|
Post by frenat on Jul 10, 2011 22:39:49 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 9, 2011 22:35:08 GMT -4
Welcome to the board Ong. But haven't you been here before? The name is familiar to me, for sure, but all of the rude conspiracy theorists I've encountered over the years are starting to blend together. I'm sure he's been here before but since his profile say's he has only made 7 posts he must have deleted his account and created a new one. Seemed familiar to me as well. But then I looked at every page of the banned users thread and couldn't find his name. I'm sure he's been here and apparently at BAUT as well.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 9, 2011 9:46:56 GMT -4
The missiles flew in a spiral path around each other that looked really cool... but all I could think was "wouldn't they reach their target faster if they flew in a straight line? He's not even trying to evade them!" SOME missiles, depending on their method of tracking will fly in a spiral pattern but I suspect the movie was just because it was pretty.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 8, 2011 8:27:47 GMT -4
The phrase "if I ran the zoo" comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 30, 2011 21:42:03 GMT -4
I don't watch mainly because I can't stand his voice.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on May 16, 2011 17:09:54 GMT -4
That's awesome! I wish we'd thought to try this on Rocky/DavidC: "No plane hit the Pentagon." "What Pentagon? Prove that any such place exists. No, those pictures could have been faked. People who say they've seen it or been their could be lying or hypnotized. Construction records can be faked. Satellite pictures could be faked. People could be threatened or bribed to go along with "the official story" that the Pentagon exists... Etc, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc..." As an extra added bonus, I just spent a week in the D.C. area and never once laid eyes on this so-called "Pentagon", which is supposed to be one of the worlds largest buildings! Just don't ask me to prove I was there. He's currently getting spanked on JREF if you really want to deal with him.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on May 5, 2011 8:35:48 GMT -4
Looks like my comment was somewhat prophetic - current news is that they are NOT going to release the photos. That won't stop some from posting the fakes that are already out there though.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on May 2, 2011 8:26:14 GMT -4
He died in 2001 according to Fox news. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html This is a wag the dog story to distract from the phoney birth certificate. You mean the non-issue that hardly anybody cares about and that is getting even less press now than it was before it was released? Sure, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Mar 24, 2011 23:33:14 GMT -4
I don't think people like that have any idea that satellites can be seen, or otherwise identified by us "normal" folks. Their "research" is all online, not real life. He should. Its been pointed out to him multiple times.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Mar 23, 2011 22:20:50 GMT -4
That Stelios fellow is a piece of work. He has no understanding of the most basic physics and is so adamant that he is right all the time when he is so unbelievably wrong it’s not funny. Sadlly, Alexis1111 is even worse. Have you seen his theory that communication of any kind through the Van Allen belts is impossible? And since that makes geostationary satellites also impossible he proposes they instead use a massive array of networked low earth orbit satellites. Never mind that it would take thousands of said satellites that nobody ever sees, nobody ever admits to having built or launched.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 16, 2011 19:42:37 GMT -4
Don't. Please try to back up your previous statements with evidence and show exactly what in them would be fatal. Actually, try backing 'any' of your previous statements up with actual evidence. It would make a change. Edit to add: The only 'evidence' you have presented so far is a children's book you can't remember and can't name. Do you have any idea how pathetic that is? I've added more since then. I've looked for figures on the internet for the dimensions and consistency of the Van Allen Belts and come up with two contradictory quotes. That's worrying if you're planning a space mission today, let along 40 years ago! This post is an answer to all the people, I've lost count how many, who asked me for additional evidence. Anybody actually planning a mission today isn't going to go on a few short quotes. They'll use the page upon pages of data as well as computer estimates based on current solar activity. They'll also plan their trajectory to minimize exposure. All of that is the same that they did for Apollo. You are trying to simplify a complex situation and failing.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 16, 2011 13:35:58 GMT -4
Which is what happened to moontruth.com erasing the proof that the fake moon video where the light falls was made by the website.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 7, 2011 17:39:27 GMT -4
Well, offended or not, I don't like it when someone comes here with what appears to be a personal vendetta against someone else. And since I'm fairly certain that "rick" is a sock puppet of a previously banned member of the forum he's lucky I haven't already banned him. Well I feel offended. But I would also like a source for the supposed Quaker statement. If it was supposedly said by two pominent figures then he should have no problem backing it up with multiple independent sources.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 4, 2011 13:39:29 GMT -4
Yes. I know that they cover mostly the equinoctual tropical zone of the Earth with empty areas over the celestial poles. But the areas of highest intensity line up with the ecliptic where the moon and the planets are most of the time. The diagrams in all the books I've read, not just the kids' one I mentioned, show the Apollo craft's trajectory passing through this zone. Your books are incorrect. Or, more likely, you're reading them wrong. Nothing says that the Apollo spacecraft had to travel within the plane of the moon's orbit all the way to the moon. It only had to be in the moon's orbital plane when it reached the moon. And that's exactly what it did. There is also a substantial angle between the earth's geographical axis (the one it spins around) and its geomagnetic axis (which determines the orientation of the Van Allen belts). All these facts combined meant that Apollo could be at a very high geomagnetic latitude as it passed through the VA belts, allowing it to skirt completely around their densest regions. Clever, these NASA rocket scientists, wouldn't you say? All this stuff is written up in great detail and is available on the NASA Technical Reports Server if you'd take the time to read it. Or here's some good visual representations www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4gSRy1tHlswww.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 3, 2011 17:36:36 GMT -4
If he really thinks no one could refute all those claims then it only proves he hasn't looked. Sadly, I see most if not all of those claims every day on the David Icke forum and GLP.
His reply to you later brings up an interesting point about HBs. Many seem to be into it for the intellectually superior feeling they get from knowing the "truth" that others don't.
|
|