Jump to content

Comedy Time

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Comedy Time

  1. 38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    Wow. Thanks, I'll try that incredibly scientific experiment. It's bound to reassure me.


    Dude, you don't seem the type of person to be reassured of anything that contradicts you. Quite clearly a lit room will limit what you see outside. Quite clearly if the bloody Sun is shining in as well the whole time, then it's going to be a little tricky to see anything. D'ya think?


    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    They weren't there to stargaze - that's the best one.


    Accurate though. They were on a mission to the Moon not doing something that was way more visual in a pitch black desert on Earth.


    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    The way: All your other points apply equally to ISS etc don't they? But they see everything.



    Yes, during daylight, the ISS occupants will find it very difficult to go stargazing. But when it goes into the night side, well switch off the cabin lights and you can see them. EXACTLY like Apollo when they went behind the Moon!




    071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.
    071:59:52 McCandless: I guess it's turned into night up there really, hasn't it?


    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    On the surface: mmmm OK, but none of the hassleblad photo's show stars either.



    How can you have failed to see the millions of times this has been explained?



    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    onebigmonkey (debunking site) - just as useful to anyone as a pro-hoax site.



    No dude, really it isn't. It shows some of the most unbelievably thorough and detailed research proving the missions were real.


    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    universetoday (credible site) - bearing in mind the multiple astronoughts saying they didn't see any stars, this is a bit disingenuous to say the least;



    The "multiple astronauts" saying they didn't see stars? You are like a comedy repeater of crap. They didn't see stars when the conditions were not favourable or they weren't looking. They did see them when conditions WERE favourable and they WERE looking for them!


    38 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    "It is a common misconception that the Apollo astronauts didn’t see any stars. While stars don’t show up in the pictures from the Apollo missions, that’s because the camera exposures were set to allow for good images of the bright sunlit lunar surface, which included astronauts in bright white space suits and shiny spacecraft. Apollo astronauts reported they could see the brighter stars if they stood in the shadow of the Lunar Module, and also they saw stars while orbiting the far side of the Moon. Al Worden from Apollo 15 has said the sky was “awash with stars” in the view from the far side of the Moon that was not in daylight."


    No sources or citations given for the Al Worden quote so I'll have to go digging unless you want to?



    I'm tempted to say off you go, because you might actually be able to pick some other stuff up.






    “I curved around the moon to where no sunlight or Earthshine could reach me. The moon was a deep, solid circle of blackness, and I could only tell where it began by where the stars cut off. In the dark and quiet, I felt like a bird of the night, silently gliding and falling around the moon, never touching. I turned the cabin lights off. There was no end to the stars.

    I could see tens, perhaps hundreds of times more stars than the clearest, darkest night on Earth. With no atmosphere to blur their light, I could see them all to the limits of my eyesight. There were so many, I could no longer find constellations. My vision was filled with a blaze of starlight.

    Unlike some other astronauts who had time only for hurried glances, I had many hours, spread over many days, to look at this awe-inspiring view and think about what it meant. There was more to the universe than I had ever imagined.”

    -Al Worden, Falling to Earth




  2. 1 hour ago, theo102 said:

    The first significant fallacy is the fallacy of presumption that the hoax could not have been carried out because too many people would have to have been in on it for it to be kept secret.


    So what?! This in no way discounts the direct rebuttals to the supposed evidence. Besides, just because the video maker makes no case for this....it is not presumptive to point out the bloody obvious.


    1 hour ago, theo102 said:

    The second sentence implies that  "all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers" were in on the hoax when the documentary does not suggest that this is the case.


    Your first and second points are the same thing.




    Would you like me to cut and paste that link, or are you going to read it all?


    1 hour ago, theo102 said:

    The document starts with obvious NASA apologetics. It would good to show why this is the case.

    What a bullshit comment....and what "document" are you talking about? If somebody has examined BOTH sides of this unbalanced argument, then they rightfully conclude that the hoax is a load of crap, why should that be a problem? I have seen it all and I've seen the debunks to it all and made hundreds and hundreds of debunks myself just from simple science and observations. There is not one single hoax claim that stands up to scrutiny. I could present you with two simple short videos that prove they must be on the Moon, I just cannot imagine you would suddenly accept this.


    You just ignored my whole post about the redesign and James Webb - now address it please.


    1 hour ago, theo102 said:

     False. The documentary doesn't imply that the hoax was silly. 

    Irrelevant. The hoax was "silly" and this was obviously the opinion of the person writing it.


    1 hour ago, theo102 said:

    False. It wasn't "a bit behind schedule". After three astronauts were burned to death, the cabin had to be redesigned, adding a year to the schedule. James Webb, the principal proponent of the mission testified that the odds of completing the project on time were falling, and a year later he quit NASA (October 7 1968), less than three months before the first Apollo flight. Also the documentary doesn't suggest that all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about  the project.


    The schedule was altered to bring forward major objectives and augment minor ones into the same mission. Webb addressed in previous post. The issue about whether they "care" about the project is flippant and suggests if they knew, that would be the case and if they didn't, they would have then completed the job. All very irrelevant.


    What you are actually doing is attempting to debunk irrelevant aspects of a response to your video. How about you supply what was requested....2 or 3 items that you think are convincing!?



  3. 14 minutes ago, theo102 said:

    False. It wasn't "a bit behind schedule". After three astronauts were burned to death, the cabin had to be redesigned, adding a year to the schedule. James Webb, the principal proponent of the mission testified that the odds of completing the project on time were falling, and a year later he quit NASA (October 7 1968), less than three months before the first Apollo flight. Also the documentary doesn't suggest that all the engineers, scientists, astronauts and managers working on Apollo suddenly stopped caring about  the project.



    The Cabin did not need to be "re-designed"! It needed modifications highlighted by the fire. Quite clearly they used the thing in space from the footage available....so it worked fine.


    As for James Webb, where do you get this crap from? From wiki and it uses credible sources....


    After the Apollo 1 accident in 1967, Webb told the media, "We've always known that something like this was going to happen sooner or later... Who would have thought that the first tragedy would be on the ground?" Webb went to Johnson and asked for NASA to be allowed to handle the accident investigation and to direct its recovery, according to a procedure that was established following the in-flight accident on Gemini 8. He promised to be truthful in assessing blame, even to himself and NASA management, as appropriate. The agency set out to discover the details of the tragedy, to correct problems, and to continue progress toward the Apollo 11 lunar landing.

    Webb reported the investigation board's findings to various congressional committees, and he took a personal blaming at nearly every meeting. Whether by happenstance or by design, Webb managed to deflect some of the backlash over the accident away from both NASA as an agency and from the Johnson administration. As a result, NASA's image and popular support were largely undamaged.[13]


    Webb was a Democrat tied closely to Johnson, and since Johnson chose not to run for reelection, Webb decided to step down as administrator to allow the next president, Republican Richard Nixon, to choose his own administrator.[14]

    Webb was informed by CIA sources in 1968 that the Soviet Union was developing its own heavy N1 rocket for a manned lunar mission, and he directed NASA to prepare Apollo 8 for a possible lunar orbital mission that year. At the time, Webb's assertions about the Soviet Union's abilities were doubted by some people, and the N-1 was dubbed "Webb's Giant".[15] However, later revelations about the Soviet Moonshot, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, have given support to Webb's conclusion. Webb left NASA in October 1968, just before the first manned flight in the Apollo program.

  4. 13 minutes ago, theo102 said:


    Anyone can debunk an idea by ridiculing it or by arguing with fallacies in order to give the appearance that they are right.



    None of the arguments made are by way of ridicule or fallacious. Is this going to be your plan then? No matter what is presented you will defend and dismiss?


    Identify some major things and I will address them - the film is shite and is a rehash of literally hundreds of multiply debunked clips. He's doing it for the money btw. Perhaps you could step into a zone of neutrality and look at the rebuttals properly.


    Now....2 or 3 things from that video. Preferably not idle speculation from ignorance.

  5. 4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

    The Apollo mission was fake. Here's the evidence:



    This is the best video I've seen about the Apollo mission.


    Chuck enough crap at the wall and some of it sticks huh? There is nothing in any section of that video that is new or not debunked to death. Highlight any 2 or 3 things and I'll directly address them. The missions brought back 842lbs of lunar samples that are not meteorites or Earth rocks. 



  6. 9 hours ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    But since you ask.  


    Why didn't the Apollo crews see any stars either on the way to or from or on the moon, when by all accounts the ISS resident's see plenty?



    Several things are in play. Firstly, next time you remember, turn off your bedroom lights and looking through the window, see how many stars you can see. Not many if at all.


    On the way there and back:

    1. The windows are double layered that restricts faint light.

    2. The Sun is shining through at least one side of the slowly rotating CS/M.

    3. Obliquely so is reflected Earth shine.

    4. The cabin has lights.

    5. They weren't star gazing.

    6. They used the optics to navigate with star positions.


    On the surface:

    1. They have triple layered visors.

    2. The outer one was down most of the time to stop glare.

    3. It was Lunar daylight, the Sun was out and shining in your face 50% of the time.

    4. The surface, having retro-reflective properties is lit up by the Sun.

    5. They weren't there to stargaze.


    Some supplementary reading: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html









  7. 5 minutes ago, zArk said:


    even in the absence of an alternative the sphere model collapses under its own calcs


    they continue with a failed model through dogmatism


    No dude, you collapsed under the calcs. I spent about 10 pages and some PMs trying to explain the most basic and simple stuff possible and you ignored vast sections of it. It is absurd for you and your silly inaccurate video think the entire community of science relating to planetary motion are wrong because you did some "maths" especially when the berk who made the video misread the start and end times of the shadow!!


    Why are you still running away from posts, what are you afraid of?

  8. 2 hours ago, wideawake said:

    Finally an answer, you really struggled to answer this simple question.



    Dude, you got an answer straight away. You seem to struggle to understand the long detailed posts I make. Besides, I already bloody answered this before!!



    What makes me laugh is you being unable to put 2 and 2 together. I state unequivocally that the resistant forces are not enough for the kinetic energy. I also state that reversing it in your building moving scenario, the forces are identical. There is all you need to know!


    2 hours ago, wideawake said:

    Now I understand where you stand, the aluminum wings can slice through the steel wall of the building without any damage because the building had insufficient resistant force...

    Enough said.  🤔


    Are you "struggling" with physics here? The wings are aluminium alloys and filled with fuel. There are also numerous tougher components for the flaps and, hydraulics. It's almost the perfect shape to slice though a column at 500 mph







    • Haha 2
  9. 2 hours ago, James Freeman (of the land said:

    sorry made a mistake! it was 35 seconds into the video


    Please clarify what you are saying here. I am saying the BUILDING is in front of the plane and you appear to be saying the plane was behind the building. BOTH were in front of the WTC building, hence my screenshot and why @oz93666 has done his customary disappearing act.

  10. 4 hours ago, singhz312 said:

    That doesn't explain why it's only a hole in the ground and why google have been deleting images of the Pennsylvania plane impact  

    I want to see pictures not and brutal evidence, not text. Anyone can write text (and make up stories ;)), I want pictures and evidence


    I actually don't care what you want. A plane crashed in the middle of nowhere. If it wasn't real it would be an absolute piece of cake tp plant wreckage with nobody around then set off the big crash explosion. There wasn't significant wreckage because the plane came straight down and blew into tiny bits.



  11. 28 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:


    If it's dead simple why do we have to wait for tomorrow for you to answer it properly?


    Why is this subject so important to you?



    Who says it is so important.... You are the one struggling to find the answer and sucking up nonsense.

    Why are you incapable of using Google? I am on my pc in the morning 


    Clue. Sunlight Earthlight daylight on the bloody moon.  Triple layer visors.

    Nighty night.

  12. 57 minutes ago, Nobby Noboddy said:

    Why didn't the Apollo crews see any stars either on the way to or from or on the moon, when by all accounts the ISS resident's see plenty?


    I will answer this properly tomorrow. But I have to ask  .....how on planet Earth have you failed to find the million or so dead simple answers to this mega-spammed question?

  13. 1 hour ago, wideawake said:


    So... wings collapse or steel columns, quite simple, pick 1.


    Dude....I wonder what is confusing you here. The phrase "forces are identical" or the "same result".


    Would you like me to shout?

     As it happened. Big chunk of mass going very fast. Building had insufficient resistant force. 


    Columns broke. I await something more than the usual no planer noise.


    I wrote big post you didn't. You ignored it all.

  14. 3 hours ago, mishy said:

    Those people who think that one of these...




    Can fly into/through this structure

    And show zero collision physics aren't worth listening to.






    The plane in picture 1 was landing. Show anything....I mean anything approaching "collision physics"....because you and the no planes crew have zero understanding of it and are noise specialists extraordinaire.


    Mathematical analysis if you please....

  15. 3 hours ago, James Freeman (of the land said:



    No it fucking dosint! at 2.54min it goes under the building


    Such vociferous and contrite rebuttal. The video actually finishes at 2.55min  1 second later and ooooh a little on the wrong side..   so 2 things occurred to me. Did you actually watch it with a semblance of neutrality and would you like some help with working out the difference between nearfield and distance?


    Sheesh dude...I really thought the screenshot with the actual building IN FRONT of the big tower would have sealed the deal?


    How the crap can you fail to see this????


  16. Oh what am I thinking, he isn't going to respond and neither is @zArk - at least properly.


    From my blog: https://penguinsfalloff.blogspot.com/2017/06/as-internet-debates-go-one-concerning.html


    We also see the Lunar phases inverted in the Southern hemisphere. This has an "explanation" that is also quite ridiculous. It goes something like this: place a picture of the Moon on the ceiling, look at it from opposite sides of the room. Voila. Sadly, that is just nonsense. Here's a good way to show why: Imagine you are on a track that goes around the Earth at the same speed as the Moon on the same path it follows(on the FE model). Always you view the Moon just rising. At what point does it suddenly flip over! Another thing about the phases shows the sheer impossibility of the FE model. The Sun and Moon doing these great circles and one catching up the other. That's how they "explain" the phase changes. However, this creates a nasty and unavoidable problem. The Moon is visible at any one time across several thousands of miles of night sky. With a fixed position of Sun and Moon at any given time and a simultaneous visibility as stated, the crescent area of the Moon illuminated by the Sun, visible at opposite ends of this wide section, would be significantly different to each other. Clearly they are not!


    rabugento1.gifrabugento1.gifrabugento1.gifrabugento1.gifrabugento1.gif      rimshot.gif

  17. 30 minutes ago, zArk said:

    eh ?


    use your noggin fella


    put a picture on the ceiling of your room. stand on one side of the room. look up at picure

    walk to other side of room, look up at picture


    you see....  when you spherists are shovel fed garbage all your life you forget how to think



    Haha, that's the one. Where's  b flat  @amy G to confirm that is his opinion? Because when I tear the arse out of that really dumb claim he will make up some crap about it being a "strawman" then run away from ever giving an answer.


    30 minutes ago, zArk said:

    put a picture on the ceiling of your room. stand on one side of the room. look up at picure


    While we're waiting,  since the Moon rose, can you move it backwards and now put it on the wall near the skirting board!!


    You see, when you flatists are shovel fed garbage from yoootub and silly websites you forget how to think!


  18. 4 hours ago, amy G said:

    If you have honestly have still not figured this out, I am sure that any of the mod team can explain it to you in one try. We have been through this.


    Oh I've "figured out" the daft explanation, the only one flat earthers CAN rely on. I just want you to show where "we have been through it", so I can tear it to shite.


    1. If we imagine a scenario where the Sun is on the equator at the lowest height it is feasibly possible to be, at 89.999 degrees to zenith how far away is it?

    2. Why is the Moon inverted in the Southern hemisphere?

    3. What is a Lunar Eclipse?

    4. Can you show a flat earth map that works? Or one that is close enough. It's in 2 dimensions so there should be no projection issues as found with a sphere.

  19. 57 minutes ago, amy G said:

    We are told, remember, that the Earth is wider at the equator because of this incredible force from the speed of our axial rotation. And yet the same gravity that cannot even hold solid Earth in place is capable of holding loose flowing water on the same ball?


    Billions of years of centrifugal force. It's small but over time accumulates. The Earth can and does hold everything in place, water attracts to the centre of mass. Why are your questions so useless?

  20. 50 minutes ago, amy G said:

    Sunset... have fun...


    How far away is it? 


    @peterSince this bloke responds to you, could you ask them the following.....


    1. If we imagine a scenario where the Sun is on the equator at the lowest height it is feasibly possible to be, at 89.999 degrees to zenith how far away is it?

    2. Why is the Moon inverted in the Southern hemisphere?

    3. What is a Lunar Eclipse?

    4. Can you show a flat earth map that works? Or one that is close enough. It's in 2 dimensions so there should be no projection issues as found with a sphere.


    If no map works, in what crazy universe can one believe something without being able to explain the basics!



  21. 2 hours ago, oz93666 said:

    Just ban Comedy Time and tranquility will return.


    I am doing nothing whatsoever to disrupt the tranquility of this forum or to warrant such a thing......

    • Whether you like it or not I stimulate debate.
    • I do not blatantly insult people.
    • I do not make 100% ad hominem arguments.
    • I do not publicly whinge like a stuck pig about other members.
    • I don't promote moronic conspiracy theories like nazis in flying saucers, flat earth, no planes........click here.
    • I don't avoid posts that make me look a wally.
    • I'm not afraid to be wrong or admit so.
    • I try not to make any off topic posts but sometimes it is unavoidable.

    If your theories stand up to scrutiny it should be easy to defend them. If you are afraid to defend them or receive alternative explanations that offend you, annoy you or make yours look like a pile of shite, then tough! This is a debate forum and the truth shall set you free, whether you like it or not. 


    Since this is the humour sub forum. I wish to make a public statement to all the poor little dears who don't like my presence.....




    And to all the very uninformed people who think I do this for money, this objet d'art sums up the accuracy of your claim....




    So Reet Hard, who were YOU before........spill the beans!


    Rupert/Carlos/Edna Clouds/Shpock



    • Haha 1
  22. 3 minutes ago, singhz312 said:

    You sure love that same old engine pic


    That engine pic shows people milling around it. Now MY logic tells me that nobody was able to roll up in a van and invisibly dump the rather heavy plane engine. Bearing in mind that you categorically denied any plane parts, it leaves you with some explaining.


    3 minutes ago, singhz312 said:

    Where's your engine pic in the Pennsylvania "plane impacts"?


    9/11 News Coverage: 10:03 AM: UA 93 Crashes in Pennsylvania - YouTube


    Smashed to tiny pieces probably. Maximum speed impact into an impenetrable surface.....things are going to be sent in numerous directions and in small pieces, incluing the poor passengers and airline staff.





    FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.



  • Create New...