*** URGENT *** question to End Times Prophet: will Jupiter's mantle rupture and spit out a new planet in the next days?

"Will Jupiter's mantle rupture?"

No.

the Toynbee Tiles tell it all.

So what did NASA "forget" to mention on this alibi page?
----

Storm #1 is the Great Red Spot, twice as wide as Earth itself, with winds blowing 350 mph. The behemoth has been spinning around Jupiter for hundreds of years.

Storm #2 is Oval BA, also known as "Red Jr.," a youngster of a storm only six years old. Compared to the Great Red Spot, Red Jr. is half-sized, able to swallow Earth merely once, but it blows just as hard as its older cousin.

[link to www.nasa.gov]

Illuminati media censoring TWO unprecedented events in Earth's shield, Jupiter (July 4, 2006)
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Another case of GOOGLE and MATT MARRIOTT in ILUMINATI END TIMES

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

I really would like to know, despite my better judgement, exactly waht it is about the Galileo probe that MM/ETP has a problem with. All I see in support is demands that other people prove it wasn't a hoax. It doesn't work that way. It is up to him to prove that the Galileo probe story as presented has irreconcilable errors. All he offers is a link to a page with an artists' conception of the probe parachuting into Jupiter's atmosphere.

WHAT"S THE BEEF MATT? You've been repeating this one rather a lot. Be specific, if that it at all possible. I'm betting you won't or can't.

Well its a few days later and no new planet. Still just as many morons who believe anytning on here i see. Hey to the guy who started this thread, did you know that in a few days the suns gonna grow to 5 million times its size? :D ooh quick start believing it lmfao

>>July 4, 2006

"exactly waht it is about the Galileo probe that MM/ETP has a problem with"

So what's in your opinion the best material "transmitted" by Galileo?

"So what's in your opinion the best material "transmitted" by Galileo?"

No, Matt, I'm not playing the game you are famous for. YOU made the implication, based on that link, that Galileo was a hoax. You seem to think that the link explains something about your belief. BE SPECIFIC. What do you think is wrong?

Nothing to add, Matt? Quelle surprise.

The sad bit is, I think Matt honestly thinks he's engaging in debate by the Socratic method.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

The essential bit that he is missing from this is that the participants need to agree on the topic of dispute. To merely mumble and handwave so that nobody clearly knows the basis on which to argue is pointless, as there are no clear terms of reference. Another thing is that the questioning is done by the person who has NOT made the opening assertion. The asserter is the one who must defend their position. The biggest problem with using this method is that it is usually intended for use in discussion of philisophical concepts, not scientific discoveries. It can be used to discuss conclusions derived from those discoveries, but issues of fact must usually be addressed directly.

So, given that, WHAT IS YOUR POINT ABOUT THE GALILEO PROBE PICTURE, MATT?

I see you've just started another thread, Matt. Care to come back to this one?

Thought not.

Not possible.

Jupiter is a gas giant.
It will ignite and become the second sun
of our solar system.

It already happened not really big news!

There are two previous claims:
1. NASA claims Galileo orbited and descended into Jupiter.

2. You claim you believe claim 1.

The bigger the lie the easier it is to expose it.

In a board, the best way to expose big lies is using the "facts" that believers in the big lie present.
The basic "facts".

Jupiter doesn't have a mantle, dumbass ;)

It's a big ball of gass..WE can only guess what it's like in the center. Nobody knows for sure.

It's held together so tighly that NOTHING in this solar system, short of the sun bashing into it, can make it 'rupture'. - It's gravity is THAT strong.

that would look so kewl

love to have a large scop to see that

Dumbass, read the first page before posting your crap

You don't need a large scope. My smallest one is a 6" newtonian dobsonian, and I can see Jupiter and it's red spot fine. I can even see some of it's moons. Even the shadows they cast on Jupiter.

In my 12.5" one, I can see some surface detail on it's moons and lots of detail on Jupiter. - If a planet, even a tiny one, would 'come out' (this is laughable by the way), millions of amateur astronomers around the globe would see it.

I didn't comment on the first page, I commented on the title of the thread. You're the dumbass, Sir.

And this was posted 9 days ago, so the answer is: NO

"There are two previous claims:
1. NASA claims Galileo orbited and descended into Jupiter.

2. You claim you believe claim 1."

Is that the best you can do, Matt?

For a start, that isn't two claims. Strictly speaking, it is one claim by NASA and my affirmation of belief in their claim. I don't 'claim' to believe it. I DO believe it. I really fail to see what, if any, point you are making here. Yes, I believe them. Are you insinuating that I am being less than honest in my affirmation? What point are you trying to make here?

I also dispute your use of the word 'claim' in the first place. Dictionary.com define the word claim (in the sense in which you obviously intend to use it) as:

"To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain"

It's that 'especially when open to question' bit that is the bone of contention here. An overwhelmingly large percentage of humanity believes NASA when they STATE (look it up) that the Galileo mission performed as reported. You, the holder of the minority position, are the one CLAIMING otherwise. Stop playing semantic games and come right out with the reasons for your claim.

Also, you are being somewhat misleading (intentionally or not) with your summary of the Galileo mission. The way you phrase it, it sounds like you believe it was the same probe that did the orbiting and the descent, when that is of course incorrect, as is stated on the page with the artistic interpretation you keep dont_use_this3g to. There were two parts to Galileo: the orbiter, and the atmospheric probe. The probe was released before the orbiter made the orbit insertion burn; at no time was it in orbit, it just entered straight into Jupiter's atmosphere. Is this the source of your problems?

"In a board, the best way to expose big lies is using the "facts" that believers in the big lie present.
The basic "facts"."

I agree with this statement in general outline, but fail to see how you would claim to have applied it to the situation at hand. I'll say again:

WHAT FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE HERE, MATT?

You have merely engaged in more vague innuendo. You have not yet provided one single, actual, concrete claim in support of you accusations of fraud. Show me the money. I know, based on observation of your previous caperings here, that you are not capable of this. But, hope springs eternal. Your attempted rebuttal of my "Wright Brothers" post was almost an attempt to engage in actual debate. Keep going, you seem to be making progress.

Also, it would seem that Pravda have declined to authorise my login ID, so I have not yet been able to take you to task there for your misuse of your crosspost of my "Wright Brothers" post in this forum. Here is what you wrote there:

"Let's recall the #1 argument used by NASA operatives once they are asked to justify the photo above - STILL available in the NASA site:

>> If you'd asked the average layman in 1903 if the Wright Brothers' plane could fly, many would have said "what, that thing??"

If the Wright Brothers' plane could fly, why can't the UFOs from the Galactic Federation land on Earth?

You convinced me. Now I believe in UFOs and in the moon landing. Well done, NASA."

For a start, "let's recall"? and "#1"? That makes it seem like you are implying that this has been the foremost, repeated response from NASA to your claims, when in reality any 'NASA operative' who is even AWARE of your existence will simply have scratched their head in puzzlement. You are building it up in order to shoot it down, an act known as creating a straw man.

Of course, I am not in any way affiliated with NASA. I don't even live on the same continent.

You crossposted without telling anyone, me included, what the actual source of the quote was. This is dishonest and cowardly. I also direct your attention back to the originating thread for my answer to your rebuttal.

Do try harder, Matt. You're not being much sport at the moment.

I've just realised that I've crossposted the Wright Brothers/Pravda bit, as it originated in this GLP thread:

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

I really shouldn't have done that. For a start, it will allow you to evade answering the question in this thread. I'll cut and paste the end bit of my last post into the correct thread so we can keep them separate.

Heads up

Hi Matt. Bumping your own posts, I see. Stop it or you'll go blind.

Any further details on why you think an artistic representation (explicitly described as such) is conclusive proof that the Galileo mission is a fraud?

Thought not.