What about that?

  • 11 Replies
  • 1714 Views
What about that?
« on: February 16, 2007, 04:59:57 PM »
There is more serious facts given by the Nasa, but as some FE'rs fanatics may say, it's fake. By saying that the Nasa lies to us, you are assuming that other countries are also lying like Russia and France who have launched many sattelites in orbit.

I am questioning myself about the point of this website, and the goal too. Wouldn't it be more easier that you were wrong at the begining? I believe that you are wrong and I will prove my theory in this thread.

What about this news :
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/asia/18cnd-china.html?ex=1326776400&en=3f5fb4a065572bbb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

In your FAQ, you talked about conspiracy and money. Let's overview this point from a basic example ; I am the writer of this story, I am paid by the news agency to write this article. Many writers are paid to write "conspirational" stories. The government is spending a huge budget on rocket ships and is paying alot of scientist to study space, stars, planets and moon. Where do they gain profits? Do they really make THAT amount of money by telling false things? Why spending that much money to lie? I wan't proof.

I don't live near a shore, I live in Montreal (Quebec). I don't have the money to rent a beautiful apt. near the shore because I'm still young. I believe that the Earth is round, like 99% of everybody who comes here. For me this website is a trick to gather people. Still, it's more for me a web site builded by someone who live in London named Daniel Shenton (I guess it's the webmaster), hosted on a US host named InsiderHosting. I'll stop copy and pasting the WHOIS informations and I'll continue my reflexion...

Do you have valid pictures of the Icewall or the army surrounding the icewall or even a proof that there is army there or anything else? I guess not. It's maybe the reason why they aren't a proof, because they are almost all saying that the Earth is round.

"The ice wall is roughly 150ft high."
Can you explain me why even with a telescope, if you live near the coast you cannot see this wall? Can you please draw me the shape of this wall and where do this theory of "wall of ice" come from?

"A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead."
What? Are you kidding me?
My computer is enough powerful to generate something real enought to let you believe that the Earth is rectangular. It looks like you have no or not many 3D knowledge. 3D imagery is generated by computers and not by specific computers. They could easily render something very fast if they had something similar like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_gene Blue Gene. Talking about software, 3ds max or Maya could easily do the job and they did not cost billions of $ to develop.

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space
What about real people - that have friends - who SAW a shuttle launch?

Anyway, I look forward to a reply. I have more facts to bring.

Thanks,
Michael

Re: What about that?
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2007, 05:03:50 PM »
Quote from: "mickoes"
There is more serious facts given by the Nasa, but as some FE'rs fanatics may say, it's fake. By saying that the Nasa lies to us, you are assuming that other countries are also lying like Russia and France who have launched many sattelites in orbit.

I am questioning myself about the point of this website, and the goal too. Wouldn't it be more easier that you were wrong at the begining? I believe that you are wrong and I will prove my theory in this thread.

What about this news :
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/asia/18cnd-china.html?ex=1326776400&en=3f5fb4a065572bbb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

In your FAQ, you talked about conspiracy and money. Let's overview this point from a basic example ; I am the writer of this story, I am paid by the news agency to write this article. Many writers are paid to write "conspirational" stories. The government is spending a huge budget on rocket ships and is paying alot of scientist to study space, stars, planets and moon. Where do they gain profits? Do they really make THAT amount of money by telling false things? Why spending that much money to lie? I wan't proof.

I don't live near a shore, I live in Montreal (Quebec). I don't have the money to rent a beautiful apt. near the shore because I'm still young. I believe that the Earth is round, like 99% of everybody who comes here. For me this website is a trick to gather people. Still, it's more for me a web site builded by someone who live in London named Daniel Shenton (I guess it's the webmaster), hosted on a US host named InsiderHosting. I'll stop copy and pasting the WHOIS informations and I'll continue my reflexion...

Do you have valid pictures of the Icewall or the army surrounding the icewall or even a proof that there is army there or anything else? I guess not. It's maybe the reason why they aren't a proof, because they are almost all saying that the Earth is round.

"The ice wall is roughly 150ft high."
Can you explain me why even with a telescope, if you live near the coast you cannot see this wall? Can you please draw me the shape of this wall and where do this theory of "wall of ice" come from?

"A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead."
What? Are you kidding me?
My computer is enough powerful to generate something real enought to let you believe that the Earth is rectangular. It looks like you have no or not many 3D knowledge. 3D imagery is generated by computers and not by specific computers. They could easily render something very fast if they had something similar like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_gene Blue Gene. Talking about software, 3ds max or Maya could easily do the job and they did not cost billions of $ to develop.

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space
What about real people - that have friends - who SAW a shuttle launch?

Anyway, I look forward to a reply. I have more facts to bring.

Thanks,
Michael

yea dont even waste your time here, these people are so full of shit, they will just say read the faq you are fuckin wrong

What about that?
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2007, 05:09:46 PM »
Actually I read the whole FAQ, I need some answers.

What about that?
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2007, 05:49:18 PM »
Someone?

What about that?
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2007, 06:35:37 PM »
No answer? Great, I have my answer, this is lame. Thanks.

?

openminded

What about that?
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2007, 09:14:38 PM »
If I dont see an admin or moderator, or someone of high power at these forums responde to this guy soon, this really shows that you guys have no idea what your talking about.

What about that?
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2007, 09:16:53 PM »
The only one that  seems to respond is Tom Bishop,and he's a complete retard.  :roll:
his space means nothing.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
What about that?
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2007, 09:22:28 PM »
Quote from: "openminded"
If I dont see an admin or moderator, or someone of high power at these forums responde to this guy soon, this really shows that you guys have no idea what your talking about.

"No 1 answered in 10 minutes!!!!111one whoot!! I win!!!one!lol!"   :roll:


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

What about that?
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2007, 09:23:48 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "openminded"
If I dont see an admin or moderator, or someone of high power at these forums responde to this guy soon, this really shows that you guys have no idea what your talking about.

"No 1 answered in 10 minutes!!!!111one whoot!! I win!!!one!lol!"   :roll:


actually,noone answered in like 4 hours.  :roll:
his space means nothing.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
What about that?
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2007, 09:45:00 PM »
Fine.

1. They gain profits from not actually spending the money in their trust in the manner they claim to be.
2. You can't see the ice wall with a telescope from the coast due to the very small angle involved.  Any surface irregularity would mask the wall.  Also, the atmosphere tends to get in your way.
3. I've seen three shuttle launches.  It did nothing to prove the shape of the earth.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

DELETED

What about that?
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2007, 09:57:15 PM »
DELETED

What about that?
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2007, 10:00:24 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Fine.

1. They gain profits from not actually spending the money in their trust in the manner they claim to be.
2. You can't see the ice wall with a telescope from the coast due to the very small angle involved.  Any surface irregularity would mask the wall.  Also, the atmosphere tends to get in your way.
3. I've seen three shuttle launches.  It did nothing to prove the shape of the earth.


At least you believe they send rockets up in the air somewhere ? Or no ? Is it an an elaborate optical illusion ???

What sort of answer is your answer # 2 ? Kindly elaborate how the atmosphere tends to "get in your way"

And what sort of answer is # 1 ? Completely vague. How can you explain elaborate conspiracies with a few vague words like that ? You don't sound too sure about what you are talking.