NASA EPIC LIES

Quote from: cikljamas on June 03, 2020, 01:07:11 PM

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my last post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

Funny how her eyes and chin (amongst other things) don't match. Eyes don't suddenly move upwards on a face when somebody gets older.

How is it that you choose to ignore this every time you post their photos? Ignoring something does not magically make it go away.

Haven't you read my latest post :

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my previous post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on June 03, 2020, 01:10:30 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 03, 2020, 01:07:11 PM

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my last post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

Funny how her eyes and chin (amongst other things) don't match. Eyes don't suddenly move upwards on a face when somebody gets older.

How is it that you choose to ignore this every time you post their photos? Ignoring something does not magically make it go away.

Haven't you read my latest post :

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my previous post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

You actually believe that the astronaut is an actress and that the other Resnik agreed to having her name and image used? Really farfetched.

And funny because her image was not used to portray the astronaut. Because then you still have the problem that they would be the same person on the pictures. That works both ways.

If her (Prof. Resnik) image was used for the astronaut Resnik, how do they look different? Because they do, we know that her picture was NOT used for the astronaut.

This is something that you should have thought about as well.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my last post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

Your link doesn't explain the Tom hoax.

Those who know how to think

realise that you are spouting off topic garbage, which has already been refuted elsewhere in an attempt to pretend you haven't been refuted and to try and distract from your failure to justify your claims.

Again, if you want to discuss MMX or the like, go back to any of the countless threads on it. Perhaps one where stellar aberration and MMX were discussed together clearly showing aether doesn't exist.

Again, you mean superficial similarities.
Not identical.
If you want to claim they are identical, try finding photos of them from the same angle, with the same facial expression.
Just looking at the nose, those 2 have significant differences.
The creases of the nose are far more pronounced in the image on the left than the right.
The base is also different with the one on the right having a flat base, while the one on the left has the tip of the nose rounding out with the sides of the nose higher than in the middle.
Likewise, the teeth don't appear to be the same, with the overall line of teeth on the right being rounded, while the one on the left appears to be far more pointed.

And without a source of your photo, it is quite pointless.

Seriously? Wrinkles?
They have wrinkles on their head (which aren't the same), so they must be the same?

So you have no actual evidence that they are the same people.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my last post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

So what you are saying now is that your prior statements were outright lies and that in fact they are not the same person and that they are in fact 2 different people?

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my last post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

Why would NASA even want to perpetrate such a hoax?

Are you claiming that every Space Shuttle flight had no crew?

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on June 03, 2020, 01:10:30 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 03, 2020, 01:07:11 PM

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my last post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

Funny how her eyes and chin (amongst other things) don't match. Eyes don't suddenly move upwards on a face when somebody gets older.

How is it that you choose to ignore this every time you post their photos? Ignoring something does not magically make it go away.

Haven't you read my latest post :

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my previous post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

After closer inspection i came to this conclusion regarding Judy Resnik :



Professor Judy Resnik is not the doppelgänger of Judy Resnik actress ("astronaut").
We'll see in the following days what my closer inspection is going to reveal about the remaining five actors and their alleged doppelgangers...
I am very well known for following the evidence wherever it leads, that is to say for my readiness to speak out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If only JackBlack and Rabinoz could say the same about themselves. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 03, 2020, 01:12:03 PM

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on June 03, 2020, 01:10:30 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 03, 2020, 01:07:11 PM

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my last post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

Funny how her eyes and chin (amongst other things) don't match. Eyes don't suddenly move upwards on a face when somebody gets older.

How is it that you choose to ignore this every time you post their photos? Ignoring something does not magically make it go away.

Haven't you read my latest post :

“Ladies and gentlemen, we're experiencing some turbulence. Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts.” Maybe you haven't noticed, but in my previous post two distinctively different persons portrayed "astronaut" Judith Resnik (first and second image)...Now you have to read this very interesting article : A very clever multi-leveled hoax : https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/

After closer inspection i came to this conclusion regarding Judy Resnik :



Professor Judy Resnik is not the doppelgänger of Judy Resnik actress ("astronaut").
We'll see in the following days what my closer inspection is going to reveal about the remaining five actors and their alleged doppelgangers...
I am very well known for following the evidence wherever it leads, that is to say for my readiness to speak out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If only JackBlack and Rabinoz could say the same about themselves. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

So wait. Before you were saying that Lawyer Resnik is the same person as Astronaut Resnik.
Now you are saying they are not the same? In other words, agreeing with what all evidence points to all along - They are two separate people?

Well, chikpajamas, it's refreshing to see you finally growing as a person and owning up to being mistaken.

Find a picture of Resnik the college professor in her younger years, and I'm betting the two Resnik women will look like they are from separate ethnic groups. I can see a bit of Asian in professor Resnik.

If only JackBlack and Rabinoz could say the same about themselves. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

Mr cikljamas, after the fake photos that you have used in you videos to attempt to prove your lunar landing hoax, I don't believe a word you say.

If you claimed that the sky was blue I'd run outside and check for myself.

I am very well known for following the evidence wherever it leads

You mean you are well known for discarding any evidence that contradicts your ideas unless you can somehow manipulate it to further your agenda.
You have no apparent desire to speak the truth.
You will only "admit" to being mistaken when it furthers your agenda.
You have literally faked photos or taken and repeatedly reused fake photos after they have been exposed as fake.
You have repeatedly misquoted people, even after it has been clearly explained how you are misquoting them.
That shows you don't care about the truth or being shown to be wrong or following the evidence.
Instead it shows you are quite willing to use extreme dishonesty to further your goals.

Meanwhile, I have shown a consistent desire to seek out and say and explain the truth.

You have now claimed that the person allegedly on Challenger, and the law professor are/were 2 different people.
That means your prior claim of them being the same person was completely false.
Do you understand that?
Are you going to admit that?

And now that you have effectively admitted your prior analysis is pure garbage, even though you still presented them as the same, why should we trust any further similar baseless claims from you?
Why should we believe that the law professor was ever the same person as the astronaut?
Why should we believe that the astronauts are not the same person.

So now we have 3 sets.
Young Astronaut to Challenger astronaut.
Young Astronaut to old professor.
Challenger astronaut to old professor.

If you want any hope of convincing a rational person, provide clear and simple reasons for why you think each of these sets is as you claim, i.e. either they are the same person or they are different people.

And not just a superficial "they are the same" or "their X is the same". Provide a clear and detailed comparison showing exactly what is in common or what is different between them and how you conclude that.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 02, 2020, 06:35:25 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on June 02, 2020, 04:33:29 PM

The Michelson-Morley experiment was not the only one that was of concern to Einstein, however. In fact, since Einstein was well aware
of previous experiments with the same results, he probably would have expected a negative result from Michelson-Morley.

Who says the "The Michelson-Morley experiment" "was of concern to Einstein"?

Those who know how to think, and those who know the true history (what was going on prior to Einstein and the development of his theories). MMX came as a consequence of eager (scientific) need for conducting the final, decisive attempt of establishing (detection) the existence of ether and the expected velocity of earth's relative motion through it. The results of MMX confirmed what had been known (proven at somewhat lower level of precision) for so long, after great scientific experiments performend by Arago, Hoek, Airy, Klinkerfuess, Mascart and others :

Might I remind you that Hoek, Airy and Klinkerfues were prominent astronomers who would have certainly accepted the Heliocentric Solar System.

1. Ether exists (there was a fringe shift)

No! That is NOT what Michelson himself wrote!
Albert Abraham Michelson NEVER said that "there was a fringe shift"! Read again where Michelson wrote was about the "decidedly negative result" in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:

The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one-sixth of the earth’s velocity.

— Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887

Note his clear words: "The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative"!

2. There wasn't required amount of fringe shift that could be accounted for (ascribed to) earth's orbital velocity.

According to Albert Michelson no fringe shift was proven!

According to Einstein, the only way out of this was special theory of relativity, a.k.a. completely banishing ether out of existence.

That is total rubbish! Einstein's paper introducing SRT, his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" doesn't mention the MMX and if you read the paper you will find that it's intent is in reconciling James Clerk Maxwell's work on EM theory with Galilean Relativity hence Einstein's title for that ground breaking paper.
Here read the paper yourself: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies by Albert Einstein, translated from German by Meghnad Saha and  Wikisource.
The nearest I can find to such a reference is: "Examples of a similar kind, as well as the unsuccessful attempts to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the 'light-medium', lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of the phenomena correspond to the concept of absolute rest, but rather that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order."

The way is still open for some sort of aether as a term for the "fabric of space" or the Quantum properties of a vacuum and

Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support.
We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

But this is not the luminiferous aether of old - that is impossible to reconcile with the results of a number of experiments.

Is Challenger Pilot Michael Smith Still Alive? I tracked him down. You decide :

People, you still didn't explain why NASA kept the names?

These half and half pictures just show they are all different people.

And can someone explain the link between Tom Bishop and Michael Caine (and the other guys)?

Is Challenger Pilot Michael Smith Still Alive? I tracked him down. You decide :

No, he died in a tragic accident and you are cruelly attacking him, his family and innocent people.

You still haven't answered me.  Is Tom real or just another doppelganger?

[Not Judy]

I said pick one, not try spamming a bunch.
You chose Judy.

Now either admit your analysis was wrong, and you have no basis to claim they were the same person, or provide evidence that they are.
Spamming the others just shows you are wrong and are unwilling to admit it.

People, you still didn't explain why NASA kept the names?

Because they are sloppy and careless :



ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE IS AN IMPACT CRATER :

ORIGINAL PHOTO (FOR RABINOZ) : https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9254HR.jpg
ADJUSTING LEVELS (ONE OF THE TOOLS IN PHOTOSHOP) REVEALS COMPOSITE IMAGE :

LETTER C ON THE MOON :

TRACKLESS ROVER PHOTO :


HUGE AMOUNT OF DOCUMETARY EVIDENCE OF APOLLO SLOPPINESS :

APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 1 :

APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 2 :

APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 :

APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 4 :

APOLLO HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 5 :

That impact crater is so 1337 it’s not even under the lander.

That impact crater is so 1337 it’s not even under the lander.

Good catch...Some guys (that spent years debating "landing on the moon") at one forum here in Croatia, recently presented that photo as evidence of the existence of an impact crater on the moon...lol...

Quote from: cikljamas on June 03, 2020, 05:34:52 AM

According to Einstein, the only way out of this was special theory of relativity, a.k.a. completely banishing ether out of existence.

That is total rubbish! Einstein's paper introducing SRT, his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" doesn't mention the MMX and if you read the paper you will find that it's intent is in reconciling James Clerk Maxwell's work on EM theory with Galilean Relativity hence Einstein's title for that ground breaking paper.
Here read the paper yourself: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies by Albert Einstein, translated from German by Meghnad Saha and  Wikisource.
The nearest I can find to such a reference is: "Examples of a similar kind, as well as the unsuccessful attempts to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the 'light-medium', lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of the phenomena correspond to the concept of absolute rest, but rather that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order."

My point is that this fateful step was, in the final count, authorized by nothing more substantial than the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the postulated - but never yet observed! - "orbital" velocity of the Earth.

There is thus no complete - let alone compelling - argument to justify the shift from classical to relativistic physics. Einstein's pivotal allusion to the Michelson-Morley experiment has no doubt a powerful psychological efficacy within the scientific community, but actually carries no weight : given that the experiment was designed to detect and measure - for the very fist time - a conjectured veolocity, its failure to confirm that hypothetical motion hardly disproves the validity of classical mechanics!

Moreover, there is nothing in any way illogical, incongruous, or scientifically objectionable in the fact that the equations governing mechanical phenomena and those which describe electromagnetic fields should be invariant under different groups (Galilean and Lorentz, respectively). It could in fact be argued quite cogently that in view of the radically different nature of these respective domains, such a discrepancy is rather to be expected. In any case, there appears to be no bona-fide argument which would exclude that possibility, and Einstein's above-cited reference to "the phenomena of mechanics" most certainly doesn't alter this fact.

Meanwhile it is a mathematical fact that, so far from satisfying Einstein's Principle of Relativty, the equations of classical physics - mechanics plus electromagnetism - actually entail the very opposite : they imply, namely that if the equations of mechanics and of electromagnetism both hold in two reference frames Ko and K, then K is in fact stationary with respect to Ko. Instead of the Einsteinian Principle of Relativity, we actually have here a Principle of Immobility - and not as a conjecture in conflict with the equations of mechanics, but as theorem of classical physics.

The fact is that pre-Einsteinian physics implies the very opposite of Einstein's postulate : in place of an ensemble of "inertial" reference frames in uniform motion with respect to each other, in which none can be singled out on physical grounds, one finds that physics itself defines a state of absolute rest.

So far as I know, neither Albert Einstein nor any post-Einsteinian physicist of repute has ever so much as mentioned this remarkable fact, let alone explored its implications. No one among the avant-garde physicists appears to have seriously entertained the possibility that the equations of classical mechanics may actually be correct!

In place of a Principle of Immobility corroborated empirically for well over half a century, they have opted for a Principle of Relativty for which there is actually no empirical validation at all : that conjectured Principle takes precedence, in their mind, over three centuries of scientific verification!

But why?

On what grounds does Einstein justify his rejection of classical mechanics? When and where, exactly, did it fail?

Does he have nothing more cogent to offer in that regard than the reputed "failure" of the Michelson-Morley experiment?

I contend that the Einsteinian preference for the Principle of Relativity is based in the final count - not on scientific or empirical grounds - but on ideological premises.

- Wolfgang Smith

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :

Because they are sloppy and careless :

And more pathetic spam to distract from your failure.

Again, where is your evidence that the 2 Judy's are the same person.
If they are not, where is your admission that you were completely wrong and spouting unsubstantiated nonsense before?

ADJUSTING LEVELS (ONE OF THE TOOLS IN PHOTOSHOP) REVEALS COMPOSITE IMAGE :

Of course it is a composite image. The original nasa photo does only consist of the right side of the picture. The earth was pasted in and that picture is on a desktop wallpaper website.

This is the original photo:


You are forging your own evidence. Is that really something you require? To forge evidence to trick us?

Quote from: Macarios on June 04, 2020, 06:02:25 AM

People, you still didn't explain why NASA kept the names?

Because they are sloppy and careless :

LOL

On one hand the conspiracy is so elaborate that 90% of the world is so synchronous and well trained in maintaining the conspiracy and deceiving the remaininf 10%,
and on the other, the sloppiness of such proportions can "sneak in" and the organizers of the conspiracy would let it hapen.

Hahaha.

Cikljamas, thank-you for putting up that video featuring retired professor Michael Smith. Credit given where credit is due!

The retired professor says it best. He agrees he shares a resemblance to the astronaut in his younger years, but look at his online CV and the books he has written. He has referred one persistent fellow to the FBI, and the rumour is "bullshit." It's a bit creepy what the camera guy did, going to the guy's house, but at least he was polite.

Ok, I concede there is a resemblance from photos, especially the smile, but again, if you put photos of the men when they were about the same age, together, I'm betting they look nothing like one another.

I know this stuff is your hobby and you're passionate about it, but a little empathy goes a long way. This internet rumour has resulted in this old guy having to get the FBI involved, because he's fearful for his safety. This internet rumour is offensive to the astronaut's family, and to his memory. These rumours affect real people.

People used to tell me I looked like Tom Cruise. But, cikljamas, I ain't ever even been to America.

If you want to do something positive regarding this conspiracy theory, get photos of each of the doppelgangers when they were young, for comparison, and help lay this one to rest.

Cikljamas, thank-you for putting up that video featuring retired professor Michael Smith. Credit given where credit is due!

The retired professor says it best. He agrees he shares a resemblance to the astronaut in his younger years, but look at his online CV and the books he has written. He has referred one persistent fellow to the FBI, and the rumour is "bullshit." It's a bit creepy what the camera guy did, going to the guy's house, but at least he was polite.

Ok, I concede there is a resemblance from photos, especially the smile, but again, if you put photos of the men when they were about the same age, together, I'm betting they look nothing like one another.

I know this stuff is your hobby and you're passionate about it, but a little empathy goes a long way. This internet rumour has resulted in this old guy having to get the FBI involved, because he's fearful for his safety. This internet rumour is offensive to the astronaut's family, and to his memory. These rumours affect real people.

People used to tell me I looked like Tom Cruise. But, cikljamas, I ain't ever even been to America.

If you want to do something positive regarding this conspiracy theory, get photos of each of the doppelgangers when they were young, for comparison, and help lay this one to rest.

That is exactly what i pointed out (22 hours ago) in my comment below that video :



Maybe the owner of that video (youtube channel) wasn't well prepared for that situation (which isn't very convincing assumption, given the effort that he invested in his little "project"), or could it be that his little "project" was nothing else, but one another deliberate attempt of mudding the waters to even greater extent by wrapping one more layer around that multi-leveled hoax with the purpose of additionally confusing people, instead of trying to provide for us some revealing new insight regarding this whole weird Challenger conspiracy?

If i had had a chance to talk to prof. Smith (to be in a position of that interviewer), and had prof. Smith been willing to talk to me (an impression is that prof. Smith was more than happy to talk to that guy, and on the other hand it seems as if the interviewer was in a hurry (instead of vice-versa), totally weird, isn't it?) there is no fucking chance that i wouldn't have asked him if he could presented to me a photo or two from that time (early 80's), so to put an end to this whole uncanny situation.

And, if i were prof. Smith, wouldn't i have willingly provided (long ago) publically some photos of my face that had been taken during early 80's instead of referring that persistent guy to FBI, or/and so inviting some other persistent guys to bother me in the future, so that i could hand them over to FBI, again? 

Furthermore, if i were a family member of any of these guys, wouldn't i suggest to my father or husband or mum to do the same so to put an end to this unpleasant situation (for all of us (members of her/his family)), since (as you yourself noticed) this is such an elegant and easy way of solving this issue and providing a peace to the entire large family of curious investigators (like i am) and especially providing the sense of relief to family members of former "astronuts," as well as to "astronuts" themselves?

[Still not Judy]

Remember, the person you chose was Judy.
Are you going to admit you were wrong and they are not the same person?

Furthermore, if i were a family member of any of these guys, wouldn't i suggest to my father or husband or mum to do the same so to put an end to this unpleasant situation (for all of us (members of her/his family)), since (as you yourself noticed) this is such an elegant and easy way of solving this issue and providing a peace to the entire large family of curious investigators (like i am) and especially providing the sense of relief to family members of former "astronuts," as well as to "astronuts" themselves?

If some crazy weirdo from the internet started contacting me and demanding proof that my dead relatives were who they said they were and not a bunch of liars and still alive, I'd say a lot of things to them I can't type here, and certainly wouldn't just start calmly handing over documents.

Not that any documentation would even work on a crazy conspiracy theorist who;'s already decided what they believe.

You're not providing any sense of relief to anyone. You are the problem. You are the source of their pain. Leave them alone.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 05, 2020, 04:59:03 AM

[Still not Judy]

Remember, the person you chose was Judy.
Are you going to admit you were wrong and they are not the same person?

Jacky, if you could provide for us her photo that was taken in early 80's we could be sure, as i've just explained in my latest post...Unlike in other 5 astronut's (actors and actresses) cases, professor Judy looks least alike actress Judy, and even if it turned out that she (prof.) is not her (actress), we would still have to deal with the real truth about the identity of remaining 4 alleged astronuts...It's not that simple as you would like it to be...

Hahaha.

HAHAHA.

And, if i were prof. Smith, wouldn't i have willingly provided (long ago) publically some photos of my face that had been taken during early 80's instead of referring that persistent guy to FBI, or/and so inviting some other persistent guys to bother me in the future, so that i could hand them over to FBI, again? 

And if I were Prof Smith I'd tell a deranged conspiritard like YOU to go jump in the proverbial lake.

Anyone knows that conspiritards like YOU are never convinced but just regard each bit of contrary evidence as further "proof" of "the conspiracy" - as YOU have so far!

I ask you again: Why would NASA even want to perpetrate such a hoax?

Are you claiming that every Space Shuttle flight had no crew?