Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,456 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,480,620
Pageviews Today: 2,346,231Threads Today: 718Posts Today: 14,310
11:18 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/31/2010 12:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Of course they put it this way.

Beautiful photos of tripod level expertise (some even THE SAME FRAME CROP?), from point and shoot, with no fill light -- and all the shadow problems? Nope.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135


WHAT shadow problems? Again, your ignorance precedes you. The subjects in the photographs are surrounded by the moon's surface lit by direct sunlight (brighter than any on earth through our atmosphere) scattering fill light into what would be non-directly lt areas. The astronauts are wearing WHITE suits and the LM is covered in reflective foil.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 12:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Possibly a little admission, flying by, so to speak:
[link to youtube.com]

Very odd:
[link to youtube.com]

Mistake -- sloppy?:
[link to youtube.com]

But of course, one of the keys:
[link to youtube.com]

There are many small keys ... but most signs are inconclusive without the keys.

:(
Reality420
User ID: 970551
United States
05/31/2010 12:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
*** snip gibberish ***

And since the angular momentum won't cease, which is right, if the Moon were halted, then FROM WHAT RELATIVITY POINT OF VIEW would it be rotating? Would the Earth see it? Likely not. Its tidal lock would not just cease, right?

So how about from the Sun? Nope. But it would still be rotating relative to the Galaxy. So yes, it would still conserve momentum.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Wrong, and confused.

Its tidal lock would cease. That's your and Nancy's problem. You see "lock" and think it is something physical, like a string.

It is merely a synchronization of rotational and orbital periods. There is no string "locking" the earth and the moon together.

If the full moon were to stop orbitting the earth such that it were on Toronto's meridian at midnight, what Clare would see every night for millenia:
The full moon hanging to the south and over the course of about 28 days it would rotate 360 degrees so Clare would see all sides of it. There would no longer be a "far" side.

Comprende?

I'll bet not.


R.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/31/2010 12:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Of course they put it this way.

Beautiful photos of tripod level expertise (some even THE SAME FRAME CROP?), from point and shoot, with no fill light -- and all the shadow problems? Nope.



WHAT shadow problems? Again, your ignorance precedes you. The subjects in the photographs are surrounded by the moon's surface lit by direct sunlight (brighter than any on earth through our atmosphere) scattering fill light into what would be non-directly lt areas. The astronauts are wearing WHITE suits and the LM is covered in reflective foil.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135


BTW, here are the entire lunar photographic archives.

[link to www.apolloarchive.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/31/2010 12:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Possibly a little admission, flying by, so to speak:
[link to youtube.com]
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


You've GOT to be kidding! The caption isn't even what he said!

Do you REALLY fall for all this crap?
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 12:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Debunk this:

Dimensional lens flare -- not possible.

Shadow missing.

[link to www.aulis.com]

But anyway, some of the proofs don't stand up to scrutiny; others do. The claims (esp. re. the leaked images in the last post) are clear. They were faking at least part of the mission in low Earth orbit ... but why?

Likely didn't go.
[link to youtube.com]

So, yes, buds. I think it's a house of cards. Clavius can poke holes in the fabric of the revelation of hoaxing, but the fabric seems to stand even if a few pieces fall away from the fabric showing the hoaxing.

In my opinion, not likely they went.

And why do you care?

Oh, because thousands of people worked on parts of it?

Well, many would have been working on the real mission, to inner Earth orbit; many would have been compartmentalized onto projects. And so on.

Not too hard to do this. Many in the control room would have not known, necessarily, either.
Reality420
User ID: 970551
United States
05/31/2010 12:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
*** snip gibberish ***

And since the angular momentum won't cease, which is right, if the Moon were halted, then FROM WHAT RELATIVITY POINT OF VIEW would it be rotating? Would the Earth see it? Likely not. Its tidal lock would not just cease, right?

So how about from the Sun? Nope. But it would still be rotating relative to the Galaxy. So yes, it would still conserve momentum.

*****************************************************

Wrong, and confused.

Its tidal lock would cease. That's your and Nancy's problem. You see "lock" and think it is something physical, like a string.

It is merely a synchronization of rotational and orbital periods. There is no string "locking" the earth and the moon together.

If the full moon were to stop orbitting the earth such that it were on Toronto's meridian at midnight, what Clare would see every night for millenia:
The full moon hanging to the south and over the course of about 28 days it would rotate 360 degrees so Clare would see all sides of it. There would no longer be a "far" side.

Comprende?

I'll bet not.


R.
 Quoting: Reality420 970551


I'll amend this to add that the earth should also be stopped to eliminate its orbital displacement of 360/365.24 degrees per day.

IOW, Clare, the spin of the moon on its own axis is an intrinsic quality. It has spin angular momentum. You weigh less at the moon's equator than at the poles due to the centripital acceleration. A rocket launched from the moon's equator in the direction of the spin requires less energy (fuel) to achieve orbit than if it were launched against the spin.(Astronut) If you stand at the moon's poles the stars appear to rotate about a fixed point directly overhead, completing a rotation every 27.3 days.(I forgot who.)
etc., etc.

Relativity and frames of reference have nothing to do with it. That BS is just you trying to sound like you know what you're talking about and merely confirming how confused and ignorant of the subject you are.

R.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 12:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Big dust, low jump on TV; no dust (very high quality photo though! so should show), high "jump" on photo.

Backpack no flap up on TV; backpack top flap up in photo.

[link to www.aulis.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
05/31/2010 12:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Getting back to the subject of this thread, what has any of this to do with Nancy and Zetas and their accuracy? Or is this now the Clare show?
Reality420
User ID: 970551
United States
05/31/2010 12:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I see you do subscribe to virtually all the loony theories. I would've expected a couple since this is GLP, but all of them?

Moon hoax.
Chemtrails.
JFK.
No planes.
PX.
Dan Burish.

You are a veritable gold mine of credulity.

Considering your arrogance and propensity to post ad nauseum, this thread should be at 1000 pages in no time.

Good show.


R.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/31/2010 01:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Most people use the term, "Interfere" to mean... <snip>


Oh, for crying out loud.


Another 20 pages of word salad ahead if we continue this discussion.

Stop crying, you guys deserve it! You can't leave her alone long enough for her to wind down. Keep sticking her with a sharp stick and she can, and will outlast all of you! You will all die from fatigue before she gets winded.
 Quoting: George B



Then I respectfully suggest that we boycott her just like we did the other two zetadrool shills and trolls. Seemed to work with them, I suspect it will work with clunk as well.
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/31/2010 01:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Most people use the term, "Interfere" to mean... <snip>


Oh, for crying out loud.


Another 20 pages of word salad ahead if we continue this discussion.

Stop crying, you guys deserve it! You can't leave her alone long enough for her to wind down. Keep sticking her with a sharp stick and she can, and will outlast all of you! You will all die from fatigue before she gets winded.

I just discovered this thread. I've just recently discovered ZetaTalk while Googling about the moon out of place. I know it's out of place because it doesn't shine through the bedroom window like it used to for years. Nancy is the only one talking about this! How can you tell such lies about her?
 Quoting: Bridget 985205



Just how stupid do you think we are, RancidSockyMaxiMelfyKurt?

How about we make your boycott permanant, you rancid sock sucker?

Last Edited by The Commentator on 05/31/2010 01:10 AM
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/31/2010 01:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I see you do subscribe to virtually all the loony theories.
 Quoting: Reality420 970551


I just don't understand how any rational person could believe that planes didn't hit the WTC.
George B

User ID: 976283
United States
05/31/2010 01:18 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well, he didn't find the equipment. He found large block structures.


Let's see now...pixels are SQUARE...and compression artifacts look like...wait...here it is...BLOCKS. Well what do you know!


But as to "massively documented", it's a house of cards, like 9/11.


No, it's not. The world's engineering community is in firm agreement that it is the most highly documented and studied enginering project ever in the history of man. The fact that 400,000 people from thousands of companies in dozens of countries were involved in it and not a single death bed confession speaks LOUDLY. Hell, Clinton couldn't even keep a blowjob secret when only TWO people knew about it! But in this case, we have every mission shown LIVE on worldwide TV with millions of people watching (which brings in thousands of more people who would have to be in on it) and the entire world's engineering and scientific community which to date has found NO evidence against the reality of Apollo. Russia would have loved to have exposed it as a hoax if they thought it was since it was breaking their economy trying to build the Energia rocket and get it launched to the moon before the US. Not only they, but dozens of other countries tracked the spacecrafts. At Jodrell Bank radio observatory in England, they were tracking the doppler shift of the radio signal from the LM and even detected when Neil Armstrong took over manual control before landing. Dozens of ham radio groups also tracked the outgoing and incoming CSM's and a number of amateur astronomy groups photographed the water dumps of the CSM on the way to the moon and the gaseous emissions from the damaged Apollo 13.

Clare, you demonstrate perfectly the monumental ignorance of the typical hoax believer.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135

Thousands of people worked on the Stealth Fighter and B2 programs for decades. Even the people who worked on stealth technology at Wrght- Patterson AFB didn't know the Fighter was operational during the Panama invasion, etc. When Uncle Sam wants to accomplish something with national security implications don't doubt they can't pull it off.

The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is a stealth ground attack aircraft formerly operated by the United States Air Force. The F-117A's first flight was in 1981, and it achieved initial operating capability status in October 1983.[1] The F-117A was "acknowledged" and revealed to the world in November 1988.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
George B

User ID: 976283
United States
05/31/2010 01:22 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Good night Clare . . . and Debunkers; may you both have good dreams.
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 01:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I see you do subscribe to virtually all the loony theories. I would've expected a couple since this is GLP, but all of them?

Moon hoax.
Chemtrails.
JFK.
No planes.
PX.
Dan Burish.

You are a veritable gold mine of credulity.

Considering your arrogance and propensity to post ad nauseum, this thread should be at 1000 pages in no time.

Good show.


R.
 Quoting: Reality420 970551


No, I don't know what to make of Dan Burisch. (Spelling corrected.) I do know people who know that whole side; I don't.

As to the Moon hoax:

the rover left no tracks: [link to www.aulis.com]

But not only that! There are Apollo 11 photos at the base of the LM, in an Apollo 15 photo. [link to www.aulis.com]

I do believe the images at least were faked. And if so, then the other issues become interesting -- Apollo 11 did take the shots of Earth from lower Earth orbit, in the leaked colour film. [link to youtube.com]

These are KEY EVIDENCE> not just speculation.

There is unfortunately key evidence in the case. Be objective. Don't let your prejudices blind you.

If such evidence were not there, it would be a mere speculative theory. As it is, at least the images were faked.

I do not believe in PX, actually. I talk to people who do and I know their case. It is not strong, unless there is some effect hiding PX from our view, but then it can't be as Nancy/ "Zetas" claim, which is in front of the Sun.

JFK and 9/11 are clearly false, and an afternoon reading "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (a formidable read) will show that. All the main the "debunker" claims about the physics and politics and so on, cannot hold. Same with JFK, for chrissakes.

There was a guy -- linked to the FBI of all things! -- who claimed an "objective" study of the nose shadow in one of the Backyard Photos of Oswald. But he didn't compare ACROSS ALL THE PHOTOS, so of course he could mimick the nose shadow; the anomaly shows in COMPARING.

Besides, that is only one of many problems in the photos.

What deliberate disinfo debunkers often do is take a single instance -- and one which does not have a clear inconsistency within the image. In this case the image does, over its whole, but this guy got even more narro: replicability of the nose shadow alone. He built a head and replicated it. Well, of course THAT issue is something which is only a problem over ALL the photos: it's exactly the same on all.

But the guy didn't even handle the other obvious inconsistencies which show from within the context of the ONE photo.

Good article:
[link to www.opednews.com]

So before you -- again -- suggest that a person can't know about more than one lie, and that to do so means mush for brains instead of that there may BE more than one lie ...

Look deeper. Please.

The debunkers on these two (JFK & 9/11) do not handle certain issues AND mis-handle some of the ones they deal with. Occasionally they have a good point, but this is not heroics. It's helpful. But not indicative the whole argument is flawed.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/31/2010 01:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here is the full drama:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

Alone the comments there show that not a single one of the Planet X believers has a brain.

Last comment was on the 17th. I wonder if any of them have
seen the recent change to the page?


Hilarious!

I especially liked this part: "...wormy a-holes like the Commentator and menow..."
 Quoting: Menow 441617



Sounds like luser has a new home.... laughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaugh

I am sure he will fit right in with the ningbats...laughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaughlaugh

Last Edited by The Commentator on 05/31/2010 01:31 AM
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 01:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Of course they put it this way.

Beautiful photos of tripod level expertise (some even THE SAME FRAME CROP?), from point and shoot, with no fill light -- and all the shadow problems? Nope.

Automated? Do you know what automated cameras then meant? It meant light metering for the overall light conditions. No more. (Not counting the necessary fill lights, of course, which aren't supposed to have been used.)

Sorry.

It's fill story.


Wrong again. In broad daylight with no atmosphere, they used a high f-stop which, if indeed you know ANYTHING about photography, produces a hugely deep depth of field, so focuing isn't an issue. And have you seen the hundreds of badly framed photos in the NASA Apollo photo archive? Obviously, only the good ones are published in LIFE magazine and books, but there remain a good percentage that were crappy that are there for anyone to see in the online archives.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135

I know it was set to infinity. Yes, and there's a limit to that in close-ups. But the point about the excellence is it's too excellent at times. The photos of Aldrin comng out of the LM are exactly the same framing!


This from a bad view through their visors and a little view circle finder on their chest? GMAFB (Give me a f**king break!)

Oh, and the crosshairs were supposed to be right in the camera, so there could never be crosshairs (reticules) other than in the same points of the frame (and there are photos where they are at different points -- but the pics are supposed to have been released full frame!) ... and here there are crosshairs that are doubled: obvious retouching.
[link to www.aulis.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/31/2010 01:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
JFK and 9/11 are clearly false,
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Do you really believe that hijacked planes did not crash into the World Trade Center?
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/31/2010 01:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
JFK and 9/11 are clearly false,


Do you really believe that hijacked planes did not crash into the World Trade Center?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583



clunk probably believes STAR WARS was a documentary.....
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 02:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
JFK and 9/11 are clearly false,


Do you really believe that hijacked planes did not crash into the World Trade Center?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583


I know the vids were constructed in various ways, but the KEY is the parallax problems, for, as with Costella's work on the Z film, THAT EVIDENCE DOESN'T DEPEND ON OTHER EVIDENCE FROM THE CASE TO BE VALID; it's pure optics, well established.

But ...

and no plane parts were found other than wrong parts and insufficient parts, and that the black box "from" the Pentagon shows a flyover of a hundred feet or so (from Pilots for 9/11 Truth) ...

and I know that the lack of a wake vortex in the vids, and the presence of no hijackers in the original passenger list (but later added to the top when researchers pointed this out -- but all to the top of the list, so a sloppy retouch!) ...

and the fact that almost all SSNs are still active for the flight passengers, and the in-flight calls could not have been made from 93 (and the FBI said they had no completed calls on record, originally) ...

and that all 4 planes were still listed as on duty -- two for several months, the other two until some years later ...

and that several booking AA personnel said Flight 11 (I think it was 11) was not scheduled that day ...

And the judge hearing the suit from AA unprecedentedly -- or almost so? -- decided damages BEFORE HEARING THE CASE, so the evidence was not in fact fully aired.

And so on.

So yes, I know beyond a reasonable doubt on that one.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 02:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Wrong, and confused.

Its tidal lock would cease. That's your and Nancy's problem. You see "lock" and think it is something physical, like a string.

It is merely a synchronization of rotational and orbital periods. There is no string "locking" the earth and the moon together.

If the full moon were to stop orbitting the earth such that it were on Toronto's meridian at midnight, what Clare would see every night for millenia:
The full moon hanging to the south and over the course of about 28 days it would rotate 360 degrees so Clare would see all sides of it. There would no longer be a "far" side.

Comprende?

I'll bet not.


R.
 Quoting: Reality420 970551

GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOMEBODY ANSWERED ME ON WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE LOCK!

Good-o.

Nice to know. THANK YOU. hf

However, in a purely superposition understanding, not a physical stoppage, the Moon does not rotate around the Earth but rather orbits. And in a physical sense it does not orbit, it rotates in an orbit of the Sun.

Good to know what would happen in physical stoppage though.

Comprende that I comprende-d all along but didn't know what would physically happen to the lock. And NO, I don't consider it fastened, or I would never have asked about it.

By the way, from your last post, Returner, the spelling is "ad nauseam". It's accusative (an ending for when the noun is a direct object or with certain prepositions, such as "ad" here). It's a feminine noun of a common type, not accusative neuter or masculine; the latter ends in -um for nouns which are of a certain type.

I DIDN'T use the technical terms, except for accusative, so that you aren't confused. It is only fair.

(But if you're interested, nouns have groupings in what's called a "declension", meaning "to fall away from", as if their endings, called "case" endings, "fall away" from the stem. The same grouping idea for verbs is instead called "conjugation", which means "joining", and the endings are "tense endings". ...

Grammarians could have called the group names and ending names the same for nouns and verbs, but didn't. It helps one know immediately if one is dealing with a noun or verb, to already have the label of the group or ending named differently for noun vs. verb. ...

So this noun is a 2nd declension noun, feminine, in the accusative singular, as the objct of the preposition "ad". That is the technical terminology. See, I HELP AND SHARE, and so many of you bait and refuse to try to help or give benefit of doubt. Sad.)

afro
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/31/2010 02:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Do you really believe that hijacked planes did not crash into the World Trade Center?

<snip>
and the fact that almost all SSNs are still active for the flight passengers,
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


So what are you claiming?

That the people who were on those flights are actually still alive?
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 02:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
mclarek: But as to "massively documented", it's a house of cards, like 9/11.


AC: No, it's not. The world's engineering community is in firm agreement that it is the most highly documented and studied enginering project ever in the history of man. The fact that 400,000 people from thousands of companies in dozens of countries were involved in it and not a single death bed confession speaks LOUDLY. [...]

Clare, you demonstrate perfectly the monumental ignorance of the typical hoax believer.

George B: Thousands of people worked on the Stealth Fighter and B2 programs for decades. Even the people who worked on stealth technology at Wrght- Patterson AFB didn't know the Fighter was operational during the Panama invasion, etc. When Uncle Sam wants to accomplish something with national security implications don't doubt they can't pull it off.

The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is a stealth ground attack aircraft formerly operated by the United States Air Force. The F-117A's first flight was in 1981, and it achieved initial operating capability status in October 1983.[1] The F-117A was "acknowledged" and revealed to the world in November 1988.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: George B

Right.

Some of these things are "Manhattan Projcts". And by the way, AC, Lewinsky was REVEALED, whreas activities at Mena, AK (OFFICIALLY) was not (Iran-Contra drugrunning and killing).

There are many people under nat. sec. oaths to this day from NASA and some are talking, but obliquely.

The photos are faked (hoaxed, rather); but that doesn't prove they didn't go. But the inside images of the Apollo 11 flight (see to end to understand fully) are enough, actually, to know: they are still close to Earth too long into their flight to have likely made it to the Moon. [link to youtube.com] AND there's the question of why fake anything on the flight? For this was clear flight fakery: there is NO question in this leaked video: there are he guys, the film in front of the window, the conversations they are known to have broadcast (but they only broadcast part of what's caught on the leaked vid) ... etc.

The rest of the issue seems to be basically a job of filling in the blanks. It almost has to have been faked, based on what you see above. And there is more.

It's hard, I know, because I too used to think this must be a weird concept, and no key evidence. But try to be objective here even though it's hard. It doesn't matter what Clavius says -- if even one fake is found ... unless they faked video AND went. And definitely one, even one impossibility is also proof. The video above is near-proof of their not going; but one could stretch the argument and say they faked the Earth throughout the journey to the Moon but still went to it.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 02:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Do you really believe that hijacked planes did not crash into the World Trade Center?

<snip>
and the fact that almost all SSNs are still active for the flight passengers,


So what are you claiming?

That the people who were on those flights are actually still alive?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

Well, it's tricky.

The researchers suggest some may have been taken into hiding or killed. Most were workers on high-level projects and in military-contract kinds of work. Who knows if they worked on smething for 9/11 or whatever and were disappeared in a not-nice way?

Whatever is the case, the planes can't have done the damage AND there's no proper evidence for them.

<shrug>

The rest is guessing: What about the people? -- Well, what about them ...? They're easy. Either they were liked or they were trouble.

The planes altogether weren't full for even ONE plane, by official records.

Yah, not nice stuff. :( And it gets tricky in some details. But it can't be there were planes. There MAY have been missiles -- or one or two. And there is some unclarity if flight 93 was taken out in the air or not. But nothing crashed.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 02:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Do you really believe that hijacked planes did not crash into the World Trade Center?

<snip>
mclarek:
and the fact that almost all SSNs are still active for the flight passengers,


969583: So what are you claiming?

That the people who were on those flights are actually still alive?
[snip]

mclarek: <shrug>
[snip]

But nothing crashed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

Hey there, just realize, the whole thing is easier with computer blips, a Pentagon flyby (and possible missile -- maybe), and video faking -- complex but relatively sloppy and simple to arrange -- and explosives, and taking a bulldozer to carve a plane shape in Pennsylvania and blow up some trash in the middle ... and so on.

It sounds more complex (and has taen researchers into various aspects into different directions, but they converge on no planes, even when they don't know it/ want to think that.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/31/2010 02:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So what are you claiming?

That the people who were on those flights are actually still alive?

Well, it's tricky.

The researchers suggest some may have been taken into hiding or killed. Most were workers on high-level projects and in military-contract kinds of work. Who knows if they worked on smething for 9/11 or whatever and were disappeared in a not-nice way?

Whatever is the case, the planes can't have done the damage AND there's no proper evidence for them.

<shrug>

The rest is guessing: What about the people? -- Well, what about them ...? They're easy. Either they were liked or they were trouble.

The planes altogether weren't full for even ONE plane, by official records.

Yah, not nice stuff. :( And it gets tricky in some details. But it can't be there were planes. There MAY have been missiles -- or one or two. And there is some unclarity if flight 93 was taken out in the air or not. But nothing crashed.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



I've heard about this theory but never paid much attention and never interacted with anyone who believed anything like this.

This is as wacky as ZetaTalk.

You're delusional. You've been seduced by other delusional people. Some combination of the two.

And am I to understand that men with PhDs like Fetzer and Costella actually believe this?

Incredible.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 02:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
mclarek: It sounds more complex (and has taken researchers into various aspects into different directions), but they converge on no planes, even when they don't know it/ want to think that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583


I fixd my typos there.

But I was going to say, most people ask about the witnesses. That's a fascinating thing. There are ony a couple of hundred witnesses for the NYC on record, and they say all kinds of things, but most who say "plane" for the second hit, were in the News business or affiliated with it.

And for the Pentagon, same thing, but there the witnesses are sometimes baldly lying. It's quite interesting.

Of course, now, many NYers question 9/11, and their affidavit to get a full inquiry was scuttled and delayed ... and then only recently allowed by the main approval setters but scuttled again finally by a couple of people at the top.

But I am sure there would be many who assumed they saw a plane instead of all the interesting flying around which people reported was going on, in spite of the grounding order. It seems there were many military craft in the air.

And "funny", no attempts to rescue people with the helicopters which were also up in the air.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 02:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I've heard about this theory but never paid much attention and never interacted with anyone who believed anything like this.

This is as wacky as ZetaTalk.

You're delusional. You've been seduced by other delusional people. Some combination of the two.

And am I to understand that men with PhDs like Fetzer and Costella actually believe this?

Incredible.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583


Sadly credible.

As to Costella, he knows of the Moon Hoax work and supports some of the image analysis.

He does not get involved in 9/11 research.

As to being as wacky as ZT: hardly! This is testable and well supported, as I've been showing. Look back and see what I've said. All tose facts are searchable.

So yah: they didn't use planes. And why would you be stuck on planes?

If you get the thing was a sham, don't you think they'd do it EASY for them? Risk missing building targets? Mess up the Penta-lawn? Massive oil spills at the Pentagon (none was ever cleaned up)?

Naw. Once you get your mind around throwing out the images, the work is mosly done on the other aspects. But it's true, you could have fakery of images and still have planes, technically. It took Fetzer 2 years to face it, but now he says he just can't believe how he didn't accept *some* (the hey) evidence sooner: just emotional resistance, on that stuff.

Some was not absolute; some is, or is highly suggestive alone, and absolute in combination.

So life goes on. Well, not for 1 million Iraqis and Afhganis, and they weren't even the purported hijackers, who were mostly Saudi identities.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 02:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Maybe your respect for PhDs will at least make you look at the work.

Instead of saying smart people can't know this stuff ("think" it).

:)

Icchy stuff. But really not so bad once you face it: it's more of the same "funny" imagistic lies we've had all along: what did the perps behind Guy Fawkes do? They used the same images, over and over, so they became mythic. Same with the Hearst "news" empire, claiming the Spanish Cubans sank the Maine!

It goes on and on.

By the way, the perps behind Guy Fawkes -- it is now known -- didn't evn put real gunpowder in. They used corn husks FROM THE GOV'T STOREHOUSE (so that's how we know: the records show it!). And husks are not even flammable.

You get used to laughing (between crying) when you learn more and more of this stuff. These perps are so sloppy, but they give a big whoop cry, and if not exposed right away, they get what they want.

News