Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > David Icke: Research & Media > Human Race Get Off Your Knees

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-01-2017, 03:42 PM   #441
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
look a litle closer.
Ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim[/quote
its funny isn't it? i mean all we have, any of us, is someones word that men went to the moon. if you ask for proof it really comes down to taking someone's word.
I looked a little closer.

Quote:
i was expressing an opinion on having an opinion. not an opinion on whether men went to the moon or not.
Ok, looks like you were referring to men that went to the moon.

Quote:
is that clearer now? your not as sharp as you think you are or your just looking for an argument. which is it?
Neither, you were corrected for your mistake. Admit it...move on.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 03:46 PM   #442
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
i have no idea what they did or didn't do, see...etc. but i can't help but think about what these three men were compared to today's astronauts.
What 3 men? There were 24 men who flew to the Moon on various missions and 12 of them landed on it.

Quote:
i only know what i personally know. anything else is literally taking someone else's word.
Ok, take my word for it, it was more than 3
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 03:52 PM   #443
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
look up the definition of ignorance.
OK.

ignorance
noun: ignorance
lack of knowledge or information.

That perfectly describes your level of information on this subject. It is not a derogatory term.

Quote:
they key part in the context of this thread is "inexperience with". your position is one of ignorance as well. you weren't there so you are just as ignorant as the rest of us. you chose to believe whats put in front of you. thats ok. i choose to consider everything and remember that i dont know for certain. i am not arguing with you....disappointed? lol.
You seem to think that because you don't know things, nobody does. You can apply that total nonsense to anything on the planet and it would still be total nonsense.

I don't have "experience" with heart surgery/mountaineering/flying planes etc. Are you claiming the data surrounding these and anything else should be disregarded

Last edited by truegroup; 04-01-2017 at 03:53 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 04:04 PM   #444
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicpurpose1.618 View Post
What are the chances that a collision would happen between two planetary bodies, the debris of which conveniently formed into a sphere with connections to the relative sizes of its parent planet and Sun?
Very high I imagine.

There are estimated to be 400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy and estimated to be 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

BTW, the Moon is only that ratio when it is at its closest. It has an elliptical orbit and varies in size quite noticeably....

truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 05:58 PM   #445
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
look a litle closer.

Ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim[/quote
its funny isn't it? i mean all we have, any of us, is someones word that men went to the moon. if you ask for proof it really comes down to taking someone's word.

I looked a little closer.

Quote:
i was expressing an opinion on having an opinion. not an opinion on whether men went to the moon or not.

Ok, looks like you were referring to men that went to the moon.
try again idio i bolded what i saidt

Quote:
is that clearer now? your not as sharp as you think you are or your just looking for an argument. which is it?

Neither, you were corrected for your mistake. Admit it...move on.

no, you are being deliberatly obtuse, its very clear i didn't express that "men either did or didn't got to the moon". its very clear that i expressed an opinion on expressing an opinion. its obvious as well that your either blind or dont want to be seen as having made a mistake. which you did. show me where i said men did not got to the moon. you cant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites.

and my convictions are what? simply that theres a lot of controversy, governments and the like make a practice of lies and half truths, and...oh yes...i wasn't there. but you'd like to turn that into more than what it is? why is that?

Last edited by reverendjim; 04-01-2017 at 06:00 PM.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 06:11 PM   #446
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
OK.

ignorance
noun: ignorance
lack of knowledge or information.

That perfectly describes your level of information on this subject. It is not a derogatory term.



You seem to think that because you don't know things, nobody does. You can apply that total nonsense to anything on the planet and it would still be total nonsense.

I don't have "experience" with heart surgery/mountaineering/flying planes etc. Are you claiming the data surrounding these and anything else should be disregarded
i am saying data should be considered. medicine has a list of boondoggles as long as your arm.

i dont think that because i dont know something that nobody else does. thats you being deliberatly obtuse again. i said people basically have second hand info. you included. but you want to make more of it than it is. why?

now, show me where i said man did not go to the moon. or be seen as a liar. or admit your mistake. up to you.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 06:23 PM   #447
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
What 3 men? There were 24 men who flew to the Moon on various missions and 12 of them landed on it.



Ok, take my word for it, it was more than 3
there were three men on that mission. i think that was clear. and you are obviously just being obtuse.... its your default position i think.

now show me where i said men either did or didn't go to the moon. i am waiting.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 06:31 PM   #448
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

this is what i said:

"its funny isn't it? i mean all we have, any of us, is someones word that men went to the moon. if you ask for proof it really comes down to taking someone's word."

truegroup says that i expressed an opinion that men did not go to the moon. hmmmm...and we are to accept his interpretation of scientific data? a guy who can't interpret a simple statement. sorry i'll read it myself....oh i already did years ago. oh and watched it on tv too...live! but i still have questions.

truegroup...show me where i said men did or did not go to the moon. i'm waiting.

Last edited by reverendjim; 04-01-2017 at 06:32 PM.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 07:47 PM   #449
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
this is what i said:

"its funny isn't it? i mean all we have, any of us, is someones word that men went to the moon. if you ask for proof it really comes down to taking someone's word."
Yes I quoted it.

Quote:
truegroup says that i expressed an opinion that men did not go to the moon. hmmmm.
Hmmm...where did I say that exactly??

Quote:
..and we are to accept his interpretation of scientific data? a guy who can't interpret a simple statement.
You can't even read your own statements...you claim I said something that I didn't. Now you seem to be escalating this. Try not to.

Quote:
truegroup...show me where i said men did or did not go to the moon. i'm waiting.
Show me where I said you said that

You said all we had was their word. I corrected you on that. For some strange reason you then start the big baby routine. Your opinion about opinions about the men who went to the moon was wrong. I have no doubt you are incapable of admitting you were wrong and moving on

Learn to use the bleedin' quote function!
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:02 PM   #450
cosmicpurpose1.618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Everywhere/nowhere
Posts: 2,475
Likes: 2,086 (1,076 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Very high I imagine.
Bullshit!

The chances of the moon forming with dimensional relationships to both the sun and the earth are tiny, its virtually impossible.

Yes the moon is not always the same size in the sky, but that variation in size is quite slight.

Also you've conveniently dodged the other dimensional relationships between the moon, the sun and the earth.

Last edited by cosmicpurpose1.618; 04-01-2017 at 08:08 PM.
cosmicpurpose1.618 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:14 PM   #451
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites.

and my convictions are what? simply that theres a lot of controversy, governments and the like make a practice of lies and half truths, and...oh yes...i wasn't there. but you'd like to turn that into more than what it is? why is that?
Speaking of reading stuff correctly, those quotes are from my signature

Last edited by truegroup; 04-01-2017 at 08:15 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 09:02 PM   #452
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicpurpose1.618 View Post
Bullshit!
Bullshit back at you.

Quote:
The chances of the moon forming with dimensional relationships to both the sun and the earth are tiny, its virtually impossible.
Tell me how many planets are out there with Moons given that there are 68,000 billion stars

Quote:
Yes the moon is not always the same size in the sky, but that variation in size is quite slight.
No it is not! The variation is as I showed in the picture!

Google annular eclipses and you can see the Moon is very much NOT the same size as the Sun.

Quote:
Also you've conveniently dodged the other dimensional relationships between the moon, the sun and the earth.
No batman, I conveniently couldn't be arsed to look up where I responded to this previously! Sigh.....

Point 1 He says 366 rotations per year divided by 100 is 0.27322. That is wrong. 366 divided by 100 is 0.366 However 100 divided by 366 produces that figure. Sadly it is wrong anyway!
Earth rotations per year is 365.25 not 366. This produces 0.27378.
Why did he fart around with 100 in the first place??

Point 2 Is correct. But since point 1 is wrong it doesn't matter. The figures are different.

Point 3He says Earth circumference is 39,988km that is wrong.

40,075.017 km (24,901.461 mi) (equatorial)
40,007.86 km (24,859.73 mi) (meridional)

He says Moon is 10,920km which is close enough to actual 10,921 km

He says the Sun is 4,366,689.6 km that is incorrect...it is 4,366,813 km

So the correct figure is 4376590.75 when divided by 100.

4,376,590.75 does not equal either his claimed Sun circumference or the actual sun circumference.

All in all a load of old horseshit

This where you acknowledge it.....
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 05:16 AM   #453
cosmicpurpose1.618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Everywhere/nowhere
Posts: 2,475
Likes: 2,086 (1,076 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Bullshit back at you.



Tell me how many planets are out there with Moons given that there are 68,000 billion stars



No it is not! The variation is as I showed in the picture!

Google annular eclipses and you can see the Moon is very much NOT the same size as the Sun.



No batman, I conveniently couldn't be arsed to look up where I responded to this previously! Sigh.....

Point 1 He says 366 rotations per year divided by 100 is 0.27322. That is wrong. 366 divided by 100 is 0.366 However 100 divided by 366 produces that figure. Sadly it is wrong anyway!
Earth rotations per year is 365.25 not 366. This produces 0.27378.
Why did he fart around with 100 in the first place??

Point 2 Is correct. But since point 1 is wrong it doesn't matter. The figures are different.

Point 3He says Earth circumference is 39,988km that is wrong.

40,075.017 km (24,901.461 mi) (equatorial)
40,007.86 km (24,859.73 mi) (meridional)

He says Moon is 10,920km which is close enough to actual 10,921 km

He says the Sun is 4,366,689.6 km that is incorrect...it is 4,366,813 km

So the correct figure is 4376590.75 when divided by 100.

4,376,590.75 does not equal either his claimed Sun circumference or the actual sun circumference.

All in all a load of old horseshit

This where you acknowledge it.....
Too many coincidences still

If you are seriously suggesting the moon formed as it is, in obvious cyclical patterns, by chance, then you are dumber than I thought

Do you honestly think it is coincidence all the moons cycles?

and even if those figures are a little off, they are still too close for coincidence, if you really think the chances are high for that to happen then go talk to a statistician.
cosmicpurpose1.618 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 07:44 AM   #454
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicpurpose1.618 View Post
Too many coincidences still
Where? I just showed your "coincidences" were bad maths and incorrect figures.

Quote:
If you are seriously suggesting the moon formed as it is, in obvious cyclical patterns, by chance, then you are dumber than I thought
How quaint. The scientific world spend decades formulating ways in which the Moon formed, using computer modelling with known variables such as gravity and lunar samples from Apollo and meteorites. And you wave it away with the Jedi mind trick?

You are obviously completely unaware of the fact that the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Billions of years ago when it formed it would have been far closer than it is now and billions of years from now it will be much further away.

As for your assessment of how "dumb" I am in not believing the Moon is a bloody spaceship, I couldn't give a monkey's.

Quote:
Do you honestly think it is coincidence all the moons cycles?
What are you talking about? What cycles?

Quote:
and even if those figures are a little off,
The whole point of that gif was that they were supposed to be identical. They aren't, there IS no coincidence.

Quote:
they are still too close for coincidence,
Bollocks.

Quote:
if you really think the chances are high for that to happen then go talk to a statistician.
For WHAT to happen??

Last edited by truegroup; 05-01-2017 at 07:44 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 09:49 AM   #455
raburgeson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 471 (317 Posts)
Default

I do enough hunting the net for this site. The top picture with gold foil on the page back there has two figures on the bottom of the leg on the right front, right by the landing pad. See if you can make them out first. If not then find that picture in a workable form and I will sit here and do it for you. There are sublime pictures all over it.

Last edited by raburgeson; 05-01-2017 at 09:49 AM.
raburgeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:27 AM   #456
cosmicpurpose1.618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Everywhere/nowhere
Posts: 2,475
Likes: 2,086 (1,076 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Where? I just showed your "coincidences" were bad maths and incorrect figures.



How quaint. The scientific world spend decades formulating ways in which the Moon formed, using computer modelling with known variables such as gravity and lunar samples from Apollo and meteorites. And you wave it away with the Jedi mind trick?

You are obviously completely unaware of the fact that the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Billions of years ago when it formed it would have been far closer than it is now and billions of years from now it will be much further away.

As for your assessment of how "dumb" I am in not believing the Moon is a bloody spaceship, I couldn't give a monkey's.



What are you talking about? What cycles?



The whole point of that gif was that they were supposed to be identical. They aren't, there IS no coincidence.



Bollocks.



For WHAT to happen??
0,75 days could be a rounding error (for example) that's how minute it is, so using 366 rotations instead of 365,25 is not exactly changing the figures drastically is it?

Yes whoever made that picture said 366/100 instead of 100/366, but that was obviously a mistake.

When it comes to cosmic scale, a few kms of circumference doesn't make much difference, and the relationships might not be exact but are too close for comfort imo.

Exactly, the moon is moving away from the earth, so how has it maintained the same exact waxing and waning cycle all that time?

For such a huge satellite (and quite a spherical one) to form around a relatively small planet, and on top of that to have an orbital relationship to the Earth (with a 0,75 day variation of course) is next to impossible.

Last edited by cosmicpurpose1.618; 05-01-2017 at 10:53 AM.
cosmicpurpose1.618 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 10:43 AM   #457
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Speaking of reading stuff correctly, those quotes are from my signature
so i just dragged my cursor from top to bottom. so what? you are proving yourself to be quite an asshole. and btw, you never addressed where i was supposed to have said theere was no moon landing. asshole. i left a typo there for you too. and yes bitch, you highlited part of one of my statements and said i was expressing an opinion on men going to the moon as opposed to expressing an opinion on how people get/use info or whatever. i am not childish enough to run back and forth over posts copying and pasting just to continue arguing with a troll. tom had something to say about that. a wise fellow tom.

where is that ignore button anyway? there were some interesting posts here but its hard to find them what with truegroup and his "men went to the moon" trolling when the topic is clearly the moon being a spaceship. can you say derail? off topic?

there...that was easy...no more clutter. just think truegroup...you are the first person that i have ever wanted to ignore. i'm sure you'll take it as a compliment. fill yer boots.

Last edited by reverendjim; 05-01-2017 at 11:24 AM.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 03:07 PM   #458
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
so i just dragged my cursor from top to bottom. so what? you never addressed where i was supposed to have said there was no moon landing you are proving yourself to be quite an asshole. and btw,. asshole.
I highlighted the bit.... you need to go find where I said it.

Quote:
i left a typo there for you too. and yes bitch, you highlited part of one of my statements and said i was expressing an opinion on men going to the moon as opposed to expressing an opinion on how people get/use info or whatever. i am not childish enough to run back and forth over posts copying and pasting just to continue arguing with a troll. tom had something to say about that. a wise fellow tom.

where is that ignore button anyway? there were some interesting posts here but its hard to find them what with truegroup and his "men went to the moon" trolling when the topic is clearly the moon being a spaceship. can you say derail? off topic?

there...that was easy...no more clutter. just think truegroup...you are the first person that i have ever wanted to ignore. i'm sure you'll take it as a compliment. fill yer boots.
Has he gone Human nature...he will see this post and un-ignore it, just to see what I am saying about him. Hi Jim!

He said that I said something. He was unable to find where I said that something. Yes, I know I can be a bit of an arse sometimes, but so can the people who I come across x10!

Last edited by truegroup; 05-01-2017 at 03:08 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 03:12 PM   #459
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicpurpose1.618 View Post
0,75 days could be a rounding error (for example) that's how minute it is, so using 366 rotations instead of 365,25 is not exactly changing the figures drastically is it?

Yes whoever made that picture said 366/100 instead of 100/366, but that was obviously a mistake.
A rounding error? Don't be daft. He's talking about a figure that produces 2 decimal places!

Quote:
When it comes to cosmic scale, a few kms of circumference doesn't make much difference, and the relationships might not be exact but are too close for comfort imo.
I have no problem with that....but the Moon rotations and how it relates to something being divided into 100 is a load of contrived bull.

Quote:
Exactly, the moon is moving away from the earth, so how has it maintained the same exact waxing and waning cycle all that time?
Not true. It became tidally locked over billions of years. Go and google how it occurred.

Quote:
For such a huge satellite (and quite a spherical one) to form around a relatively small planet, and on top of that to have an orbital relationship to the Earth (with a 0,75 day variation of course) is next to impossible.
No it is not impossible. The variation of 0.75 days to what exactly? He does this 100 divided by something lark for what reason exactly?
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017, 12:19 AM   #460
raburgeson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 471 (317 Posts)
Default Picked up a pic

https://forum.davidicke.com/album.ph...ictureid=14422

I highlighted this a picture of a foot of the lander. You have to ask yourself why they took this picture even if it was on the ground in one of their labs. Notice no color bands or dirt on the foot. Notice I left some figures alone so you can see what they have done. If you send a man to the moon it would follow you would want pictures of the moon, not this meaningless garbage they passed off on you.
raburgeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:55 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.