slow speed. Landing starts at 1 500 m/s speed high above ground in an almost horizontal position and is zero at landing in a vertical position. I can assure you it was never done on Earth. Pls do not post ridiculous videos.
Classic goalpost shift from Heiwa: "the LEM was never tested on Earth!"
Me: "Yes it was, here's a video clip of one of the tests."
Heiwa: "But I meant it was never tested for LANDING!"
Me: "Er, why do you think they called it the Lunar LANDING Research Vehicle?"
(http://)
-
Me: "Er, why do you think they called it the Lunar LANDING Research Vehicle?"
Just to confuse! ::) A real lunar landing according to basic scientific fantasies took 11 minutes and started at 15 000 m altitude and 1 700 m/s speed in a horizontal position. Then the 7500 kg module (excl. fuel) was braking for about 400 km to virtually zero speed a little above ground using a 47.6 kN rocket thrust. The module managed to be on a straight course all the time just getting closer to ground all the time, while burning about 8 000 kg of liquid fuel. With density 1 it was almost 8 cubicmeters or 8000 liters of fuel that were sloshing around in the tank. Compare with a car carrying max 50-60 liters just to get around.
Not to forget that the module was also flipping up to a vertical position, all done by an autopilot (Buzz and Neal were most of the time just looking out of the window commenting on the craters they were flying over), and then it touched down on the Moon itself with almost no fuel left.
This Lunar LANDING Research Vehicle were just used to simulate the touch down at the end of the long landing that Buzz apparently did all by himself at very low speed. I do not see any 8000 liters fuel tank on it, etc., etc. :o
-
If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge.
I've linked it already, but here is a 31 page technical document detailed exactly how it was done:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/nasa58040.pdf (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/nasa58040.pdf)
I suggest you pass your lawyers' details on to me, so that my lawyers can commence the transfer of the 1M euros into my account.
You have one week to pay up.
Thanks for the link. It is the usual NASA science fiction nonsense put together many years before the trip
It was written in 1970. Which means you haven't even read the cover sheet.
You are desperately trying to debunk something when you don't even have the basic facts correct. If you can debunk the document then you won't need to pay up, as it is you owe me 1M euros.
By the looks of your really crappy webshite, you don't have 2 euros, let alone a million....
-
It was written in 1970.
It was published in 1970 to correct errors in a previous NASA publication describing the Buzz trip to the Moon. I describe it on my webpage http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm)
The fake Buzz Moon trip was planned many years before 1969 and Buzz apparently didn't know it. Buzz may have thought it was possible to go to the Moon and wanted to participate. In the end he was just allowed to participate in the hoax; lie and act and your pension is secure! Poor Buzz.
In the end he was put in the Command Module that was dropped from a plane into the Pacific ... and later Buzz was picked up from it to shake hands with US president Nixon! Another actor and lier. Buzz was never near the Moon. JTC - do you really believe the NASA nonsense?
-
It was written in 1970.
It was published in 1970 to correct errors in a previous NASA publication describing the Buzz trip to the Moon. I describe it on my webpage http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm)
The fake Buzz Moon trip was planned many years before 1969 and Buzz apparently didn't know it. Buzz may have thought it was possible to go to the Moon and wanted to participate. In the end he was just allowed to participate in the hoax; lie and act and your pension is secure! Poor Buzz.
In the end he was put in the Command Module that was dropped from a plane into the Pacific ... and later Buzz was picked up from it to shake hands with US president Nixon! Another actor and lier. Buzz was never near the Moon. JTC - do you really believe the NASA nonsense?
Out of interest, do you believe that satellites exist and work?
-
If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge.
Why do you even bother asking for evidence that you have no intention of ever accepting for a challenge that you have no intention of ever paying off?
-
Same "challenge". This went on for 108 pages and almost a year before he was banned:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0).
Be forewarned before going to that site in hopes of having your conspiracy beliefs confirmed. Despite the name, ApolloHoax has become a site for debunking same. They do a good job of it, too.
-
It was written in 1970.
It was published in 1970 to correct errors in a previous NASA publication describing the Buzz trip to the Moon. I describe it on my webpage http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm)
The fake Buzz Moon trip was planned many years before 1969 and Buzz apparently didn't know it. Buzz may have thought it was possible to go to the Moon and wanted to participate. In the end he was just allowed to participate in the hoax; lie and act and your pension is secure! Poor Buzz.
In the end he was put in the Command Module that was dropped from a plane into the Pacific ... and later Buzz was picked up from it to shake hands with US president Nixon! Another actor and lier. Buzz was never near the Moon. JTC - do you really believe the NASA nonsense?
Out of interest, do you believe that satellites exist and work?
If you visit my web page you'll note that I believe the French Ariane 5 rocket sends up satellites, etc, etc. If the satellites work is another story. Ariane 5 is however 5 times less efficient than the US rockets to send stuff up in space. A French rocket can send up only 16 tons in LEO while a US rocket sends up 80+ tons (actually a Shuttle) ... with the same amount of fuel. I think the US rocket with a Shuttle is fake. No Shuttles ever got into LEO. Just another US/NASA hoax. Quite fun though. My web site is not only about the Apollo hoax.
-
If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge.
Why do you even bother asking for evidence that you have no intention of ever accepting for a challenge that you have no intention of ever paying off?
HM - you cannot win my Challenges by copy/paste some nonsensical web pages. You have to do some intelligent work. See http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
The first Challenge is simply to build a little structure that you then allow to collapse from the top like a house of cards! Evidently a house of cards is no structure but only cards stacked on top of each other with no solid connections. No, the structure must have solid connections between the elements and then POUFF, POUFF it shall collapse from top down.
It sounds easy but it is very difficult.
But according to US terrorists it is easy - they used it twice on 9/11/01 at NY.
So you have to repeat it. According US experts it is very easy. But nobody has collected the €1M that evidently is invested in stocks and buildings.
-
It was written in 1970.
It was published in 1970 to correct errors in a previous NASA publication describing the Buzz trip to the Moon. I describe it on my webpage http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm)
The fake Buzz Moon trip was planned many years before 1969 and Buzz apparently didn't know it. Buzz may have thought it was possible to go to the Moon and wanted to participate. In the end he was just allowed to participate in the hoax; lie and act and your pension is secure! Poor Buzz.
In the end he was put in the Command Module that was dropped from a plane into the Pacific ... and later Buzz was picked up from it to shake hands with US president Nixon! Another actor and lier. Buzz was never near the Moon. JTC - do you really believe the NASA nonsense?
Out of interest, do you believe that satellites exist and work?
If you visit my web page you'll note that I believe the French Ariane 5 rocket sends up satellites, etc, etc. If the satellites work is another story. Ariane 5 is however 5 times less efficient than the US rockets to send stuff up in space. A French rocket can send up only 16 tons in LEO while a US rocket sends up 80+ tons (actually a Shuttle) ... with the same amount of fuel. I think the US rocket with a Shuttle is fake. No Shuttles ever got into LEO. Just another US/NASA hoax. Quite fun though. My web site is not only about the Apollo hoax.
Clearly satellites work as many use them to watch tv. Which leads on to GPS and the ISS.
-
HM - you cannot win my Challenges by copy/paste some nonsensical web pages.
Why not? Some would contend that the challenge is presented on a nonsensical web page.
The first Challenge is simply to build a little structure that you then allow to collapse from the top like a house of cards! Evidently a house of cards is no structure but only cards stacked on top of each other with no solid connections. No, the structure must have solid connections between the elements and then POUFF, POUFF it shall collapse from top down.
It sounds easy but it is very difficult.
And I posted 2 videos showing building collapsing just like you said is impossible.
But according to US terrorists it is easy - they used it twice on 9/11/01 at NY.
So you have to repeat it. According US experts it is very easy. But nobody has collected the €1M that evidently is invested in stocks and buildings.
That's because you dismiss any evidence out of hand. How can anyone win a challenge when you have no intention of ever accepting any evidence that proves you wrong?
-
Anders Björkman (posting here as "Heiwa" has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood (http://bit.ly/1olqCnG).
You can read about the numerous errors Heiwa makes in his website papers at this site: James Randi Educational Foundation (http://bit.ly/1p9b9xk).
—We can only hope that he's banned from this site ASAP.
-
—We can only hope that he's banned from this site ASAP.
You keep requesting FEer's get banned from a Flat earth Website, are you OK ?
Why don't you start your own Flat Earth website which would allow you to ban everybody that does not conform to your beliefs. ;D
-
—We can only hope that he's banned from this site ASAP.
You keep requesting FEer's get banned from a Flat earth Website, are you OK ?
Why don't you start your own Flat Earth website which would allow you to ban everybody that does not conform to your beliefs. ;D
I don't know whether holding truly idiotic beliefs (e.g. atomic bombs don't exist) should get someone banned from the forum, but committing fraud probably should. Heiwa claims to have 1 million Euros reserved to pay the winner of his challenge. Yet he has not put this money in an escrow account, and he can't even prove that he has it. This is the kind of fraud that Ponzi schemers use. They tell investors -- in this case, people who would invest their time to try to win his challenge -- that money exists when it actually does not.
So I propose that Heiwa be banned from this site unless he proves that he has put 1 million euros in an escrow account to pay the winner of the challenge. I would give me 7 days to do this. Starting now.
-
It worries me that some FE followers get a bit overboard with their drivel, if this place loses credibility and falls apart we will all lose a good giggle.
-
I don't know whether holding truly idiotic beliefs (e.g. atomic bombs don't exist) should get someone banned from the forum, but committing fraud probably should.
Hm, on my web site I just show that all existing atomic bombs do not work. I also explain why. I just feel sorry for people that believe that atomic bombs work. I also feel sorry for people wasting time with designing and building atomic bombs that do not work. The atomic bomb business is just a big fraud and employs mainly physicists that cannot find real jobs. The same persons flood the Internet with fake information and lies that atomic bombs work. Of course they get upset when I debunk their lies at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) .
It is quite similar to the NASA Moon travel hoax actually. Another fraud of gigantic dimensions where Buzz and Neal played their parts 1969 and onwards.
-
I don't know whether holding truly idiotic beliefs (e.g. atomic bombs don't exist) should get someone banned from the forum, but committing fraud probably should.
Hm, on my web site I just show that all existing atomic bombs do not work. I also explain why. I just feel sorry for people that believe that atomic bombs work. I also feel sorry for people wasting time with designing and building atomic bombs that do not work. The atomic bomb business is just a big fraud and employs mainly physicists that cannot find real jobs. The same persons flood the Internet with fake information and lies that atomic bombs work. Of course they get upset when I debunk their lies at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) .
It is quite similar to the NASA Moon travel hoax actually. Another fraud of gigantic dimensions where Buzz and Neal played their parts 1969 and onwards.
Just what I was expecting, you don't understand so they don't exist.
-
—We can only hope that he's banned from this site ASAP.
You keep requesting FEer's get banned from a Flat earth Website, are you OK ?
Why don't you start your own Flat Earth website which would allow you to ban everybody that does not conform to your beliefs. ;D
I'm almost tempted to agree with tappet for once. Almost. ;)
Hey ausGeoff, relax; don't you want to make an easy million Euro? ;D
-
If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge.
Why do you even bother asking for evidence that you have no intention of ever accepting for a challenge that you have no intention of ever paying off?
HM - you cannot win my Challenges by copy/paste some nonsensical web pages. You have to do some intelligent work. See http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
The first Challenge is simply to build a little structure that you then allow to collapse from the top like a house of cards! Evidently a house of cards is no structure but only cards stacked on top of each other with no solid connections. No, the structure must have solid connections between the elements and then POUFF, POUFF it shall collapse from top down.
It sounds easy but it is very difficult.
But according to US terrorists it is easy - they used it twice on 9/11/01 at NY.
So you have to repeat it. According US experts it is very easy. But nobody has collected the €1M that evidently is invested in stocks and buildings.
Heiwa, why would anyone take your challenge seriously even for a second, when you've already proven yourself to be an ignorant, cheating liar? ???
It seems like you want everyone else to prove your theory correct, but you can't do it yourself? Am I correct in understanding that if anyone actually does the calculations for fuel consumption in the Apollo missions they will find that the amount of fuel necessary exceeds what was allegedly used? If this is the case, why don't you just show your work on your popular webshite? Could it be you feel it's not worth your time because it will prove you wrong, again?
-
If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge.
Why do you even bother asking for evidence that you have no intention of ever accepting for a challenge that you have no intention of ever paying off?
HM - you cannot win my Challenges by copy/paste some nonsensical web pages. You have to do some intelligent work. See http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
The first Challenge is simply to build a little structure that you then allow to collapse from the top like a house of cards! Evidently a house of cards is no structure but only cards stacked on top of each other with no solid connections. No, the structure must have solid connections between the elements and then POUFF, POUFF it shall collapse from top down.
It sounds easy but it is very difficult.
But according to US terrorists it is easy - they used it twice on 9/11/01 at NY.
So you have to repeat it. According US experts it is very easy. But nobody has collected the €1M that evidently is invested in stocks and buildings.
Heiwa, why would anyone take your challenge seriously even for a second, when you've already proven yourself to be an ignorant, cheating liar? ???
It seems like you want everyone else to prove your theory correct, but you can't do it yourself? Am I correct in understanding that if anyone actually does the calculations for fuel consumption in the Apollo missions they will find that the amount of fuel necessary exceeds what was allegedly used? If this is the case, why don't you just show your work on your popular webshite? Could it be you feel it's not worth your time because it will prove you wrong, again?
You missed a big opportunity to point out that it would cost more than the prize money to win the prize money.
-
Heiwa, why would anyone take your challenge seriously even for a second, when you've already proven yourself to be an ignorant, cheating liar? ???
It seems like you want everyone else to prove your theory correct, but you can't do it yourself? Am I correct in understanding that if anyone actually does the calculations for fuel consumption in the Apollo missions they will find that the amount of fuel necessary exceeds what was allegedly used? If this is the case, why don't you just show your work on your popular webshite? Could it be you feel it's not worth your time because it will prove you wrong, again?
Thanks for asking. So far my web site is downloaded about 1 500 000 times with a nice, positive feedback apart from a few negative comments.
My theory - the famous Björkman axiom actually - that a top part of a structure cannot crush the bottom part of same structure by gravity has been proven and the Challenge 1 is to show that the proof and/or evidence is wrong (to earn €1M). Nobody has managed it so the axiom stands.
Re the Apollo missions my primary reference is/was, and it is clearly stated "[1] http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf) , summary report of the Apollo 11 trip approved by George M (or Wilhelm or Willy) Low, 1969. George M. Low, was according NASA dedicated to quality and excellence and a fantastic person that died at age 58 in 1984 in cancer. George M. Low's career and achievements spanned many fields: space science, aeronautics, technology, and education. In the space program, he provided management and direction for the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and advanced manned missions programs. NASA has named an award after George - George M. Low Award - NASA's Quality and Excellence Award. One thing is probably certain - I would never get that award. Poor Willy, got involved with the Apollo nonsense/hoax at his best years. "
Willy's report is full of errors so other NASA SF writers had to correct Willy's fantasies later. It seems Willy & Co were ignorant, cheating liars - using your words. My analysis is evidently focusing on the fuel/energy used during the trip as it is clear from the beginning that you cannot carry the fuel with you for the complete trip.
You really have to download and study my Apollo article where Buzz plays a small part before you post here. :)
-
Well, Heiwa, I'm here to tell you that your site is one of the most idiotic and unprofessional things I've ever seen. I don't know what those positive commenters were looking at, but to my mind things like "LOL" and "asstrohole" interspersed throughout your site don't represent actual arguments, nor do they have any purpose in professional, rational discourse. Of course, it's your shit website, so do what you want.
Now, the reason I call you an ignorant, cheating liar is not because you made mistakes in a report. It's because - just from your comments in this thread alone - you have established that you don't read the source materials, you deny that the LEM had any testing on Earth, even after evidence was presented that it had, and you refuse to provide any evidence that you have the million Euro to back up your challenge. Those are just the ones that come to mind offhand from this single thread mind you. Anyone who takes the time to review some of your interactions on the JREF forums, for example, will find that you have a long history of goalpost shifting and deception, and you have welched on your end of the challenge repeatedly with regards to the WTC challenge.
The "famous" Bjorkman axiom - yes, so famous that it only appears on your site and others such as forums where you mentioned it. I.e., it's something you made up to sound legitimate. I mean, I suppose you think it clever to make up an axiom that proves your case, but then I can do that too:
Shmeggley's axiom: Anders Bjorkman is a fucking moron and has no clue what he's talking about with regards to the atomic bomb, the WTC collapse, or space travel.
There, done! My axiom trumps yours, so I win, right? 8)
-
Willy's report is full of errors so other NASA SF writers had to correct Willy's fantasies later. It seems Willy & Co were ignorant, cheating liars - using your words. My analysis is evidently focusing on the fuel/energy used during the trip as it is clear from the beginning that you cannot carry the fuel with you for the complete trip.
Just out of curiosity, do you accept any part of rocketry at all as real, or is it one huge hoax? Do you believe that rocket engines do work and can lift large payloads into the sky, or are all of the people who witness rocket launches being fooled?
-
Just out of curiosity, do you accept any part of rocketry at all as real, or is it one huge hoax? Do you believe that rocket engines do work and can lift large payloads into the sky, or are all of the people who witness rocket launches being fooled?
Thanks for asking. If you study my web page you'll find that I am a great fan of the French Arianne 5 rocket and its engine. Of course it requires five times more fuel to put a little satellite in orbit than many NASA rocket but it seems to work. Evidently you cannot recuperate any satellite as they are flying too fast after launch. It appears many US rocket launches are fake, i.e. the rocket was an empty mock up with no payload at all, e.g. all Shuttle launches. The very heavy US Shuttles never were in space and never served the International Fake Space Station, IFSS, that therefore does not exist.
The many re-entries of the Shuttles are also fake. Imagine flying backwards trying to brake when landing starting with 9000 m/s speed at high altitude. A joke. All videos of people on the IFSS are another joke. You wonder how they can go on and on with it?
Of course they were cheated to join NASA/JPL at good salaries and then forced to sign a secrecy agreement so they could not tell what is going on.
-
Just out of curiosity, do you accept any part of rocketry at all as real, or is it one huge hoax? Do you believe that rocket engines do work and can lift large payloads into the sky, or are all of the people who witness rocket launches being fooled?
Thanks for asking. If you study my web page you'll find that I am a great fan of the French Arianne 5 rocket and its engine. Of course it requires five times more fuel to put a little satellite in orbit than many NASA rocket but it seems to work. Evidently you cannot recuperate any satellite as they are flying too fast after launch. It appears many US rocket launches are fake, i.e. the rocket was an empty mock up with no payload at all, e.g. all Shuttle launches. The very heavy US Shuttles never were in space and never served the International Fake Space Station, IFSS, that therefore does not exist.
The many re-entries of the Shuttles are also fake. Imagine flying backwards trying to brake when landing starting with 9000 m/s speed at high altitude. A joke. All videos of people on the IFSS are another joke. You wonder how they can go on and on with it?
Of course they were cheated to join NASA/JPL at good salaries and then forced to sign a secrecy agreement so they could not tell what is going on.
The shuttles didn't reenter backwards. The did a retrograde deorbit burn and then assumed a belly towards earth position with the nose pitched up a good bit. And I'm not even sure what you're trying to say about landing speed. They landed going much slower than 9 km/s.
-
Just out of curiosity, do you accept any part of rocketry at all as real, or is it one huge hoax? Do you believe that rocket engines do work and can lift large payloads into the sky, or are all of the people who witness rocket launches being fooled?
Thanks for asking. If you study my web page you'll find that I am a great fan of the French Arianne 5 rocket and its engine. Of course it requires five times more fuel to put a little satellite in orbit than many NASA rocket but it seems to work. Evidently you cannot recuperate any satellite as they are flying too fast after launch. It appears many US rocket launches are fake, i.e. the rocket was an empty mock up with no payload at all, e.g. all Shuttle launches. The very heavy US Shuttles never were in space and never served the International Fake Space Station, IFSS, that therefore does not exist.
The many re-entries of the Shuttles are also fake. Imagine flying backwards trying to brake when landing starting with 9000 m/s speed at high altitude. A joke. All videos of people on the IFSS are another joke. You wonder how they can go on and on with it?
Of course they were cheated to join NASA/JPL at good salaries and then forced to sign a secrecy agreement so they could not tell what is going on.
Perhaps you didn't you didn't understand my question. I did not ask you what you think is fake. I asked you what you think is real.
-
Just out of curiosity, do you accept any part of rocketry at all as real, or is it one huge hoax? Do you believe that rocket engines do work and can lift large payloads into the sky, or are all of the people who witness rocket launches being fooled?
Thanks for asking. If you study my web page you'll find that I am a great fan of the French Arianne 5 rocket and its engine. Of course it requires five times more fuel to put a little satellite in orbit than many NASA rocket but it seems to work. Evidently you cannot recuperate any satellite as they are flying too fast after launch. It appears many US rocket launches are fake, i.e. the rocket was an empty mock up with no payload at all, e.g. all Shuttle launches. The very heavy US Shuttles never were in space and never served the International Fake Space Station, IFSS, that therefore does not exist.
The many re-entries of the Shuttles are also fake. Imagine flying backwards trying to brake when landing starting with 9000 m/s speed at high altitude. A joke. All videos of people on the IFSS are another joke. You wonder how they can go on and on with it?
Of course they were cheated to join NASA/JPL at good salaries and then forced to sign a secrecy agreement so they could not tell what is going on.
Do you really think that you can make an argument by saying things like "it's confusing!", "LOL!", "it's a joke", etc. while you get half the details wrong? You realize that it's not enough to just call everything fake, right?
-
You keep requesting FEer's get banned from a Flat earth Website, are you OK ?
This is incorrect. I only suggest that people who are incontrovertibly deranged—such as Anders Björkman—be banned before they further drag down the already dubious credibility of the flat earth forums. Björkman has already been banned from numerous other forums based on his ludicrous pseudo-scientific notions and disruptive behaviour.
The only reason he infiltrates sites such as this is to further expound his nonsensical, self-styled "hypotheses" which have no basis in the accredited sciences.
In a couple of words, the guy is pathologically delusional.
-
Thanks for asking. So far my web site is downloaded about 1 500 000 times with a nice, positive feedback apart from a few negative comments.
My theory - the famous Björkman axiom actually - that a top part of a structure cannot crush the bottom part of same structure by gravity has been proven and the Challenge 1 is to show that the proof and/or evidence is wrong (to earn €1M). Nobody has managed it so the axiom stands.
Firstly, I need to confirm for everyone's benefit that there is NO such thing as the "Björkman Axiom". It's nothing more than a fanciful, made up "hypothesis" which has been laughed at loudly numerous times by qualified structural engineers, mechanical engineers and physicists who possess the actual academic accreditation that Björkman so desperately craves.
And yes; Björkman has already been exposed as a liar and a fraud with his empty financial "challenge". I could easily offer him $10 million if he could prove that leprechauns don't exist (and obviously he'd fail) but that doesn't reinforce the claim I could make that leprechauns do exist.
This "challenge" of his is simply to add credibility to his whacky ideas—it's effectively similar to a challenge to prove that something doesn't exist. And one can't prove a negative.
So my only "challenge" to Björkman is a simple one: Prove that you're not a liar and a fraudster.
—Now sit back folks, put your feet up, grab a beer, and watch the guy ignore my challenge.
-
So my only "challenge" to Björkman is a simple one: Prove that you're not a liar and a fraudster.
—Now sit back folks, put your feet up, grab a beer, and watch the guy ignore my challenge.
That was an easy one. Just study my cv at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm (http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm) and you will see how nice I am and my professional career, etc. Now I am off on an interesting job. Bye, bye!
-
Thanks to the man himself, Björkman has just proved he's a liar and a fraudster.
On his linked page, he says he's a "M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer". Only problem? This is just another of his fairy stories. He's not an engineer of any sort, nor does he hold any sort of accredited academic qualifications. His only "qualification" is that he's one of the most renowned conspiracy theorists on the interwebs.
At any rate, these lies have already been exposed on numerous other forums. Please don't waste your bandwidth trying to have any sort of intelligent debate with the guy; it's like philosophising with a 6-year-old about Santa Claus... but even more pointless.
-
Thanks to the man himself, Björkman has just proved he's a liar and a fraudster.
On his linked page, he says he's a "M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer". Only problem? This is just another of his fairy stories. He's not an engineer of any sort, nor does he hold any sort of accredited academic qualifications. His only "qualification" is that he's one of the most renowned conspiracy theorists on the interwebs.
At any rate, these lies have already been exposed on numerous other forums. Please don't waste your bandwidth trying to have any sort of intelligent debate with the guy; it's like philosophising with a 6-year-old about Santa Claus... but even more pointless.
You appear scared of Heiwa, Geoffrey. It's almost a point of panic trying to have him banned. What are you scared of?
You came to this site as a full on denier of EVERYTHING that gets said about anything put out by mainstream scientists and I mean EVERYTHING.
Any ordinary person with no agenda can see that Heiwa's site is well presented. I don't agree with everything on it but there's is a hell of a lot of food for thought for anyone wanting to look at it and you know this. You know it and are terrified that people will view it and take it serious, so you attempt to muddy the waters with large heaps of mud just to make sure, then when Heiwa comes back at you, you constantly ask for his ban? Why? For exercising his free will and speech?
Geoff, let me put this out to you and I'm sure many will agree even if they don't physically type it. You are a shill of the highest order, 100%, no doubt about it. You have stood out like a sore thumb pretty much from day one.
You appear to be an expert in absolutely anything and appear to have all the technological gadgets known to man, just right for every conversation against you.
The day someone like you gets someone like Heiwa banned from this site, is the day that this site actually loses credibility as a free thinking site. The good part is, the people that manage this site are not touchy, Geoffrey, they are more than fair.
Let me just explain something to you. Argue your point on anything you want to and attempt as much ridicule as you can muster..but stop asking for bans.
My apologies for going off topic but I believe this needed to be said so people can see just what this Geoffrey character is, if you didn't already know.
-
Yay! scepti's back! Saviour of the forum.
Heiwa's site is well presented.
lol, now I know you are taking the piss.
-
Yay! scepti's back! Saviour of the forum.
Heiwa's site is well presented.
lol, now I know you are taking the piss.
And haven't things flowed much more smoothly without our resident intellectual midget chiming in with totally off-topic posts in every second thread?
And why am I not in the least surprised to see that sceptimatic considers Björkman's sites "well presented"? Only a fool of the highest order would believe that LOL.
Oh, wait.....
;D
-
Yay! scepti's back! Saviour of the forum.
Heiwa's site is well presented.
lol, now I know you are taking the piss.
AusGeoff is Scepti's alt so this should be good.
-
I only suggest that people who are incontrovertibly deranged—such as Anders Björkman—be banned before they further drag down the already dubious credibility of the flat earth forums.
In a couple of words, the guy is pathologically delusional.
You do realize that some RE'ers feel the same way about you, don't you?
-
AusGeoff is Scepti's alt so this should be good.
Ooooh... lookee here. My very, very favourite stalker is back!
I've already asked poor old Rama Set to put me on his IGNORE list a couple of times, but it seems he just can't resist reading and responding to my comments. Maybe he's secretly a fan of mine? Or hopes to pick up some scientific know-how by default?
—Go for it son.
-
You do realize that some RE'ers feel the same way about you, don't you?
And I should care? Nope. Sorry. No joy there.
-
Thanks to the man himself, Björkman has just proved he's a liar and a fraudster.
On his linked page, he says he's a "M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer". Only problem? This is just another of his fairy stories. He's not an engineer of any sort, nor does he hold any sort of accredited academic qualifications. His only "qualification" is that he's one of the most renowned conspiracy theorists on the interwebs.
At any rate, these lies have already been exposed on numerous other forums. Please don't waste your bandwidth trying to have any sort of intelligent debate with the guy; it's like philosophising with a 6-year-old about Santa Claus... but even more pointless.
AusGeoff, you're really starting to irritate me because now you're making me defend Heiwa. The fact that he's a dishonest and probably delusional crank has been made abundantly clear on this and other fora. But why do you insist that he doesn't have a degree in Naval Architecture? I would seriously like to see evidence of this; do you have any?
-
Oh, give me a break. The Ariane V doesn't take 5x more fuel for the same launch, it takes 5x more fuel because it is designed for launching huge payloads. Its what us rocket people call an 'Ultra-Heavy' variant. Basically super beefed up to carry a lot more weight. Good for launching interplanetary missions, I.S.S. components, etc. You obviously know nothing about rocket science because if you did you could do some basic calculations and discover that all currently in service rocket designs, can in fact accomplish their orbits. All you have to do is calculate the ∆ velocity required to lift it's payload into orbit, then use the bell shape to calculate the thrust, and the propellant used to find the specific impulse, and from that you can find the tonnage of fuel required to meet the ∆v requirement. It's high school level math, at most. But obviously doing any actual research is beyond you, because you are totally misinformed on all aspects of space flight. And the fact that you believe signing a form would keep the millions of people involved with the space program silent is foolish at best and willfully ignorant at worst. All of the space agencies and corporations around the whole world, and all the supporting infrastructure and industry, and not one of them has tried to confess this massive conspiracy? No. Bollocks. Even if they could do that, what about the U.S.S.R.? Why has no one confessed the lies they made for a country they hate and brought down? The real lies the Soviets made have already been confessed. Ex: Failed attempts before Gagarin, feigned launches, assassinating pilots, etc. So obviously these people are willing to tell the dead bear's secrets, then why would they stop themselves with those few? It doesn't make sense. But I don't think you've thought that far, because you didn't even think far enough to realize that you don't even know how the space shuttle works. It uses external fuel and boosters to make it to orbit, uses it's onboard fuel todo any orbital maneuvers or docking, releases it's cargo, then fores retrograde rockets and falls back down. When it enters the atmosphere, it enters a shallow descent with a high pitch to angle the heat shield to block reentry heating, then once it has slowed down to stable speeds, it glides down to the runway and lands like a normal plane from a normal altitude. Of course, the space shuttle weighs a lot more than a regular plane so it deploys drag parachutes to stop it on the runway. I would say 'not exactly rocket science', but it is.
-
If you study my web page you'll find that I am a great fan of the French Arianne 5 rocket and its engine. Of course it requires five times more fuel to put a little satellite in orbit than many NASA rocket but it seems to work.
I think that you have that backwards. It's the shuttle used about 5x more fuel than the Ariane 5 (if you're such a fan, you should at least learn how to spell it) to place a somewhat larger payload into low earth orbit (24,400kg for shuttle vs 21,000kg for Ariane 5ES).
Evidently you cannot recuperate any satellite as they are flying too fast after launch.
Huh? The space shuttle was used for a number of satellite repair and recovery missions, including 5 repair missions to the the Hubble Space Telescope and recovery of the Long Duration Exposure Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Duration_Exposure_Facility)
It appears many US rocket launches are fake, i.e. the rocket was an empty mock up with no payload at all, e.g. all Shuttle launches. The very heavy US Shuttles never were in space and never served the International Fake Space Station, IFSS, that therefore does not exist.
The many re-entries of the Shuttles are also fake. Imagine flying backwards trying to brake when landing starting with 9000 m/s speed at high altitude. A joke. All videos of people on the IFSS are another joke. You wonder how they can go on and on with it?
Of course they were cheated to join NASA/JPL at good salaries and then forced to sign a secrecy agreement so they could not tell what is going on.
Do you have any actual evidence for any of these claims, or should I just take your word for it?
Anyway, you still haven't answered my question: what, if any, parts of large rockets do you believe are real?
-
But why do you insist that he doesn't have a degree in Naval Architecture? I would seriously like to see evidence of this; do you have any?
Because there's nothing more than his own claims that he's got a Masters in "Naval Architecture" or is an "engineer". He's not once been able to produce any accredited evidence from any institute of learning that supports these claims. And he's been asked to do so on literally dozens of sites. He's also been banned from the JREF forum for repeatedly breaking its rules—and it takes a massively moronic individual to earn that sort of ban on the JREF site.
—And no: I can't produce any evidence in support of my claims about his fraudulent "qualifications". Logic says that one cannot prove a negative.
The sole reason Björkman infiltrates sites such as this is to further his own dubious cause, and/or to further massage his enormous ego. Which is why I suggested earlier on that the site would be better off without his input. (I won't use the word "ban" again as it seems to trigger an exaggerated negative response form a few members here LOL.)
-
There's no rule or axiom in logic that says you can't prove a negative. That's a common misconception. In many cases it's unfeasible, but in this case, I think it would be sufficient to contact Chalmers University in Sweden and check if Anders ever attended and graduated. At any rate, proof of credentials is not strictly necessary for debate. He may well have a Naval Architecture and Engineering degree; that's irrelevant. If he does, it still doesn't qualify him as a Structural engineer, which he's been referred to as, nor does it give him much credibility with regards to aerospace engineering. And even if he's lying about his degree, that isn't relevant either. There are many good reasons why he's wrong about nearly everything, but his education isn't one of them. You can weigh the strength of his arguments on their own (rather dubious) merits whether he's a liar or not. If you want to get technical about it, dismissing his arguments about the Apollo program on the basis of him lying about his background is an Ad Hominem fallacy, since it attacks Heiwa himself, not his argument.
As to whether the site would be better off without him, I don't see how you can judge that. What are your criteria as to what makes the site better or worse? How is he affecting that criteria? In case you haven't noticed, this site has a number of colourful characters. I don't know what you envision for the FES, but I can't picture it without them. It's been said that cranks are good for starting revolutions. In the case of the FES, I'd say they at least keep the wheels turning.
-
Thanks to the man himself, Björkman has just proved he's a liar and a fraudster.
On his linked page, he says he's a "M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer". Only problem? This is just another of his fairy stories. He's not an engineer of any sort, nor does he hold any sort of accredited academic qualifications. His only "qualification" is that he's one of the most renowned conspiracy theorists on the interwebs.
At any rate, these lies have already been exposed on numerous other forums. Please don't waste your bandwidth trying to have any sort of intelligent debate with the guy; it's like philosophising with a 6-year-old about Santa Claus... but even more pointless.
Also, his company doesn't really exist. There are two shitty, shitty websites (for a firm that does international shipping? Really?) that double as conspiracy theory websites and apparently also sell his books. Other than that there's a facebook page with one like and some business information on websites that collect any such information that's put in without verifying.
If it was a real company I would have to wonder why this exists:
http://www.heiwa.co.jp/ (http://www.heiwa.co.jp/)
There's also a Heiwa Shokai Co. (owned and operated by a person with a Japanese name) that does naval contracts of some sort.
He has at least published books though.
https://catalog.wmu.se/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=12486&query_desc=%28su%3A{Passenger%20ships}%29 (https://catalog.wmu.se/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=12486&query_desc=%28su%3A{Passenger%20ships}%29)
I have to wonder how someone who works in shipping would be unable to explain navigation and travel times.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world (https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world)
His conctact information from his website gives this address:
6, rue Victor Hugo, F 06 240 Beausoleil, France
Pop that into Google Maps and go to street view.
-
He may well have a Naval Architecture and Engineering degree; that's irrelevant...
Uh... no it's not. Björkman repeatedly mentions that fact in every one of his pages. It's intended as an appeal to authority, but is actually a false appeal (as you've noted). And that false appeal to authority is intended to give more veracity to his bizarre drivel than it deserves.
I'm also not sure as to why you've defended him—as an individual—twice now? Björkman is nothing more than a fraudster who's ripped off thousands of people selling his silly books filled with nothing more than the self-serving and distorted opinions of a deranged mind.
And if you claim that—apparently—you can prove a negative, try this one: I claim that leprechauns do not exist.
—Go for it.
-
I really don't like the ad hominem here. :-\
-
I really don't like the ad hominem here.
I'm not sure that you understand what an ad hominem is; at any rate, I seldom use it as an argument.
Or are you maybe suggesting that Anders Björkman is not a fraudster, but is instead a fine, upstanding citizen doing his best to educate an ignorant population for little or no financial reward?
-
Geoff, I'm actually defending you here. Sorry that was out of context, I was referring to how everyone was insulting you rather than your argument.
-
So much so that this thread has devolved into apes slinging shit at each other.
-
I really don't like the ad hominem here.
I'm not sure that you understand what an ad hominem is; at any rate, I seldom use it as an argument.
Or are you maybe suggesting that Anders Björkman is not a fraudster, but is instead a fine, upstanding citizen doing his best to educate an ignorant population for little or no financial reward?
This is why I say you make bad arguments ausGeoff. Whether he is a "fraudster" or whatever has nothing to do with whether his arguments about Apollo, 9/11 etc. are correct or not. That's what Ad Hominem means. I and others want to know what he has to say about rockets and how he thinks they work. With regards to that, I could care less what school he did or didn't attend. His actual arguments are the only thing that is relevant here.
I totally agree though, that he's a liar and a cheat, as I've said before.
-
He may well have a Naval Architecture and Engineering degree; that's irrelevant...
Uh... no it's not. Björkman repeatedly mentions that fact in every one of his pages. It's intended as an appeal to authority, but is actually a false appeal (as you've noted). And that false appeal to authority is intended to give more veracity to his bizarre drivel than it deserves.
I'm also not sure as to why you've defended him—as an individual—twice now? Björkman is nothing more than a fraudster who's ripped off thousands of people selling his silly books filled with nothing more than the self-serving and distorted opinions of a deranged mind.
And if you claim that—apparently—you can prove a negative, try this one: I claim that leprechauns do not exist.
—Go for it.
It's more like "did this particular leprechaun attend this particular school at this particular date?". That is just a matter of record keeping and is trivial to verify one way or the other, assuming the school still exists and kept proper records.
As to whether leprechauns exist, "proof" is not what we're after, at least in the sense of a deductively valid argument. But it's silly to say that no one can offer any evidence that leprechauns don't exist. There are plenty of ways you can make a strong argument for their non-existence. To me it sounds like you're just cribbing a talking point commonly used by atheists who don't want to shoulder the burden of proof. Which is a good tactic, depending on what you're trying to argue. But that's totally unnecessary here. This isn't a supernatural claim that's unfalsifiable; it's actually possible to make the claim that he didn't go to Chalmers and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, as I've explained already.
Let's take another example. There was an argument recently on this site where a user claimed that his "friend" had evidence pertaining to Foucault pendulums and how they are fake. This friend was supposedly a user on this site, he gave the username, it was checked and no history of that user was found. This was enough to establish that his claim was false.
I suggest you read this short article on proving a negative: http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf)
-
I would love for all the FE'ers explain this video:
(http://)
and this video:
(http://)
The first shows clearly that they are in a no gravity situation. the person in the video has been an advocate for education on space travel for years. making many videos and uploading them to youtube while in space. he has also done several interviews and such since he's been back from the ISS. yet FL'ers claim that it's impossible to come back from space alive. that your ship will just be burnt up in then process.
the second video clearly shows a spherical earth from many different angles. you can try to argue your false versions of optical/lens theory if you want. but no matter what kind of optical/lens you are using, there is no way that it would provide the same distortion from all of these angles.
-
Insciencewetrust, that is a correct point. However, the people here refuse to face it. Instead they claim that every video or photo showing a round earth is faked, and that NASA is really just a propaganda organization convincing the world that we do go to space for absolutely no reason.
-
To clarify, Heiwa is the one claiming any space vehicle will burn up on reentry, but he's not a flat Earther, just a general conspiracy crank. Although most FE'ers maintain all space travel is a hoax, there's still a variety of opinions on what is faked and what is real. We're still waiting for Heiwa's response on whether he thinks rockets work or not.
-
There are definitely times rockets don't work, but a vast majority of the time they do :)
-
What's interesting to me is how conspiracy theorists think a crash or two means the whole industry is corrupt, and any allegedly successful results are therefore faked.
-
Geoff, I'm actually defending you here. Sorry that was out of context, I was referring to how everyone was insulting you rather than your argument.
My apologies to you too Blacksmith. I misinterpreted your comment.
:)
-
I miss Heiwa already. He was highly entertaining. Visiting his popular website is just not the same as interacting with him. :(
-
You wont hear me complain when a complete idiot goes MIA.
-
What a joke.
Hes not brainwashed.
He is just under the constant threat of being killed.
-
And I find it bizarre that a country that was engaged in a war that cost it 58,100 lives 303,644wounded & Billions of dollars in conflict costs.
Are you familiar with Pearl Harbor? The Holocaust?
-
And I find it bizarre that a country that was engaged in a war that cost it 58,100 lives 303,644wounded & Billions of dollars in conflict costs.
Are you familiar with Pearl Harbor? The Holocaust?
What do they have to do with the Viet Nam war? ???
-
And I find it bizarre that a country that was engaged in a war that cost it 58,100 lives 303,644wounded & Billions of dollars in conflict costs.
Are you familiar with Pearl Harbor? The Holocaust?
What do they have to do with the Viet Nam war? ???
Markjo you are to smart to say something so dumb. The indo china war had a lot of causes and WW2 was the trigger.
-
And I find it bizarre that a country that was engaged in a war that cost it 58,100 lives 303,644wounded & Billions of dollars in conflict costs.
Are you familiar with Pearl Harbor? The Holocaust?
What do they have to do with the Viet Nam war? ???
Markjo you are to smart to say something so dumb. The indo china war had a lot of causes and WW2 was the trigger.
Ah, but markjo is right. I was referring to the wrong war. I thought charles bloomington was referring to WW2, due to some mentions of atomic bombs
But the point still stands. A clear motivation for the Vietnam war was the U.S's anti-communism stance, not to divert attention from a non-existant conspiracy.
-
MARKJO'D
-
I miss Heiwa already. He was highly entertaining. Visiting his popular website is just not the same as interacting with him. :(
Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below, from my other house up in central Europe slowly sinking down inte Earth since 1520. I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply. ::) But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.
-
To clarify, Heiwa is the one claiming any space vehicle will burn up on reentry, but he's not a flat Earther, just a general conspiracy crank. Although most FE'ers maintain all space travel is a hoax, there's still a variety of opinions on what is faked and what is real. We're still waiting for Heiwa's response on whether he thinks rockets work or not.
Yes, any space vehicle will burn up on re-entry. Yes, I am not a a flat Earther as I enjoy alpine skiing. No, I am not a conspiracy crank. I just do not like Lyssenko and his friends.
If you study my web sites you will find out what rockets work and what rockets do not work.
Thanks for your attention.
-
Yes, any space vehicle will burn up on re-entry.
If meteors can survive entry into earth's atmosphere, they why can't space vehicles?
-
Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below...
Quite frankly, nobody gives the slightest damn about your self-centred, boring life. Tell someone who cares.
I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply. But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.
If you're gonna "review" any "intelligent" posts here, I've got a tip: Ignore ALL those made by flat earthers and read only stuff posted by round earthers. It'll save a lot of stress on your grey matter LOL.
And you seem not to have yet understood why your silly site(s) get so many hits; it's people following links from legitimate, science-based sites checking out just how pretentious, delusional and irrational one individual can be. Or, apparently, so ignorant of even basic scientific principles that any high-school kid can grasp. People are reading through your endless drivel for a good laugh, and certainly not to learn anything.
And the sort of dross you publish on your website is not "interesting"—as you claim somewhat naively; it's the sort of fantastical stuff I was reading in Marvel comic books when I was 8 years of age.
-
No, I am not a conspiracy crank.
This is not the opinion of most other genuine scientific critics. For some really crazy stuff, check out The Unique World of Anders Bjorkman (Heiwa) (http://bit.ly/1srm8U3)
Its links provide endless hours of amusement if you enjoy reading science-fiction—from someone with a vivid imagination—but a poor command of credible science.
-
Yes, any space vehicle will burn up on re-entry.
If meteors can survive entry into earth's atmosphere, then why can't space vehicles?
Thanks for asking. Pls study the link in post #57 on page 3 of this thread and you will understand better.
Meteorites are solid blocks of some material and they heat up at re-entry but some solid pieces may drop down on Earth.
Space vehicles are human built structures full of air. Some have a little heat shield at one end. Others, like the Space Shuttle, have heat absorbing tiles on the wings, etc. Regardless, any space ship is simply structurally too weak to withstand the forces at re-entry and dispose the energy absorbed as friction. My seagoing ships are much stronger than any NASA built space ship.
This Buzz person - topic - just learnt from Trofym Lyssenko how to fool people with pseudo science ... backed up by media of course.
-
This Buzz person - topic - just learned from Trofym Lysenko how to fool people with pseudo science ... backed up by media of course.
Spoken as only another master propagator of pseudo-science would LOL.
Oh... except that you're NOT "backed up" by any credible media source in the world.
-
Regardless, any space ship is simply structurally too weak to withstand the forces at re-entry and dispose the energy absorbed as friction.
Have you ever calculated the forces of reentry or the heat generated by friction? If so, then I'd be interested in seeing your calculations. If not, then on what basis, other than personal opinion, are you basing your claims?
-
Have you ever calculated the forces of reentry or the heat generated by friction? If so, then I'd be interested in seeing your calculations. If not, then on what basis, other than personal opinion, are you basing your claims?
Calculations are in my paper. It would appear that any space ship would heat up to >70 000° C by the friction energy during re-entry. The friction and aerodynamical forces applied to the structure and its content during deceleration are also quite high. It seems Buzz & Co would simply be vaporized at re-entry.
-
Have you ever calculated the forces of reentry or the heat generated by friction? If so, then I'd be interested in seeing your calculations. If not, then on what basis, other than personal opinion, are you basing your claims?
Calculations are in my paper. It would appear that any space ship would heat up to >70 000° C by the friction energy during re-entry. The friction and aerodynamical forces applied to the structure and its content during deceleration are also quite high. It seems Buzz & Co would simply be vaporized at re-entry.
Which paper, what page?
-
It would appear that any space ship would heat up to >70 000°C by the friction energy during re-entry. The friction and aerodynamical forces applied to the structure and its content during deceleration are also quite high.
LOL. You've really got NO idea at all have you? Maximum re-entry temperatures due to friction are around 1,700ºC. Even the sun's photosphere is "only" 5,500ºC at its outer surface.
-
Which paper, what page?
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer LOL.
-
Which paper, what page?
The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.
Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
-
Have you ever calculated the forces of reentry or the heat generated by friction? If so, then I'd be interested in seeing your calculations. If not, then on what basis, other than personal opinion, are you basing your claims?
Calculations are in my paper. It would appear that any space ship would heat up to >70 000° C by the friction energy during re-entry. The friction and aerodynamical forces applied to the structure and its content during deceleration are also quite high. It seems Buzz & Co would simply be vaporized at re-entry.
Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.
-
Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.
It seems the first UFOs were spotted in the sky and even landing 70 years ago by 10 000's of people, as reported by media, but nobody has ever been able to present any solid UFO + pilot (if any) to us normal people. All other space crafts - moon and ISF modules and US Shuttles - are just dropped off from airplanes at low altitude to impress the sheeple.
My calculations wrong? Do you want to earn €1 000 000:-? Visit http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) ! Prove me wrong.
-
Which paper, what page?
The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.
Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
Gods your "popular paper" is a mess. Other than you asserting the impossibility of space travel, there is only one piece of concrete evidence you submit, which is the thrust of the Apollo 11 rocket engine, but you do not even have a citation for that. You have a clear agenda, to slam NASA, so I can not trust this factoid.
Your evidence for the "weight problem" in fuel payload is an article regarding travelling to Mars, and specifically talks about scaling up space journeys. It never, not once, states that travelling to the Moon is impossible. Again, it is just your assertion, which you are assuming supports your position.
Nowhere in your "calculations" do you show your assumptions, the sources for them, or any of the other factors along the way, i.e. trajectory, atmospheric density, etc...), just a final product. If I am to actually consider your argument, there needs to be more substantiation.
-
Which paper, what page?
The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.
Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
Gods your "popular paper" is a mess. Other than you asserting the impossibility of space travel, there is only one piece of concrete evidence you submit, which is the thrust of the Apollo 11 rocket engine, but you do not even have a citation for that. You have a clear agenda, to slam NASA, so I can not trust this factoid.
Your evidence for the "weight problem" in fuel payload is an article regarding travelling to Mars, and specifically talks about scaling up space journeys. It never, not once, states that travelling to the Moon is impossible. Again, it is just your assertion, which you are assuming supports your position.
Nowhere in your "calculations" do you show your assumptions, the sources for them, or any of the other factors along the way, i.e. trajectory, atmospheric density, etc...), just a final product. If I am to actually consider your argument, there needs to be more substantiation.
Incorrect. If you would spend some time analyzing the documents he has provided. You surely would have noticed the contradicting evidence that NASA itself provides
-
Which paper, what page?
The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.
Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
Gods your "popular paper" is a mess. Other than you asserting the impossibility of space travel, there is only one piece of concrete evidence you submit, which is the thrust of the Apollo 11 rocket engine, but you do not even have a citation for that. You have a clear agenda, to slam NASA, so I can not trust this factoid.
Your evidence for the "weight problem" in fuel payload is an article regarding travelling to Mars, and specifically talks about scaling up space journeys. It never, not once, states that travelling to the Moon is impossible. Again, it is just your assertion, which you are assuming supports your position.
Nowhere in your "calculations" do you show your assumptions, the sources for them, or any of the other factors along the way, i.e. trajectory, atmospheric density, etc...), just a final product. If I am to actually consider your argument, there needs to be more substantiation.
Incorrect. If you would spend some time analyzing the documents he has provided. You surely would have noticed the contradicting evidence that NASA itself provides
I would be interested in some highlights from you. I sometimes find that people such as you find contradictions, where I see none, so a point in the right direction would be appreciated.
-
Which paper, what page?
The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.
...
The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.
Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
I see a couple of obvious errors in the applicability of the temperature calculation. Anyone else? This may be why NASA uses talented rocket scientists and materials engineers to design their re-entry systems instead of shipbuilders.
And, while 60.84 MJ/kg sounds impressively large, just how much energy is 60.84 MJ? 1 kilowatt-hour of energy is 3.6 MJ (Wow! That's a lot!), so the kinetic energy for each kg at re-entry is the equivalent of running a 100W light bulb for a week, or about US$1.69 worth of electricity at retail where I live (about 10 cents per 3.6 MJ) for each kg. Safely disposing of this much energy certainly requires careful design, but obviously is not an insurmountable problem if the right people are working on it; it's just another engineering problem among many others.
-
Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below...
Quite frankly, nobody gives the slightest damn about your self-centred, boring life. Tell someone who cares.
I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply. But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.
If you're gonna "review" any "intelligent" posts here, I've got a tip: Ignore ALL those made by flat earthers and read only stuff posted by round earthers. It'll save a lot of stress on your grey matter LOL.
And you seem not to have yet understood why your silly site(s) get so many hits; it's people following links from legitimate, science-based sites checking out just how pretentious, delusional and irrational one individual can be. Or, apparently, so ignorant of even basic scientific principles that any high-school kid can grasp. People are reading through your endless drivel for a good laugh, and certainly not to learn anything.
And the sort of dross you publish on your website is not "interesting"—as you claim somewhat naively; it's the sort of fantastical stuff I was reading in Marvel comic books when I was 8 years of age.
News flash assGeoff, I give a damn, so speak for yourself you arrogant tool.
Heiwa may be a crank and/or a nutcase, but he's a interesting one, unlike yourself. He's also a real person on the other end of the internet from you, just like everyone else here.
-
Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.
It seems the first UFOs were spotted in the sky and even landing 70 years ago by 10 000's of people, as reported by media, but nobody has ever been able to present any solid UFO + pilot (if any) to us normal people.
How are UFOs relevant? ???
All other space crafts - moon and ISF modules and US Shuttles - are just dropped off from airplanes at low altitude to impress the sheeple.
So you still have no explanation as to why atmospheric reentry is an engineering problem that can't possibly be solved. Good to know.
My calculations wrong? Do you want to earn €1 000 000:-? Visit http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) ! Prove me wrong.
How can I prove your calculations wrong if you didn't perform any calculations on any of the spacecraft in question?
-
Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.
All other space crafts - moon and ISF modules and US Shuttles - are just dropped off from airplanes at low altitude to impress the sheeple.
Yea, no. This is why people don't believe this stuff. At the end of the day, it all depends on a conspiracy theory with no evidence.
-
Seeing as spacecraft have been successfully reentering the atmosphere for over 50 years, it seems that your calculations are wrong.
It seems the first UFOs were spotted in the sky and even landing 70 years ago by 10 000's of people, as reported by media, but nobody has ever been able to present any solid UFO + pilot (if any) to us normal people.
How are UFOs relevant? ???
All other space crafts - moon and ISF modules and US Shuttles - are just dropped off from airplanes at low altitude to impress the sheeple.
So you still have no explanation as to why atmospheric reentry is an engineering problem that can't possibly be solved. Good to know.
My calculations wrong? Do you want to earn €1 000 000:-? Visit http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) ! Prove me wrong.
How can I prove your calculations wrong if you didn't perform any calculations on any of the spacecraft in question?
You must realize by now that we all know there's no money and that your challenge is bogus.
Just repost your calculations here and prove us wrong, maybe some people will chip in and buy you a lovely FES Tshirt (which may or may not exist).
-
Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below...
Quite frankly, nobody gives the slightest damn about your self-centred, boring life. Tell someone who cares.
I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply. But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.
If you're gonna "review" any "intelligent" posts here, I've got a tip: Ignore ALL those made by flat earthers and read only stuff posted by round earthers. It'll save a lot of stress on your grey matter LOL.
And you seem not to have yet understood why your silly site(s) get so many hits; it's people following links from legitimate, science-based sites checking out just how pretentious, delusional and irrational one individual can be. Or, apparently, so ignorant of even basic scientific principles that any high-school kid can grasp. People are reading through your endless drivel for a good laugh, and certainly not to learn anything.
And the sort of dross you publish on your website is not "interesting"—as you claim somewhat naively; it's the sort of fantastical stuff I was reading in Marvel comic books when I was 8 years of age.
News flash assGeoff, I give a damn, so speak for yourself you arrogant tool.
Heiwa may be a crank and/or a nutcase, but he's a interesting one, unlike yourself. He's also a real person on the other end of the internet from you, just like everyone else here.
He may be interesting, but also mind-numbingly stubbornly stupid. He keeps spouting nonsense in the face of directly contradicting evidence and does not understand the physics of things like atomic bombs. It is understandably hard not to insult him
-
Source: my popular paper at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) .
LOL... those pages of drivel in NO way constitute a "paper" in the scientific sense of the word. Where are your links to the accredited scientific magazines it's been printed in? Where is your list of scientists that have peer-reviewed your self-styled "paper"?
It's really quite amusing how you've managed to delude yourself for so long that you're actually some sort of accredited engineer, with legitimate academic qualifications. I contacted the IMO (International Maritime Organization), [email protected] which you claim to have been a delegate of, and they told me that they had never heard of an "Anders Björkman".
I can only suggest that people take everything Anders Björkman posts here with a massive grain of salt—it's all total bullshit meant to impress the masses. Unfortunately, the masses aren't quite as brain-dead as Björkman presumes they are. And this is invariably his undoing on dozens of other forums wherein he's tried to broadcast his incredibly absurd pseudo-scientific meanderings.
It's not Buzz that's "brainwashed", but Heiwa—by his own delusional state of mind. ::)
-
I can only suggest that people take everything Anders Björkman posts here with a massive grain of salt—it's all total bullshit meant to impress the masses.
And I suggest that you stop pointing out the blindingly obvious as if it were some sort of profound revelation. If some of us want to play along with the delusions of Anders, Sceptimatic, jroa, or anyone else on this site, then that's our prerogative. You don't need to keep warning us away from everyone that is an obvious troll.
-
And I suggest that you stop pointing out the blindingly obvious as if it were some sort of profound revelation. If some of us want to play along with the delusions of Anders, Sceptimatic, jroa, or anyone else on this site, then that's our prerogative. You don't need to keep warning us away from everyone that is an obvious troll.
You've missed the point I was making—as you often do.
You should be aware that several flat earthers have already been taken in—hook, line and sinker—by the pseudo-scientific ramblings of Heiwa. There's certainly no harm in occasionally reinforcing the fact that across the interwebs, he's an acknowledged fraud and liar. Google 'Anders Björkman' to see what I'm talking about.
As many of the flat earthers are extremely gullible and scientifically ill-informed, my warnings are timely.
-
FE'ers are very experienced in outing the trolls.
-
Good news. I am back in my house, built 1972, on a slope with a view of the Med below...
Quite frankly, nobody gives the slightest damn about your self-centred, boring life. Tell someone who cares.
I will review any intelligent posts here done in my absence and maybe reply. But before that I will update my popular website with interesting info.
If you're gonna "review" any "intelligent" posts here, I've got a tip: Ignore ALL those made by flat earthers and read only stuff posted by round earthers. It'll save a lot of stress on your grey matter LOL.
And you seem not to have yet understood why your silly site(s) get so many hits; it's people following links from legitimate, science-based sites checking out just how pretentious, delusional and irrational one individual can be. Or, apparently, so ignorant of even basic scientific principles that any high-school kid can grasp. People are reading through your endless drivel for a good laugh, and certainly not to learn anything.
And the sort of dross you publish on your website is not "interesting"—as you claim somewhat naively; it's the sort of fantastical stuff I was reading in Marvel comic books when I was 8 years of age.
News flash assGeoff, I give a damn, so speak for yourself you arrogant tool.
Heiwa may be a crank and/or a nutcase, but he's a interesting one, unlike yourself. He's also a real person on the other end of the internet from you, just like everyone else here.
He may be interesting, but also mind-numbingly stubbornly stupid. He keeps spouting nonsense in the face of directly contradicting evidence and does not understand the physics of things like atomic bombs. It is understandably hard not to insult him
Exactly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel already. No need for anybody to come and suck the fun out of it.
-
And I suggest that you stop pointing out the blindingly obvious as if it were some sort of profound revelation. If some of us want to play along with the delusions of Anders, Sceptimatic, jroa, or anyone else on this site, then that's our prerogative. You don't need to keep warning us away from everyone that is an obvious troll.
You've missed the point I was making—as you often do.
No, I don't think that I did.
You should be aware that several flat earthers have already been taken in—hook, line and sinker—by the pseudo-scientific ramblings of Heiwa.
I think that you're confusing "taken in" with "playing along".
There's certainly no harm in occasionally reinforcing the fact that across the interwebs, he's an acknowledged fraud and liar. Google 'Anders Björkman' to see what I'm talking about.
I think that you're confusing "occasionally" with "every chance I get".
As many of the flat earthers are extremely gullible and scientifically ill-informed, my warnings are timely.
Trust me, most of the FE regulars are not as "gullible and scientifically ill-informed" as they appear to be.
-
All the flat earth peeps have gone, and we are just left with Geoff's self-righteous ramblings.
I think it might be time to leave. Then again tfes.org seems to be almost dead apart from constitutional wrangling.
-
All the flat earth peeps have gone, and we are just left with Geoff's self-righteous ramblings.
I think it might be time to leave. Then again tfes.org seems to be almost dead apart from constitutional wrangling.
I am glad however that many people here are still keen to engage me in debate, regardless of their "roundness" or their "flatness".
Nobody's forcing you to read my posts Jimmy; you have the choice not to. Please act on it.
-
I find this http://heiwaco.com/ded.pdf (http://heiwaco.com/ded.pdf) quite long, 33 pp, article very interesting. What do you think? Is there a German Butzcs in space right now?
-
Because we all speak German.
-
I find this http://heiwaco.com/ded.pdf (http://heiwaco.com/ded.pdf) quite long, 33 pp, article very interesting. What do you think? Is there a German Butzcs in space right now?
I think it's funny how Heiwa always mentions that his own websites are "interesting" and "very popular". Clearly he thinks he can fool Google and other search engines into thinking that his sites really are interesting and popular by using these words near the links to his sites.
By the way, Heiwa, when are you going to provide evidence that you actually have the 1 million euros that you have offered as a prize?
-
I find this http://heiwaco.com/ded.pdf (http://heiwaco.com/ded.pdf) quite long, 33 pp, article very interesting. What do you think? Is there a German Butzcs in space right now?
I think it's funny how Heiwa always mentions that his own websites are "interesting" and "very popular". Clearly he thinks he can fool Google and other search engines into thinking that his sites really are interesting and popular by using these words near the links to his sites.
By the way, Heiwa, when are you going to provide evidence that you actually have the 1 million euros that you have offered as a prize?
Well, obviously it is your claim that he doesn't have 1 million euros. Therefore you have to prove that he doesn't have it. Also, since you can't prove a negative, there is no way for you to prove he doesn't. Therefore, because you can't prove he doesn't, it is actually proof that he does. ;D
-
I think it's funny how Heiwa always mentions that his own websites are "interesting" and "very popular".
They possibly are to anybody with an IQ that matches their shoe size. ;D
-
I think it's funny how Heiwa always mentions that his own websites are "interesting" and "very popular". Clearly he thinks he can fool Google and other search engines into thinking that his sites really are interesting and popular by using these words near the links to his sites.
Actually it is the pdf paper itself that is interesting. I just host the paper on my site for obvious reasons. I didn't write it.
I don't know why Google links to me and what search words are used. All is secret by Google. I therefore assume Google filters away most searches for my web site for unknown reasons. Maybe I haven't paid Google enough?
-
I think it's funny how Heiwa always mentions that his own websites are "interesting" and "very popular". Clearly he thinks he can fool Google and other search engines into thinking that his sites really are interesting and popular by using these words near the links to his sites.
I don't know why Google links to me and what search words are used. All is secret by Google. I therefore assume Google filters away most searches for my web site for unknown reasons. Maybe I haven't paid Google enough?
:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
(No facepalm emoji, this is the best I can do)
-
Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to have been in on the conspiracy if the Moon landings were faked. Think of all the engineers designing, testing and operating all of the vehicles and providing all kinds of support. And all the people that would have been involved in the fake videos, fake photos, etc. And yet, to this day, not a single Apollo official has come forward to reveal the "truth" about the fake missions. Wouldn't you think that at least one person on his deathbed would say, "Before I die, I have to tell the truth. We faked the Apollo program." Nope, not a single one.
Every day in the United States top officials leak information about important things. Look at Edward Snowden. Or Deepthroat from Watergate -- that guy's leaked information brought down the President himself! Yet somehow, out of thousands of people that would have been in on the Apollo conspiracy, not a single one has leaked the "truth" -- not even anonymously. And this is what flat earthers believe.
I mean Nixon couldn't even keep watergate covered up. If nixon couldn't even keep something as small as wiretapping secret due you really think he could manage something as big as apollo.
-
If you can show how it is done by Neal and Buzz you are on the way to win my Challenge.
Why do you even bother asking for evidence that you have no intention of ever accepting for a challenge that you have no intention of ever paying off?
HM - you cannot win my Challenges by copy/paste some nonsensical web pages. You have to do some intelligent work. See http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
The first Challenge is simply to build a little structure that you then allow to collapse from the top like a house of cards! Evidently a house of cards is no structure but only cards stacked on top of each other with no solid connections. No, the structure must have solid connections between the elements and then POUFF, POUFF it shall collapse from top down.
It sounds easy but it is very difficult.
But according to US terrorists it is easy - they used it twice on 9/11/01 at NY.
So you have to repeat it. According US experts it is very easy. But nobody has collected the €1M that evidently is invested in stocks and buildings.
(http://i.imgur.com/CfyEDiV.jpg) (http://imgur.com/CfyEDiV)
This one works Just take out the this support below the top and the whole thing collapses.
-
This one works Just take out the this support below the top and the whole thing collapses.
A little Off Topic of course but you are supposed to (1) disconnect the 10% top part C of your Lego Tower, (2) drop it on the 90% bottom part A of same Lego Tower (of similar structure, i.e. Lego bits), (3) ensure that top part C crushes bottom part A from top down into rubble B, (4) that the heap of rubble B finally crushes top part C into more rubble B from below, so that in the end all Lego bits of parts C and A are rubble B.
It will not work in your case as the connection between Lego bits are too strong.
But thanks for your interest!
-
This one works Just take out the this support below the top and the whole thing collapses.
A little Off Topic of course but you are supposed to (1) disconnect the 10% top part C of your Lego Tower, (2) drop it on the 90% bottom part A of same Lego Tower (of similar structure, i.e. Lego bits), (3) ensure that top part C crushes bottom part A from top down into rubble B, (4) that the heap of rubble B finally crushes top part C into more rubble B from below, so that in the end all Lego bits of parts C and A are rubble B.
It will not work in your case as the connection between Lego bits are too strong.
But thanks for your interest!
Can I crash a plane in to it first?
-
This one works Just take out the this support below the top and the whole thing collapses.
A little Off Topic of course but you are supposed to (1) disconnect the 10% top part C of your Lego Tower, (2) drop it on the 90% bottom part A of same Lego Tower (of similar structure, i.e. Lego bits), (3) ensure that top part C crushes bottom part A from top down into rubble B, (4) that the heap of rubble B finally crushes top part C into more rubble B from below, so that in the end all Lego bits of parts C and A are rubble B.
It will not work in your case as the connection between Lego bits are too strong.
But thanks for your interest!
Can I crash a plane in to it first?
Then set fire to it.
-
I therefore assume Google filters away most searches for my web site for unknown reasons. Maybe I haven't paid Google enough?
No, it's not that. It's because all your pages are filled to the gunwales with uninformed pseudoscience and willful misrepresentations of any/all actual scientific facts. It's also because you're so self-centred that you actually think people would waste their time reading the sort of drivel you post in your dozens of pages of pure fiction. To put a finer point on it; we're all laughing at you.
Bozo the clown has more legitimate academic credentials than you do. ;D
-
I therefore assume Google filters away most searches for my web site for unknown reasons. Maybe I haven't paid Google enough?
No, it's not that. It's because all your pages are filled to the gunwales with uninformed pseudoscience and willful misrepresentations of any/all actual scientific facts. It's also because you're so self-centred that you actually think people would waste their time reading the sort of drivel you post in your dozens of pages of pure fiction. To put a finer point on it; we're all laughing at you.
Sort of like your long, drawn-out posts here? The ones that everyone wants to reply with "tl;dr", but they don't because it would be considered low-content posting? Is that the kind of stuff you are talking about?
-
This one works Just take out the this support below the top and the whole thing collapses.
A little Off Topic of course but you are supposed to (1) disconnect the 10% top part C of your Lego Tower, (2) drop it on the 90% bottom part A of same Lego Tower (of similar structure, i.e. Lego bits), (3) ensure that top part C crushes bottom part A from top down into rubble B, (4) that the heap of rubble B finally crushes top part C into more rubble B from below, so that in the end all Lego bits of parts C and A are rubble B.
It will not work in your case as the connection between Lego bits are too strong.
But thanks for your interest!
A lot more then the top 10% was above the point of impact.
(http://i.imgur.com/BAGU1a2.jpg)
What about this one, more floors.
And really, do you have any evidence that top a down collapse is impossible.
-
And really, do you have any evidence that top a down collapse is impossible.
Top down progressive collapse, i.e. the intact top part drops and crushes the bottom, is impossible. It is scientifically explained by yours truly at http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm (http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm) .
-
It's because all your pages are filled to the gunwales with uninformed pseudoscience and willful misrepresentations of any/all actual scientific facts.
Thanks for mentioning the phenomenom pseudoscience. It is as you know the foundation of my web site. Pseudoscience was inventet by Trofim Lyssenko around 1930 and copied/pasted by the inventors of the atomic bomb 1945, NASA(Buzz - topic) when going to the Moon 1969, Swedish accident investigators 1994 (not) explaining an accident in the Baltic, NIST explaining the 911 WTC collapses and various clowns dropping down from the International Fake Station 400 kms above us - re-entry. Media is famous to promote pseudoscience and it is also taught at universities.
Many supporters of pseudoscience hate me for revealing the secrets: atomic bombs, NASA space trips, Swedish investigation, NIST analysises and re-entry theory/practice are just fake information produced by not very intelligent people incl. Buss (topic) for a fee.
Do you really support Trofim Lyssenko?
-
It's because all your pages are filled to the gunwales with uninformed pseudoscience and willful misrepresentations of any/all actual scientific facts.
Thanks for mentioning the phenomenom pseudoscience. It is as you know the foundation of my web site. Pseudoscience was inventet by Trofim Lyssenko around 1930 and copied/pasted by the inventors of the atomic bomb 1945, NASA(Buzz - topic) when going to the Moon 1969, Swedish accident investigators 1994 (not) explaining an accident in the Baltic, NIST explaining the 911 WTC collapses and various clowns dropping down from the International Fake Station 400 kms above us - re-entry. Media is famous to promote pseudoscience and it is also taught at universities.
Many supporters of pseudoscience hate me for revealing the secrets: atomic bombs, NASA space trips, Swedish investigation, NIST analysises and re-entry theory/practice are just fake information produced by not very intelligent people incl. Buss (topic) for a fee.
Do you really support Trofim Lyssenko?
So, Heiwa, you think it's wrong to make false claims about science, but I guess you think it's ok to falsely claim to have 1 million euros reserved to pay as a prize? You think others must provide proof for their claims (as do I), but you feel no obligation to prove your own?
-
Sort of like your long, drawn-out posts here? The ones that everyone wants to reply with "tl;dr", but they don't because it would be considered low-content posting? Is that the kind of stuff you are talking about?
Oh dear... so Heiwa has yet another groupie LOL. It never ceases to amaze me that people like jroa are so keen to naively accept the pseudo-scientific ramblings of acknowledged academic frauds such as Heiwa, but totally reject the theories of accredited scientists with genuine academic qualifications. Anders Björkman (Heiwa) has never been able to provide any authentic, documented evidence to support his fraudulent claims of being a qualified marine "engineer". Google 'Björkman' and you'll find dozens of forums—and scientists—discrediting not only his self-proclaimed qualifications, but also his vast raft of nonsensical claims about geophysics, mechanics, and astrophysics.
Any 18-year-old high school science student could shoot Heiwa's bizarre "theories" out of the water in a couple of minutes. As many have already done LOL.
-
tl;dr
-
So, Heiwa, you think it's wrong to make false claims about science, but I guess you think it's ok to falsely claim to have 1 million euros reserved to pay as a prize? You think others must provide proof for their claims (as do I), but you feel no obligation to prove your own?
Pls calm down. Don't ask a question or two and guess at the same time.
I do not claim anything. I just, peacefully explain my findings of various matters here and on my web site. Plenty people hate me because they have lost confidence in what they have believed in before studying my findings.
Is it my problem? I just want to help. And improve Safety at Sea. My biz.
What is your problem?
Do you hate people not believing what you believe? Are you a christian, islamic, hindi, shinto, jewish, sikh, etc extremist prepared to blew up people to make your point?
Then I just feel sorry for you.
-
So, Heiwa, you think it's wrong to make false claims about science, but I guess you think it's ok to falsely claim to have 1 million euros reserved to pay as a prize? You think others must provide proof for their claims (as do I), but you feel no obligation to prove your own?
Pls calm down. Don't ask a question or two and guess at the same time.
I do not claim anything. I just, peacefully explain my findings of various matters here and on my web site. Plenty people hate me because they have lost confidence in what they have believed in before studying my findings.
Is it my problem? I just want to help. And improve Safety at Sea. My biz.
What is your problem?
Do you hate people not believing what you believe? Are you a christian, islamic, hindi, shinto, jewish, sikh, etc extremist prepared to blew up people to make your point?
Then I just feel sorry for you.
You have claimed numerous times that you have 1 million euros available to pay to anyone that can disprove one of your theories. Do you think it is unreasonable for people to demand proof of this claim?
-
And really, do you have any evidence that top a down collapse is impossible.
Top down progressive collapse, i.e. the intact top part drops and crushes the bottom, is impossible. It is scientifically explained by yours truly at http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm (http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm) .
And yet this video shows that it is possible:
Top-Down building collapse 2 (http://#)
-
So what are you going to do with your million Euro?
-
So what are you going to do with your million Euro?
He should spend it on a new webshite, rather than the insult to HTML that makes up his current one.
-
You have claimed numerous times that you have 1 million euros available to pay to anyone that can disprove one of your theories. Do you think it is unreasonable for people to demand proof of this claim?
Topic is Buzz' lies about Moon travel and I offer anybody €1M to prove Buzz is right at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
Many persons do not believe I have €1M but rest assured. I have €1M. It is not the problem.
The problem/topic is Buzz lying about himself flying to the Moon at tax payers expense 1969. Buzz is a typical Lyssenko clown. I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) . Buzz got away with his lies 1969 but today it is clear to me that he is a Lyssenko type liar.
I just feel sorry for Buzz. 45 years living on a lie!
-
You have claimed numerous times that you have 1 million euros available to pay to anyone that can disprove one of your theories. Do you think it is unreasonable for people to demand proof of this claim?
Topic is Buzz' lies about Moon travel and I offer anybody €1M to prove Buzz is right at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
Many persons do not believe I have €1M but rest assured. I have €1M. It is not the problem.
The problem/topic is Buzz lying about himself flying to the Moon at tax payers expense 1969. Buzz is a typical Lyssenko clown. I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) . Buzz got away with his lies 1969 but today it is clear to me that he is a Lyssenko type liar.
I just feel sorry for Buzz. 45 years living on a lie!
Along with the many thousands of people involved in the space industry across the world.
-
If it had been a one time event.....believing that man going into space was a lie and a conspiracy wouldn't seem all that odd.
But the size and scope of not only the US's space program but other countries as well.......plus the number of people involved and all the pictures and footage accumulated over the years makes it hard for any logical person to assume it's all fake.
Just my opinion.
Going to the moon was an event that lasted just a few years and supposedly happened almost half a century ago. If it was so easy back then with the relatively primitive technology they had, they why can't we do it today? Why did it take them just a decade to make it to the moon, but here we are, forty something years later, with far superior technology, and we can't even put a man on Mars? Think about it.
We haven't put a man on Mars but we've put rovers on Mars and they've done a great job!
-
If it had been a one time event.....believing that man going into space was a lie and a conspiracy wouldn't seem all that odd.
But the size and scope of not only the US's space program but other countries as well.......plus the number of people involved and all the pictures and footage accumulated over the years makes it hard for any logical person to assume it's all fake.
Just my opinion.
Going to the moon was an event that lasted just a few years and supposedly happened almost half a century ago. If it was so easy back then with the relatively primitive technology they had, they why can't we do it today? Why did it take them just a decade to make it to the moon, but here we are, forty something years later, with far superior technology, and we can't even put a man on Mars? Think about it.
We haven't put a man on Mars but we've put rovers on Mars and they've done a great job!
First nobody every said that going to the moon was easy. But we did do it 6 times!
Second, just because we don't keep going to the moon year after year doesn't mean we didn't do it 6 times. Some people have climbed Mt. Everest 6 times. If they don't do it a 7th time, does that mean they lied about the first 6?
-
Many persons do not believe I have €1M but rest assured. I have €1M. It is not the problem.
Sorry. Many people do not believe you have €1M to give away because there is little reason to believe you do.
Unless you can demonstrate beyond your own claim that you in fact do have €1M available to give away, it is one of the problems. Your assurances are worthless. Another problem is who decides if the challenge has been satisfied. If the only judge is the one with €1M on the line, the challenge is as worthless as the unsubstantiated claim that the prize exists.
No one believes you. For good reason. Is this too difficult for you to understand?
-
You have claimed numerous times that you have 1 million euros available to pay to anyone that can disprove one of your theories. Do you think it is unreasonable for people to demand proof of this claim?
Topic is Buzz' lies about Moon travel and I offer anybody €1M to prove Buzz is right at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
Many persons do not believe I have €1M but rest assured. I have €1M. It is not the problem.
Considering the web holds ample evidence you are a liar and fantasist, then there is no reason we should believe you.
-
Many persons do not believe I have €1M but rest assured. I have €1M.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please provide it.
Otherwise, I'm going to call your bluff and name you as a liar. The choice is yours my friend.
-
You have claimed numerous times that you have 1 million euros available to pay to anyone that can disprove one of your theories. Do you think it is unreasonable for people to demand proof of this claim?
Topic is Buzz' lies about Moon travel and I offer anybody €1M to prove Buzz is right at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
Many persons do not believe I have €1M but rest assured. I have €1M. It is not the problem.
The problem/topic is Buzz lying about himself flying to the Moon at tax payers expense 1969. Buzz is a typical Lyssenko clown. I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) . Buzz got away with his lies 1969 but today it is clear to me that he is a Lyssenko type liar.
I just feel sorry for Buzz. 45 years living on a lie!
If you have all this money, and it appears that you do, why don't you spend it on finding out for yourself the shape of the earth? You can either go as a tourist to the space station (if they still do that) or send up a camera with a balloon. Heck, a schoolgirl did it and proved the roundness of the earth. Until you do that, nothing else you say is of any value because your belief in a flat earth is nothing more than a belief. With your money, ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT or SHUT UP! Please!
-
You have claimed numerous times that you have 1 million euros available to pay to anyone that can disprove one of your theories. Do you think it is unreasonable for people to demand proof of this claim?
Topic is Buzz' lies about Moon travel and I offer anybody €1M to prove Buzz is right at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
Many persons do not believe I have €1M but rest assured. I have €1M. It is not the problem.
The problem/topic is Buzz lying about himself flying to the Moon at tax payers expense 1969. Buzz is a typical Lyssenko clown. I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) . Buzz got away with his lies 1969 but today it is clear to me that he is a Lyssenko type liar.
I just feel sorry for Buzz. 45 years living on a lie!
If you have all this money, and it appears that you do, why don't you spend it on finding out for yourself the shape of the earth? You can either go as a tourist to the space station (if they still do that) or send up a camera with a balloon. Heck, a schoolgirl did it and proved the roundness of the earth. Until you do that, nothing else you say is of any value because your belief in a flat earth is nothing more than a belief. With your money, ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT or SHUT UP! Please!
Why don't you prove him wrong by reading his claim, then try and claim the money. If he pays up, you can then shut up.
If he doesn't pay up then he is a fraud.
First and foremost, disprove what he's asking. Nobody appears to have got close to it as of yet.
-
Why don't you prove him wrong by reading his claim, then try and claim the money.
Anders will never, ever pay up because, like you, he will never accept any evidence, no matter how strong, that contradicts his view. I've already shown him several videos of buildings undergoing progressive top down collapse (his 9/11 hoax challenge), but he cries fakery.
-
Why don't you prove him wrong by reading his claim, then try and claim the money.
Anders will never, ever pay up because, like you, he will never accept any evidence, no matter how strong, that contradicts his view. I've already shown him several videos of buildings undergoing progressive top down collapse (his 9/11 hoax challenge), but he cries fakery.
Are those buildings steel framed buildings?
You're not stupid Markjo. Don't even attempt to pretend 3 steel framed towers, 2 of which had a central core column of 47 massive steel sections that allows the lighter top to crush the ever stronger lower part all the way down at close to free fall speed as if there were no resistance.
Like I said, you're not stupid and you should even know that each floor of a building creates resistance. Not a hope in hell are you going to have 80 floors of steel just crumble into powder and sheared girder right into it's own basement 3 times in one day on the same site.
It's just not going to happen, Markjo. Not unless those buildings were gutted and primed for it in a controlled manner.
-
It's just not going to happen, Markjo. Not unless those buildings were gutted and primed for it in a controlled manner.
Do you realize how long it takes to rig a building for controlled demolition? Are you suggesting that none of the thousands of people who work in the WTC towers would have noticed all of the work required?
-
Why don't you prove him wrong by reading his claim, then try and claim the money.
Anders will never, ever pay up because, like you, he will never accept any evidence, no matter how strong, that contradicts his view. I've already shown him several videos of buildings undergoing progressive top down collapse (his 9/11 hoax challenge), but he cries fakery.
Are those buildings steel framed buildings?
You're not stupid Markjo. Don't even attempt to pretend 3 steel framed towers, 2 of which had a central core column of 47 massive steel sections that allows the lighter top to crush the ever stronger lower part all the way down at close to free fall speed as if there were no resistance.
Like I said, you're not stupid and you should even know that each floor of a building creates resistance. Not a hope in hell are you going to have 80 floors of steel just crumble into powder and sheared girder right into it's own basement 3 times in one day on the same site.
It's just not going to happen, Markjo. Not unless those buildings were gutted and primed for it in a controlled manner.
So how exactly did the towers get "gutted and primed" while they were still occupied by thousands of tenants in working office spaces?
-
It's just not going to happen, Markjo. Not unless those buildings were gutted and primed for it in a controlled manner.
Do you realize how long it takes to rig a building for controlled demolition? Are you suggesting that none of the thousands of people who work in the WTC towers would have noticed all of the work required?
Of course. Did you notice how those towers were virtually empty well before they were destroyed?
How hard is to to section businesses onto certain floors whilst floors are gutted as if they were being refurbished?
How easy would it be to simply take everything up through the service elevators?
How easy would it be to put thermite cutting charges into the central steel core beams that the lifts ran through?
It's not as difficult as you think.
-
You have claimed numerous times that you have 1 million euros available to pay to anyone that can disprove one of your theories. Do you think it is unreasonable for people to demand proof of this claim?
Topic is Buzz' lies about Moon travel and I offer anybody €1M to prove Buzz is right at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
Many persons do not believe I have €1M but rest assured. I have €1M. It is not the problem.
Considering the web holds ample evidence you are a liar and fantasist, then there is no reason we should believe you.
"Just trust me, the money is there"
Spoken like every con artist I've ever met.
-
If you have all this money, and it appears that you do, why don't you spend it on finding out for yourself the shape of the earth? You can either go as a tourist to the space station (if they still do that) or send up a camera with a balloon. Heck, a schoolgirl did it and proved the roundness of the earth. Until you do that, nothing else you say is of any value because your belief in a flat earth is nothing more than a belief. With your money, ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT or SHUT UP! Please!
Thanks. Just now I spend my money on http://heiwaco.com/freiberg.htm (http://heiwaco.com/freiberg.htm) . I like it a lot. Restoring an old house. But my biz is safety at sea - http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) .
Some time ago somebody linked to me here and I just follow up.
-
First and foremost, disprove what he's asking. Nobody appears to have got close to it as of yet.
Thanks.
-
It's just not going to happen, Markjo. Not unless those buildings were gutted and primed for it in a controlled manner.
Do you realize how long it takes to rig a building for controlled demolition? Are you suggesting that none of the thousands of people who work in the WTC towers would have noticed all of the work required?
Of course. Did you notice how those towers were virtually empty well before they were destroyed?
How hard is to to section businesses onto certain floors whilst floors are gutted as if they were being refurbished?
How easy would it be to simply take everything up through the service elevators?
How easy would it be to put thermite cutting charges into the central steel core beams that the lifts ran through?
It's not as difficult as you think.
How do you know how easy it is? Have you tried it?
-
Sorry for going off topic, but on your site you claim that planes never hit the WTC towers and that nuclear bombs do not exist and were never used in Japan during WWII.
My ex-wife's grandmother is a survivor of Hiroshima. 70 years later her body is still pushing out shards of glass. She clearly remembers the resulting iconic cloud, not to mention the complete and instant devastation.
My aunt and uncle were in NYC during 9/11. They were never in any danger, but did see the second plane hit the tower with their own eyes (not via television).
There are millions of people living today that lost friends or family in those events. These are both recent with plenty of eye witnesses. It's not like we're debating the details of something two hundred years ago. Eye witnesses are still living and breathing.
To say these things didn't happen is disrespectful, ignorant, and shameful.
Once again, sorry for going off topic.
-
If you have all this money, and it appears that you do, why don't you spend it on finding out for yourself the shape of the earth? You can either go as a tourist to the space station (if they still do that) or send up a camera with a balloon. Heck, a schoolgirl did it and proved the roundness of the earth. Until you do that, nothing else you say is of any value because your belief in a flat earth is nothing more than a belief. With your money, ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT or SHUT UP! Please!
Thanks. Just now I spend my money on http://heiwaco.com/freiberg.htm (http://heiwaco.com/freiberg.htm) . I like it a lot. Restoring an old house. But my biz is safety at sea - http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) .
Some time ago somebody linked to me here and I just follow up.
Then don't claim the earth is flat till you and your money prove or disprove it. Same goes to Thomas Dolby, if he's a genuine FE'er.
-
Sorry for going off topic, but on your site you claim that planes never hit the WTC towers and that nuclear bombs do not exist and were never used in Japan during WWII.
My ex-wife's grandmother is a survivor of Hiroshima. 70 years later her body is still pushing out shards of glass. She clearly remembers the resulting iconic cloud, not to mention the complete and instant devastation.
My aunt and uncle were in NYC during 9/11. They were never in any danger, but did see the second plane hit the tower with their own eyes (not via television).
There are millions of people living today that lost friends or family in those events. These are both recent with plenty of eye witnesses. It's not like we're debating the details of something two hundred years ago. Eye witnesses are still living and breathing.
To say these things didn't happen is disrespectful, ignorant, and shameful.
Once again, sorry for going off topic.
Well said!
-
Sorry for going off topic, but on your site you claim that planes never hit the WTC towers and that nuclear bombs do not exist and were never used in Japan during WWII.
My ex-wife's grandmother is a survivor of Hiroshima. 70 years later her body is still pushing out shards of glass. She clearly remembers the resulting iconic cloud, not to mention the complete and instant devastation.
My aunt and uncle were in NYC during 9/11. They were never in any danger, but did see the second plane hit the tower with their own eyes (not via television).
There are millions of people living today that lost friends or family in those events. These are both recent with plenty of eye witnesses. It's not like we're debating the details of something two hundred years ago. Eye witnesses are still living and breathing.
To say these things didn't happen is disrespectful, ignorant, and shameful.
Once again, sorry for going off topic.
My ex wife's grandfather was in Hiroshima and he said it was evacuated then razed to the ground by fire ready for new developement.
My uncle and his brother were in NYC and he never saw any plane hit any tower.
Am I making this up?
Here's a tip for you. Never use emotion as an argument and never use the regularly tossed out yarns about someones brothers uncles sister's best friends mothers husband carry on, because it neither makes you credible nor does it cement any kind of reality to a situation that clearly does not add up officially.
-
My ex wife's grandfather was in Hiroshima and he said it was evacuated then razed to the ground by fire ready for new developement.
My uncle and his brother were in NYC and he never saw any plane hit any tower.
Am I making this up?
Knowing you, probably yes.
Here's a tip for you. Never use emotion as an argument and never use the regularly tossed out yarns about someones brothers uncles sister's best friends mothers husband carry on, because it neither makes you credible nor does it cement any kind of reality to a situation that clearly does not add up officially.
Funny, you seem to use that exact same strategy all the time. In fact, you've used nothing but your own feelings that you've been lied to in order to deny space travel.
-
Sorry for going off topic, but on your site you claim that planes never hit the WTC towers and that nuclear bombs do not exist and were never used in Japan during WWII.
My ex-wife's grandmother is a survivor of Hiroshima. 70 years later her body is still pushing out shards of glass. She clearly remembers the resulting iconic cloud, not to mention the complete and instant devastation.
My aunt and uncle were in NYC during 9/11. They were never in any danger, but did see the second plane hit the tower with their own eyes (not via television).
There are millions of people living today that lost friends or family in those events. These are both recent with plenty of eye witnesses. It's not like we're debating the details of something two hundred years ago. Eye witnesses are still living and breathing.
To say these things didn't happen is disrespectful, ignorant, and shameful.
Once again, sorry for going off topic.
My ex wife's grandfather was in Hiroshima and he said it was evacuated then razed to the ground by fire ready for new developement.
My uncle and his brother were in NYC and he never saw any plane hit any tower.
Am I making this up?
Here's a tip for you. Never use emotion as an argument and never use the regularly tossed out yarns about someones brothers uncles sister's best friends mothers husband carry on, because it neither makes you credible nor does it cement any kind of reality to a situation that clearly does not add up officially.
Scepti: I can't believe in your disbelief. I teach American History to college students and it is an insult to me and to my institutions (I was educated in two places and work at a third) to say these things. Not that we HAD to have bombed Japan with nuclear bombs, but we DID. Not that Al Qaeda HAD to send planes to our buildings, but they DID. Get over yourself, man! I suspect that you're not American, so don't have the same sentiments about these things. You're probably overseas (not that there's anything wrong with being a foreigner, but...) babbling on about OUR history. So...are you even American? If you are, you're a lousy one--not a bad person, but a bad historian of OUR recent history. You're probably a nice person but man are you daft!
-
Sorry for going off topic, but on your site you claim that planes never hit the WTC towers and that nuclear bombs do not exist and were never used in Japan during WWII.
My ex-wife's grandmother is a survivor of Hiroshima. 70 years later her body is still pushing out shards of glass. She clearly remembers the resulting iconic cloud, not to mention the complete and instant devastation.
My aunt and uncle were in NYC during 9/11. They were never in any danger, but did see the second plane hit the tower with their own eyes (not via television).
There are millions of people living today that lost friends or family in those events. These are both recent with plenty of eye witnesses. It's not like we're debating the details of something two hundred years ago. Eye witnesses are still living and breathing.
To say these things didn't happen is disrespectful, ignorant, and shameful.
Once again, sorry for going off topic.
My ex wife's grandfather was in Hiroshima and he said it was evacuated then razed to the ground by fire ready for new developement.
My uncle and his brother were in NYC and he never saw any plane hit any tower.
Am I making this up?
Yes. Yes, you are.
Here's a tip for you. Never use emotion as an argument and never use the regularly tossed out yarns about someones brothers uncles sister's best friends mothers husband carry on, because it neither makes you credible nor does it cement any kind of reality to a situation that clearly does not add up officially.
Most of macrohard's post is a statement of fact until the second last sentence. So although you are right, you are diverting away from the factual content of the post. Mostly because you do not have a leg to stand on.
-
I acknowledge that my connections seem tenuous. The problem for conspiracists is that I am not special. There are tens of millions of people like me that either witnessed these events first hand or have close relations with others that have.
-
My ex wife's grandfather was in Hiroshima and he said it was evacuated then razed to the ground by fire ready for new developement.
My uncle and his brother were in NYC and he never saw any plane hit any tower.
I thought your family still lived in North Korea? Or have you dropped that particular story now?
No chance you've been married, though I suppose the "ex" makes it more realistic.
Am I making this up?
As always, yes.
-
He admittedly made up those statements to satirize and discredit mine. My point was that my story is not unique, and millions of eye witnesses still live today.
-
Am I making this up?
Yes, of course you are. It's more than obvious as we've called your bluff numerous times and left you floundering with a lack of any evidence for any/all of your bizarre claims. According to you, you've travelled all over the entire planet—even Antarctica—and have friends and relatives in nearly every country, and who've witness nearly every man-made disaster in history. You've also made up a preposterous story about possessing THIRTEEN academic qualifications, but can't provide any evidence to prove even one. Not even Stephen Hawking claims that many LOL.
Every single post you make on these forums is simply an imaginative fairy story invented deep in your own mind, and which has absolutely no bearing on the truth or the real world. You've made literally dozens of bizarre claims about your alleged expertise in nearly every endeavour known to mankind, but not once have you ever been able to provide any viable evidence to support any of them.
Your entire, every day life seems to represent one lived in a fantasy world of self-delusion and deception. You also appear to be suffering from Delusions of Grandeur (http://bit.ly/1uFarqa) in that you truly believe that you have greater intellectual capabilities than anybody else on these forums. Plus you never seem to comprehend that time and again, people are taking the piss out of you, and continually laughing at you behind your back.
Anyway, please continue to carry on in your own inimitable way; we can all of us do with a good laugh in these times of doom and gloom.
-
I recommend you guys lighten up on scepti. Personal attacks are the worst way to win a debate.
He was intentionally lying to make a point. By making a ludicrous claim he puts the validity of my claim in question; anyone can say anything on the internet and present it as fact. While I assert that my story is true, it could very well be fabricated and that was scepti's intention.
One man's testimony doth not truth bring.
Your uncalled for attack will only likely prevent my counter argument, that millions of claims exist, from being addressed.
-
I recommend you guys lighten up on scepti. Personal attacks are the worst way to win a debate.
Nobody will win or lose a debate against scetpi - he just makes up shit as he goes along and never presents any evidence. Keep George Bernard Shaw's quote in mind:
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
Sometimes it is fun to wrestle the pig, as it were, but don't ever think it will be an edifying experience.
He was intentionally lying to make a point.
Nah, he was just lying. He's a pathological liar who has in the past, amongst other things, claimed he is a North Korean dissident, genius, multimillionaire inventor. Only yesterday he claimed to have worked on the Antarctic, but the details were "classified".
By making a ludicrous claim he puts the validity of my claim in question; anyone can say anything on the internet and present it as fact. While I assert that my story is true, it could very well be fabricated and that was scepti's intention.
Fuck know's what his intention is: he just likes to ridicule other people whilst making ludicrous, completely unsubstantiated, claims of his own. Seriously, have a look through his posting history.
-
I recommend you guys lighten up on scepti. Personal attacks are the worst way to win a debate.
He is a pathological liar and his credibility here is zero. For example, calling him an idiot is not personal attack, it is a compliment.
-
Scepti: I can't believe in your disbelief. I teach American History to college students and it is an insult to me and to my institutions (I was educated in two places and work at a third) to say these things.
You teach American history from what was taught to you from the very same books you now use to teach American history. You can only go on that and your very own recent history, observed by you.
If you prefer to learn more stuff, PM me and I can teach you about the Booboo tribe who inhabited the land known today as Europe but was once known as Wooroop back in 261 wbc, which is well before christ. Let me know and I can make it....I mean, I can teach it to you.
Easy isn't it?
Not that we HAD to have bombed Japan with nuclear bombs, but we DID.
I don't doubt it was bombed. It just wasn't ATOMIC bombed.
Not that Al Qaeda HAD to send planes to our buildings, but they DID.
You don't know what happened. All you can go on is the news media and the word of mouth of people that believe what they are told.
Get over yourself, man! I suspect that you're not American, so don't have the same sentiments about these things.
You're not the only ones to have the wool pulled over your eyes, it happens to us all, just in different ways.
You're probably overseas (not that there's anything wrong with being a foreigner, but...) babbling on about OUR history.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.
So...are you even American?
I think you've already answered your own question.
If you are, you're a lousy one--not a bad person, but a bad historian of OUR recent history. You're probably a nice person but man are you daft!
A bad historian, maybe. It all depends on how it's classed. If you mean not following the history told to us, I'd say, yes I am a bad historian, because I reject quite a lot of it.
Real history can only be best guess by ALL of us, or it can be suppressed by the few.
-
I recommend you guys lighten up on scepti. Personal attacks are the worst way to win a debate.
He was intentionally lying to make a point. By making a ludicrous claim he puts the validity of my claim in question; anyone can say anything on the internet and present it as fact. While I assert that my story is true, it could very well be fabricated and that was scepti's intention.
One man's testimony doth not truth bring.
Your uncalled for attack will only likely prevent my counter argument, that millions of claims exist, from being addressed.
At least you get the picture. It's surprising how many can't or won't. I think you have a mind to question things. You would best serve yourself by doing so, I think.
-
Yes, of course you are. It's more than obvious as we've called your bluff numerous times and left you floundering with a lack of any evidence for any/all of your bizarre claims.
Show me proof where you've called my so called bluff, Geoffrey.
According to you, you've travelled all over the entire planet—even Antarctica—and have friends and relatives in nearly every country, and who've witness nearly every man-made disaster in history.
I have travelled Earth not a planet.
Also, if you can bring me up anywhere I have ever said I witnessed these man - made disasters, you have legs to stand on. Off you go then, start looking or don't do what you're accusing me of doing as you cannot prove anything I say is incorrect, you can simply smugly say it is just like I can do, and everyone else.
You've also made up a preposterous story about possessing THIRTEEN academic qualifications, but can't provide any evidence to prove even one. Not even Stephen Hawking claims that many LOL.
I have made up no story about possessing 13 academic qualifications. No need to make stuff up, Geoffrey.
Every single post you make on these forums is simply an imaginative fairy story invented deep in your own mind, and which has absolutely no bearing on the truth or the real world.
Easy to say and extremely hard to physically prove, Geoffrey.
You've made literally dozens of bizarre claims about your alleged expertise in nearly every endeavour known to mankind, but not once have you ever been able to provide any viable evidence to support any of them.
I provided plenty. Whether you chose to believe any of it was down to yourself.
Your entire, every day life seems to represent one lived in a fantasy world of self-delusion and deception. You also appear to be suffering from Delusions of Grandeur (http://bit.ly/1uFarqa) in that you truly believe that you have greater intellectual capabilities than anybody else on these forums.
Another thing that seems to be ingrained on your mind. You will simply frustrate yourself with your feeble attempts at digging, which will result in your once again, complaining to the mods.
Plus you never seem to comprehend that time and again, people are taking the piss out of you, and continually laughing at you behind your back.
Geoffrey, Geoffrey. If you were really attempting to take the piss you would have no need to keep complaining to the mods every 10 minutes. Try not to use this ruse, Geoffrey, it actually makes you look rather silly. I don't have to worry about feeling like that as everyone has already made it plain and clear what I am. ;D
Anyway, please continue to carry on in your own inimitable way; we can all of us do with a good laugh in these times of doom and gloom.
I will carry on searching for the truth. If you gain laughs along the way then great. My guess is you are frustrated due to not being able to handle my input. ;)
-
I recommend you guys lighten up on scepti. Personal attacks are the worst way to win a debate.
He is a pathological liar and his credibility here is zero. For example, calling him an idiot is not personal attack, it is a compliment.
My credibility is of no consequence to myself on a forum. People who can think for themselves can seriously think about my posts and it may or may not aid in their thinking. I'm well aware that globalites will absolutely reject anything I say and I'm quite happy with that. Maybe one day, some will see the light and start to question stuff.
-
I'm well aware that globalites will absolutely reject anything I say and I'm quite happy with that
Everyone rejects what you say, not just the world's 6.5 billion "globalites". You make wild, often contradictory claims, without ever bothering to provide any supporting evidence.
In other words: you are a bullshitter.
-
Scepti: I can't believe in your disbelief. I teach American History to college students and it is an insult to me and to my institutions (I was educated in two places and work at a third) to say these things.
You teach American history from what was taught to you from the very same books you now use to teach American history. You can only go on that and your very own recent history, observed by you.
If you prefer to learn more stuff, PM me and I can teach you about the Booboo tribe who inhabited the land known today as Europe but was once known as Wooroop back in 261 wbc, which is well before christ. Let me know and I can make it....I mean, I can teach it to you.
Easy isn't it?
Not that we HAD to have bombed Japan with nuclear bombs, but we DID.
I don't doubt it was bombed. It just wasn't ATOMIC bombed.
Not that Al Qaeda HAD to send planes to our buildings, but they DID.
You don't know what happened. All you can go on is the news media and the word of mouth of people that believe what they are told.
Get over yourself, man! I suspect that you're not American, so don't have the same sentiments about these things.
You're not the only ones to have the wool pulled over your eyes, it happens to us all, just in different ways.
You're probably overseas (not that there's anything wrong with being a foreigner, but...) babbling on about OUR history.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.
So...are you even American?
I think you've already answered your own question.
If you are, you're a lousy one--not a bad person, but a bad historian of OUR recent history. You're probably a nice person but man are you daft!
A bad historian, maybe. It all depends on how it's classed. If you mean not following the history told to us, I'd say, yes I am a bad historian, because I reject quite a lot of it.
Real history can only be best guess by ALL of us, or it can be suppressed by the few.
The resources that historians and other experts use are peer-reviewed and there's no way that everyone is in on some conspiracy about round earth, atomic bombs (or lack thereof), Al Qaeda and the twin towers, etc. Experts are often competing with one another for good jobs and if one could disprove the other, it would happen. Why, if round earth is a conspiracy, no serious, credentialed expert challenged it? As for atomic bombs, there's no way that they weren't used in Japan. Why question that??? As for the twin towers, Pentagon and Shanksville, planes commandeered by Al Qaeda operatives were hijacked and targeted key buildings. One could argue that the towers collapsed in a way unnatural for a plane crash in their upper parts, but planes did go into them. And what caused the Pentagon event? Why must you doubt EVERYTHING, Scepti? Is it pathological?
-
You've also made up a preposterous story about possessing THIRTEEN academic qualifications, but can't provide any evidence to prove even one. Not even Stephen Hawking claims that many LOL.
I have made up no story about possessing 13 academic qualifications. No need to make stuff up, Geoffrey.
LOL... poor old sceptimatic's getting confused and/ot forgetting exactly what lies he's told us in the past. ;D
Quote from: ausGeoff on September 22, 2014, 08:13:21 AM and then Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2014, 07:40:52 AM...
Can you tell me then what academic qualifications make you suitable for carrying out this research? As I said earlier, I'd presume a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences considering you're talking about geophysics?
I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a liar.
And I thank you again for the continued LULZ sceptimatic.
-
Didn't he say he never went to school because he didn't want to be spoon fed? So then he became a millionaire inventor.
-
Scepti for mod! :)
-
How does this conversation have anything to do with Buzz Aldrin being brainwashed?
-
How does this conversation have anything to do with Buzz Aldrin being brainwashed?
You are about 22 pages too late for this.
-
How does this conversation have anything to do with Buzz Aldrin being brainwashed?
You are about 22 pages too late for this.
Incorrect. Only 10 pages in total.
-
jroa is always late for the party...
-
And he drank all the booze he was supposed to bring on the way there...
-
How does this conversation have anything to do with Buzz Aldrin being brainwashed?
Commenting on sceptimatic's alleged scientific qualifications is relevant in deciding whether or not his acceptance that Buzz Aldrin is a "brainwashed", senile, old man is valid or not.
He repeatedly uses his claim of academic qualifications as a sort of appeal to authority, so it's important that he validates those qualifications if he intends to increase the power of his arguments, and/or refute those of the round earthers.
So far, sceptimatic has never posted any evidence confirming that he's got 13 qualifications—of any sort; in fact he's previously told us he rejected formal education because he considered it all to be lies, and he didn't want to be "spoon fed" the misinformation that all round earthers had been. In effect, he's claiming to be self-taught. Now he's claiming the contrary, which either means he's totally self-deluded, or a blatant liar.
My opinion for some time now is that he's simply a very persistent troll, who undoubtedly gets a lot of pleasure out of posting unanswerable questions and positing totally ridiculous pseudo-scientific mechanisms, forces and physical effects. His "denpressure" was worthy of an Academy Award LOL.
-
How does this conversation have anything to do with Buzz Aldrin being brainwashed?
Commenting on sceptimatic's alleged scientific qualifications is relevant in deciding whether or not his acceptance that Buzz Aldrin is a "brainwashed", senile, old man is valid or not.
Only if he's citing any of those qualifications as evidence to support his argument. He isn't.
-
Only if he's citing any of those qualifications as evidence to support his argument. He isn't.
If you check back through the forums, you'll find that sceptimatic consistently refers to his alleged academic status and vocation as a research scientist.
Claiming academic superiority—but without viable evidence to support that implication—is worthless from my point of view. Any accredited scientist posting on a forum will be more than happy to state his credentials if asked to do so. Why would they hide them?
Incidentally, sceptimatic hasn't technically "cited" his purported academic qualifications—he's only made vague suggestions as to their existence. And until he does cite them formally, I'm calling his bluff and claiming he's lying.
-
Only if he's citing any of those qualifications as evidence to support his argument. He isn't.
If you check back through the forums, you'll find that sceptimatic consistently refers to his alleged academic status and vocation as a research scientist.
Claiming academic superiority—but without viable evidence to support that implication—is worthless from my point of view. Any accredited scientist posting on a forum will be more than happy to state his credentials if asked to do so. Why would they hide them?
Incidentally, sceptimatic hasn't technically "cited" his purported academic qualifications—he's only made vague suggestions as to their existence. And until he does cite them formally, I'm calling his bluff and claiming he's lying.
Yeah, he (and I can't picture a "she") bothers me too. No one is THAT "skeptical" without a gig. He must be pulling our legs.
-
Only if he's citing any of those qualifications as evidence to support his argument. He isn't.
If you check back through the forums, you'll find that sceptimatic consistently refers to his alleged academic status and vocation as a research scientist.
Claiming academic superiority—but without viable evidence to support that implication—is worthless from my point of view. Any accredited scientist posting on a forum will be more than happy to state his credentials if asked to do so. Why would they hide them?
Incidentally, sceptimatic hasn't technically "cited" his purported academic qualifications—he's only made vague suggestions as to their existence. And until he does cite them formally, I'm calling his bluff and claiming he's lying.
Yeah, he (and I can't picture a "she") bothers me too. No one is THAT "skeptical" without a gig. He must be pulling our legs.
Or, more than likely, one of his own other bodily organs. But we won't go there LOL.
-
Only if he's citing any of those qualifications as evidence to support his argument. He isn't.
If you check back through the forums, you'll find that sceptimatic consistently refers to his alleged academic status and vocation as a research scientist.
Claiming academic superiority—but without viable evidence to support that implication—is worthless from my point of view. Any accredited scientist posting on a forum will be more than happy to state his credentials if asked to do so. Why would they hide them?
Incidentally, sceptimatic hasn't technically "cited" his purported academic qualifications—he's only made vague suggestions as to their existence. And until he does cite them formally, I'm calling his bluff and claiming he's lying.
Yeah, he (and I can't picture a "she") bothers me too. No one is THAT "skeptical" without a gig. He must be pulling our legs.
Or, more than likely, one of his own other bodily organs. But we won't go there LOL.
::)
-
As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.
This isn't a case of globe v flat Earth arguments among ourselves, it's literally about using your own perceptive mind and actually applying simple logic to the situation.
Simply arguing for Aldrin's case for no other reason than to keep the space exploit ruse alive is pointless if it's been done by simple unconditional acceptance that he did what we were told he did, as well as others.
I'm quite sure that most, if not all of you have watched the body language of people, even friends and acquaintances, then walked away with a pretty good idea that they are telling you the truth or basically spinning lies.
Buzz Aldrin shows; time and time again that he's having extreme difficulty keeping his part in shenanigans at bay. It shows on his face and in his speech, plus his body language as a whole.
All three of those so called astronauts, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, when displayed to the media in those days, showed a variation of all kinds of emotions, from guilt to fear, to shame and duress, etc.
Armstrong showed the greatest emotions, followed by Aldrin, then Collins, in that order.
Although this does not constitute absolute concrete proof, let me explain something.
If these 3 people were being questioned for a big crime and acted the way they did, they would be kept in custody for the maximum length of time for questioning further -plus, they would be under surveillance if they were allowed to go.
It's fine that people argue the case for it happening, but it's not telling the whole story, whatever that real story is.
It can be argued in a number of ways by people. It can be argued that they show emotion because they are hiding the fact that aliens were on the moon, or they saw structures on the moon, or any other pile of absolute bull shit, and the issue is about who is sensible, logical, clear minded or gullible enough to take any story as is said.
My guess is, if you put any so called astronaut under a controlled lie detector test, fully tested by sceptics as well as so called scientists, my guess is, the lie detectors would not only show up lies but they would overload and blow up due to the severity of them. ;D
It's easy to go along with all kinds of brainwashing techniques as well, from hypnosis to LSD or some other mind altering drug to make them believe they did what they tell us they did.
The rabbit hole is probably very deep where this stuff is concerned and all we can do is guess. Nobody can factually state it happened or not, because the simple truth is, none of us can physically prove anything. All we can do is use a logical mind.
The problem with this is, people are different and arrogant, who believe their mind is logical, yet can come to totally different conclusions. There's also logical liars that can make absurdities appear logical to the gullible who actually believe they are logical.
It's like a game of chess in it's latter stages where checkmate looks unlikely for either side and stalemate offers a better outcome, yet both sides still believe that the other will make the error and allow the winning move to take place.
-
As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.
This isn't a case of globe v flat Earth arguments among ourselves, it's literally about using your own perceptive mind and actually applying simple logic to the situation.
Simply arguing for Aldrin's case for no other reason than to keep the space exploit ruse alive is pointless if it's been done by simple unconditional acceptance that he did what we were told he did, as well as others.
I'm quite sure that most, if not all of you have watched the body language of people, even friends and acquaintances, then walked away with a pretty good idea that they are telling you the truth or basically spinning lies.
Buzz Aldrin shows; time and time again that he's having extreme difficulty keeping his part in shenanigans at bay. It shows on his face and in his speech, plus his body language as a whole.
All three of those so called astronauts, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, when displayed to the media in those days, showed a variation of all kinds of emotions, from guilt to fear, to shame and duress, etc.
Armstrong showed the greatest emotions, followed by Aldrin, then Collins, in that order.
Although this does not constitute absolute concrete proof, let me explain something.
If these 3 people were being questioned for a big crime and acted the way they did, they would be kept in custody for the maximum length of time for questioning further -plus, they would be under surveillance if they were allowed to go.
It's fine that people argue the case for it happening, but it's not telling the whole story, whatever that real story is.
It can be argued in a number of ways by people. It can be argued that they show emotion because they are hiding the fact that aliens were on the moon, or they saw structures on the moon, or any other pile of absolute bull shit, and the issue is about who is sensible, logical, clear minded or gullible enough to take any story as is said.
My guess is, if you put any so called astronaut under a controlled lie detector test, fully tested by sceptics as well as so called scientists, my guess is, the lie detectors would not only show up lies but they would overload and blow up due to the severity of them. ;D
It's easy to go along with all kinds of brainwashing techniques as well, from hypnosis to LSD or some other mind altering drug to make them believe they did what they tell us they did.
The rabbit hole is probably very deep where this stuff is concerned and all we can do is guess. Nobody can factually state it happened or not, because the simple truth is, none of us can physically prove anything. All we can do is use a logical mind.
The problem with this is, people are different and arrogant, who believe their mind is logical, yet can come to totally different conclusions. There's also logical liars that can make absurdities appear logical to the gullible who actually believe they are logical.
It's like a game of chess in it's latter stages where checkmate looks unlikely for either side and stalemate offers a better outcome, yet both sides still believe that the other will make the error and allow the winning move to take place.
Statements like this make me wish I was a god, and I could just take all the conspiracy theorists, AA believers and crackpots and shove their faces DEEP into the truth and just make them look at it for all eternity.
-
As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.
This isn't a case of globe v flat Earth arguments among ourselves, it's literally about using your own perceptive mind and actually applying simple logic to the situation.
Simply arguing for Aldrin's case for no other reason than to keep the space exploit ruse alive is pointless if it's been done by simple unconditional acceptance that he did what we were told he did, as well as others.
I'm quite sure that most, if not all of you have watched the body language of people, even friends and acquaintances, then walked away with a pretty good idea that they are telling you the truth or basically spinning lies.
Buzz Aldrin shows; time and time again that he's having extreme difficulty keeping his part in shenanigans at bay. It shows on his face and in his speech, plus his body language as a whole.
All three of those so called astronauts, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, when displayed to the media in those days, showed a variation of all kinds of emotions, from guilt to fear, to shame and duress, etc.
Armstrong showed the greatest emotions, followed by Aldrin, then Collins, in that order.
Although this does not constitute absolute concrete proof, let me explain something.
If these 3 people were being questioned for a big crime and acted the way they did, they would be kept in custody for the maximum length of time for questioning further -plus, they would be under surveillance if they were allowed to go.
It's fine that people argue the case for it happening, but it's not telling the whole story, whatever that real story is.
It can be argued in a number of ways by people. It can be argued that they show emotion because they are hiding the fact that aliens were on the moon, or they saw structures on the moon, or any other pile of absolute bull shit, and the issue is about who is sensible, logical, clear minded or gullible enough to take any story as is said.
My guess is, if you put any so called astronaut under a controlled lie detector test, fully tested by sceptics as well as so called scientists, my guess is, the lie detectors would not only show up lies but they would overload and blow up due to the severity of them. ;D
It's easy to go along with all kinds of brainwashing techniques as well, from hypnosis to LSD or some other mind altering drug to make them believe they did what they tell us they did.
The rabbit hole is probably very deep where this stuff is concerned and all we can do is guess. Nobody can factually state it happened or not, because the simple truth is, none of us can physically prove anything. All we can do is use a logical mind.
The problem with this is, people are different and arrogant, who believe their mind is logical, yet can come to totally different conclusions. There's also logical liars that can make absurdities appear logical to the gullible who actually believe they are logical.
It's like a game of chess in it's latter stages where checkmate looks unlikely for either side and stalemate offers a better outcome, yet both sides still believe that the other will make the error and allow the winning move to take place.
Statements like this make me wish I was a god, and I could just take all the conspiracy theorists, AA believers and crackpots and shove their faces DEEP into the truth and just make them look at it for all eternity.
I wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist if people told the truth. Anyway, maybe you can help me with the truth. What evidence do you have that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon?
Let me try and make this easier.
What I mean is, evidence that is not media controlled or by books.
Here's an instance. A God exists to some people but in reality it's all based on faith to those who have not seen a God and only have churches or books/bibles and word of mouth that a God exists.
Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.
-
As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.
This isn't a case of globe v flat Earth arguments among ourselves, it's literally about using your own perceptive mind and actually applying simple logic to the situation.
Simply arguing for Aldrin's case for no other reason than to keep the space exploit ruse alive is pointless if it's been done by simple unconditional acceptance that he did what we were told he did, as well as others.
I'm quite sure that most, if not all of you have watched the body language of people, even friends and acquaintances, then walked away with a pretty good idea that they are telling you the truth or basically spinning lies.
Buzz Aldrin shows; time and time again that he's having extreme difficulty keeping his part in shenanigans at bay. It shows on his face and in his speech, plus his body language as a whole.
All three of those so called astronauts, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, when displayed to the media in those days, showed a variation of all kinds of emotions, from guilt to fear, to shame and duress, etc.
Armstrong showed the greatest emotions, followed by Aldrin, then Collins, in that order.
Although this does not constitute absolute concrete proof, let me explain something.
If these 3 people were being questioned for a big crime and acted the way they did, they would be kept in custody for the maximum length of time for questioning further -plus, they would be under surveillance if they were allowed to go.
It's fine that people argue the case for it happening, but it's not telling the whole story, whatever that real story is.
It can be argued in a number of ways by people. It can be argued that they show emotion because they are hiding the fact that aliens were on the moon, or they saw structures on the moon, or any other pile of absolute bull shit, and the issue is about who is sensible, logical, clear minded or gullible enough to take any story as is said.
My guess is, if you put any so called astronaut under a controlled lie detector test, fully tested by sceptics as well as so called scientists, my guess is, the lie detectors would not only show up lies but they would overload and blow up due to the severity of them. ;D
It's easy to go along with all kinds of brainwashing techniques as well, from hypnosis to LSD or some other mind altering drug to make them believe they did what they tell us they did.
The rabbit hole is probably very deep where this stuff is concerned and all we can do is guess. Nobody can factually state it happened or not, because the simple truth is, none of us can physically prove anything. All we can do is use a logical mind.
The problem with this is, people are different and arrogant, who believe their mind is logical, yet can come to totally different conclusions. There's also logical liars that can make absurdities appear logical to the gullible who actually believe they are logical.
It's like a game of chess in it's latter stages where checkmate looks unlikely for either side and stalemate offers a better outcome, yet both sides still believe that the other will make the error and allow the winning move to take place.
Statements like this make me wish I was a god, and I could just take all the conspiracy theorists, AA believers and crackpots and shove their faces DEEP into the truth and just make them look at it for all eternity.
I wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist if people told the truth. Anyway, maybe you can help me with the truth. What evidence do you have that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon?
Let me try and make this easier.
What I mean is, evidence that is not media controlled or by books.
Here's an instance. A God exists to some people but in reality it's all based on faith to those who have not seen a God and only have churches or books/bibles and word of mouth that a God exists.
Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.
Skepti, you'll never be satisfied because I think that your "gig" is to be skeptical for the sake of being skeptical because you're bored or something. Whatever you're skeptical about, except God, there's abundant proof to the contrary. The reason I exclude God from the burden of proof is that it is a matter of faith and personal experience. No one can "show" you God unless you are ready to "see" God but ultimately it's a matter of faith. No, I haven't seen the round earth personally, but the burden of proof is sufficient for me to believe that it is round. In fact, the current, mainstream model is the best we've got and no conspiracy theorist can dismantle that or space travel since it's been proven time and again enough for the average person like me. Sorry, scepti, but you're just spinning your wheels. I mean, an ice dome over a flat earth??? Why should I ever believe that in this day and age? And all that trouble going into space and it turns out to be a fraud??? It's easier to believe that it happened than that it's a conspiracy. Don't you understand, Scepti, that your gig is over? Now, other FE'ers are humbler and try to build their case because they're Biblical fundamentalists or zetecisists or want to experience "science" first hand--that is, going only by what they see. They don't spout elaborate conspiracy theories for stuff beyond RE and space (though conspiracy theories about those are annoying enough). Also, this acceleration of the earth proposed by FE...what in the heck is that and why in the heck should I believe it??? I mean come ON!
-
As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.
No, body language is a terrible way to tell if someone is telling the truth, even if you're an expert, which you aren't.
As the best researchers can tell, and in my own experience as an FBI Special Agent (now retired), detecting deception is very difficult. Every study conducted since 1986, when the famed researcher Paul Ekman first wrote about this, has demonstrated that we humans are no better than chance at detecting deception (Ekman & O'Sullivan 1991, 913-920; Granhag & Strömwall, 2004, 169; Mann & Vrij 2004). That means that if you toss a coin in the air you will be as likely to detect deception as the truth. And while it is true that a very few people are better at detecting deception than others, they are barely above chance. In fact, those that are really good are only correct somewhere around 60% of the time; that means that 40% of the time they are wrong and you would not like them sitting on a jury judging you.
Unfortunately many people have come along and declared themselves deception experts over the years and that has influenced professionals and society in significant ways. I have listened to jurors post trial comment that they thought a witness was lying because they had "heard somewhere that if you touch your nose you are lying." Likewise I have talked to many a law enforcement officer who is convinced that they are experts at detecting deception. They have deluded themselves that they are, as have judges and other professionals. In fact, every time I hear Judge Judy (of TV fame) say, "I know you are lying," I cringe (unlike us she is covered by judicial privilege in saying what she wishes, the rest of us would be sued for slander). What she and others don't realize is that as Ekman, De Paulo, Frank, Mann, O'Sullivan, Vrij and others have stated, there is no single behavior indicative of deception (Ekman 1985 et.al., infra.)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201203/the-truth-about-lie-detection (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201203/the-truth-about-lie-detection)
Read the whole article - that guy interrogated people for a living for decades, and he doesn't think body language means shit.
Study after study show that you cannot tell if someone is lying by their body language. What makes it even worse in your case is that you have already decided that Aldrin is lying, therefore every single gesture he makes will be construed as evidence he's lying.
If you've got some actual some actual evidence he's lying then bring it to the table, but all you've got is that you think he looks dodgy....which is bollocks.
-
Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.
What evidence would satisfy you? Would you need a TARDIS so that you could go back in time and travel to the moon so that you could see it with your own eyes?
-
As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.
This isn't a case of globe v flat Earth arguments among ourselves, it's literally about using your own perceptive mind and actually applying simple logic to the situation.
Simply arguing for Aldrin's case for no other reason than to keep the space exploit ruse alive is pointless if it's been done by simple unconditional acceptance that he did what we were told he did, as well as others.
I'm quite sure that most, if not all of you have watched the body language of people, even friends and acquaintances, then walked away with a pretty good idea that they are telling you the truth or basically spinning lies.
Buzz Aldrin shows; time and time again that he's having extreme difficulty keeping his part in shenanigans at bay. It shows on his face and in his speech, plus his body language as a whole.
All three of those so called astronauts, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, when displayed to the media in those days, showed a variation of all kinds of emotions, from guilt to fear, to shame and duress, etc.
Armstrong showed the greatest emotions, followed by Aldrin, then Collins, in that order.
Although this does not constitute absolute concrete proof, let me explain something.
If these 3 people were being questioned for a big crime and acted the way they did, they would be kept in custody for the maximum length of time for questioning further -plus, they would be under surveillance if they were allowed to go.
It's fine that people argue the case for it happening, but it's not telling the whole story, whatever that real story is.
It can be argued in a number of ways by people. It can be argued that they show emotion because they are hiding the fact that aliens were on the moon, or they saw structures on the moon, or any other pile of absolute bull shit, and the issue is about who is sensible, logical, clear minded or gullible enough to take any story as is said.
My guess is, if you put any so called astronaut under a controlled lie detector test, fully tested by sceptics as well as so called scientists, my guess is, the lie detectors would not only show up lies but they would overload and blow up due to the severity of them. ;D
It's easy to go along with all kinds of brainwashing techniques as well, from hypnosis to LSD or some other mind altering drug to make them believe they did what they tell us they did.
The rabbit hole is probably very deep where this stuff is concerned and all we can do is guess. Nobody can factually state it happened or not, because the simple truth is, none of us can physically prove anything. All we can do is use a logical mind.
The problem with this is, people are different and arrogant, who believe their mind is logical, yet can come to totally different conclusions. There's also logical liars that can make absurdities appear logical to the gullible who actually believe they are logical.
It's like a game of chess in it's latter stages where checkmate looks unlikely for either side and stalemate offers a better outcome, yet both sides still believe that the other will make the error and allow the winning move to take place.
Statements like this make me wish I was a god, and I could just take all the conspiracy theorists, AA believers and crackpots and shove their faces DEEP into the truth and just make them look at it for all eternity.
I wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist if people told the truth. Anyway, maybe you can help me with the truth. What evidence do you have that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon?
Let me try and make this easier.
What I mean is, evidence that is not media controlled or by books.
Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.
Why are no mainstream sources more valid than regular sources? If minority sources were valid, they wouldn't be minority sources. So basically you're asking for anything other than a valid source. What determines whether a source is media controlled? And then you say that you have to be satisfied with my evidence. We both know you will not be satisfied. That above all is what makes your challenge unfalsifiable.
-
Skepti, you'll never be satisfied because I think that your "gig" is to be skeptical for the sake of being skeptical because you're bored or something.
I do get bored like the rest, I suppose, but my gig, as you call it is to simply question things that do not satisfy my thoughts as being the whole truth.
Whatever you're skeptical about, except God, there's abundant proof to the contrary. The reason I exclude God from the burden of proof is that it is a matter of faith and personal experience.
It depends on what you construe as the abundance that makes things the truth. Pictures? videos? books? word of mouth? All of these things can still be manufactured in the making, under false pretences.
No one can "show" you God unless you are ready to "see" God but ultimately it's a matter of faith.
I can't show you my invisible friend unless you are ready to see him, it's simply down to having faith that he is there.
No, I haven't seen the round earth personally, but the burden of proof is sufficient for me to believe that it is round.
What burden of proof?
In fact, the current, mainstream model is the best we've got and no conspiracy theorist can dismantle that or space travel since it's been proven time and again enough for the average person like me.
The current one is the best we've got, mainly because it's the only one allowed to be recognised. Agreed?
Also, space travel has not been proven, it's been told and shown via pictures and video, plus word of mouth and books that portray it as proven for the average Joe to absorb into their psyche.
Arnageddon proved to me that two shuttles of different design to what we're used to, took off and landed on an asteroid, then nuked. Does this prove it's true or is this just silly because we all know it was a film?
If that can be a film, is it not possible.....IS IT NOT POSSIBLE that we could be watching films all along the line with stuff like this?
Sorry, scepti, but you're just spinning your wheels. I mean, an ice dome over a flat earth??? Why should I ever believe that in this day and age?
I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm telling you that it's my thoughts. What you believe is entirely up to you.
And all that trouble going into space and it turns out to be a fraud??? It's easier to believe that it happened than that it's a conspiracy.
Of course it's easier to believe it happened. It's easier to believe anything if it's put to you in a way that makes it impossible for you to verify it for real; so rather than batter your brain working out if it's real or not, just go with the flow. It's much less hassle, I agree.
Unfortunately, I can't just settle for that, especially when I've pored over enough of it to convince me we are being taken the piss out of, big style...but that's entirely just my opinion.
Don't you understand, Scepti, that your gig is over?
Over as in how? Do you mean nobody believing what I say?...if it is that, then nobody, or very few do, anyway.
If you mean my gig is to simply play games, then it's not a gig. It's simply me questioning stuff and giving my take and literally you or anyone else can take it or leave it; it doesn't matter to me. It's about people using their own minds logically to come to whatever conclusions they feel is right.
Now, other FE'ers are humbler and try to build their case because they're Biblical fundamentalists or zetecisists or want to experience "science" first hand--that is, going only by what they see.
There are many flat Earth takes, so who are humbler? what do you mean by humbler? If you mean they have a better model or present it better, then great. The truth is, there can only be one right answer and none of us, including you may be right in all that we theorise/hypothesise, so building a case applies to all, no matter what shapes come out.
They don't spout elaborate conspiracy theories for stuff beyond RE and space (though conspiracy theories about those are annoying enough).
What other people spout, is their business. I don't follow all models. I respect the thoughts of those that go with a model whether I think it's way out or more on the mark. Just because I don't agree with stuff does not mean I have anything against the person who promotes it and that includes yourself, because I'm not against what's spouted off by forum members, I'm against being told lies. All you are doing is studying what you believe to be the truth, told by people who are just like you, who simply followed mainstream protocol to allow you to study what you do.
It goes further than that down the rabbit hole, as far as I'm concerned.
Also, this acceleration of the earth proposed by FE...what in the heck is that and why in the heck should I believe it??? I mean come ON!
I don't know. I don't follow that theory, you'll have to ask the flat Earth believers who follow that line of thought.
-
As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.
No, body language is a terrible way to tell if someone is telling the truth, even if you're an expert, which you aren't.
As the best researchers can tell, and in my own experience as an FBI Special Agent (now retired), detecting deception is very difficult. Every study conducted since 1986, when the famed researcher Paul Ekman first wrote about this, has demonstrated that we humans are no better than chance at detecting deception (Ekman & O'Sullivan 1991, 913-920; Granhag & Strömwall, 2004, 169; Mann & Vrij 2004). That means that if you toss a coin in the air you will be as likely to detect deception as the truth. And while it is true that a very few people are better at detecting deception than others, they are barely above chance. In fact, those that are really good are only correct somewhere around 60% of the time; that means that 40% of the time they are wrong and you would not like them sitting on a jury judging you.
Unfortunately many people have come along and declared themselves deception experts over the years and that has influenced professionals and society in significant ways. I have listened to jurors post trial comment that they thought a witness was lying because they had "heard somewhere that if you touch your nose you are lying." Likewise I have talked to many a law enforcement officer who is convinced that they are experts at detecting deception. They have deluded themselves that they are, as have judges and other professionals. In fact, every time I hear Judge Judy (of TV fame) say, "I know you are lying," I cringe (unlike us she is covered by judicial privilege in saying what she wishes, the rest of us would be sued for slander). What she and others don't realize is that as Ekman, De Paulo, Frank, Mann, O'Sullivan, Vrij and others have stated, there is no single behavior indicative of deception (Ekman 1985 et.al., infra.)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201203/the-truth-about-lie-detection (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201203/the-truth-about-lie-detection)
Read the whole article - that guy interrogated people for a living for decades, and he doesn't think body language means shit.
Study after study show that you cannot tell if someone is lying by their body language. What makes it even worse in your case is that you have already decided that Aldrin is lying, therefore every single gesture he makes will be construed as evidence he's lying.
If you've got some actual some actual evidence he's lying then bring it to the table, but all you've got is that you think he looks dodgy....which is bollocks.
Which I already explained. I'm well aware it's not concrete in any way. Put it this way - if someone was at your door selling you expensive watches or TV and equipment acting like those clowns, would you part with your cash in the full knowledge that what you are paying for is the real deal?
You don't need to answer because you're not stupid and your answer would be emphatically, no.
-
Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.
What evidence would satisfy you? Would you need a TARDIS so that you could go back in time and travel to the moon so that you could see it with your own eyes?
Nope. I don't need to use fantasy time travel - all I would need, is physical evidence. Being present at a rocket launch after seeing suited astronauts get into the rocket and take off with me being as close as possible to it with the best visual equipment to see that they do board it and that they take off.
I explained this before. My chances of this would be (my guess) zero.
-
Why are no mainstream sources more valid than regular sources? If minority sources were valid, they wouldn't be minority sources. So basically you're asking for anything other than a valid source. What determines whether a source is media controlled? And then you say that you have to be satisfied with my evidence. We both know you will not be satisfied. That above all is what makes your challenge unfalsifiable.
My challenge is quite simple. You see, all I need is proof of what is claimed, then I can kick my house of conspiracy cards down and stamp on them, never to rebuild.
Knock down my cards with some undeniable proof.
-
Why are no mainstream sources more valid than regular sources? If minority sources were valid, they wouldn't be minority sources. So basically you're asking for anything other than a valid source. What determines whether a source is media controlled? And then you say that you have to be satisfied with my evidence. We both know you will not be satisfied. That above all is what makes your challenge unfalsifiable.
My challenge is quite simple. You see, all I need is proof of what is claimed, then I can kick my house of conspiracy cards down and stamp on them, never to rebuild.
Knock down my cards with some undeniable proof.
Scepti: listen to me and listen to me hard: THE PROOF OF WHAT IS CLAIMED HAS BEEN PROVIDED ALREADY and you missed the boat. If the only thing that will convince you of RE is a personal space flight, then you better find a bunch of money somewhere because most, if not all, of us in these forums can't afford that. I wonder why if the famous (and purportedly rich) Thomas Dolby is a FE'er, he doesn't use some of HIS money to prove/disprove FE. Anyway, RE/space travel proof has been provided as far as I'm concerned, and you, Scepti, have rejected it. There's nothing more I or any average person can do for you. You have to find a sugar daddy to fund your space voyage. I wish I could afford that. When you get the funding, don't waste it but use it for RE/FE research! I'm being facetious because you're probably just a poor slob like me.
-
Why are no mainstream sources more valid than regular sources? If minority sources were valid, they wouldn't be minority sources. So basically you're asking for anything other than a valid source. What determines whether a source is media controlled? And then you say that you have to be satisfied with my evidence. We both know you will not be satisfied. That above all is what makes your challenge unfalsifiable.
My challenge is quite simple. You see, all I need is proof of what is claimed, then I can kick my house of conspiracy cards down and stamp on them, never to rebuild.
Knock down my cards with some undeniable proof.
You are capable of denying anything you want.
-
Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.
This single phrase indicates that sceptimatic has absolutely NO idea of informal logic. That he conflates Aldrin's walk on the moon with the alleged existence of a supernatural entity will, I'm sure, provide many hours of amusement for anybody versed in philosophy and/or science.
Nobody needs to "prove" to sceptimatic that Aldrin and others walked on the moon; there's literally thousands of pages of technical evidence, photographic and film footage, and actual non-terrestrial soil and rock samples to more than adequately prove it. If sceptimatic stubbornly chooses to claim it never happened, then the onus of proof lies with him—as an opponent of the status quo.
-
Scepti: listen to me and listen to me hard: THE PROOF OF WHAT IS CLAIMED HAS BEEN PROVIDED ALREADY and you missed the boat.
No, it hasn't. Explanations have been provided, not physical proof. If physical proof has been provided for you then name me those proofs.
If the only thing that will convince you of RE is a personal space flight, then you better find a bunch of money somewhere because most, if not all, of us in these forums can't afford that.
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
I wonder why if the famous (and purportedly rich) Thomas Dolby is a FE'er, he doesn't use some of HIS money to prove/disprove FE.
I don't know. I don't know how serious this person is. Maybe he just goes with it and that's that, not wishing to make any real bones about it.
Anyway, RE/space travel proof has been provided as far as I'm concerned, and you, Scepti, have rejected it.
Then show me the physical proof. Showing me pictures and film footage is not proof, nor is listening to stories. Your own eyes, physical proof is what should convince you, so where is it?
There's nothing more I or any average person can do for you.
That's fine, I'm not asking anyone to do anything for me.
You have to find a sugar daddy to fund your space voyage. I wish I could afford that. When you get the funding, don't waste it but use it for RE/FE research! I'm being facetious because you're probably just a poor slob like me.
I'm not interested in any so called space voyage. Just knowing these rockets as we are told, can get off the launch pad with people in would be enough to convince me.
-
Scepti: listen to me and listen to me hard: THE PROOF OF WHAT IS CLAIMED HAS BEEN PROVIDED ALREADY and you missed the boat.
No, it hasn't. Explanations have been provided, not physical proof. If physical proof has been provided for you then name me those proofs.
The numerous extraterrestrial rock and soil samples that have been brought back by the Apollo missions, and which appear nowhere on the surface of the earth. As have extraterrestrial rock and soil samples from Mars.
I wonder why if the famous (and purportedly rich) Thomas Dolby is a FE'er, he doesn't use some of HIS money to prove/disprove FE.
I don't know how serious this person is. Maybe he just goes with it and that's that, not wishing to make any real bones about it.
Hehe... The standard flat earth escape clause. "It's no big deal". Well done sceptimatic; right on cue LOL.
Anyway, RE/space travel proof has been provided as far as I'm concerned, and you, Scepti, have rejected it.
Then show me the physical proof. Showing me pictures and film footage is not proof, nor is listening to stories. Your own eyes, physical proof is what should convince you, so where is it?
So where is your proof of a flat earth? What sort of "physical" proof would satisfy you? And what's so funny is that you flat earthers don't even have any pictures or film footage (bogus or otherwise) and yet you demand even more from the round earthers. Truly laughable.
You constantly refute any/all evidence unequivocally proving that the earth is spherical, but at the same time, you can present not one single piece of tangible evidence to even suggest that the earth may be flat. So until you can provide some sort of empirical evidence supporting your flat earth claims, the status quo has to remain, that is, the earth is an oblate spheroid.
-
Which I already explained. I'm well aware it's not concrete in any way.
Yes, it's just innuendo. So stop bringing it up.
Put it this way - if someone was at your door selling you expensive watches or TV and equipment acting like those clowns, would you part with your cash in the full knowledge that what you are paying for is the real deal?
The reasons I wouldn't buy watches off someone on my doorstep would have absolutely nothing to do with their body language.
Lets put it another way: if someone came round selling watches and TV equipment on your doorstep and their patter and body language looked great, would you buy their stuff? If you did, you'd be a fucking idiot. Conmen wouldn't be very good at their job if they looked shifty and dodgy all the time, would they?
As I say, it's impossible to judge if someone is lying buy their body language - you've watched to many episodes of CSI and started thinking that shit is real.
-
I had to laugh at how confidently sceptimatic rebuts Buzz Aldrin and his peers by using his "knowledge" of what he calls body language.
I can only suggest he reads this debunking of a craze that was popular on TV shows in the 1970s.
Psychology Today: Body Language Myths (http://bit.ly/1xsdPtm).
sceptimatic again proves the old adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". ;D
-
Scepti: listen to me and listen to me hard: THE PROOF OF WHAT IS CLAIMED HAS BEEN PROVIDED ALREADY and you missed the boat.
No, it hasn't. Explanations have been provided, not physical proof. If physical proof has been provided for you then name me those proofs.
If the only thing that will convince you of RE is a personal space flight, then you better find a bunch of money somewhere because most, if not all, of us in these forums can't afford that.
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
I wonder why if the famous (and purportedly rich) Thomas Dolby is a FE'er, he doesn't use some of HIS money to prove/disprove FE.
I don't know. I don't know how serious this person is. Maybe he just goes with it and that's that, not wishing to make any real bones about it.
Anyway, RE/space travel proof has been provided as far as I'm concerned, and you, Scepti, have rejected it.
Then show me the physical proof. Showing me pictures and film footage is not proof, nor is listening to stories. Your own eyes, physical proof is what should convince you, so where is it?
There's nothing more I or any average person can do for you.
That's fine, I'm not asking anyone to do anything for me.
You have to find a sugar daddy to fund your space voyage. I wish I could afford that. When you get the funding, don't waste it but use it for RE/FE research! I'm being facetious because you're probably just a poor slob like me.
I'm not interested in any so called space voyage. Just knowing these rockets as we are told, can get off the launch pad with people in would be enough to convince me.
These rockets HAVE gotten off the launch pad with people in them SINCE THE 1960s and THERE'S PLENTY OF FILM FOOTAGE OF THAT AND MORE. If you aren't convinced by now but don't believe you need to "go up" in a rocket, what's left? A trip to Florida? Yes, go to Cape Canaveral (Kennedy Space Center) or NASA and study their modus operandi for yourself. Sadly, I don't think that you'll ever be convinced and you'll stay in your little, "Scepti" mind. Sorry, FE'ers: Scepti is not helping your case. I suggest you muzzle him.
-
The reasons I wouldn't buy watches off someone on my doorstep would have absolutely nothing to do with their body language.
How many smooth talking salesmen/women have convinced you to buy a product? I'd say many times, like all of us. How many have you walked away from because their stance and body language have set alarms bells ringing? Probably many. Deny this if you want but that's what I'm getting at.
Lets put it another way: if someone came round selling watches and TV equipment on your doorstep and their patter and body language looked great, would you buy their stuff? If you did, you'd be a fucking idiot. Conmen wouldn't be very good at their job if they looked shifty and dodgy all the time, would they?
If someone came to my door selling stuff, it would depend on what they were selling if they were good salespeople with the patter. Anyone doing it that appeared shifty, wouldn't get a thought, except "no thanks" and the door slammed shut.
As I say, it's impossible to judge if someone is lying buy their body language - you've watched to many episodes of CSI and started thinking that shit is real.
No, it's not impossible to judge. It's entirely possible to give a person a reasonable doubt as to their authenticity. Fair anough, it's not concrete but it is a massive yardstick and no I don't watch CSI.
-
These rockets HAVE gotten off the launch pad with people in them SINCE THE 1960s and THERE'S PLENTY OF FILM FOOTAGE OF THAT AND MORE.
There's many films out tehre on space travel, which ones are real? is it the ones that are not sold to us as FILMS?
If you aren't convinced by now but don't believe you need to "go up" in a rocket, what's left? A trip to Florida? Yes, go to Cape Canaveral (Kennedy Space Center) or NASA and study their modus operandi for yourself.
Yes, this would be fine. What chances do I have of seeing this close up? I'd hazrd a guess at, ZERO.
Sadly, I don't think that you'll ever be convinced and you'll stay in your little, "Scepti" mind. Sorry, FE'ers: Scepti is not helping your case. I suggest you muzzle him.
What has this got to do with a flat Earth?
You're panicking, what's the matter?
-
These rockets HAVE gotten off the launch pad with people in them SINCE THE 1960s and THERE'S PLENTY OF FILM FOOTAGE OF THAT AND MORE.
There's many films out tehre on space travel, which ones are real? is it the ones that are not sold to us as FILMS?
If you aren't convinced by now but don't believe you need to "go up" in a rocket, what's left? A trip to Florida? Yes, go to Cape Canaveral (Kennedy Space Center) or NASA and study their modus operandi for yourself.
Yes, this would be fine. What chances do I have of seeing this close up? I'd hazrd a guess at, ZERO.
Sadly, I don't think that you'll ever be convinced and you'll stay in your little, "Scepti" mind. Sorry, FE'ers: Scepti is not helping your case. I suggest you muzzle him.
What has this got to do with a flat Earth?
You're panicking, what's the matter?
I'm panicking??? What??? I'm just saying that you CAN go to Cape Canaveral and NASA because surely there are tours and such. And you CAN see launches into space and consider that perhaps all this is TOO BIG and has lasted TOO LONG to be a conspiracy. I find RE and space travel much more credible than whatever conspiracy theory about those you people are spouting.
-
These rockets HAVE gotten off the launch pad with people in them SINCE THE 1960s and THERE'S PLENTY OF FILM FOOTAGE OF THAT AND MORE.
There's many films out tehre on space travel, which ones are real? is it the ones that are not sold to us as FILMS?
If you aren't convinced by now but don't believe you need to "go up" in a rocket, what's left? A trip to Florida? Yes, go to Cape Canaveral (Kennedy Space Center) or NASA and study their modus operandi for yourself.
Yes, this would be fine. What chances do I have of seeing this close up? I'd hazrd a guess at, ZERO.
Sadly, I don't think that you'll ever be convinced and you'll stay in your little, "Scepti" mind. Sorry, FE'ers: Scepti is not helping your case. I suggest you muzzle him.
What has this got to do with a flat Earth?
You're panicking, what's the matter?
I'm panicking??? What??? I'm just saying that you CAN go to Cape Canaveral and NASA because surely there are tours and such. And you CAN see launches into space and consider that perhaps all this is TOO BIG and has lasted TOO LONG to be a conspiracy. I find RE and space travel much more credible than whatever conspiracy theory about those you people are spouting.
You appear to be panicking by appealing to flat Earth authority telling them I'm hindering their legitimacy when all along it's you people that are not only hindering it, you're downright ridiculing it. One thing I'm not doing, because I have my own theory and certainly do not engage the flat Earther's to put them down for their thoughts.
Let me bring you up to speed. The flat Earth theorists in the main can't stand me and want me gone, they just don't want to force me out by the use of ban buttons and hope I will simply just fade away, so don't be panicking about them being on my side. They are more on your side than mine. ;D
Anyway, that being said. You stick to your rockets in space stuff and I'll stick to my stance on it being a big hoax on a grand scale.
-
These rockets HAVE gotten off the launch pad with people in them SINCE THE 1960s and THERE'S PLENTY OF FILM FOOTAGE OF THAT AND MORE.
There's many films out tehre on space travel, which ones are real? is it the ones that are not sold to us as FILMS?
If you aren't convinced by now but don't believe you need to "go up" in a rocket, what's left? A trip to Florida? Yes, go to Cape Canaveral (Kennedy Space Center) or NASA and study their modus operandi for yourself.
Yes, this would be fine. What chances do I have of seeing this close up? I'd hazrd a guess at, ZERO.
Sadly, I don't think that you'll ever be convinced and you'll stay in your little, "Scepti" mind. Sorry, FE'ers: Scepti is not helping your case. I suggest you muzzle him.
What has this got to do with a flat Earth?
You're panicking, what's the matter?
I'm panicking??? What??? I'm just saying that you CAN go to Cape Canaveral and NASA because surely there are tours and such. And you CAN see launches into space and consider that perhaps all this is TOO BIG and has lasted TOO LONG to be a conspiracy. I find RE and space travel much more credible than whatever conspiracy theory about those you people are spouting.
You appear to be panicking by appealing to flat Earth authority telling them I'm hindering their legitimacy when all along it's you people that are not only hindering it, you're downright ridiculing it. One thing I'm not doing, because I have my own theory and certainly do not engage the flat Earther's to put them down for their thoughts.
Let me bring you up to speed. The flat Earth theorists in the main can't stand me and want me gone, they just don't want to force me out by the use of ban buttons and hope I will simply just fade away, so don't be panicking about them being on my side. They are more on your side than mine. ;D
Anyway, that being said. You stick to your rockets in space stuff and I'll stick to my stance on it being a big hoax on a grand scale.
Well, you are a flat-earther, even if not in league with the other FE'ers here. I will stick to my rockets in space stuff for sure and put my good name behind it all the way. I don't see a reason to change my mind and you haven't helped your case with your ideas. I'm not saying that you're stupid, necessarily, but oh so stubborn in the face of (to me) overwhelming evidence of RE/space travel.
-
Well, you are a flat-earther, even if not in league with the other FE'ers here. I will stick to my rockets in space stuff for sure and put my good name behind it all the way. I don't see a reason to change my mind and you haven't helped your case with your ideas. I'm not saying that you're stupid, necessarily, but oh so stubborn in the face of (to me) overwhelming evidence of RE/space travel.
Yep, I'm stubborn which is a good trait to have because it stops me blindly following mass opinion on stuff that is not proven.
-
Well, you are a flat-earther, even if not in league with the other FE'ers here. I will stick to my rockets in space stuff for sure and put my good name behind it all the way. I don't see a reason to change my mind and you haven't helped your case with your ideas. I'm not saying that you're stupid, necessarily, but oh so stubborn in the face of (to me) overwhelming evidence of RE/space travel.
Yep, I'm stubborn which is a good trait to have because it stops me blindly following mass opinion on stuff that is not proven.
Your stubbornness has taken you too far to the extreme. This "unproven" stuff HAS been proven--you just refuse to see the proof. I'm not blindly following anything because when I was a child I had trouble with RE, but over time, the evidence (yes, provided by others) was sufficient for me to understand gravity, at first, and the rest fell into place. Once you grasp gravity, a step that you and the other FE'ers have missed, the rest (RE/space travel) makes sense.
-
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian? Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up. As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
-
Visit to Baikonur is not that expensive. And yes, you can reserve visitor place for the next manned launch.
-
Well, you are a flat-earther, even if not in league with the other FE'ers here. I will stick to my rockets in space stuff for sure and put my good name behind it all the way. I don't see a reason to change my mind and you haven't helped your case with your ideas. I'm not saying that you're stupid, necessarily, but oh so stubborn in the face of (to me) overwhelming evidence of RE/space travel.
Yep, I'm stubborn which is a good trait to have because it stops me blindly following mass opinion on stuff that is not proven.
Sceptimatic: So you believe only those things that you have personally experienced or seen with you own eyes, right? You have probably never seen any of the following: blue whales, nuclear-powered submarines, Barack Obama. Do you believe that these things/people exist? If you do, aren't you just accepting what government, the media and other authorities are telling you?
-
You appear to be panicking by appealing to flat Earth authority telling them I'm hindering their legitimacy when all along it's you people that are not only hindering it, you're downright ridiculing it.
I hate to tell you this sceptimatic, but the plethora of absolutely unbelievable, nonsensical comments you've posted all over these forums is one of the major reasons that the credibility of the flat earth movement is so often questioned. Haven't you yet recognised the fact that all the other flat earthers here regard you as a loose cannon, and only damaging their cause? Do you not understand that we all—round earthers and flat earthers alike—regard your IQ as being less than Bozo the clown's? And do you seriously believe that even one single person here takes any notice at all of your endless, self-centred ramblings and crazy theories?
-
blue whales, nuclear-powered submarines,
He also pretends nuclear power doesn't exist either....
He likes denying stuff 'cos it makes him seem all clever, well in his own head anyway.
-
blue whales, nuclear-powered submarines,
He also pretends nuclear power doesn't exist either....
He likes denying stuff 'cos it makes him seem all clever, well in his own head anyway.
What could be more important when you live in a van down by the river?
-
Ok, just so that we don't give Scepti an excuse to go off on a tangent, let's remove nuclear-powered submarines from the list.
So, Scepti, do you believe that blue whales and Barack Obama exist? If so, how can you believe they exist if you haven't seen them?
-
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian? Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up. As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.
-
Visit to Baikonur is not that expensive. And yes, you can reserve visitor place for the next manned launch.
And you know all about this, right?
-
Well, you are a flat-earther, even if not in league with the other FE'ers here. I will stick to my rockets in space stuff for sure and put my good name behind it all the way. I don't see a reason to change my mind and you haven't helped your case with your ideas. I'm not saying that you're stupid, necessarily, but oh so stubborn in the face of (to me) overwhelming evidence of RE/space travel.
Yep, I'm stubborn which is a good trait to have because it stops me blindly following mass opinion on stuff that is not proven.
Sceptimatic: So you believe only those things that you have personally experienced or seen with you own eyes, right? You have probably never seen any of the following: blue whales, nuclear-powered submarines, Barack Obama. Do you believe that these things/people exist? If you do, aren't you just accepting what government, the media and other authorities are telling you?
This argument gets used time and time again and it's a silly argument to be honest.
There are many things in life that I accept. I accept them because I can actually go and verify them if I wish.
Having said that, I have no wish to verify things that do not strike me as being faked or peak my interest.
I do question things that appear to be borne, more of fantasy or sheer dis-info/mis-info, or potential blatant lies.
Much if not all of this stuff is usually classified as top secret.
You and anyone else can sit there all day long and tell me that this and that exists because you have been there and seen it with your own eyes, but the truth is, you haven't.
The best you can do is to assume what you are told is genuine, based on no more than the study of what has been put on a plate for you to feed off, of which you accept, unconditionally as a fact with no requirement of physical evidence for verification of this supposed fact.
-
Visit to Baikonur is not that expensive. And yes, you can reserve visitor place for the next manned launch.
And you know all about this, right?
The first program:
The first program is Tour to Baikonur during the Launch of Manned Space Flight. We give you the opportunity of standing only 5 meters from the Soyuz rocket, when the great doors of the Baikonur Cosmodrome Soyuz integration hall, open and the space rocket is being transported on a special track to the Gagarinksy launch pad, which is 2 kilometers away. You will see the bravest people in the world – the Cosmonauts, who are ready to leave the Earth and fly away to the unknown stars. Just think where you would be standing when rocket blasts off from only 2 km in away! Who knows, maybe the next flight would be with you on board! Please see the Itinerary of this trip.
Price per person for Tour to Baikonur is 3,300 EURO.
-
I hate to tell you this sceptimatic, but the plethora of absolutely unbelievable, nonsensical comments you've posted all over these forums is one of the major reasons that the credibility of the flat earth movement is so often questioned.
Considering my theory is totally different to the theory of the flat Earth theorists in their various takes, I'd say that I can only do damage to my own theory. On that note, Geoffrey, you will have to choose another avenue to take to gain the ban you seek for me. ;D
Haven't you yet recognised the fact that all the other flat earthers here regard you as a loose cannon, and only damaging their cause?
I'm well aware that most flat Earth theorists do not like me, nor want me here. That's not my problem. I'm here and posting fairly consistently under the rules and making no more errors against those than anyone else...and much less than some, including yourself. :P
Do you not understand that we all—round earthers and flat earthers alike—regard your IQ as being less than Bozo the clown's?
I'm happy you take so much notice. Each post you make just wears me down, Geoffrey, I hope you realise this. I'd say, if you keep at me for the next 10 million years, you will succeed in wearing me down enough to claim some kind of victory. Keep up the good work, Geoffrey. ;D
And do you seriously believe that even one single person here takes any notice at all of your endless, self-centred ramblings and crazy theories?
What people believe or take from what I say is entirely up to them. It may have escaped your notice, Geoffrey - but I do not know anyone from here, let alone read minds, so what I type is simply what's on my mind which may or may not give food for thought to anyone looking at it. Happy digging, Geoffrey. ;D
-
Visit to Baikonur is not that expensive. And yes, you can reserve visitor place for the next manned launch.
And you know all about this, right?
The first program:
The first program is Tour to Baikonur during the Launch of Manned Space Flight. We give you the opportunity of standing only 5 meters from the Soyuz rocket, when the great doors of the Baikonur Cosmodrome Soyuz integration hall, open and the space rocket is being transported on a special track to the Gagarinksy launch pad, which is 2 kilometers away. You will see the bravest people in the world – the Cosmonauts, who are ready to leave the Earth and fly away to the unknown stars. Just think where you would be standing when rocket blasts off from only 2 km in away! Who knows, maybe the next flight would be with you on board! Please see the Itinerary of this trip.
Price per person for Tour to Baikonur is 3,300 EURO.
Thanks for taking the time to put that up.
I might just sign up for this - it could be interesting indeed, as long as I can get footage of what I said earlier on.
You see, a mile away is a long distance to actually see cosmonauts enter into a rocket without exiting before launch.
Anyway, having said that, I noticed something interesting...see what you think.
Here's a portion of text from your site you put up.
..............
There are not many places in the world where you can experience this type of drama. We offer you the chance of visiting the legendary Russian cosmodrome at "Baikonur," in Kazhakhztan, where the history of space exploration started many years ago. The first satellite in the world, "Sputnik," was launched in 1957, from Cosmodrome Baikonur and since the first manned space flight of Yuri A. Gagarin on 12th April 1961, there have been over 1,200 spacecraft launched from here.
1957 to present day is 57 years. That means approximately 21 rockets were launched each year, every year for 57 years to present day...OR...to put it more simply, one space rocket launch every 2 weeks, roughly.
Does this seem plausible to you, seriously?
Do they simply forget themselves when they say these things?
You pay a fortune to go to Disneyland and get told about seeing mickey mouse and all the other characters.
Maybe this is a similar version where they show you the big model stood up which is made of composite materials covering a ballistic missile which is only launched when you're over a mile away or whatever.
Possible right?
The proof in the pudding is in the eating I suppose.
-
Or maybe if there is one or more satellites launched on a rocket, those are also included in the count. So a rocket that has 3 satellites on it would be 4 spacecraft.
Also possible, so keep your mind open.
-
Or maybe if there is one or more satellites launched on a rocket, those are also included in the count. So a rocket that has 3 satellites on it would be 4 spacecraft.
Also possible, so keep your mind open.
Oh I will. If you want , we can average it out over time and say that 2 satellites were launched with every rocket, meaning 600 rockets launched, so now we are down to 1 launch a month. Can they really factory churn out 1 space rocket a month to be launched from this site do you think?
I think I'm been very generous here.
-
Or maybe if there is one or more satellites launched on a rocket, those are also included in the count. So a rocket that has 3 satellites on it would be 4 spacecraft.
Also possible, so keep your mind open.
Oh I will. If you want , we can average it out over time and say that 2 satellites were launched with every rocket, meaning 600 rockets launched, so now we are down to 1 launch a month. Can they really factory churn out 1 space rocket a month to be launched from this site do you think?
I think you are doing the math wrong:
1 Rocket + 2 Satellites=3 Spacecraft
So 400 launches
I think I'm been very generous here.
Considering you are completely biased against manned space travel as a possibility and know nothing about the logistics, I would not say you are being generous at all.
Here is an essay breaking down space launch statistics since 1957 if you are interested:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1598/1 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1598/1)
[/quote]
-
1957 to present day is 57 years. That means approximately 21 rockets were launched each year, every year for 57 years to present day...OR...to put it more simply, one space rocket launch every 2 weeks, roughly.
Does this seem plausible to you, seriously?
Yes, it does. At least if does if you have some small clue as to how a space program works.
Here are a few things to consider. First of all, a rocket launch does not necessarily mean a satellite launch, or even a successful launch. In the early years of space flight, both sides basically used modified military rockets (usually ICBMs) because they were readily available (cold War and all). Also remember that there were a lot of launch failures, especially early on. For example, they launched 4 N-1 moon rockets, but they all failed shortly after launch.
Another thing to consider is that there are more than likely several actual launch pads at the facility, meaning that they can have several rockets in different stages of preparedness at the same time.
-
Can they really factory churn out 1 space rocket a month to be launched from this site do you think?
It wasn't that many, but even if it were, then what, exactly, is your problem?
Seriously, what aspect of the logistics would make this impossible?
If Hyundai's main factory can churn out an average of 5,600 vehicles a day, what makes you think these guys can't build one rocket per month?
-
Can they really factory churn out 1 space rocket a month to be launched from this site do you think?
It wasn't that many, but even if it were, then what, exactly, is your problem?
Seriously, what aspect of the logistics would make this impossible?
If Hyundai's main factory can churn out an average of 5,600 vehicles a day, what makes you think these guys can't build one rocket per month?
We are not even talking about production. We are talking about executing a launch plan. Even easier I would imagine.
-
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian? Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up. As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.
I hate to nit-pick, but it's my nature to do so. That being said, you wouldn't use a magnifying glass to view objects at a distance but you probably know that and were typing in a hurry.
-
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian? Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up. As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.
I hate to nit-pick, but it's my nature to do so. That being said, you wouldn't use a magnifying glass to view objects at a distance but you probably know that and were typing in a hurry.
I hate to nitpick but it's in my nature. Yes you would use a magnifying glass to view things at distance, but you probably know that and were just typing in a hurry.
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings? That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:
"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."
I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years. Not even Buzz.
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings? That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:
"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."
I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years. Not even Buzz.
Nobody ever will because to prove it would constitute providing physical evidence, and we all know that's an impossibility.
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings? That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:
"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."
I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years. Not even Buzz.
I know you like to crow on about no one winning your challenge, but you should know that the fact that no one has collected says nothing about the veracity of your claim.
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings? That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:
"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."
I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years. Not even Buzz.
Nobody ever will because to prove it would constitute providing physical evidence, and we all know that's an impossibility.
Other than the evidence already provided of course. Other than the existing evidence, it is true that non-existing evidence will be provided.
-
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian? Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up. As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.
I hate to nit-pick, but it's my nature to do so. That being said, you wouldn't use a magnifying glass to view objects at a distance but you probably know that and were typing in a hurry.
I hate to nitpick but it's in my nature. Yes you would use a magnifying glass to view things at distance, but you probably know that and were just typing in a hurry.
So... you have never used a magnifying glass then. Or a telescope... Got it.
-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings? That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:
"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."
I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years. Not even Buzz.
Nobody ever will because to prove it would constitute providing physical evidence, and we all know that's an impossibility.
I suppose that part of the problem is that you would need to go to the moon to personally see the best physical evidence.
-
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian? Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up. As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.
I hate to nit-pick, but it's my nature to do so. That being said, you wouldn't use a magnifying glass to view objects at a distance but you probably know that and were typing in a hurry.
I hate to nitpick but it's in my nature. Yes you would use a magnifying glass to view things at distance, but you probably know that and were just typing in a hurry.
So... you have never used a magnifying glass then. Or a telescope... Got it.
I HAVE used magnifying glasses and telescopes. What's your problem???
-
I was responding to sceptimatic.
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
Yes. Do you?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/telescope1.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/telescope1.htm)
http://www.stormthecastle.com/how-to-make-a/how-to-make-a-small-telescope.htm (http://www.stormthecastle.com/how-to-make-a/how-to-make-a-small-telescope.htm)
How to make a small easy telescope (http://#ws)
-
I was responding to sceptimatic.
Sorry...so many embedded quotes and I got sort of lost...
-
I was responding to sceptimatic.
Sorry...so many embedded quotes and I got sort of lost...
No problem.
-
This argument gets used time and time again and it's a silly argument to be honest.
There are many things in life that I accept. I accept them because I can actually go and verify them if I wish.
Oh good, you know you can go and verify rocket launches by actually going to one right?
Having said that, I have no wish to verify things that do not strike me as being faked or peak my interest.
Oh so basically you are being closed minded. You see something, decide it is fake, then not investigate it anymore. Good to know.
I do question things that appear to be borne, more of fantasy or sheer dis-info/mis-info, or potential blatant lies.
Much if not all of this stuff is usually classified as top secret.
No you don't question things. You deny things. Big difference. If you questioned things you would accept answers to those questions regardless if the answer you receive goes against your views.
You and anyone else can sit there all day long and tell me that this and that exists because you have been there and seen it with your own eyes, but the truth is, you haven't.
How do you know that the person telling you their personal experience didn't experience what they say? Are you some all knowing being that just can tell?
The best you can do is to assume what you are told is genuine, based on no more than the study of what has been put on a plate for you to feed off, of which you accept, unconditionally as a fact with no requirement of physical evidence for verification of this supposed fact.
And the best you can do is deny every thing presented to you based no more than on the visions in your head. Which you accept, unconditionally as fact with no requirement of physical evidence for verification of this supposed fact.
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
Good one! ;D Poor Scepti.
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
So, then tell me what the function of a telescope is.
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
So, then tell me what the function of a telescope is.
From Wikipedia:
A telescope is an instrument that aids in the observation of remote objects by collecting electromagnetic radiation (such as visible light). The first known practical telescopes were invented in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 17th century, using glass lenses. They found use in terrestrial applications and astronomy.
Within a few decades, the reflecting telescope was invented, which used mirrors. In the 20th century many new types of telescopes were invented, including radio telescopes in the 1930s and infrared telescopes in the 1960s. The word telescope now refers to a wide range of instruments detecting different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, and in some cases other types of detectors.
Happy to help.
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
No, it's basically considered sorcery.
What is probably the case is that whenever you look down one, a wizard working for the conspiracy telepathically beams down the image you think you should see. This is why everyone thinks they can see the moon, or the ISS, or a ship going over the horizon. Whereas if they could see what was really going on it would be clear that the the sun is a reflection on an ice dome, the moon is a reflection of the sun, the earth is flat, the ISS doesn't exist and that ships that have apparently gone over the horizon can still be seen.
One day I will find the Wizard Overlord and defeat him in single combat, then the scales will fall from people's eyes and they will see the world as it really is.
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
So, then tell me what the function of a telescope is.
From Wikipedia:
A telescope is an instrument that aids in the observation of remote objects by collecting electromagnetic radiation (such as visible light). The first known practical telescopes were invented in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 17th century, using glass lenses. They found use in terrestrial applications and astronomy.
Within a few decades, the reflecting telescope was invented, which used mirrors. In the 20th century many new types of telescopes were invented, including radio telescopes in the 1930s and infrared telescopes in the 1960s. The word telescope now refers to a wide range of instruments detecting different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, and in some cases other types of detectors.
Happy to help.
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
No, it's basically considered sorcery.
What is probably the case is that whenever you look down one, a wizard working for the conspiracy telepathically beams down the image you think you should see. This is why everyone thinks they can see the moon, or the ISS, or a ship going over the horizon. Whereas if they could see what was really going on it would be clear that the the sun is a reflection on an ice dome, the moon is a reflection of the sun, the earth is flat, the ISS doesn't exist and that ships that have apparently gone over the horizon can still be seen.
One day I will find the Wizard Overlord and defeat him in single combat, then the scales will fall from people's eyes and they will see the world as it really is.
Irespect your opinion on it. I don't follow that but, each to their own. ;)
-
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.
-
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.
Thank you. So in effect it is a magnifying glass, correct?
-
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.
Thank you. So in effect it is a magnifying glass, correct?
No.
-
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.
Thank you. So in effect it is a magnifying glass, correct?
No.
Yes.
-
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.
Thank you. So in effect it is a magnifying glass, correct?
No.
Yes.
No. A magnifying glass cannot magnify distant objects. I have a magnifying glass on my desk right now, it can't even magnify my office wall from a distance of 8 feet. It can, however magnify things at a distance of a few (very few) inches and at very modest magnification.
A telescope would be useless at magnifying the page of a book, or magnifying the images of bacteria.
A microscope would be useless at magnifying distant objects but it's great at magnifying bacteria with considerable magnification.
To say a telescope is in effect a magnifying glass is show an ignorance of what even a magnifying glass does.
-
Scepti does love to try and lead us up the garden path with his bullshit...unfortunately the path usually leads nowhere.
-
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.
Thank you. So in effect it is a magnifying glass, correct?
No.
Yes.
No. A magnifying glass cannot magnify distant objects. I have a magnifying glass on my desk right now, it can't even magnify my office wall from a distance of 8 feet. It can, however magnify things at a distance of a few (very few) inches and at very modest magnification.
A telescope would be useless at magnifying the page of a book, or magnifying the images of bacteria.
A microscope would be useless at magnifying distant objects but it's great at magnifying bacteria with considerable magnification.
To say a telescope is in effect a magnifying glass is show an ignorance of what even a magnifying glass does.
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
-
Scepti does love to try and lead us up the garden path with his bullshit...unfortunately the path usually leads nowhere.
The very same path that all of you lead people. Into no mans land. Attempts at putting inquisitive people to sleep.
The game can be played by all parties, crabby. ;D
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
No. That's why they are called different things, because they have different functions.
If you go to the opticians they are not going to fit you with a telescope.
Anyway, what is the point of this digression?
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
No. That's why they are called different things, because they have different functions.
If you go to the opticians they are not going to fit you with a telescope.
Anyway, what is the point of this digression?
Because Buzz Aldrin doesn't know what a telescope is even though his wife bought him one for his birthday.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not bothered what they are designed for, they perform the function of magnification.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
No. That's why they are called different things, because they have different functions.
If you go to the opticians they are not going to fit you with a telescope.
Anyway, what is the point of this digression?
There is no point. The poster who decided to turn it into this seemed to be trying to make a point from a tongue in cheek post, so I went with it.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
No. That's why they are called different things, because they have different functions.
If you go to the opticians they are not going to fit you with a telescope.
Anyway, what is the point of this digression?
Because Buzz Aldrin doesn't know what a telescope is even though his wife bought him one for his birthday.
That's probably not too far from the truth because he doesn't know what a real astronaut is, either.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not bothered what they are designed for, they perform the function of magnification.
Skepti, as a former optician, I think that this is the most logical thing I've seen from you. YES, regardless of the distance used and the arrangement of lenses and possibly mirrors (in the case of telescopes), both magnifying glasses AND telescopes MAGNIFY what is in front of them. Wow, Skepti, you have a brain! Now use it more for the larger arguments presented here.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not bothered what they are designed for, they perform the function of magnification.
So if someone told you a motorcycle is the same thing as a car, you would be OK with that? Since you know they perform the function of driving on a street... Great argument scepti... ::)
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not bothered what they are designed for, they perform the function of magnification.
So if someone told you a motorcycle is the same thing as a car, you would be OK with that? Since you know they perform the function of driving on a street... Great argument scepti... ::)
It's about the function. I never said a magnifying glass was anything specific. I said a magnifying glass performs the function of magnification. The magnifying glass can be used in many optical objects ranging from microscopes to what we all know as a hand held magnifying glass, to a telescope, etc.
That's all my point is.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not bothered what they are designed for, they perform the function of magnification.
Skepti, as a former optician, I think that this is the most logical thing I've seen from you. YES, regardless of the distance used and the arrangement of lenses and possibly mirrors (in the case of telescopes), both magnifying glasses AND telescopes MAGNIFY what is in front of them. Wow, Skepti, you have a brain! Now use it more for the larger arguments presented here.
Here's a little tip. If you attempt to take the piss, I will play it back. If you come here for a bit of chat and debate, regardless of whether you think something is right or not, just go with it. Trying to appear smart by slinging silly digs in will cause me to laugh at you and overlook your posts. Learn from that and you'll be fine. :P
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not bothered what they are designed for, they perform the function of magnification.
Skepti, as a former optician, I think that this is the most logical thing I've seen from you. YES, regardless of the distance used and the arrangement of lenses and possibly mirrors (in the case of telescopes), both magnifying glasses AND telescopes MAGNIFY what is in front of them. Wow, Skepti, you have a brain! Now use it more for the larger arguments presented here.
Here's a little tip. If you attempt to take the piss, I will play it back. If you come here for a bit of chat and debate, regardless of whether you think something is right or not, just go with it. Trying to appear smart by slinging silly digs in will cause me to laugh at you and overlook your posts. Learn from that and you'll be fine. :P
I was trying to be nice, but you caught my dig. Ok, so you're not totally stupid. Has anyone else said this? Still, for a proper debate to occur, ad hominem attacks need to stop and I will try to end whatever role I played in that from here on. The topic is bigger than personalities, but Scepti, you gotta admit, you're quite a handful! Was that a dig? I mean, some people think I'm a handful and are done with me over different things, just not what we're dealing with here.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not bothered what they are designed for, they perform the function of magnification.
So if someone told you a motorcycle is the same thing as a car, you would be OK with that? Since you know they perform the function of driving on a street... Great argument scepti... ::)
It's about the function. I never said a magnifying glass was anything specific. I said a magnifying glass performs the function of magnification. The magnifying glass can be used in many optical objects ranging from microscopes to what we all know as a hand held magnifying glass, to a telescope, etc.
That's all my point is.
Except a magnifying glas IS a specific type of magnifying device. It wouldn't be used to watch a rocket launch from any sort of distance. You are just upset that you got called out on your deliberate obtuseness.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not bothered what they are designed for, they perform the function of magnification.
Skepti, as a former optician, I think that this is the most logical thing I've seen from you. YES, regardless of the distance used and the arrangement of lenses and possibly mirrors (in the case of telescopes), both magnifying glasses AND telescopes MAGNIFY what is in front of them. Wow, Skepti, you have a brain! Now use it more for the larger arguments presented here.
Here's a little tip. If you attempt to take the piss, I will play it back. If you come here for a bit of chat and debate, regardless of whether you think something is right or not, just go with it. Trying to appear smart by slinging silly digs in will cause me to laugh at you and overlook your posts. Learn from that and you'll be fine. :P
I was trying to be nice, but you caught my dig. Ok, so you're not totally stupid. Has anyone else said this? Still, for a proper debate to occur, ad hominem attacks need to stop and I will try to end whatever role I played in that from here on. The topic is bigger than personalities, but Scepti, you gotta admit, you're quite a handful! Was that a dig? I mean, some people think I'm a handful and are done with me over different things, just not what we're dealing with here.
I'll debate with you all day long. Just remember, though, I don't buckle easily and I can play the very same games as is played against me.
Digs don't bother me but they do lead to many pages of tit for tat, which becomes silly.
If you believe something and stick rigidly to it, then great. Just remember though, I'm the same and I do not bow down to people who profess superior knowledge based on their accepted indoctrination, as it's simply memory gymnastics with no physical proof to back it up, except for using supposed accredited scientists as back up.
-
It doesn't matter what distance. Any glass that can magnify at any distance is in effect a magnifying glass.
Unfortunately a telescope isn't a glass. Sometimes the magnifying parts are mirrors. And it does matter what distance. Microscopes, magnifying glasses, spectacles, binoculars, telescopes, cameras etc can all have magnifying properties but they are not 'in effect' the same thing. Each is designed to operate under different circumstances. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not bothered what they are designed for, they perform the function of magnification.
So if someone told you a motorcycle is the same thing as a car, you would be OK with that? Since you know they perform the function of driving on a street... Great argument scepti... ::)
It's about the function. I never said a magnifying glass was anything specific. I said a magnifying glass performs the function of magnification. The magnifying glass can be used in many optical objects ranging from microscopes to what we all know as a hand held magnifying glass, to a telescope, etc.
That's all my point is.
Except a magnifying glas IS a specific type of magnifying device. It wouldn't be used to watch a rocket launch from any sort of distance. You are just upset that you got called out on your deliberate obtuseness.
Nice try but I'm still correct. A magnifying glass is anything that magnifies, no matter what it is. Just accept it and move on. ;D
-
mag·ni·fy·ing glass
noun
a lens that produces an enlarged image, typically set in a frame with a handle and used to examine small or finely detailed things such as fingerprints, stamps, and fine print.
Once again you are wrong scepti. Just accept it and move on.
-
mag·ni·fy·ing glass
noun
a lens that produces an enlarged image, typically set in a frame with a handle and used to examine small or finely detailed things such as fingerprints, stamps, and fine print.
Once again you are wrong scepti. Just accept it and move on.
Wrong about what?
-
Wrong about what?
this
A magnifying glass is anything that magnifies
That is obviously wrong. A telescope is not a magnifying glass, no matter how many times you say it is.
-
Wrong about what?
this
A magnifying glass is anything that magnifies
That is obviously wrong. A telescope is not a magnifying glass, no matter how many times you say it is.
Well...in a sense it is because a telescope magnifies the celestial objects you point it at.
-
Wrong about what?
this
A magnifying glass is anything that magnifies
That is obviously wrong. A telescope is not a magnifying glass, no matter how many times you say it is.
Well...in a sense it is because a telescope magnifies the celestial objects you point it at.
All magnifying glasses involve a glass, whether actual glass or some sort of synthetic version. Not all telescopes do.
All magnifying glasses are for magnifying at close range. Not all telescopes are.
You would be correct in saying that all telescopes are magnifiers, but not that they are magnifying glasses.
-
Wrong about what?
this
A magnifying glass is anything that magnifies
That is obviously wrong. A telescope is not a magnifying glass, no matter how many times you say it is.
Well...in a sense it is because a telescope magnifies the celestial objects you point it at.
All magnifying glasses involve a glass, whether actual glass or some sort of synthetic version. Not all telescopes do.
All magnifying glasses are for magnifying at close range. Not all telescopes are.
You would be correct in saying that all telescopes are magnifiers, but not that they are magnifying glasses.
No, of course: telescopes aren't magnifying glasses, but I think even Scepti knows that. We were getting caught up in semantics. I do believe that "magnifier" covers both magnifying glasses and telescopes by virtue of the fact that they magnify the image of what we point them at.
-
Why would you assume what scepti knows? Does he not have a history of completely subverting what you would expect a sane person to know?
-
Why would you assume what scepti knows? Does he not have a history of completely subverting what you would expect a sane person to know?
It's quite hard to distinguish a sane person from a complete nutter by forum type. For all I know you could be a little head banging dwarf wrapped in a Caesar type gown, wearing a larger than normal sized head piece due to a huge protruding forehead....or...you could be quite sensible and mature away from the forum. It's really hard to tell. Equally you could be neither of them ;)
-
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
So, then tell me what the function of a telescope is.
Since this was directed to me, and I don't think it has been completely addressed yet, I'll jump into the fray.
The basic function of a telescope is to collect electromagnetic energy using an optic of some type (typically a positive lens or concave mirror) and form a real image of an object or objects at a distance. The electromagnetic energy is often visible light, but it doesn't have to be. How that image is used varies, depending on what is to be accomplished.
One use is to simply measure the energy collected, often as a function of wavelength (radio telescopes are used this way) to estimate the total energy emitted by the object(s), to estimate radial velocity by Doppler shift, or to compare with other objects.
Another is to form the image on a piece of photographic film or, more recently, imaging devices such as CCDs, for documentation, to allow detailed study, or just make pretty pictures.
The typically thought of use for a telescope is, of course, to use a small microscope called an eyepiece (or even a simple magnifying glass) to visually examine the image. Using a telescope visually can provide a number of benefits beyond making distant objects appear closer ("magnification"). Of great importance, a large primary optic can collect vastly more light than the eye's pupil will allow and concentrate it into a small exit pupil so all that light can be admitted into the eye, making dim objects much brighter.
Used visually, sometimes telescopes are useful without providing any magnification at all - a common example is the 1X Telescopic sight. Why use a 1X scope sight? The problem with "iron" gunsights is that the shooter has to line up three objects at vastly different distances from his eye - the rear sight, which is very close, the front sight at the far end of the barrel, and the much more distant target. A telescopic sight has a reticule (typically crosshairs) at exactly the plane where the image is formed, so both the target and crosshairs are in focus at the same time; if the telescope is exactly 1X, you can also use your other eye at the same time.
You can build a simple telescope using two magnifying glasses. If they have different focal lengths, the telescope can provide magnification or reduction depending on which is used as the eyepiece. A magnifying glass can be part of a telescope, but a telescope is not the same as a magnifying glass.
But all of this is a diversion to cover for sceptimatic's blunder (or was it intentional obfuscation) using the term "magnifying glass" here...
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian? Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up. As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.
So, back to the discussion at hand, does this mean you would be satisfied if you had direct line of sight from a distance of perhaps a couple kms and could watch the whole proceedings through binoculars?
-
Why would you assume what scepti knows? Does he not have a history of completely subverting what you would expect a sane person to know?
It's quite hard to distinguish a sane person from a complete nutter by forum type. For all I know you could be a little head banging dwarf wrapped in a Caesar type gown, wearing a larger than normal sized head piece due to a huge protruding forehead....or...you could be quite sensible and mature away from the forum. It's really hard to tell. Equally you could be neither of them ;)
Well if I am crazy, I am pretty high functioning. I am pretty confident you could not find me making arguments that are founded upon personal credulity for example, like you do. Or completely refusing to carry out simple experiments that would totally disprove my world view, like you do. Or thinking that outlandish notions like, almost everything in history is a fabrication that has little to do with the truth, like you do.
-
Why prolong this discussion, clearly Sceptical knows the answers.
-
Why would you assume what scepti knows? Does he not have a history of completely subverting what you would expect a sane person to know?
I'm trying to be objective, but Scepti does seem to have an agenda that is beyond truth-seeking.
-
Why would you assume what scepti knows? Does he not have a history of completely subverting what you would expect a sane person to know?
I'm trying to be objective, but Scepti does seem to have an agenda that is beyond truth-seeking.
He has stated unequivocally that his agenda is to destroy globular belief. This obviously has nothing to do with championing the truth.
-
Why would you assume what scepti knows? Does he not have a history of completely subverting what you would expect a sane person to know?
I'm trying to be objective, but Scepti does seem to have an agenda that is beyond truth-seeking.
He has stated unequivocally that his agenda is to destroy globular belief. This obviously has nothing to do with championing the truth.
I missed that one, but I'm not surprised. He's fighting a losing battle, but whatever floats his boat, I guess...
-
Why prolong this discussion, clearly Sceptical knows the answers.
I agree totally. It never ceases to bemuse me how it is that every thread sceptimatic gets involved with turns into a totally absurd, off-topic, illogical shambles. And worse, the moderation—or lack of—lets him get away with it time and again.
sceptimatic has still to address the OP claim that Buzz Aldrin has lost the plot. Admittedly Aldrin overreacted to a particular reporter—who's known for his confrontational, invasive style—but then most of us would've in that particular scenario. Considering Aldrin's academic qualifications—a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering—coupled with the strict NASA astronaut selection program, it's extremely unlikely that he could be "brainwashed". It's far more likely that the uneducated and/or undisciplined hoi-polloi (such as sceptimatic?) could be, or are in fact, brainwashed.
And to remind people of sceptimatic's very first response to the OP regarding Aldrin's media performances... "TV actors do it all the time. They follow a script for a decent pay day and celebrity life". How did Aldrin manage to "act" his way into getting a science degree?
-
Why prolong this discussion, clearly Sceptical knows the answers.
I agree totally. It never ceases to bemuse me how it is that every thread sceptimatic gets involved with turns into a totally absurd, off-topic, illogical shambles. And worse, the moderation—or lack of—lets him get away with it time and again.
sceptimatic has still to address the OP claim that Buzz Aldrin has lost the plot. Admittedly Aldrin overreacted to a particular reporter—who's known for his confrontational, invasive style—but then most of us would've in that particular scenario. Considering Aldrin's academic qualifications—a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering—coupled with the strict NASA astronaut selection program, it's extremely unlikely that he could be "brainwashed". It's far more likely that the uneducated and/or undisciplined hoi-polloi (such as sceptimatic?) could be, or are in fact, brainwashed.
And to remind people of sceptimatic's very first response to the OP regarding Aldrin's media performances... "TV actors do it all the time. They follow a script for a decent pay day and celebrity life". How did Aldrin manage to "act" his way into getting a science degree?
Let me know what science degrees you require, Geoffrey and I'll print them out for you on official looking paper. This will then make you look extremely educated in the sciences of this world and out of it, if you so wish.
Having said that, I'm quite sure that there are people out there that can even make degrees look a whole lot more official. Maybe Buzz has a few of those, eh?
Buzz acted his way through the Apollo shenanigans, so it's highly....no, it's extremely plausible that his acting came with promises of a lifetime of fame, topped off with a few letters against his name.
How hard is that, Geoffrey?
-
Let me know what science degrees you require, Geoffrey and I'll print them out for you on official looking paper. This will then make you look extremely educated in the sciences of this world and out of it, if you so wish.
Having said that, I'm quite sure that there are people out there that can even make degrees look a whole lot more official. Maybe Buzz has a few of those, eh?
Buzz acted his way through the Apollo shenanigans, so it's highly....no, it's extremely plausible that his acting came with promises of a lifetime of fame, topped off with a few letters against his name.
How hard is that, Geoffrey?
So now you're claiming that Aldrin's science degree is bogus sceptimatic? Do you have any viable evidence to support this allegation, or are you just guessing?
According to the records of the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Dr Aldrin received a bachelor of science degree in 1951 from the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, graduating third in his class; and a doctorate of science in Astronautics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. His thesis was "Guidance for Manned Orbital Rendezvous." Aldrin also has honorary degrees from six colleges and universities.
If you feel that you can challenge any of these academic accreditations of Aldrin's my friend, then go for it.
And whilst you're at it, can you please tell me what academic qualifications (of the 13 you claimed earlier) are science based? And what institutions of learning you attained them at?
-
So now you're claiming that Aldrin's science degree is bogus sceptimatic? Do you have any viable evidence to support this allegation, or are you just guessing?
I'm assuming.
According to the records of the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Dr Aldrin received a bachelor of science degree in 1951 from the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, graduating third in his class; and a doctorate of science in Astronautics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
According to the records at N.A.S.A, they went to the moon and put rovers on mars, etc, so I would imagine there will be a whole host of shite in the records department.
His thesis was "Guidance for Manned Orbital Rendezvous." Aldrin also has honorary degrees from six colleges and universities.
Is this the same contraption that he supposedly landed on the moon with?...is it the same contraption that he supposedly lifted off the moon with by jamming his PEN into a broken circuit board that just happened to be the switch to ignite the engine for lift off, for which he had to work in unison with Armstrong to make sure they managed to fire it up?
Now who in the hell can give out a degree for this stuff?..surely the only people that can possibly give out a degree (assuming it was all real, which it's not) would be the actual actornauts themselves, because they were the only ones to have supposedly done this stuff.
If you feel that you can challenge any of these academic accreditations of Aldrin's my friend, then go for it.
"Hello Buzz, do you have these qualifications?"...Buzz: "sure, here's my certificates."...ermmm, nahh, I can't challenge that and I also can't challenge what he would explain. Why?...because he's explaining a fantasy.
And whilst you're at it, can you please tell me what academic qualifications (of the 13 you claimed earlier) are science based? And what institutions of learning you attained them at?
I didn't claim anything - you just interpreted it as me having 13 academic qualifications.
-
And whilst you're at it, can you please tell me what academic qualifications (of the 13 you claimed earlier) are science based? And what institutions of learning you attained them at?
I didn't claim anything - you just interpreted it as me having 13 academic qualifications.
Oh dear. Your lies have caught you out. Again.
On September 22, 2014, 08:13:21 AM I asked you: "Can you tell me then what academic qualifications make you suitable for carrying out this research?"
On September 22, 2014, 07:40:52 AM you responded by saying: "I have 13 actually".
In order to be a competent liar sceptimatic, you also need to have a good memory LOL.
-
And whilst you're at it, can you please tell me what academic qualifications (of the 13 you claimed earlier) are science based? And what institutions of learning you attained them at?
I didn't claim anything - you just interpreted it as me having 13 academic qualifications.
Oh dear. Your lies have caught you out. Again.
On September 22, 2014, 08:13:21 AM I asked you: "Can you tell me then what academic qualifications make you suitable for carrying out this research?"
On September 22, 2014, 07:40:52 AM you responded by saying: "I have 13 actually".
In order to be a competent liar sceptimatic, you also need to have a good memory LOL.
I have a very good memory. I know exactly what I typed. I typed what you said. What I didn't type is "academic qualifications"...you typed that. I just said, I have 13 actually.
-
Which was an apparent answer to the question. Either you were lying about having 13 degrees or you were lying about answering his question. So all we know for sure is you are a liar. I would add disrespectful, but AusGeoff does not really demand respect.
-
So now you're claiming that Aldrin's science degree is bogus sceptimatic? Do you have any viable evidence to support this allegation, or are you just guessing?
I'm assuming.
Because your assumptions are never wrong. ::)
His thesis was "Guidance for Manned Orbital Rendezvous." Aldrin also has honorary degrees from six colleges and universities.
Is this the same contraption that he supposedly landed on the moon with?...is it the same contraption that he supposedly lifted off the moon with by jamming his PEN into a broken circuit board that just happened to be the switch to ignite the engine for lift off, for which he had to work in unison with Armstrong to make sure they managed to fire it up?
What the th*rk are you talking about? Do you even understand what "orbital rendezvous" means? Orbital rendezvous isn't a "contraption", it's a process. Namely the process of getting 2 space craft to meet while in orbit.
Now who in the hell can give out a degree for this stuff?..surely the only people that can possibly give out a degree (assuming it was all real, which it's not) would be the actual actornauts themselves, because they were the only ones to have supposedly done this stuff.
Huh? Scepti, are you confused by big words like "astronautics" and "rendezvous"? If so, then it's okay to look them up. You don't need to be an astronaut to understand how space flight works.
-
Which was an apparent answer to the question. Either you were lying about having 13 degrees or you were lying about answering his question. So all we know for sure is you are a liar. I would add disrespectful, but AusGeoff does not really demand respect.
To be absolutely, totally and utterly honest with you, as far as what you could possibly accept as honesty - I don't give a toss what you think. ;D
-
So now you're claiming that Aldrin's science degree is bogus sceptimatic? Do you have any viable evidence to support this allegation, or are you just guessing?
I'm assuming.
Because your assumptions are never wrong. ::)
Of course I can be wrong.
His thesis was "Guidance for Manned Orbital Rendezvous." Aldrin also has honorary degrees from six colleges and universities.
Is this the same contraption that he supposedly landed on the moon with?...is it the same contraption that he supposedly lifted off the moon with by jamming his PEN into a broken circuit board that just happened to be the switch to ignite the engine for lift off, for which he had to work in unison with Armstrong to make sure they managed to fire it up?
What the th*rk are you talking about? Do you even understand what "orbital rendezvous" means? Orbital rendezvous isn't a "contraption", it's a process. Namely the process of getting 2 space craft to meet while in orbit.The same thing apllies, Markjo. Who has the authority to dish out a certificate? The only people that are capable of doing so (for anything real) would be people who know why they are dishing out diplomas or whatever they want to call it - as in, those who know first hand and are experts in that field, which (if true, which it isn't) could only be dished out by the actual astronauts themselves.
Now who in the hell can give out a degree for this stuff?..surely the only people that can possibly give out a degree (assuming it was all real, which it's not) would be the actual actornauts themselves, because they were the only ones to have supposedly done this stuff.
Huh? Scepti, are you confused by big words like "astronautics" and "rendezvous"? If so, then it's okay to look them up. You don't need to be an astronaut to understand how space flight works.
Of course you don't need to be an astronaut to know how space flight works. You can just write any script you want and it's accepted. It's accepted because nobody knows any different than what theya re told, except for those that are playing the part in the fantasy story. A book or script turned into a film of fantasy, known as sci-fi. Look up sci-fi if you don't understand what it is.
-
So now you're claiming that Aldrin's science degree is bogus sceptimatic? Do you have any viable evidence to support this allegation, or are you just guessing?
I'm assuming.
Because your assumptions are never wrong. ::)
Of course I can be wrong.
His thesis was "Guidance for Manned Orbital Rendezvous." Aldrin also has honorary degrees from six colleges and universities.
Is this the same contraption that he supposedly landed on the moon with?...is it the same contraption that he supposedly lifted off the moon with by jamming his PEN into a broken circuit board that just happened to be the switch to ignite the engine for lift off, for which he had to work in unison with Armstrong to make sure they managed to fire it up?
What the th*rk are you talking about? Do you even understand what "orbital rendezvous" means? Orbital rendezvous isn't a "contraption", it's a process. Namely the process of getting 2 space craft to meet while in orbit.The same thing apllies, Markjo. Who has the authority to dish out a certificate? The only people that are capable of doing so (for anything real) would be people who know why they are dishing out diplomas or whatever they want to call it - as in, those who know first hand and are experts in that field, which (if true, which it isn't) could only be dished out by the actual astronauts themselves.
Now who in the hell can give out a degree for this stuff?..surely the only people that can possibly give out a degree (assuming it was all real, which it's not) would be the actual actornauts themselves, because they were the only ones to have supposedly done this stuff.
Huh? Scepti, are you confused by big words like "astronautics" and "rendezvous"? If so, then it's okay to look them up. You don't need to be an astronaut to understand how space flight works.
Of course you don't need to be an astronaut to know how space flight works. You can just write any script you want and it's accepted. It's accepted because nobody knows any different than what theya re told, except for those that are playing the part in the fantasy story. A book or script turned into a film of fantasy, known as sci-fi. Look up sci-fi if you don't understand what it is.
Scepti: Just because you think that all this is sci-fi doesn't make it sci-fi. It goes on without your affirmation.
-
This question was posted yesterday but may have gotten lost in the banter. I'd still like to know the answer.
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian? Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up. As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.
So, back to the discussion at hand, does this mean you would be satisfied if you had direct line of sight from a distance of perhaps a couple kms and could watch the whole proceedings through binoculars?
-
Of course you don't need to be an astronaut to know how space flight works. You can just write any script you want and it's accepted. It's accepted because nobody knows any different than what theya re told, except for those that are playing the part in the fantasy story.
So, who granted you your 13 and what part to they play in your fantasy story?
A book or script turned into a film of fantasy, known as sci-fi. Look up sci-fi if you don't understand what it is.
Obviously you don't realize how much real science goes into good science fiction.
-
Scepti: Just because you think that all this is sci-fi doesn't make it sci-fi. It goes on without your affirmation.
Of course. I agree. My thoughts are merely my thoughts based on what I read, what I see in footage (official) and experiments of my own that casts massive doubt on a lot of stuff given out.
I don't expect you, nor care whether you discount anything I say...it's what I think that counts...to me.
All I can do is maybe nudge the odd person to start questioning what they've basically believed their whole lives. Most never will...I understand that. Most forum goers will immediately jump into scientific mode and copy rebuttals from the internet as arguments against anything that goes against indoctrinated sciences.
Some...very few, are intrigued enough to actually say, " ahhh to hell with it, I'll look into alternatives as an experiment."
Out of those - some will have their heads turned, then start to become sceptical at first, then the more delving and thinking they do, they will also come to the conclusion that - at the very very least - they have been given dis-info/mis-info on certain aspects.
If you can question one thing - just one - you owe it to yourselves to understand that one can lead to many.
Most people, even those that are basically oblivious to a lot of mainstream views, see a lot of things that even they question. It could be something insignificant. The point is, though, it doesn't matter how insignificant anything is. If it been told as a truth but gets later found out as a mis-info lie, then the leopard does not change it's spots.
As I said earlier, you make your own choice. You can believe every last letter that comes out officially for all I care. I choose not to - not because I simply do it out of being different or wanting to be some kind of rebel. I do it because I genuinely see a hell of a lot of stuff that not only looks faked, it stinks to high heaven of fakery.
The mere fact that intelligent people can not question this stuff after sifting through it, astounds me to be fair. Obviously there's varying reasons for this. The most obvious is the length of the indoctrinated drill bit that has been drilled deep into people's minds about official so called facts.
Let's look at it in a simplified way as to how easy it is to go with the flow of things.
As you grow up, your father tells you that he was a spy. He tells you all kinds of stories but swearing you to secrecy with each story, telling you that his life depends on people not talking. He tells you that because you are his son, you deserve to know. Your father simply works away in some far out country - sa, say, an engineer and feels he can tell you stuff like this because his time away makes him believable and after all it's only a fantasy for his kid to believe.
As you grow up, you have a head full of these stories. You have a basic picture in your mind as to how your father done his work.
Later on in life, your father passes away - then you start to recall his stories - but now feel that you can use those stories to tell people.
You stand at the dinner table among guests and tell a few stories about what your father done.
Everyone at the table is intrigued until one person says, "sorry son but your father wasn't a spy, he was an engineer."
No matter what...your reaction to that would be to take it as a total insult and probably eject the person who said it for being disrespectful.
That person could say, " I heard he worked with (insert a name) and he told me."
You wouldn't listen, you would simply put it down to the man being jealous of the stories or simply a denier for the sake of it.
Now I'm putting that out as an idea as to how the public at large can be sold a story. Not just one story, but a whole host if necessary.
You buy one, you get one free.
It's piss easy to dupe the wider public...and once you have the wider public's attention, you have no worries about pockets of non-believers, because the nature of the beast ensures that ridicule and scorn are in order for all those that attempt to gather the real story.
-
You keep talking about your experiments... Could you finally show us your data that you have gathered on your frozen lake bed experiment and how it was set up?
-
This question was posted yesterday but may have gotten lost in the banter. I'd still like to know the answer.
So, back to the discussion at hand, does this mean you would be satisfied if you had direct line of sight from a distance of perhaps a couple kms and could watch the whole proceedings through binoculars?
If I could clearly see astronauts get inside a rocket with no means of escape and saw that rocket simply take off, I would never question space again.
Now, having said that, you can clearly come back with, " well you can go here and there and watch it." Or like markjo said about the Russian visitor carry on.
It's easily said but no one can prove you get a view that I would need to satisfy my need for proof.
I see people on here, time after time, mention N.A.S.A this and that and not one of them has a clue what the hell goes on there. Not one. Just hot air.
I naturally don't know either, so it's back to either believing official lines or questioning them.
-
You keep talking about your experiments... Could you finally show us your data that you have gathered on your frozen lake bed experiment and how it was set up?
I already did. You all had your chance to pm me and only 2 took it up, so ask them.
The people who got the relevant stuff are scientists, 4 of who want to re-enact it this November.
Now I'm not interested in the slightest what you think of this. In-fact, just read it and don't reply to it, because that's all I'm saying on this subject as it's already been done. Look it up.
-
If I could clearly see astronauts get inside a rocket with no means of escape and saw that rocket simply take off, I would never question space again.
Now, having said that, you can clearly come back with, " well you can go here and there and watch it." Or like markjo said about the Russian visitor carry on.
It's easily said but no one can prove you get a view that I would need to satisfy my need for proof.
Other than the astronauts/cosmonauts being launched, there are probably no individuals involved in the launch process that would see every step of the process that would satisfy your requirements. So, I guess your only options are to either take the astronaut's word for it (which I'm sure will never happen) or spend the $40-60 million (or what ever the going rate is these days) to be launched into orbit yourself. Even then, I'm sure that you'd find some way of crying foul.
-
If I could clearly see astronauts get inside a rocket with no means of escape and saw that rocket simply take off, I would never question space again.
Now, having said that, you can clearly come back with, " well you can go here and there and watch it." Or like markjo said about the Russian visitor carry on.
It's easily said but no one can prove you get a view that I would need to satisfy my need for proof.
Other than the astronauts/cosmonauts being launched, there are probably no individuals involved in the launch process that would see every step of the process that would satisfy your requirements. So, I guess your only options are to either take the astronaut's word for it (which I'm sure will never happen) or spend the $40-60 million (or what ever the going rate is these days) to be launched into orbit yourself. Even then, I'm sure that you'd find some way of crying foul.
Oh I'd cry foul, markjo, for sure, but it would be for a reason.
Let me put this to you and try and answer it in a totally unbiased way. Don;t take it as a question from me, just take it as a general thought.
You know a fighter jet can go ballistic right? You know that the pilot/s can pass out due to the intense speed or what we are told is the G force.
We are talking a speed of around 1000mph or less and these pilots are close to passing out.
Imagine sticking them inside a rocket going 20,000 mph. What mechanism is in place to stop them from not just passing out but actually dying?
-
You keep talking about your experiments... Could you finally show us your data that you have gathered on your frozen lake bed experiment and how it was set up?
I already did. You all had your chance to pm me and only 2 took it up, so ask them.
The people who got the relevant stuff are scientists, 4 of who want to re-enact it this November.
Now I'm not interested in the slightest what you think of this. In-fact, just read it and don't reply to it, because that's all I'm saying on this subject as it's already been done. Look it up.
I just don't understand the secrecy that you have? If it is such an "Earth Flattening" experiment, why not make a webpage devoted to it explaining in detail with results.
Also, the reason I never pm'd you is because you put the stipulation that I couldn't discuss what was contained in the pm, you wouldn't even let me acknowledge that I had recieved a pm from you or not. That is not how I operate. If we are discussing something on a public section of the forum, I will ask questions about it on the public forum. I will not move it to private pm.
-
If I could clearly see astronauts get inside a rocket with no means of escape and saw that rocket simply take off, I would never question space again.
Now, having said that, you can clearly come back with, " well you can go here and there and watch it." Or like markjo said about the Russian visitor carry on.
It's easily said but no one can prove you get a view that I would need to satisfy my need for proof.
Other than the astronauts/cosmonauts being launched, there are probably no individuals involved in the launch process that would see every step of the process that would satisfy your requirements. So, I guess your only options are to either take the astronaut's word for it (which I'm sure will never happen) or spend the $40-60 million (or what ever the going rate is these days) to be launched into orbit yourself. Even then, I'm sure that you'd find some way of crying foul.
Oh I'd cry foul, markjo, for sure, but it would be for a reason.
Let me put this to you and try and answer it in a totally unbiased way. Don;t take it as a question from me, just take it as a general thought.
You know a fighter jet can go ballistic right? You know that the pilot/s can pass out due to the intense speed or what we are told is the G force.
We are talking a speed of around 1000mph or less and these pilots are close to passing out.
Imagine sticking them inside a rocket going 20,000 mph. What mechanism is in place to stop them from not just passing out but actually dying?
Because the G-force is unit of acceleration. If you are accelerated at 1 G, it is equivalent of the same force that is holding you to the ground. 2 G it is twice that much. If you weighed 100 lbs, under a 2 G acceleration, you would feel like you weigh 200 lbs. SO if you accelerated to 20,000 mph slow enough, you would not feel the same acceleration, or G force, as say a fighter pilot making a hairpin turn at 1000 mph.
-
You keep talking about your experiments... Could you finally show us your data that you have gathered on your frozen lake bed experiment and how it was set up?
I already did. You all had your chance to pm me and only 2 took it up, so ask them.
The people who got the relevant stuff are scientists, 4 of who want to re-enact it this November.
Now I'm not interested in the slightest what you think of this. In-fact, just read it and don't reply to it, because that's all I'm saying on this subject as it's already been done. Look it up.
I just don't understand the secrecy that you have? If it is such an "Earth Flattening" experiment, why not make a webpage devoted to it explaining in detail with results.
Also, the reason I never pm'd you is because you put the stipulation that I couldn't discuss what was contained in the pm, you wouldn't even let me acknowledge that I had recieved a pm from you or not. That is not how I operate. If we are discussing something on a public section of the forum, I will ask questions about it on the public forum. I will not move it to private pm.
Well I'm sure you can understand why I chose to put it to pm and give stipulations.
To put it in the forum would instigate a stampede of globuloids to immediately go on the ridicule and basically bury it.
Don't attempt to say it wouldn't happen, because it would. Remember, there's a lot of people on here with more of an agenda than just arguing for a global Earth.
-
Because the G-force is unit of acceleration. If you are accelerated at 1 G, it is equivalent of the same force that is holding you to the ground. 2 G it is twice that much. If you weighed 100 lbs, under a 2 G acceleration, you would feel like you weigh 200 lbs. SO if you accelerated to 20,000 mph slow enough, you would not feel the same acceleration, or G force, as say a fighter pilot making a hairpin turn at 1000 mph.
Are you trying to tell me that a rocket flies into space under slower acceleration than a figher jet accelerates going ballistic? Seriously?
Let me put this simply. A rocket burns it's fuel extremely fast, so assuming we go along with the bullshit about rockets getting to space, then the rocket must accelerate to immense speed to actually get there before it expends all of it's fuel. It's not going to do that by tiptoeing up there.
Come on man, use your common sense.
-
You keep talking about your experiments... Could you finally show us your data that you have gathered on your frozen lake bed experiment and how it was set up?
I already did. You all had your chance to pm me and only 2 took it up, so ask them.
The people who got the relevant stuff are scientists, 4 of who want to re-enact it this November.
Now I'm not interested in the slightest what you think of this. In-fact, just read it and don't reply to it, because that's all I'm saying on this subject as it's already been done. Look it up.
I just don't understand the secrecy that you have? If it is such an "Earth Flattening" experiment, why not make a webpage devoted to it explaining in detail with results.
Also, the reason I never pm'd you is because you put the stipulation that I couldn't discuss what was contained in the pm, you wouldn't even let me acknowledge that I had recieved a pm from you or not. That is not how I operate. If we are discussing something on a public section of the forum, I will ask questions about it on the public forum. I will not move it to private pm.
Well I'm sure you can understand why I chose to put it to pm and give stipulations.
To put it in the forum would instigate a stampede of globuloids to immediately go on the ridicule and basically bury it.
Don't attempt to say it wouldn't happen, because it would. Remember, there's a lot of people on here with more of an agenda than just arguing for a global Earth.
No, I can't understand why you wouldn't discuss it on the open forum. You have no trouble discussing you other views on the open forum why do you have trouble discussing an experiment that you supposedly did and supports your views that you do discuss on here.
-
No, I can't understand why you wouldn't discuss it on the open forum. You have no trouble discussing you other views on the open forum why do you have trouble discussing an experiment that you supposedly did and supports your views that you do discuss on here.
Don't worry about it, it got immediately rejected as usual by those that appear to know better and also ridiculed. It's in the hands of people who actually do know better and will be testing it for their own proof, of which I'm quite happy about.
-
You know a fighter jet can go ballistic right? You know that the pilot/s can pass out due to the intense speed or what we are told is the G force.
We are talking a speed of around 1000mph or less and these pilots are close to passing out.
Imagine sticking them inside a rocket going 20,000 mph. What mechanism is in place to stop them from not just passing out but actually dying?
You don't understand g-force. It is an acceleration. You could be traveling at 1,000,000,0000 mph and, as long as you didn't accelerate, you will experience no g-force.
On the other hand, you could go from 5 mph to 10 mph in a very short space of time and experience extreme g-force. During a high speed car crash, for example, you might experience 100g.
You own a Bugatti don't you? They do 0-100kph in 2.4s and you will get 1.55g. Although once you have hit 100kph and are cruising, then g will be zero.
The maximum you will get on the space shuttle is 3g. Some rollercoasters let you experiance >6g.
-
Because the G-force is unit of acceleration. If you are accelerated at 1 G, it is equivalent of the same force that is holding you to the ground. 2 G it is twice that much. If you weighed 100 lbs, under a 2 G acceleration, you would feel like you weigh 200 lbs. SO if you accelerated to 20,000 mph slow enough, you would not feel the same acceleration, or G force, as say a fighter pilot making a hairpin turn at 1000 mph.
Are you trying to tell me that a rocket flies into space under slower acceleration than a figher jet accelerates going ballistic? Seriously?
Let me put this simply. A rocket burns it's fuel extremely fast, so assuming we go along with the bullshit about rockets getting to space, then the rocket must accelerate to immense speed to actually get there before it expends all of it's fuel. It's not going to do that by tiptoeing up there.
Come on man, use your common sense.
Are you trying to tell me you don't understand that going from 1000 mph in one direction to 1000 mph in another in a matter seconds is a greater acceleration that reaching up to 20000 mph in a matter of 8 minutes or so?
-
You know a fighter jet can go ballistic right?
If by ballistic you mean that it can fly in a parabolic path that simulates zero gravity for short periods of time, then yes.
You know that the pilot/s can pass out due to the intense speed or what we are told is the G force.
We are talking a speed of around 1000mph or less and these pilots are close to passing out.
G-LOC (Gravitational Loss of Consciousness) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC) is generally due to the pilot making very tight turns. If you have ever been on a modern roller coaster that does loops, then you should know that tight turns mean high gees. Modern aerobatic planes can produce more gees than a pilot can handle even at relatively low speeds.
Imagine sticking them inside a rocket going 20,000 mph. What mechanism is in place to stop them from not just passing out but actually dying?
A throttle on the rocket engines to limit the rate of acceleration. Remember that you don't feel speed, you feel acceleration.
-
No, I can't understand why you wouldn't discuss it on the open forum. You have no trouble discussing you other views on the open forum why do you have trouble discussing an experiment that you supposedly did and supports your views that you do discuss on here.
Don't worry about it, it got immediately rejected as usual by those that appear to know better and also ridiculed. It's in the hands of people who actually do know better and will be testing it for their own proof, of which I'm quite happy about.
If I recall, you immediately denied posting any information about your experiment the moment someone asked for some details. ANd then proceeded to play martyr and say people were ridiculing you.
-
You keep talking about your experiments... Could you finally show us your data that you have gathered on your frozen lake bed experiment and how it was set up?
I already did. You all had your chance to pm me and only 2 took it up, so ask them.
The people who got the relevant stuff are scientists, 4 of who want to re-enact it this November.
Now I'm not interested in the slightest what you think of this. In-fact, just read it and don't reply to it, because that's all I'm saying on this subject as it's already been done. Look it up.
I just don't understand the secrecy that you have? If it is such an "Earth Flattening" experiment, why not make a webpage devoted to it explaining in detail with results.
Also, the reason I never pm'd you is because you put the stipulation that I couldn't discuss what was contained in the pm, you wouldn't even let me acknowledge that I had recieved a pm from you or not. That is not how I operate. If we are discussing something on a public section of the forum, I will ask questions about it on the public forum. I will not move it to private pm.
Well I'm sure you can understand why I chose to put it to pm and give stipulations.
To put it in the forum would instigate a stampede of globuloids to immediately go on the ridicule and basically bury it.
Don't attempt to say it wouldn't happen, because it would. Remember, there's a lot of people on here with more of an agenda than just arguing for a global Earth.
I thought you did not care about the ridicule.
-
I found it! Somewhere in this thread, AusGeoff questioned Scepti's alleged 13 academic qualifications despite Scepti's denials. He says he has them but isn't specific. I'll hazard a guess: grades kindergarten to 12--that makes 13!
Offline sceptimatic
Posts: 10031
The pied piper
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2014, 08:33:23 AM »
Quote
Quote from: ausGeoff on September 22, 2014, 08:13:21 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2014, 07:40:52 AM
All I can tell you is that it's to do with energy and magnetism. I can't tell you anything else about any undertakings.
That's okay. Can you tell me then what academic qualifications make you suitable for carrying out this research? As I said earlier, I'd presume a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences considering you're talking about geophysics?
I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a liar. Either is fine.
Scroll to Top | Report to moderator Logged
-
If you look closely, Scepti never said what those 13 were. For all we know, he could be referring to the 13 gold stars that he got during the course of his 3 years in first grade.
-
You know a fighter jet can go ballistic right? You know that the pilot/s can pass out due to the intense speed or what we are told is the G force.
We are talking a speed of around 1000mph or less and these pilots are close to passing out.
Imagine sticking them inside a rocket going 20,000 mph. What mechanism is in place to stop them from not just passing out but actually dying?
You don't understand g-force. It is an acceleration. You could be traveling at 1,000,000,0000 mph and, as long as you didn't accelerate, you will experience no g-force.
On the other hand, you could go from 5 mph to 10 mph in a very short space of time and experience extreme g-force. During a high speed car crash, for example, you might experience 100g.
You own a Bugatti don't you? They do 0-100kph in 2.4s and you will get 1.55g. Although once you have hit 100kph and are cruising, then g will be zero.
The maximum you will get on the space shuttle is 3g. Some rollercoasters let you experiance >6g.
I'm well aware of what they call G force. I know it's acceleration and not constant speed.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
-
If you look closely, Scepti never said what those 13 were. For all we know, he could be referring to the 13 gold stars that he got during the course of his 3 years in first grade.
Exactly! I was speculating grades K (that's kindergarten for non-U.S. readers) to 12th.
-
I'm well aware of what they call G force. I know it's acceleration and not constant speed.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
It clearly means you don't know what you're talking about.
How long would it take a body accelerating at 5 mi/sec2 to reach a velocity of 17,000 mi/hr?
What equation would you use? What's the answer (in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, or fortnights - your choice)?
I dare you to answer, but I think you'll give some excuse not to answer, or ignore the question entirely, because you don't know how. If by some miracle you do come up with the right answer, you won't like it, and will dodge or ignore. Showing the steps you followed, if you can, is better than just spitting out a number.
How does the answer compare to announced launch events?
[Edit] punctuation
-
Sorry to ruin your question to sceptic, but I can't pass up an opportunity to call him stupid. 5 miles per second is 18,000 miles per hour. So no, the space shuttle does not need to accelerate at 5 miles/s2.
Sceptic perhaps you need to go back and get 14 academic qualifications. With only 13 you are still quite stupid.
-
If you look closely, Scepti never said what those 13 were. For all we know, he could be referring to the 13 gold stars that he got during the course of his 3 years in first grade.
I like the way you think. ;D
-
How long would it take a body accelerating at 5 mi/sec2 to reach a velocity of 17,000 mi/hr?
You ask how long would it take a body accelerating at 5 mi/sec² to reach a velocity of 17,000 mi/hr?
1 hr = 3600 sec
A velocity 17,000 mi/hr thus equals 17,000/3,600 = 4.722222 mi/sec
It appears it would take around a sec.
Do I get a prize?
I offer anybody incl. Buzz (topic) €1 000 000:- to help me at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
Buzz - topic - has not yet collected.
I wonder why?
Isn't it time to get back to the topic?
-
How long would it take a body accelerating at 5 mi/sec2 to reach a velocity of 17,000 mi/hr?
You ask how long would it take a body accelerating at 5 mi/sec² to reach a velocity of 17,000 mi/hr?
1 hr = 3600 sec
A velocity 17,000 mi/hr thus equals 17,000/3,600 = 4.722222 mi/sec
It appears it would take around a sec.
Do I get a prize?
I offer anybody incl. Buzz (topic) €1 000 000:- to help me at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm) .
Buzz - topic - has not yet collected.
I wonder why?
Isn't it time to get back to the topic?
That's the first calculation you have ever done on this site. Congrats.
-
Sorry to ruin your question to sceptic, but I can't pass up an opportunity to call him stupid. 5 miles per second is 18,000 miles per hour. So no, the space shuttle does not need to accelerate at 5 miles/s2.
Sceptic perhaps you need to go back and get 14 academic qualifications. With only 13 you are still quite stupid.
Who said it did?
-
I guess it's my turn to play.
I'm well aware of what they call G force. I know it's acceleration and not constant speed.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
You did.
-
I guess it's my turn to play.
I'm well aware of what they call G force. I know it's acceleration and not constant speed.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
You did.
Ok hands up. It's a double take that's all but I'm sure you knew this but couldn't wait to pass it up. ;D
-
Anyway can anyone guess how fast a shuttle has to accelerate to get to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes?
-
Anyway can anyone guess how fast a shuttle has to accelerate to get to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes?
There's no need to guess. It can be calculated.
Before anyone does, though, can we let sceptimatic calculate a more exact answer my previous question instead of the approximations given, showing what equation he used, and how he applied it to arrive at the answer? Although he has clues now, I'm still not sure he can do it.
The answer to my last question is apparent in his current one. "... would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed" is patently wrong for real flights.
[Edit] typo.
-
Anyway can anyone guess how fast a shuttle has to accelerate to get to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes?
No guess here:
0.001 miles/s2
http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx (http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx)
-
Anyway can anyone guess how fast a shuttle has to accelerate to get to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes?
No guess here:
0.001 miles/s2
http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx (http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx)
Calculate that to miles per hour.
-
You know a fighter jet can go ballistic right? You know that the pilot/s can pass out due to the intense speed or what we are told is the G force.
We are talking a speed of around 1000mph or less and these pilots are close to passing out.
Imagine sticking them inside a rocket going 20,000 mph. What mechanism is in place to stop them from not just passing out but actually dying?
You don't understand g-force. It is an acceleration. You could be traveling at 1,000,000,0000 mph and, as long as you didn't accelerate, you will experience no g-force.
On the other hand, you could go from 5 mph to 10 mph in a very short space of time and experience extreme g-force. During a high speed car crash, for example, you might experience 100g.
You own a Bugatti don't you? They do 0-100kph in 2.4s and you will get 1.55g. Although once you have hit 100kph and are cruising, then g will be zero.
The maximum you will get on the space shuttle is 3g. Some rollercoasters let you experiance >6g.
I'm well aware of what they call G force. I know it's acceleration and not constant speed.
So why did you only mention a constant speed in your appeal to incredulity??
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Yes, I understand that it means you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
You know a fighter jet can go ballistic right? You know that the pilot/s can pass out due to the intense speed or what we are told is the G force.
We are talking a speed of around 1000mph or less and these pilots are close to passing out.
Imagine sticking them inside a rocket going 20,000 mph. What mechanism is in place to stop them from not just passing out but actually dying?
You don't understand g-force. It is an acceleration. You could be traveling at 1,000,000,0000 mph and, as long as you didn't accelerate, you will experience no g-force.
On the other hand, you could go from 5 mph to 10 mph in a very short space of time and experience extreme g-force. During a high speed car crash, for example, you might experience 100g.
You own a Bugatti don't you? They do 0-100kph in 2.4s and you will get 1.55g. Although once you have hit 100kph and are cruising, then g will be zero.
The maximum you will get on the space shuttle is 3g. Some rollercoasters let you experiance >6g.
I'm well aware of what they call G force. I know it's acceleration and not constant speed.
So why did you only mention a constant speed in your appeal to incredulity??
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Yes, I understand that it means you have no idea what you are talking about.
I never mentioned constant speed, so what are you on about?
-
Anyway can anyone guess how fast a shuttle has to accelerate to get to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes?
No guess here:
0.001 miles/s2
http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx (http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx)
Calculate that to miles per hour.
*sigh* you can't measure an acceleration in miles per hour. You still don't understand.
He linked to the acceleration calculator, so if you want different units just do it yourself.
-
I never mentioned constant speed, so what are you on about?
You said:
We are talking a speed of around 1000mph or less and these pilots are close to passing out.
Imagine sticking them inside a rocket going 20,000 mph.
They are both constant speeds, not accelerations.
-
You keep talking about your experiments... Could you finally show us your data that you have gathered on your frozen lake bed experiment and how it was set up?
I already did. You all had your chance to pm me and only 2 took it up, so ask them.
The people who got the relevant stuff are scientists, 4 of who want to re-enact it this November.
I can confirm that I was one of the two people who PM'd sceptimatic, and I can also confirm receiving a PM in reply, accompanied by a simple diagram outlining the basics of his proposed experiment with the laser and the ice field.
I'll be awaiting the results of the further experiments carried out by the four scientists who responded to sceptimatic's request.
His diagram didn't divulge any technical information not already disclosed to the public, so any other confirmatory, independent research results tabled next month will be of major interest to me.
-
Anyway can anyone guess how fast a shuttle has to accelerate to get to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes?
No guess here:
0.001 miles/s2
http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx (http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx)
Calculate that to miles per hour.
*sigh* you can't measure an acceleration in miles per hour. You still don't understand.
He linked to the acceleration calculator, so if you want different units just do it yourself.
You lot won't do it because it renders your rockets a total pile of crap for their size and for human travel.
You all know fine well that no rocket that size, nor human could survive even a portion of the speeds they allegedly attain.
Anyone out there with a rational brain, do the maths. No need for comlicated bollocks or anything. Just do the maths for how a rocket can accelerate to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes but don't allow yourself to be duped by silly mathematical workings.
Here's a tip for those that can think.
For a rocket to attain a speed of 17,000 mph for supposed entry into orbit our of Earth's atmosphere, it must always accelerate.
Now keep that in your heads the next time you accelerate from 0 to 60 mph on anything and feel the force upon you. Look at dragsters accelerating on a track and basically falling apart after seconds at times.
How many of you have taxied on a runway in a plane then been pushed back into your seat as the plance goes into full on acceleration to lift off? many, right?
Now this is only 200 mph or so and also it's basically horizontal with a slight incline as it goes into the sky. Once it levels out after full thrust, it keeps a constant speed, so all is well.
However, a ballistic rocket is a different kettle of fish, because a rocket cannot stop accelerating if it needs to reach a certain speed, so the force acting on it and the supposed human occupants would render them useless, or to put it simply, it would break the rocket apart and would have already killed the occupants very early on.
There's no way around this. This is what would happen if these speeds were to be attempted.
Did you know that they say they don't allow a shuttle launch in the rain because if they did, they say that the rain would be like bullets hitting the shuttle and would break it apart. Of course, it's a made up story where the shuttle is concerned, because the shuttle is not a real space vehicle, yet there's truth in the story in terms of the speeds mentioned, because that's most probably what it would be like with rain.
Just sittin in your own home looking out of your window with rain being smashed against it at 90 mph makes you think the windows going to shatter.
People just can't visualise 17,000 mph. They think it's nothing because they are made to believe it's no big deal where space vehicles are mentioned.
Let's get a bit real here.
A plane uses full thrust to get airborne. Basically it has nothing left but the lift of the wings to basically glide higher at a slight angle where the air becomes thinner and the strain on the turbines becomes less stressful, meaning faster speeds can be attained.
In a rocket, it has to use full thrust all of the time. No throttling down and all that clap trap. It's full throttle and you're off.
So the real question should be. How does a rocket accelerate all of the time, anyway?
It should simply springboard from the launch pad and carry on into the sky at that speed, vertically. This is in reality though, but as we know, we are not dealing with reality in the space game, are we? ;D
Remember, N.A.S.A rockets do not have gears, so to gain height they have to increase throttle or shall I say thrust.
The major problem with this is, they don't have any increased thrust, because they are at full thrust on lift off. Anyone see what I mean here? All you roundies, don't bother answering this, I'm not interested in your clap trap. ::)
The best any rocket can do is to go ballistic for a short period before arcing right back to Earth, expending their fuel in minutes, which is exactly what they do if anyone cares to look.
-
Anyway can anyone guess how fast a shuttle has to accelerate to get to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes?
No guess here:
0.001 miles/s2
http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx (http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx)
Calculate that to miles per hour.
*sigh* you can't measure an acceleration in miles per hour. You still don't understand.
He linked to the acceleration calculator, so if you want different units just do it yourself.
Save your nonsense for someone who cares.
-
All, this rambling on for nothing. Why don't you just admit you were wrong and stop embarrassing yourself further.
Anyone out there with a rational brain, do the maths. No need for comlicated bollocks or anything. Just do the maths for how a rocket can accelerate to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes
It's been shown to you, and it isn't complicated at all. Let's do it again:
to go from 0 to 17,000 mph over 8 mins means they accelerate at 15.8 metres/s/s. This means that for every second they are traveling 15.8 m/s faster. So after 1s they are going 15.8 m/s, after 2 seconds they are going 31.6 m/s and after 3 seconds they are going 47.4 m/s and so on...
To calculate g-force:
1 g = 9.8 m/s/s
therefore
15.8 / 9.8 = 1.61
So the average g-force going from 0 to 17,000 mph in 8 mins is 1.61g - this is only slighty higher than the g-force you will experience in your Bugatti Veyron as you go from 0-100 kph. For the last minute of burn they do in fact reach 3g, then they turn the main engines off and go to zero-g.
-
All, this rambling on for nothing. Why don't you just admit you were wrong and stop embarrassing yourself further.
Anyone out there with a rational brain, do the maths. No need for comlicated bollocks or anything. Just do the maths for how a rocket can accelerate to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes
It's been shown to you, and it isn't complicated at all. Let's do it again:
to go from 0 to 17,000 mph over 8 mins means they accelerate at 15.8 metres/s/s. This means that for every second they are traveling 15.8 m/s faster. So after 1s they are going 15.8 m/s, after 2 seconds they are going 31.6 m/s and after 3 seconds they are going 47.4 m/s and so on...
To calculate g-force:
1 g = 9.8 m/s/s
therefore
15.8 / 9.8 = 1.61
So the average g-force going from 0 to 17,000 mph in 8 mins is 1.61g - this is only slighty higher than the g-force you will experience in your Bugatti Veyron as you go from 0-100 kph. For the last minute of burn they do in fact reach 3g, then they turn the main engines off and go to zero-g.
Have another go, crabby.
-
Have another go, crabby.
Why? If you have a problem with the maths then point it out and show the correction.
-
Have another go, crabby.
Why? If you have a problem with the maths then point it out and show the correction.
LOL. You may as well ask a Swahili tribesman to explain string theory in 25 words or less.
-
Anyway can anyone guess how fast a shuttle has to accelerate to get to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes?
No guess here:
0.001 miles/s2
http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx (http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx)
Calculate that to miles per hour.
*sigh* you can't measure an acceleration in miles per hour. You still don't understand.
He linked to the acceleration calculator, so if you want different units just do it yourself.
Save your nonsense for someone who cares.
If you don't care, then why are you here?
-
All, this rambling on for nothing. Why don't you just admit you were wrong and stop embarrassing yourself further.
Anyone out there with a rational brain, do the maths. No need for comlicated bollocks or anything. Just do the maths for how a rocket can accelerate to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes
It's been shown to you, and it isn't complicated at all. Let's do it again:
to go from 0 to 17,000 mph over 8 mins means they accelerate at 15.8 metres/s/s. This means that for every second they are traveling 15.8 m/s faster. So after 1s they are going 15.8 m/s, after 2 seconds they are going 31.6 m/s and after 3 seconds they are going 47.4 m/s and so on...
To calculate g-force:
1 g = 9.8 m/s/s
therefore
15.8 / 9.8 = 1.61
So the average g-force going from 0 to 17,000 mph in 8 mins is 1.61g - this is only slighty higher than the g-force you will experience in your Bugatti Veyron as you go from 0-100 kph. For the last minute of burn they do in fact reach 3g, then they turn the main engines off and go to zero-g.
Have another go, crabby.
There's no need, his maths is spot on.
-
You lot won't do it because it renders your rockets a total pile of crap for their size and for human travel.
You all know fine well that no rocket that size, nor human could survive even a portion of the speeds they allegedly attain.
Anyone out there with a rational brain, do the maths. No need for comlicated bollocks or anything. Just do the maths for how a rocket can accelerate to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes but don't allow yourself to be duped by silly mathematical workings.
Here's a tip for those that can think.
For a rocket to attain a speed of 17,000 mph for supposed entry into orbit our of Earth's atmosphere, it must always accelerate.
Now keep that in your heads the next time you accelerate from 0 to 60 mph on anything and feel the force upon you. Look at dragsters accelerating on a track and basically falling apart after seconds at times.
How many of you have taxied on a runway in a plane then been pushed back into your seat as the plance goes into full on acceleration to lift off? many, right?
Now this is only 200 mph or so and also it's basically horizontal with a slight incline as it goes into the sky. Once it levels out after full thrust, it keeps a constant speed, so all is well.
No, once attaining altitude and cruise speed (at full thrust) a pilot throttles down the thrust to maintain a constant speed.
However, a ballistic rocket is a different kettle of fish, because a rocket cannot stop accelerating if it needs to reach a certain speed, so the force acting on it and the supposed human occupants would render them useless, or to put it simply, it would break the rocket apart and would have already killed the occupants very early on.
There's no way around this. This is what would happen if these speeds were to be attempted.
Did you know that they say they don't allow a shuttle launch in the rain because if they did, they say that the rain would be like bullets hitting the shuttle and would break it apart. Of course, it's a made up story where the shuttle is concerned, because the shuttle is not a real space vehicle, yet there's truth in the story in terms of the speeds mentioned, because that's most probably what it would be like with rain.
No, they didn't allow shuttle lunches in the rain due to the chance of them damaging the, relatively fragile, re-entry heat sink tiles on the underside of the shuttle. The main structure of the shuttle and booster stages would not be affected by rain drops at launch speeds.
Just sittin in your own home looking out of your window with rain being smashed against it at 90 mph makes you think the windows going to shatter.
Not really.
People just can't visualise 17,000 mph. They think it's nothing because they are made to believe it's no big deal where space vehicles are mentioned.
Let's get a bit real here.
A plane uses full thrust to get airborne. Basically it has nothing left but the lift of the wings to basically glide higher at a slight angle where the air becomes thinner and the strain on the turbines becomes less stressful, meaning faster speeds can be attained.
Clearly you don't understand how planes work either.
In a rocket, it has to use full thrust all of the time. No throttling down and all that clap trap. It's full throttle and you're off.
So the real question should be. How does a rocket accelerate all of the time, anyway?
It should simply springboard from the launch pad and carry on into the sky at that speed, vertically. This is in reality though, but as we know, we are not dealing with reality in the space game, are we? ;D
Remember, N.A.S.A rockets do not have gears, so to gain height they have to increase throttle or shall I say thrust.
The major problem with this is, they don't have any increased thrust, because they are at full thrust on lift off. Anyone see what I mean here? All you roundies, don't bother answering this, I'm not interested in your clap trap. ::)
The best any rocket can do is to go ballistic for a short period before arcing right back to Earth, expending their fuel in minutes, which is exactly what they do if anyone cares to look.
And here we get to the fallacious point that you are trying to make. Rockets (and any other device with an engine) do not need to provide extra thrust to maintain a level of acceleration as long as changes in their trajectory do not result in the application of additional forces.
A car going along a road does not need to increase thrust in order to maintain acceleration. If the road goes up a hill then additional thrust will be required, to maintain the same acceleration, in order to compensate for the car travelling against gravity.
A rocket launches vertically, the initial launch profile requires the most thrust of the entire trajectory. Following the initial stage of launch it gets easier as air density (therefore air resistance) decreases and the pull of gravity weakens.
Edit: Not to mention the rocket loses mass throughout the launch through depletion of fuel and the staging (jettisoning) of empty fuel tanks, therefore requiring less thrust to maintain constant acceleration.
-
Have another go, crabby.
Why? If you have a problem with the maths then point it out and show the correction.
I don't have a problem with it. Like I said - try again.
-
Anyway can anyone guess how fast a shuttle has to accelerate to get to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes?
No guess here:
0.001 miles/s2
http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx (http://www.smartconversion.com/unit_calculation/Acceleration_calculator.aspx)
Calculate that to miles per hour.
*sigh* you can't measure an acceleration in miles per hour. You still don't understand.
He linked to the acceleration calculator, so if you want different units just do it yourself.
Save your nonsense for someone who cares.
If you don't care, then why are you here?
I'm here to aid those that are willing to think for themselves and to teach them how easy it is to rise above the brainwashed majority who stick rigidly to bullshit and attempt to show people that they know what they are talking about, whilst being fully aided by wiki and google.
-
All, this rambling on for nothing. Why don't you just admit you were wrong and stop embarrassing yourself further.
Anyone out there with a rational brain, do the maths. No need for comlicated bollocks or anything. Just do the maths for how a rocket can accelerate to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes
It's been shown to you, and it isn't complicated at all. Let's do it again:
to go from 0 to 17,000 mph over 8 mins means they accelerate at 15.8 metres/s/s. This means that for every second they are traveling 15.8 m/s faster. So after 1s they are going 15.8 m/s, after 2 seconds they are going 31.6 m/s and after 3 seconds they are going 47.4 m/s and so on...
To calculate g-force:
1 g = 9.8 m/s/s
therefore
15.8 / 9.8 = 1.61
So the average g-force going from 0 to 17,000 mph in 8 mins is 1.61g - this is only slighty higher than the g-force you will experience in your Bugatti Veyron as you go from 0-100 kph. For the last minute of burn they do in fact reach 3g, then they turn the main engines off and go to zero-g.
Have another go, crabby.
There's no need, his maths is spot on.
Have another go, mathsman.
-
I've actually had two goes at this an Jimmy's maths is correct. Now if it is wrong please enlighten me as to where it is wrong.
-
I've actually had two goes at this an Jimmy's maths is correct. Now if it is wrong please enlighten me as to where it is wrong.
You named yourself mathsman for a reason I assume, so come back to me when you are correct and not before.
-
I've actually had two goes at this an Jimmy's maths is correct. Now if it is wrong please enlighten me as to where it is wrong.
You named yourself mathsman for a reason I assume, so come back to me when you are correct and not before.
Show where the calculations are incorrect, or STFU and move on.
The problem is that your intuition has been shown to be horribly wrong again, and you are too childish to admit it.
-
All, this rambling on for nothing. Why don't you just admit you were wrong and stop embarrassing yourself further.
Anyone out there with a rational brain, do the maths. No need for comlicated bollocks or anything. Just do the maths for how a rocket can accelerate to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes
It's been shown to you, and it isn't complicated at all. Let's do it again:
to go from 0 to 17,000 mph over 8 mins means they accelerate at 15.8 metres/s/s. This means that for every second they are traveling 15.8 m/s faster. So after 1s they are going 15.8 m/s, after 2 seconds they are going 31.6 m/s and after 3 seconds they are going 47.4 m/s and so on...
To calculate g-force:
1 g = 9.8 m/s/s
therefore
15.8 / 9.8 = 1.61
So the average g-force going from 0 to 17,000 mph in 8 mins is 1.61g - this is only slighty higher than the g-force you will experience in your Bugatti Veyron as you go from 0-100 kph. For the last minute of burn they do in fact reach 3g, then they turn the main engines off and go to zero-g.
Have another go, crabby.
There's no need, his maths is spot on.
Have another go, mathsman.
Have another go at what? The answer is correct. You obviously don't like the answer because it clearly and unequivocally disproves the point you're trying to make, but that's your problem and on one else's, so please drop it.
You asked us to guess at the acceleration needed, but it's not necessary to guess at all. An exact answer can be easily calculated given the well-defined problem presented.
What's your guess? Was it your 5 mi/s2, which is more than 800g? That is, indeed, an unsurvivable acceleration, but would achieve orbital velocity in one second (less, actually - have you figured out how much less yet? Can you, sceptimatic?) Fortunately, there is no need to accelerate the shuttle to this velocity in less than a second, so the needed acceleration is considerably less (by almost 3 orders of magnitude [do you know what that means, sceptimatic?]), an easily-survivable 1.6g. This shows why, in the real world, such things are calculated by people who know what they're doing, not guessed.
The thing is, any arbitrary acceleration can be used to accelerate an object from zero to 17,000 mi/hr, it's just that it takes longer with lower acceleration. This is basic physics and algebra. It's quite handy knowing how to apply these, especially in discussions like this. Your rants about undesired (but nonetheless correct) results make you look petulant.
It's becoming clear that you are hostile to math because you can't do it. This puts you at a distinct disadvantage to the many people who can do middle-school and higher level math (that's usually grades 6 to 9 in the US), which must be embarrassing, so you try to dismiss it as totally useless. It isn't.
-
Save your nonsense for someone who cares.
If you don't care, then why are you here?
I'm here to aid those that are willing to think for themselves and to teach them how easy it is to rise above the brainwashed majority who stick rigidly to bullshit and attempt to show people that they know what they are talking about, whilst being fully aided by wiki and google.
Sometimes I can't help but to think that you don't understand what "thinking for yourself" really means. Free thinking is not permission to say that everyone is wrong without needing to prove why they're wrong.
-
I've actually had two goes at this an Jimmy's maths is correct. Now if it is wrong please enlighten me as to where it is wrong.
You named yourself mathsman for a reason I assume, so come back to me when you are correct and not before.
Show where the calculations are incorrect, or STFU and move on.
The problem is that your intuition has been shown to be horribly wrong again, and you are too childish to admit it.
Explain yourself properly and I'll observe. Until then you will simply become a frustrated mess with me, crabby. Now get on with it or deck out. :D
-
All, this rambling on for nothing. Why don't you just admit you were wrong and stop embarrassing yourself further.
Anyone out there with a rational brain, do the maths. No need for comlicated bollocks or anything. Just do the maths for how a rocket can accelerate to 17,000 mph in 8 minutes
It's been shown to you, and it isn't complicated at all. Let's do it again:
to go from 0 to 17,000 mph over 8 mins means they accelerate at 15.8 metres/s/s. This means that for every second they are traveling 15.8 m/s faster. So after 1s they are going 15.8 m/s, after 2 seconds they are going 31.6 m/s and after 3 seconds they are going 47.4 m/s and so on...
To calculate g-force:
1 g = 9.8 m/s/s
therefore
15.8 / 9.8 = 1.61
So the average g-force going from 0 to 17,000 mph in 8 mins is 1.61g - this is only slighty higher than the g-force you will experience in your Bugatti Veyron as you go from 0-100 kph. For the last minute of burn they do in fact reach 3g, then they turn the main engines off and go to zero-g.
Have another go, crabby.
There's no need, his maths is spot on.
Have another go, mathsman.
Have another go at what? The answer is correct. You obviously don't like the answer because it clearly and unequivocally disproves the point you're trying to make, but that's your problem and on one else's, so please drop it.
You asked us to guess at the acceleration needed, but it's not necessary to guess at all. An exact answer can be easily calculated given the well-defined problem presented.
What's your guess? Was it your 5 mi/s2, which is more than 800g? That is, indeed, an unsurvivable acceleration, but would achieve orbital velocity in one second (less, actually - have you figured out how much less yet? Can you, sceptimatic?) Fortunately, there is no need to accelerate the shuttle to this velocity in less than a second, so the needed acceleration is considerably less (by almost 3 orders of magnitude [do you know what that means, sceptimatic?]), an easily-survivable 1.6g. This shows why, in the real world, such things are calculated by people who know what they're doing, not guessed.
The thing is, any arbitrary acceleration can be used to accelerate an object from zero to 17,000 mi/hr, it's just that it takes longer with lower acceleration. This is basic physics and algebra. It's quite handy knowing how to apply these, especially in discussions like this. Your rants about undesired (but nonetheless correct) results make you look petulant.
It's becoming clear that you are hostile to math because you can't do it. This puts you at a distinct disadvantage to the many people who can do middle-school and higher level math (that's usually grades 6 to 9 in the US), which must be embarrassing, so you try to dismiss it as totally useless. It isn't.
Like I said to the others. Try again and do it properly.
-
Save your nonsense for someone who cares.
If you don't care, then why are you here?
I'm here to aid those that are willing to think for themselves and to teach them how easy it is to rise above the brainwashed majority who stick rigidly to bullshit and attempt to show people that they know what they are talking about, whilst being fully aided by wiki and google.
Sometimes I can't help but to think that you don't understand what "thinking for yourself" really means. Free thinking is not permission to say that everyone is wrong without needing to prove why they're wrong.
That's fine what you think, markjo. it's called free thinking. It doesn't mean you're correct but at least you use free thought.
You probably use more free thought than most of the round Earth crew, you just maybe don't quite realise it when you play devils advocate.
You have much more potential to question the indoctrination of science theories ingrained into the minds of ever willing target audiences.
-
Save your nonsense for someone who cares.
If you don't care, then why are you here?
I'm here to aid those that are willing to think for themselves and to teach them how easy it is to rise above the brainwashed majority who stick rigidly to bullshit and attempt to show people that they know what they are talking about, whilst being fully aided by wiki and google.
Sometimes I can't help but to think that you don't understand what "thinking for yourself" really means. Free thinking is not permission to say that everyone is wrong without needing to prove why they're wrong.
That's fine what you think, markjo. it's called free thinking. It doesn't mean you're correct but at least you use free thought.
You probably use more free thought than most of the round Earth crew, you just maybe don't quite realise it when you play devils advocate.
You have much more potential to question the indoctrination of science theories ingrained into the minds of ever willing target audiences.
What I don't understand, Scepti, is your hostility to science. FET was the conspiracy until RET was proven. The Catholic Church hung onto it as long as it could before being proven wrong. I don't see how discovering your earth, solar system and the universe around you is conspiratorial. It was a process of discovery, not made-up. Sorry, Scepti, but your time is up in my mind. You've given it your best and it fell flat (pun intended!).
-
What I don't understand, Scepti, is your hostility to science. FET was the conspiracy until RET was proven. The Catholic Church hung onto it as long as it could before being proven wrong. I don't see how discovering your earth, solar system and the universe around you is conspiratorial. It was a process of discovery, not made-up. Sorry, Scepti, but your time is up in my mind. You've given it your best and it fell flat (pun intended!).
If my time is up in your mind, there is no need for any further correspondence from you, is there?
Nice chatting with you whilst you tried your best (and failed) to convince me of the fallacy that is the rotating globe. :)
-
I've actually had two goes at this an Jimmy's maths is correct. Now if it is wrong please enlighten me as to where it is wrong.
You named yourself mathsman for a reason I assume, so come back to me when you are correct and not before.
Show where the calculations are incorrect, or STFU and move on.
The problem is that your intuition has been shown to be horribly wrong again, and you are too childish to admit it.
Explain yourself properly and I'll observe.
OK, you can't show any problems with the maths, so we will take that line of debate as finished. The space shuttle will experience an average of 1.6g whilst burning from 0 to 17,000 mph.
What's your next bullshit objection to the space program?
-
Save your nonsense for someone who cares.
If you don't care, then why are you here?
I'm here to aid those that are willing to think for themselves and to teach them how easy it is to rise above the brainwashed majority who stick rigidly to bullshit and attempt to show people that they know what they are talking about, whilst being fully aided by wiki and google.
Sometimes I can't help but to think that you don't understand what "thinking for yourself" really means. Free thinking is not permission to say that everyone is wrong without needing to prove why they're wrong.
That's fine what you think, markjo. it's called free thinking. It doesn't mean you're correct but at least you use free thought.
You probably use more free thought than most of the round Earth crew, you just maybe don't quite realise it when you play devils advocate.
You have much more potential to question the indoctrination of science theories ingrained into the minds of ever willing target audiences.
Thanks (I think). However, as a free thinker challenging the orthodoxy of science, you can't just say that the indoctrinated are wrong. Indoctrination, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. You need to be able to explain where the indoctrination went wrong. That means that if someone's math is wrong, then show them where they went wrong. After all, how can someone learn from their mistakes if they don't think that they made any?
-
I've actually had two goes at this an Jimmy's maths is correct. Now if it is wrong please enlighten me as to where it is wrong.
You named yourself mathsman for a reason I assume, so come back to me when you are correct and not before.
Show where the calculations are incorrect, or STFU and move on.
The problem is that your intuition has been shown to be horribly wrong again, and you are too childish to admit it.
Explain yourself properly and I'll observe.
OK, you can't show any problems with the maths, so we will take that line of debate as finished. The space shuttle will experience an average of 1.6g whilst burning from 0 to 17,000 mph.
What's your next bullshit objection to the space program?
As long as we are on the understanding that your 1.6g is a complete and utter load of bullshit, we can move on with things.
Next time do not insult me with silly maths, crabby. I'm a genius for a reason and I don't take kindly to having my genius mind insulted by people that cannot use common sense maths.
-
Thanks (I think). However, as a free thinker challenging the orthodoxy of science, you can't just say that the indoctrinated are wrong. Indoctrination, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. You need to be able to explain where the indoctrination went wrong. That means that if someone's math is wrong, then show them where they went wrong. After all, how can someone learn from their mistakes if they don't think that they made any?
Indoctrination does not have to be wrong. There will be a hell of a lot of indoctrinated stuff even in schools that are the truth or as close to it as possible.
Indoctrination is not a bad thing if it's done with a legitimate reason in mind for the good of people, and in many cases, it is.
It's actually needed, whether it comes from schools or parents, as long as it's for benefit and not for hampering real history of future science.
That being said, I have a serious...and I mean, serious issue with the history of science and the present day science being taught in SOME aspects, not ALL.
These aspects are the ones I challenge whether they are deemed right or wrong by whoever - and I will not under any circumstances be beaten down by people following a set pattern instilled into their psyche, who have no other interest but to follow it to the letter.
Having said that. It's why I gave you the compliment, because at the very least you do play devils advocate many times. Ok, you're slightly biased towards the globe side, I understand that - and you're slightly biased towards the official lines of science. I also understand that. The good thing about you, though, is, you do see both sides and that's fair enough in my book.
Not many do that.
-
FET was the conspiracy until RET was proven. The Catholic Church hung onto it as long as it could before being proven wrong.
Incorrect. You're probably thinking about Ptolemaic geocentrism, which was a round earth cosmology.
As long as we are on the understanding that your 1.6g is a complete and utter load of bullshit, we can move on with things.
Again, calling yourself a free thinker doesn't give you the right to say that Jimmy is wrong without explaining exactly why he's wrong.
Next time do not insult me with silly maths, crabby. I'm a genius for a reason and I don't take kindly to having my genius mind insulted by people that cannot use common sense maths.
If you want to call yourself a genius, don't be surprised if people expect you to prove it.
-
FET was the conspiracy until RET was proven. The Catholic Church hung onto it as long as it could before being proven wrong.
Incorrect. You're probably thinking about Ptolemaic geocentrism, which was a round earth cosmology.
As long as we are on the understanding that your 1.6g is a complete and utter load of bullshit, we can move on with things.
Again, calling yourself a free thinker doesn't give you the right to say that Jimmy is wrong without explaining exactly why he's wrong.
Next time do not insult me with silly maths, crabby. I'm a genius for a reason and I don't take kindly to having my genius mind insulted by people that cannot use common sense maths.
If you want to call yourself a genius, don't be surprised if people expect you to prove it.
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
Also, I don't need to prove my genius on a forum. I'm known as a genius to my work force. Some even - to this very day when I walk into the place, ask me how I can be such a genius inventor of exceptional things, as they can't seem to fathom out how to wire a plug, let alone think of the genius stuff I have thought up, built and get used to this very day and have done for many many years.
I just have a gift, what else can I say without it looking like I'm bragging. :D
-
FET was the conspiracy until RET was proven. The Catholic Church hung onto it as long as it could before being proven wrong.
Incorrect. You're probably thinking about Ptolemaic geocentrism, which was a round earth cosmology.
As long as we are on the understanding that your 1.6g is a complete and utter load of bullshit, we can move on with things.
Again, calling yourself a free thinker doesn't give you the right to say that Jimmy is wrong without explaining exactly why he's wrong.
Next time do not insult me with silly maths, crabby. I'm a genius for a reason and I don't take kindly to having my genius mind insulted by people that cannot use common sense maths.
If you want to call yourself a genius, don't be surprised if people expect you to prove it.
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
Also, I don't need to prove my genius on a forum. I'm known as a genius to my work force. Some even - to this very day when I walk into the place, ask me how I can be such a genius inventor of exceptional things, as they can't seem to fathom out how to wire a plug, let alone think of the genius stuff I have thought up, built and get used to this very day and have done for many many years.
I just have a gift, what else can I say without it looking like I'm bragging. :D
Please show your calculations.
-
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
Just because it's obvious to you, that doesn't mean that it's obvious to anyone else. Perhaps you're so far above us mere mortals that you forget how dense we can be.
Also, I don't need to prove my genius on a forum. I'm known as a genius to my work force. Some even - to this very day when I walk into the place, ask me how I can be such a genius inventor of exceptional things, as they can't seem to fathom out how to wire a plug, let alone think of the genius stuff I have thought up, built and get used to this very day and have done for many many years.
I just have a gift, what else can I say without it looking like I'm bragging. :D
No, it doesn't look like you're bragging, it looks like you're bullshitting.
-
FET was the conspiracy until RET was proven. The Catholic Church hung onto it as long as it could before being proven wrong.
Incorrect. You're probably thinking about Ptolemaic geocentrism, which was a round earth cosmology.
As long as we are on the understanding that your 1.6g is a complete and utter load of bullshit, we can move on with things.
Again, calling yourself a free thinker doesn't give you the right to say that Jimmy is wrong without explaining exactly why he's wrong.
Next time do not insult me with silly maths, crabby. I'm a genius for a reason and I don't take kindly to having my genius mind insulted by people that cannot use common sense maths.
If you want to call yourself a genius, don't be surprised if people expect you to prove it.
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
Also, I don't need to prove my genius on a forum. I'm known as a genius to my work force. Some even - to this very day when I walk into the place, ask me how I can be such a genius inventor of exceptional things, as they can't seem to fathom out how to wire a plug, let alone think of the genius stuff I have thought up, built and get used to this very day and have done for many many years.
I just have a gift, what else can I say without it looking like I'm bragging. :D
Please show your calculations.
You type me a 1000 word essay on the reason why I should show my calculations and I will do that.
The essay must be in your own words.
The reason why I'm asking you to do this, is because you always pop into a thread and type about 5 or 6 words. I find that not enough and you've done this for far too long, so make up for it and I will provide the explanation and calculation. Remember, I'll be counting, so make it just over 1000 just to be on the safe side. :D
crabby might have a different calculation for the 1000 and try and tell me that 6 words is 1000 or something. ;)
-
Just because it's obvious to you, that doesn't mean that it's obvious to anyone else. Perhaps you're so far above us mere mortals that you forget how dense we can be.
None of you are dense. Misguided? - some are, yes.
No, it doesn't look like you're bragging, it looks like you're bullshitting.
It may look like that but you can't actually say that as a truth, can you?
-
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
It's not obvious to me. I eagerly await enlightenment.
We'll remind you of your promise from time to time if necessary.
-
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
It's not obvious to me. I eagerly await enlightenment.
We'll remind you of your promise from time to time if necessary.
Oh, don't fret over that. I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
I would just like you and the others to revise what you are giving out as a truth. It's wrong - very wrong.
I understand you want to aid in keeping space rocketry alive but you really need to be truthful to yourselves. I'm sure you all want the real truth, don;t you? instead of arguing in favour of a pack of lies, which; granted, you may not be fully aware of.
-
Can you cut the BS and just get on with the calculations and explanations.
Personally, I doubt you can show anything meaningful, and the "in time" means you're hoping that this gets forgotten and you've weaseled out of another empty boast. After all, you're the guy who, just yesterday, was insisting that the Shuttle had to accelerate at 5 mi/s2 to reach 17,000 mi/hr but couldn't back up the claim. I think I know where that acceleration came from, and it suggests you don't know how to solve these problems. We'll see, though - you may surprise everyone and dazzle us with your brilliance.
We'll remind you of your promise to show the calcs from the ground up if they're not forthcoming. No worries, it's not a bother - I think most of us will be happy to do it.
-
Just because it's obvious to you, that doesn't mean that it's obvious to anyone else. Perhaps you're so far above us mere mortals that you forget how dense we can be.
None of you are dense. Misguided? - some are, yes.
Then guide us, oh wise one.
No, it doesn't look like you're bragging, it looks like you're bullshitting.
It may look like that but you can't actually say that as a truth, can you?
Perhaps not, but I would say that it's a pretty safe bet.
-
FET was the conspiracy until RET was proven. The Catholic Church hung onto it as long as it could before being proven wrong.
Incorrect. You're probably thinking about Ptolemaic geocentrism, which was a round earth cosmology.
The Greeks were damn smart. Regardless, whatever flawed cosmology the powers that be held onto, it was corrected by discoveries over time, starting with the Greeks, and the current mainstream model evolved as new discoveries were made. Plain and simple.
-
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
Also, I don't need to prove my genius on a forum. I'm known as a genius to my work force. Some even - to this very day when I walk into the place, ask me how I can be such a genius inventor of exceptional things, as they can't seem to fathom out how to wire a plug, let alone think of the genius stuff I have thought up, built and get used to this very day and have done for many many years.
I just have a gift, what else can I say without it looking like I'm bragging. :D
OK, you are just trolling now, got it.
-
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
It's not obvious to me. I eagerly await enlightenment.
We'll remind you of your promise from time to time if necessary.
Oh, don't fret over that. I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
I would just like you and the others to revise what you are giving out as a truth. It's wrong - very wrong.
I understand you want to aid in keeping space rocketry alive but you really need to be truthful to yourselves. I'm sure you all want the real truth, don;t you? instead of arguing in favour of a pack of lies, which; granted, you may not be fully aware of.
Well, so far, your math says that the rocket accelerates at 5 miles per second per second. You think that a speed of 1000 mph and a speed of 20000 mph are not constant velocities, and you have yet to point out where any of the math that has been shown is wrong, yet you want us to believe that you are some genius who can see through this great deception which has some how fooled almost everyone else. So please tell us how and why we are wrong, not just that we are wrong.
-
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
Also, I don't need to prove my genius on a forum. I'm known as a genius to my work force. Some even - to this very day when I walk into the place, ask me how I can be such a genius inventor of exceptional things, as they can't seem to fathom out how to wire a plug, let alone think of the genius stuff I have thought up, built and get used to this very day and have done for many many years.
I just have a gift, what else can I say without it looking like I'm bragging. :D
OK, you are just trolling now, got it.
crabby - I like you, now stop taking the expected route. It's feeble and you know this.
-
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
It's not obvious to me. I eagerly await enlightenment.
We'll remind you of your promise from time to time if necessary.
Oh, don't fret over that. I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
I would just like you and the others to revise what you are giving out as a truth. It's wrong - very wrong.
I understand you want to aid in keeping space rocketry alive but you really need to be truthful to yourselves. I'm sure you all want the real truth, don;t you? instead of arguing in favour of a pack of lies, which; granted, you may not be fully aware of.
Well, so far, your math says that the rocket accelerates at 5 miles per second per second. You think that a speed of 1000 mph and a speed of 20000 mph are not constant velocities, and you have yet to point out where any of the math that has been shown is wrong, yet you want us to believe that you are some genius who can see through this great deception which has some how fooled almost everyone else. So please tell us how and why we are wrong, not just that we are wrong.
You are not helping your global Earth squatters, please put some effort in.
-
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
It's not obvious to me. I eagerly await enlightenment.
We'll remind you of your promise from time to time if necessary.
Oh, don't fret over that. I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
I would just like you and the others to revise what you are giving out as a truth. It's wrong - very wrong.
I understand you want to aid in keeping space rocketry alive but you really need to be truthful to yourselves. I'm sure you all want the real truth, don;t you? instead of arguing in favour of a pack of lies, which; granted, you may not be fully aware of.
Well, so far, your math says that the rocket accelerates at 5 miles per second per second. You think that a speed of 1000 mph and a speed of 20000 mph are not constant velocities, and you have yet to point out where any of the math that has been shown is wrong, yet you want us to believe that you are some genius who can see through this great deception which has some how fooled almost everyone else. So please tell us how and why we are wrong, not just that we are wrong.
You are not helping your global Earth squatters, please put some effort in.
Once you start putting an effort in other than retorting "Nope, You are wrong"
-
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
It's not obvious to me. I eagerly await enlightenment.
We'll remind you of your promise from time to time if necessary.
Oh, don't fret over that. I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
I would just like you and the others to revise what you are giving out as a truth. It's wrong - very wrong.
I understand you want to aid in keeping space rocketry alive but you really need to be truthful to yourselves. I'm sure you all want the real truth, don;t you? instead of arguing in favour of a pack of lies, which; granted, you may not be fully aware of.
Well, so far, your math says that the rocket accelerates at 5 miles per second per second. You think that a speed of 1000 mph and a speed of 20000 mph are not constant velocities, and you have yet to point out where any of the math that has been shown is wrong, yet you want us to believe that you are some genius who can see through this great deception which has some how fooled almost everyone else. So please tell us how and why we are wrong, not just that we are wrong.
You are not helping your global Earth squatters, please put some effort in.
We've done the math and shown it to you and the rest of the world. No need to do it again; the answer will be the same.
Remember this? We do.
First of all, it should be obvious why crabby is wrong, so I'll let him and whoever else stew on that for a good while before I show why.
It's not obvious to me. I eagerly await enlightenment.
We'll remind you of your promise from time to time if necessary.
Oh, don't fret over that. I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
I would just like you and the others to revise what you are giving out as a truth. It's wrong - very wrong.
I understand you want to aid in keeping space rocketry alive but you really need to be truthful to yourselves. I'm sure you all want the real truth, don;t you? instead of arguing in favour of a pack of lies, which; granted, you may not be fully aware of.
[Bolding added.]
I think everyone has agreed they're ready to see your rebuttal - in calculations. Where is it?
-
Guys... it's more than obvious by now that sceptimatic is a chronic contrarian who simply and untiringly posts an effectively fictional point of view opposing each and every scientifically-accredited fact posted on these forums by round earthers simply for the "fun" of it. As children do.
This is evidenced by the fact that, despite posting literally thousands of responses to legitimate questions, he has never—not once—posted even one single calculation of his own, either mechanical or mathematical. His "responses" are nothing more than empty rhetoric.
In a word he's nothing more than a persistent troll, and I'm starting to believe he (or she) is some 16-year-old pimply-faced script kiddie hidden away in his mum's basement who leads a "life" of total self-delusion. I won't even give him the satisfaction of calling him mentally challenged—I think he's just some socially inept, lonely loser who gets his kicks out of wasting other people's cybertime.
Just ignore him from now on, and he might get bored and go back to his video games and leave us in peace. (Said he hopefully LOL.)
-
ausGeoff, that's incredibly unfair to pimply, 16 year old script kiddies!
-
ausGeoff, that's incredibly unfair to pimply, 16 year old script kiddies!
Ahh... yes. I guess I should apologise for that totally uncalled-for insult. Sorry kiddies everywhere. Truly.
-
Septic I have found some new medication for you. Your tank is obviously full!!!.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/plumbing/septic-tank-cleaning.htm (http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/plumbing/septic-tank-cleaning.htm)
-
You have to decide whether Buzz Aldrin was brainwashed or the possibility that he's one person aiding in trying to keep a massive lie under lock and key, albeit not very solidly, it seems to me. How about you lot?
Here's an interview that Jarra White managed to get about the pertrified wood that Buzz and co tried to palm off to the Dutch.
Watch and listen to the full video.
Jarrah White meets Buzz Aldrin (http://#)
-
So you're dropping the g-force thing?
Well, Aldrin had nothing to do with fake moon rock, it was the Nixon Administration:
In his August 28, 2009 Associated Press story appearing in the Brisbane Times, Toby Sterling recounted how a spokesman for the Dutch National Museum, Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, acknowledged on August 26, 2009, "that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by"…Apollo 11… "US astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.."… "The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their ‘Giant Leap’ goodwill tour after the first moon landing." The museum acknowledged that though they did vet the moon rock they failed to double check it.[74] The museum was under the incorrect belief that this moon rock was one of the 135 Apollo 11 moon rocks that were presented to the nations of the world by the Nixon Administration.[75] "It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.[76] The genuine Apollo 11 moon rock given to the Dutch is in the inventory of a different museum in the Netherlands, which is, in fact, one of the very few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known.[77]
Saying that a fake moon rock means they didn't go to the moon is like finding a fake Roman vase and declaring the Romans didn't exist. Of course to do this you would have to ignore the real moonrocks and vases, not to mention the mountains of evidence supporting existence of the moon landings and the Romans.
-
So you're dropping the g-force thing?
Well, Aldrin had nothing to do with fake moon rock, it was the Nixon Administration:
In his August 28, 2009 Associated Press story appearing in the Brisbane Times, Toby Sterling recounted how a spokesman for the Dutch National Museum, Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, acknowledged on August 26, 2009, "that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by"…Apollo 11… "US astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.."… "The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their ‘Giant Leap’ goodwill tour after the first moon landing." The museum acknowledged that though they did vet the moon rock they failed to double check it.[74] The museum was under the incorrect belief that this moon rock was one of the 135 Apollo 11 moon rocks that were presented to the nations of the world by the Nixon Administration.[75] "It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.[76] The genuine Apollo 11 moon rock given to the Dutch is in the inventory of a different museum in the Netherlands, which is, in fact, one of the very few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known.[77]
Saying that a fake moon rock means they didn't go to the moon is like finding a fake Roman vase and declaring the Romans didn't exist. Of course to do this you would have to ignore the real moonrocks and vases, not to mention the mountains of evidence supporting existence of the moon landings and the Romans.
crabby: don't you think that Buzz and co would know what they were handing over?
They were the ones that supposedly picked this supposed moon rock up, remember - so I'm pretty sure they would have known that petrified wood wasn't moon rock, if they had really made the trip to moon.
The very fact that they didn't, but went along with the country hand out tour, they knew fine well that what they were handing over was anything but moon rock.
Buzz has lived a long lie and it shows.
-
You have to decide whether Buzz Aldrin was brainwashed or the possibility that he's one person aiding in trying to keep a massive lie under lock and key, albeit not very solidly, it seems to me. How about you lot?
Neither of the above.
Does this mean you've given up on your acceleration mistake? Can we close that one out before moving on?
Don't forget:
I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
We haven't seen anything from you but words so far.
-
crabby: don't you think that Buzz and co would know what they were handing over?
They were the ones that supposedly picked this supposed moon rock up, remember - so I'm pretty sure they would have known that petrified wood wasn't moon rock, if they had really made the trip to moon.
The very fact that they didn't, but went along with the country hand out tour, they knew fine well that what they were handing over was anything but moon rock.
How do you know for sure that it wasn't a genuine moon rock that they handed over? Maybe the genuine moon rock was switched after Neil and Buzz handed it over.
-
You have to decide whether Buzz Aldrin was brainwashed or the possibility that he's one person aiding in trying to keep a massive lie under lock and key, albeit not very solidly, it seems to me. How about you lot?
Neither of the above.
Does this mean you've given up on your acceleration mistake? Can we close that one out before moving on?
Don't forget:
I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
We haven't seen anything from you but words so far.
I haven't caluclated an acceleration to make a mistake. You lot did that and I'm still waiting for you to rectify it. If you can't or won't, fair enough. I'm patient enough to wait until one of you can, though.
-
crabby: don't you think that Buzz and co would know what they were handing over?
They were the ones that supposedly picked this supposed moon rock up, remember - so I'm pretty sure they would have known that petrified wood wasn't moon rock, if they had really made the trip to moon.
The very fact that they didn't, but went along with the country hand out tour, they knew fine well that what they were handing over was anything but moon rock.
How do you know for sure that it wasn't a genuine moon rock that they handed over? Maybe the genuine moon rock was switched after Neil and Buzz handed it over.
Do you realise what you are saying here?
Let me just put it into context, under the assumption that the moon landing of 1969 was real, (cough).
Now think about this.
Can you imagine the Dutch accepting a lump of moon rock - a supposed unbelievably rare present that they would probably not ever get again, then deciding to change it -then tell the Americans that they gave them pertrified wood - with the Americans knowing they gave them real moon rock?
Seriously, you think the Dutch would attempt to incur the wrath of a country like that, especially one as big and mighty as the Americans, knowing that stuff like this could cause a war?
How about looking at a more plausible scenario.
How about Buzz and co going over there and handing the supposed moon rock over, knowing it was sealed inside a moulded clear resin type block and believing that the Dutch wouldn't know what it was because the Dutch have never been to the moon to verify anything, nor has anyone.
Buzz and co can be confident in handing it over - doing a few picture shoots and pissing off. Most probably, Buzz and co wouldn't have had a clue that it was petrified wood. Those dummies would have been delivering a piece of rock from some far off place, in their minds...but the far off place being a far off place on Earth.
I bet they crapped themselves when they found out they had also been duped into giving petrified wood out. But what can they do? They are already under the pressure, shame and duress of lying their arses off, so they have no option but to badly bluff it out, from then and for the rest of their lives.
I almost feel sorry for some of them. Armstrong for instance. That man clearly was carrying a massive burden and I bet he's wanted the world to swallow him up from day one when he was duped into the scheme.
Buzz Aldrin carried his shame for a while then sort of embraced the fact that he was up to his eyes in it all, he might as well front it out and take the plaudits, plus trimmings on offer.
That's my take on it. Whether that's absolutely correct or not I don't know. What I do know is, they did not go to the moon and I'm 100% sure of that - nor will anyone ever go there, because it's a fantasy place. A visual effect turned into something solid and real to those that are gullible enough to buy into it, which was about 99% of us at one time, including myself.
Time and the ability to think critically can change all of that.
If they came out tomorrow and said it was all faked, I'd just laugh. It means nothing to me as regards that. It would just be a welcome addage to life to be told a truth, because this world of lies we're living in is starting to stink badly.
-
Do you realise what you are saying here?
Let me just put it into context, under the assumption that the moon landing of 1969 was real, (cough).
Now think about this.
Can you imagine the Dutch accepting a lump of moon rock - a supposed unbelievably rare present that they would probably not ever get again, then deciding to change it -then tell the Americans that they gave them pertrified wood - with the Americans knowing they gave them real moon rock?
Did you know that there were about 250 of those displays made and presented to 135 different countries, all 50 states and possessions? Doesn't sound "incredibly rare" to me.
Seriously, you think the Dutch would attempt to incur the wrath of a country like that, especially one as big and mighty as the Americans, knowing that stuff like this could cause a war?
War? Over a moon rock? Seriously?
How about looking at a more plausible scenario.
How about Buzz and co going over there and handing the supposed moon rock over, knowing it was sealed inside a moulded clear resin type block and believing that the Dutch wouldn't know what it was because the Dutch have never been to the moon to verify anything, nor has anyone.
Buzz and co can be confident in handing it over - doing a few picture shoots and pissing off. Most probably, Buzz and co wouldn't have had a clue that it was petrified wood. Those dummies would have been delivering a piece of rock from some far off place, in their minds...but the far off place being a far off place on Earth.
How is that any more plausible than one of the Dutch stealing the genuine sample and replacing it with the fake? Remember that the fake wasn't discovered for more than 30 years. Sounds like plenty of time to steal a genuine original to me.
I bet they crapped themselves when they found out they had also been duped into giving petrified wood out. But what can they do? They are already under the pressure, shame and duress of lying their arses off, so they have no option but to badly bluff it out, from then and for the rest of their lives.
Again, how do you know that the fake is what was actually presented? Were you there at the presentation? Did you personally examine the sample that Neil and Buzz handed over?
-
Did you know that there were about 250 of those displays made and presented to 135 different countries, all 50 states and possessions? Doesn't sound "incredibly rare" to me.
Oh, ok, it's not rare. It's just moon rock that anyone can get at any time. Come on man.
If they had really brought that back from the moon in that amount, it would be classed as rare, like large diamonds are classed as rare but there are many of them.
The point I'm making is, the Dutch wouldn't be exactly be flush with them, would they? A rarity indeed and one they would cherish, if it was real. I'm quite sure they wouldn't replace it then tell America they gave them petrified wood.
War? Over a moon rock? Seriously?
Well, they have wars over all kinds of crap. It wouldn't be over a moon rock as such, it would be classed as the Dutch calling the Americans liars by making out they were given pertrified wood. If the scenario was real, which it isn't. The point being, Buzz was playing his part as a shit actor.
How is that any more plausible than one of the Dutch stealing the genuine sample and replacing it with the fake? Remember that the fake wasn't discovered for more than 30 years. Sounds like plenty of time to steal a genuine original to me.
Yeah, steal one. Where from?
You see, this moon stuff is either one thing or the other depending on circumstances. Either the moon rock is classed as a treasure or it's "ahh just grab a piece of rock, put it in your pocket."
Again, how do you know that the fake is what was actually presented? Were you there at the presentation? Did you personally examine the sample that Neil and Buzz handed over?
No, I wasn't there. I don't actually know the full ins' and outs' of it and as to how it all panned out. All I know is, they handed over some crap supposedly from the moon. All of it was lies and Buzz is part of it, along with the rest of those that made out they went into space or on the moon.
-
So, no g-force calculation then?
And why are you going on about a fake moon rock, whilst ignoring all the real ones, including ones in Holland:
The genuine Apollo 11 moon rock given to the Dutch is in the inventory of a different museum in the Netherlands, which is, in fact, one of the very few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known.
and Buzz Aldrin has nothing to do with it:
An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees' grandson speculates that his grandfather formed the mistaken impression that the "moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission. When Drees' "moon rock" was received by the Rijksmuseum in 1992, the museum phoned NASA to verify its provenance and was told over the phone, without seeing the piece, that it was "possible" it was a Moon rock.[4] USA Today says the discovery of a bogus "moon rock" at the Rijksmuseum should serve as a wake-up call for all the countries of the world and all the states of the United States that received the Apollo 11 and 17 lunar plaque displays from the Nixon administration to locate the displays and fully secure them.[
-
crabby: don't you think that Buzz and co would know what they were handing over?
They were the ones that supposedly picked this supposed moon rock up, remember - so I'm pretty sure they would have known that petrified wood wasn't moon rock, if they had really made the trip to moon.
The very fact that they didn't, but went along with the country hand out tour, they knew fine well that what they were handing over was anything but moon rock.
How do you know for sure that it wasn't a genuine moon rock that they handed over? Maybe the genuine moon rock was switched after Neil and Buzz handed it over.
Do you realise what you are saying here?
Let me just put it into context, under the assumption that the moon landing of 1969 was real, (cough).
Now think about this.
Can you imagine the Dutch accepting a lump of moon rock - a supposed unbelievably rare present that they would probably not ever get again, then deciding to change it -then tell the Americans that they gave them pertrified wood - with the Americans knowing they gave them real moon rock?
Seriously, you think the Dutch would attempt to incur the wrath of a country like that, especially one as big and mighty as the Americans, knowing that stuff like this could cause a war?
How about looking at a more plausible scenario.
How about Buzz and co going over there and handing the supposed moon rock over, knowing it was sealed inside a moulded clear resin type block and believing that the Dutch wouldn't know what it was because the Dutch have never been to the moon to verify anything, nor has anyone.
Buzz and co can be confident in handing it over - doing a few picture shoots and pissing off. Most probably, Buzz and co wouldn't have had a clue that it was petrified wood. Those dummies would have been delivering a piece of rock from some far off place, in their minds...but the far off place being a far off place on Earth.
I bet they crapped themselves when they found out they had also been duped into giving petrified wood out. But what can they do? They are already under the pressure, shame and duress of lying their arses off, so they have no option but to badly bluff it out, from then and for the rest of their lives.
I almost feel sorry for some of them. Armstrong for instance. That man clearly was carrying a massive burden and I bet he's wanted the world to swallow him up from day one when he was duped into the scheme.
Buzz Aldrin carried his shame for a while then sort of embraced the fact that he was up to his eyes in it all, he might as well front it out and take the plaudits, plus trimmings on offer.
That's my take on it. Whether that's absolutely correct or not I don't know. What I do know is, they did not go to the moon and I'm 100% sure of that - nor will anyone ever go there, because it's a fantasy place. A visual effect turned into something solid and real to those that are gullible enough to buy into it, which was about 99% of us at one time, including myself.
Time and the ability to think critically can change all of that.
If they came out tomorrow and said it was all faked, I'd just laugh. It means nothing to me as regards that. It would just be a welcome addage to life to be told a truth, because this world of lies we're living in is starting to stink badly.
You CAN'T be 100% sure, at this point, that we didn't go to the moon or that the earth is flat or whatever--you'd have to spend a lot of time and money to ascertain this and apparently you haven't, though you HAVE spent a lot of time simply debunking whatever is mainstream. Not that mainstream is necessarily all good, but it isn't necessarily all evil and deceptive, either. You've gone too far in your skepticism. I don't have the time or money to do what people have already done for me--that is, explore our planet, the moon and Mars, and space and I don't see why they'd all be lying. I'd easily stake my good name, even my life, on RE, moon travel, satellites and all that over whatever you're spouting, Scepti.
-
I haven't caluclated an acceleration to make a mistake. You lot did that and I'm still waiting for you to rectify it. If you can't or won't, fair enough. I'm patient enough to wait until one of you can, though.
More words, no math.
There's nothing to rectify. Does this mean you're using that as an excuse to weasel out of:
I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
You got nothing!
-
You CAN'T be 100% sure we didn't go to the moon or that the earth is flat or whatever, but I'd easily stake my good name, even my life, on RE, moon travel, satellites and all that over whatever you're spouting, Scepti.
Oh, I'm 100% sure no man has been to the moon. I can't say 100% that the Earth is flat, as in a flat disc, as I don't know and have never pushed the flat disc theory. That's other flat Earth theorists choice.
All I can do is guess at what the Earth is, just like everyone else can, because nobody actually knows the entire truth of it, simply because we do not have the capabilities of seeing it in it's entirety...unless of course you are willing to simply accept it's a ball just sitting in space, spinning around itself and a ball of fire, etc.
Let me tell you something. If someone stood in a room and said to you that they have proof of what the Earth is and are ready to show you, then asked you to make a choice as to what it is...and if you are wrong, you get shot to death, I'd hazard one exceptionally accurate guess that you would say, " I don't know what shape it is." Why?
Because you would fear it being wrong. All your confident stance would be turned into doubt on the basis of being shown the reality.
I know, I know, you are going to pipe up with, " no I wouldn't scpeti, I would say it was a globe." Don't bother because I won't accept that.
What you are spouting to me, may not be you pushing a lie to me. It's most probably you just naively accepting official lines, which is fair enough. I don't hold that aginst you or anyone else.
All I want is the truth. The only people capable of that, are those that push the mis-info.
-
I haven't caluclated an acceleration to make a mistake. You lot did that and I'm still waiting for you to rectify it. If you can't or won't, fair enough. I'm patient enough to wait until one of you can, though.
More words, no math.
There's nothing to rectify. Does this mean you're using that as an excuse to weasel out of:
I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
You got nothing!
Don't keep wasting your time writing this stuff. It seriously makes me smile. :)
-
Don't keep wasting your time writing this stuff. It seriously makes me smile. :)
It's interesting to see you dodge and weave.
More words, no math.
-
He's all mouth, no trousers.
-
You CAN'T be 100% sure we didn't go to the moon or that the earth is flat or whatever, but I'd easily stake my good name, even my life, on RE, moon travel, satellites and all that over whatever you're spouting, Scepti.
Oh, I'm 100% sure no man has been to the moon. I can say 100% that the Earth is flat, as in a flat disc, as I don't know and have never pushed the flat disc theory. That's other flat Earth theorists choice.
All I can do is guess at what the Earth is, just like everyone else can, because nobody actually knows the entire truth of it, simply because we do not have the capabilities of seeing it in it's entirety...unless of course you are willing to simply accept it's a ball just sitting in space, spinning around itself and a ball of fire, etc.
Let me tell you something. If someone stood in a room and said to you that they have proof of what the Earth is and are ready to show you, then asked you to make a choice as to what it is...and if you are wrong, you get shot to death, I'd hazard one exceptionally accurate guess that you would say, " I don't know what shape it is." Why?
Because you would fear it being wrong. All your confident stance would be turned into doubt on the basis of being shown the reality.
I know, I know, you are going to pipe up with, " no I wouldn't scpeti, I would say it was a globe." Don't bother because I won't accept that.
What you are spouting to me, may not be you pushing a lie to me. It's most probably you just naively accepting official lines, which is fair enough. I don't hold that aginst you or anyone else.
All I want is the truth. The only people capable of that, are those that push the mis-info.
Again, you AREN'T 100% sure no matter how much you think you are. And I WOULD choose RE/moon travel/Mars landings/space in general over FE if a gun were put to my head and I'd get shot if I were wrong. If you don't accept that I'd say it was a globe, why should I even consider what you're saying? We're obviously at an impasse and so it remains. Good luck with your ideas.
-
I haven't caluclated an acceleration to make a mistake. You lot did that and I'm still waiting for you to rectify it. If you can't or won't, fair enough. I'm patient enough to wait until one of you can, though.
You didn't? Then where did you get this figure of 5 miles per second per second if you didn't calculate anything? Did you just pull it out of thin air? Or are you just regurgitating figures that you heard from your fellow moon hoaxers?
a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
-
Here's where I think he got it: he converted 17,000 mi/hr to 4.72 mi/sec then, not knowing the relationship between velocity and acceleration, simply cast this as an acceleration, 4.72 mi/sec2 (implicitly dividing by 1 sec), and rounded to 5. Rounding up causes the calculated time to be slightly less than 1 second since you're dividing by the larger acceleration to get time from the given velocity and acceleration.
But you're probably right about simply lifting it from elsewhere. I doubt he has the math skillz to convert the velocity from per hour to per second. He certainly didn't bother to do a reality check on it.
-
Oh, I'm 100% sure no man has been to the moon. I can say 100% that the Earth is flat...
If that's truly the case, then you're more of a fool than I'd first imagined. End of story.
-
He's all mouth, no trousers.
And that's being generous of spirit LOL.
-
What I do know is, they did not go to the moon and I'm 100% sure of that - nor will anyone ever go there, because it's a fantasy place. A visual effect turned into something solid and real to those that are gullible enough to buy into it, which was about 99% of us at one time, including myself.
Time and the ability to think critically can change all of that.
:-*
Buzz and Armstrong were a great 5 ***** show!
Taught me to think critically.
-
What I do know is, they did not go to the moon and I'm 100% sure of that - nor will anyone ever go there, because it's a fantasy place. A visual effect turned into something solid and real to those that are gullible enough to buy into it, which was about 99% of us at one time, including myself.
Time and the ability to think critically can change all of that.
:-*
Buzz and Armstrong were a great 5 ***** show!
Taught me to think critically.
Eh, too factual for my tastes. :P
EDIT: Problems with quoting
-
I just got back after a few days in the forest and I upon reading this thread, I can honestly say this is the dumbest fucking thing scepti has ever tried.
If he is a genius, the only thing left for me is to await Morpheus waking me from my machine induced slumber.
-
Buzz and Armstrong were a great 5 ***** show!
Taught me to think critically.
In that case they did a truly crappy job LOL. Although, I'm getting the distinct impression that you're secretly envious of Aldrin's and Armstrong's legitimate Bachelors and Masters degrees as compared to your imaginary and non-existent ones.
From what I've seen of the veritable tsunami of bullshit on your farcical web pages, your powers of critical thinking struggle to match those of Bozo the clown. And I'm not trying to insult Bozo by saying that.
;D
-
Found a few more bullshiters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_name)
All this lot are sucked in as well.
-
Lance Armstrong is not happy with this thread. :(
-
Buzz and Armstrong were a great 5 ***** show!
Taught me to think critically.
In that case they did a truly crappy job LOL. Although, I'm getting the distinct impression that you're secretly envious of Aldrin's and Armstrong's legitimate Bachelors and Masters degrees as compared to your imaginary and non-existent ones.
From what I've seen of the veritable tsunami of bullshit on your farcical web pages, your powers of critical thinking struggle to match those of Bozo the clown. And I'm not trying to insult Bozo by saying that.
;D
Thanks for mentioning my popular, serious web pages about, i.a. pseudo science in space, in the military and in various accident investigations. It is quite easy to fool people, especially Australians down under seeing everything upside down. You find my impressive cv at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm (http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm) .
-
Thanks for mentioning my popular, serious web pages about, i.a. pseudo science in space, in the military and in various accident investigations.
No problems Anders. :)
The more people of true intellect who read through your numerous pages of amateur science-fiction the better it is as far as I'm concerned.
Your intellectual shortcomings are apparently still blinding you to the fact that your pages get so many views simply because people just can't believe that somebody can write so much absolute bullshit and keep a straight face. They're laughing at you.
One of the first giveaways that your site is not serious is the sheer number of exclamation marks (!) you use, plus all the large, bolded and brightly coloured fonts LOL. All script kiddies make that mistake, and it shows with your unprofessional pages.
You need to try a lot harder with your next favourite manufactured conspiracy site my friend, or the interwebs will continue to treat you with the derision you deserve.
—Think about it.
-
Thanks for mentioning my popular, serious web pages about, i.a. pseudo science in space, in the military and in various accident investigations.
No problems Anders. :)
The more people of true intellect who read through your numerous pages of amateur science-fiction the better it is as far as I'm concerned.
Your intellectual shortcomings are apparently still blinding you to the fact that your pages get so many views simply because people just can't believe that somebody can write so much absolute bullshit and keep a straight face. They're laughing at you.
One of the first giveaways that your site is not serious is the sheer number of exclamation marks (!) you use, plus all the large, bolded and brightly coloured fonts LOL. All script kiddies make that mistake, and it shows with your unprofessional pages.
You need to try a lot harder with your next favourite manufactured conspiracy site my friend, or the interwebs will continue to treat you with the derision you deserve.
—Think about it.
Thanks!!!!!! As the Earth, flat or not, is upside down at your place (???????), it seems what is left in your empty head is in the wrong location (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), so you can at least wake up, switch on your PC, etc. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The button in the middle!!!!?!!! Do not forget to take a shower, brush your teeth, put on your underwear (the clean one ... not the one used the past three monthes), clean your nose and have a good day.
I feel sorry for your neighbors.
-
Thanks!!!!!! As the Earth, flat or not, is upside down at your place (???????), it seems what is left in your empty head is in the wrong location (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), so you can at least wake up, switch on your PC, etc. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The button in the middle!!!!?!!! Do not forget to take a shower, brush your teeth, put on your underwear (the clean one ... not the one used the past three monthes), clean your nose and have a good day.
I feel sorry for your neighbors.
It never ceases to amuse me that when someone with more than dubious scientific "qualifications" is backed into a corner without any answers, they invariably fall back to the good ol' tried and trusted ad hominem. Well done Anders!
I have to say though the above comments look as though they were written by an 8-year-old LOL. I don't mind being on the receiving end of well-crafted, clever put-downs—they're actually often quite funny—but poor old Anders just ain't capable of anything like that.
At least this type of dross is indicative of the sort of "standards" of his web pages—that is, pretty childish, so it'll save a lot of people wasting their time trawling through his Loony Tunes notions.
I'm also glad to see that I've touched a raw nerve in this guy's tiny brain though; he's taken a lot of time to respond to my ongoing comments about him, whereas most people would've just ignored me.
-
(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
-
macrohard, that is considered low content posting in the upper fora. Please refrain from doing that. Thanks.
-
I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
Any progress on solving a = v/t with v = 17,000 mi/hr and t = 8 minutes and getting 5 mi/sec2 yet?
For that matter, getting anything other than about 1.6g would be interesting enough.
-
I will provide you with calculations and explanations starting from the ground up. The whole lot, in time.
Any progress on solving a = v/t with v = 17,000 mi/hr and t = 8 minutes and getting 5 mi/sec2 yet?
For that matter, getting anything other than about 1.6g would be interesting enough.
Yeah, I have all of the calculations. It makes hilarious reading. I'll be sure to put them out once you lot have done your homework on it. I'll mark you all on how well you do in getting right what you have blatantly done wrong. Don't argue this point, just put up the right calculations for the acceleration to 17,000 mph from a standing start, up to 8 minutes flight.
Oh and I'll just kick a little clue into this as well, as I'm feeling a little generous.
The clue is working out how many miles it is to get into orbit for your shuttle in the 8 minutes we are told it takes.
Good luck. ;D
-
Thanks for the clue. The answer is: You don't know what you are talking about.
-
The clue is working out how many miles it is to get into orbit for your shuttle in the 8 minutes we are told it takes.
What difference does the distance make? ???
-
More stalling. No math. No surprise.
Yeah, I have all of the calculations. It makes hilarious reading. I'll be sure to put them out once you lot have done your homework on it. I'll mark you all on how well you do in getting right what you have blatantly done wrong. Don't argue this point, just put up the right calculations for the acceleration to 17,000 mph from a standing start, up to 8 minutes flight.
Oh and I'll just kick a little clue into this as well, as I'm feeling a little generous.
The clue is working out how many miles it is to get into orbit for your shuttle in the 8 minutes we are told it takes.
Good luck. ;D
Let's see if we can parse the sceptalk* and see if sceptimatic might have actually said anything here.
I'll be sure to put them out once you lot have done your homework on it. I'll mark you all on how well you do in getting right what you have blatantly done wrong.
You seem to be weaseling here. What does "I'll mark you" mean? Does it mean you'll actually tell us where you think a mistake is, acknowledge to us if you find none, or just reply with something like "nope, wrong!" regardless if it's correct or not.
Don't argue this point
Weasel words.
just put up the right calculations for the acceleration to 17,000 mph from a standing start, up to 8 minutes flight.
Emphasis added.
Already been done. You've seen the formula used and the answer. We're supposed to jump through hoops again and you'll laugh because we do what you ask?
The "gotcha", of course, is the word "right". Are you the one who decides what's "right", whether it really is or not? Sounds like an excuse.
The clue is working out how many miles it is to get into orbit for your shuttle in the 8 minutes we are told it takes."
If you think the distance traveled is needed to calculate acceleration given delta-v and t, then we're don't have a clue how you think this should be done. We admit it. So show us.
Yeah, I have all of the calculations. It makes hilarious reading.
I'll bet!
* "It means what sceptimatic thinks it means, not necessarily what it says."
-
Like I said. Don't keep arguing it, it's pointless. Do the calculations and get back to me. I'm patient.
-
They've been done. You just look like you are stalling. If you had a reputation to protect, this would matter.
-
Like I said. Don't keep arguing it, it's pointless. Do the calculations and get back to me. I'm patient.
We've already done the calculations. You haven't or you'd be showing them.
You're right about it being pointless in one sense; you'll never show them because it would be an admission that you're all talk. However, you're hoping everyone will just forget that, so maybe reminding you every now and then will help others remember the kind of things you claim but can't back up, and that your promises mean nothing. That's something at least.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
You're still wrong.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
Please provide your calculations.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
Just in case you are curious Scepti the 35.4 mph/sec answer is the same as 0.001 miles/s2 answer I gave a few pages ago.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
if you have something to say you should just say it. This is not a film noire and you are not a femme fatale.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
And how does it not work out?
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
if you have something to say you should just say it. This is not a film noire and you are not a femme fatale.
I've already shown you how your calculations are wrong. You've just worked it out for yourself as to why they are wrong, so I'll wait and see if you or anyone else can crunch the numbers to make it look more realistic. If you can't - fair enough.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
And how does it not work out?
I'm sure you can see why it doesn't.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
And how does it not work out?
I'm sure you can see why it doesn't.
Where are your calculations?
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
And how does it not work out?
I'm sure you can see why it doesn't.
Where are your calculations?
Where are your calculations?
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
And how does it not work out?
I'm sure you can see why it doesn't.
Where are your calculations?
Where are your calculations?
You are the one saying that what is posted is wrong. Show how it is wrong.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
And how does it not work out?
I'm sure you can see why it doesn't.
Where are your calculations?
Where are your calculations?
You are the one saying that what is posted is wrong. Show how it is wrong.
It should be blatantly obvious as to why it's wrong. Just get on with your working out and come back when the penny drops.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
And how does it not work out?
I'm sure you can see why it doesn't.
Where are your calculations?
Where are your calculations?
You are the one saying that what is posted is wrong. Show how it is wrong.
It should be blatantly obvious as to why it's wrong. Just get on with your working out and come back when the penny drops.
Nope, this is not how things work. Someone presents something to you, you say it is wrong, you need to show how it is wrong. The penny has dropped.
-
480 seconds in 8 minutes. 35.4 mph/sec=17000 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragstrip#Typical_quarter_mile_times)
Dead easy.
Can you go through this very carefully and explain what you are saying. Also can you tell me how many miles up into the atmosphere you would be by going along with your calculations.
The distance travelled over the 8 minutes would be approximately 1,130 miles. You are a genius with an Internet connection, surely you know how these numbers were derived.
It doesn't quite work out, does it.
if you have something to say you should just say it. This is not a film noire and you are not a femme fatale.
I've already shown you how your calculations are wrong. You've just worked it out for yourself as to why they are wrong, so I'll wait and see if you or anyone else can crunch the numbers to make it look more realistic. If you can't - fair enough.
I don't try and make the numbers look like anything. If you can't accept how this works then that is your problem. Please get back to us when you are ready for a real conversation instead of feeding your ego.
-
It should be blatantly obvious as to why it's wrong. Just get on with your working out and come back when the penny drops.
You are getting very boring covering for your howling error - do you really think anyone at all is buying your bullshit about having found a mistake in the calculations?
Lets go through it from top to bottom. Initially you claimed for the shuttle to go from 0 to 17,000 mph it would have to accelerate at 5 miles/s/s which would, of course debunk the shuttle take off as the crew would experience 800g and be squashed flat. This was shown to be bollocks, and the real figure is:
to go from 0 to 17,000 mph over 8 mins means they accelerate at 15.8 metres/s/s.
This means that for every second they are traveling 15.8 m/s faster. So after 1s they are going 15.8 m/s, after 2 seconds they are going 31.6 m/s and after 3 seconds they are going 47.4 m/s and so on...
To calculate g-force:
1 g = 9.8 m/s/s
therefore
15.8 / 9.8 = 1.61
So the average g-force going from 0 to 17,000 mph in 8 mins is 1.61g.
Now you seem to be claiming there is a problem with the distance traveled during that 8mins, so lets do the calculation:
To calculate the distance traveled for that acceleration over that time we use this equation:
x = v0t + ½at2
Where:
x = displacement
v0 = initial velocity
a = acceleration (m/s/s)
t = time (seconds)
To plug the figures in:
x = 0 + (½ * 15.8 * 4802)
= 1820160 metres
to get this in miles
18201060 / 1600 = 1137 miles
There's an online calculator (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php) if you want to try it out for yourself.
Now you should really admit your error, though I suppose you could also shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself.
-
I bet on neither happening.
-
I'm now waiting for a revised set of calculations from sceptimatic, but I'm guessing that's less likely than me winning the $50 million OZ lottery. ;D
So sceptimatic, it's now time to post your calculations, as Jimmy has done with his.
And I should warn you that if you fail to do this, then you've effectively destroyed completely any of your own argument. It's now time—as they say—to put you money where your mouth is.
-
It should be blatantly obvious as to why it's wrong. Just get on with your working out and come back when the penny drops.
You are getting very boring covering for your howling error - do you really think anyone at all is buying your bullshit about having found a mistake in the calculations?
Lets go through it from top to bottom. Initially you claimed for the shuttle to go from 0 to 17,000 mph it would have to accelerate at 5 miles/s/s which would, of course debunk the shuttle take off as the crew would experience 800g and be squashed flat. This was shown to be bollocks, and the real figure is:
to go from 0 to 17,000 mph over 8 mins means they accelerate at 15.8 metres/s/s.
This means that for every second they are traveling 15.8 m/s faster. So after 1s they are going 15.8 m/s, after 2 seconds they are going 31.6 m/s and after 3 seconds they are going 47.4 m/s and so on...
To calculate g-force:
1 g = 9.8 m/s/s
therefore
15.8 / 9.8 = 1.61
So the average g-force going from 0 to 17,000 mph in 8 mins is 1.61g.
Now you seem to be claiming there is a problem with the distance traveled during that 8mins, so lets do the calculation:
To calculate the distance traveled for that acceleration over that time we use this equation:
x = v0t + ½at2
Where:
x = displacement
v0 = initial velocity
a = acceleration (m/s/s)
t = time (seconds)
To plug the figures in:
x = 0 + (½ * 15.8 * 4802)
= 1820160 metres
to get this in miles
18201060 / 1600 = 1137 miles
There's an online calculator (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php) if you want to try it out for yourself.
Now you should really admit your error, though I suppose you could also shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself.
You're getting there, you just can't seem to get it into your head that the shuttle does not end up 1137 miles into space after 8 minutes, so let me try and prompt you again.
Work out what the continued acceleration should be for the shuttle to attain 17,000 mph to leave Earth atmosphere in 8 minutes.
Just remember that leaving Earth's atmosphere is not attaining the height of 1137 mph.
Ok, over to you to start working out your revised acceleration.
Also, if you feel like you can; maybe you can also tell me how a shuttle can accelerate more and more, vertically after using full thrust on take off.
-
I'm now waiting for a revised set of calculations from sceptimatic, but I'm guessing that's less likely than me winning the $50 million OZ lottery. ;D
So sceptimatic, it's now time to post your calculations, as Jimmy has done with his.
And I should warn you that if you fail to do this, then you've effectively destroyed completely any of your own argument. It's now time—as they say—to put you money where your mouth is.
You appear to know everything, Geoffrey; maybe you can actually come up with a real answer for this conundrum.
-
I'm now waiting for a revised set of calculations from sceptimatic, but I'm guessing that's less likely than me winning the $50 million OZ lottery. ;D
So sceptimatic, it's now time to post your calculations, as Jimmy has done with his.
And I should warn you that if you fail to do this, then you've effectively destroyed completely any of your own argument. It's now time—as they say—to put you money where your mouth is.
You appear to know everything, Geoffrey; maybe you can actually come up with a real answer for this conundrum.
You seem to find it difficult to post your calculations...
-
I'm now waiting for a revised set of calculations from sceptimatic, but I'm guessing that's less likely than me winning the $50 million OZ lottery. ;D
So sceptimatic, it's now time to post your calculations, as Jimmy has done with his.
And I should warn you that if you fail to do this, then you've effectively destroyed completely any of your own argument. It's now time—as they say—to put you money where your mouth is.
You appear to know everything, Geoffrey; maybe you can actually come up with a real answer for this conundrum.
You seem to find it difficult to post your calculations...
No: I find it quite easy not to, because I like to see you put some effort into real calculations; one's that actually marry up and make sense. You have provided nothing at all.
I think you've mentioned satellite dish angles in about half of your overall posts.
Think yourself lucky that I actually give you some of my time, because a genius like me requires real time answers, not fantasy answers, given out as fact.
You know how I work. I like people to explain things that a kid can grasp, because that way, those looking in can see for themselves how silly some of the global Earth shenanigans are, instead of looking at a bunch of silly numbers concocted to turn fantasy into so called reality.
I don't boast about my superiority over you and Geoffrey, etc, do I? The reason I don't is because I like to see people learn that brainwashing is a real thing and to allow them to express their thoughts, after stern resistance.
I'll never use my genius as a put down, it's just not my way. I am your friend not your enemy.
Now do the calculations and stop going on about me not spoon feeding you.
-
You seem to find it difficult to post your calculations...
Uh... sceptimatic can't post something that does not exist in the real world. ;D
We've called his bluff. Again.
-
I'm now waiting for a revised set of calculations from sceptimatic, but I'm guessing that's less likely than me winning the $50 million OZ lottery. ;D
So sceptimatic, it's now time to post your calculations, as Jimmy has done with his.
And I should warn you that if you fail to do this, then you've effectively destroyed completely any of your own argument. It's now time—as they say—to put you money where your mouth is.
You appear to know everything, Geoffrey; maybe you can actually come up with a real answer for this conundrum.
You seem to find it difficult to post your calculations...
No: I find it quite easy not to, because I like to see you put some effort into real calculations; one's that actually marry up and make sense. You have provided nothing at all.
I think you've mentioned satellite dish angles in about half of your overall posts.
Think yourself lucky that I actually give you some of my time, because a genius like me requires real time answers, not fantasy answers, given out as fact.
You know how I work. I like people to explain things that a kid can grasp, because that way, those looking in can see for themselves how silly some of the global Earth shenanigans are, instead of looking at a bunch of silly numbers concocted to turn fantasy into so called reality.
I don't boast about my superiority over you and Geoffrey, etc, do I? The reason I don't is because I like to see people learn that brainwashing is a real thing and to allow them to express their thoughts, after stern resistance.
I'll never use my genius as a put down, it's just not my way. I am your friend not your enemy.
Now do the calculations and stop going on about me not spoon feeding you.
How about you provide some answers to prove your theories.
-
It should be blatantly obvious as to why it's wrong. Just get on with your working out and come back when the penny drops.
You are getting very boring covering for your howling error - do you really think anyone at all is buying your bullshit about having found a mistake in the calculations?
Lets go through it from top to bottom. Initially you claimed for the shuttle to go from 0 to 17,000 mph it would have to accelerate at 5 miles/s/s which would, of course debunk the shuttle take off as the crew would experience 800g and be squashed flat. This was shown to be bollocks, and the real figure is:
to go from 0 to 17,000 mph over 8 mins means they accelerate at 15.8 metres/s/s.
This means that for every second they are traveling 15.8 m/s faster. So after 1s they are going 15.8 m/s, after 2 seconds they are going 31.6 m/s and after 3 seconds they are going 47.4 m/s and so on...
To calculate g-force:
1 g = 9.8 m/s/s
therefore
15.8 / 9.8 = 1.61
So the average g-force going from 0 to 17,000 mph in 8 mins is 1.61g.
Now you seem to be claiming there is a problem with the distance traveled during that 8mins, so lets do the calculation:
To calculate the distance traveled for that acceleration over that time we use this equation:
x = v0t + ½at2
Where:
x = displacement
v0 = initial velocity
a = acceleration (m/s/s)
t = time (seconds)
To plug the figures in:
x = 0 + (½ * 15.8 * 4802)
= 1820160 metres
to get this in miles
18201060 / 1600 = 1137 miles
There's an online calculator (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php) if you want to try it out for yourself.
Now you should really admit your error, though I suppose you could also shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself.
You're getting there, you just can't seem to get it into your head that the shuttle does not end up 1137 miles into space after 8 minutes, so let me try and prompt you again.
Work out what the continued acceleration should be for the shuttle to attain 17,000 mph to leave Earth atmosphere in 8 minutes.
Just remember that leaving Earth's atmosphere is not attaining the height of 1137 mph.
Ok, over to you to start working out your revised acceleration.
Also, if you feel like you can; maybe you can also tell me how a shuttle can accelerate more and more, vertically after using full thrust on take off.
Doesn't matter where the shuttle is, in the atmosphere or in space. The acceleration would be calculated the same.
Have think will you Scepti. He said the distance travelled would be 1137 miles not that it would be 1137 miles in space.
Also, maybe you can tell me how your car can accelerate more and more after mashing the gas pedal fully at a green light.
So are you going to finally put up some numbers to refute what has been presented or just stand on your soap box and proclaim that they are wrong?
-
You appear to know everything, Geoffrey; maybe you can actually come up with a real answer for this conundrum.
There is no "conundrum" sceptimatic. This is not a confusing and difficult problem or question to answer.
You claim to have a set of calculations that contradict the accepted scientific ones. Without posting them, you're simply confirming our suspicions that you're lying, and don't in fact have any of your own calcification at all.
So... prove us wrong.
-
I'm now waiting for a revised set of calculations from sceptimatic, but I'm guessing that's less likely than me winning the $50 million OZ lottery. ;D
So sceptimatic, it's now time to post your calculations, as Jimmy has done with his.
And I should warn you that if you fail to do this, then you've effectively destroyed completely any of your own argument. It's now time—as they say—to put you money where your mouth is.
You appear to know everything, Geoffrey; maybe you can actually come up with a real answer for this conundrum.
You seem to find it difficult to post your calculations...
No: I find it quite easy not to, because I like to see you put some effort into real calculations; one's that actually marry up and make sense. You have provided nothing at all.
I think you've mentioned satellite dish angles in about half of your overall posts.
Think yourself lucky that I actually give you some of my time, because a genius like me requires real time answers, not fantasy answers, given out as fact.
You know how I work. I like people to explain things that a kid can grasp, because that way, those looking in can see for themselves how silly some of the global Earth shenanigans are, instead of looking at a bunch of silly numbers concocted to turn fantasy into so called reality.
I don't boast about my superiority over you and Geoffrey, etc, do I? The reason I don't is because I like to see people learn that brainwashing is a real thing and to allow them to express their thoughts, after stern resistance.
I'll never use my genius as a put down, it's just not my way. I am your friend not your enemy.
Now do the calculations and stop going on about me not spoon feeding you.
Gotta love the irony that you are boasting about your genius while you are saying that you don't. ::)
So why don't you use you genius brain and show us where the calculations provided are wrong?
-
Septic the genius who doesn't brag about it. You must be joking. Get your tank pumped your overflowing.
-
And still no calculations from our self-professed genius [sic].....
;D
-
Doesn't matter where the shuttle is, in the atmosphere or in space. The acceleration would be calculated the same.
8 minutes to get out of the atmosphere into space at a speed of 17,000 mph, means it travels 1137 miles...something is wrong, see if you can figure out what.
Have think will you Scepti. He said the distance travelled would be 1137 miles not that it would be 1137 miles in space.
I never said it would be 1137 miles into space, I'm asking where the 1137 miles comes from after acceleration for 8 minutes which just gets it into so called space. Think about it.
Also, maybe you can tell me how your car can accelerate more and more after mashing the gas pedal fully at a green light.
Like you said, you're mashing the gas pedal, also horizontally. In your rocket, you are going vertically.
So are you going to finally put up some numbers to refute what has been presented or just stand on your soap box and proclaim that they are wrong?
I've already destroyed it.
-
Doesn't matter where the shuttle is, in the atmosphere or in space. The acceleration would be calculated the same.
8 minutes to get out of the atmosphere into space at a speed of 17,000 mph, means it travels 1137 miles...something is wrong, see if you can figure out what.
Have think will you Scepti. He said the distance travelled would be 1137 miles not that it would be 1137 miles in space.
I never said it would be 1137 miles into space, I'm asking where the 1137 miles comes from after acceleration for 8 minutes which just gets it into so called space. Think about it.
Also, maybe you can tell me how your car can accelerate more and more after mashing the gas pedal fully at a green light.
Like you said, you're mashing the gas pedal, also horizontally. In your rocket, you are going vertically.
So are you going to finally put up some numbers to refute what has been presented or just stand on your soap box and proclaim that they are wrong?
I've already destroyed it.
Please provide your numbers.
-
And still no calculations from our self-professed genius [sic]..... ;D
Wonder why?
-
I never said it would be 1137 miles into space, I'm asking where the 1137 miles comes from after acceleration for 8 minutes which just gets it into so called space. Think about it.
Sceoti, do you understand that there is a difference between getting into space and getting into orbit? It takes the shuttle about 8 minutes to get into orbit. It gets into space (100km high) somewhat earlier than that.
-
I never said it would be 1137 miles into space, I'm asking where the 1137 miles comes from after acceleration for 8 minutes which just gets it into so called space. Think about it.
Sceoti, do you understand that there is a difference between getting into space and getting into orbit? It takes the shuttle about 8 minutes to get into orbit. It gets into space (100km high) somewhat earlier than that.
We are talking about orbit.
-
8 minutes to get out of the atmosphere into space at a speed of 17,000 mph, means it travels 1137 miles...something is wrong, see if you can figure out what.
I get 1133.33... miles; the difference is probably due to rounding in one of the steps BJ1234 took.
I doubt that's what sceptimatic is fussing about, though. He probably thinks it should be twice that. Rookie error.
-
I never said it would be 1137 miles into space, I'm asking where the 1137 miles comes from after acceleration for 8 minutes which just gets it into so called space. Think about it.
Sceoti, do you understand that there is a difference between getting into space and getting into orbit? It takes the shuttle about 8 minutes to get into orbit. It gets into space (100km high) somewhat earlier than that.
We are talking about orbit.
Then what is your objection to taking 8 minutes and 1137 miles to go from 0 a to 17,000 mph, 200 or so mile high orbit?
-
Scepti, do you understand that there is a difference between getting into space and getting into orbit?
I can easily answer that for him... no, he doesn't. Although he's a "genius" and "research scientist" with thirteen academic qualifications, he has virtually no understanding of astrophysics or aeronautics.
Presumably his "qualifications" are in knitting, pottery, stamp collecting, dried flower arrangements..... plus another nine of some similar ilk.
-
Anyway - NASA is announcing a new manned space ship - Orion at http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/index.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/index.html) . It is evidently just a another joke as it is not possible to return to Earth after a trip through the van Allen belt. It will take off in December 2014!
-
It is evidently just a another joke as it is not possible to return to Earth after a trip through the van Allen belt.
All evidence to the contrary. But thanks for your insightful opinion, fortunately they mean nothing.
-
All evidence to the contrary. But thanks for your insightful opinion, fortunately they mean nothing.
What evidence is you referring to? My evidence is at #57 on page 3 of this popular thread. The 2014 Orion space ship can only make a big loop around Earth crossing the van Allen Belt twice and then come back again proving what? Buzz did it 45 years ago 1969, if you believe him. Why redo old trips? But let's face it - you cannot brake on return doing the re-entry. It will be like jumping into a BBQ. You'll go up in smoke.
-
** Correct Calculations***
There's an online calculator (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php) if you want to try it out for yourself.
Now you should really admit your error, though I suppose you could also shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself.
You're getting there, you just can't seem to get it into your head that the shuttle does not end up 1137 miles into space after 8 minutes
I never claimed the shuttle would "end up 1137 miles into space". The 1137 miles is the total displacement during the 8 minute burn. ::)
Only an idiot would think it is accelerating vertically for the 8 mins - how would it insert itself into orbit? After the initial blast off it starts to level out - it is inserting itself into low earth orbit at 17,000mph (the speed required to stop it crashing down to earth) - not travelling into outer space.
Just remember that leaving Earth's atmosphere is not attaining the height of 1137 mph.
You really don't get this stuff, do you?
Ok, over to you to start working out your revised acceleration.
Nope.
Also, if you feel like you can; maybe you can also tell me how a shuttle can accelerate more and more, vertically after using full thrust on take off.
Why shouldn't it? And as I say, it isn't going straight up.
Are you still claiming it accelerates at 5 miles/s/s?
-
** Correct Calculations***
There's an online calculator (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php) if you want to try it out for yourself.
Now you should really admit your error, though I suppose you could also shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself.
You're getting there, you just can't seem to get it into your head that the shuttle does not end up 1137 miles into space after 8 minutes
I never claimed the shuttle would "end up 1137 miles into space". The 1137 miles is the total displacement during the 8 minute burn. ::)
Only an idiot would think it is accelerating vertically for the 8 mins - how would it insert itself into orbit? After the initial blast off it starts to level out - it is inserting itself into low earth orbit at 17,000mph (the speed required to stop it crashing down to earth) - not travelling into outer space.
Just remember that leaving Earth's atmosphere is not attaining the height of 1137 mph.
You really don't get this stuff, do you?
Ok, over to you to start working out your revised acceleration.
Nope.
Also, if you feel like you can; maybe you can also tell me how a shuttle can accelerate more and more, vertically after using full thrust on take off.
Why shouldn't it? And as I say, it isn't going straight up.
Are you still claiming it accelerates at 5 miles/s/s?
Can't you get your head around the fact that the very second a shuttle arced in the sky, it's not going into space?
It's impossible to get into space, out of Earth's atmosphere (assuming we take space as real) if a rocket or shuttle, etc, arcs. It's impossible for reasons that you should be well aware of and if you're not, I'll put you right.
-
Please give the reasons.
-
** Correct Calculations***
There's an online calculator (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php) if you want to try it out for yourself.
Now you should really admit your error, though I suppose you could also shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself.
You're getting there, you just can't seem to get it into your head that the shuttle does not end up 1137 miles into space after 8 minutes
I never claimed the shuttle would "end up 1137 miles into space". The 1137 miles is the total displacement during the 8 minute burn. ::)
Only an idiot would think it is accelerating vertically for the 8 mins - how would it insert itself into orbit? After the initial blast off it starts to level out - it is inserting itself into low earth orbit at 17,000mph (the speed required to stop it crashing down to earth) - not travelling into outer space.
Just remember that leaving Earth's atmosphere is not attaining the height of 1137 mph.
You really don't get this stuff, do you?
Ok, over to you to start working out your revised acceleration.
Nope.
Also, if you feel like you can; maybe you can also tell me how a shuttle can accelerate more and more, vertically after using full thrust on take off.
Why shouldn't it? And as I say, it isn't going straight up.
Are you still claiming it accelerates at 5 miles/s/s?
Can't you get your head around the fact that the very second a shuttle arced in the sky, it's not going into space?
It's impossible to get into space, out of Earth's atmosphere (assuming we take space as real) if a rocket or shuttle, etc, arcs. It's impossible for reasons that you should be well aware of and if you're not, I'll put you right.
Go on then, put me right. ::)
-
** Correct Calculations***
There's an online calculator (http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php) if you want to try it out for yourself.
Now you should really admit your error, though I suppose you could also shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself.
You're getting there, you just can't seem to get it into your head that the shuttle does not end up 1137 miles into space after 8 minutes
I never claimed the shuttle would "end up 1137 miles into space". The 1137 miles is the total displacement during the 8 minute burn. ::)
Only an idiot would think it is accelerating vertically for the 8 mins - how would it insert itself into orbit? After the initial blast off it starts to level out - it is inserting itself into low earth orbit at 17,000mph (the speed required to stop it crashing down to earth) - not travelling into outer space.
Just remember that leaving Earth's atmosphere is not attaining the height of 1137 mph.
You really don't get this stuff, do you?
Ok, over to you to start working out your revised acceleration.
Nope.
Also, if you feel like you can; maybe you can also tell me how a shuttle can accelerate more and more, vertically after using full thrust on take off.
Why shouldn't it? And as I say, it isn't going straight up.
Are you still claiming it accelerates at 5 miles/s/s?
Can't you get your head around the fact that the very second a shuttle arced in the sky, it's not going into space?
It's impossible to get into space, out of Earth's atmosphere (assuming we take space as real) if a rocket or shuttle, etc, arcs. It's impossible for reasons that you should be well aware of and if you're not, I'll put you right.
Go on then, put me right. ::)
I will as soon as you put up a video of the shuttle arcing not long after lift off. Then I will put you right and show you why this space stuff is absolute garbage.
-
No, it's your turn - stop desperately stalling.
Show me where the calculations were wrong.
-
Oh, and here is a video showing exactly that:
(http://)
-
Oh, and here is a video showing exactly that:
(http://)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Your global Earth has a atmosphere that circles it, right?
This atmosphere ends about 100km up, called the Karman line, right?
This is what we are told, isn't it?
But we also are told that the atmosphere still circles the Earth much higher than this in terms of an orbit.
Anyway, let's concentrate on the shuttle arcing only seconds after lift off. Tell me how it gets into space after such an early arc after lift off?
An arc can only cause the shuttle to follow Earth's supposed curvature and back down into the drink or whatever. How can this slip into space on an arc?
Dip your hand into your top hat and see what you can pull out.
-
No, I'm bored of your dumb-ass questions and silly game playing. Use google if you want to actually find out.
You are still just stalling so you don't have to put your own calculations, as you promised.
-
No, I'm bored of your dumb-ass questions and silly game playing. Use google if you want to actually find out.
You are still just stalling so you don't have to put your own calculations, as you promised.
No problem Crabby, I'll take that as you being done. Nice chatting with you. ;D
-
Oh, and here is a video showing exactly that:
(http://)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Your global Earth has a atmosphere that circles it, right?
This atmosphere ends about 100km up, called the Karman line, right?
This is what we are told, isn't it?
But we also are told that the atmosphere still circles the Earth much higher than this in terms of an orbit.
Anyway, let's concentrate on the shuttle arcing only seconds after lift off. Tell me how it gets into space after such an early arc after lift off?
An arc can only cause the shuttle to follow Earth's supposed curvature and back down into the drink or whatever. How can this slip into space on an arc?
Dip your hand into your top hat and see what you can pull out.
What if (gotta use the what so Scepti doesn't get confused) you are standing on the circumference of a large circle and started walking perpendicular to its tangent line. As you are walking, you start to turn. Then by the time you are two feet away from the original circle, you meet up with another circle enclosing the first circle. What is preventing you from matching your turning so that it smoothly matches the circumference of the second circle?
-
Oh, and here is a video showing exactly that:
(http://)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Your global Earth has a atmosphere that circles it, right?
This atmosphere ends about 100km up, called the Karman line, right?
This is what we are told, isn't it?
But we also are told that the atmosphere still circles the Earth much higher than this in terms of an orbit.
Anyway, let's concentrate on the shuttle arcing only seconds after lift off. Tell me how it gets into space after such an early arc after lift off?
An arc can only cause the shuttle to follow Earth's supposed curvature and back down into the drink or whatever. How can this slip into space on an arc?
Dip your hand into your top hat and see what you can pull out.
What if (gotta use the what so Scepti doesn't get confused) you are standing on the circumference of a large circle and started walking perpendicular to its tangent line. As you are walking, you start to turn. Then by the time you are two feet away from the original circle, you meet up with another circle enclosing the first circle. What is preventing you from matching your turning so that it smoothly matches the circumference of the second circle?
Nothing - but then again, I would be walking over to it and marrying it up.
Now if you can explain how a craft can do that in supposed space, then tell me.
-
Oh, and here is a video showing exactly that:
(http://)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Your global Earth has a atmosphere that circles it, right?
This atmosphere ends about 100km up, called the Karman line, right?
This is what we are told, isn't it?
But we also are told that the atmosphere still circles the Earth much higher than this in terms of an orbit.
Anyway, let's concentrate on the shuttle arcing only seconds after lift off. Tell me how it gets into space after such an early arc after lift off?
An arc can only cause the shuttle to follow Earth's supposed curvature and back down into the drink or whatever. How can this slip into space on an arc?
Dip your hand into your top hat and see what you can pull out.
What if (gotta use the what so Scepti doesn't get confused) you are standing on the circumference of a large circle and started walking perpendicular to its tangent line. As you are walking, you start to turn. Then by the time you are two feet away from the original circle, you meet up with another circle enclosing the first circle. What is preventing you from matching your turning so that it smoothly matches the circumference of the second circle?
Nothing - but then again, I would be walking over to it and marrying it up.
Now if you can explain how a craft can do that in supposed space, then tell me.
Space Shuttle Basics - http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html)
Of course you could have looked this up...
-
Oh, and here is a video showing exactly that:
(http://)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Your global Earth has a atmosphere that circles it, right?
This atmosphere ends about 100km up, called the Karman line, right?
This is what we are told, isn't it?
But we also are told that the atmosphere still circles the Earth much higher than this in terms of an orbit.
Anyway, let's concentrate on the shuttle arcing only seconds after lift off. Tell me how it gets into space after such an early arc after lift off?
An arc can only cause the shuttle to follow Earth's supposed curvature and back down into the drink or whatever. How can this slip into space on an arc?
Dip your hand into your top hat and see what you can pull out.
What if (gotta use the what so Scepti doesn't get confused) you are standing on the circumference of a large circle and started walking perpendicular to its tangent line. As you are walking, you start to turn. Then by the time you are two feet away from the original circle, you meet up with another circle enclosing the first circle. What is preventing you from matching your turning so that it smoothly matches the circumference of the second circle?
Nothing - but then again, I would be walking over to it and marrying it up.
Now if you can explain how a craft can do that in supposed space, then tell me.
Space Shuttle Basics - http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html)
Of course you could have looked this up...
What's that supposed to provide?
-
Oh, and here is a video showing exactly that:
(http://)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Your global Earth has a atmosphere that circles it, right?
This atmosphere ends about 100km up, called the Karman line, right?
This is what we are told, isn't it?
But we also are told that the atmosphere still circles the Earth much higher than this in terms of an orbit.
Anyway, let's concentrate on the shuttle arcing only seconds after lift off. Tell me how it gets into space after such an early arc after lift off?
An arc can only cause the shuttle to follow Earth's supposed curvature and back down into the drink or whatever. How can this slip into space on an arc?
Dip your hand into your top hat and see what you can pull out.
What if (gotta use the what so Scepti doesn't get confused) you are standing on the circumference of a large circle and started walking perpendicular to its tangent line. As you are walking, you start to turn. Then by the time you are two feet away from the original circle, you meet up with another circle enclosing the first circle. What is preventing you from matching your turning so that it smoothly matches the circumference of the second circle?
Nothing - but then again, I would be walking over to it and marrying it up.
Now if you can explain how a craft can do that in supposed space, then tell me.
Space Shuttle Basics - http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html)
Of course you could have looked this up...
What's that supposed to provide?
What is says, if you disagree then contact NASA.
-
An arc can only cause the shuttle to follow Earth's supposed curvature and back down into the drink or whatever.
Scepti, what is your definition of an "arc"?
-
An arc can only cause the shuttle to follow Earth's supposed curvature and back down into the drink or whatever.
Scepti, what is your definition of an "arc"?
It's pretty hopeless...Scepti is too far gone, in my opinion. He only listens to himself.
-
He can't, or refuses to, understand what is presented to him, so he just keeps asking more and more inane questions to cover up for it.
-
Anyway - NASA is announcing a new manned space ship - Orion at http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/index.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/index.html) . It is evidently just a another joke as it is not possible to return to Earth after a trip through the van Allen belt. It will take off in December 2014!
Is there anything else in our universe that you appear to know absolutely nothing about Anders? I can't believe that you insist on returning to a site like this where—contrary to your apparent expectations of acceptance—you're further shot down in flames with every one of your absurd, pseudo-scientific claims.
Your knowledge of the Van Allen belts is about on a par with my knowledge of knitting socks. Virtually zero. ;D
-
He can't, or refuses to, understand what is presented to him, so he just keeps asking more and more inane questions to cover up for it.
I agree with this summation entirely. It's more than obvious by now that this person calling himself "sceptimatic" is either the most stupid person ever born in the recorded history of the world (excluding Bozo the clown of course) or nothing more than a major and very persistent troll.
He's repeatedly demonstrated—ad nauseam—a total lack of understanding of even the most basic theories of nearly all the sciences; from mechanics and mathematics; astrophysics and geophysics; mass and weight; pressure and force; aeronautics and astronautics; meteorology; optical theory; stellar observation; planetary formation; geometry and trigonometry etc etc etc.
And you're quite right Jimmy; the endless stream of inane questions is simply designed as a subterfuge for this lack of knowledge. It's truly pointless arguing with this person—you'll get more intelligent debate from a can of sardines LOL.
The only positive we gain is a good laugh, which lightens up what can often be a very dreary work day. We should be thankful for that. I think?
-
An arc can only cause the shuttle to follow Earth's supposed curvature and back down into the drink or whatever.
Scepti, what is your definition of an "arc"?
It's pretty hopeless...Scepti is too far gone, in my opinion. He only listens to himself.
A genius takes a lot of teaching which only another genius can help with. I've found a few who are capable of making me take notice. You and your little global gangsters are not them.
-
He can't, or refuses to, understand what is presented to him, so he just keeps asking more and more inane questions to cover up for it.
My questions are pertinent, The answer I'm given are lies, given to me by people that actually don't see the lies in it, but still tell me, anyway.
-
I agree with this summation entirely. It's more than obvious by now that this person calling himself "sceptimatic" is either the most stupid person ever born in the recorded history of the world (excluding Bozo the clown of course) or nothing more than a major and very persistent troll.
Always remember, you are your own person and you are entitled to that choice. Either, "or" is fine with me.
He's repeatedly demonstrated—ad nauseam—a total lack of understanding of even the most basic theories of nearly all the sciences; from mechanics and mathematics; astrophysics and geophysics; mass and weight; pressure and force; aeronautics and astronautics; meteorology; optical theory; stellar observation; planetary formation; geometry and trigonometry etc etc etc.
I've demonstrated all I need to to show the silliness in a lot of this scientific nonsense that you take great delight in copying and pasting.
And you're quite right Jimmy; the endless stream of inane questions is simply designed as a subterfuge for this lack of knowledge. It's truly pointless arguing with this person—you'll get more intelligent debate from a can of sardines LOL.
A Jimmy, nor a Geoffrey is enough to over power a genius such as myself. I've took 10 of you on at times and none of you have came close to challenging me with any meaningful truths, just memory gymnastics, gained from snippets you learned from books or Google like search engines. Not good enough. Up the pace, it's as weak as you.
The only positive we gain is a good laugh, which lightens up what can often be a very dreary work day. We should be thankful for that. I think?
I'd like to believe you laugh but I think frustration is the key, here.
-
Yet you fail to explain how systems millions of people use every day actually work in detail.
-
Yet you fail to explain how systems millions of people use every day actually work in detail.
Such as?
-
I've took 10 of you on at times and none of you have came close to challenging me with any meaningful truths, just memory gymnastics, gained from snippets you learned from books or Google like search engines.
I'd like to thank sceptimatic for the first laugh of what's panning out to be a very dull day.
sceptimatic is now claiming that learning stuff from books is not worthy of consideration. I'd like to ask him what sources—other than books—has he learned what he thinks he knows about science from? And does he never refer to Google or Wikipedia as a source of date?
Seriously? No books, no Google, no Wiki. Just how does he do it folks? The man's a walking miracle.
-
I've took 10 of you on at times and none of you have came close to challenging me with any meaningful truths, just memory gymnastics, gained from snippets you learned from books or Google like search engines.
I'd like to thank sceptimatic for the first laugh of what's panning out to be a very dull day.
sceptimatic is now claiming that learning stuff from books is not worthy of consideration. I'd like to ask him what sources—other than books—has he learned what he thinks he knows about science from? And does he never refer to Google or Wikipedia as a source of date?
Seriously? No books, no Google, no Wiki. Just how does he do it folks? The man's a walking miracle.
I write my own books, Geoffrey. I'm a genius. I invent, I work stuff out. I think, therefore, I am.
The stuff I need to learn, I do it selectively by seeking out thinking geniuses.
-
I write my own books, Geoffrey. I'm a genius. I invent, I work stuff out. I think, therefore, I am.
The stuff I need to learn, I do it selectively by seeking out thinking geniuses.
Assuming that you do in fact write your own books, could you give us the names of a few sceptimatic? I'd also ask you why—as you said earlier on that books were worthless as a learning source—what makes yours apparently different, and why should anyone bother to read them considering your poor opinion of them as a source of knowledge? Where do you distribute them, and to whom?
And can you also name a few of those other geniuses you confer with, and by what criteria you judge yourself as being a "genius"? Is your IQ = 125+ which is the nominal rating to be considered a genius?
-
I've took 10 of you on at times and none of you have came close to challenging me with any meaningful truths, just memory gymnastics, gained from snippets you learned from books or Google like search engines.
I'd like to thank sceptimatic for the first laugh of what's panning out to be a very dull day.
sceptimatic is now claiming that learning stuff from books is not worthy of consideration. I'd like to ask him what sources—other than books—has he learned what he thinks he knows about science from? And does he never refer to Google or Wikipedia as a source of date?
Seriously? No books, no Google, no Wiki. Just how does he do it folks? The man's a walking miracle.
I write my own books, Geoffrey. I'm a genius. I invent, I work stuff out. I think, therefore, I am.
The stuff I need to learn, I do it selectively by seeking out thinking geniuses.
Please name some.
-
I write my own books, Geoffrey. I'm a genius. I invent, I work stuff out. I think, therefore, I am.
The stuff I need to learn, I do it selectively by seeking out thinking geniuses.
Assuming that you do in fact write your own books, could you give us the names of a few sceptimatic? I'd also ask you why—as you said earlier on that books were worthless as a learning source—what makes yours apparently different, and why should anyone bother to read them considering your poor opinion of them as a source of knowledge? Where do you distribute them, and to whom?
And can you also name a few of those other geniuses you confer with, and by what criteria you judge yourself as being a "genius"? Is your IQ = 125+ which is the nominal rating to be considered a genius?
I never said books were worthless. I said a lot of mainstream scientific books are worthless for reality reading. They can be amazing as scientific fantasy/fiction.
My books are many. My inventions are many. My books may have been read by you, maybe.
I won't name them but I will allow you to be privvy to an up and coming book due out in the middle of next year that I contributed quite a lot to. It's called "patent discontent."
I'm sure you can guess what it's about and I'll be happy to give snippets out in the right forum topic.
My other book which is down to myself and uncle is a book called "Trapped in fantasy" which is due out in 3 weeks time.
As for IQ. there's no such thing. A persons' intelligence is not gauged on the speed of their answers, nor is it gauged on the ability to memorise. A persons' inteligence is gauged on their ability to think for themselves, logically.
Speed of thought only gives a person a head start in a race. Whether that's a mental race or a physical race, it does not gauge the overall strength of a person.
Every person who can think for themselves is a potential genius in the making. Any person that refuses to think for themselves and would rather follow patterns, is no more a genius than someone who has spent their life locked in a box.
-
I've took 10 of you on at times and none of you have came close to challenging me with any meaningful truths, just memory gymnastics, gained from snippets you learned from books or Google like search engines.
I'd like to thank sceptimatic for the first laugh of what's panning out to be a very dull day.
sceptimatic is now claiming that learning stuff from books is not worthy of consideration. I'd like to ask him what sources—other than books—has he learned what he thinks he knows about science from? And does he never refer to Google or Wikipedia as a source of date?
Seriously? No books, no Google, no Wiki. Just how does he do it folks? The man's a walking miracle.
I write my own books, Geoffrey. I'm a genius. I invent, I work stuff out. I think, therefore, I am.
The stuff I need to learn, I do it selectively by seeking out thinking geniuses.
The main problem I have with you, Scepti, is that I have no reason to believe a word you say over whatever I believe. You've provided no proof of your expertise or any coherent argument thus far. Unfortunately, I'm not mathematically oriented so I can't assess those complicated equations some people put up. Nevertheless, you might be a fun guy to have a beer with, but as for your world (and universe) view? No thanks!
-
I've took 10 of you on at times and none of you have came close to challenging me with any meaningful truths, just memory gymnastics, gained from snippets you learned from books or Google like search engines.
I'd like to thank sceptimatic for the first laugh of what's panning out to be a very dull day.
sceptimatic is now claiming that learning stuff from books is not worthy of consideration. I'd like to ask him what sources—other than books—has he learned what he thinks he knows about science from? And does he never refer to Google or Wikipedia as a source of date?
Seriously? No books, no Google, no Wiki. Just how does he do it folks? The man's a walking miracle.
I write my own books, Geoffrey. I'm a genius. I invent, I work stuff out. I think, therefore, I am.
The stuff I need to learn, I do it selectively by seeking out thinking geniuses.
The main problem I have with you, Scepti, is that I have no reason to believe a word you say over whatever I believe. You've provided no proof of your expertise or any coherent argument thus far. Unfortunately, I'm not mathematically oriented so I can't assess those complicated equations some people put up. Nevertheless, you might be a fun guy to have a beer with, but as for your world (and universe) view? No thanks!
I'm not asking nor imploring you to accept or believe anything I say. You have your own mind, you can decide whatever you want to.
The trouble with a lot of people is, they come for a fight. Not in the physical sense but in the mental sense.
Many people use me as their lever in science, because I make it easy for them to do so. It gives people a gee up and makes them feel important - sort of intellectually advanced by dealing with me.
Why do you think I get so much attention?
Now that can be taken as me being the village idiot, which I'm sure someone will use as a quote. ;D
The issue a lot of people have...and it's a huge issue...is...they use equations that they attribute to beyond Earth and they have no clue as to why they do it but they will tell you that they do it because they are experts on what is up there, when the truth is, they have simply copied and asborbed, mostly a pot filled to the brim with crap.
It makes them feel special. I simply don't waste my time giving out calculations that mean nothing in life and I'm certainly not going to calculate fantasy.
That being said. You can carry on arguing for your globe and all the trimmings with me. You obviously know you will get no change out of me doing it. What you will get out of me, is my internet forum respect if you ever decide to use your brain and question some of this shit you've been brainwashed with. You get none for no attempt.
-
I've took 10 of you on at times and none of you have came close to challenging me with any meaningful truths, just memory gymnastics, gained from snippets you learned from books or Google like search engines.
I'd like to thank sceptimatic for the first laugh of what's panning out to be a very dull day.
sceptimatic is now claiming that learning stuff from books is not worthy of consideration. I'd like to ask him what sources—other than books—has he learned what he thinks he knows about science from? And does he never refer to Google or Wikipedia as a source of date?
Seriously? No books, no Google, no Wiki. Just how does he do it folks? The man's a walking miracle.
I write my own books, Geoffrey. I'm a genius. I invent, I work stuff out. I think, therefore, I am.
The stuff I need to learn, I do it selectively by seeking out thinking geniuses.
The main problem I have with you, Scepti, is that I have no reason to believe a word you say over whatever I believe. You've provided no proof of your expertise or any coherent argument thus far. Unfortunately, I'm not mathematically oriented so I can't assess those complicated equations some people put up. Nevertheless, you might be a fun guy to have a beer with, but as for your world (and universe) view? No thanks!
I'm not asking nor imploring you to accept or believe anything I say. You have your own mind, you can decide whatever you want to.
The trouble with a lot of people is, they come for a fight. Not in the physical sense but in the mental sense.
Many people use me as their lever in science, because I make it easy for them to do so. It gives people a gee up and makes them feel important - sort of intellectually advanced by dealing with me.
Why do you think I get so much attention?
Now that can be taken as me being the village idiot, which I'm sure someone will use as a quote. ;D
The issue a lot of people have...and it's a huge issue...is...they use equations that they attribute to beyond Earth and they have no clue as to why they do it but they will tell you that they do it because they are experts on what is up there, when the truth is, they have simply copied and asborbed, mostly a pot filled to the brim with crap.
It makes them feel special. I simply don't waste my time giving out calculations that mean nothing in life and I'm certainly not going to calculate fantasy.
That being said. You can carry on arguing for your globe and all the trimmings with me. You obviously know you will get no change out of me doing it. What you will get out of me, is my internet forum respect if you ever decide to use your brain and question some of this shit you've been brainwashed with. You get none for no attempt.
I have no reason to question RE/space travel/mega-universe. These aren't controversial to me. So why am I here? Just curious as to what kind of people espouse FET.
-
I've took 10 of you on at times and none of you have came close to challenging me with any meaningful truths, just memory gymnastics, gained from snippets you learned from books or Google like search engines.
I'd like to thank sceptimatic for the first laugh of what's panning out to be a very dull day.
sceptimatic is now claiming that learning stuff from books is not worthy of consideration. I'd like to ask him what sources—other than books—has he learned what he thinks he knows about science from? And does he never refer to Google or Wikipedia as a source of date?
Seriously? No books, no Google, no Wiki. Just how does he do it folks? The man's a walking miracle.
I write my own books, Geoffrey. I'm a genius. I invent, I work stuff out. I think, therefore, I am.
The stuff I need to learn, I do it selectively by seeking out thinking geniuses.
The main problem I have with you, Scepti, is that I have no reason to believe a word you say over whatever I believe. You've provided no proof of your expertise or any coherent argument thus far. Unfortunately, I'm not mathematically oriented so I can't assess those complicated equations some people put up. Nevertheless, you might be a fun guy to have a beer with, but as for your world (and universe) view? No thanks!
I'm not asking nor imploring you to accept or believe anything I say. You have your own mind, you can decide whatever you want to.
The trouble with a lot of people is, they come for a fight. Not in the physical sense but in the mental sense.
Many people use me as their lever in science, because I make it easy for them to do so. It gives people a gee up and makes them feel important - sort of intellectually advanced by dealing with me.
Why do you think I get so much attention?
Now that can be taken as me being the village idiot, which I'm sure someone will use as a quote. ;D
The issue a lot of people have...and it's a huge issue...is...they use equations that they attribute to beyond Earth and they have no clue as to why they do it but they will tell you that they do it because they are experts on what is up there, when the truth is, they have simply copied and asborbed, mostly a pot filled to the brim with crap.
It makes them feel special. I simply don't waste my time giving out calculations that mean nothing in life and I'm certainly not going to calculate fantasy.
That being said. You can carry on arguing for your globe and all the trimmings with me. You obviously know you will get no change out of me doing it. What you will get out of me, is my internet forum respect if you ever decide to use your brain and question some of this shit you've been brainwashed with. You get none for no attempt.
So you have calculations proving that Newtonian mechanics and/or space travel are wrong and you claimed you would show them, once we figured out we are wrong but aren't going to show them because it's a waste of time... Even though you said you would. Good show.
-
My books are many. My inventions are many. My books may have been read by you, maybe.
I won't name them.....
Yeah, yeah... sure thing sceptimatic. Of course you've written books. Possibly dozens of them. And of course you've invented lots of stuff.
I've called your bluff several times now over these two claims you repeat endlessly.
So... unless you can name a few of these alleged books, and/or something you've invented, then I'm calling you a LIAR.
I seldom do that with people on forums, but I'll make an exception in your case. YOU ARE A LIAR.
If, however you prove my liar claim to be erroneous, then I'll post a full and frank apology to you personally, on this forum, for everybody else to see.
—Can't be fairer can it?
-
YOU ARE A LIAR.
Yes, Buzz (topic) is a liar about his Moon trip.
-
YOU ARE A LIAR.
Yes, Buzz (topic) is a liar about his Moon trip.
This is quite funny, coming as it does from somebody whose entire site is a farrago of disinformation, pseudoscience, half-truths, exaggerations, falsifications, and..... lies.
And I really think you need to be a bit more generous of spirit regarding Aldrin's interactions with the press. After all, the guy's 85 years old, and I think when people are that sort of age, we really need to make a few allowances for their quirks of character.
Also, Aldrin possesses both a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering, plus a Doctor of Science degree in astronautics—which makes your single alleged Masters look a bit shaky LOL. Unless of course you can tell us the university where you were granted your M.Sc so we can check its alumni records.
-
Unless of course you can tell us the university where you were granted your M.Sc so we can check its alumni records.
Miles Off Topic but I am quite proud of my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm (http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm) . My old Alma Mater (Chalmers) does not like me any longer after I demonstrated how it does pseudoscience of safety at sea and suggests that the principle of Archimedes does not apply - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm (http://heiwaco.com/news.htm) .
-
Miles Off Topic but I am quite proud of my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm (http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm) . My old Alma Mater (Chalmers) does not like me any longer after I demonstrated how it does pseudoscience of safety at sea and suggests that the principle of Archimedes does not apply - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm (http://heiwaco.com/news.htm) .
I note that you also claim that SSPA Marin AB Gothenburg, the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN) Holland, and the University of Strathclyde, Scotland are also party to fraudulent reporting relating to the Estonia sinking study 2005-2008.
So... at the same time as you're making these unfounded allegations against four accredited establishments, you're claiming that Buzz Aldrin is a fraud?
—Seems extremely unlikely to me, particularly as you lack any viable evidence for your claims against Aldrin.
I'm not sure why you're so "proud" of your CV. The United States Coast Guard does not allow your big deal Coulombi Egg Tanker to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from even being built LOL.
-
My books are many. My inventions are many. My books may have been read by you, maybe.
I won't name them.....
Yeah, yeah... sure thing sceptimatic. Of course you've written books. Possibly dozens of them. And of course you've invented lots of stuff.
I've called your bluff several times now over these two claims you repeat endlessly.
So... unless you can name a few of these alleged books, and/or something you've invented, then I'm calling you a LIAR.
I seldom do that with people on forums, but I'll make an exception in your case. YOU ARE A LIAR.
If, however you prove my liar claim to be erroneous, then I'll post a full and frank apology to you personally, on this forum, for everybody else to see.
—Can't be fairer can it?
I have no wish to prove your liar claim. Decide what you want to, I'm easy with it.
-
My books are many. My inventions are many. My books may have been read by you, maybe.
I won't name them.....
Yeah, yeah... sure thing sceptimatic. Of course you've written books. Possibly dozens of them. And of course you've invented lots of stuff.
I've called your bluff several times now over these two claims you repeat endlessly.
So... unless you can name a few of these alleged books, and/or something you've invented, then I'm calling you a LIAR.
I seldom do that with people on forums, but I'll make an exception in your case. YOU ARE A LIAR.
If, however you prove my liar claim to be erroneous, then I'll post a full and frank apology to you personally, on this forum, for everybody else to see.
—Can't be fairer can it?
I have no wish to prove your liar claim. Decide what you want to, I'm easy with it.
So you can't name even one of he alleged books you've written? Hmmm... can't guess why not LOL.
This is not the first time your juvenile lies have caught you out sceptimatic... "denpressure", thirteen academic qualifications, research scientist, inventor, holder of numerous patents, North Korean government friend, fabulously wealthy, world traveller, helicopter pilot, secret missions to Antarctica etc etc etc.
—Keep up the good work my friend. The laughs are more than worth the pain. ;D
-
So you can't name even one of he alleged books you've written? Hmmm... can't guess why not LOL.
I can name them all. You appear to believe that you count for some reason.
This is not the first time your juvenile lies have caught you out sceptimatic... "denpressure",
What about it? it hasn't been proved wrong, just ranted about.
thirteen academic qualifications,
I don't recall saying that. I did say 13 and that's all I said.
research scientist,
Prove the contrary.
inventor,
Prove I'm not.
holder of numerous patents,
Prove I don't.
North Korean government friend,
Who said that?
fabulously wealthy,
I have plenty, do you have proof to the contrary?
world traveller,
Prove otherwise.
helicopter pilot,
Prove otherwise.
secret missions to Antarctica etc etc etc.
Prove otherwise.
—Keep up the good work my friend. The laughs are more than worth the pain. ;D
[/quote]I will. also, if you can't come back with proof of any of the above, I suggest you zip it, Geoffrey before you get frustrated. ;D
-
AA. I note that you also claim that SSPA Marin AB Gothenburg, the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN) Holland, and the University of Strathclyde, Scotland are also party to fraudulent reporting relating to the Estonia sinking study 2005-2008.
So... at the same time as you're making these unfounded allegations against four accredited establishments, you're claiming that Buzz Aldrin is a fraud?
BB. —Seems extremely unlikely to me, particularly as you lack any viable evidence for your claims against Aldrin.
I'm not sure why you're so "proud" of your CV.
CC. The United States Coast Guard does not allow your big deal Coulombi Egg Tanker to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from even being built LOL.
Thanks for noting something.
AA. Off topic! My allegations against the named institutions are based on the Principle of Archimedes. One institution threatened to sue me in court but ... never did. Because it would have lost.
BB. That Buzz is a fraud (TOPIC) is shown at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm) . No big deal.
CC. All UN countries in the world approved 1997 my innovative seagoing oil tanker design that spills less oil in all accidents than any other design. After the decision was made, USA informed the United Nations International Maritime Organization that USA did not agree with the decision and that such tankers could not enter US ports (except some offshore bouys far away from the coast), blah, blah.
USA or the US Congress had then to produce national laws against the international laws adopting my design, etc, etc. The matter was discussed in the US Congress. I was asked to attend. It was a US mess or fuck up as usual. I just made a statement. See ISBN 0-16-056162-0 page 160.
Reason why my design was disallowed in USA is simple. I didn't pay up!
Why should I pay? More fun was to see USA lowering its pants ...
Many persons ask me why I am anti-American. I just refer to what I saw above.
-
So you can't name even one of he alleged books you've written? Hmmm... can't guess why not LOL.
I can name them all. You appear to believe that you count for some reason.
This is not the first time your juvenile lies have caught you out sceptimatic... "denpressure",
What about it? it hasn't been proved wrong, just ranted about.
thirteen academic qualifications,
I don't recall saying that. I did say 13 and that's all I said.
research scientist,
Prove the contrary.
inventor,
Prove I'm not.
holder of numerous patents,
Prove I don't.
North Korean government friend,
Who said that?
fabulously wealthy,
I have plenty, do you have proof to the contrary?
world traveller,
Prove otherwise.
helicopter pilot,
Prove otherwise.
secret missions to Antarctica etc etc etc.
Prove otherwise.
—Keep up the good work my friend. The laughs are more than worth the pain. ;D
I will. also, if you can't come back with proof of any of the above, I suggest you zip it, Geoffrey before you get frustrated. ;D
[/quote]
Scepti, if you're fabulously wealthy, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and prove RE wrong??? It isn't that hard. I would expect that if you were sincere, you'd find out that you were wrong all this time when your high-altitude balloon-mounted camera proves that there is a round earth in space. 'Smatter??? Afraid to do a simple experiment?
-
Scepti, if you're fabulously wealthy, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and prove RE wrong??? It isn't that hard. I would expect that if you were sincere, you'd find out that you were wrong all this time when your high-altitude balloon-mounted camera proves that there is a round earth in space. 'Smatter??? Afraid to do a simple experiment?
First of all, you need to stop taking notice of Geoffrey and just blindly believing his crap.
I'm wealthy, not fabulously wealthy, whatever that actually means.
Anyway, I'm not here to boast about my cars, boats, private airplane, motor homes and 238 properties all over the world or anything, so let's leave wealth out of this, because you have to take certain things with a serious pinch of salt and not dwell on things. Why? ...because it shows you up for the gullible person that you are and also rubberstanps what I've been telling you and your global Earth friends all along. Stop buying into anything you're told until you have definitive proof.
I could be sat here in my underpants with a greasy mop of long hair with gravy stains on my string vest just telling you I'm well off. Think about that.
Now let's get back to that balloon thing.
How many times has it been shown on science programmes when someone has mentioned a satellite or whatever in low Earth orbit, as they bullshit us?
They get out a big ball and a tiny kinder egg type toy, then sit that toy a few millimetres above the massive ball. Now imagine you getting shrunk down and put into this kinder egg sized toy to look down at the ball. Are you seriously...and I mean, seriously telling me that you could look down at that ball and tell what the hell it is you were above?
Impossible.
And yet people talk about silly helium balloons going up about 70/80,000 feet and claiming not only to see that the Earth is a globe but actually seeing the full frigging globe. Hahahahaha.
It's so nonsensical and yet you people hang onto it like limpets.
Let me tell you something right now and I'm serious. If you were serious about Earth being a globe and so sure that the people you are arguing with are retarded/nutty/wind up merchants...anything but genuine...you would be on another site, unless you feel some kind of comfort typing away with other like-minded people, knowing that they are your friends because they think the flat Earth believers are nuts as well.
Basically there's no reason for you to be here other than that....unless you are curious about Earth and want to find the truth but daren't come out and say that, because you know the second you look interested, you will be jumped on. I think that goes for 60% of you, with 30% just after a few digs until they get bored and 10% pure shills, paid or unpaid.
As for experiments: I done an experiment to prove that centrifugal centripetal force is due to atmospheric pressure.
I've done quite a few. The problem is, you discard them without doing them yourself when they are simple to do and not expensive as long as you have a vacuum chamber.
-
Scepti, if you're fabulously wealthy, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and prove RE wrong??? It isn't that hard. I would expect that if you were sincere, you'd find out that you were wrong all this time when your high-altitude balloon-mounted camera proves that there is a round earth in space. 'Smatter??? Afraid to do a simple experiment?
First of all, you need to stop taking notice of Geoffrey and just blindly believing his crap.
I'm wealthy, not fabulously wealthy, whatever that actually means.
Anyway, I'm not here to boast about my cars, boats, private airplane, motor homes and 238 properties all over the world or anything, so let's leave wealth out of this, because you have to take certain things with a serious pinch of salt and not dwell on things. Why? ...because it shows you up for the gullible person that you are and also rubberstanps what I've been telling you and your global Earth friends all along. Stop buying into anything you're told until you have definitive proof.
I could be sat here in my underpants with a greasy mop of long hair with gravy stains on my string vest just telling you I'm well off. Think about that.
Now let's get back to that balloon thing.
How many times has it been shown on science programmes when someone has mentioned a satellite or whatever in low Earth orbit, as they bullshit us?
They get out a big ball and a tiny kinder egg type toy, then sit that toy a few millimetres above the massive ball. Now imagine you getting shrunk down and put into this kinder egg sized toy to look down at the ball. Are you seriously...and I mean, seriously telling me that you could look down at that ball and tell what the hell it is you were above?
Impossible.
And yet people talk about silly helium balloons going up about 70/80,000 feet and claiming not only to see that the Earth is a globe but actually seeing the full frigging globe. Hahahahaha.
It's so nonsensical and yet you people hang onto it like limpets.
Let me tell you something right now and I'm serious. If you were serious about Earth being a globe and so sure that the people you are arguing with are retarded/nutty/wind up merchants...anything but genuine...you would be on another site, unless you feel some kind of comfort typing away with other like-minded people, knowing that they are your friends because they think the flat Earth believers are nuts as well.
Basically there's no reason for you to be here other than that....unless you are curious about Earth and want to find the truth but daren't come out and say that, because you know the second you look interested, you will be jumped on. I think that goes for 60% of you, with 30% just after a few digs until they get bored and 10% pure shills, paid or unpaid.
As for experiments: I done an experiment to prove that centrifugal centripetal force is due to atmospheric pressure.
I've done quite a few. The problem is, you discard them without doing them yourself when they are simple to do and not expensive as long as you have a vacuum chamber.
I was curious about the earth and learned all I need to know. I have no reason to question RE/space travel/grand universe and all that; I'm just here to try to understand why some people (like you) never got past a flat earth, which to me was a childhood belief. Us grown-ups have seen enough to accept the majority model. Conspiracy. Right. Now, about aliens, THAT'S a conspiracy. I'm sure the govt. knows more than it pretends to. But RE, etc. is way too big and broadly accepted to be a conspiracy. Plus, why NOT have satellites and a space station orbiting the earth and space ships going to the moon, Mars and beyond? Makes sense to me.
-
Scepti, if you're fabulously wealthy, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and prove RE wrong??? It isn't that hard. I would expect that if you were sincere, you'd find out that you were wrong all this time when your high-altitude balloon-mounted camera proves that there is a round earth in space. 'Smatter??? Afraid to do a simple experiment?
First of all, you need to stop taking notice of Geoffrey and just blindly believing his crap.
How many times has it been shown on science programmes when someone has mentioned a satellite or whatever in low Earth orbit, as they bullshit us?
They get out a big ball and a tiny kinder egg type toy, then sit that toy a few millimetres above the massive ball. Now imagine you getting shrunk down and put into this kinder egg sized toy to look down at the ball. Are you seriously...and I mean, seriously telling me that you could look down at that ball and tell what the hell it is you were above?
Impossible.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
-
I think by now we can all safely assume one of two things:
• sceptimatic is totally but involuntarily delusional and/or suffering from some sort of as-yet undiagnosed mental dysfunction;
• sceptimatic is nothing more than a major and persistent troll.
I claim the former because I just can't accept that any rational human being living in the 21st century could be so ignorant of all the contemporary sciences.
And I claim the latter simply on the basis that sceptimatic now claims to own "238 properties all over the world".
Ultimately, I'm not sure as to why his claims of being wealthy, owning numerous "cars, boats, private airplanes, motor homes" etc has to do with actually providing any viable evidence that he knows anything at all about Buzz Aldrin the astronaut, Aldrin's space missions, or Aldrin's current state of mind. sceptimatic seems to think that repeatedly claiming to have 13 academic qualifications, to have written many books and hold numerous patents, and be a scientific researcher and world-renowned inventor precludes the validity of any other opinions apart from his own.
It's also embarrassingly obvious that sceptimatic can't or won't name even one of his alleged books, one of his alleged patents, or one of his alleged 13 qualifications. Naming any of these of course would put paid to our claims that he's a fraud once and for all. But I guess it's difficult to post "evidence" that you don't possess LOL.
If it comes down to a choice of Buzz Aldrin or sceptimatic being brainwashed, then sceptimatic wins the prize hands down. ;D
-
I was curious about the earth and learned all I need to know.
You learned all you need to know? That stinks of brainwashed and gullibility.
I have no reason to question RE/space travel/grand universe and all that.
No, because you're fully indoctrinated. Brainwashed to hypnotised standards. It's sad but it's your life.
I'm just here to try to understand why some people (like you) never got past a flat earth, which to me was a childhood belief.
But my childhood belief was the one you are promoting now. I've now rid myself of that indoctrination and brainwashing to actually start thinking for myself, rightly or wrongly in whatever case I look at. The story writers can gain a captive audience - it doesn't make their stories true.
Us grown-ups have seen enough to accept the majority model.
Correct, you are a grown up has embraced the fact that it's more comfortable accepting the majority view, because it only requires you to follow, not think.
Conspiracy. Right. Now, about aliens, THAT'S a conspiracy. I'm sure the govt. knows more than it pretends to.
Does it? are you questioning the government? are you of a belief that they are not being truthful?
But RE, etc. is way too big and broadly accepted to be a conspiracy.
Way too big in what? majority?
Plus, why NOT have satellites and a space station orbiting the earth and space ships going to the moon, Mars and beyond? Makes sense to me.
[/quote]It makes sense because you have been programmed for it to make sense.
-
I think by now we can all safely assume one of two things:
• sceptimatic is totally but involuntarily delusional and/or suffering from some sort of as-yet undiagnosed mental dysfunction;
• sceptimatic is nothing more than a major and persistent troll.
I claim the former because I just can't accept that any rational human being living in the 21st century could be so ignorant of all the contemporary sciences.
And I claim the latter simply on the basis that sceptimatic now claims to own "238 properties all over the world".
Ultimately, I'm not sure as to why his claims of being wealthy, owning numerous "cars, boats, private airplanes, motor homes" etc has to do with actually providing any viable evidence that he knows anything at all about Buzz Aldrin the astronaut, Aldrin's space missions, or Aldrin's current state of mind. sceptimatic seems to think that repeatedly claiming to have 13 academic qualifications, to have written many books and hold numerous patents, and be a scientific researcher and world-renowned inventor precludes the validity of any other opinions apart from his own.
It's also embarrassingly obvious that sceptimatic can't or won't name even one of his alleged books, one of his alleged patents, or one of his alleged 13 qualifications. Naming any of these of course would put paid to our claims that he's a fraud once and for all. But I guess it's difficult to post "evidence" that you don't possess LOL.
If it comes down to a choice of Buzz Aldrin or sceptimatic being brainwashed, then sceptimatic wins the prize hands down. ;D
Do I intimidate you, Geoffrey?
-
Septic its lunch time at your place. real cloudy, wind from the south. Satellite told me. See you are now a hidden user, is that a bit like a junkie or do you hide to eat your flat cookies.
-
I was curious about the earth and learned all I need to know.
You learned all you need to know? That stinks of brainwashed and gullibility.
I have no reason to question RE/space travel/grand universe and all that.
No, because you're fully indoctrinated. Brainwashed to hypnotised standards. It's sad but it's your life.
I'm just here to try to understand why some people (like you) never got past a flat earth, which to me was a childhood belief.
But my childhood belief was the one you are promoting now. I've now rid myself of that indoctrination and brainwashing to actually start thinking for myself, rightly or wrongly in whatever case I look at. The story writers can gain a captive audience - it doesn't make their stories true.
Us grown-ups have seen enough to accept the majority model.
Correct, you are a grown up has embraced the fact that it's more comfortable accepting the majority view, because it only requires you to follow, not think.
Conspiracy. Right. Now, about aliens, THAT'S a conspiracy. I'm sure the govt. knows more than it pretends to.
Does it? are you questioning the government? are you of a belief that they are not being truthful?
But RE, etc. is way too big and broadly accepted to be a conspiracy.
Way too big in what? majority?
Plus, why NOT have satellites and a space station orbiting the earth and space ships going to the moon, Mars and beyond? Makes sense to me.
It makes sense because you have been programmed for it to make sense.
[/quote]Because satellites actuaĺly work for communications.
-
When you think about it; Buzz punched Bart Sibrel in the face when Sibrel asked him to swear on the bible, then called him a liar.
Put yourself in Buzz's position and knowing that you really went to the moon. If that was me, I'd have said quite a few things to Sibrel rather than punch him.
1: I'd have said to Sibrel, " pay $10,000 to charity and I'll swear on your bible."
2: I'd have took him to court on defamation of character charges, as well as stalking. Why didn't Aldrin?
3: I'd have gladly sat down and gave him a full interview, subject to being allowed to talk about it by authority, which there would be no reason not to...but I would have demanded a decent fee.
Any question asked of me, I'd have been only to happy to answer for a fee. If It was interrogation by Sibrel, I'd ask for a higher fee and be absolutely happy to answer all questions in the knowledge that I have nothing to hide.
Aldrin could have took all avenues, yet he chose to lash out.
Nobody is going to tell me that those so called astronauts weren't prepared for the adulation and the scrutinisation by sceptics.
If they were truthful, they could embrace it all in full confidence, yet none of them ever did.
When Sibrel showed the video of the Earth stuck to a window with all the anomalies, to Edgar Mitchell; Mitchell got angry and chased Sibrel out of his home. Mitchell's son then said to his dad, "shall I call the CIA and have them waxed."
Who in the hell would believe they could call the CIA over an interview with a reporter. Why didn't he say, " shall I call the police and have them investigate this."...?
If anyone hasn't seen 'astronauts gone wild, I suggest you look it up and see these bozo's in action. Astronauts, my arse.
Armstrong is probably the smoking gun in all this. A seemingly fearless pilot and test pilot of all kinds of craft and yet after the supposed mission to the moon, he goes all introvert and reclusive, yet at the times he is possibly made to talk, he basically uses cryptic speech - potentially in the knowledge that switched on people out there will decipher what he's saying without it being too obvious to those stood around him at the time.
I think this man was suffering from severe depression brought on by the very fact that he's had to carry this lie for all those years. His life must have been a living hell in terms of thought, because this man, out of all of them was a man that gained a conscience, fully (in my opinion) and knew that, in time, people would catch on, that he didn't do what was claimed.
Any person with a reasonable amount of common sense and logic who are open minded enough, can see there is something seriously wrong with his stance on this.
I think I can speak for just about everyone on here. If that was me coming back from the moon, I would be begging for people to ask me about it - infact I wouldn't need prompting. I'd live off the fame and adulation.
One thing I would not do, is have a post mission conference and act like someone's implanted a head exploding charge in my neck in case I speak out of term, because Armstrong especially, displayed not only speech nerves - he displayed serious duress, in fact, a mild terror.
Aldrin wasn't quite as bad but displayed what can be described as a nervous shame, whilst Collins looked like a lost boy, who displayed fidgeting properties, then makes the massive error of piping in under nervousness of his script, after Armstrong was asked by a young Patrick Moore, " when you looked up at the sky, could you see the stars in the solar corona, inspite of the glare. To which Armstrong replied, " I couldn't see the stars in (nervous pause) the soNar coroLa by eye without using the optics???...to which Collins pipes up with, " I don't remember seeing any."
This clown wasn't even on the moon, he was supposedly sitting in a command module orbiting it and he doesn't remember seeing any stars???
What the hell does it need for ordinary people to frigging wake up and see this charade for what it was and still is to this day?
-
Found a video of two flat earthers doing the Buzz dance.
(http://)
-
When you think about it; Buzz punched Bart Sibrel in the face when Sibrel asked him to swear on the bible, then called him a liar.
Put yourself in Buzz's position and knowing that you really went to the moon. If that was me, I'd have said quite a few things to Sibrel rather than punch him.
1: I'd have said to Sibrel, " pay $10,000 to charity and I'll swear on your bible."
2: I'd have took him to court on defamation of character charges, as well as stalking. Why didn't Aldrin?
3: I'd have gladly sat down and gave him a full interview, subject to being allowed to talk about it by authority, which there would be no reason not to...but I would have demanded a decent fee.
Any question asked of me, I'd have been only to happy to answer for a fee. If It was interrogation by Sibrel, I'd ask for a higher fee and be absolutely happy to answer all questions in the knowledge that I have nothing to hide.
Aldrin could have took all avenues, yet he chose to lash out.
Nobody is going to tell me that those so called astronauts weren't prepared for the adulation and the scrutinisation by sceptics.
If they were truthful, they could embrace it all in full confidence, yet none of them ever did.
When Sibrel showed the video of the Earth stuck to a window with all the anomalies, to Edgar Mitchell; Mitchell got angry and chased Sibrel out of his home. Mitchell's son then said to his dad, "shall I call the CIA and have them waxed."
Who in the hell would believe they could call the CIA over an interview with a reporter. Why didn't he say, " shall I call the police and have them investigate this."...?
If anyone hasn't seen 'astronauts gone wild, I suggest you look it up and see these bozo's in action. Astronauts, my arse.
Armstrong is probably the smoking gun in all this. A seemingly fearless pilot and test pilot of all kinds of craft and yet after the supposed mission to the moon, he goes all introvert and reclusive, yet at the times he is possibly made to talk, he basically uses cryptic speech - potentially in the knowledge that switched on people out there will decipher what he's saying without it being too obvious to those stood around him at the time.
I think this man was suffering from severe depression brought on by the very fact that he's had to carry this lie for all those years. His life must have been a living hell in terms of thought, because this man, out of all of them was a man that gained a conscience, fully (in my opinion) and knew that, in time, people would catch on, that he didn't do what was claimed.
Any person with a reasonable amount of common sense and logic who are open minded enough, can see there is something seriously wrong with his stance on this.
I think I can speak for just about everyone on here. If that was me coming back from the moon, I would be begging for people to ask me about it - infact I wouldn't need prompting. I'd live off the fame and adulation.
One thing I would not do, is have a post mission conference and act like someone's implanted a head exploding charge in my neck in case I speak out of term, because Armstrong especially, displayed not only speech nerves - he displayed serious duress, in fact, a mild terror.
Aldrin wasn't quite as bad but displayed what can be described as a nervous shame, whilst Collins looked like a lost boy, who displayed fidgeting properties, then makes the massive error of piping in under nervousness of his script, after Armstrong was asked by a young Patrick Moore, " when you looked up at the sky, could you see the stars in the solar corona, inspite of the glare. To which Armstrong replied, " I couldn't see the stars in (nervous pause) the soNar coroLa by eye without using the optics???...to which Collins pipes up with, " I don't remember seeing any."
This clown wasn't even on the moon, he was supposedly sitting in a command module orbiting it and he doesn't remember seeing any stars???
What the hell does it need for ordinary people to frigging wake up and see this charade for what it was and still is to this day?
People react differently when put in the same situation. If someone cut in front of you in line. Oh sorry, what if, can't forget the what, might confuse you. What if someone cut in front of you in line. You might tap the guy on the shoulder and politely ask him to go to the end of the line. Others might not say a word. While still others just might clock the guy. Saying that someone should have acted a certain way is not proof or even evidence of lying.
-
When you think about it; Buzz punched Bart Sibrel in the face when Sibrel asked him to swear on the bible, then called him a liar.
Put yourself in Buzz's position and knowing that you really went to the moon. If that was me, I'd have said quite a few things to Sibrel rather than punch him.
1: I'd have said to Sibrel, " pay $10,000 to charity and I'll swear on your bible."
2: I'd have took him to court on defamation of character charges, as well as stalking. Why didn't Aldrin?
3: I'd have gladly sat down and gave him a full interview, subject to being allowed to talk about it by authority, which there would be no reason not to...but I would have demanded a decent fee.
Any question asked of me, I'd have been only to happy to answer for a fee. If It was interrogation by Sibrel, I'd ask for a higher fee and be absolutely happy to answer all questions in the knowledge that I have nothing to hide.
Aldrin could have took all avenues, yet he chose to lash out.
Nobody is going to tell me that those so called astronauts weren't prepared for the adulation and the scrutinisation by sceptics.
If they were truthful, they could embrace it all in full confidence, yet none of them ever did.
When Sibrel showed the video of the Earth stuck to a window with all the anomalies, to Edgar Mitchell; Mitchell got angry and chased Sibrel out of his home. Mitchell's son then said to his dad, "shall I call the CIA and have them waxed."
Who in the hell would believe they could call the CIA over an interview with a reporter. Why didn't he say, " shall I call the police and have them investigate this."...?
If anyone hasn't seen 'astronauts gone wild, I suggest you look it up and see these bozo's in action. Astronauts, my arse.
Armstrong is probably the smoking gun in all this. A seemingly fearless pilot and test pilot of all kinds of craft and yet after the supposed mission to the moon, he goes all introvert and reclusive, yet at the times he is possibly made to talk, he basically uses cryptic speech - potentially in the knowledge that switched on people out there will decipher what he's saying without it being too obvious to those stood around him at the time.
I think this man was suffering from severe depression brought on by the very fact that he's had to carry this lie for all those years. His life must have been a living hell in terms of thought, because this man, out of all of them was a man that gained a conscience, fully (in my opinion) and knew that, in time, people would catch on, that he didn't do what was claimed.
Any person with a reasonable amount of common sense and logic who are open minded enough, can see there is something seriously wrong with his stance on this.
I think I can speak for just about everyone on here. If that was me coming back from the moon, I would be begging for people to ask me about it - infact I wouldn't need prompting. I'd live off the fame and adulation.
One thing I would not do, is have a post mission conference and act like someone's implanted a head exploding charge in my neck in case I speak out of term, because Armstrong especially, displayed not only speech nerves - he displayed serious duress, in fact, a mild terror.
Aldrin wasn't quite as bad but displayed what can be described as a nervous shame, whilst Collins looked like a lost boy, who displayed fidgeting properties, then makes the massive error of piping in under nervousness of his script, after Armstrong was asked by a young Patrick Moore, " when you looked up at the sky, could you see the stars in the solar corona, inspite of the glare. To which Armstrong replied, " I couldn't see the stars in (nervous pause) the soNar coroLa by eye without using the optics???...to which Collins pipes up with, " I don't remember seeing any."
This clown wasn't even on the moon, he was supposedly sitting in a command module orbiting it and he doesn't remember seeing any stars???
What the hell does it need for ordinary people to frigging wake up and see this charade for what it was and still is to this day?
People react differently when put in the same situation. If someone cut in front of you in line. Oh sorry, what if, can't forget the what, might confuse you. What if someone cut in front of you in line. You might tap the guy on the shoulder and politely ask him to go to the end of the line. Others might not say a word. While still others just might clock the guy. Saying that someone should have acted a certain way is not proof or even evidence of lying.
It might be best that you try again and try and use a scenario where it actually fits what I've just said.
-
When you think about it; Buzz punched Bart Sibrel in the face when Sibrel asked him to swear on the bible, then called him a liar.
I must admit, I do have a problem with this. He should definitely have kicked him in the nuts first, then punched him.
-
When you think about it; Buzz punched Bart Sibrel in the face when Sibrel asked him to swear on the bible, then called him a liar.
Put yourself in Buzz's position and knowing that you really went to the moon. If that was me, I'd have said quite a few things to Sibrel rather than punch him.
1: I'd have said to Sibrel, " pay $10,000 to charity and I'll swear on your bible."
2: I'd have took him to court on defamation of character charges, as well as stalking. Why didn't Aldrin?
3: I'd have gladly sat down and gave him a full interview, subject to being allowed to talk about it by authority, which there would be no reason not to...but I would have demanded a decent fee.
Any question asked of me, I'd have been only to happy to answer for a fee. If It was interrogation by Sibrel, I'd ask for a higher fee and be absolutely happy to answer all questions in the knowledge that I have nothing to hide.
Aldrin could have took all avenues, yet he chose to lash out.
Nobody is going to tell me that those so called astronauts weren't prepared for the adulation and the scrutinisation by sceptics.
If they were truthful, they could embrace it all in full confidence, yet none of them ever did.
When Sibrel showed the video of the Earth stuck to a window with all the anomalies, to Edgar Mitchell; Mitchell got angry and chased Sibrel out of his home. Mitchell's son then said to his dad, "shall I call the CIA and have them waxed."
Who in the hell would believe they could call the CIA over an interview with a reporter. Why didn't he say, " shall I call the police and have them investigate this."...?
If anyone hasn't seen 'astronauts gone wild, I suggest you look it up and see these bozo's in action. Astronauts, my arse.
Armstrong is probably the smoking gun in all this. A seemingly fearless pilot and test pilot of all kinds of craft and yet after the supposed mission to the moon, he goes all introvert and reclusive, yet at the times he is possibly made to talk, he basically uses cryptic speech - potentially in the knowledge that switched on people out there will decipher what he's saying without it being too obvious to those stood around him at the time.
I think this man was suffering from severe depression brought on by the very fact that he's had to carry this lie for all those years. His life must have been a living hell in terms of thought, because this man, out of all of them was a man that gained a conscience, fully (in my opinion) and knew that, in time, people would catch on, that he didn't do what was claimed.
Any person with a reasonable amount of common sense and logic who are open minded enough, can see there is something seriously wrong with his stance on this.
I think I can speak for just about everyone on here. If that was me coming back from the moon, I would be begging for people to ask me about it - infact I wouldn't need prompting. I'd live off the fame and adulation.
One thing I would not do, is have a post mission conference and act like someone's implanted a head exploding charge in my neck in case I speak out of term, because Armstrong especially, displayed not only speech nerves - he displayed serious duress, in fact, a mild terror.
Aldrin wasn't quite as bad but displayed what can be described as a nervous shame, whilst Collins looked like a lost boy, who displayed fidgeting properties, then makes the massive error of piping in under nervousness of his script, after Armstrong was asked by a young Patrick Moore, " when you looked up at the sky, could you see the stars in the solar corona, inspite of the glare. To which Armstrong replied, " I couldn't see the stars in (nervous pause) the soNar coroLa by eye without using the optics???...to which Collins pipes up with, " I don't remember seeing any."
This clown wasn't even on the moon, he was supposedly sitting in a command module orbiting it and he doesn't remember seeing any stars???
What the hell does it need for ordinary people to frigging wake up and see this charade for what it was and still is to this day?
People react differently when put in the same situation. If someone cut in front of you in line. Oh sorry, what if, can't forget the what, might confuse you. What if someone cut in front of you in line. You might tap the guy on the shoulder and politely ask him to go to the end of the line. Others might not say a word. While still others just might clock the guy. Saying that someone should have acted a certain way is not proof or even evidence of lying.
It might be best that you try again and try and use a scenario where it actually fits what I've just said.
OK, what if this guy is just following you around all day long. He is a known antagonist. He won't get his camera out of you face no matter how many times you ask him to. Would you sit down with the guy AGAIN after being ambushed once?
-
I was curious about the earth and learned all I need to know.
You learned all you need to know? That stinks of brainwashed and gullibility.
I have no reason to question RE/space travel/grand universe and all that.
No, because you're fully indoctrinated. Brainwashed to hypnotised standards. It's sad but it's your life.
I'm just here to try to understand why some people (like you) never got past a flat earth, which to me was a childhood belief.
But my childhood belief was the one you are promoting now. I've now rid myself of that indoctrination and brainwashing to actually start thinking for myself, rightly or wrongly in whatever case I look at. The story writers can gain a captive audience - it doesn't make their stories true.
Us grown-ups have seen enough to accept the majority model.
Correct, you are a grown up has embraced the fact that it's more comfortable accepting the majority view, because it only requires you to follow, not think.
Conspiracy. Right. Now, about aliens, THAT'S a conspiracy. I'm sure the govt. knows more than it pretends to.
Does it? are you questioning the government? are you of a belief that they are not being truthful?
But RE, etc. is way too big and broadly accepted to be a conspiracy.
Way too big in what? majority?
Plus, why NOT have satellites and a space station orbiting the earth and space ships going to the moon, Mars and beyond? Makes sense to me.
It makes sense because you have been programmed for it to make sense.
Because satellites actuaĺly work for communications.
[/quote]
The problem with FE'ers is that RE/space travel/grand universe HAS to be about brainwashing and all that. I am simply saying that I don't believe I'm brainwashed and FE'ers do. So we're at an impasse. It comes down to what you believe and I have made my choice, as have they. No FE'er is going to convince me otherwise, so I would be wasting my (and their) time by continuing to post. I will try not to from now on because I realize that I'm a guest here and will always be contradicted because that's the nature of the beast. It's like a Protestant going to a Catholic website and trying to change people on its forums. Good luck.
-
I think by now we can all safely assume one of two things:
• sceptimatic is totally but involuntarily delusional and/or suffering from some sort of as-yet undiagnosed mental dysfunction;
• sceptimatic is nothing more than a major and persistent troll.
I claim the former because I just can't accept that any rational human being living in the 21st century could be so ignorant of all the contemporary sciences.
And I claim the latter simply on the basis that sceptimatic now claims to own "238 properties all over the world".
Ultimately, I'm not sure as to why his claims of being wealthy, owning numerous "cars, boats, private airplanes, motor homes" etc has to do with actually providing any viable evidence that he knows anything at all about Buzz Aldrin the astronaut, Aldrin's space missions, or Aldrin's current state of mind. sceptimatic seems to think that repeatedly claiming to have 13 academic qualifications, to have written many books and hold numerous patents, and be a scientific researcher and world-renowned inventor precludes the validity of any other opinions apart from his own.
It's also embarrassingly obvious that sceptimatic can't or won't name even one of his alleged books, one of his alleged patents, or one of his alleged 13 qualifications. Naming any of these of course would put paid to our claims that he's a fraud once and for all. But I guess it's difficult to post "evidence" that you don't possess LOL.
If it comes down to a choice of Buzz Aldrin or sceptimatic being brainwashed, then sceptimatic wins the prize hands down.
Do I intimidate you, Geoffrey?
Yeah... about as much as a goldfish. But then I don't wanna insult goldfish LOL. At least they have 30-second memories.
So, you still won't name even one of your alleged books, one of your alleged patents, or one of your alleged 13 qualifications. Why is this? Buzz Aldrin has two accredited scientific degrees—a Masters and a Doctorate. He's also written nine books. He also has a net worth of half a billion dollars.
Can you match any of those personal achievements?
—I'm betting not. You're nothing more than a petty-minded, loser, jealous of other's successes in life—such as Aldrin's.
-
OK, what if this guy is just following you around all day long. He is a known antagonist. He won't get his camera out of you face no matter how many times you ask him to. Would you sit down with the guy AGAIN after being ambushed once?
I've just explained what I would do, did you not read it?
He's a reporter and a sceptic, so I'd make him pay for the info he wants and answer all of his questions as I'd have nothing to hide, so it's not as if he can stump me on anything, is it?....unless I was a liar and got trapped in a corner by his questions, then I might lash out at him. It's the only reason I would feel the need to.
If I was telling the truth about being on the moon, etc, I would be more than happy to respond to any allegations of fakery. Infact I'd welcome it.
-
The problem with FE'ers is that RE/space travel/grand universe HAS to be about brainwashing and all that. I am simply saying that I don't believe I'm brainwashed and FE'ers do. So we're at an impasse. It comes down to what you believe and I have made my choice, as have they. No FE'er is going to convince me otherwise, so I would be wasting my (and their) time by continuing to post. I will try not to from now on because I realize that I'm a guest here and will always be contradicted because that's the nature of the beast. It's like a Protestant going to a Catholic website and trying to change people on its forums. Good luck.
That's the thing though. It isn't a problem. The very fact rthat the indoctrinated globe model, plus a lot of science begs questions, is the reason it's being questioned.
Like you said: you're not going to have your mind changed at all about what you believe. Fair enough, no one is interested in whether you do or not, you have to do that for yourself.
It would be good to see people start to question stuff but people like you are too far gone to even give anything logical thought because you are so saturated in bullshit science. Sorry if that hurts but it's true.
Maybe one day in a few decades or so, the light bulb may come on with something, which will then make you start to go back through what you believe right now.
Instead of trying to fight the flat Earth society, try and embrace it and use it as a tool for questioning, even if you just do it as a leisure exercise. You never know, you may surprise yourself.
Coming on here and following some dunderheads who appear to have some global Earth clout, will make you no better than them.
Try following your own thoughts and try not to be intimidated by the majority just because you feel more comfortable doing so. Man up you weakling, show me you have some questioning backbone.
-
Yeah... about as much as a goldfish. But then I don't wanna insult goldfish LOL. At least they have 30-second memories.
You even believe a goldfish has a 30 second memory. How gullible are you. Who done the memory test? ;D
So, you still won't name even one of your alleged books, one of your alleged patents, or one of your alleged 13 qualifications. Why is this? Buzz Aldrin has two accredited scientific degrees—a Masters and a Doctorate. He's also written nine books. He also has a net worth of half a billion dollars.
JK Rowling is worth a lot more according to the media for her penned thoughts into books. She didn't make stuff up, did she?
Can you match any of those personal achievements?
What personal achievements?
—I'm betting not. You're nothing more than a petty-minded, loser, jealous of other's successes in life—such as Aldrin's.
I don't actually know how to respond to this bit. ;D I think I've just brought you down to infant level. ;D
-
What personal achievements?
In case you can't tell the difference JK Rowling writes fiction for children. Which is why I guess you seem to be familiar with her works LOL. Buzz Aldrin writes about science and aeronautics, and his first-hand experiences as a jet fighter pilot and astronaut.
And despite repeated requests to address the following...
So, you still won't name even one of your alleged books, one of your alleged patents, or one of your alleged 13 qualifications. Why is this?
... you still refuse to do so. This leads all of us to the obvious conclusion that all these claims are nothing more than a part of the fairy-tale existence you've created in your own brain. If you were in fact as intelligent, academically qualified and world-renowned as you claim, then obviously you wouldn't be playing these sorts of silly games. You'd be more than happy to name names.
I've called your bluff successfully numerous times on these forums, and even dared to call you a liar, but still you can't offer any meaningful defence.
You're as weak as cat's urine. And a liar.
-
In case you can't tell the difference JK Rowling writes fiction for children. Which is why I guess you seem to be familiar with her works LOL.
I am familiar with her fiction, yes. I suppose just about everyone is.
Buzz Aldrin writes about science and aeronautics, and his first-hand experiences as a jet fighter pilot and astronaut.
Like I said, JK Rowling also writes books.
I've called your bluff successfully numerous times on these forums, and even dared to call you a liar, but still you can't offer any meaningful defence.
You're as weak as cat's urine. And a liar.
Meaningful defence of what?
-
Meaningful defence of what?
Uh... you do have the memory span of a goldfish don't you my friend LOL.
Naming a couple of your books. Naming a couple of your patents. Naming a few of your claimed thirteen academic credentials.
—How's that for a good defence from you?
-
Like I said, JK Rowling also writes books.
Lots of people write books. How is that relevant to this discussion?
-
The problem with FE'ers is that RE/space travel/grand universe HAS to be about brainwashing and all that. I am simply saying that I don't believe I'm brainwashed and FE'ers do. So we're at an impasse. It comes down to what you believe and I have made my choice, as have they. No FE'er is going to convince me otherwise, so I would be wasting my (and their) time by continuing to post. I will try not to from now on because I realize that I'm a guest here and will always be contradicted because that's the nature of the beast. It's like a Protestant going to a Catholic website and trying to change people on its forums. Good luck.
That's the thing though. It isn't a problem. The very fact rthat the indoctrinated globe model, plus a lot of science begs questions, is the reason it's being questioned.
Like you said: you're not going to have your mind changed at all about what you believe. Fair enough, no one is interested in whether you do or not, you have to do that for yourself.
It would be good to see people start to question stuff but people like you are too far gone to even give anything logical thought because you are so saturated in bullshit science. Sorry if that hurts but it's true.
Maybe one day in a few decades or so, the light bulb may come on with something, which will then make you start to go back through what you believe right now.
Instead of trying to fight the flat Earth society, try and embrace it and use it as a tool for questioning, even if you just do it as a leisure exercise. You never know, you may surprise yourself.
Coming on here and following some dunderheads who appear to have some global Earth clout, will make you no better than them.
Try following your own thoughts and try not to be intimidated by the majority just because you feel more comfortable doing so. Man up you weakling, show me you have some questioning backbone.
If it were bullshit science, I'd have abandoned it by now. If you think I'm close-minded, I've changed religions more than once. I started as Orthodox/Catholic, then went to atheism, then went to fundamentalism (Church of Christ), then nothing, really (limbo), then Catholicism. If I had a reason to doubt RE/space travel/universe I would have, but I left those doubts behind when I grew up. The so-called indoctrination was simply getting on board with the best science has to offer, and FE certainly doesn't offer any that I can detect!
-
I started as Orthodox/Catholic, then went to atheism, then went to fundamentalism (Church of Christ), then nothing, really (limbo), then Catholicism.
Dayum.
-
I started as Orthodox/Catholic, then went to atheism, then went to fundamentalism (Church of Christ), then nothing, really (limbo), then Catholicism.
Dayum.
Meaning -?
-
He also has a net worth of half a billion dollars.
Wow, he has made a lot of money from saying that he went to the moon. Can you say for sure that his motivation for saying this is not just monetary?
-
Like I said, JK Rowling also writes books.
Lots of people write books. How is that relevant to this discussion?
It's relevant (I guess?) because sceptimatic seems to think in his typically deluded way that Buzz Aldrin's nine books about his aeronautics/astronautics career are merely works of fiction—similar to the "Harry Potter" books. Which is quite funny considering he—sceptimatic—claims to have written several books but is unable to name even one of them.
Then again, I think we've all worked out by now that sceptimatic's entire life appears to be one built entirely around fiction. ;D
-
He also has a net worth of half a billion dollars.
Wow, he has made a lot of money from saying that he went to the moon. Can you say for sure that his motivation for saying this is not just monetary?
He didn't make his fortune by simply "saying" that he went to the moon jroa. He actually made the journey. And no flat earther has yet been able to disprove this—even after 40 years of trying LOL. He also flew 66 combat missions as a fighter pilot in the USAF during the Korean War 1950—1953 (and which I'm guessing you'll also claim is bogus).
Considering that the Apollo space missions were fraught with potential disaster and death, it's more than logical that these guys were paid megabucks to do the job. I'm betting that you wouldn't have the cojones to take on that sort of risk jroa?
And yes; I can say I accept unequivocally that Aldrin and Armstrong were the first men to set foot on the moon. Do you have any viable evidence that absolutely proves this to be erroneous, or is it just another of your personal shots in the dark?
-
He also has a net worth of half a billion dollars.
Source please? A quick Google search says either 1/2 million or 10 million, depending on the source.
-
He also has a net worth of half a billion dollars.
Source please? A quick Google search says either 1/2 million or 10 million, depending on the source.
Yep, I agree. It does seem that every supposed site "in the know" quotes vastly different figures. The $10 million figure seems to be the most popular.
My half a billion could've been waaaay out. Although jroa obviously accepted it—without doing his own research LOL.
At any rate, for the sake of this debate, Aldrin's net worth isn't really germane anyway, other than to say he's a very rich man.
-
My half a billion could've been waaaay out. Although jroa obviously accepted it—without doing his own research LOL.
He made a lot of money just by telling people how he went to the moon. It does not matter what the exact figure is that he has left. He gives lectures and makes a boatload of money every time he does just to tell people that he was on the shiny rock in the sky. ::)
-
Meaningful defence of what?
Uh... you do have the memory span of a goldfish don't you my friend LOL.
Naming a couple of your books. Naming a couple of your patents. Naming a few of your claimed thirteen academic credentials.
—How's that for a good defence from you?
My memory's fine, your memory seems not so. I remember telling you that you are not important enough for me to divulge any info to you, as to what you ask for. I decide when and if I give out info, not you. Can you grasp this?
-
Like I said, JK Rowling also writes books.
Lots of people write books. How is that relevant to this discussion?
It's relevant because Buzz also writes (cough) fiction.
-
The problem with FE'ers is that RE/space travel/grand universe HAS to be about brainwashing and all that. I am simply saying that I don't believe I'm brainwashed and FE'ers do. So we're at an impasse. It comes down to what you believe and I have made my choice, as have they. No FE'er is going to convince me otherwise, so I would be wasting my (and their) time by continuing to post. I will try not to from now on because I realize that I'm a guest here and will always be contradicted because that's the nature of the beast. It's like a Protestant going to a Catholic website and trying to change people on its forums. Good luck.
That's the thing though. It isn't a problem. The very fact rthat the indoctrinated globe model, plus a lot of science begs questions, is the reason it's being questioned.
Like you said: you're not going to have your mind changed at all about what you believe. Fair enough, no one is interested in whether you do or not, you have to do that for yourself.
It would be good to see people start to question stuff but people like you are too far gone to even give anything logical thought because you are so saturated in bullshit science. Sorry if that hurts but it's true.
Maybe one day in a few decades or so, the light bulb may come on with something, which will then make you start to go back through what you believe right now.
Instead of trying to fight the flat Earth society, try and embrace it and use it as a tool for questioning, even if you just do it as a leisure exercise. You never know, you may surprise yourself.
Coming on here and following some dunderheads who appear to have some global Earth clout, will make you no better than them.
Try following your own thoughts and try not to be intimidated by the majority just because you feel more comfortable doing so. Man up you weakling, show me you have some questioning backbone.
If it were bullshit science, I'd have abandoned it by now. If you think I'm close-minded, I've changed religions more than once. I started as Orthodox/Catholic, then went to atheism, then went to fundamentalism (Church of Christ), then nothing, really (limbo), then Catholicism. If I had a reason to doubt RE/space travel/universe I would have, but I left those doubts behind when I grew up. The so-called indoctrination was simply getting on board with the best science has to offer, and FE certainly doesn't offer any that I can detect!
You've changed religion a few times, on what evidence? It's all based on faith and yet you changed it, why?
Peer pressure can be the only answer.
It appears you took the weak road and followed the masses to start with, wherever you were at the time, either in locality or in mind. They say a person can be converted into any faith if they're caught at a low ebb. I believe this because I've seen it numerous times, first hand.
You refuse to question your globe model because it's the same principle. It's based on mass public opinion, like religion which has all been told by those at the top and accepted on faith coupled with the explanations as to why this globe faith is the one to follow.
The absolute truth - deny it if you want - is - both models, flat or globe, are indistinguishable to the naked eye or by scope, except for the manipulation of minds by those that chose to go with one model for all to follow.
-
Like I said, JK Rowling also writes books.
Lots of people write books. How is that relevant to this discussion?
It's relevant (I guess?) because sceptimatic seems to think in his typically deluded way that Buzz Aldrin's nine books about his aeronautics/astronautics career are merely works of fiction—similar to the "Harry Potter" books. Which is quite funny considering he—sceptimatic—claims to have written several books but is unable to name even one of them.
Then again, I think we've all worked out by now that sceptimatic's entire life appears to be one built entirely around fiction. ;D
Strangely, all of our lives are based around fiction. It's with us everywhere we go, it's just a case of how each person percieves it in their own way.
-
Balloon Satellite Launched From Cape Canaveral (1962) (http://#)
It was called "a complete success."
-
Balloon Satellite Launched From Cape Canaveral (1962) (http://#)
It was called "a complete success."
It must be true because the cameraman was videoing it from his own helium balloon already waiting up there.
It's absolutely amazing what scientists can achieve. ;D
Weirdly, people actually believe all this stuff without hesitation. That's the most scariest part of it all.
We are doomed to graze from the same field as a race and watched over by the shepherds and the sheep dogs.
I sincerely believe that they could show official footage of a rocket launching a juggling clown into space without spacesuit and it would be accepted without question.
-
It must be true because the cameraman was videoing it from his own helium balloon already waiting up there.
It's absolutely amazing what scientists can achieve. ;D
Unless the cameraman's name was Thor, you must have missed the part where the announcer said that the camera was in the rocket.
-
Like I said, JK Rowling also writes books.
Lots of people write books. How is that relevant to this discussion?
It's relevant because Buzz also writes (cough) fiction.
Are you suggesting that authors of fiction can't also write non-fiction? ???
-
It must be true because the cameraman was videoing it from his own helium balloon already waiting up there.
It's absolutely amazing what scientists can achieve. ;D
Unless the cameraman's name was Thor, you must have missed the part where the announcer said that the camera was in the rocket.
No, I didn't miss it. It's extremely weird though how a camera in a rocket can simply observe this happening after release and inflation isn't it.
Fairy stories are for kids.
-
Like I said, JK Rowling also writes books.
Lots of people write books. How is that relevant to this discussion?
It's relevant because Buzz also writes (cough) fiction.
Are you suggesting that authors of fiction can't also write non-fiction? ???
Not at all. I'm suggesting buzz writes fiction, just as Alan Bean paints it.
-
The problem with FE'ers is that RE/space travel/grand universe HAS to be about brainwashing and all that. I am simply saying that I don't believe I'm brainwashed and FE'ers do. So we're at an impasse. It comes down to what you believe and I have made my choice, as have they. No FE'er is going to convince me otherwise, so I would be wasting my (and their) time by continuing to post. I will try not to from now on because I realize that I'm a guest here and will always be contradicted because that's the nature of the beast. It's like a Protestant going to a Catholic website and trying to change people on its forums. Good luck.
That's the thing though. It isn't a problem. The very fact rthat the indoctrinated globe model, plus a lot of science begs questions, is the reason it's being questioned.
Like you said: you're not going to have your mind changed at all about what you believe. Fair enough, no one is interested in whether you do or not, you have to do that for yourself.
It would be good to see people start to question stuff but people like you are too far gone to even give anything logical thought because you are so saturated in bullshit science. Sorry if that hurts but it's true.
Maybe one day in a few decades or so, the light bulb may come on with something, which will then make you start to go back through what you believe right now.
Instead of trying to fight the flat Earth society, try and embrace it and use it as a tool for questioning, even if you just do it as a leisure exercise. You never know, you may surprise yourself.
Coming on here and following some dunderheads who appear to have some global Earth clout, will make you no better than them.
Try following your own thoughts and try not to be intimidated by the majority just because you feel more comfortable doing so. Man up you weakling, show me you have some questioning backbone.
If it were bullshit science, I'd have abandoned it by now. If you think I'm close-minded, I've changed religions more than once. I started as Orthodox/Catholic, then went to atheism, then went to fundamentalism (Church of Christ), then nothing, really (limbo), then Catholicism. If I had a reason to doubt RE/space travel/universe I would have, but I left those doubts behind when I grew up. The so-called indoctrination was simply getting on board with the best science has to offer, and FE certainly doesn't offer any that I can detect!
You've changed religion a few times, on what evidence? It's all based on faith and yet you changed it, why?
Peer pressure can be the only answer.
It appears you took the weak road and followed the masses to start with, wherever you were at the time, either in locality or in mind. They say a person can be converted into any faith if they're caught at a low ebb. I believe this because I've seen it numerous times, first hand.
You refuse to question your globe model because it's the same principle. It's based on mass public opinion, like religion which has all been told by those at the top and accepted on faith coupled with the explanations as to why this globe faith is the one to follow.
The absolute truth - deny it if you want - is - both models, flat or globe, are indistinguishable to the naked eye or by scope, except for the manipulation of minds by those that chose to go with one model for all to follow.
Peer pressure isn't why I changed religions, though my wife did influence me to return to Catholicism. Still, I didn't just go back to church but stayed away until I felt ready to sit in the pews again. I've already questioned RE and concluded that it's sound. Like I said in a previous post, if I had a reason to question RE/space travel/universe I would, but I don't have a reason. Just because you question it doesn't make it false. You could be wrong (shock). I can't even entertain the idea of FE as a leisure exercise because that would be a waste of my time.
-
Peer pressure isn't why I changed religions, though my wife did influence me to return to Catholicism.
And that's just one person influencing you. No wonder you go with the flow.
Still, I didn't just go back to church but stayed away until I felt ready to sit in the pews again.
Yeah, you postponed the inevitable.
I've already questioned RE and concluded that it's sound.
No you haven't. If you had, I guarantee you would not be so sure about it.
Like I said in a previous post, if I had a reason to question RE/space travel/universe I would, but I don't have a reason.
You don't have a reason because you don't want a reason. Everything is tickety boo for you just following the trend. That's fair enough. At least you are honest enough about it.
Just because you question it doesn't make it false. You could be wrong (shock).
I could be wrong about my thoughts concerning Earth's actual make up and shape. The only shape I'm certain it isn't, is a solid rotating globe that we live on top of - and around - plus under.
I can't even entertain the idea of FE as a leisure exercise because that would be a waste of my time.
So, why are you here? seriously, what's your reasoning for being here?
Don't use the old, " I'm here to see the silly answers of flat Earther's" routine. You also can't use the inquisitive stance, either as you've already said your mind is fully made up.
I think you're mixed up and you are really here to fathom out what's what. You are just too weak to admit it fior fear of ridicule among global Earther's on here.
-
Peer pressure isn't why I changed religions, though my wife did influence me to return to Catholicism.
And that's just one person influencing you. No wonder you go with the flow.
Still, I didn't just go back to church but stayed away until I felt ready to sit in the pews again.
Yeah, you postponed the inevitable.
I've already questioned RE and concluded that it's sound.
No you haven't. If you had, I guarantee you would not be so sure about it.
Like I said in a previous post, if I had a reason to question RE/space travel/universe I would, but I don't have a reason.
You don't have a reason because you don't want a reason. Everything is tickety boo for you just following the trend. That's fair enough. At least you are honest enough about it.
Just because you question it doesn't make it false. You could be wrong (shock).
I could be wrong about my thoughts concerning Earth's actual make up and shape. The only shape I'm certain it isn't, is a solid rotating globe that we live on top of - and around - plus under.
I can't even entertain the idea of FE as a leisure exercise because that would be a waste of my time.
So, why are you here? seriously, what's your reasoning for being here?
Don't use the old, " I'm here to see the silly answers of flat Earther's" routine. You also can't use the inquisitive stance, either as you've already said your mind is fully made up.
I think you're mixed up and you are really here to fathom out what's what. You are just too weak to admit it fior fear of ridicule among global Earther's on here.
There's NO WAY that you're certain the earth isn't a rotating globe given the info I have on you so far. You insist I can't be sure of RE; well, you can't be sure of FE or whatever anti-RE you're spouting.
-
Sceptimatic: you like to argue that we shouldn't believe things that others tell us are true just because they say it's true, right? Well, you have stated that you have authored several books, yet you are evasive when asked their titles. Your claim about being an author is a lie, isn't it? If not, simply tell us the titles -- even just one to get started.
-
Sceptimatic: you like to argue that we shouldn't believe things that others tell us are true just because they say it's true, right? Well, you have stated that you have authored several books, yet you are evasive when asked their titles. Your claim about being an author is a lie, isn't it? If not, simply tell us the titles -- even just one to get started.
Your mind is already made up, no need for any further digging.
-
Sceptimatic: you like to argue that we shouldn't believe things that others tell us are true just because they say it's true, right? Well, you have stated that you have authored several books, yet you are evasive when asked their titles. Your claim about being an author is a lie, isn't it? If not, simply tell us the titles -- even just one to get started.
Your mind is already made up, no need for any further digging.
At this point, how could we not conclude that you are lying? All you have to do to prove us wrong is to tell us the title of one of your books. If you refuse to do so, you leave us no choice but to call you a liar.
-
My memory's fine, your memory seems not so. I remember telling you that you are not important enough for me to divulge any info to you, as to what you ask for. I decide when and if I give out info, not you. Can you grasp this?
I'm sure that I'm not the only round earther that'd be interested in seeing some of the books you've written. Most serious authors are more than happy to increase their readership and spread their knowledge to as many people as possible. Why not you? Who exactly do you expect to actually read your books if you won't tell anybody their titles?
And surely this flat earth site would be one of the more obvious places to spread information about your books, as you'd have a very positive, receptive audience here.
I'm assuming that you've distributed copies gratis to numerous public libraries across the UK as most science authors do? And in all likelihood several universities?
If any other round earthers here would like some specific information about sceptimatic's books, please feel free to quote this post.
(He seems to have some strong personal objections to my request, but I'm sure he won't refuse a few other's requests.)
-
It must be true because the cameraman was videoing it from his own helium balloon already waiting up there.
It's absolutely amazing what scientists can achieve. ;D
Unless the cameraman's name was Thor, you must have missed the part where the announcer said that the camera was in the rocket.
No, I didn't miss it. It's extremely weird though how a camera in a rocket can simply observe this happening after release and inflation isn't it.
It's not at all weird if that's exactly the reason that the camera was put there.
-
Sceptimatic: you like to argue that we shouldn't believe things that others tell us are true just because they say it's true, right? Well, you have stated that you have authored several books, yet you are evasive when asked their titles. Your claim about being an author is a lie, isn't it? If not, simply tell us the titles -- even just one to get started.
Your mind is already made up, no need for any further digging.
At this point, how could we not conclude that you are lying? All you have to do to prove us wrong is to tell us the title of one of your books. If you refuse to do so, you leave us no choice but to call you a liar.
I'm guessing at this point in time, poor old sceptimatic is wishing he'd never made up the obvious lie of having written several books LOL.
Although it does indirectly confirm his earlier lie about his thirteen academic qualifications—none of which he'll name either of course.
Still, it passes the time having fun shooting him down in flames with unerring regularity. ;D
-
We haven't heard from ol' sceptimatic in a while. Maybe he's diligently working on his proof that a shuttle has to accelerate at 5 mi/sec2 to reach 17,000 mi/hr in 8 minutes that he promised to show us about a month ago.
He said he already had it worked out, and it was hysterical, but I suspect he really didn't. I do believe it will be at least moderately funny, though.
-
I recon septic is in rehab after that last powder fueled blast we got.
-
I recon septic is in rehab after that last powder fueled blast we got.
He is currently in a mental asylum and no internet is available there for the patients.
-
Hope he gets better. I miss him
-
He is currently in a mental asylum and no internet is available there for the patients.
That's even more funny considering that in his very first comment here, sceptimatic said: "It would go as far as a bit of tongue wagging [about Aldrin] before they were deemed insane and suffering from space dementia or whatever is bestowed upon them".
Maybe sceptimatic's suffering from denpressure dementia? ;D
-
It seems Buzz' astrophysical ideas were used to get the European spacecraft Rosetta theoretically away from Earth 21 years ago to visit a comet. I describe thsee astrohysterical ideas of Buzz at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS) . They are evidently believed by plenty brainwashed people. So Buzz is not alone being brainwashed.
-
It seems Buzz' astrophysical ideas were used to get the European spacecraft Rosetta theoretically away from Earth 21 years ago to visit a comet. I describe thsee astrohysterical ideas of Buzz at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS) . They are evidently believed by plenty brainwashed people. So Buzz is not alone being brainwashed.
Welcome back! Did you bring Bloomington with you or was that just a happy accident?
There is are a couple of threads already underway about Rosetta so perhaps you should post your shameless plugs for your website there.
-
It seems Buzz' astrophysical ideas were used to get the European spacecraft Rosetta theoretically away from Earth 21 years ago to visit a comet. I describe three astrophysical ideas of Buzz at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS) . They are evidently believed by plenty brainwashed people. So Buzz is not alone being brainwashed.
Maybe if you posted less links to your whack-job web sites (under the guise of on-topic posts) you'd have less somewhat less than 99% of the world's scientific community and all members of this forum pissing themselves laughing every time you post some ludicrous comment?
We can only be thankful that the majority of the population listen to what Aldrin and his scientific peers have to say about the cosmos, rather than taking any notice of losers such as you suffering from obvious delusions of grandeur.
And as you've never travelled into space, and are never likely to, you're totally unqualified to comment on the experiences and knowledge gained by those who have. I'm guessing you're seriously envious of Aldrin's and the other astronauts' extraterrestrial encounters? You sound like a petulant little child who's denied a visit to the playground LOL.
-
Maybe if you posted less links to your whack-job web sites (under the guise of on-topic posts)
Genetic Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy)
you'd have less somewhat less than 99% of the world's scientific community
Appeal to Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)
and all members of this forum pissing themselves laughing every time you post some ludicrous comment?
We can only be thankful that the majority of the population listen to what Aldrin and his scientific peers have to say about the cosmos,
Argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)
rather than taking any notice of losers such as you suffering from obvious delusions of grandeur.
And as you've never travelled into space, and are never likely to, you're totally unqualified to comment on the experiences and knowledge gained by those who have. I'm guessing you're seriously envious of Aldrin's and the other astronauts' extraterrestrial encounters? You sound like a petulant little child who's denied a visit to the playground LOL.
Ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Can you try and construct a productive argument please?
-
Maybe if you posted less links to your whack-job web sites (under the guise of on-topic posts)
Genetic Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy)
you'd have less somewhat less than 99% of the world's scientific community
Appeal to Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)
and all members of this forum pissing themselves laughing every time you post some ludicrous comment?
We can only be thankful that the majority of the population listen to what Aldrin and his scientific peers have to say about the cosmos,
Argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)
rather than taking any notice of losers such as you suffering from obvious delusions of grandeur.
And as you've never travelled into space, and are never likely to, you're totally unqualified to comment on the experiences and knowledge gained by those who have. I'm guessing you're seriously envious of Aldrin's and the other astronauts' extraterrestrial encounters? You sound like a petulant little child who's denied a visit to the playground LOL.
Ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Can you try and construct a productive argument please?
Um... are you ABSOLUTELY sure you're not a flat earther? ;D
-
Um... are you ABSOLUTELY sure you're not a flat earther? ;D
Honestly. Stop.
-
Um... are you ABSOLUTELY sure you're not a flat earther? ;D
Honestly. Stop.
I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.
-
Um... are you ABSOLUTELY sure you're not a flat earther? ;D
Honestly. Stop.
I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.
Sometimes your mom and I disagree. It's natural. How's your science project?
-
Um... are you ABSOLUTELY sure you're not a flat earther? ;D
Honestly. Stop.
I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.
Sometimes your mom and I disagree. It's natural. How's your science project?
I finally proved that since when I play tug of war with my friends that because the rope is parallel to the ground the earth is flat!
Weeeee!!
-
Um... are you ABSOLUTELY sure you're not a flat earther? ;D
I notice you didn't address any of the points he made about the logical fallacies that litter your posts?
Presumably I will now be called a flat earther and a stalker.
You are worse than scepti - at least he is occasionally amusing.
-
Um... are you ABSOLUTELY sure you're not a flat earther? ;D
I notice you didn't address any of the points he made about the logical fallacies that litter your posts?
Presumably I will now be called a flat earther and a stalker.
You are worse than scepti - at least he is occasionally amusing.
Firstly, I note that you're apparently unable to list all/any of those "logical fallacies" I allegedly proposed.
Second, I only jokingly refer to Rama Set as a "stalker" because he follows me around these forums insulting me with snide little personal attacks. He never actually directly addresses the thrust of any of my comments. In fact, inexplicably, he spends more of his time responding to my posts with empty rhetoric rather than posting any meaningful content of his own. To me, that's "stalking".
Lastly, if you seriously give more credence to the content of sceptimatic's tsunami of whack-job posts, and claim that my comments are "worse" than his, then I really think you need to examine both our inputs much more closely. Would you care to point out any of my comments that even come close to "denpressure" for example, or gravity "not existing", rockets "not working" in space, or the moon and the sun being a "reflection" on a "sky dome", and "no such thing" as a vacuum?
Your powers of logical discernment seem to be on the wane my friend.
-
Um... are you ABSOLUTELY sure you're not a flat earther? ;D
I notice you didn't address any of the points he made about the logical fallacies that litter your posts?
Presumably I will now be called a flat earther and a stalker.
You are worse than scepti - at least he is occasionally amusing.
Firstly, I note that you're apparently unable to list all/any of those "logical fallacies" I allegedly proposed.
Second, I only jokingly refer to Rama Set as a "stalker" because he follows me around these forums insulting me with snide little personal attacks. He never actually directly addresses the thrust of any of my comments. In fact, inexplicably, he spends more of his time responding to my posts with empty rhetoric rather than posting any meaningful content of his own. To me, that's "stalking".
Lastly, if you seriously give more credence to the content of sceptimatic's tsunami of whack-job posts, and claim that my comments are "worse" than his, then I really think you need to examine both our inputs much more closely. Would you care to point out any of my comments that even come close to "denpressure" for example, or gravity "not existing", rockets "not working" in space, or the moon and the sun being a "reflection" on a "sky dome", and "no such thing" as a vacuum?
Your powers of logical discernment seem to be on the wane my friend.
Jroa already listed them and you are guilty of all of them. The comparison to scepti is that both your posts and his are horribke but his at least are amusing.
-
Second, I only jokingly refer to Rama Set as a "stalker" because he follows me around these forums
No, he doesn't. Don't flatter yourself.
insulting me with snide little personal attacks. He never actually directly addresses the thrust of any of my comments.
He just did, and you ignored him.
Lastly, if you seriously give more credence to the content of sceptimatic's tsunami of whack-job posts, and claim that my comments are "worse" than his, then I really think you need to examine both our inputs much more closely.
I really, really don't. I hardly read any of your posts, and skim scepti's long ones at best. That aint changing.
Would you care to point out any of my comments that even come close to "denpressure" for example, or gravity "not existing", rockets "not working" in space, or the moon and the sun being a "reflection" on a "sky dome", and "no such thing" as a vacuum?
They are all absolute bullshit - where did I say any different? However at least he is occasionally amusing.
-
Jroa already listed them and you are guilty of all of them.
Link please.
-
Jroa already listed them and you are guilty of all of them.
Link please.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62338.msg1641056#msg1641056 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62338.msg1641056#msg1641056)
Rama also listed them in this very thread with links to help you understand them and see how you are guilty of them
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61836.msg1641267#msg1641267 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61836.msg1641267#msg1641267)
-
RETards fighting. :)
-
RETards fighting. :)
LOL... so says a guy with the IQ of a goldfish, but with less knowledge of science. ;D
(Apparently it was widely known in the goldfish fraternity that earth was in fact spherical around 1899.)
-
RETards fighting. :)
Thanks Hoppy. Thanks a lot.
-
It's been more than two months now, sceptimatic; in case you forgot, you promised to explain how you arrived at the conclusion below. To jog your memory, in the conversation that followed, it came to light that you knew this took 8 minutes, somehow involved the distance travelled, and was very amusing [no one seems to doubt this]. We're still waiting.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Or have you recognized your mistake yet (I'm betting on the obvious rookie error) and just hoping this will be forgotten?
-
It's been more than two months now, sceptimatic; in case you forgot, you promised to explain how you arrived at the conclusion below. To jog your memory, in the conversation that followed, it came to light that you knew this took 8 minutes, somehow involved the distance travelled, and was very amusing [no one seems to doubt this]. We're still waiting.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Or have you recognized your mistake yet (I'm betting on the obvious rookie error) and just hoping this will be forgotten?
Like a lot of his flat earth peers who, when confronted with a question regarding their claims and who can't answer, sceptimatic just goes quiet, disappears from the thread, and—as you say—hopes it'll be lost in the mists of time, never to be addressed.
And as you've suggested, numerous people here—including, laughably, most flat earthers—undoubtedly find sceptimatic's childlike explanations of "scientific" theories an endless source of amusement, wonderment and utter disbelief. Even the way he phrases his quaint little parables about how to "understand" science the "correct" way is as though he's talking to a class of 3- and 4-year-olds. And I'm guessing he'd actually make an excellent kindergarten teacher as his powers of logic and reason would be very similar to his pupils.
Incidentally, he won't see this, as he's—thankfully—got me on his IGNORE listing. And if you can embarrass him sufficiently and make a fool of him enough times, then you'll be able to join that list. He actually sees it as a "punishment" would you believe?
;D
-
RETards fighting. :)
Please keep personal attacks out of the upper fora.
Heh. You notice jroa isn't harping on a Flat Earther's use of a word that I hate to be used as a joke.
-
Here is a recent TV appearance of Buzz. Buzz seems to be drunk as a sailor in port.
full link: BUZZ ALDRIN INTERVIEW ON LIVE TV JULY 2014 PART 1 (http://#ws)
full link: BUZZ ALDRIN ON LIVE TV JULY 2014 INTERVIEW PART 2 (http://#ws)
full link: BUZZ ALDRIN ON LIVE TV JULY 2014 INTERVIEW PART 3 (http://#ws)
full link: BUZZ ALDRIN ON LIVE TV JULY 2014 INTERVIEW FINAL PART (http://#ws)
-
It's been more than two months now, sceptimatic; in case you forgot, you promised to explain how you arrived at the conclusion below. To jog your memory, in the conversation that followed, it came to light that you knew this took 8 minutes, somehow involved the distance travelled, and was very amusing [no one seems to doubt this]. We're still waiting.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Or have you recognized your mistake yet (I'm betting on the obvious rookie error) and just hoping this will be forgotten?
There is no mistake. If the shuttle is to attain that speed then what I said has to happen. There's no other way for vertical flight.
It's not a case of acceleration over distance. It's immediate acceleration and a constant until the fuel is used. It has to be 5 miles per second per second.
There is no other way it can work on vertical flight. It would be different if it was on horizontal flight with wings.
You won't grasp this because your mind is focused on the rocket kicking itself up its own arse. This is why you people will always have a head full of crap calculations and no logical thought.
-
Are you getting desperate septic.
-
Here is a recent TV appearance of Buzz. Buzz seems to be drunk as a sailor in port.
full link: BUZZ ALDRIN INTERVIEW ON LIVE TV JULY 2014 PART 1 (http://#ws)
full link: BUZZ ALDRIN ON LIVE TV JULY 2014 INTERVIEW PART 2 (http://#ws)
full link: BUZZ ALDRIN ON LIVE TV JULY 2014 INTERVIEW PART 3 (http://#ws)
full link: BUZZ ALDRIN ON LIVE TV JULY 2014 INTERVIEW FINAL PART (http://#ws)
Something I've never understood about you, Heiwa. You argue against rockets in space but embrace the french rockets in space.
Any chance of explaining this?
You say you have a monetary interest in this stuff. This is baffling the hell out of me.
-
Are you getting desperate septic.
Not at all. Cool, calm and collected as always. Should I be getting desperate up against people like you lot?
I feel like I'm too many steps ahead. Maybe I should go a bit more basic for you people. Nah, it's ok, I know you lot don't understand what basic means.
-
Something I've never understood about you, Heiwa. You argue against rockets in space but embrace the french rockets in space.
Any chance of explaining this?
You say you have a monetary interest in this stuff. This is baffling the hell out of me.
I (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm)) argue against human space travel. It is not only dangerous/unsafe but simply impossible. But I like simple or clever satellites around Earth for GPS, communications, etc, and the French Ariane V (soon VI) rockets sending them up. So I invest in the company doing it, Airbus NV, ex EADS. I think it is a good business.
Of course, when they overcharge ESA to send up fake spacecrafts, I just laugh. ESA steals the money from me as a taxpayer, pays Airbus NV to to the job ... and I get my money back as an investor.
-
Something I've never understood about you, Heiwa. You argue against rockets in space but embrace the french rockets in space.
Any chance of explaining this?
You say you have a monetary interest in this stuff. This is baffling the hell out of me.
I (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm)) argue against human space travel. It is not only dangerous/unsafe but simply impossible. But I like simple or clever satellites around Earth for GPS, communications, etc, and the French Ariane V (soon VI) rockets sending them up. So I invest in the company doing it, Airbus NV, ex EADS. I think it is a good business.
Of course, when they overcharge ESA to send up fake spacecrafts, I just laugh. ESA steals the money from me as a taxpayer, pays Airbus NV to to the job ... and I get my money back as an investor.
Oh ok, I see where you're coming from. That's a fair enough game.
-
It's been more than two months now, sceptimatic; in case you forgot, you promised to explain how you arrived at the conclusion below. To jog your memory, in the conversation that followed, it came to light that you knew this took 8 minutes, somehow involved the distance travelled, and was very amusing [no one seems to doubt this]. We're still waiting.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Or have you recognized your mistake yet (I'm betting on the obvious rookie error) and just hoping this will be forgotten?
There is no mistake. If the shuttle is to attain that speed then what I said has to happen. There's no other way for vertical flight.
It's not a case of acceleration over distance. It's immediate acceleration and a constant until the fuel is used. It has to be 5 miles per second per second.
There is no other way it can work on vertical flight. It would be different if it was on horizontal flight with wings.
You won't grasp this because your mind is focused on the rocket kicking itself up its own arse. This is why you people will always have a head full of crap calculations and no logical thought.
It's funny because calculations and logic are synonyms.
Speaking of calculations and ligic, you need to show some to prove your notion that space shuttles have to accelerate really fast to get into orbit. They do start out going up but that's just so they can get really high off the ground so they can get out of the atmosphere and then they rotate to face horizontally and start gaining speed. The shuttle actually does a slower turn throughout it's flight to save fuel, but the same thing applies. Hardly any energy is used to get the shuttle really high up compared to the ammount used to accelerate it.
-
RETards fighting. :)
Yet more evidence that "this forum is strictly moderated!" :P
-
It's been more than two months now, sceptimatic; in case you forgot, you promised to explain how you arrived at the conclusion below. To jog your memory, in the conversation that followed, it came to light that you knew this took 8 minutes, somehow involved the distance travelled, and was very amusing [no one seems to doubt this]. We're still waiting.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Or have you recognized your mistake yet (I'm betting on the obvious rookie error) and just hoping this will be forgotten?
There is no mistake. If the shuttle is to attain that speed then what I said has to happen. There's no other way for vertical flight.
It's not a case of acceleration over distance. It's immediate acceleration and a constant until the fuel is used. It has to be 5 miles per second per second.
"That speed" - do you mean 17,000 mi/hr as first stipulated? What has to happen to attain that speed? 5 mi/sec2 for eight minutes? Why? Please show your math. Why does the direction - vertical or horizontal matter?
If you accelerate at a constant 5 mi/sec/sec how fast will you be going after four seconds? How fast after 8 minutes?
There is no other way it can work on vertical flight. It would be different if it was on horizontal flight with wings.
You won't grasp this because your mind is focused on the rocket kicking itself up its own arse. This is why you people will always have a head full of crap calculations and no logical thought.
Acceleration is acceleration, no matter what the method of propulsion is. How do wings supply acceleration?
It doesn't matter what direction the acceleration is, the results are the same.
I'm still betting on the rookie error for where that 5 mi/sec2 came from.
-
It's been more than two months now, sceptimatic; in case you forgot, you promised to explain how you arrived at the conclusion below. To jog your memory, in the conversation that followed, it came to light that you knew this took 8 minutes, somehow involved the distance travelled, and was very amusing [no one seems to doubt this]. We're still waiting.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Or have you recognized your mistake yet (I'm betting on the obvious rookie error) and just hoping this will be forgotten?
There is no mistake. If the shuttle is to attain that speed then what I said has to happen. There's no other way for vertical flight.
It's not a case of acceleration over distance. It's immediate acceleration and a constant until the fuel is used. It has to be 5 miles per second per second.
"That speed" - do you mean 17,000 mi/hr as first stipulated? What has to happen to attain that speed? 5 mi/sec2 for eight minutes? Why? Please show your math. Why does the direction - vertical or horizontal matter?
If you accelerate at a constant 5 mi/sec/sec how fast will you be going after four seconds? How fast after 8 minutes?
There is no other way it can work on vertical flight. It would be different if it was on horizontal flight with wings.
You won't grasp this because your mind is focused on the rocket kicking itself up its own arse. This is why you people will always have a head full of crap calculations and no logical thought.
Acceleration is acceleration, no matter what the method of propulsion is. How do wings supply acceleration?
It doesn't matter what direction the acceleration is, the results are the same.
I'm still betting on the rookie error for where that 5 mi/sec2 came from.
You're smart but as naive as hell.
Observe what I type.
Naturally the speed of the rocket is bullshit, so let's get that out in the open.
Assuming we accept the fantasy as real then the rocket has to IMMEDIATELY accelerate to 17,000 mph from the immediate lift off. It can NOT gain acceleration vertically.
5 miles per second times by 8 minutes or 480 seconds means an altitude of 2,400 miles?
It naturally is bullshit. Don;t even dare pretend that it gains acceleration as it climbs. why?
Observe what I type.
Your rocket has to use full thrust to get off the launch pad. It's at it's ultimate strength of push and can only keep that or lose it. It cannot increase it.
Observe why I say this as it applies to all life making a vertical movement whether it's an organism jumping ot a mechanical device under energy of whatever powers it. VERTICALLY.
VERTICALLY. OK?
Bend down and spring up. Where is your maximum thrust to lift your body?
Can your body gain in momentum after you have used full thrust, vertically?
A bow and arrow. When is that arrow at it's optimum power and can it gain in power once released?
None of them are under constant energy applied so both will utilise the full power and lose it the second it's released, vertically.
Firework rocket. Light the fuse and it lifts off at super speed and keeps it until it uses up it's fuel. It does not gain by acceleration except the immediate accelerated launch, vertically.
A rocket will expend all of its fuel as fast as it moves and will fall to Earth in very short order, mostly after powered VERTICAL flight of around 30 seconds or less. Some maybe a little more.
No vertical rocket is going to burn for any 8 minutes. It's impossible and you should know why.
Not convinced are you?
You can't grasp it because your mind is based on fantasy science.
Get in your var and go and negotiate a steep hill.
Your best chance of getting up that steep hill is to put it in first gear and press that foot pedal to the floor.
Will you accelerate up that hill? no. You will immediately accelerate and then your car is either expending all its fuel keeping a steady run or it slows and claps out.
Get this stupid 17,000 mph crap out of your head and gather some logic. You have been filled full of crap your whole life and this is just one part of it.
Wake up before you expire in total ignorance.
-
Go septic, you got the bull by the horns now. You just posted a page of nonsense to a pretty smart man. Are you brave or stupid.
ps. take your var for a drive.
-
Unbelievable!
What an unmitigated load of utter bullshit is the above. It's obvious sceptimatic doesn't even understand what acceleration is. ;D
I'm still laughing... and my ribs hurt... and I can't see my screen for tears.............................
-
It's been more than two months now, sceptimatic; in case you forgot, you promised to explain how you arrived at the conclusion below. To jog your memory, in the conversation that followed, it came to light that you knew this took 8 minutes, somehow involved the distance travelled, and was very amusing [no one seems to doubt this]. We're still waiting.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Or have you recognized your mistake yet (I'm betting on the obvious rookie error) and just hoping this will be forgotten?
There is no mistake. If the shuttle is to attain that speed then what I said has to happen. There's no other way for vertical flight.
It's not a case of acceleration over distance. It's immediate acceleration and a constant until the fuel is used. It has to be 5 miles per second per second.
"That speed" - do you mean 17,000 mi/hr as first stipulated? What has to happen to attain that speed? 5 mi/sec2 for eight minutes? Why? Please show your math. Why does the direction - vertical or horizontal matter?
If you accelerate at a constant 5 mi/sec/sec how fast will you be going after four seconds? How fast after 8 minutes?
There is no other way it can work on vertical flight. It would be different if it was on horizontal flight with wings.
You won't grasp this because your mind is focused on the rocket kicking itself up its own arse. This is why you people will always have a head full of crap calculations and no logical thought.
Acceleration is acceleration, no matter what the method of propulsion is. How do wings supply acceleration?
It doesn't matter what direction the acceleration is, the results are the same.
I'm still betting on the rookie error for where that 5 mi/sec2 came from.
You're smart but as naive as hell.
Observe what I type.
Naturally the speed of the rocket is bullshit, so let's get that out in the open.
Assuming we accept the fantasy as real then the rocket has to IMMEDIATELY accelerate to 17,000 mph from the immediate lift off. It can NOT gain acceleration vertically.
5 miles per second times by 8 minutes or 480 seconds means an altitude of 2,400 miles?
It naturally is bullshit. Don;t even dare pretend that it gains acceleration as it climbs. why?
Observe what I type.
Your rocket has to use full thrust to get off the launch pad. It's at it's ultimate strength of push and can only keep that or lose it. It cannot increase it.
Observe why I say this as it applies to all life making a vertical movement whether it's an organism jumping ot a mechanical device under energy of whatever powers it. VERTICALLY.
VERTICALLY. OK?
Bend down and spring up. Where is your maximum thrust to lift your body?
Can your body gain in momentum after you have used full thrust, vertically?
A bow and arrow. When is that arrow at it's optimum power and can it gain in power once released?
None of them are under constant energy applied so both will utilise the full power and lose it the second it's released, vertically.
Firework rocket. Light the fuse and it lifts off at super speed and keeps it until it uses up it's fuel. It does not gain by acceleration except the immediate accelerated launch, vertically.
A rocket will expend all of its fuel as fast as it moves and will fall to Earth in very short order, mostly after powered VERTICAL flight of around 30 seconds or less. Some maybe a little more.
No vertical rocket is going to burn for any 8 minutes. It's impossible and you should know why.
Not convinced are you?
You can't grasp it because your mind is based on fantasy science.
Get in your var and go and negotiate a steep hill.
Your best chance of getting up that steep hill is to put it in first gear and press that foot pedal to the floor.
Will you accelerate up that hill? no. You will immediately accelerate and then your car is either expending all its fuel keeping a steady run or it slows and claps out.
Get this stupid 17,000 mph crap out of your head and gather some logic. You have been filled full of crap your whole life and this is just one part of it.
Wake up before you expire in total ignorance.
in a rocket, the acceleration is constant, but acceleration means change in velovity, and velocity and acceleration are not the same thing. The reason that arrows and you jumping don't accelerate upwards after you leave the ground is because you and the arrow don't have rockets or propellers to keep accelerating it/you. A rocket accelerates at a constant rate, which means that the speed keeps on getting faster and faster even if the acceleration stays the same.
Have you ever driven a car? As you go onto the freeway onramp and accelerate to freeway speed you are on an upward slope, and if you hold down the gas pedal to accelerate up the ramp your acceleration actually reduces as you speed up yet you keep on going faster and faster. Just look it up, acceleration is not the same thing as velovity. If things can accelerate instantly like you said, then you would be able to jump off of of a clif or crash a car and you would be fine, but objects in motion tend to stay in motion
-
It's been more than two months now, sceptimatic; in case you forgot, you promised to explain how you arrived at the conclusion below. To jog your memory, in the conversation that followed, it came to light that you knew this took 8 minutes, somehow involved the distance travelled, and was very amusing [no one seems to doubt this]. We're still waiting.
It should be pretty obvious to you that a shuttle launching into so called space, supposedly attaining a speed of 17,000 mph, would have to accelerate at a 5 miles per second per second to attain this 17,000 mph speed.
Do you under stand what this means?
Or have you recognized your mistake yet (I'm betting on the obvious rookie error) and just hoping this will be forgotten?
There is no mistake. If the shuttle is to attain that speed then what I said has to happen. There's no other way for vertical flight.
It's not a case of acceleration over distance. It's immediate acceleration and a constant until the fuel is used. It has to be 5 miles per second per second.
"That speed" - do you mean 17,000 mi/hr as first stipulated? What has to happen to attain that speed? 5 mi/sec2 for eight minutes? Why? Please show your math. Why does the direction - vertical or horizontal matter?
If you accelerate at a constant 5 mi/sec/sec how fast will you be going after four seconds? How fast after 8 minutes?
There is no other way it can work on vertical flight. It would be different if it was on horizontal flight with wings.
You won't grasp this because your mind is focused on the rocket kicking itself up its own arse. This is why you people will always have a head full of crap calculations and no logical thought.
Acceleration is acceleration, no matter what the method of propulsion is. How do wings supply acceleration?
It doesn't matter what direction the acceleration is, the results are the same.
I'm still betting on the rookie error for where that 5 mi/sec2 came from.
You're smart but as naive as hell.
You may be right about the naive part - I'm here, aren't I? That may suggest otherwise about being smart, too. Whatever. It's always good to see a different perspective and I have learned some things in my time here, so it's all good.
Observe what I type.
Naturally the speed of the rocket is bullshit, so let's get that out in the open.
You were the one that brought it up in the first place, but it sounds about right for LEO.
Assuming we accept the fantasy as real then the rocket has to IMMEDIATELY accelerate to 17,000 mph from the immediate lift off.
That is fantasy and I don't accept it. To do that would require infinite acceleration, which would require infinite power, which is clearly impossible. It's not necessary in real-world launches. Why would you have to have terminal velocity off the pad?
It can NOT gain acceleration vertically.
If thrust exceeds weight it will accelerate vertically.
5 miles per second times by 8 minutes or 480 seconds means an altitude of 2,400 miles?
I asked how fast, not how high, and that answer is wrong, anyway.
The acceleration is 5 mi per second per second.
The answer to the question I asked is 2400 mi per second.
v = at (velocity is acceleration times time)
= (5 mi/sec2)(480 sec)
= 2,400 mi/sec.
Assuming it went straight up the whole time, the altitude would be
s = 1/2at2 (distance is one-half acceleration times time squared)
= (5 mi/sec2)(480 sec)2/2
= (5 mi/sec2)(230,400 sec2)/2
= 576,000 miles
Fortunately, we don't need to accelerate at this rate!
It naturally is bullshit. Don;t even dare pretend that it gains acceleration as it climbs. why?
Observe what I type.
Your rocket has to use full thrust to get off the launch pad. It's at it's ultimate strength of push and can only keep that or lose it. It cannot increase it.
Maximum thrust getting off the pad is a reasonable assumption and probably true enough in most cases. The thing is, if going straight up the whole time, a rocket's acceleration will be proportional to the amount its thrust exceeds its weight. As it burns fuel, its weight decreases, so if the thrust remains constant, the acceleration will increase. If it has enough thrust to leave the pad, at maximum weight, it will accelerate at a greater rate as it climbs under constant thrust because it's getting lighter.
Observe why I say this as it applies to all life making a vertical movement whether it's an organism jumping ot a mechanical device under energy of whatever powers it. VERTICALLY.
VERTICALLY. OK?
Bend down and spring up. Where is your maximum thrust to lift your body?
Can your body gain in momentum after you have used full thrust, vertically?
A bow and arrow. When is that arrow at it's optimum power and can it gain in power once released?
None of them are under constant energy applied so both will utilise the full power and lose it the second it's released, vertically.
Also guns. In a gun, the projectile will be accelerated by the force of the burning powder until it leaves the barrel; after that, the powder can no longer provide an accelerating force.
All this is true, but these aren't rockets. Rockets continue to provide thrust after they've left the pad.
Firework rocket. Light the fuse and it lifts off at super speed and keeps it until it uses up it's fuel. It does not gain by acceleration except the immediate accelerated launch, vertically.
This is not necessarily true. Have you studied this to draw your conclusion?
A rocket will expend all of its fuel as fast as it moves and will fall to Earth in very short order, mostly after powered VERTICAL flight of around 30 seconds or less. Some maybe a little more.
Where did this 30 seconds (or so) come from? Did you make it up?
No vertical rocket is going to burn for any 8 minutes. It's impossible and you should know why.
I don't know if it is impossible or not, but don't see any reason why it should be impossible in principle. Even if it is impossible in practice, since real rockets don't lift off and go straight up for 8 minutes, it doesn't matter.
Not convinced are you?
Nope.
You can't grasp it because your mind is based on fantasy science.
I can't grasp it because what you're saying is nonsense.
Get in your var and go and negotiate a steep hill.
Your best chance of getting up that steep hill is to put it in first gear and press that foot pedal to the floor.
Will you accelerate up that hill? no. You will immediately accelerate and then your car is either expending all its fuel keeping a steady run or it slows and claps out.
How long you can accelerate uphill depends on three basic things: how much power is available, the mass of the car (how much it weighs), and how steep the hill is. There's also aerodynamic drag (considerable if you're going fast enough) and a few odds and ends like friction we will neglect here. The car getting lighter as you use up the fuel is also ignored here; this is a small effect in a car, where the weight of the fuel is a small fraction of total vehicle weight and changes slowly, but a very significant consideration with rockets since the fuel is a very large part of its initial mass, and can be shed very quickly.
Power is the ability to do a given amount of work in a given amount of time. Doing the same work in less time requires more power, doing more work in the same amount of time requires more power. "Work" in this context is lifting the weight of the car to higher elevation by driving uphill.
If you're accelerating from a stop at the bottom of a hill, your speed is slow at first so you start gaining elevation slowly, so the power required is relatively low. As you accelerate, the power required increases because you're climbing a greater distance (doing more work) in a given amount of time. Eventually you will reach the maximum power your engine can produce and you can no longer accelerate going uphill - but you can maintain that speed if the hill maintains the same slope.
Get this stupid 17,000 mph crap out of your head and gather some logic. You have been filled full of crap your whole life and this is just one part of it.
You were the one who brought up 17,000 mi/hr.
Wake up before you expire in total ignorance.
Back atcha.