Reply With Quote
Mousefart - Your stupid video of the Van Allen Belts is really well researchedThey went around the edge of them. Thicko.
Mousefart - Just go to 1 minute 16 seconds and your schtooooopid claim gets buried. Thicko.
Mousefart - Your stupid video of the Van Allen Belts is really well researched
Why would some youtube video made by a man in India debunk footage from Myth busters?
Mousefart - Just go to 1 minute 16 seconds and your schtooooopid claim gets buried. Thicko.
My footage is raw untouched.
Mousefart - Your stupid video of the Van Allen Belts is really well researched
You bought that lie not me.
Are you claiming they can see radiation and avoid the bad parts?
You big dipstick, even from the diagram they show in the video, you can see the belts are doughnut shaped. As for seeing them,
How does the arsehole who made that film know about them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
Red line equator, yellow line Apollo trajectory. Thicko
Last edited by Fatfreddy88; 02-25-2012 at 05:07 PM.
Just because you buy into the theory that there is a "safe" way to travel though a radiation belt doesn't mean its not lethal.You big dipstick, even from the diagram they show in the video, you can see the belts are doughnut shaped. As for seeing them,
How does the arsehole who made that film know about them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
Red line equator, yellow line Apollo trajectory. Thicko
Your silly charts and fake youtube links don't hide the facts that no country has every sent a human to the moon before or since the NASA lie.
Explain that.. You won't and you can't because the radiation is to deadly.
The mere fact that the film was not damaged by the radiation is beyond explanation.
oh wait there is an explanation.....they never went past the belts to begin with.
Thick . The people who tell you it's lethal, how exactly do they know that?
The logic of the circular mousefart. Just because you fart, doesn't mean people want to smell itYour silly charts and fake youtube links don't hide the facts that no country has every sent a human to the moon before or since the NASA lie.
The silly chart was the tracked trajectory. The youtube link was it in video - thicko.
I will and can. They went around it at great speed. The deadly nature of it is prolonged exposure at the more concentrated parts for extended periods. Thicko.Explain that.. You won't and you can't because the radiation is to deadly.
The explanation is that they came back on the same trajectory, with shielding that attenuated any charged particles. Thicko.The mere fact that the film was not damaged by the radiation is beyond explanation.
Thicko.oh wait there is an explanation.....they never went past the belts to begin with.
They sent probes into space before humans and then animals.Thick . The people who tell you it's lethal, how exactly do they know that?
Everyone knows once you leave earths protective atmosphere your subject to radiation. Either you support the Van Allen belts or you don't, stop flip flopping.
Who's farts do people want to smell?The logic of the circular mousefart. Just because you fart, doesn't mean people want to smell it
So you admit it was silly.The silly chart was the tracked trajectory. The youtube link was it in video - thicko.
I will and can. They went around it at great speed. The deadly nature of it is prolonged exposure at the more concentrated parts for extended periods. Thicko.
Why would they go around something that is circular? The radiation belts "circle" the earth Like a "belt" circles a waist.
Why would you not want to just plow through? And why do they need "great Speed" if the radiation is non lethal like you claim?
Do you remember what side of the fence your on?
Either you support the radiation is deadly or you don't
The Radiation card has been pulled .......
Consider the debate over.
NASA: Ask an Astrophysicist
The aluminum capsules were of 1/8" plate aluminum. They were only in the proximity of the Van Allen belt for a short time. They maybe received 5 rems maximum, but I'll bet on under one.The Question
(Submitted February 28, 1997)
I wonder if you could tell me exactly what the VAN ALLEN BELT is and how much radiation does it contain, ie how many rems of radiation are there out there? Plus, what protection would organic life need to be protected from this radiation?
----
"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt.
Yes thicko, that's how your film maker knows about the belts.
Everybody knows it, because they sent probes into space to measure it. Thicko.Everyone knows once you leave earths protective atmosphere your subject to radiation.
There's no flip flopping thicko, they are there, they are dangerous, they went around the weaker edges quickly.Either you support the Van Allen belts or you don't, stop flip flopping.
"Whose"Who's farts do people want to smell?
No thicko, I quoted back the word you used. If you think it silly, explain why instead of being thick and waving your arms.So you admit it was silly.
Because it is torus shaped. To you, that is a ing doughnutWhy would they go around something that is circular? The radiation belts "circle" the earth Like a "belt" circles a waist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
"The Van Allen radiation belt is a torus of energetic charged particles (plasma) around Earth, which is held in place by Earth's magnetic field. It is thought that most of the particles that form the belts come from solar wind, and other particles by cosmic rays.[1] It is named after its discoverer, James Van Allen, and is located in the inner region of the Earth's magnetosphere. It is split into two distinct belts, with energetic electrons forming the outer belt and a combination of protons and electrons forming the inner belts. In addition, the radiation belts contain lesser amounts of other nuclei, such as alpha particles."
They went around the edges in a wide elliptical orbit that passed through the path of the Moon, where the Moon superceded the weaker gravity of Earth.Why would you not want to just plow through?
Well thicko, I didn't claim it was non lethal, I said it would be if they went through the denser central areas and hung about for some considerable time.And why do they need "great Speed" if the radiation is non lethal like you claim?
As for the speed, it is called escape velocity. It is necessary to leave the orbit of any planetary body. Thicko.
Yes, not on the thicko side of the fence with you and cosmoron.Do you remember what side of the fence your on?
What radiation?Either you support the radiation is deadly or you don't
The belt radiation is deadly over time and in the central areas. Which is why the didn't hang about and didn't 'plow through' the centre
The radiation on the Moon or in cislunar space is easily shielded against.
Solar particle events are very dangerous if they are X class, but none occurred during any mission.
Thicko.
Last edited by Fatfreddy88; 02-26-2012 at 05:33 AM.
Hey FatFreddy and RandomGuy-
I asked you two to address this issue and you still haven't.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=2957
Do you think Jay Windly is right, or do you think those geologists are right?
(from post #2980)
That was pretty lame attempt to avoid the question. It's a simple direct question about Jay Windley's stand on an issue. Explain why this is a straw man argument.It is a strawman argument you complete witt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
---------------------------------------
Jay Windley's credibility is a legitimate Apollo-related issue as he's the webmaster of the Clavius site and posts heavily on its forum.
http://www.clavius.org/
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?
Hey FatFreddy and RandomGuy-
I know I'm a stupid , but why didn't you answer me dust post? Is it because you think I am a cretinous moron who is thicker than pig ? Or maybe because you know it doesn't matter what you say, because I think I'm right, 'cos of me jackets, me flags and me bubbles?
Yes.Do you think Jay Windly is right, or do you think those geologists are right?
That was pretty accurate of you. It's a stupid ing strawman side issue aimed at Jay Windley's stand on an issue. Explain why this is a straw man argument - oh hold on, let me quote the strawman, and be so ing stupid I don't understand it
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.
Check this out.........
Here's a turd I just laid.....
I tried to log in to post this...
...to answer this...
'Can you sit on a toilet properly?'
...and a note came up that said.......
Let's see what happens, when they read all about me flags, me jackets, me bubbles and me dust.......
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/
So, you are going from "I don't understand photography or the physics of light" to "I don't understand the Van Allen Belts"
Sorry, the fact you don't understand something does not prove that hundreds of thousands of people have been faking space programs for 50 years and running.
Let's sum up the thread, now that we are thousands of posts into this exercise in stubbornness.
Cosmored has some videos with anomolies he doesn't understand.
He then has made dozens of assertions, based on the theory that the things he doesn't understand in the videos he posts actually mean that those videos and photographs are faked, because the entire Apollo program, and all subsequent space programs are all hoaxes.
To support this theory he has nothing but provably false logic and hand-waving.
He has provided no evidence outside these videos.
He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks are fake.
He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks, if not fake, how they were brought back, if not by the Apollo missions.
He has no evidence showing how the videos or photos were faked.
He has no first-hand testimony of any one of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who would have to be involved in creating the hoax and covering it up.
Everytime that he is asked about any hard evidence of this massive undertaking, he simply retreats to long ago debunked two second video clips of things he doesn't understand.
Mouse, for his part has joined the "I don't understand the video" bandwagon, with a sprinkle of "I don't understand photography, or the Van Allen belts"
Both have allowed themselves to be lied to, because of a desperate desire to BELIEVE in the fantastic conspiracy theory in which hundreds of thousands of people all worked to hoax and/or cover up. I say this because some of what they have presented as "evidence" of fakery has been quite literally manufactured by hoax believers themselves, and provably so, as has been seen here, if you care to plumb the depths of the swamp of the last 100+ pages.
I don't care.
Sorry.
Wake me up when you get a plausible explanation for the rocks, or any first-hand accounts from any one of the hundreds of thousands of people who had to have been "in" on your fantastic conspircay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's sum up the thread, now that we are thousands of posts into this exercise in stubbornness.
Cosmored has some videos with anomolies he doesn't understand.
He then has made dozens of assertions, based on the theory that the things he doesn't understand in the videos he posts actually mean that those videos and photographs are faked, because the entire Apollo program, and all subsequent space programs are all hoaxes.
To support this theory he has nothing but provably false logic and hand-waving.
He has provided no evidence outside these videos.
He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks are fake.
He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks, if not fake, how they were brought back, if not by the Apollo missions.
He has no evidence showing how the videos or photos were faked.
He has no first-hand testimony of any one of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who would have to be involved in creating the hoax and covering it up.
Everytime that he is asked about any hard evidence of this massive undertaking, he simply retreats to long ago debunked two second video clips of things he doesn't understand.
Mouse, for his part has joined the "I don't understand the video" bandwagon.
Both have allowed themselves to be lied to, because of a desperate desire to BELIEVE in the fantastic conspiracy theory in which hundreds of thousands of people all worked to hoax and/or cover up. I say this because some of what they have presented as "evidence" of fakery has been quite literally manufactured by hoax believers themselves, and provably so, as has been seen here, if you care to plumb the depths of the swamp of the last 100+ pages.
Quite frankly, at this point, it is obvious that the person behind Cosmored has some form of brain damage or impairment. Attempting to engage mental illness or cognitive impair is a job for a psychiatrist or a neurosurgeon. I am neither.
I think we've established where you are regarding knowledge of said subject.
This is how shills behave when they've lost a debate. The play games and tap dance around until the issue blows over and then try to bury the part of the debate in which they lost deep in the thread to reduce the number of people who see it and then they go on as if nothing had happened.Do you think Jay Windly is right, or do you think those geologists are right?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
I think it's pretty clear that Apollo was a hoax. The only reason to keep this thread going is to do a study of disinfo tactics and you shills are doing a good job of showing everybody those tactics.
You seem to be cornered by this issue.
(post #2996)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5669194&postcount=2996
I guess I'll have to reword my question. Do you think Jay Windley was right?
The more you tap dance around and evade this issue, the sillier you look.
You can't bury this info as it's in post #1.Wake me up when you get a plausible explanation for the rocks,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+Moon+Rocks+Revis ited&aq=f
If you keep playing dumb about the info in post #1088, I can thwart you by reposting it.or any first-hand accounts from any one of the hundreds of thousands of people who had to have been "in" on your fantastic conspircay.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1088
I think it's pretty clear that I am a stupid head. The only reason to keep this thread going is because I have a mental illness.
You don't seem to care about my stupid strawman.
Yes and no.I guess I'll have to reword my question. Do you think Jay Windley was right?
The more you tap dance around and evade my stupid ing strawman, the more it winds me up.
Yes, on the prominent scientific basketball forum.You can't bury this info as it's in post #1.
If you keep debunking all the I post, I can thwart you by respamming it.
Check this out.........
Here's a turd I just laid.....
I tried to log in to post this...
...to answer this...
'Can you sit on a toilet properly?'
...and a note came up that said.......
Let's see what happens, when they read all about me flags, me jackets, me bubbles and me dust.......
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
Ban spam spam spam spam spam
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/
(from post #2994)
(from post #3002)Do you think Jay Windly is right, or do you think those geologists are right?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
You'd get laughed out of the debating hall for those lame responses. I don't think anyone needs to have what's happening here explained.I guess I'll have to reword my question. Do you think Jay Windley was right?
------------------------------------------
Yes and no.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpts)
------------------------------------------
6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive.
------------------------------------------
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.
------------------------------------------
I am done arguing with your brain damage.
The fact that you think the stuff you presented actually subs utes for a direct first-hand confession is proof only of your cognitive impairment. Your own words are more damning about the weaknesses in your argument than anything I can say.
Thank you. Now that I have the link, I can repost it as well. That you are incapable of seeing how bad it is, at this point is unsurprising and more than a little sad.
Here it is:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1088
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-27-2012 at 05:10 PM.
I don't care.
Sorry.
Wake me up when you get a plausible explanation for the rocks, or any first-hand accounts from any one of the hundreds of thousands of people who had to have been "in" on your fantastic conspircay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's sum up the thread, now that we are thousands of posts into this exercise in stubbornness.
Cosmored has some videos with anomolies he doesn't understand.
He then has made dozens of assertions, based on the theory that the things he doesn't understand in the videos he posts actually mean that those videos and photographs are faked, because the entire Apollo program, and all subsequent space programs are all hoaxes.
To support this theory he has nothing but provably false logic and hand-waving.
He has provided no evidence outside these videos.
He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks are fake.
He has no evidence that the hundreds of pounds of rocks, if not fake, how they were brought back, if not by the Apollo missions.
He has no evidence showing how the videos or photos were faked.
He has no first-hand testimony of any one of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who would have to be involved in creating the hoax and covering it up.
Everytime that he is asked about any hard evidence of this massive undertaking, he simply retreats to long ago debunked two second video clips of things he doesn't understand.
Mouse, for his part has joined the "I don't understand the video" bandwagon.
Both have allowed themselves to be lied to, because of a desperate desire to BELIEVE in the fantastic conspiracy theory in which hundreds of thousands of people all worked to hoax and/or cover up. I say this because some of what they have presented as "evidence" of fakery has been quite literally manufactured by hoax believers themselves, and provably so, as has been seen here, if you care to plumb the depths of the swamp of the last 100+ pages.
Quite frankly, at this point, it is obvious that the person behind Cosmored has some form of brain damage or impairment. Attempting to engage mental illness or cognitive impairment is a job for a psychiatrist or a neurosurgeon. I am neither.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-27-2012 at 05:11 PM.
Everybody except your lover Mouse gets that your point is meaningless bollocks. You are just too stupid to understand why.
Let's just say for arguments sake that it is perfectly possible to create vast areas of terrain made of dust free sand. Now what?
Does dust free sand move with fast speed horizontally and loosely with astronauts moving at Lunar speed vertically? No.
Does dust free sand clump together like it does during the LR footage? No.
Does dust free sand take visible tracks and prints? No.
Oh don't tell me, they wet it, in which case it always clumps together.
You pathetic troll with your stupid ing strawman argument.
One tactic that you profesional sophists use is to misrepresent what long posts say to try to sway those who don't take the time to read everything.The fact that you think the stuff you presented actually subs utes for a direct first-hand confession is proof only of your cognitive impairment. Your own words are more damning about the weaknesses in your argument than anything I can say.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1090
One point I made in that post is that people who know are afraid to come forward and, if someone were to actually try to come forward, he'd have a hard time getting heard. In that post I also mentioned some cases of things happening to people who tried to come forward.
The fact that we don't read about any whistle‐blowers does't mean that there aren't any people who know. Your position is very weak and it doesn't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
Let's hear your response to the question I asked about Jay Windley.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html
You avoided answering my question about Jay Windley like a typical shill. Please answer the question.Let's just say for arguments sake that it is perfectly possible to create vast areas of terrain made of dust free sand. Now what?
Does dust free sand move with fast speed horizontally and loosely with astronauts moving at Lunar speed vertically? No.
Does dust free sand clump together like it does during the LR footage? No.
Does dust free sand take visible tracks and prints? No.
Oh don't tell me, they wet it, in which case it always clumps together.
You pathetic troll with your stupid ing strawman argument.
The points you raised are addressed here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
