Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 159
  1. #141
    Quote
    Quote: clownfish
    View Post
    The "Dark side of the moon" hoax documentary reminds me of a program called "Alternative Three".

    This was an Anglia TV program shown in 1977, which basically concluded that the governments of the world were going to have to build "Space Arks" to save the human race. As a 12 year old layperson, it was incredibly convincing, and it scared the willies out of me. Then at the end, it was announced that the whole show was a hoax.

    With regards to this whole silly "Moon Hoax" debate, the following paragraph about "Alternative Three" is extremely relevant:

    A few were so convinced by the show that they refused to believe it wasn't real, even after its producers announced that the entire thing had been a joke. These faithful few continue to insist that Alternative 3 is real, and that the show was part of the world government's vast and sinister disinformation scheme. They argue that by making Alternative 3 appear to be a fanciful hoax, the world government has insured that no one will suspect that it is, in fact, the frightening truth.

    "Only two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
    Exists powerful motion of lie conspirologs in world. Their work is maked discredits to true conspirologs. Given film from this category.

  2. #142

    reality

    alright, since either side does not have definate proof, we have to realize this:

    The more a "conspiracy" is talked about, the more definate someone will guard their side

    and

    A "conspiracy" is only labeled a "conspiracy" because it has a significantly less than majority vote on its side

    thats it

    its all really belief; just the same as religion, until you talk about it, then for everyone involved, their side becomes fact.

    I know a lot about social construction of reality because I'm a sociology major, and here a little tip for you to get:

    When your young and you "see" a monster, your mom tells you it doesn't exist, so your reality becomes modified to realize the monster is not there.

    When your young and your sick, your mother explains that there is a tiny bug that you can not see doing this to you, so your reality becomes modified to realize a monster IS there.

    Whats wrong with that???

    You saw the monster, but its not real
    You can't see the virus, but its real

    heres the thing, can anyone prove without a doubt that monsters don't exist anywhere? they could just be shy around older people

    also, can you prove to me that viruses exist? Have you seen one yourself? All the study that you have read, did you varify all of their resalts on your own?


    Reality is also a belief, just like religion. Some areas have more than 2 genders, like how the navajo have 3, with the nadle included, because vary sepperate and distinct from males because they are males with feminine qualities overshadowing their masculinity.

    *note gender means the character qualities generaly associated to a sex, sex means biological construction.*

    so, how can we prove we've been on the moon?

    send me there, and I'd know for sure, then I'd tell you, and you'd think I was lieing

    so then I will have to send you there

    but even if you are there, theres something called a self forfilling prophacy, where your mind will always make ur side real. So even if I get you to the moon, you will say "wow, you've done a hella good time faking this!"

    so, if we can't help you, how can we convince you?

    Easy, get off your ass and make yourself your own rocket and thats probubly the only way you will believe that you can get there, even thought you might come up with a way out of believing that.

    so, stop telling us to prove it to u, u have to prove it 2 urself.

  3. #143
    I found that this has been posted for viewing on veoh. Linked via TV-Links http://tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/4701
    Eric Adler (tonsofpcs)
    http://www.videoproductionsupport.com/ Chat at: http://tinyurl.com/vpschat
    Follow me on twitter: @videosupport @eric_adler

  4. #144
    Quote
    Quote: rackdude
    View Post
    so, how can we prove we've been on the moon?

    send me there, and I'd know for sure, then I'd tell you, and you'd think I was lieing

    so then I will have to send you there

    but even if you are there, theres something called a self forfilling prophacy, where your mind will always make ur side real. So even if I get you to the moon, you will say "wow, you've done a hella good time faking this!"

    so, if we can't help you, how can we convince you?

    If judge in size your messages on my short remark, that you are really social workman. You not lie here.
    About faith: I am not believe nobody. Do you believe that Gagarin was a first person in cosmos? If yes, that why? If no, that why?
    After all, infallible proofs his championship not, or I am not right?

  5. #145
    thats y personally, I'm just post-modernist. Did they land on the moon? I will never know because I was there. I can't say they didn't because I didn't watch them falsify it, and I can't say they did because I wasn't there. Still, I won't choose a side because even evidence, facts other people have come up with, can be falsified. So I stand in the middle.

    If you choose a side because you watched a video on it, you are gullible to other peoples evidence, which could totally be falsified. The only thing that you can base your thinking on is your own substantial evidence to create your own reality. Basically, this:

    A) America had a motive to go to the moon; to beat the Russians

    B) America said they went to the moon

    Thats about the only facts we have, everything else could be falsified, even though these could have been falsified, but thats way too much detail and way too much decartes for a stupid forum conversation.

    So, for all we know, the moon doesn't exist either, I mean, did you do your own charting of the movement to see if its really in an elipitical orbit around us? or are you just going by someone elses word?

  6. #146
    I have understood you. I am saying to you about Apollo, you try to foist for me Freyd's demagogy.
    On your opinion - I can not f**k woman so I try to f**k NASA.
    I shall adopt your tactician. I am continuing our talk - "a deaf man" with "a blind man".
    The U.S. and Soviet Union subscribed to the Federation Aeronautique International (FAI) for standardization and certification of space records.
    The Gagarin's flight was not up to quality FAI. Gagarin was to land on the same spaceship on which he was uncared-for to cosmos. But spaceship "Vostok" was not intended for soft landing.
    Gagarin abandoned the spaceship on a certain height and landed on parachute near by him.
    It is not secret today. Why USA does not dispute the championship of USSR on start the person to cosmos?
    If prove that Gagarin's flight illegal that USA is first in cosmos leave! Alan Shepard is the first man in cosmos!
    Can "innate nobility" does not allow USA this do? The history of USA the taking away Olympic awards of adversary through court does not confirm such opinion. USA does not be squeamish about any way to obtain its advantage. What reason there is for this?
    This reason is fake of Apollo program. This reason is: if USA will strike a blow on Gagarin then USSR-Russia will answer the blow on "Apollo".
    Last edited by Conspiromaniac; 3rd Aug 2007 at 14:44.

  7. #147
    did u use translation.com or something?

  8. #148
    Quote
    Quote: rackdude
    View Post
    did u use translation.com or something?
    I use translator "Socrat" and my knowledges.
    Last edited by Conspiromaniac; 3rd Aug 2007 at 08:31.

  9. #149
    I have interest, why disappeared the CIA man ?rackdude?? May be, he shot oneself, when has understood who I there is?!

  10. #150
    The Ladies and gentlemen! The Conspiromaniac continues holiday of the victory of the light of the knowledge against the darkness of political technology!
    Excuse me, beside me little dirty. The Empty bottles, banks and the lacerated "corpses" of bodyguards of NASA wallow under legs.
    But they guilty themselves - a weakling there is nothing to do on evening party of inflexible guys!
    We ask to table! I have prepared you canard under name "ap16_salute". The tainted game is much in commissary under name NASA.
    I have whetted its terrible knife and sliced the most luscious pieces for you. I have added its pepper and have roasted these pieces. Mmm? as it is tasty!
    I offer from alcoholic drinks you vodka under name "Tears of astronauts are not flown to Moon".
    I warn you it is very strong drink. I not advise for small babes and bodyguards of NASA to drink it otherwise they will have a strong emotional trauma.
    With what do we begin? We begin with the tastiest certainly.

    The First piece! He is identified "sand0.54". I have noted the red arrow showering sand with legs of the astronaut. The numeral in name of the piece means the time of frame. Slot is not seen else between sole of shoe of astronaut and sand.


    The second piece of canard! He is identified "sand0.60". Here we see already that sand separated from of sole of shoe. The Red arrow points to upper edge of sand.


    The Third piece! He is identified "sand0.73". Here sand nearly fell to the ground. Call your attention, soil is divided on the heavy sand (the red arrow) which I research and on the light dust (the green arrow) which hinging in midair. Such division can not be in vacuum! This occurs in atmosphere uniquely.



    The Fourth piece! He is identified "sand0.80". The Heavy part of soil completely fell to the ground. But light dust continues to hang an air (call your attention, the word ?an air? without quote!).



    We shall calculate time of the fall of sand: t=0.80 ? 0.54=0.26sec. Duration of one frame is 0.03 sec.
    We shall do the correction for mistake 1 frame = 0.03 sec. Full time of the fall of sand (or NASA! Ha-ha-ha!) t=0.26 sec. 0.03 sec.

    Now we shall calculate the height of the sand fall. This calculates harder, than calculate a time.
    We need a standard of the size. I have taken the vertical size of astronaut?s knapsack (beside 0,8 meters) for standard of the size (it is specified by yellow arrow).
    The size of knapsack on video frame is 39 pixels.
    Consequently scale is 0.8/39=0,02m/pixel.
    Let's calculate the height of the fall of sand on the first frame "sand0.54".
    178 ? 162 = 16 pixels, consequently, h=16*0.02=0.32m.

    Let's calculate the speedup of the free fall of sand: g=2h/ (t*t); g=2*0.32/ (0.26*0.26)=9.47m/s2 (Ur-ra!!!)

    Let's consider with inaccuracy of the measurement of time 0.03 sec.
    With inaccuracy (-0.03sec.) g=2*0.32/ (0.23*0.23) =12.1 m/s2
    With inaccuracy (+0.03sec.) g=2*0.32/ (0.29*0.29) =7.6 m/s2

    Moon speedup of the free fall 1.62 m/s2 does not fall into this interval from 7.6 before 12.1!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube