So what was the final verdict? <not that I should have to ask>
ATM you cant prove it either way. But this new probe has a camera that is at the correct resolution to see the lander sites, apparently.... so expect some fake photography in the very near future.
Not true. NASA just released their HD caps of the earth from the moon in response to these, showing the earth. The earth is 4X larger than the moon, and so should look 4X larger than what we see the moon as, yet, in the moon landing photos the earth is small, too small to be real.
Maybe some member will post them in the open for all to see.
It has never been debunked because we never went to the moon. There wasn't enough fuel to land and takeoff, the technology didn't exist, either.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492482
I've seen on other sites people analyze the photos specifically taking into account the focal length of the camera and show that the size of the Earth in the photos is exactly what is expected.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 492648 8/28/2008 12:19 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
So what was the final verdict? <not that I should have to ask>
ATM you cant prove it either way. But this new probe has a camera that is at the correct resolution to see the lander sites, apparently.... so expect some fake photography in the very near future.
Not true. NASA just released their HD caps of the earth from the moon in response to these, showing the earth. The earth is 4X larger than the moon, and so should look 4X larger than what we see the moon as, yet, in the moon landing photos the earth is small, too small to be real.
Maybe some member will post them in the open for all to see.
It has never been debunked because we never went to the moon. There wasn't enough fuel to land and takeoff, the technology didn't exist, either.
I've seen on other sites people analyze the photos specifically taking into account the focal length of the camera and show that the size of the Earth in the photos is exactly what is expected.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 341923
Then where are some nice pics of the lunar landscape that don't just drop off at about 200 yards? Shouldn't you be able to see 10's of miles into the distance? Where are some pics of distant mountains etc.?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 88145 8/28/2008 12:21 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
You are claiming the moon is too radioactive for the missions to have been carried out.
Yet you don't say at all how radioactive it is to back that up.
Yet as I said beofre it could be a hundred times more radioactive than earth and yet a short stay of 2 days would not do significant damage.
understand?
HOW RADIOACTIVE IS IT?
If you can't answer the question, how can you make the blanket statement it was too radioactive for the missions to take place?
Maybe you should read.
I'm not claiming anything, just repeating what Nasa is saying, that they are concerned enough about radioactivity on the moon, that they are sending a probe to find out & paying money to others to build shields for space flight!
I'm just wondering why all this is necessary if Apollo was such a success? The answer is either a) Apollo was a fake crock of shit b) Apollo is real & that on returning to the moon it will take a lot longer than it did before ( I'm guessing there will be a speed limiter on new spacecraft like there used to be on my Audi) why else would space.com report that Nasa is spending money on this shield?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492650
Have you read NONE of the plans about long term stays? Apolo stayed for a couple of days at best. The next missions will be for WEEKS. Are you so completely stupid that you don't understand the difference in radiation exposure?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 492667 8/28/2008 12:22 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
Have you looked? I've seen plenty of pics showing distant mountains. A quick image search comes up with a few just on the first page.
[link to images.search.yahoo.com]
Anonymous Coward User ID: 88145 8/28/2008 12:27 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
So what was the final verdict? <not that I should have to ask>
ATM you cant prove it either way. But this new probe has a camera that is at the correct resolution to see the lander sites, apparently.... so expect some fake photography in the very near future.
Not true. NASA just released their HD caps of the earth from the moon in response to these, showing the earth. The earth is 4X larger than the moon, and so should look 4X larger than what we see the moon as, yet, in the moon landing photos the earth is small, too small to be real.
Maybe some member will post them in the open for all to see.
It has never been debunked because we never went to the moon. There wasn't enough fuel to land and takeoff, the technology didn't exist, either.
I've seen on other sites people analyze the photos specifically taking into account the focal length of the camera and show that the size of the Earth in the photos is exactly what is expected.
Then where are some nice pics of the lunar landscape that don't just drop off at about 200 yards? Shouldn't you be able to see 10's of miles into the distance? Where are some pics of distant mountains etc.?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492648
The moon is only 3/8th's the earth's diameter. The horizon is much closer than here.
At sea level on earth, a normal sized person sees the horizon at a distance of 4.7 km.
Have you looked? I've seen plenty of pics showing distant mountains. A quick image search comes up with a few just on the first page.
[link to images.search.yahoo.com]
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 341923
God, did you even look at those pics?
Thank you for proving my point. You'd think the entire moon was inside of a small valley, or the side of a hill with a back drop of space. Why don't you do yourself a favor and compare it with the mars lander pics.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 492648 8/28/2008 12:33 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
So what was the final verdict? <not that I should have to ask>
ATM you cant prove it either way. But this new probe has a camera that is at the correct resolution to see the lander sites, apparently.... so expect some fake photography in the very near future.
Not true. NASA just released their HD caps of the earth from the moon in response to these, showing the earth. The earth is 4X larger than the moon, and so should look 4X larger than what we see the moon as, yet, in the moon landing photos the earth is small, too small to be real.
Maybe some member will post them in the open for all to see.
It has never been debunked because we never went to the moon. There wasn't enough fuel to land and takeoff, the technology didn't exist, either.
I've seen on other sites people analyze the photos specifically taking into account the focal length of the camera and show that the size of the Earth in the photos is exactly what is expected.
Then where are some nice pics of the lunar landscape that don't just drop off at about 200 yards? Shouldn't you be able to see 10's of miles into the distance? Where are some pics of distant mountains etc.?
The moon is only 3/8th's the earth's diameter. The horizon is much closer than here.
At sea level on earth, a normal sized person sees the horizon at a distance of 4.7 km.
Have you looked? I've seen plenty of pics showing distant mountains. A quick image search comes up with a few just on the first page.
[link to images.search.yahoo.com]
God, did you even look at those pics?
Thank you for proving my point. You'd think the entire moon was inside of a small valley, or the side of a hill with a back drop of space. Why don't you do yourself a favor and compare it with the mars lander pics.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492648
With no familiar references in the foreground (houses, trees, buildings, etc) and the fact that with no atmosphere you don't get the fading of objects in the distance, objects are much farther away than they look.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 492648 8/28/2008 12:47 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
Have you looked? I've seen plenty of pics showing distant mountains. A quick image search comes up with a few just on the first page.
[link to images.search.yahoo.com]
God, did you even look at those pics?
Thank you for proving my point. You'd think the entire moon was inside of a small valley, or the side of a hill with a back drop of space. Why don't you do yourself a favor and compare it with the mars lander pics.
With no familiar references in the foreground (houses, trees, buildings, etc) and the fact that with no atmosphere you don't get the fading of objects in the distance, objects are much farther away than they look.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
So now your going to resort to telling me I'm not seeing correctly. Are you serious? I'm suppose to believe I can't tell what multiple layers of hills going off into the distance looks like. What about a big crater?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 492648 8/28/2008 12:53 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
So what was the final verdict? <not that I should have to ask>
ATM you cant prove it either way. But this new probe has a camera that is at the correct resolution to see the lander sites, apparently.... so expect some fake photography in the very near future.
Not true. NASA just released their HD caps of the earth from the moon in response to these, showing the earth. The earth is 4X larger than the moon, and so should look 4X larger than what we see the moon as, yet, in the moon landing photos the earth is small, too small to be real.
Maybe some member will post them in the open for all to see.
It has never been debunked because we never went to the moon. There wasn't enough fuel to land and takeoff, the technology didn't exist, either.
I've seen on other sites people analyze the photos specifically taking into account the focal length of the camera and show that the size of the Earth in the photos is exactly what is expected.
Then where are some nice pics of the lunar landscape that don't just drop off at about 200 yards? Shouldn't you be able to see 10's of miles into the distance? Where are some pics of distant mountains etc.?
The moon is only 3/8th's the earth's diameter. The horizon is much closer than here.
At sea level on earth, a normal sized person sees the horizon at a distance of 4.7 km.
The straight line of sight distance d in kilometers to the true horizon on earth is approximately
d = sqrt{13h},
where h is the height above ground or sea level (in meters) of the eye of the observer. Examples:
* For an observer standing on the ground with h = 1.70 m (average eye-level height), the horizon appears at a distance of 4.7 km.
* For an observer standing on a hill or tower of 100 m in height, the horizon appears at a distance of 36 km.
Why didn't you quote the whole thing? A mere 100 m of height gets you 36km horizon. Does that not seem important to you? But, I could have told you that from my wealth of common sense. Just like I can tell you the features in those pics of the moon are consistently too close.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 88145 8/28/2008 1:00 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
Have you looked? I've seen plenty of pics showing distant mountains. A quick image search comes up with a few just on the first page.
[link to images.search.yahoo.com]
God, did you even look at those pics?
Thank you for proving my point. You'd think the entire moon was inside of a small valley, or the side of a hill with a back drop of space. Why don't you do yourself a favor and compare it with the mars lander pics.
With no familiar references in the foreground (houses, trees, buildings, etc) and the fact that with no atmosphere you don't get the fading of objects in the distance, objects are much farther away than they look.
So now your going to resort to telling me I'm not seeing correctly. Are you serious? I'm suppose to believe I can't tell what multiple layers of hills going off into the distance looks like. What about a big crater?
Then look at AS-15-84-11324 (this is a javascript page with no direct link) to see a wide panarama with the LM in the distance. Note how the distance is very deceiving until you spot the LM.
Did you spend hours and hours searching before finding that one? They do seem few and far between.
That one looks pretty good though. Nice.
Maybe a little model action?
(p.s. if you want to link directly to the images on that site, click till you get there then right click and choose "copy image location".) This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com]
Anonymous Coward User ID: 492714 8/28/2008 1:48 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
Have you looked? I've seen plenty of pics showing distant mountains. A quick image search comes up with a few just on the first page.
[link to images.search.yahoo.com]
God, did you even look at those pics?
Thank you for proving my point. You'd think the entire moon was inside of a small valley, or the side of a hill with a back drop of space. Why don't you do yourself a favor and compare it with the mars lander pics.
With no familiar references in the foreground (houses, trees, buildings, etc) and the fact that with no atmosphere you don't get the fading of objects in the distance, objects are much farther away than they look.
So now your going to resort to telling me I'm not seeing correctly. Are you serious? I'm suppose to believe I can't tell what multiple layers of hills going off into the distance looks like. What about a big crater?
Then look at AS-15-84-11324 (this is a javascript page with no direct link) to see a wide panarama with the LM in the distance. Note how the distance is very deceiving until you spot the LM.
You are claiming the moon is too radioactive for the missions to have been carried out.
Yet you don't say at all how radioactive it is to back that up.
Yet as I said before it could be a hundred times more radioactive than earth and yet a short stay of 2 days would not do significant damage.
understand?
HOW RADIOACTIVE IS IT?
If you can't answer the question, how can you make the blanket statement it was too radioactive for the missions to take place?
Maybe you should read.
I'm not claiming anything, just repeating what Nasa is saying, that they are concerned enough about radioactivity on the moon, that they are sending a probe to find out & paying money to others to build shields for space flight!
I'm just wondering why all this is necessary if Apollo was such a success? The answer is either a) Apollo was a fake crock of shit b) Apollo is real & that on returning to the moon it will take a lot longer than it did before ( I'm guessing there will be a speed limiter on new spacecraft like there used to be on my Audi) why else would space.com report that Nasa is spending money on this shield?
You are only making the "blanket" statement that it wasn't dangerous radioactivity wise, based on the knowledge that Nasa did go to the moon & the astro's returned safely. You cant tell me how radioactive it is any more than Nasa can.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492650
I didn't say it wasn't dangerously radioactive, it very well could have been.
But here's the thing.
They actually went to the moon. They brought back material that could not be faked that obviously wasn't of earthly origen. The astronauts did not die like flies after the missions.
So, the moon might well be dangerously radioactive yet the short exposure time led to no significant ill effect.
I had the impression that you were the one saying that if it was radioactive they couldn't have gone. Yet you refuse to say exactly what the extent of the radioactivity was.
So if the moon is dangerously radioactive fro any long term stay wouldn't it be prudent to investigate the extent of that radioactivity?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 378076 8/28/2008 1:56 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
I watched the show last night. I did not read alll of this thread so excuse me if i'm repeating something.
My thought while watching he show was this:
They used NASA equipment and data, along with a minitatures and postitionable lighting, to prove that NASA did NOT use NASA equipment, miniatures and postitional lighting to fake the whole thig?
I guess i should not have expected much else. but they hardly "busted" anything.
You people are nuts User ID: 492724 8/28/2008 2:07 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
Using planetary logic: In outer-space the nothingness of space is weightless, the Moon's mass creates gravity.
Earth's atmospheric pressure allows our gravity to be at this level, it would have been heavier for us to walk around if we did not have the air and all its gases to buffer the nothingness of space.
If you lift 10 pounds in a pool of water, the water creates a buffer between the air outside and the solid surface of the pool, the 10 pounds is lighter then if you lifted it out of the water and into open air, because air too has weight but weighs less then water and creates less of a buffer between the solid ground of the Earth and the nothingness of space, but if you lifted the same 10 pounds on the Moon it would weigh even more because the nothingness of space weighs nothing (no buffer) between the solid ground of the Moon.
Apollo Mission would have crashed on the Moon, its a fake, those astronauts would be stuck incapable of walking, they took those pictures in Hollywood like the rest of the fakes that live there. They have been lying to us, science is a fake, most of it.
Using planetary logic: In outer-space the nothingness of space is weightless, the Moon's mass creates gravity.
Earth's atmospheric pressure allows our gravity to be at this level, it would have been heavier for us to walk around if we did not have the air and all its gases to buffer the nothingness of space.
If you lift 10 pounds in a pool of water, the water creates a buffer between the air outside and the solid surface of the pool, the 10 pounds is lighter then if you lifted it out of the water and into open air, because air too has weight but weighs less then water and creates less of a buffer between the solid ground of the Earth and the nothingness of space, but if you lifted the same 10 pounds on the Moon it would weigh even more because the nothingness of space weighs nothing (no buffer) between the solid ground of the Moon.
Apollo Mission would have crashed on the Moon, its a fake, those astronauts would be stuck incapable of walking, they took those pictures in Hollywood like the rest of the fakes that live there. They have been lying to us, science is a fake, most of it.
I watched the show last night. I did not read alll of this thread so excuse me if i'm repeating something.
My thought while watching he show was this:
They used NASA equipment and data, along with a minitatures and postitionable lighting, to prove that NASA did NOT use NASA equipment, miniatures and postitional lighting to fake the whole thig?
I guess i should not have expected much else. but they hardly "busted" anything.
The Mythbusters have an annoy propensity to poorly analyze things and make knee-jerk pronouncements.
The first two problems I noticed with their "Moon Landing Conspiracy" episode:
1. shadows in photographs - the didn't set this up in a vacuum, so there was an atmosphere to diffuse the light source, indirectly lighting the model astro-not.
2. the retroflecter science package - could have been placed by a secret robotic probe, no astro-nots needed.
interestingly, it seems that Adam / Jamie are the ones who always want to declare a myth "busted" on the basis of a poorly analyzed scenario.
bonus : Tory's revealing comment for the footprint test at Huntsville - Grant : "myth busted" Tory : "great, now NASA will let us go"
Quoting:
i think the only myth busted was the myth that these people are really unbiased scientists...those 3 young people are just actors, it seems. give me a script and some props, use some good editing, and i could look like i was smart, too.
they all looked like it all they could do to avoid sneering everytime they said 'conspiracy theorists', which they said alot..
supposedly, we are so much more technologically advanced now than we were in the late 60's...if we 'could' get a man on the moon then, why don't we have people crawling all over there now? you'd think it'd be even easier to do now, because of all the micro, nano-technology and advanced computers we have now.
i don't know...maybe if 911 had never happened, i might be more gullible about the whole moon thing. but you can't just watch those towers go down and believe that a freaking plane made them totally collapse so neatly upon themselves.
also, remember how the chinese added footage of fireworks to the opening ceremony..injected it right into the live feed.
i'm not smart enough to argue all the finer points like others on this board are, but i do feel that things are just not as they seem.
by the way, i guess i can't fault the mythbusters too much...they have families to take care of, too. i didn't really expect them to prove the hoax anyway.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 492278 8/28/2008 4:11 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
The sad thing is they did it well enough to fool millions, if not billions of people into believing that they actually went.
Including the Russians? But not you? What gave it all away to you, then, and why do you think other nations that would love to show up the US didn't spot it?
Quoting: Barls Knarkley 401789
Barls is really getting deperate. His old "the Russians would have told on us"! crap is really naive, , if even he believes this nonsense.
Governments are like crime families; they may their disputes, but they never run to the police to tell on anyone. They are all in on it.
That being said, the Russians cannot go to the moon, and they know damned well why they cannot go to the moon.
For the same reason no other country has been there, or will be in the near future.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 492278 8/28/2008 4:13 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
Have you looked? I've seen plenty of pics showing distant mountains. A quick image search comes up with a few just on the first page.
[link to images.search.yahoo.com]
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 341923
I just looked, and they show nothing of the sort.
DrPostman Forum Moderator User ID: 51197 8/28/2008 5:46 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
It gets better. SELFPunisher believes that the Earth
is flat. "It's kinda like creating a carpool lane on the internet, except instead of
high-occupancy vehicles, only rich assholes will be able to drive on it"
-- Jon Stewart on what the telecoms would prefer instead of Net Neutrality.
Can't PM? Feel free to email me at DrPostman(at)gmail.com
Have you looked? I've seen plenty of pics showing distant mountains. A quick image search comes up with a few just on the first page.
[link to images.search.yahoo.com]
And some more:
[link to www.panoramas.dk]
[link to antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov] "It's kinda like creating a carpool lane on the internet, except instead of
high-occupancy vehicles, only rich assholes will be able to drive on it"
-- Jon Stewart on what the telecoms would prefer instead of Net Neutrality.
Can't PM? Feel free to email me at DrPostman(at)gmail.com
It gets better. SELFPunisher believes that the Earth
is flat.
Quoting: DrPostman
YOU BELIEVE IN COMIC-BOOK PICTURES.
Here's the Sun:
[link to eol.jsc.nasa.gov]
Of course it isn't directly at the Sun, but it is clearly
at the top of the image.
Quoting: DrPostman
The Sun's rays are only possible after the Sun's light is filtered thru the GASEOUS atmosphere, not before, these are computer generated LIES for the DUMMIES of the new religion called SCIENCE.
The answer to all of this is right here in this link, this was made to show how it was all faked, believe it or not and it aint ripleys
[link to video.google.com] LKXXON
Anonymous Coward User ID: 296854 8/28/2008 6:08 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
Mythbusters lost all credability when they tried, and failed, to "debunk" the Bedini Motor system. They obviously have fuck all understanding beyond what they read on the episodes script. They are puppets, and pathetic ones at that.
Q: Why do Stars never appear on picture taken of Earth by the Space-Station?
A: Stars don't appear because they’re not there prior to the Sun's arrival.
2Enoch: Chapter 11
[1]Those Men took Me, and led Me up on to the fourth Heaven, and showed Me all the successive goings, and all the rays of the light of Sun and Moon.
[2]
[3]
[4]Its passage and return are accompanied by four great Stars, and each Star has under it a thousand Stars, to the right of the Sun’s wheel, and by four to the left, each having under it a thousand Stars, altogether eight thousand, issuing with the Sun continually.
The Space-Station take photos before the Sun crosses over the Flat Earth, it does so as to not photograph the Stars, eight thousand Stars are a lot, but they can still be counted, you'll note that after the Sun has crosses your own skies you can sometimes, if you really look carefully, you can see the first of the Stars.
Real photo of Space-Station over Earth, note the Space-Station hovering over the Earth as you expand the picture the Earth's flatness recedes into the Horizon as though there is more Earth afterwards.
[link to apod.nasa.gov]
This is the money shot, expand the picture (Real) and view the extremities of the Earth, you will note here too the Horizon is seen, but from this angle up, high above grounds a Horizon cannot be seen on a sphere, the only visual would be land / the curve of its slope / darkness.
[link to spaceflight.nasa.gov]
All pictures of the Earth in a globe configuration are computer generated for the Truth would be known otherwise.
Look at these beauties, on the first link bring your attention to the bottom picture where the Florida peninsula is shown, note the ends of what NASA attempts to round off from the Flat Earth and compare it with the second link where the peninsula is on the computer generated globe.
The size of Florida on the first link (real) taken from the Space-Station is so huge that fitting the rest of North America would encompass half of the Earth's globe, no, the photo (real) is cropped made to look round, this is why they take the pictures before the Sun crosses over the Earth (no Stars), hence, when cropping there would remain no indication of tampering or they could never have taken so many photos at different angles for the Stars would betray them.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 454822 8/28/2008 6:23 PM
Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
The Mythbusters have an annoy propensity to poorly analyze things and make knee-jerk pronouncements.
The first two problems I noticed with their "Moon Landing Conspiracy" episode:
1. shadows in photographs - the didn't set this up in a vacuum, so there was an atmosphere to diffuse the light source, indirectly lighting the model astro-not.
2. the retroflecter science package - could have been placed by a secret robotic probe, no astro-nots needed.
interestingly, it seems that Adam / Jamie are the ones who always want to declare a myth "busted" on the basis of a poorly analyzed scenario.
bonus : Tory's revealing comment for the footprint test at Huntsville - Grant : "myth busted" Tory : "great, now NASA will let us go"
Quoting: Mike "Woo Woo" Rowe 491775
Re: The reflector.
1. Did they have advanced laser technology in 1969? Enough to know they could shoot a laser from Earth at that reflector?
2. I expected the reflector to act as a mirror, and by looking in the telescope they would see a little green flash on the surface of the moon when the laser hit the reflector, like a flash of reflected sunlight in a mirror. Instead it was a chart on a computer screen?
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
