THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby hoi.polloi on February 16th, 2015, 6:22 pm

viewforum.php?f=32

This just goes to show we suck at orientation and as a result there are plenty of people who end up joining here who don't know what the fuck they are doing. This is a simple process to fix. Since Simon told me he approves the "handshake e-mails", he needs to let people know to go to the Required Reading.

A lot of the information there is rudimentary, but some of it apparently isn't, since we are consistently having an issue with people failing to understand basic code. Man, our public brainwashing institutions can't even let people know how tags work?

Embarrassing! It's like the grammar of the Internet. Learn to post without gobbledygook. Saying, "I couldn't find it" means you didn't even try. We have the information available in a clearly marked space. Don't pretend you tried.

Sorry for being a crabby pants, but I am sick of this — people pretending to care when they could look up the information with a thirty second search. :angry:

Nothing against your intentions, Houdini. It's the potential for a great post. But with that fatal flaw.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5029
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby Houdini on February 16th, 2015, 10:33 pm

Sorry. I don't post that frequently. If I go several months without posting, I come back and apparently forget some of the guidelines. I did know about using the info after the "=" sign when embedding a video, but it didn't take when I did that. Apparently I had to eliminate the info after the second "="...
Houdini
Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: March 31st, 2011, 1:26 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Postby Selene on February 26th, 2015, 10:16 pm

Hi TruthMediaRevolution,

very nice to see your extensive and especially honest introduction. I am glad to see you are not afraid to share your thoughts, how ironically against the stream they may be and open to be convinced of the opposite.

It's funny, because I have the exact opposite views on the themes that you mentioned; 9/11-WTC planes are impossible. There's no questioning about it. No doubts about it. It simply is physically impossible.

About 2 years ago I was in the same position as you seem to be right now (but then without having seen the great September Clues) and mocked others who said "no planes", so no worries, I do understand you perfectly.

Then, investigating more (still without SC, I saw simons work and all others here on the forum combined just last month (!)), it's dead simple why it is impossible.

On the other hand, I am skeptical about the TransAsia crash being faked. Not that I discard any of the analysis and work you've been doing and also here on CF, at all. Same like you do not dismiss September Clues and still are in doubt about the planes.

My question is why would they fake a plane crash? I find it so senseless to do. 9/11 and all the other hoaxes around the world had a purpose. The purpose here is "showing that they can fake something"? I don't get it. So I don't reject the idea of fakery in this particular case, but am not convinced by it either.

Agnostic, so to speak.

On the 9/11 planes, consider this:
  • What we have been presented on TV, and so well exposed how and by whom by this forum and September Clues, cannot be real
  • What did we see, geee, I?? We saw a 'plane' entering a building without resistance, undelayed and entirely intact
  • The most complete way to describe this behaviour is homogeneous
  • A collision of two (very) heterogeneous (point mass, density, material properties -rigidity, strength, thermal conductivity, etc.-) objects can never be homogeneous (only when all heterogeneous properties would "cancel each other out", an almost statistical impossibility)
  • Another point is the opposite, Newton's law of action=reaction ; the collision of a moving WTC-tower building with ~500-600 km/h against a still standing plane. Do you think the plane will be swallowed without resistance, without delay and without breaking by a building of let's say 200.000 tonnes (exact number I don't know and is irrelevant; pretty heavy) that smashes against it with that speed?
  • I think we can all agree that this cartoon physics is impossible, really first grade elementary Newtonian physics (no attack on you, as I know your position, man ;) )

So in short, I hope to be convinced by you and your TransAsia work and I hope to convince you about the physical impossibility of planes. And all the other topics to be discussed here. I agree that YouTube is a great way of sharing our world views.

No name calling or attacks from me; I fully share and keep expressing the same view that we should be inviting, embracing and debating (arguments are enough) towards all those who want to expose the lies perpetrated to the ordinary people by the predatory psychopaths.

Most welcome, I am a mere junior here myself and I will follow your podcast and YouTube channel.

Selene

Paraphrasing one of the greatest thinkers of all time:

...it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we but unfortunately we could not explore space, together, both only inner and outer and on Earth, forever, in peace.
Bill Hicks (1993)
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Postby Selene on February 26th, 2015, 11:30 pm

Hi all,

So far I've done some first contributions in the "Do Rockets work in a vaccuum" topic and this is my first one here.

I am struggling with this topic and many doubts and ideas flying through my cerebral universe.

My stances at the moment regarding space travel are:
  • Apollo is all faked - a video series I am working on, but want to make it very complete and well documented so takes a lot of time
  • Mars Missions - no way, nice Canadian (?) landscape...
  • Hubble and ISS are fakes - no stars in the background is impossible, nice pools and media fakery
  • Rocket space travel seems impossible because of Temperature (mainly) and Pressure conditions
  • But what about satellites? - And if the latter were true, how can we have them?

The arguments for my doubts are:
  • Satellite data is used by many tens of millions of people on a daily basis, I myself am not an exception. Satellite data is calibrated against real geographical data and thus checked for (in)consistencies. If satellite data were faked, so many people would have to be involved to cover it up, it completely exceeds all other hoaxes in size and time.
  • I hear about "signals bouncing off the ionosphere", I am not an expert on the outer Earth, rather the surface and subsurface, so I cannot really add to it, but my question is: how strong is that explanation? Do we have convincing non/pre-NASA information, publications, scientific arguments, to back this up, or do we have only this statement and no real further well-listed explanation of the physics of it and proof it actually works and can deceive the whole world?
  • If rocket space travel is indeed impossible, and the arguments brought forward in that topic are very strong to support that these, can satellites still be possible and up to what altitude do we need to think of?
  • Maybe it's like ISS where the altitude may be different but there's "something" up there that can cause these "sightings" (no Mulder and Scully plots here) and that something (a "satellite" as it is orbiting the Earth) is taking aaaaaall these measurements (the amount of satellite data is humongous), so not in "Lower Earth Orbit" (space) but rather in "Upper Atmospheric Orbit" (let's say 100 km or so??) where T & P conditions are not yet at near zero levels as is the case in space (hence no rocket or any other travel is my most possible stance at the moment)
  • satellites are present in so many forms and I recall to have read here in the topic the possibility of "thrusters to change course" of a satellite. Hmm, don't know about that, but that may also have to do with this "maximum altitude where rockets work due to PVT conditions"?
  • If the bouncing off of the ionosphere can explain the huge satellite (data) industry working and not finding out the truth, that would be a major step forward in the debunking of the space-related subjects, I'd say. A "September Clues" on "The impossibility of Satellites". But well, very well scientifcally documented, referenced and presented.

I am here mainly to learn and to contribute my thoughts, for a more thorough investigation into this will take some time, as Apollo needs to be finished first, but would be interesting to see what is and what isn't possible in terms of space presence and to have a coherent story.

What is the real upper boundary of mankind; landing smoothly on plastic asteroids or hovering with only impulse and/or gravity driven objects at an altitude of a few 10's to 100 kms?

Selene

It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand, and what those things are
Søren Kierkegaard (1847)
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Postby hoi.polloi on February 27th, 2015, 7:26 am

Selene wrote:My question is why would they fake a plane crash? I find it so senseless to do. 9/11 and all the other hoaxes around the world had a purpose. The purpose here is "showing that they can fake something"? I don't get it. So I don't reject the idea of fakery in this particular case, but am not convinced by it either.


You're still here? Denying that we've proven video fakery? Ho-humming and adding absolutely nothing of your own research? You haven't refuted any of the points in the TAIPEI thread, but you still claim to sit on the fence. Did you even read it? Obviously not.

You claim to care about the satellite issue, but offer absolutely no evidence to the working theory that satellites are bunk — nor to any sort of contrary. It seems you haven't actually read that forum either.

What do you do? Simply read the title of a thread and then come up with your own random, unrelated thoughts vaguely defending the official story? Is that your assignment? You certainly act like it is.

This is at least the third time you have been warned about this. With every post you fail to acknowledge the problem of your belligerent ignorance of the topics being discussed, it begs the questions: What are you doing here? Why do you write lengthy posts about absolutely nothing? How could you still be contributing nothing to the forum after everything we have told you about the purpose of the forum? How can you claim to be at all familiar with the evidence of fakery presented on thousands of pages of reading material?

You are not really claiming to be "agnostic" on something obviously fake, asking for "debate" when you don't even understand the questions. You are essentially saying, "I don't care what points you've made, and I'm not going to think about them until you do research for me, on my terms."

This isn't your blog or your Facebook page. You claim to be doing what, exactly, for the public, by being a numb idiot that doesn't read the forum you're on?

I am moving your comments to the Derailing Room until I have some sense you are actually reading the forum you claim to use, and you can present cogent arguments based on all that has been discussed in those threads.

Cripes. Sometimes, you people claiming to represent "fairness" really fail at representing an opposing opinion. No wonder we have to ban folks like you so often! It's like reading your shopping list. Wasting our time. I can see why some on here think your own "motivations" for being here really stink. Quite highly. I would basically categorize your attempt at contributions so far as falsely impassioned yawns and feigned ignorance of the entire subject matter of this forum.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5029
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Postby Maat on February 27th, 2015, 11:57 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
Selene wrote:My question is why would they fake a plane crash? I find it so senseless to do. 9/11 and all the other hoaxes around the world had a purpose. The purpose here is "showing that they can fake something"? I don't get it. So I don't reject the idea of fakery in this particular case, but am not convinced by it either.


You're still here? Denying that we've proven video fakery? Ho-humming and adding absolutely nothing of your own research? You haven't refuted any of the points in the TAIPEI thread, but you still claim to sit on the fence. Did you even read it? Obviously not.

You claim to care about the satellite issue, but offer absolutely no evidence to the working theory that satellites are bunk — nor to any sort of contrary. It seems you haven't actually read that forum either.

What do you do? Simply read the title of a thread and then come up with your own random, unrelated thoughts vaguely defending the official story? Is that your assignment? You certainly act like it is.

This is at least the third time you have been warned about this. With every post you fail to acknowledge the problem of your belligerent ignorance of the topics being discussed, it begs the questions: What are you doing here? Why do you write lengthy posts about absolutely nothing? How could you still be contributing nothing to the forum after everything we have told you about the purpose of the forum? How can you claim to be at all familiar with the evidence of fakery presented on thousands of pages of reading material?

You are not really claiming to be "agnostic" on something obviously fake, asking for "debate" when you don't even understand the questions. You are essentially saying, "I don't care what points you've made, and I'm not going to think about them until you do research for me, on my terms."

This isn't your blog or your Facebook page. You claim to be doing what, exactly, for the public, by being a numb idiot that doesn't read the forum you're on?

I am moving your comments to the Derailing Room until I have some sense you are actually reading the forum you claim to use, and you can present cogent arguments based on all that has been discussed in those threads.

Cripes. Sometimes, you people claiming to represent "fairness" really fail at representing an opposing opinion. No wonder we have to ban folks like you so often! It's like reading your shopping list. Wasting our time. I can see why some on here think your own "motivations" for being here really stink. Quite highly. I would basically categorize your attempt at contributions so far as falsely impassioned yawns and feigned ignorance of the entire subject matter of this forum.

Thank you, Hoi! When I saw that one, I was too damn tired & couldn't use the keyboard with both palms on my face!

They must come from some epistemological twilight zone :wacko: When irrefutable evidence proves something was faked, it's not necessary to know “why”, by whom, or even exactly how.
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby brianv on February 27th, 2015, 1:22 pm

hoi-polloi wrote:It's like reading your shopping list.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Postby Selene on February 27th, 2015, 3:08 pm

Hi hoi.polloi,

I really don't understand this. I posted 2 posts with a list of points I wanted to raise. It is my style of posting, if you have suggestions, please feel free to share. I am open to change the way I post?

Yesterday I wanted to send you and simon a private message, but that didn't work, so I sent an email to simon, with the question to forward it to you.

hoi.polloi wrote:You're still here? Denying that we've proven video fakery? Ho-humming and adding absolutely nothing of your own research? You haven't refuted any of the points in the TAIPEI thread, but you still claim to sit on the fence. Did you even read it? Obviously not.


Yes I did and there are many strange things which have been pointed out. So, no, I am not "denying" your analysis on video fakery at all, but does it mean we all are convinced at once?

I think doubts are very scientific?

You claim to care about the satellite issue, but offer absolutely no evidence to the working theory that satellites are bunk — nor to any sort of contrary. It seems you haven't actually read that forum either.


I did, and I am not saying satellites are "bunk" (do you mean the opposite of "debunked"?), I am raising the point that so many people work with the data. And are not part of perpetration per se. Just ordinary users. So to keep that hoax going you have to be able to fool professional people. Not like other hoaxes as they must come directly from NASA and related space agencies. There are so many private satellite companies, that makes it different.

What do you do? Simply read the title of a thread and then come up with your own random, unrelated thoughts vaguely defending the official story? Is that your assignment? You certainly act like it is.

This is at least the third time you have been warned about this. With every post you fail to acknowledge the problem of your belligerent ignorance of the topics being discussed, it begs the questions: What are you doing here? Why do you write lengthy posts about absolutely nothing? How could you still be contributing nothing to the forum after everything we have told you about the purpose of the forum? How can you claim to be at all familiar with the evidence of fakery presented on thousands of pages of reading material?


Please, let's talk about this in private. Did you get my email via simon?

You are not really claiming to be "agnostic" on something obviously fake, asking for "debate" when you don't even understand the questions. You are essentially saying, "I don't care what points you've made, and I'm not going to think about them until you do research for me, on my terms."


No, not at all, hoi. I do care a lot, otherwise I wouldn't be here. But I am not in this 10s of years like I read from others. I am tumbling down the rabbit hole at an enormous pace, so it's very confronting all. If your world views have been changed so many years ago, I understand it's hard to imagine others haven't.

This isn't your blog or your Facebook page. You claim to be doing what, exactly, for the public, by being a numb idiot that doesn't read the forum you're on?

I am moving your comments to the Derailing Room until I have some sense you are actually reading the forum you claim to use, and you can present cogent arguments based on all that has been discussed in those threads.

Cripes. Sometimes, you people claiming to represent "fairness" really fail at representing an opposing opinion. No wonder we have to ban folks like you so often! It's like reading your shopping list. Wasting our time. I can see why some on here think your own "motivations" for being here really stink. Quite highly. I would basically categorize your attempt at contributions so far as falsely impassioned yawns and feigned ignorance of the entire subject matter of this forum.


Ban "people like me"? I cannot imagine who and how many you had to ban, but I really don't see what base you have to ban me? I am reading your forum, but it's an awful lot. I have read all the space related topics, added one point of importance on the rockets (temperature) and raised some points on the satellites. You decide to put them here and not in the topic about it.

Like I said, things can be better solved with personal communication. Please let's have this based on the email?

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby Selene on February 27th, 2015, 9:10 pm

Dear hoi.polloi, brianv, and others who were asking rightly for my own contributions, I've done a piece on "ISIS'" last video of the alleged Mosul Library:

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1751&p=2394437#p2394437

I had a very good phone conversation with simon by the way.

I hope this helps clearing up a bit my style of investigating (and I'd wish I was at this level for satellites, etc., I am in the early question stage there...) and trying to work things out. Apologies for the way it is presented; I'd like to scale down the images, if possible. If you do not like the formatting of the post, please let me know.

Cheers,

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: TAIPEI river plane crash

Postby Maat on March 7th, 2015, 9:24 pm

Starbucked wrote:Unfortunately it appears as though CIA/Mossad MK Ultra brainwashed small 'n cute animal patsies are conspiring, as further evidenced by this woodpecker hijacked by a baby weasel. Lord save us.

Image

Not trying to be a party pooper, Starbucked, but this doesn’t really fit the fake Taipei plane topic vs disinfo joke ;) A least weasel attacking a bird is a likely enough event, despite the rarity of capturing it on film — so this photo is not necessarily fake. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03 ... 89644.html


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMnjhxsm-Gc


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw-OOdfogUQ

Here's a video which, although titled “Weasel vs Seagull”, appears to be a mink, but still shows the same tenacity & relative size of predator to bird:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k319DbHU80

For size reference, this is a least weasel:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2CTVqt2wxU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_weasel
“The least weasel (Mustela nivalis), or simply weasel in the UK,[2] is the smallest member of the genus Mustela and of the family Mustelidae (as well as the smallest of the Carnivora), native to Eurasia, North America and North Africa, though it has been introduced elsewhere. It is classed as being of Least Concern by the IUCN, due to its wide distribution and presumed large population. …
Small rodents form the largest part of the least weasel's diet, but it also kills and eats rabbits and other mammals, and occasionally birds, birds' eggs, fish and frogs. …

Despite its small size, the least weasel is a fierce hunter, capable of killing a rabbit five to ten times its own weight.
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby brianv on March 7th, 2015, 9:39 pm

Image

So weasel bites into woody's neck and they both plummet to earth. And that's all for tonight kids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby Maat on March 8th, 2015, 3:33 am

Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Postby Selene on March 26th, 2015, 6:33 pm

simonshack wrote:Dear Selene,

I am sure that you are aware that hundreds of "Geostationary satellites" (here's a website listing 402 of such things) are claimed to be orbiting Earth at a distance of 36.000km (or just about 1/11th of the Earth>Moon distance). On another page of that same website, we are told that the diameter of Earth as seen from the Geo-satellites is 17 degrees:

"View of the earth as seen from a satellite above the equator at 0 deg longitude.
Diameter of the earth as seen from the satellite = 17 degrees."

Image
http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-maps.htm


Thanks for the correction, simon.

I was thinking of most satellites that are supposed to be in Low Earth Orbit (below the Van Allen radiation belts). Any statement on "we have (geostationary) satellites @ 36,000 kms" perfectly functioning and sending data to Earth is even more problematic than satellites in general. It would be ridiculous to assume a satellite is not in the slightest way affected by the unimaginable radiation and thus communication failures caused by these belts.

******************
NOTE: No, I do not believe the Earth is flat. I totally support Nonhocapito's above comment. Posts such as the one above (by our member nimblehorse) which only link to other people's / website's speculations about the subject will not be tolerated from now on.

I agree. I wanted to post a similar comment like and before nonhocapito's in my previous reaction; "the good science and unveiling of obviously perpetrated hoaxes as discussed on Cluesforum is spoilt by in my opinion pretty ridiculous and especially non-scientific topics as Flat Earth".

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Postby Selene on March 26th, 2015, 6:46 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Also, Selene, for so far defending unprovable satellites and now dinosaurs, you have offered nothing but your belief in the mainstream story — which is completely inadequate from a proof standpoint. Please offer any rebuttal to anonjedi2 regarding fossilized dinosaurs (and it had better be good scientific evidence) in the dinosaur thread — and, if you please, only after atually reading the thread and giving the points there some weight against your tenacious desire to believe the mainstream liars.

Hoi.polloi,

I am not "defending" unprovable satellites. See the thread on it on the forum. What I was trying to do is distinguish between the correct statements made by Dupay in his video (about NASA, about satellites, about the impossiblity of rockets working in space) and his comments about Flat Earth. He is using the NASA fakery as an argument to dispute heliocentricity. I consider that a fallacy. See also the reaction to simon above.

Also, I am not "believing mainstream liars" per se. But on the other hand, I am not saying that every point that is mainstream is a lie either.

I may enter the Dinosaur Hoax thread in a future comment, but there are so many topics catching my attention (and even a life outside of the internet :unsure: ) that it may take a while.

Browsing through the topic I have spotted a fallacy which is also made by Creationists (note: I am not namecalling anyone in that topic a Creationist!): "The fossil record is incomplete, so point A, B and C....".

The fossil record is indeed incomplete, but that is not the "fault" of science. It is a fact of life due to our changing planet. So many parameters have to be considered to even find fossils, let alone find a "complete" range/set of fossils over timespans which are unimaginable for most people (as a geologist I am used to think in millions of years). I do not hold that against non-geologists, it simply is outside of their realm of thinking.

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Postby hoi.polloi on March 26th, 2015, 7:00 pm

Also, I am not "believing mainstream liars" per se. But on the other hand, I am not saying that every point that is mainstream is a lie either.


You describe yourself as in the same camp as us — but only by lumping us together as "reasonable" people and then taking issue with any point that questions your sacred beliefs. Your so-called "soft" approach you described to us is like a pillow violently smothering out the truth. Your polite gatekeeping is no more useful here than the rude ad hominem attacks against Simon.

Is it reasonable for you to dismiss their points with "ho hum" and "I still believe the mainstream idea that ..." in every thread, and then claim you are adding something to proofs, evidences, science? You have done nothing of the sort. All you offer is apologies. "I'm sorry but I will not consider evidence," has basically been your response to any evidence presented to you. That's not science. It's polite denial. Blindness with an etiquette. A stubborn love affair with the mainstream story.

Kindly remove yourself and restrain yourself from any thread where all you find you are about to post in it is a disingenuous "agreement" and then make precisely the opposite point; or I am going to have to assume you are the shill that Seneca identified you as, as kind and nice as you act.

I mean, ridiculously, you claim "millions of years" is unimaginable for some people, but you yourself admit their point of a missing fossil record is valid, and then you go on to choose to believe the mainstream story despite the strike against it. That is your prerogative, I suppose — to religiously hold to satellites, dinosaurs, Earth theories, what-have-you, but what evidence have you actually found and contributed? Are you just a commenter?

It's not your place to troll topics that seem "shaky" to you and tell us to avoid those questions. It's not your place to make it seem as though people who disbelieve things that haven't evidence for them are fools — not because you are here and not because you're a "geologist" or whatever form of expertise you claim. What authority does your being a "geologist" actually mean? Explain in detail your expertise if you are going to use your "authority" on it, then.

Have you not actually read CluesForum? Do you know where you are? We all have lives outside the forum. But you're not meant to bring personal shit here. This place is for discussion of proofs and evidences.

In short, you are clearly forgiving of liars and you are forgiving of many official doctrines, while denying you are. What use are you on our forum if all you are going to do is dismiss the most important questions of our time, seriously? What use do readers of CluesForum have for someone that basically sounds like a cable TV show on the History Channel?

He is using the NASA fakery as an argument to dispute heliocentricity. I consider that a fallacy.


Using NASA fakery is a fallacy, but that's exactly what you do when you claim to believe that satellites are believable. It's precisely what you do when you claim we have reason to trust industries like the fossil market and zealous Darwinists with book sales to make, while only offering proof or evidence when you are constantly exhaustively reminded what this forum is for?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5029
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests