|
Post by gezalenko on Aug 16, 2005 9:54:55 GMT -4
It's probably too early to get too deep into what happened in the Helios Airways crash near Athens, but the latest news is that the story about a text message from a passenger on board may have been a hoax - police have apparently arrested the alleged recipient for "spreading false information" according to the BBC - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4154748.stmInteresting that "spreading false information" appears to be an arrestable offence in Cyprus - may not be safe for Sibrel et al to visit ;-). On the subject of using cell phones in planes, I was recently on board a British Airways flight arriving at Edinburgh, and a minute or two before landing the pilot aborted the landing and came round again for another (successful) attempt. We were told by the pilot that this was because another plane that had already landed was having difficulty getting off the runway, because one of its passengers was using a cell phone and this was interfering with the systems in some way. I have no way of knowing whether this was true or not. Certainly something forced us to turn around. Maybe the story was completely true, and cell phone use on the other plane caused ours to abort landing. Maybe some other problem was affecting the other plane, and our pilot made up a story that reminded passengers in a very forceful way to comply with airline policy - after all - how did they diagnose it so quickly ? Or maybe it was actually our plane that had the problem, and our pilot made up a story that both reminded passengers to comply with airline policy and at the same time re-assured them that nothing was wrong with our plane, and helped to avoid panic. I'm sure there's a conspiracy behind this somewhere - I don't remember seeing any black helicopters at the airport that day, but maybe they were in super-stealth mode.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Jan 3, 2007 13:15:51 GMT -4
Spongebob - why don't you try getting a clue ?
If this site simply wanted to ban HBs, why isn't Turbonium banned ?
How does posting video of an execution add anything at all to the debates that are on this board ?
Looking forward to seeing your apology on this one.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Feb 7, 2007 9:59:29 GMT -4
This is another great example of the MASSIVE internal consistency of the Apollo claims. The more you dig into Apollo (and as Jay says, you can dig in as much as you like, it's all public - would a hoax conspiracy be so open?), the more you can learn about how every aspect links to every other aspect.
Contrast this with HB claims which are often internally inconsistent, and almost always inconsistent with other HB claims. Example - it was all shot at Area 51 / it was all shot in Canada / it was all shot in Australia / it was all shot in Low Earth Orbit.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Mar 19, 2007 10:00:36 GMT -4
However, as you raise your head and look into the distance, you can distinguish the space between the ties. surely "you can no longer distinguish the space between the ties" ? Not worthy of a t-shirt, but I can't see any other way I'm going to get one
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Oct 31, 2006 9:30:35 GMT -4
The whole "Missing Rover tracks" argument has to be one of the dumbest in the HBs' arsenal. For each apparently anomalous photo, there are several possible explanations, including (but probably not limited to) - 1) The camera angle, or the angle of the sun and shadows, just wasn't right for capturing the tracks (I think this is a very important explanation, but one that HBs often ignore. No doubt the astronauts could have taken more time and effort into posing all their photographs so that the rover tracks were clearly shown but, gee, I guess it just didn't seem that important at the time) 2) The tracks have been obliterated in whole or in part by later movements 3) There were no tracks, either because the Rover was travelling over harder ground, or because it was picked up and rotated by the astronauts. Why are these so hard for HBs to understand ? And why do they dismiss them all, and insist that faking is the ONLY possible explanation ? These kind of things happen here on earth too, all the time. I did a Google Image search for "truck" and "beach" and found some great photos of trucks on, er, beaches. Many of them showed wheel tracks, as you would expect, but many of them showed "anomalous" tracks or no tracks at all. For "anomalous", how about this one - www.wcnet.net/adc/toyota_truck/beachT6B1.jpgThere is a track leading to the rear left wheel, and possibly also the front left wheel, but no track leading to the right wheels. HB - "therefore this photo was faked - the truck must have been driven in on its two left wheels only" Here's a truck on a beach with no tracks, yet the beach is obviously capable of taking tracks - www.brandi.org/photos/staugustine2004/beach/CRW_2969.jpgHB - "therefore this picture is faked - either photochopped or they dropped the truck in with a crane" And all this is without addressing the issue of the video footage we have of the rovers driving around, and without answering the question of "How does the absence or presence of tracks point to the faking of Apollo ?" HBs - please - get out from your darkened bedrooms occasionally and look at the way day to day stuff in the real world actually works
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Nov 7, 2006 9:29:55 GMT -4
Tanalia - thanks for the Day and Night Across the Earth link - that's a great link, although sadly it's provided by an arm of the US government, so some people might dismiss it out of hand ;D But assuming we can rely on it . . . . I used it to produce the view on 17th July 1969, at 23:31 UT. Here's the whole Earth We can't be absolutely certain, but the position of the terminator certainly appears to be consistent with the photograph - i.e. all of the continental USA and most of the Pacific are in sunlight, South America is in darkness. Here's the view from the Moon Note that this is not exactly the same as the photo, but I'm guessing that this is because the route taken to the moon diverged somewhat from a straight line - I'm sure this is checkable. This doesn't actually prove that NASA went to the Moon - after all, if NASA had faked it, they would presumably have got this detail right, you'd think. But it is yet another demonstration of the massive internal consistency of NASA's claims. Turbonium - you seem to have gone quiet on this one. If you're still thinking about this, can you let us know ? Otherwise, you must either accept Count Zero's analysis and therefore accept that NASA sent men a long way towards the Moon, OR you must dispute some specific part of his analysis - in which case, which part ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Nov 6, 2006 8:20:55 GMT -4
I imagine it would be possible to make Count Zero's excellent work even stronger by - 1) using the terminator to estimate the time of day, and also the time of year, which may or may not be consistent with the date and time stamp 2) checking whether the apparent position of the camera relative to the earth is consistent with where the moon should have been at the time, or consistent with the claimed route to the moon. Sorry - I don't have the skills to do this myself.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Nov 3, 2006 13:17:58 GMT -4
And, Turbonium (or any other HBers) - what about addressing the main points of CZ's original post - i.e. that - 1) These pictures were broadcast live at the time 2) They were filmed a long way from earth - much further away than LEO 3) They appear to be consistent with recorded weather patterns at the time.
If all three points are true, then it seems clear that, at the very least, NASA's claim to have sent men around the moon is true (sure you might still argue that they didn't actually land on it), and that that part of the debate can be closed off for good, no ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Oct 20, 2006 6:52:46 GMT -4
Just to add my compliments to Count Zero for a great job ! Well done !
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Sept 29, 2006 12:15:24 GMT -4
Ah yes, it is back now. Very good !
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Sept 29, 2006 8:48:32 GMT -4
This site is now down temporarily because it has "exceeded its data transfer limit"
Any way us latecomers can get in on the fun ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Jul 28, 2006 7:23:53 GMT -4
This was repeated last night and I watched it - although our 2 week old daughter was competing for my attention, so I couldn't give it 100% I agree, it was interesting, although I thought it was a bit cheeky to call it "The untold Story" as if it was uncovering deep secrets. The material may have been new to most viewers, but much of it was common knowledge to anyone with slightly more than average interest in the subject. Many of the topics have been discussed on this board before, I think.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on May 29, 2006 9:47:40 GMT -4
Kevb wrote "So far my basic theory is holding and holing firm." So which is it ? Holding, or holing ? Can't be both. My guess is holing. Where exactly did anyone say you could "turn a right angle" ? Where exactly did anyone say you could "co st to earth . . . in a straight line" ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on May 15, 2006 8:36:15 GMT -4
Presumably the delay also varied from ~short in earth orbit to ~long in lunar orbit and gradually growing in between on the Trans Lunar Coast, and vice versa on return.
OT - I just Googled TLC to make sure that was the right term, and discovered the Passive Thermal Control maneouvre, which I didn't know about before. It never occurred to me that it would be needed, but when you think about it, it's obvious. Boy, that was one thorough hoax !
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on May 26, 2006 8:19:31 GMT -4
Classic quote from the Eric Hufschmid site referred to above - "Nobody in a city can see stars at night."
Has this guy EVER BEEN TO A CITY ?
|
|