Voting

[Kataphraktoi]

without having read that link or clicked it

having phyisical relations is something special, and a gift from god to be able to create life. using your bodies for pleasure or just preventing natural consequences is wrong like that. esspecially if your unmarried....


OK just alienated half the forum. and before you ask, yes part of my religion and i am serious.

[binTravkin]

OK just alienated half the forum. and before you ask, yes part of my religion and i am serious.

If I was following the same religion I'd have 3 children now?!

[binTravkin]

In the air and at ground-level, the highest speed is 1.190km/hr .
High in the sky and only at the equator and only with a flight to the west, airplanes can get 2.860km/hr and nothing more, due to the rotation of the earth (40.000km in 24 hours = 1.666km/hr).
This is the reason why the Concorde is NOT supersonic from NY to Paris.

Funny thing, someone should come up with a research is it really NOT supersonic..

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by binTravkin
You mean this about my post regarding aliens?

I think it's just logical.
Everyone can get such a result when wrapping his mind around a bit around the Liberation Day (movie) concept..

Not just see the movie and feel like the aliens are actually planning an attack (that's way they're hovering around in their UFOs, yeah! )..

Wow, a post which I could spam upon that I missed?
Must be getting old...

No bT, wasn't talking about your alien post.


Oh, and regarding the Moonfake films, ever thought that perhaps the landing(s) did found place but they couldn't afford the extra weight of a proper vacuum-proof camera in the module to bring it down so the movie was hurriedly made somewhere hence the obvious discrepancies?

[Kataphraktoi]

Oh, and regarding the Moonfake films, ever thought that perhaps the landing(s) did found place but they couldn't afford the extra weight of a proper vacuum-proof camera in the module to bring it down so the movie was hurriedly made somewhere hence the obvious discrepancies?

the most reasonable explanation for bT yet

f I was following the same religion I'd have 3 children now?!

that all?

[binTravkin]

that all?

, I said if I was following, which meant 100% following, which in turn means, I would not have sex before marriage and that would mean I would have married a bit less than 3 yrs ago.

Oh, and regarding the Moonfake films, ever thought that perhaps the landing(s) did found place but they couldn't afford the extra weight of a proper vacuum-proof camera in the module to bring it down so the movie was hurriedly made somewhere hence the obvious discrepancies?

Seeing how NASA barely gets a shuttle up there, don't see the logics behind it.
If it was unmanned vehicle, I can believe it.

Btw a vacuum proof camera would weigh less than one person, thus if they wanted to film anything they'd just throw one of them out of the window and let the other communicate with the tiny 32k memory landing simulation module, who could at best remember how to calculate E(exponent), not actually do any realtime simulation calculations.

Btw, Cata, I did some more study in the optics, regarding dimming and could come up with a scientific explanation fo things.
Also, I dug up information about what makes flags wave and not tremble.

[Archaic]

bT....my respect for you just dropped several notches. How can you believe such bull****, and attempt to justify it to yourself like this?

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

That's just a primer, but should covers many of your main points, without even needing to get into the maths in many cases.

http://www.clavius.org/

And that's the big guns. If you have a question they don't cover, I'd be quite surprised.

Seriously bT, the Moon Landing Hoax theory is as based on the same level of fact and science as so-called Intelligent Design. Whatever weed you're smoking, stop it.

[binTravkin]

Well, did I call anyone idiots because they believe in what they do?

If your respect falls, my respect falls for the simple fact you find other person's beliefs a factor for respect.


And generally,

Seriously bT, the Moon Landing Hoax theory is as based on fact and science as so-called Intelligent Design.

this is half-true for one simple reason - noone has ever been to Moon personally to come here and tell how it was.

Right now the hoax believers see the physical evidence and use it as a proof, while the officials or the nonbelievers use methods known as 'we know, you not', by claiming things that cannot be tested and thusly explaining the evidence as opposite.

I have my belief and you have yours, if asked I can explain, if being called a lesser person because of it[belief], it only speaks about yourself..

And for your consideration:
Have you seen those different shadow angle pictures?
Does it look like they're on slopes?

(..)they commonly make negative comments about the U.S. government such as "they're a bunch of liars" or "they can't be trusted". (..)

Iraq WMD anyone?

[Archaic]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Well, did I call anyone idiots because they believe in what they do?

If your respect falls, my respect falls for the simple fact you find other person's beliefs a factor for respect.

I have no problem with a person believing what they like, so long as they acknowledge that their beliefs have no basis in fact and/or logic, should they happen to not be.

Originally posted by binTravkin
And generally,

this is half-true for one simple reason - noone has ever been to Moon personally to come here and tell how it was.

No one has been? Neil Armstrong would punch you in the face for that, and be quite justified in doing so. Wouldn't be the first time he's done it either.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Right now the hoax believers see the physical evidence and use it as a proof, while the officials or the nonbelievers use methods known as 'we know, you not', by claiming things that cannot be tested and thusly explaining the evidence as opposite.

You can see the ****ing landing sites with a sufficiently powerful backyard telescope! Many universities around the world make use of the laser reflectors the astronauts left behind, to make detailed calculations about the distance and rotation of the moon! There is physical, undeniable evidence of the moon landings that you can see yourself, should you have the inclination to get off your ass, spend a little money, and test it yourself.

Originally posted by binTravkin
I have my belief and you have yours, if asked I can explain, if being called a lesser person because of it[belief], it only speaks about yourself..

So if someone who's certainly in a position to realise otherwise, believes that 2+2=5, I shouldn't have lose respect for them?

Bull****. If you have a belief that's a steaming load of idiocy, I would be remiss if I didn't call you out on it, and try to smack some sense into you, and I would be most justified in having no respect for you should you continue to believe that idiocy after having it exposed as such to yourself.

Originally posted by binTravkin
And for your consideration:
Have you seen those different shadow angle pictures?
Does it look like they're on slopes?

*ahem*

http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html

http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html

http://www.clavius.org/shad45.html

http://www.clavius.org/photoidx.html

http://www.clavius.org/analyze.html

If you're going to sprout bull****, at least try to not sprout something that has already been debunked. All you've done here is show that you can't even be bothered to read the material I presented you earlier.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Iraq WMD anyone?

Irrelevant anyone? I have little respect for the current US administration myself, but that has no relevance on the actions of a former admininstration whatsoever.

[binTravkin]

All you've done here is show that you can't even be bothered to read the material I presented you earlier.

All you did here is showed that you yourself haven't read it yet.

(..)they commonly make negative comments about the U.S. government such as "they're a bunch of liars" or "they can't be trusted". (..)

This quote is from that link which I read down to 'links' section.

If you're going to sprout bull****, at least try to not sprout something that has already been debunked.

Same here.

Bull****. If you have a belief that's a steaming load of idiocy, I would be remiss if I didn't call you out on it, and try to smack some sense into you, and I would be most justified in having no respect for you should you continue to believe that idiocy after having it exposed as such to yourself.

another quote on this

The [ML believers] also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with individuals over various not-hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the Moon landing even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the Moon landing merely because they want to believe it.

No one has been? Neil Armstrong would punch you in the face for that, and be quite justified in doing so. Wouldn't be the first time he's done it either.

Sure he will, he is famous for little speak when being asked smart questions..

You can see the ****ing landing sites with a sufficiently powerful backyard telescope!

I definitely would want to see the landing site in a t-scope, the flag, the footprints and other things they left behind.
Dunno why that japanese(?) probe filmed none - probably non-sufficent t-scope, yeah..

I have little respect for the current US administration myself, but that has no relevance on the actions of a former admininstration whatsoever.

So Bush can do all kinds of ****load now and after that a new bright day will shine when the head of state changes?

So if someone who's certainly in a position to realise otherwise, believes that 2+2=5, I shouldn't have lose respect for them?

In fact I've heard such a remark about quantum science..

And you realise that in fact in the shadow examples you gave all shadows are parallel.
The forms make difference.
Now go compare it with picture above - does it have such different forms?
Nope, the shadow difference is obvious and there's no real slope difference to be seen.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by PJayTycy
We also have this idiot who comes to our university twice per year trying to convince us of :
=> all space travel (ie: also satellites etc) are fake
=> the anti-conception pill for women is evil

Yeah I saw that guy too once. Do you study in Gent?

[Chaos Theory]

Ah, another picture to pick apart! Not that it'll do any good...
Ever heard of perspective? This picture was taken from a relatively low elevation, and thus distant terrain is squashed in the z-direction, in the photograph. Thus, any shadow that would be diagonal and is in the distance becomes squashed to a more horizontal shadow. All shadows should converge to a point on the horizon (or where it would be if there weren't hills in the distance). The apparent convergence won't be perfect since the rocks are somewhat jagged, and the distant shadow is only 3 full pixels wide at its base.

[PJayTycy]

Originally posted by Maniac


Yeah I saw that guy too once. Do you study in Gent?

Yep, my last year now. I live in the "Van Hulthemstraat", and I know one window I often passed in this street where an alpha centauri box was promptly sitting behind the window. This doesn't happen to have been your box, does it ?

[Archaic]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by binTravkin
another quote on this

The [ML believers] also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with individuals over various not-hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the Moon landing even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the Moon landing merely because they want to believe it.

Replace "ML believers" with "ML was a hoax believers", and you've got it about right.

When did closed-minded become an insult? It's the sensible and right thing to do to be closed minded to idiotic ideas. Bloody oath, have you even heard of Occam's Razor? You don't even have any evidence for your theories, while the ML has significant physical evidence backing it up.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Sure he will, he is famous for little speak when being asked smart questions..

More like famous for taking offense to people calling him a liar to his face, when he risked life and limb for his country and the advancement of science and humanity.

Originally posted by binTravkin
I definitely would want to see the landing site in a t-scope, the flag, the footprints and other things they left behind.
Dunno why that japanese(?) probe filmed none - probably non-sufficent t-scope, yeah..

Just checked my facts here, and it seems it wouldn't be possible with commercially available backyard telescopes. My mistake, comment withdrawn.
The Clementine mission clearly photographed the site however, so that really settles the discussion anyway. Of course, you're going to claim that it was faked by NASA to continue the hoax, aren't you? Need I bring up Occam's Razor again?
You failed to respond to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experimentlaser reflecters[/url] point BTW. Concession accepted.

Originally posted by binTravkin

So Bush can do all kinds of ****load now and after that a new bright day will shine when the head of state changes?

Don't strawman my position bT. I was saying that no matter how objectionable a current administration might be, that can't be used as evidence that a previous administration may have been. They are are two seperate groups of people, seperated by time, who never had (for obvious reasons) any interaction with each other. Kinda hard for Bush to go up to Kennedy and suggest he fake the moon landings, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by binTravkin
In fact I've heard such a remark about quantum science..

Strawman. Quantum science may be non-intuitive, but it's still based on sensible mathematics. 2+2=4 still holds true, as would any other equation.

Originally posted by binTravkin
And you realise that in fact in the shadow examples you gave all shadows are parallel.
The forms make difference.
Now go compare it with picture above - does it have such different forms?
Nope, the shadow difference is obvious and there's no real slope difference to be seen.

Answered by Chaos Theory, for which I appreciate. I'm not an expert on photographs...and I would suspect that neither are you bT. You should probably refrain from making comments on subjects which you have absolutly no knowledge about. If it's something as non-intuitive as photographic analysis or quantum physics, you'll invariably get it wrong

[binTravkin]

You should probably refrain from making comments on subjects which you have absolutly no knowledge about.

You know what deadly silence here would be if I did that?

You failed to respond to the(..)

No reason to respond.
Automated devices can deploy such things.
Concession accepted.

You don't even have any evidence for your theories, while the ML has significant physical evidence backing it up.

You see, evidence exists for both theories and is practically the same for both, just is explained different.
Thing is, noone can say who is explaining it correctly, because we can not send a neutral expert there to investigate.


I am not saying things can not be explained in different ways, just while there's doubt, I can choose either and believe and I have full rights of it.


If you're so smart Archaic answer on this one:

First serious work in US Spaceflight started in late '40s, in 1962 Kennedy announced that 'in less than decade man will have had been on Moon'.
In 1969 man 'was' on Moon.

In '80s NASA was asked a question - 'on what circumstances and when will we be able to repeat this'.

If NASA were fully funded in 1987, they estimated that they could land men on the Moon by 2010, that's 23 years..

and later

Also consider the recent [late '90s] announcement from NASA that it would take scientists 15 years from now to design and build a craft to go back to the Moon.

This is roughly the same as if you went to Manhattan Project's staff and said 'Cmon, guys gimme some more of those thingies' after bombing Hirosima and Nagasaki, and they're like 'yeah, no problem, price is the same, come in after 10 years!'

There are other estimates too by numerous individuals inside NASA and other official organisations, but I'd like to see the answer on this.

At least from the scientific viewpoint it's clear that if they had the tech, they'd only need to outfit modern parts, make a proto, test it, redevelop some details and launch.
It would be a matter of months not years.
Definitely not twice as long as last time..

Also, consider the fact that there are so many controversial data about ML which all or almost all lead to one distinct suspicion, that one simply cannot outright believe it's not fake.
Name any other historical event which had so many questionable details (you can even call it suspicious detail density per some imaginary measurement unit).

I was saying that no matter how objectionable a current administration might be, that can't be used as evidence that a previous administration may have been. They are are two seperate groups of people, seperated by time, who never had (for obvious reasons) any interaction with each other.

If they [US administrations] were indeed separate groups who never continued other's policy, we would see a drastic change in geopolitical situation over half the world each 4 or 8 years.
The fact is, country that powerful as US can not afford discontinuity of it's political aims, thus most administrations not only need to cope wih problems left by the prior (I expect next one will be in real problems), but also need to live with the course taken, doing mostly minor alterations to it.
I hope I don't have to tell you that if you have started lying it's hard to stop, just for the sake of keeping your prior lie covered.
Also historically the nations in position of power have abused information flow in their favour, US seems no different.