.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Comedy Time
-
Posts
794 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Comedy Time
-
-
2 hours ago, Enforcement said:
Why don't you want to debate them?
If you want to get to the truth then anything that raises suspicion needs to be analysed & debated.
Back at you!
-
42 minutes ago, cosmicporpoise1.618 said:
no other moon we've been able to observe is as perfectly spherical as the Earth's moon.
It's pretty clearly not a natural object,
It's a chunk of rock....fairly natural.
-
17 minutes ago, theo102 said:
NBC said that it was due to the action of glaciers, which is ridiculous for the depth you see in the photos.
Sounds like a good explanation and it is most certainly not ridiculous concerning depth.
And say what.....? You think a legitimate depth for a glacier is "ridiculous" but a bloody nuclear bomb going off isn't
-
Just now, Enforcement said:
Why don't you want to debate them? If you want to get to the truth then anything that raises suspicion needs to be analysed & debated.
I am ok with their explanation and suspect that insider trading knew in advance. There IS no way to debate this. You either believe it or don't. It doesn't interest me. I like puzzles and things that require thought, not some dumb yes or no issue.
Just now, Enforcement said:Please elaborate, thank you.
No. Google it!
-
Just now, Enforcement said:
Which particular issues do you believe raise suspicion?
If I wanted to debate them, I would raise them. I certainly have no need for any input you wish to make on the matter. Just one ....United Airlines stock.
-
2 minutes ago, theo102 said:
Why do you think that any of these are relevant to knowing what the rocket plume would look like in the low gravity of the moon?
This is starting to get really painful to debate.
1. Why do YOU think gravity is an issue?
2. Pressure IS the issue and the relative visibility at high altitude indicates visibility in a vacuum. Practically none.
2 minutes ago, theo102 said:Gravity will affect the shape of the plume, so with a visible plume you could work out if the images were from the earth or not.
Bullshit. The shape of the plume is determined by the pressure outside the engine bell.
2 minutes ago, theo102 said:Why do you think that's relevant for a low-gravity test?
Gravity is completely irrelevant to anything other than delta-v. You don't know what you are talking about do you?
-
3 minutes ago, Enforcement said:
So again you indicate that you agree with the official version of events even though in an earlier post you claim you don't.
Dude, have we "met" on the internet before you were Reet Hard? You seem to think you know a lot about me, but are failing to actually supply evidence of any of your claims. I don't BELIEVE the official version of events so much as a general feeling that most of it fits with logic, critical thinking and observable data. As I said, if there is a conspiracy version that better fits all that, I am happy to entertain the idea. My position on this has never changed. There are issues that raise suspicion, but that's all they do. Without something tangible, suspicion is not evidence.
How about you lay off the personal shit observations and I lay off the report button? Maybe address the actual debatable content huh?
-
6 minutes ago, Enforcement said:
So you admit that NIST are lying and something else had to have caused the collapse because burning jet fuel is never hot enough to fuse molten steel and concrete.
No. I admit that your claim is giant balls.
-
2 minutes ago, theo102 said:
So how do you explain the missing bedrock?
Volcanic activity quite some time ago. Please tell me you don't believe bloody nuclear weapons!
-
21 minutes ago, theo102 said:
You've changed your position. First you said there was no middle ground, now it's part of your argument.
Can you read properly? It isn't part of my argument - THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND - you even quote where I says this....... and yet again you ignore 90% of my post. Typical moon hoax believer behaviour. Sigh.....
21 minutes ago, theo102 said:No, the first capsule killed three astronauts. According to the American Moon it was redesigned from top to bottom, so the next capsule was a new work.
It was not redesigned from "top to bottom" as such, the basic shape and exterior design were not changed. Actual modifications were made, highlighted by the problems experienced from the fire. The door was changed, wiring changed, environmental gassing was changed etc.
You are tip-toeing around the facts with irrelevant bullshit. How long are you going to run away from debating properly. Go back to that last post and answer it IN FULL!
The capsules USED ON THE MISSIONS worked just fine....as I said!
-
18 minutes ago, theo102 said:
You haven't posted anything to support that. It's an argument of necessity for you.
Apart from the Titan rocket footage, the fluorescent image of altitude testing and the image you ignored on your own link!
18 minutes ago, theo102 said:Why do you think the image is relevant?
How can you fail to understand that? It shows the plume barely visible in atmosphere!
This total crap was being discussed 17 years ago and more by rocket engineers amongst others.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-3353.html
-
It's called coinfection and it most definitely can occur.
-
On 10/8/2020 at 7:13 PM, Enforcement said:
Why did NIST deny existence of molten steel and concrete fused together in giant balls, indicating temperatures way beyond anything burning jet fuel creates?
Giant Balls. How about that, the answer was in the question.
-
On 10/8/2020 at 7:01 PM, Enforcement said:
What happened
What happened to Haunted Science? He talked a lot of sense.
He was a no planer and you claim military planes. How is his version "sense"?
On 10/8/2020 at 7:01 PM, Enforcement said:As an person of independent analytical thought you will agree with me that the official version of events is beyond ridiculous.
I won't. I will agree that your version is beyond ridiculous, nukes are ridiculous, space weapons are ridiculous, no planes are ridiculous. When I find a version that fits better than the explanation given, maybe I'll entertain it.
The general one with planes has the buildings collapsing at the points of impact. Magic explosives again.
-
6 hours ago, theo102 said:
Sure you can, for example the middle ground of two different strawman arguments, as described in your own source.
How can anyone not get this? The third middle ground choice tells us why it isn't viable and then you say it is....because of some ludicrous and invalid nonsense??
It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons.
Once you tell the contractors you bring in a whole lot of people. Each contractor has its own hierarchy of leadership and management and senior engineers who will have to be told. So that's, say, a hundred people at Boeing, a hundred people at Grumman, a hundred people at Douglas, a hundred people at North American, a hundred people at Lockheed, and so forth. Just deciding to inform the contractors (at least at the management level) adds several hundred people to the inner circle. That's one small step for NASA, one giant leap into chaos.
It can be argued that the average production line employee wouldn't know whether or not he was building real space hardware. They have a fairly limited field of view. But you can't as easily compartmentalize the engineers. Even the junior engineers in an aerospace venture require the big picture in order to do their work. Remember that you have to buy off enough of the work force in order to produce convincing hardware without producing working hardware.
In short, there is no middle of this road. Either you produce real hardware, or you have a very large conspiracy with no leaks after thirty years.
6 hours ago, theo102 said:No, you can have equipment delivered that doesn't work, like the capsule that killed Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom.
It DID work but had development problems. It was also used in a way that would never occur in space. But you astonishingly miss the damn point!!
North American Aviation built the thing and delivered a perfectly working model. So either their engineers were instructed to do this, produce equipment fit for purpose or they were instructed to faaaaake it. NO MIDDLE GROUND!
6 hours ago, theo102 said:In reality some of it worked (the Saturn V heavy lifter), some didn't (the first capsule) and some wasn't used (the lander).
It all worked, otherwise the people who made the things that didn't work were instructed to faaaake it! So you are doubling down on this "capsule" Command Module crap are you? You now claim that NAA supplied equipment not fit for purpose for the successful missions, then they MUST have known. NO MIDDLE GROUND!
And Grumman supplied a lander not fit for purpose you claim? Here they are....
You are wrong, be honest enough to admit this!
6 hours ago, theo102 said:That's probably how the hoax was administered, by overpaying select contractors for good of little value in return for help with faking it in the interests of "national security".
What a crock of unfeasible crap. Then there is NO MIDDLE GROUND. National security my arse and not one of these people told anyone, confessed it, death bed confessions, leaked documents etc!
Now YOU are only talking about the hardware components and keep avoiding the rather large herd of elephants in the room....
Thousands of images to faaaake.
Fifty hours of often UNFAKEABLE surface video to faaaake.
842lbs of UNFAKEABLE lunar samples to faaaake.
Thousands of hours of dialog to faaaake.
Tracking stations to be faaaked.
Reflectors to be placed in 3 locations....teams to do this....that is a massive number of people.
ALSEP experiments with gigabytes of data to be faaaake.
The LROC team must ALL be in on the hoax with highly specialist image editing teams.
Since I have no idea what level of nonsensical belief you have, just that for starters involves a fair few people. I could make that list go on for pages.
-
-
6 hours ago, theo102 said:
Wrong, I said low gravity, and the J4 test cell is ground based.
J-4 is a vertical test cell designed fortesting the World’s largest rocket en-gines. It was built in the early 1960’s tosupport the Apollo program. The test cellis 48-feet-diameter, 125-feet-tall and provides simulated altitude up to 100,000 feet.
https://www.scribd.com/document/222909657/Rocket-Development-Test-Cell-J-4
They knew exactly what it looks like in low gravity....IT IS INVISIBLE!! You quote me a link that was included in MY post then ignore the bloody image in it??
This stuff was raised by hoax claimers almost 20 years ago and at regular intervals since. Why is it only those who have no idea about any of it are the ones making noise about it? Didn't the really faint fluorescent plume give you a clue?
Even if it WERE visible, once off the deck the plume spreads out just as it does in a vacuum.... what the hell has gravity got to do with it anyway?
-
15 minutes ago, Diesel said:
All that meticulous planning and in-depth posting - undone by the Flag Flapping in the wind
It's one of those ludicrous conspiracy moments. Six bloody missions with ridiculous attention to detail...then they "forgot" idiotic blast craters.... moving flags and "missing" stars!
Clue...don't bother filming it? Stop after one mission? Duhhhhh.
-
3 hours ago, oddsnsods said:
This is what you believe in coz its suits your confirmation bias.
Fairly sure she doesn't actually believe in any of that. I am assuming she must be doing one of those daft "social" experiments.
-
9 hours ago, Comedy Time said:
Who were you before Reet Hard?
You are turning this discussion into a personal exchange....and deliberately ignoring posts. I asked you to Show where I contradicted myself "more than anyone you know" ....and tell me how you "know this"!!
Now we need:
- A team to dispose of the planes and the bodies
- A team to burn and mangle the bodies to sprinkle DNA all over the area, or a team to fake the analyses.
- We still need a team to place tiny body parts everywhere.
- A team to drive around dropping bits of plane around the area, including a massive plane engine in full view of spectators!
- A team to do this at the Pentagon with cameras on helicopters and emergency services arriving any time soon.
- A team to control the military aircraft. Paper trails to be destroyed accounting for the aircraft.
- ALL paper trails paying any personnel to be deleted and financial reimbursements hidden.
You people have about a dozen or more weirdo variants of this crazy unfeasible operation. Why don't YOU argue with the no planers! I argue about specific things relating to it. I don't support the official theory, I just don't support the explanations for alternatives. So far
Wow. Yet another "new" poster who ignores content and makes pathetic off topic and inaccurate personal shite comments.
Kindly address the quoted post.
-
41 minutes ago, theo102 said:
NASA didn't know what a low-gravity rocket plume would look like, so they couldn't risk showing anything that could be proven to be an obvious fake later on.
They knew EXACTLY what it would look like. Here is a picture of a hypergolic engine being tested at high altitude...
Source - J4 test cell.
-
1 hour ago, amy G said:
I used to believe that the horizon was a geometric certainty, but now I know it is all perspective.
Please note that the true eye-level horizon is still miles beyond everything we see here.
Is there any chance at all you could actually use that camera in a way that is productive? It's like a five year old at Christmas pointing it at things and not knowing what they are doing.
People at the beach take pictures of things disappearing over the horizon, it takes a virtual lobotomy not to understand why that is.
-
1
-
-
Apollo 17 before the launch, Harrison Schmitt throws his geology hammer. If anyone says that is a speshul effect, they are deluded. In 1972.
Oh and the same continuous shot......it took off!
-
9 minutes ago, theo102 said:
NASA didn't know what a low-gravity rocket plume would look like, so they couldn't risk showing anything that could be proven to be an obvious fake later on.
An obvious fake to the ignorant of rockets? Or an obvious truth to rocket scientists and anybody who has spent five minutes researching it!
Virtually invisible in atmosphere....
This is about 100 times more powerful, in atmosphere. Try not to confuse the explosive elevator rocketry and detachment with the actual hypergolic ignition!
What is the Moon??
in Space & Universe
Posted
Well it doesn't always. It has an elliptical orbit and it changes size.
When it's smallest it produces annular eclipses ....