Jump to content
Science Forums

cosmored

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. This is an excerpt from the rules page. I think I did more than back my allegation. I think I proved it to be true. What is the definition of "Conspiracy theory" here? Is it anything that disagrees with the official version?
  2. This picture alone convinces me that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Profiles/9-11/Multimedia/Pentagon_Video.jpg I know the picture was taken with a fish-eye lens but the other objects in the picture are not similarly distorted. Also, it can be shown that a 757 would not fit behind the box in the picture that's on the top of this page. Flight 77 3d sim test The height of the Pentagon is 77 ft. The Pentagon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The length of a 757 is 155
  3. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    I'd never gotten around to voting. I just voted no. So are you saying that a difference in a degree or two will cause a five-fold difference in the size of the reflection on a visor? You can't be serious. It sounds like you are looking for an excuse to close the thread because you and the other pro-Apollo people are floundering. How much effect would the slight atmosphere have on a thrown grain of sand? Would the curve be effected enough to be noticed? Would it be non-parabolic? Everything you people have presented, such as the number of people involved in the Apollo program, has
  4. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    You seem to be playing games here. I explained the situation. Instead of pretending you don't see it, you should be analyzing it. It's all explained here. http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/12863-moonwalkin-8.html#post204636 Look what Jay says and then look at the link to the geology forum. If he's seeking the truth, why did he lie? This is pretty serious. He's a scientist who's supposed to be explaining why the evidence shows they went to the moon and he tells an obvious lie about science. You can play this down all you want but this is glaring evidence that he's ow
  5. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that. The fact that he was caught in a lie shows he's a con artist. The difference in curvature between the two helmets is not great enough to cause such a big difference in the size of the reflection of the sun. I entered "Reflections convex surfaces" into Google and got this list of science sites reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google Those sites expla
  6. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    I think that if a group of scientist put their minds to it, they could manage to create some dust-free sand and manage to transport it and place it without creating enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Jay and his friends say that's impossible. What do you say? Of course he has good credentials. The question is whether or not he's a con-artist. Rules of Disinformation (excerpt) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can ha
  7. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    Do you think Jay Windley and his friends were right, or wrong in this thread. ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue They said that after treating sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it that just transporting and placing the dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. This tells you who Jay Windley is. Clavius: Conspiracy - about the author
  8. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    Most of the people working on the Apollo program were probably so compartmentalized that they weren't in a position to know if the whole thing would work. Most of the lower level people were probably fooled. What Jay Windley did was lie about science. Objective truth-seekers don't lie. Just the fact that he's there on the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums lying about science is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax. If you were to say that in a debating hall, the audience would roar with laughter. The stuff I posted shows that at least some of the footage was taken in a stud
  9. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    What you're doing here is avoiding my question. (The issue is explained here.) ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue Those people who posted in that thread are supposed to be explaining why the hoax-believiers are mistaken. They are supposed to be explaining science to people who supposedly don't understand it. They lied about science. Ask anybody with a background in geology and he or she will say that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will not cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Those people were so accustome
  10. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    There's this stuff I posted. http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/12863-moonwalkin-5.html#post203675 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips. YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - InfoDebug.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started us
  11. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    You people are ignoring the video evidence. I'd believed they went to the moon until the arrival of the internet when I was able to see the evidence that they hadn't gone. I didn't have any problem modifying my opinion. Most people who ignore the evidence can't admit to themselves that they've been fooled. Cognitive Dissonance and learning (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information
  12. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    It sounds like you people take for granted that what we were reading about the relationship between the US and the USSR during the cold war reflected reality. Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war? Uncle Sam: How the Cold War worked Deterring Democracy: Chapter 1 [1/20] This is something to think about too. Nardwuar vs Bill Kaysing (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did
  13. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    I don't have any way of confirming that what this article says is true, but if it is, it's something to think about. APOLLO TRUTH (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that
  14. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    How do you know the data you had were the real data? Do you just have the word of the government? Did the people you know have access to the same data that people with high security clearances have? (Copy and paste this) hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques to disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true dat
  15. cosmored

    Moonwalkin'

    If that were the case, the horizontal rod that supports the flag would be moving too. I see no movement of the rod.
×
×
  • Create New...