So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed

Quote from: markjo on September 16, 2014, 09:03:57 AM

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 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 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?

Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2014, 10:07:33 AM

I find this 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.

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.   

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?

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on September 17, 2014, 05:28:58 PM

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.

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.

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!

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 19, 2014, 03:51:38 AM

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?

Quote from: Heiwa on September 19, 2014, 04:28:37 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 19, 2014, 03:51:38 AM

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.   

Quote from: Heiwa on September 18, 2014, 09:23:46 AM

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? 

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 19, 2014, 03:51:38 AM

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.

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 .

  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? 

Quote from: ausGeoff on September 19, 2014, 07:51:06 AM

  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.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on September 20, 2014, 07:08:54 AM

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?

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 19, 2014, 07:53:46 PM

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 .

And yet this video shows that it is possible:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Top-Down building collapse 2

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 .
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 . 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!

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on September 20, 2014, 12:24:19 PM

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 .
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 . 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.