|
Post by bazbear on May 6, 2006 22:52:38 GMT -4
Another point while I think of it. Sibrel interviewed Alan Bean, asking him about the VA belts. Bean said he didn't think they went high enough to have gone through them!?! I don't believe Bean said that, not to a direct question regarding Bean's Apollo mission. Sibrel's credibility is such that the only evidence I'd accept is an unedited audio and video recording of such a question followed by such a statement...and after independant experts reviewed it for authenticity. You hoax believers can believe the likes of Sibrel if you like...how or why you want to? Well that's another question. NASA can fake a trip to the moon, kill Grissom, Chaffee, and White (and the Challenger crew according to the late Kaysing)...but not deal with a journeyman TV cameraman *very negative epithets deleted* like Sibrel?....'Nuff said
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on May 3, 2006 3:33:37 GMT -4
The issue is quite substantial to properly discuss and debate, and my intention is to avoid simply rehashing old arguments previously posted on this forum. Yes, all those pesky facts and all these people who understand the science behind them; I guess you would have to conjure up some new material. We'll be patiently waiting
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 28, 2006 14:04:58 GMT -4
Hope to have civilized discussion based on scientific facts and evidence. Just as long as you know Rene's book is very thin on facts and credible evidence; using his book as your sole reference in this matter is going to leave you defending an untenable position. If you search around the forum, you'll find a good deal of Rene's work has been discussed and debunked previously.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 23, 2006 1:27:27 GMT -4
I understand your accusation to me, because the one who told you "hearsay" is not your friend. Leonov saying anything to defend his point just "reinforced" what I was told about him. If my friend was wrong about him, which is really unlikely, then I draw back what I said about him. It must be nice to be able to read people's minds...and from hearsay (from a person who insists six is nine, if she believes it strongly enough). You simply assume, with no evidence whatsoever, bad intentions on the part of Leonov (if it was even him). You seem to believe everything that is told to you. My dear, do you believe that six million jews were killed in the holocaust? I have read a book by Roger Garodi: "The Legends that Built the Israeli Policy", if I translated it well. Just read the evidence he gives you and you will be shocked at what the jewish propaganda wants you to believe. Actually, what I find shocking is the disgusting, misleading and downright inaccurate rubbish the Holocaust denial community foists upon the world.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 17, 2006 12:13:50 GMT -4
Maybe Leonov passed this false info innocently, but it shows he hasn't studied the arguments of the HBers, so his answers on that can't be taken. It is bad for an astronaut to say things he doesn't know about. But it is alright. You can close the thread if you want. Well since he's a cosmonaut, not an astronaut, maybe you'll cut him enough slack to relate a funny anecdote (the C rock story), and possibly be mistaken occasionally? It's even worse for HBers and "Apollo skeptics" to say things they don't know about...don't wan't to learn about...won't do any research beyond what their favorite CTist web sites say etc.etc.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Mar 16, 2006 17:05:44 GMT -4
Well Bart Sibral makes up all sorts of stuff, what does that say about him? Bart Sibrel is not like two astronauts going on public saying that the moon missions were hoaxed. If I am not sure about Volynov, I do trust my friend. This double standards and switching stances about Apollo (in the Russian center in beirut The US doesn't go to the moon and at the American University of Beirut the US goes to the moon), is not honest, to say the least. You may trust your friend's recounting of her conversation, but you certainly can't expect us to, without any coroberation.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jan 26, 2006 16:27:59 GMT -4
That's the most paranoid thing I've heard all day. Do you honestly believe anyone here gives a crap about your computer? Weren't you the one complaining about his computer being all screwed up and not working before you even came to this forum? Oh yes, someone realized how dangerous MM's convincing and airtight arguments were, and that he had to be stopped at all costs! LoL Come on MM, this board needs people who lean to the HB side to keep things interesting. Cracking your machine to keep you away just doesn't make any sense. If the owner and mods wanted you gone for bad behavior, they'd just ban you.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 15, 2006 22:51:21 GMT -4
When I first became aware of this "hoax" business after a couple of my less educated friends were suckered in by that ridiculous Fox special, I decided to do some research online. Eventually I found Bad Astronomy, and then of course Clavius, but in the begining the first sites I found were HB sites like NASASCAM. I read what he had to offer, and wrote him a civil e-mail as to why I believed several of his points were off base...in reply I recieve an e-mail questioning my ancestry as well as my ability to make love to a women (but using other language, which I'll not repeat in the interest of good taste, TOS, and forum decorum). But sure, sure, he knows just what he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 1, 2006 14:16:04 GMT -4
The only prominent MD/politician I can think of in the US is Bill Frist who supports intelligent design and opposes stem cell research. Former Vermont governor, presidential candidate, and now Democratic party national chairman, Howard Dean is an MD (pediatrics). He's a little liberal (or at least his rhetoric since he reached the national stage; I lived in Vermont during his entire 10 year governorship and he governed as a moderate democrat without all the political spin and bombast he's shown since 2004) for me, but at least he's not one to let theology to get in the way of science.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jan 29, 2006 20:26:53 GMT -4
Dicky Nixon's first name was Richard. Now folks, do the math Yes, the same gentleman who couldn't have his men pull off a simple burgalry...not that this has diddly squat to do with Ricardo Salamé (who, from a cursory Google search, seems to be a quite real person, what a surprise!...guess he's just an eloborate hoax, as well)
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jan 18, 2006 23:05:39 GMT -4
It's not that I want to believe Apollo didn't happen, it just so happens that I do not believe it anymore, to be more precise, I KNOW beyond reasonable doubt that it was a hoax. Well where is your evidence, man? There's mountains of evidence the landings were real. I've yet to see any credible evidence of a hoax from anyone. If you are in bright sunlight, your eyes will be adjusted for bright sunlight, and the stars are simply too faint to see. Here's a simple experiment for you to try; wait for a nice clear stary evening, but before you go outside stare at a bright light source for a minute or two. Then go outside, look up, and see how many stars you can see. Because they have better things to spend their limited budget on. Why should they have to prove anything to you? I suspect you'd just dismiss their evidence as more fraud, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Apr 17, 2007 4:20:34 GMT -4
You'd have to have an accounting system weirder than Hollywoods if you can lose 25% of your budget of $500 million and have it come out at $2.4 Trillion. Okay, let's try this again; that number is accounting transactions, internal as well as external, hence lord knows how many times the same dollar(s) were "misplaced". My goodness man, these figures aren't coming out of my rear end, they're coming from GAO reports and (pro-defense) DoD watchdogs. And the accounting system is such a mess, and unauditable (again, from GAO, who are mandated by law to audit all government branches) DoD is forced to ask congress for a waiver of that audit annually. I also never said anything about losing 25% of anything. BALANCE THE F'ING BOOKS (at least to federal gov't standards)! That's all I'm saying, and all I'm asking for; the rest of the vast bureacracy seems to be able to manage this, why not DoD?
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Apr 17, 2007 1:14:30 GMT -4
I'm still extremely skeptical that they could lose $2.4 trillion when their budget was only a fifth of that, especially when the original article stated that it was 25% of their budget. You can be as skeptical as you like, but the accounting figures speak for themselves. Whether by design or by chance (personally I think it's some of both), the DoD's accounting system is as arcane and convoluted as anything I've ever seen. Let's just say if they were a Fortune 500 company they'd need a new wing at a federal detention center for all the "executives" (read generals and colonels) they'd convict....and I am NOT saying those officers are at fault, I am saying the system is at fault.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 28, 2007 2:34:39 GMT -4
While I can't find a definitive document to back up that $2+ trillion dollar/one FY accounting fiasco, such credible watchdogs as Chuck Spinney (if you don't know who he is, check him out) have used this figure for the FY 2002 budget in interviews. So I guess the moral of this story is the 5 sided puzzle palace really can lose a dollar five times; as hard as it is for me or any of us to believe.
Now do I think there is rampant fraud and waste? I'd like to think not; but if the system is utterly unauditable, how can anyone really be sure?
'Nuff said, I've already taken this thread WAY off track.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 27, 2007 23:13:53 GMT -4
]I believe that figure represents unjustified transactions (internal transfers of all sorts as well as payments to outside contractors) ie. bad accounting practices, DoD wide, and IIRC may indeed represent one fiscal year (obviously the same money get misaccounted for several times). I must be off to work, but I'll try to remember tonight to find the documentation about this. Considering that the total budget of the US DoD for 2006 was just $419.3 Billion I think that is unlikely, if they have managed to loose track of every dollar an average of about five times bad accounting doesn't quite cover it. Okay, the figure I had seen was $1.1 trillion USD in unjustified transactions, for FY 2000. The information came from "Department of Defense Independent Auditors Report on the FY 2001 DoD Annual Financial Report and Report on Internal Controls and Compliance with Laws and Regulations" www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/fy02/02-055.pdfon page 6 (of 12).
|
|