So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 25, 2014, 02:31:35 AM

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
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.

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.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 25, 2014, 05:11:57 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 25, 2014, 02:31:35 AM

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
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.

Quote from: Heiwa on August 24, 2014, 08:28:56 AM

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 .

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.

Quote from: inquisitive on August 25, 2014, 05:50:09 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 25, 2014, 05:11:57 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 25, 2014, 02:31:35 AM

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
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.

You can read about the numerous errors Heiwa makes in his website papers at this site:   James Randi Educational Foundation.

—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.

Quote from: ausGeoff on August 25, 2014, 09:24:45 AM

—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.

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 .
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. 

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on August 25, 2014, 04:42:21 PM

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 .
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.

Quote from: ausGeoff on August 25, 2014, 09:24:45 AM

—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.

I'm almost tempted to agree with tappet for once. Almost.

Hey ausGeoff, relax; don't you want to make an easy million Euro?

Quote from: markjo on August 25, 2014, 06:44:12 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 24, 2014, 08:28:56 AM

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 .

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?

Quote from: Heiwa on August 25, 2014, 08:03:31 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 25, 2014, 06:44:12 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 24, 2014, 08:28:56 AM

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 .

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 , 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?

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.

Quote from: markjo on August 26, 2014, 01:26:47 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on August 26, 2014, 01:26:47 PM

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.

Quote from: markjo on August 26, 2014, 01:26:47 PM

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 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.

Quote

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.....