THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
josephineroy2000
Banned
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:59 pm

Re: SANDY HOOK Newtown,Ct School Shooting 14 dec 2012

Unread post by josephineroy2000 »

I've got nothing to do if you think I am not real! I may not have been present like you (as you claim to be perfect with your statements :rolleyes: ) at the venue of the shooting event (seems like you were there and therefore knows everything that happened right there and anything you say about it are true! LOL). As for my defense, I would only say that after researching a bit I found some information that contradicts your perspectives.

Point is you people sit on the internet and claims to travel the world sitting there. <_<
I won't claim to be a know-it-all about this event, I am just sharing some actual facts, that's it, take it or leave it!

First responders tell of Sandy Hook school horror

http://www.stockjournal.com.au/news/wor ... torypage=0

Wrestling With Details of Noah Pozner's Killing

http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinki ... s-killing/

Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Wrote This Letter to Teachers... and You Have to Read It.

http://www.godvine.com/read/sandy-hook-letter-308.html
josephineroy2000
Banned
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:59 pm

Re: SANDY HOOK Newtown,Ct School Shooting 14 dec 2012

Unread post by josephineroy2000 »

brianv wrote:"let me share some real photos and documents for y'all."
Would that be the southern states of "Bangladesh" that you are from?
How much are you being paid to be here?
Why would I be paid to be here, I live in Bangladesh! Are you nuts?
josephineroy2000
Banned
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:59 pm

Re: SANDY HOOK Newtown,Ct School Shooting 14 dec 2012

Unread post by josephineroy2000 »

Gatordrag wrote:
josephineroy2000 wrote:Apart from all of your controversies, let me share some real photos and documents for y'all.

The Newtown Bee Report that came out before the shooting!
Image

Josephine, how does a report of the shooting come out BEFORE the shooting?
That's my question too, but that's what I have read about the event as people claims it to be staged. Not only that, there were even some donation/fan pages that were created prior to the shooting.

http://www.patriotnewsorganization.com/ ... spiracies/
josephineroy2000
Banned
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:59 pm

Re: SANDY HOOK Newtown,Ct School Shooting 14 dec 2012

Unread post by josephineroy2000 »

simonshack wrote:*

Tell us more, Josephine, tell us more!

There can be no doubt that YOU are for real! :lol:
You can ban me if you think I am fake. I am not an expert of fake media exposures or anything like that, like I told you before, I joined here because I ONLY wanted to shared some information about the Sandy Hook shooting positive/negative without being paid to do so! (You people are weird! How can you even think I am paid to post these links and information here).

Oh, and if you visit Bangladesh anytime, I would be glad to invite you to my home and meet my family. At least you would know that we have a country by that name!

I was expecting a little bit of decency here, but seems like I was wrong because people claims too much logical explanations without believing in anything. :huh:
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: SANDY HOOK Newtown,Ct School Shooting 14 dec 2012

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

You people are weird!
And you people are getting tiresome.

Oh, look, you're on page 33 of the Derailing Room now, a number you probably believe represents "portals". Just like this is your portal out of here. Bon voyage!
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: SANDY HOOK Newtown,Ct School Shooting 14 dec 2012

Unread post by lux »

josephineroy2000 wrote: Why would I be paid to be here, I live in Bangladesh! Are you nuts?
Well, I'm pretty sure they do use money in Bangladesh and people do like to have it -- you know -- to buy things and whatnot.

But, if you don't have a use for it you can send it to me. I'll pay the shipping.

Image
sceppy
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by sceppy »

The only way to start on all this stuff, is to start at the very beginning and working up from that.
If Newton can decide an apple falling is down to gravity, you have to immediately question it, when you also consider his laws, which also relates to space, of which he would have had no clue.
To my logic, air pressure perfectly fits what they tell us gravity is, except when space is mentioned, which conveniently none of us can get near or even disprove any so called experiments said to be done, because we would not be allowed to see, so we just have to accept it, they basically say.
They use the moon as a basis for tides and yet atmospheric low versus high pressure would cater for it quite easily. It's just a case of how people want to interpret how it's done, which takes a bit of imagination and it does not come from above, in terms of the moon or any other fictional space object.

If people thought of the centre of earth, as in, earth being basically concave with a centralised sun, you can imagine the super low and high pressures that would be built up there, which would be transferred all around it.
It would exert a huge pressure on the oceans and also releasing that pressure as it moves around a spiral.
It's a bit like a pulse. Imagine putting your hand in the middle of a large bowl of water and pushing down on it.
You would see that the water starts to rise at the rim. Now imagine doing it like a pulse, as in, exert pressure and release...exert and release, constantly, but in doing so, it's a slow pressure build up with each release as the sun goes on it's up and down spiral.
I believe earth is alike a double concave mirror, with both creating a reflection off of each other, creating a mirage type effect, that we all see in the sky as suns, stars, planets, yet are all earth reflections of which we can't comprehend fully, because we have no way of physically getting to the centre.
It's fine that people say, ' but it's the north pole, we know it, it's been conquered.'
What has really been conquered? none of us know, we only know what we are told. The truth could and I'm my opinion is, way, way beyond what we are told.

I'm well aware that what I'm saying is all hypothetical, but let's be totally honest here; EVERYTHING about all this stuff is all hypothetical no matter what calculations are put forward for what people think they see.
Common sense tells us that helium rises from our point on earth. Now let me put this to you all.
We are fish in our own sea. Does that sound crazy?

All we are is an ocean above an ocean, with oceans above us, as in, an element sandwich of various densities. We cannot breathe in water, but fish can, but we can breathe in our dense atmosphere that contains less dense water.
Things float on water as they do in air, only in different element form.
An air balloon will float on water and a helium balloon will float in our air, and so on.

No gravity involved, just different densities of elements, whether they are compressed into larger objects or whatever.
If we want to figure out what's what about earth and space, we need to really take our minds away from ALL of what we are been taught, because we all harbour large portions of some of it, which many accept as partially true, when in fact, it could be ALL wrong and yet, here people are doing calculations on it all, which could mean, nothing.

That's not to say I'm trying to kill off any other thoughts about what people think. I'm just saying that, we could be following a path about space that could very well be a mirage and basically not exist.
If helium freezes in a vacuum, then it stands to reason that it freezes at the top of earth, as the last element. The lightest, or close to it. I'm basically taking helium as a yard stick.

Therefore, it freezes against a vacuum. It makes a dome, above.
A perfect vacuum is devoid of ALL matter. Nothing moves through it, no light can move through it, because it contains nothing for light to move into. It's blackness to our eyes, because our eyes rely on reflected light.
So if the vacuum is blackness, the what can space be?
The answer is, NOTHING! it does not exist TO US. It does exist to us in our imaginations,because we have been trained to believe it exists and we see little lights and stuff in it. But do we really?

Are we simply looking at reflections?
It takes a lot of thought for anyone to grasp what I'm saying and I well understand people believing I'm going cuckoo, but remember one thing. If you do think I'm nuts and you believe your ideas are better and not nuts and yet no real proof can be gained from either, then are we all, nuts or are we at least looking for the ultimate explanation.

Calculations are great, but remember one thing. You can only genuinely calculate something that you know to be correct, which means that any calculations as to what shape earth is and what distances, planets are and what not, are calculated on mere speculation.
The flat earth society (some members) believe the sun to be 3000 miles high and 32 miles in diameter and yet the mainstream version has it as 93 million miles distance and over 1,000,000 km in diameter.
Someone is seriously wrong aren't they?
It's fine that they built their calculations of movements, but they count for nothing, either way.
Of course: mainstream science relies of red shift and radar, lasers and a whole host of other stuff to back them up and yet it could be so far off the real truth as to be ridiculous, just as the flat earth's could.

Trying to find out the reality of earth and space will not go without ridicule, but trying to figure it out whilst keeping a portion of mainstream science of it in your head, will, in my opinion, hinder anyone's progress of finding the truth.
It's about stepping into all territories and not being afraid of getting ridiculed, which I'm not, because I genuinely think I'm on the right lines, but then again, that's just my own personal opinion and I do not expect anyone to just share it, as we all have opinions that differ greatly.

All I ask is for people to have a serious think about what I'm saying and if you have questions, then fine. I'm sure some of you can even aid in fine tuning this, seriously, as I know a few of you are really deep thinkers and can think well outside of the box, which granted, this is.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by fbenario »

sceppy wrote:The only way to start on all this stuff, is to start at the very beginning and working up from that.
If Newton can decide an apple falling is down to gravity, you have to immediately question it, when you also consider his laws, which also relates to space, of which he would have had no clue.
To my logic, air pressure perfectly fits what they tell us gravity is, except when space is mentioned, which conveniently none of us can get near or even disprove any so called experiments said to be done, because we would not be allowed to see, so we just have to accept it, they basically say.
They use the moon as a basis for tides and yet atmospheric low versus high pressure would cater for it quite easily. It's just a case of how people want to interpret how it's done, which takes a bit of imagination and it does not come from above, in terms of the moon or any other fictional space object.

If people thought of the centre of earth, as in, earth being basically concave with a centralised sun, you can imagine the super low and high pressures that would be built up there, which would be transferred all around it.

It would exert a huge pressure on the oceans and also releasing that pressure as it moves around a spiral.
It's a bit like a pulse. Imagine putting your hand in the middle of a large bowl of water and pushing down on it.
You would see that the water starts to rise at the rim. Now imagine doing it like a pulse, as in, exert pressure and release...exert and release, constantly, but in doing so, it's a slow pressure build up with each release as the sun goes on it's up and down spiral.
I believe earth is alike a double concave mirror, with both creating a reflection off of each other, creating a mirage type effect, that we all see in the sky as suns, stars, planets, yet are all earth reflections of which we can't comprehend fully, because we have no way of physically getting to the centre.
It's fine that people say, ' but it's the north pole, we know it, it's been conquered.'
What has really been conquered? none of us know, we only know what we are told. The truth could and I'm my opinion is, way, way beyond what we are told.

I'm well aware that what I'm saying is all hypothetical, but let's be totally honest here; EVERYTHING about all this stuff is all hypothetical no matter what calculations are put forward for what people think they see.
Common sense tells us that helium rises from our point on earth. Now let me put this to you all.
We are fish in our own sea. Does that sound crazy?

All we are is an ocean above an ocean, with oceans above us, as in, an element sandwich of various densities. We cannot breathe in water, but fish can, but we can breathe in our dense atmosphere that contains less dense water.
Things float on water as they do in air, only in different element form.
An air balloon will float on water and a helium balloon will float in our air, and so on.

No gravity involved, just different densities of elements, whether they are compressed into larger objects or whatever.
If we want to figure out what's what about earth and space, we need to really take our minds away from ALL of what we are been taught, because we all harbour large portions of some of it, which many accept as partially true, when in fact, it could be ALL wrong and yet, here people are doing calculations on it all, which could mean, nothing.
Your ideas and theories don't offend me, but your multiple run-on sentences do. Please edit your posts for readability before hitting Submit.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

sceppy, you have already postulated about the pressure multiple times. You don't need to constantly remind us that you are doing so and at the same time constantly remind us that we need to rethink everything. We know. That's what we all write about. It's not our job to reformat your rambling posts into something more concise or readable. It would be nice if you tried to do so for us and your readers. Just give your theory a name and refer to it instead of rehashing its entire premise every single time you make a post.

I agree with your speculations, too, but I just wish you would try a little harder to not write monologue conversational style, forgetting everything you've written before. Everyone has a different writing style. It's just that you don't seem to check your spelling or punctuation or previous posts (or surrounding posts) much. What you tend to do is bury your best new ideas in a gibberish-laden repeat of what you've already said. Instead, just post the one new thing and format it to be readable, with some reminders about what theory you are talking about.

Am I being hypocritical? Do I do the same thing? I try my best not to; I try to assume that people who read the forum can go back and review old posts and they don't need to be reminded of every single thing we've discussed in the past. I wish you would consider your readers the same way. They are not dumb and they don't need to be written to like you've cornered them in a room and they are just about to dash off.

Repeating myself one more time: stop repeating yourself. Am I getting through to you yet?

Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't bash the scientific method. Calculations and measurements are often wrong, but that also implies someone can be right sometimes. We don't need to dismiss repeatable calculations, I don't think. Do you think it would be a good idea to just throw out something we can all verify for ourselves at home, for instance?
sceppy
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by sceppy »

fbenario wrote:
sceppy wrote:The only way to start on all this stuff, is to start at the very beginning and working up from that.
If Newton can decide an apple falling is down to gravity, you have to immediately question it, when you also consider his laws, which also relates to space, of which he would have had no clue.
To my logic, air pressure perfectly fits what they tell us gravity is, except when space is mentioned, which conveniently none of us can get near or even disprove any so called experiments said to be done, because we would not be allowed to see, so we just have to accept it, they basically say.
They use the moon as a basis for tides and yet atmospheric low versus high pressure would cater for it quite easily. It's just a case of how people want to interpret how it's done, which takes a bit of imagination and it does not come from above, in terms of the moon or any other fictional space object.

If people thought of the centre of earth, as in, earth being basically concave with a centralised sun, you can imagine the super low and high pressures that would be built up there, which would be transferred all around it.

It would exert a huge pressure on the oceans and also releasing that pressure as it moves around a spiral.
It's a bit like a pulse. Imagine putting your hand in the middle of a large bowl of water and pushing down on it.
You would see that the water starts to rise at the rim. Now imagine doing it like a pulse, as in, exert pressure and release...exert and release, constantly, but in doing so, it's a slow pressure build up with each release as the sun goes on it's up and down spiral.
I believe earth is alike a double concave mirror, with both creating a reflection off of each other, creating a mirage type effect, that we all see in the sky as suns, stars, planets, yet are all earth reflections of which we can't comprehend fully, because we have no way of physically getting to the centre.
It's fine that people say, ' but it's the north pole, we know it, it's been conquered.'
What has really been conquered? none of us know, we only know what we are told. The truth could and I'm my opinion is, way, way beyond what we are told.

I'm well aware that what I'm saying is all hypothetical, but let's be totally honest here; EVERYTHING about all this stuff is all hypothetical no matter what calculations are put forward for what people think they see.
Common sense tells us that helium rises from our point on earth. Now let me put this to you all.
We are fish in our own sea. Does that sound crazy?

All we are is an ocean above an ocean, with oceans above us, as in, an element sandwich of various densities. We cannot breathe in water, but fish can, but we can breathe in our dense atmosphere that contains less dense water.
Things float on water as they do in air, only in different element form.
An air balloon will float on water and a helium balloon will float in our air, and so on.

No gravity involved, just different densities of elements, whether they are compressed into larger objects or whatever.
If we want to figure out what's what about earth and space, we need to really take our minds away from ALL of what we are been taught, because we all harbour large portions of some of it, which many accept as partially true, when in fact, it could be ALL wrong and yet, here people are doing calculations on it all, which could mean, nothing.
Your ideas and theories don't offend me, but your multiple run-on sentences do. Please edit your posts for readability before hitting Submit.
Point taken, I do tend to go off on a mindless rampage of words. I'll try my utmost to try and keep things to a point and not push the repeat button.
Sorry about that.
sceppy
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by sceppy »

hoi.polloi wrote:sceppy, you have already postulated about the pressure multiple times. You don't need to constantly remind us that you are doing so and at the same time constantly remind us that we need to rethink everything. We know. That's what we all write about. It's not our job to reformat your rambling posts into something more concise or readable. It would be nice if you tried to do so for us and your readers. Just give your theory a name and refer to it instead of rehashing its entire premise every single time you make a post.
Fair enough, I accept this.
hoi.polloi wrote:I agree with your speculations, too, but I just wish you would try a little harder to not write monologue conversational style, forgetting everything you've written before. Everyone has a different writing style. It's just that you don't seem to check your spelling or punctuation or previous posts (or surrounding posts) much. What you tend to do is bury your best new ideas in a gibberish-laden repeat of what you've already said. Instead, just post the one new thing and format it to be readable, with some reminders about what theory you are talking about.
This bit irritates me to hell, because, although I agree about punctuation, which I admit right now I'm not the best at, I'm by no means making many spelling errors, except the odd one which is more of an oversight rather than bad spelling.
Things like "of" instead of, "off" and such like, which naturally does not show up as a spelling error and can be overlooked, yet I feel that you are nit picking with this and you come across as one arrogant person, because you appear to be more interested in scrutinising spelling errors and punctuation in a post than trying to read into that post, as mundane as it might appear to you.
You are the person at the party that believes you are super interesting when your audience is around you, whilst you point to the person in the corner, telling all and sundry that the person can be interesting but a bit dim.
I tend to type as I talk, but obviously being mindful not to use slang terms.
I'm no book author or English teacher. I do not have any English degree.
I didn't feel that I had to go on an English course just for the privilege of discussing my theories, just so people can read them like a frigging novel.
hoi.polloi wrote: Am I being hypocritical? Do I do the same thing? I try my best not to; I try to assume that people who read the forum can go back and review old posts and they don't need to be reminded of every single thing we've discussed in the past. I wish you would consider your readers the same way. They are not dumb and they don't need to be written to like you've cornered them in a room and they are just about to dash off.
Yes you're being hypocritical and I'm telling you so, because you aren't going to intimidate me on a forum... and if you think that's not how you come across, then maybe you need to evaluate yourself.
You have made spelling errors and you are not perfect and yes you may make a point to check every punctuation mark to make sure people see you are super clever, because that's how your forum persona comes off.
I didn't come to this forum to criticise people, I came because (I'm repeating myself here) I like the way things are looked into, but I've realised there is a massive clique mentality on here with the few posters you have.
I've seen many people shoved away for being shills or suspected of being a shill and yet it's all because they may not agree with 100% of what you say, so they get the old, " read the forum, it's all fake and you mention that this could be that, so goodbye."
I'll get ahead of myself here and predict that I'll be afforded the same thing because you don't like to be told a few home truths.
hoi.polloi wrote: Repeating myself one more time: stop repeating yourself. Am I getting through to you yet?
Loud and clear you arrogant prick. No wonder people don't stay long, here.
I apologised to you once for getting irritated, but you don't deserve an apology, because you cause the irritation by the way you go on.
hoi.polloi wrote: Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't bash the scientific method. Calculations and measurements are often wrong, but that also implies someone can be right sometimes. We don't need to dismiss repeatable calculations, I don't think. Do you think it would be a good idea to just throw out something we can all verify for ourselves at home, for instance?
I'm not dismissing anything, I'm simply saying that calculations are fine if you make your own model and decide your own reference points, but they are only calculations that suit what you worked into them.
Space reference points are all speculation and earth size is based on speculation, as is the sun, moon and other so called planets.
Anyway I won't bother going into any of it, as I'll be in danger of getting boring and tedious and I'll probably repeat myself. So on that note, I'm pissed right off. I'm irritated and I feel that there is no point in me carrying on with this forum.

I'm getting out now, rather than you tell me the usual goodbye, so I'd appreciate it if you ban this name and if possible, delete my boring posts.
If you want people to become a part of this forum, here's a little bit of advice from someone you regard as just another dim witted loser.
Stop treating people like shit and typing to them like they're a piece of shit on your shoe and getting off on putting them down in the full knowledge that you possess the power to do that, because the only power you possess, is to put that person under the threat of a ban for daring to tell you what you are and how you act.

I'll continue to read this site, as I have done for the past few years, but I hold nothing but contempt for you and you only.
It takes a lot for me to say that, even in type, because I don't judge a persons opinions on the fact that their punctuation or spelling isn't quite university standard, I judge them on what they have to say, even if I have to read between the lines.

Ok, do your deed.
P.S, I didn't bother to check the spelling and punctuation, so just read it as best you can.

All the best from one fuming fucking poster. :angry:
pov603
Member
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by pov603 »

Don't lose heart just yet sceppy.
The fact that your theory is being criticized at the moment for style and format rather than content should be of some encouragement to you.
The bar is set pretty high here by the main posters and is testament to what is so interesting and thought-provoking about the site when compared to many/all of the others.
When you consider some of the time, effort and energy put in by them you should take heart in that what you have posted isn't being dismissed out of hand.
Not all of us have a take on radical or near-radical ideas that we would be brave enough to put out there so the fact that you have [irrespective of how others may view it in time] is a credit to you and the others for making us reconsider what we have been told previously is the norm or 'how it is'.
I, Gestalta
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by I, Gestalta »

Dear Sceppy,

While I am by no means an ambassador nor moderator on this forum, I consider it my place, as a member, to comment on your behavior. That may read somewhat condescending, but that is not the intent.

To me, cluesforum.info is a very important website---both for intellectual reasons, as well as personal. As an extension of said importance, I would like to think that we all owe it to ourselves and to the forum to remember that the quality of delivery and presentation of the site's content is just as important as the content, itself.

The manner in which you consistently arrange your posts indicates that you hold no regard to those reading them. Despite that we do not boastfully tout some trophy of philanthropic achievement, our activity on this forum is, in some sense, a service (to ourselves, to the membership and to the readership). There is an element of selfishness in all of our individual pursuits of the truth (of any matter), but, given that the members of this site all have a general understanding as to the massive lie(s) under which we all live, most of what we do here is for those who do not have that same understanding.

On the other hand, there is your approach, which displays more of an intent to use this forum as a soapbox on which to grandstand your (very interesting) ideas---except, and unlike most of the posters here, without a care given to basic, general standards of readability.

Yes, we all make mistakes (grammatical errors, misplaced and misused punctuation, missing words and general typing errors, etc) here and there, but yours are very noticeable in their frequency.

All anyone who makes these types of critiques is asking is that you give some consideration to the readers. Run-on sentences, poor use of punctuation and single-spaced paragraphs are major deterrents as far as being taken seriously is concerned. My first instinct is to completely disregard your posts based solely on presentation, but I don't, because I have come to enjoy humoring your ideas. How many other people, with far less patience than I, do you think may have felt the same way upon beginning to trudge through one of your posts? If anything, you should be composing your posts well for your own sake!

Nobody is trying to intimidate nor humiliate you. What matters most is that those who stumble onto this forum are not immediately driven away by what many perceive to be a sign of a lack of intelligence.

Now, I am going to do the obvious thing to do at this point: proof-read my post!!!!

(Please feel free to move this conversation to the chatbox, or the derailment thread).
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: What is Gravity?

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Yes, what I, Gestalta wrote is pretty much how I feel. And you can call me arrogant all you want, but it doesn't help the presentation of your own theory you claim to care about.

If you actually treat your words with respect, it would do everyone a great service. I am really not arrogant; I am just trying to uphold the standards of the forum, which — if you've actually read enough of it — you should realize you are asking for exception from. Why should we treat you any different than we treat the other users? I am not picking on you or diminishing your theory; I am asking you to explain yourself and represent yourself better so that your ideas are respected and given credence instead of dismissed off hand as lunacy.

I have had to work very hard and write a lot to get to the clarity of my message and yet I am still learning all the time how to improve. For instance, you are clearly trying to teach me that my writing style is arrogant and off-putting. Meanwhile, I have only ever tried to be quite precise with my message reserving my right to ulterior suspicions for subtext. If you are reading my suspicion with everyone as the way I am directly treating you or as sarcasm, that's not my intent.

My intent is to have you improve your writing style, your clarity and your message. I had no intention of banning you unless you proved to be a shill. You should understand that while you may not believe you are a shill it is a shill tactic to write in a somewhat incomprehensible manner, complain when someone calls them out on it and then boast that they have been banned from a forum and act like they are a martyr. We've observed this pattern plenty of times.

Don't confuse yourself with this kind of person if you are not that kind of person.

Right now, it's as though you are deliberately trying to bury your own theory in a rant, then act like you have been victimized when you are told to improve your presentation. That's all. I have no problem with your hypotheses but I am not going to ban you just because you ask to be banned. Just go away if you don't like this forum or what I am asking you to do.

Yes, there is a kind of 'clique' mentality here, around a few key points: the clarity of writing style, avoidance of miscommunication, avoidance of deliberate overt subtext and cryptography, avoidance of shill-like derailing efforts or communication styles which cause subjects to be derailed and disrespected by most people.

We are always running against this challenge; we must accept how crazy we all sound to the vast majority of people who have been hypnotized, while working together to improve our communication style and improve our clear communication of the real problems with this world and its media. If you are not up to that 'challenge' then start a blog and good luck to you. Maybe you can make a 'viral video' or something. But please don't disrespect me and yourself by giving up on improving the communication style of your theory and our forum. We only have the one, you know. There are plenty of other Interwebs out there.
golisago
Banned
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:31 am

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread post by golisago »

HI GUYS!!..............Can i just ask if there is any control over the rocket nozzle/s size and diameter and if so wouldn't this adjustability to be able to change nozzle size constitute as a type of throttle = thrust adjustment so as to control the lift of speed................or am i missing something cheers!


Steve.
Post Reply