ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th June 2017, 04:07 PM   #1361
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,254
I still think it's best to let him catch-up before anymore responses.

There really is nothing more to say in response to his nonsense.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 04:23 PM   #1362
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,254
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

And what about the international FAKE station...................
Just out of curiosity, round numbers, how many people would be involved with a "fake ISS" conspiracy? In your estimation.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 04:29 PM   #1363
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,661
Originally Posted by bruno
Persons on the earth using telescopes and good cameras have taken pictures of the International Space Station, including some that show its shape clearly as it crosses between earth and moon.
Amateurs routinely image the ISS. Thierry Legault actually imaged an individual astronaut during an EVA.

But this is all irrelevant to the question of why thewholesoul prefers silly trolling to adult dialog.

One of my schoolmates just got another flight assignment to the ISS. I'll have to send her congratulations. That's a lot more interesting to me than trolling ever could be.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 05:24 PM   #1364
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Does the movement of earths surface also cause the increased fuel consumption when NASA launches their rockets west? I suppose the atmosphere has nothing got to do with that either?
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The atmosphere does have nothing to do with it, and this has been pointed out to you previously... The effect it entirely caused by the momentum of the rocket in the same direction as the planet rotates which it has due to being on the rotating planet
If that was true then how come the momentum of the commercial aeroplanes, due to being on a rotating planet, doesn't effect them too? Why don't commercial aeroplanes flying west get more fuel added? It doesn't make sense.

You will reply, that's because they don't leave earths atmosphere, or they don't need to reach orbital velocity, but these are irrelevant points. The point is westward bound rockets need more fuel added to reach an orbital velocity, it follows that without that extra fuel added they can not reach an orbital velocity. So the effect of rotational momentum is that, unlike rockets fired east, it physically slows down rockets fired west. So at last we have identified the physical cause behind the increased fuel consumption!

But this produces a contradiction, as already mentioned above, how can we say the effect of rotational momentum slows down rockets, but it doesn't slow down commercial planes when they both stand on the same rotational surface? It sure sounds like someone wants to have jam on both sides of his bread. Are you claiming the effect of blind rotational momentum is selective?

Personally I don't believe any extra fuel is added to westward rocket launches. And out if interest, has anyone here personally witnessed two identical rockets fired west, one with the allegedly "required" added fuel, and the other one without the added fuel failing to make orbital velocity? I bet none of you have witnessed that. Yet you all believe it unquestioningly.

All the very best.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 05:42 PM   #1365
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,671
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
...Well the earth doesn't spin for a start.

I don't need to pretend. just like you, I once believed that the globe model was true. I thought globe sceptics were idiots and I never took the time to research opposing evidence to the globe model. But having done so, and being unable to personally refute the evidence against the globe model, I am forced as a rational human being to reject the globe model. It's impossiball....
You're not very rigorous with your observations. Explain how the are time zones here on Earth with your flat Earth Model. Do you have a TV? With a satellite dish? Where is the satellite dish pointing?

Or do you have a terrestrial antenna? How many stations do you receive? You should be getting many more stations* with your Flat Earth than with a spherical world. Want to know why?

Why do airports rely on an airplane's transmitter to relay information about course and speed etc.? Shouldn't the airport's radar be able to detect a plane anywhere on a flat Earth?

* taking into account the power of the broadcasting transmitter, of course.

http://www.nlsa.com/meade.html
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 05:50 PM   #1366
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If that was true then how come the momentum of the commercial aeroplanes, due to being on a rotating planet, doesn't effect them too? Why don't commercial aeroplanes flying west get more fuel added? It doesn't make sense.

You will reply, that's because they don't leave earths atmosphere, or they don't need to reach orbital velocity, but these are irrelevant points. The point is westward bound rockets need more fuel added to reach an orbital velocity, it follows that without that extra fuel added they can not reach an orbital velocity. So the effect of rotational momentum is that, unlike rockets fired east, it physically slows down rockets fired west. So at last we have identified the physical cause behind the increased fuel consumption!

But this produces a contradiction, as already mentioned above, how can we say the effect of rotational momentum slows down rockets, but it doesn't slow down commercial planes when they both stand on the same rotational surface? It sure sounds like someone wants to have jam on both sides of his bread. Are you claiming the effect of blind rotational momentum is selective?

Personally I don't believe any extra fuel is added to westward rocket launches. And out if interest, has anyone here personally witnessed two identical rockets fired west, one with the allegedly "required" added fuel, and the other one without the added fuel failing to make orbital velocity? I bet none of you have witnessed that. Yet you all believe it unquestioningly.

All the very best.
And you prove ONCE AGAIN that either you don't understand or want to ignore reference frames. A plane flying to another location on the surface uses the SURFACE as the reference frame. A rocket going to orbit does not as it requires a velocity relative to the center of mass NOT the surface. This has been explained to you multiple times in multiple ways. Either you do understand it and choose to appear not to or you are incapable of understanding it and choose not to try.
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
frenat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 06:44 PM   #1367
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,987
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Not exactly. You forgot the Foucault pendulum. It does not move across earths surface, rather it is hung from the ceiling in a fixed position.
You seem to have forgotten that a pendulum swings back and forth.

Quote:
Correct. They are moving vertically upwards, perpendicular to the earths stationary surface.
relative stationary.

Quote:
I respectfully disagree. If you are on a moving train and you throw a stone vertically upwards into the air, the stone will not land back in the same position. Ever.
Well this depends on what you mean by "position". If you mean the same position in space in which it was thrown, well then yes, because everything is moving when the stone comes back down it will not be in the same position in space.

However, if you mean relative to the carriage and the thrower, this is totally testable, even without the train. Get a ball. walk across the room at a constant pace and halfway across throw the ball directly up as you walk. Does it come back down and land in your hand, or does it hit you in the head?

Quote:
No. If you jumped higher and for long enough the moving truck would not be there when you came back down.
Technically correct, but not for the reasons you believe. Air resistance is going to be the biggest issue as this will slow the jumper but not the truck. Also if the jump was high enough and for long enough then because of the difference in angular momentum and the required velocities to maintain them (the further out on a circle you go the faster you have to travel to complete the circle in the same amount of time) the truck would actually start rotating out from under the jumper (this is actually a proof of a rotating world, on a stationary world it wouldn't happen.)

But if we do the jump on the moon, so no air resistance to worry about, and a very slow rotation, then the jump could get really high before angular momentum come into play.

Quote:
Look. We have a contradiction. If I have a model helicopter at rest on a moving conveyor belt, and it goes up for 10 minutes, hovering in the same position, it will not move along laterally with the conveyor belt. Unless of course there is a sufficiently strong wind to push it along with the conveyor.
There isn't actually a contradiction. The model would attempt to move towards with the velocity it gained from the belt, but as it's quite light, the non moving air would stop it quickly, thus resulting in it not moving with the belt. If instead we did it in a vacuum chamber and used a rocket (cause obviously a Helicopter wouldn't work in a vacuum, you would see that the "hovering" rocket would travel with the belt as predicted.

Now if you had the air moving with the conveyor belt, there would be no air resistance and the Helicopter would move as expected, and no it wouldn't be because the wind was pushing it.


Quote:
Now a helicopter is at rest, it rises vertically and hovers in the same position. However unlike the model helicopter over the conveyor belt the ground does not move away underneath the helicopter even after 24 hours. So how is the helicopter moving along with the allegedly spinning ground? What force is pushing it, or pulling it, or carrying it laterally? You don't believe the rotating atmosphere has ANY force! Thus I see no way out of this contradiction, other than rejecting the assumption that the ground is spinning underneath them. But you don't want to do that so you will remain in a state of confusion.
You really need to read Newton's laws of motion. 1st Law, an object in motion will remain in motion until a force acts on it.

The helicopter is already in motion because it is moving with the ground. Newton's first Law says that this motion remains until another force acts on it. In no other lateral force acts on it, it must remain in motion. It doesn't need any other forces to keep it moving.

Quote:
If you park a car on the equator, is this object (the car) objectively speaking stationary or is it objectively speaking moving at 1000mph?
There is no objectively speaking when talking about velocity. ALL velocity is RELATIVE to the point it is being measured against, period. The car is stationary to one point, moving at 1000 km/h in a circle to another point, and hurtling around the sun even faster to a third point. All velocities are relative and dependent on where you are when you are measuring them.

Quote:
So what force is carrying, pushing, or pulling the helicopter laterally with earths surface? No force? Magic?
Again, read and learn Newton's Laws of Motion.

Quote:
Bonus question. If a train facing north is 1km long in total and all the carriages are connected then will the correolis effect bullets fired inside the train by a sniper?
I'm assuming that the train isn't moving? From my reading on the topic of bullets, it seems that any observable effect is in shots well over 1 km, so while it might be detectable, it is unlikely to be observable, in other words it's probably going to be a few mm off and so hard to distinguish from other factors that influence the path of the bullet.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 07:40 PM   #1368
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Even on roundabouts? A kid jumps off a moving roundabout won't feel any centrifugal force??
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Even on roundabouts. What we call Centrifugal Force is actually a result of inertia.

Newton's 1st Law... an object in motion will stay in that motion until another force acts on it.
So what force are we feeling when we step off a merrygoround with a speed boost? Rotational force? The force of momentum?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
When we are on a roundabout we start to move with the roundabout. The issue is though that according to Newton's 1st law our bodies once in motion want to remain in that motion and travel in a straight line. Of course the roundabout wants to pull us around in a circle. The roundabout therefore has to exert a force (centripetal force) onto us to change our direction, but because of our inertia our bodies resist that force and we feel like there is a force pushing us outwards. This feeling is an illusion created by our bodies wanting to continue in the straight line of motion proscribed by Newton's 1st Law.
No feeling is an illusion. Feelings and sensations are real because they are really happening to us. And we experience them. We know they occur.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Take our astronaut in a box in space. The box is his frame of reference. If we apply a force to the box to cause it to speed up, then the astronaut will perceive himself to be floating towards the back wall of the box. He will observe that he has had a force act on him pushing him backwards. If we now slow the box down, he will perceive a force being applied to him to speed him up. This is how centrifugal force works, it is an illusory force and doesn't actuality exist.
Good point. Nice visual too.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
In some cases we can even "feel" these forces. Consider if we sped up the box and left it until it reached the astronaut and it pressed against him accelerating him forwards with the box. From the Astronaut's view he has a force acting on him that pushed him backwards into the side of the box and pressed him then against it. It is still an illusionary force however as the real force is that being applied to the box.
The real force moves the box and that force hits the astronaut his perception is false. A force is never illusory if it can cause a physical effect on objects in the real world.

Quote:
Your advocating the globe model?
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The globe model explains our observations better than any other model. Try explaining how everyone in the northern hemisphere see the northern set of stars spinning Counterclockwise about the Northern Pole while everyone in the southern hemisphere sees the southern set of stars spinning clockwise about the southern pole without the world being a globe.
I respectfully disagree With your claim that the globe model explains our observations better.

In the following videos you will see amateurs, homemade, non-experts, trying to demonstrate the counter motions of the stars that we observe in the skies but within a flat earth dome model. you won't like the videos phantumwolf so there is no point watching them. They are too low budget for your taste, but sometimes the truth can be low budget. I'm not saying the videos are definitive proof of anything, but they do provide an alternative explanation. The motion of the stars is not under debate, and not that relevant in terms of proving that the earth spins.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6SK7FmNEXc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tNCqOoITczM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lhvlKbGEaa8

Polaris https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E

Bonus vid https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xRUM8yMaI8k

Quote:
I agree, what a beautiful theory you've got there!
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You realise that "Theory" in Science means that it's accepted as real?
A theory is not necessarily true simply because it is accepted or popular. Even a theory that best explains all the facts could be wrong. Science is all about questioning and testing all theories, even well established ones. There is no dogma in science.

Quote:
No, just because we observe objects in the sky rotating. Doesn't mean we are too. For example, I see birds flying, would it be logical to then conclude that I too can fly?
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
No because from all observations that we have made, the Earth has the same features as the planets we observe this it is logical to assume that it shares features such as rotation.
If you went to a planetarium and you saw planets rotating in the ceiling why would you assume the earth you are standing on is also rotating? I just don't see it.

Me and you down here we don't observe any rotation. We don't feel any either. Experiments proving spin and no spin are conflicted. Again with instruments some detect no rotational motion , others allegedly do.

All he observations you refer to are derived from second
hand sources and they are inconsistent. Some show spin some show no spin.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You don't share many features with a bird so it is not logical to assume you can fly.
Good point. Although the ugly ducking shared many features with the other ducklings he was still wrong to conclude that he was a duck.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I know it's going to take you a few days to get there, that's okay.
It could take a few weeks...

All the very best to you. Gave a good one.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 08:55 PM   #1369
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,671
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
...Me and you down here we don't observe any rotation. We don't feel any either. Experiments proving spin and no spin are conflicted. Again with instruments some detect no rotational motion , others allegedly do...
Cool story, bro!

And the time zones?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 08:58 PM   #1370
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,987
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If that was true then how come the momentum of the commercial aeroplanes, due to being on a rotating planet, doesn't effect them too? Why don't commercial aeroplanes flying west get more fuel added? It doesn't make sense.

You will reply, that's because they don't leave earths atmosphere, or they don't need to reach orbital velocity, but these are irrelevant points. The point is westward bound rockets need more fuel added to reach an orbital velocity, it follows that without that extra fuel added they can not reach an orbital velocity. So the effect of rotational momentum is that, unlike rockets fired east, it physically slows down rockets fired west. So at last we have identified the physical cause behind the increased fuel consumption!

But this produces a contradiction, as already mentioned above, how can we say the effect of rotational momentum slows down rockets, but it doesn't slow down commercial planes when they both stand on the same rotational surface? It sure sounds like someone wants to have jam on both sides of his bread. Are you claiming the effect of blind rotational momentum is selective?

Personally I don't believe any extra fuel is added to westward rocket launches. And out if interest, has anyone here personally witnessed two identical rockets fired west, one with the allegedly "required" added fuel, and the other one without the added fuel failing to make orbital velocity? I bet none of you have witnessed that. Yet you all believe it unquestioningly.

All the very best.
The difference if that a rocket leaves its frame of reference (rotating Earth Frame) for a different one (Stationary Earth Frame). Or more simply, we start by measuring a rocket's velocity against the surface of the Earth and end up measuring its Orbital Velocity, or its velocity against a fixed non rotating point in the Earth's centre. The so called Boost, I still hate that term because it really isn't correct for what is occurring, is only recognisable in the switching of Frames. Commercial planes never leave their frame of reference, and so there is no discernment of a "boost". The rocket and the planes have exactly the same momentum given to them, but only the rocket enters a new frame and so can take advantage of it. The planes simply use it to remain within their own frame.

Let's use an example. Four kids are sitting on a spinning roundabout and they are throwing a baseball to each other. It doesn't matter if they are throwing with the spin or against it, they need to use the same amount of energy to throw the ball to the person next to them. This is because when they throw the ball with the spin, while the ball then has a velocity equal to the throw plus the speed of the roundabout, the kid it is being thrown to is moving away at the same speed as the roundabout, so the ball is only moving at the speed of the throw, relative to the kid catching it. Likewise when it is thrown against the spin, it has a velocity of the throw minus the sped of the roundabout, but since the kid catching it it also travelling towards the ball at the speed of the roundabout, they see it coming to them at the speed of the throw. This is the same as a commercial plane flying between two points on the Earth.

Now a fifth Kid arrives, and he stands beside the roundabout. As the kid on the roundabout that has the ball comes around towards the fifth kid, he throws the ball to the kid on the ground. The ball has the speed of the throw plus that of the roundabout, just as it did previously, but this time because the catcher is stationary to the roundabout and will see the ball arriving at that much higher speed. This is the same as launching a rocket to the east.

He now tosses the ball back and then is thrown the ball again, but this time the thrower waits until he has passed by him and is moving away. The ball this time has the velocity of the throw minus the speed of the roundabout, just as it did when thrown to another kid on the roundabout, but to the stationary kid on the ground, this results in a much slower ball arriving. This is the same as launching a rocket to the West.

If you can't understand this, well....
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 16th June 2017 at 08:59 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 10:25 PM   #1371
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,987
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
So what force are we feeling when we step off a merrygoround with a speed boost? Rotational force? The force of momentum?
Are you meaning what you feel when you step onto the ground? That's friction.

Quote:
No feeling is an illusion. Feelings and sensations are real because they are really happening to us. And we experience them. We know they occur.
We may be feeling something, but the illusion is always in our brains. Our senses are very easy to fool because they are dumb, they send very basic information to our brain, and the brain tries its best to make sense of what the senses are sending it based on previous experience. It doesn't always get it right.

A really fun trick. Get three buckets of water. One hot, one ice cold, and one luke warm to room temperature. Place one of your hands in the hot bucket (hot not scalding) and one in the ice bucket. Keep them there between 30 seconds to a minute, then take both hands out and put them in the luke warm bucket. Which hand is giving the more accurate sense of temperature in the middle bucket?

Here's one you can do without leaving your computer, grab a piece of white paper and put it on the desk under your monitor. now stare at the white dot in the centre of the image below for a minute, then look down at the paper and tell me what you see. Remember that it's a b;lank sheet of paper, so anything you see isn't actually real even though you brain is telling you it is.



Likewise with sounds and forces out bodies are dumb. Our body's senses can tell us that we are experiencing a force, or a sound, but it can't tell us which direction that force of sound is. For sounds our brains measure the time difference between the sound registering in our left and right ears to determine a direction, but it can't determine if the sound is ahead of or behind us, we need to have other things that help out there to allow our brains to determine the direction. Same with forces. Our body doesn't know if it is experiencing a force of the reaction to the force, so it can't give a direction.

Here's something you can try with friends. Get a computer chair and a harness to keep you in the chair, then tie a rope about the chair and get a friend to hold it. Have a second friend hold a second rope, this one you hold the other end of. Sit in the chair with the harness on and wear a blindfold. Make sure both ropes are tight, and then have your friend's randomly tug on their rope trying to pull you to them while the other friend merely anchors themselves acting as a stationary point rather then actively pulling you.

Try and determine which friend is the one pulling on their rope.

This isn't to show that our senses are useless, but that they are limited, and when we are in situations that by psss those limits, our brain has trouble processing the data being sent and ends up giving us ambiguous, misleading, or totally wrong results. Some can even be deadly!

Quote:
The real force moves the box and that force hits the astronaut his perception is false. A force is never illusory if it can cause a physical effect on objects in the real world.
The astronaut observe a force before the box actually arrives though, it's also referred at as illusionary because perception if the force is false. This is what we mean by Centrifugal Force being illusionary, not that there isn't a force occurring, but rather that instead of there being a centre fleeing force (which our senses are telling us is happening) that the real force in actually Centripetal Force, or a Centre Pulling Force.


Quote:
I respectfully disagree With your claim that the globe model explains our observations better.

In the following videos you will see amateurs, homemade, non-experts, trying to demonstrate the counter motions of the stars that we observe in the skies but within a flat earth dome model. you won't like the videos phantumwolf so there is no point watching them. They are too low budget for your taste, but sometimes the truth can be low budget. I'm not saying the videos are definitive proof of anything, but they do provide an alternative explanation. The motion of the stars is not under debate, and not that relevant in terms of proving that the earth spins.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6SK7FmNEXc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tNCqOoITczM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lhvlKbGEaa8

Polaris https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M-lT2EZJ69E

Bonus vid https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xRUM8yMaI8k
I'm not actually going to respond fully to these here, though if you want to use a flat earth thread, or start a new one I will there.

Briefly.

#1 is just so wrong that it's hard to decide what to say. The quick thing to point out is that when you look at the reflection you see everything around the star disk as well, if it was a reflection as he showed, you'd be able to see the earth reflected in the sky just as it was in the video, there is no way to simply zoom like he did. Also when you looked to the north, you'd still see the northern stars, but instead of a celestial equator, there would be a band of blackness between the reflected circle and the bottom of the star disc.

#2 This one I watched the first 12 minutes and face palmed when he got to Apollo and asked two questions that 15 secs on Google would answer. He also failed to realise that NASA is not the only Space Agency, and that people standing on a globe aren't all standing parallel to each other (i.e. the only place on a globe that the ground is at 90 degrees to the Equatorial Stars, is the Equator. As you move North and South that angle changes.

#3 Seriously, they just get crazier. The only way to make his theory work would be to have a separate double dome for every person on the planet, that only they could see, and which moved with them as they walked. There isn't a face palm big enough for this video.

Okay I'm done on this, if you want a deeper discussion as to how wrong these videos are, start a new thread.

Quote:
A theory is not necessarily true simply because it is accepted or popular. Even a theory that best explains all the facts could be wrong. Science is all about questioning and testing all theories, even well established ones. There is no dogma in science.
You are now proving that even when a term is explained to you, you don't understand it.

Quote:
If you went to a planetarium and you saw planets rotating in the ceiling why would you assume the earth you are standing on is also rotating? I just don't see it.
Because knowing the science I know that what we see on Earth motionwise is the same as what we would see and experience on other planets.

Quote:
Me and you down here we don't observe any rotation. We don't feel any either. Experiments proving spin and no spin are conflicted. Again with instruments some detect no rotational motion , others allegedly do.

All he observations you refer to are derived from second
hand sources and they are inconsistent. Some show spin some show no spin.
I doubt you will understand it, but enjoy...
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 10:35 PM   #1372
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,987
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I still think it's best to let him catch-up before anymore responses.

There really is nothing more to say in response to his nonsense.
Agreed. I think I'm done till he catches up and answers the mass of questions asked now, otherwise just treading over covered ground and having to wait 2 weeks to do so.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 11:29 PM   #1373
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,195
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Thanks, but I haven't actually addresed directly any of thewholesoul's silly claims, because (a) other people have done it, a lot, and (b) I don't feel like feeding this particular troll.

I would think that when one's aim is to get grown-ups to talk to him/herself, it would be less work (and more satisfying) to engage honestly, rather than spend so much time running this passive-aggressive routine of generating gibberish, saying flagrantly stupid things, and in general pretending not to get it. That's why I keep asking thewholesoul why he's trolling, because I don't understand that mentality.
Hello there, how's it spinning for you today? I tell you what I will answer the question on one condition. You tell me who provides my script. Only then will I answer the question.

All the best
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2017, 11:51 PM   #1374
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,467
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hello there, how's it spinning for you today? I tell you what I will answer the question on one condition. You tell me who provides my script. Only then will I answer the question.

All the best
Still unable to answer the ring laser question, I see.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 12:32 AM   #1375
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Here's a video link to Apollo 11 first press conference after coming back "from the moon" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dlHmNu0JRHI

Here's a video analyzing neil Armstrong's body language
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wods_TaT5_U
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I'll raise you thousands of photographs,
Real ones or fake ones?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
11 kg of moon rocks,
I'll raise you a chunk of fake moon rock given by astronauts to a Dutch museum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...n-is-fake.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZO6JPsszrY

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
eye witness testimony from 12 people recorded at the time of witnessing,
I could probably get you eye witness testimony from one person in Bolivia for less than 50 dollars!

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
hours of footage both film and TV
Commercial free?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
all of which is consistent with the photographs and has no bloopers, crew reflections, or other proven issues that still exist Hollywood productions to this day.
Well good propaganda isn't cheap

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I'll also add to that Amatuer and Profession non-NASA personal that tracked the space craft via telescope and radios,
You're telling me that someone watching the apollo 11 spacecraft approaching the moon from his telescope! That's amazing. Did he record it? I would love to see what he claims to have seen.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
tracked the space craft via... radio
They were listening on radio to apollo 11 approaching the moon? or were they beaming or bouncing radio waves off the apollo 11 space craft? Either way it's not as compelling as the live telephone conversation between the honorable Richard nixon an Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ieGKIh3koAI

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
including the Russians.
Yet to land on the moon. Slow coaches!

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I'll also add to it that remains of the landers and the tracks of the lunar rover and the astronauts photographed
I raise you a provably fake photoshopped "photo" from the surface of the moon.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dU9nEFeEPsc

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
by lunar satellite and 3D models of the Apollo landing sights created by the Japanese from their lunar satellite data that precisely matched that shown in the Apollo photography.
What a coincidence. Those Japonese satellite images, the ones I saw, weren't very convincing at all. they didn't show me anything discernable.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I could add more,
I'm sure you could. And so could I. And where does that get us?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
but that's more than enough to counter "but body language" right now.
But you didn't counter it. Pointing out supporting evidence for the moon landing does remove or not refute the claim made in the video, namely that the body language of Neil Armstrong indicated that he was lying. And we already know he gave away fake moon rock with his buddy knuckles Aldrin who punches a guy in the face for asking him to swear on the bible that he went to he moon. Strange reaction from the same guy who allegedly performed holy communion on the moon!

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/communion.html

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
What those that want to consider only body language
Not true I try to consider all information. It took me years until I completely withdrew my trust from NASA.gov

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
don't seem to realise is that the press conference happened days after they had returned during which time they had been quarantined and all they really wanted to do at that point was get home and relax and wind down from the mission.
Yes, That's one explanation.

Where are the moon bases? I was expecting moon bases by now. No return mission in how many years?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
It's well known that after times of high Adrenalin and excitement that we tend to crash and feel depressed and this was reported by the astronauts after their missions.
Yes, that sounds like a plausible explanation. But its not the only one.

Challenger mission disaster entire crew incinerated live on television. Good news. 6 of the 7 are still alive today!!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K5FFwOT2xwY

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
So yes, I'll go with the screeds of data and hard evidence that the missions were real that some uneducated fat man on YouTube if you don't mind.
Whatever floats your boat, but mine has longed sailed away from nasa. It's pointless arguing over the lost credibility of nasa, if the earth is stationary then it's a logical implication that NASA.gov are not being honest with us. You can believe what you wish.

Quote:
You talk of the moon landing as if it actually happened.
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
if you want to really know why it was real, talk with JayUtah, he is a real Rocket Scientist with decades of experience in the Aerospace industry and who has worked on the both the new Ares Project and on Boeing's 787. He likely really has forgotten more about the Apollo project that virtually everyone else on this board put together knows about it.
Believe it or not a neighbor of mine is an x rocket scientist too. I'm sure Jay is a really nice guy and very intelligent but he never went to the moon himself. Peoples belief that men walked on the moon is similar to followers of Christianity believing Jesus walked on water. Nobody observed it happening themselves. Yet they all believe it really happened.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is just false and a misunderstanding of the real situations. For instance Apollo 11's original tapes were repurposed
Quote:
People can believe what they want about NASA. I don't trust them anymore.
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
It has nothing to do with trusting NASA,
It does to a degree given the fact that they are responsible for providing some of the information that shapes our perceptions of the truth.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
it's about testing the claims each side makes and observing reality and seeing which side stacks up.
I agree.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Those that follow the hoax always come up short and keep making claims that they refuse to test, and when others do test the claims, they are shown up to be totally false time and time again.
But it would still be wrong to conclude from that that ALL claims of hoaxes are necessarily false.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
However if you really want to get into that there are some Moon Hoax threads already, I suggest you do so there after reading through them so as to avoid repeating the same errors as others have already.
No thanks. It's sleep time for me. Time to rest my body and mind. While the rest of you spin! Adios
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 02:28 AM   #1376
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Real ones or fake ones?

I'll raise you a chunk of fake moon rock given by astronauts to a Dutch museum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...n-is-fake.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZO6JPsszrY
Tedious. Again with the poor research skills. Here's something for you to chew over:

No-one from the Apollo 11 goodwill tour gave any rocks to anyone. At all. You have fallen for bad reporting of an art stunt. The fossil in the Dutch museum was never claimed by anyone ever to be a moon rock.

I await your proof that they did.

Quote:
I could probably get you eye witness testimony from one person in Bolivia for less than 50 dollars!
And if you liked the sound of the answer you wouldn't bother checking if it was true.

Quote:
You're telling me that someone watching the apollo 11 spacecraft approaching the moon from his telescope! That's amazing. Did he record it? I would love to see what he claims to have seen.
Why do you assume it was one person? Why do you think there was only one mission?

http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Doc...kingapollo.pdf

http://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/apollo8stars.html

I await your proof that the above aren't correct.

Quote:
They were listening on radio to apollo 11 approaching the moon? or were they beaming or bouncing radio waves off the apollo 11 space craft? Either way it's not as compelling as the live telephone conversation between the honorable Richard nixon an Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ieGKIh3koAI
Yes. Was there a point to your Nixon reference? White House records show him making a phone call to the moon.

Quote:
Yet to land on the moon. Slow coaches!
They landed, just not with people. The photographs they returned from the ground confirm those taken by Apollo and other spacecraft from lunar orbit.

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/lunokhod/luna.html

I await your proof that they do not.

Quote:
I raise you a provably fake photoshopped "photo" from the surface of the moon.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dU9nEFeEPsc
So the fact that I have copies of that image in books and magazines taken decades before photoshop doesn't bother you? The fact that the weather patterns visible on Earth show exact correspondence with images taken by weather satellites taken at the time doesn't trouble you at all? The fact that the photographs of Earth taken form the lunar surface, and the live TV broadcasts featuring Earth from the lunar surface, show different land masses over time proving the Earth rotates doesn't make you a little scared? Or will you just skip over that and pretend it isn't true.

Here's some worked through evidence for you:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/.../ch4_9_1b.html

I await your proof that it isn't correct.

A modern digital version of an image being put through photoshop is no surprise to anyone who uses it all the time. It proves nothing but the ignorance of the youtube video maker and your gullibility.

Quote:
What a coincidence. Those Japonese satellite images, the ones I saw, weren't very convincing at all. they didn't show me anything discernable.
Japanese, and Indian, imagery show evidence of Apollo, and the 3D terrain data their probes return allow us to reproduce views that are exactly the same as those taken by Apollo. Indian and Japanese probes confirm that photographs (an TV broadcasts) taken on the ground and from lunar orbit by Apollo show details that they could only have known by actually being there.

I await your proof that they do not.

Quote:
But you didn't counter it. Pointing out supporting evidence for the moon landing does remove or not refute the claim made in the video, namely that the body language of Neil Armstrong indicated that he was lying.
I assume you have qualifications in this that allows you to support your claim? Would you like me to provide you with parts of the press conference where they laugh and joke? You are placing your own subjective interpretation on someone's behaviour as a dismissal of all of the evidence?

Quote:
And we already know he gave away fake moon rock with his buddy knuckles Aldrin who punches a guy in the face for asking him to swear on the bible that he went to he moon. Strange reaction from the same guy who allegedly performed holy communion on the moon!

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/communion.html
Not a strange reaction at all as response to being stalked all day by convicted violent thug Bart Sibrel, a proven liar and fraud. If someone hounded you and called you a liar, would you jut smile sweetly? I wouldn't.

Quote:
Not true I try to consider all information.
This is clearly not true.

Quote:
It took me years until I completely withdrew my trust from NASA.gov
Distrust of a source is not proof that the source is not valid.

Quote:
Where are the moon bases? I was expecting moon bases by now. No return mission in how many years?
If you want to pay for them there is no reason why they can't happen. Which schools and hospitals would you like to close to pay for it?

Quote:

Challenger mission disaster entire crew incinerated live on television. Good news. 6 of the 7 are still alive today!!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K5FFwOT2xwY
This is a lie.

Now, how about you stop playing pointless word games and regurgitating unquestioningly every stupid piece of BS conspiracy garbage you've ever swallowed, stop playing the semantic masturbation game and provide us with actual evidence to support your case. Either that or stand by your promise that you were done with this and go.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 05:31 AM   #1377
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,661
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hello there, how's it spinning for you today? I tell you what I will answer the question on one condition. You tell me who provides my script. Only then will I answer the question.
Answer the question in your own words: why do you prefer trolling to honest discourse?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
All the best
Nope. Still not interested in passive-aggressive pretend felicitations.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 05:56 AM   #1378
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

In the following videos you will see amateurs, homemade, non-experts, trying to demonstrate the counter motions of the stars that we observe in the skies but within a flat earth dome model.
And failing miserably


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
you won't like the videos phantumwolf so there is no point watching them. They are too low budget for your taste, but sometimes the truth can be low budget. I'm not saying the videos are definitive proof of anything, but they do provide an alternative explanation. The motion of the stars is not under debate, and not that relevant in terms of proving that the earth spins.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6SK7FmNEXc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tNCqOoITczM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lhvlKbGEaa8
Thank you for showing the ignorance of the flat Earth "theory" and flat Earthers in general. NONE of these work and NONE explain what is actually seen.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Proof that the maker of the video doesn't understand the scale involved.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Proof that the maker of the video doesn't understand how the level app in a phone works.

yet more proof that flatties are just ignorant of the world around them and nothing else.
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
frenat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 06:14 AM   #1379
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Real ones or fake ones?
You can't prove ANY are fake.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I'll raise you a chunk of fake moon rock given by astronauts to a Dutch museum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...n-is-fake.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZO6JPsszrY
NOT given by astronauts. First we KNOW that no rocks were given at all that year. Second we KNOW that they were never given to private citizens. Third we KNOW that all rocks given out were labled as such and encased in lucite. At BEST it was given by a US ambassador to a former prime minister. But it is FAR more likely that Drees' (the former prime minister) estate ASSUMED it was a rock AFTER his death.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Commercial free?
Thank you for proving you've never actually looked at the footage.



Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
They were listening on radio to apollo 11 approaching the moon? or were they beaming or bouncing radio waves off the apollo 11 space craft? Either way it's not as compelling as the live telephone conversation between the honorable Richard nixon an Neil Armstrong on the surface of the moon.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ieGKIh3koAI
And what is a conversation where they obviously relayed the phone through a radio supposed to prove? That you have no idea what you're talking about? Congratulations, we already knew that.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Yet to land on the moon. Slow coaches!
They tried and had an active program trying until 1974, two years AFTER Apollo ended. But they couldn't get their heavy lifting booster, the N-1, to work. Can't get people to the Moon when your rocket keeps exploding on the launch pad. But thanks AGAIN for proving your lack of research.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I raise you a provably fake photoshopped "photo" from the surface of the moon.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dU9nEFeEPsc
Proof of JPEG compression and hoaxie ignorance, nothing more.

What a coincidence. Those Japonese satellite images, the ones I saw, weren't very convincing at all. they didn't show me anything discernable.



Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
But you didn't counter it. Pointing out supporting evidence for the moon landing does remove or not refute the claim made in the video, namely that the body language of Neil Armstrong indicated that he was lying.
Cherry-picked evidence is only proof of cherry-picking.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
And we already know he gave away fake moon rock
Except he didn't, see above.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
with his buddy knuckles Aldrin who punches a guy in the face for asking him to swear on the bible that he went to he moon.
Except that isn't what happened. But thanks AGAIN for proving your lack of research. Aldrin was got to the "interview" under false pretenses. Sibrel, a known and convicted stalker, LIED about who he was and when Aldrin tried to leave Sibrel blocked him and repeatedly shoved him.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Where are the moon bases? I was expecting moon bases by now. No return mission in how many years?
Who has wanted to pay for it since then? Congress is more concerned with what will get them reelected in 2 years or less, not something that will pay off 5-10 years later or more and get their successors reelected.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Yes, that sounds like a plausible explanation. But its not the only one.

Challenger mission disaster entire crew incinerated live on television. Good news. 6 of the 7 are still alive today!!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K5FFwOT2xwY
SIMILAR looking people and relatives is proof only of similar looking people and relatives. ALL of those people were provably running their own lives at the times those on the Challenger were running their own. But thanks for AGAIN proving the depths you'll go to for your lies.
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
frenat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 07:36 AM   #1380
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,320
35 pages. Fascinating.

People are even still engaging in conversation, must be a slow month.
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 09:18 AM   #1381
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,522
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
35 pages. Fascinating.

People are even still engaging in conversation, must be a slow month.
Yep some people like to engage in chewing on trolls. I understand they taste like mummies with an undertone of cinnamon and under-cooked bridge.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 11:56 AM   #1382
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,791
Trolls leave a scent similar to skunks. If we (me and the mouse in my pocket) could smell the thread, only one would remain to wallow in the filth of ignorance and the stink of flat earth lies.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 03:16 PM   #1383
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,477
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Trolls leave a scent similar to skunks. If we (me and the mouse in my pocket) could smell the thread, only one would remain to wallow in the filth of ignorance and the stink of flat earth lies.
The mouse tried to run away but got going too fast and fell over the edge.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2017, 08:50 PM   #1384
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Yep some people like to engage in chewing on trolls. I understand they taste like mummies with an undertone of cinnamon and under-cooked bridge.
I gave up gnawing on them after my doctor said to cut down. They are too rich in bacon extract.
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 12:33 AM   #1385
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
I'm convinced Flat Earthers are all trolls...no one can seriously think all space exploration is fake. Heck, most them believe that space itself is fake. Calmly and rationally debating them just gives their "movement" more credibility than it deserves. Ridicule is the only answer.
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 01:01 AM   #1386
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,187
Well, you can always challenge them to find the position of the sun, by triangulation.

Based on a flat Earth scenario, it is impossible.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 04:54 AM   #1387
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well, you can always challenge them to find the position of the sun, by triangulation.

Based on a flat Earth scenario, it is impossible.

Hans
Please explain. I'm interested even if thewholsoul(said quickly becomes more descriptive) isn't.
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 05:36 AM   #1388
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by Erock View Post
Please explain. I'm interested even if thewholsoul(said quickly becomes more descriptive) isn't.
The mythical flat Earth is a disc with the North pole in the center and the Sun rotating above it about 3,000 miles up. This doesn't work for many reasons of which the fact that the sun would never appear to set at the distance and height they claim it to be so they invent fanciful reasons like reflections off the dome and that the direction towards the Sun would never be right. It would always curve off to the NorthWest when setting no matter the time of year. Then there is this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfiNq-__OiQ
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
frenat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 07:39 AM   #1389
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,352
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
I'm convinced Flat Earthers are all trolls...no one can seriously think all space exploration is fake. Heck, most them believe that space itself is fake. Calmly and rationally debating them just gives their "movement" more credibility than it deserves. Ridicule is the only answer.
Many are religious fanatics, because of the Biblical word firmament (some Bibles at least).

ETA: I've encountered some funky anti-science types too. I think they are more of the Oppositional Defiance Disorder type.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)

Last edited by LSSBB; 18th June 2017 at 07:41 AM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 07:54 AM   #1390
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by frenat View Post
The mythical flat Earth is a disc with the North pole in the center and the Sun rotating above it about 3,000 miles up. This doesn't work for many reasons of which the fact that the sun would never appear to set at the distance and height they claim it to be so they invent fanciful reasons like reflections off the dome and that the direction towards the Sun would never be right. It would always curve off to the NorthWest when setting no matter the time of year. Then there is this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfiNq-__OiQ
I know all the other problems with the Sun already. So the triangulation problem is of course down to the direction from observer not matching the compass headings.

Giving any FE sucker believer a video to watch will never work. The wilful and obstinate ignorance is impossible to break through.
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 08:40 AM   #1391
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,214
My view of engaging with people like thewholesoul--troll or not--is twofold:
  • In the early stages of the debate, it gives a chance for the science to be explained instead of merely being presented as fait accompli. But after the first few pages the science has pretty much all been presented and the thread goes into chew toy mode.
  • I often learn new and interesting things from the side discussions generated by the main thread
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 08:55 AM   #1392
gmarshall
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
No feeling is an illusion. Feelings and sensations are real because they are really happening to us. And we experience them. We know they occur.

...snip

Me and you down here we don't observe any rotation. We don't feel any either. Experiments proving spin and no spin are conflicted. Again with instruments some detect no rotational motion , others allegedly do.

All he observations you refer to are derived from second
hand sources and they are inconsistent. Some show spin some show no spin.
I think I have devised an experiment that will open your eyes to the spinning globe beneath you. All you need to do is go into your back yard, away from any stationary objects and spin around for about 60 seconds. Once the 60 seconds are up, lay on the ground facing up and I’m confident you will sense the earth’s rotation without any difficulty.
gmarshall is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 09:46 AM   #1393
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,661
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
My view of engaging with people like thewholesoul--troll or not--is twofold:
  • In the early stages of the debate, it gives a chance for the science to be explained instead of merely being presented as fait accompli. But after the first few pages the science has pretty much all been presented and the thread goes into chew toy mode.
  • I often learn new and interesting things from the side discussions generated by the main thread
I've found this to be the case with typical Apollo "hoax" believers. But thewholesoul is too obvious a troll, and too lazy and hasty in regurgitating the Apollo stuff as a secondary Gish gallop, for me to be interested in.

But I did have fun thinking about how one would explain a geostationary satellite, which is launched with a (large) net eastward delta-V, winding up stationary with respect to a spot on the Equator with a non-rotating Earth.

I almost never bother with flat-Earthers. The Earth is observed to be round. That's it.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 09:46 AM   #1394
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,187
Originally Posted by Erock View Post
Please explain. I'm interested even if thewholsoul(said quickly becomes more descriptive) isn't.
(Triangulating the position of the sun).

What you do is take a stick of a given length (say, 1 meter), place it vertically on a piece of flat and level ground (a parking lot will do nicely), then measure the length and direction of the shadow.

At the same exact time have at least two other people do the same in spots at least a hundred miles distant from you and each other. *)

Now, with the flat surface of Earth as a basis, you can plot three lines, and where they cross, the sun must be. However, they don't cross in one spot. And the more sightings you take, the more crossings you will get.

Obviously, the sun cannot be in more than one place at the same time. So what is wrong. Well, even simple trigonometry is a bit involved, but now it gets really hairy: If you assume instead that the basis, Earth's surface, is spherical, then you can make all the lines come together in one point.

The distance to that point will prove to be quite far. So far that the lines become virtually parallel. The sun is so distant that the simple stick-and-shadow method is far too imprecise to give a useful result. However, with sufficiently sophisticated instruments you can determine it to be appr. 149,597,870,700 meters (92,955,807 miles). (Since Earth's orbit is slightly elliptical, the exact number varies).

Hans

*) If you don't wanna involve others, you can get the data from here: http://www.torbenhermansen.dk/almana...e/solhojde.php then you don't even have to go out in the sun.

NOTE: Before any certain person brings up some conspiracy theory, sailors have been using this method for navigating the seas for at least several centuries. It works, is true, and empirically tested.
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2017, 07:51 PM   #1395
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,195
In defense of p27, post 1143, part one, ontological breakdown

Hello all.

I have to say the criticism of the ontological argument was pretty weak, and that is putting it mildly. Not much to counter at all.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Part One: Ontological Break Down

Atmosphere is made of air and water
Air and water are fluids
All fluids are forms of matter
You were right up to this point, then you veered off into crazytown.
Why?

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Oh, and by the way:

All matter is condensed energy
All energy in motion is a force
All forces in motion have kinetic energy
All matter at rest has potential energy
Everything is Energy
Everything is Conscious Living Energy
All this is complete bollocks
Why?

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion Dave, even those expressed metaphorically. Now I am not saying everything there is the absolute truth, it's certainly open to revision. You need to say why it's complete *expletive*. So again you score an A for passion, but F for constructive criticism Dave.

Next

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Part One: Ontological Break Down

Air and water are fluids
All fluids are forms of matter
Yes.
if I remember correctly you used to say that air wasn't a fluid. I can respect a person when they can admit when they are wrong.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
All matter is condensed energy
No. That is not a correct way to describe the relationship.
there is always more than one way to describe a relationship. I believe everything is energy, and that physical matter is simply a form of energy vibrating at a lower frequency than mental and spiritual energy. But what way would you describe the relationship?


Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
All energy in motion is a force
All forces in motion have kinetic energy
No. This is not even wrong.
So you agree? Sorry I didn't understand your response.


Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
All matter at rest has potential energy
No. All matter may have potential energy, depending on certain conditions, but this does not include whether it is at rest or not.
You are wrong
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to correct poster's username
MRC_Hans of course it depends on whether it is at rest or not, though that is not the only reason.

Quote:
In physics, matter is considered to possess two kinds of energies: kinetic or potential energy. Kinetic energy is defined as the energy an object displays or possesses because of some kind of motion or action. Potential energy, on the other hand, is the energy an object possesses or displays by virtue of its state of rest.
Edited by Agatha:  The above quote does not appear in the post number that you originally referenced, and I am not prepared to search a long thread to find the source of it. Will you please ensure that you attribute quotes properly using the 8 digit post id, not the post number.


http://www.differencebetween.net/sci...ential-energy/

Quote:
Kinetic energy is energy possessed by a body by virtue of its movement. Potential energy is the energy possessed by a body by virtue of its position or state (of rest).
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Kin...tential_Energy

Quote:
Kinetic energy vs. Potential energy
Energy is the ability to do work. Objects can have stored, or potential, energy when work has been done (such as raising an object in the air) or by virtue of their position (such as sitting at the top of a hill). Potential energy changes to kinetic energy when the object moves. Examples include holding a stretched spring (potential energy) and then releasing it (kinetic energy) or holding a box above the ground (potential energy) and then dropping it (kinetic energy).
http://www.softschools.com/differenc...al_energy/124/

So can we reach an agreement? Is a glass of water being transported by another object in a state of potential energy, or in a state of kinetic energy? We know it's not flowing, but we also know it's being transported/moved. Maybe there is a distinction between relative motion and kinetic motion? I agree with you, that from the perspective outside the train the glass is moving with the train. From this perspective it us moving with kinetic energy. But do you agree with me, that from the perspective inside the train and the fact that the water is not flowing it is therefore true to say it is in a state of rest?

Why is this important? The earth is said to be spinning, this should cause the atmosphere to also spin with kinetic energy. A river flows with kinetic energy. The water in a swimming pool doesn't flow with kinetic energy even when it's being transported on a cruise liner. Our atmosphere should be spinning with kinetic energy there should be a constant unidirectional spin. But we experience no spin or rotational force? In other words we experience an atmosphere like a swimming pool but we should experience our atmosphere like a river/whirpool. Do you agree?


Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Everything is Energy
Everything is Conscious Living Energy
No. This is, at best, a religious statement of some sort, and thus irrelevant.
Can you name one single thing that exists that has no energy? If you can, then you have grounds to refute the claim that everything is energy.

The final claim is not a religious statement. You can believe that everything in existence is conscious living energy and not subscribe to any religion at the same time.

So there you have it. Not much to counter at all.

Peace and goodwill to each and all. Adios!

Edited by Agatha:  Extensively edited to correct links and poster names

Last edited by Agatha; 19th June 2017 at 08:29 AM.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 12:23 AM   #1396
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,822
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion Dave, even those expressed metaphorically.
As somebody once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own reality.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Can you name one single thing that exists that has no energy? If you can, then you have grounds to refute the claim that everything is energy.
Can you name one single person that exists that has no anal sphincter? If you can, then you have grounds to refute the claim that all people are anal sphincters.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 19th June 2017 at 12:24 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 01:51 AM   #1397
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,187
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hello all.

I have to say the criticism of the ontological argument was pretty weak, and that is putting it mildly. Not much to counter at all.
Well, the argument was pretty weak, and mostly off topic, so what did you expect?

Quote:
Quote:
Atmosphere is made of air and water
Air and water are fluids
All fluids are forms of matter
You were right up to this point, then you veered off into crazytown.
Why?
Well, obviously nobody except yourself can know why.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All matter is condensed energy
All energy in motion is a force
All forces in motion have kinetic energy
All matter at rest has potential energy
Everything is Energy
Everything is Conscious Living Energy
All this is complete bollocks
Why?
Because .. it is. "Matter is condensed energy" does not even begin to describe the relationship between matter and energy.

Quote:
All energy in motion is a force
All forces in motion have kinetic energy
Energy is not a force. It may exert a force but it IS not force.
Kinetic energy is just one of many forms of energy that matter can have. A force cannot have motion, in itself.

I'm sorry, but to discuss physics, we have to be strict about terminology, otherwise it makes no sense.

Quote:
All matter at rest has potential energy
No. It is obvious that you have completely misunderstood the term "potential energy". You need to read up on it.

Quote:
Everything is Energy
Everything is Conscious Living Energy
No. Matter is not energy. There is a relationship, but matter IS not energy.
Energy is neither living nor conscious.

Quote:
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion Dave, even those expressed metaphorically. Now I am not saying everything there is the absolute truth, it's certainly open to revision. You need to say why it's complete *expletive*.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The topic of this thread is Earth's rotation. Do try to not derail your own thread.

Quote:
if I remember correctly you used to say that air wasn't a fluid. I can respect a person when they can admit when they are wrong.
Irrelevant semantics. According to the dictionary on my shelf, "fluid" can be used about the motion of gasses, but "a fluid" refers to a liquid. However, this is not a thread about semantics, so I have simply refrained from using the term here.

Quote:
there is always more than one way to describe a relationship. I believe everything is energy, and that physical matter is simply a form of energy vibrating at a lower frequency than mental and spiritual energy. But what way would you describe the relationship?
Pseudo-scientific babble. Vibration, physical vibration, has nothing to do with it. Anyway, irrelevant for the topic at hand. At your current ability/willingness to understand things, I'm certainly not going into such discussion with you.

Stay on your own topic.

Quote:
Quote:
All energy in motion is a force
All forces in motion have kinetic energy
No. This is not even wrong.
So you agree? Sorry I didn't understand your response.
To be wrong, it has to make some sense. It doesn't. But we already covered it, above.

(on potential energy)

Quote:
You are wrong Hans of course it depends on whether it is at rest or not, though that is not the only reason.
No it does not depend on that. Objects at rest and objects in motion can have potential energy. But as I already said, you need to read up on the term, because you have not understood what it means.

Quote:
In physics, matter is considered to possess two kinds of energies: kinetic or potential energy. Kinetic energy is defined as the energy an object displays or possesses because of some kind of motion or action. Potential energy, on the other hand, is the energy an object possesses or displays by virtue of its state of rest.
Ah, that might be what misled you. The key term is "by virtue of".

Imagine you stand on a 100 ft building and fire a rifle bullet horizontally. As the bullet flies it has (at least*) ) two forms of energy:

1) Potential energy, in the form of positional energy: It is 100 ft from the ground and will start falling with gravity, converting this potential energy to kinetic energy in the form of downward velocity. This energy is by virtue of its rest state, 100 ft up. Its downward movement will be a normal free fall, independently of its horizontal movement.

2) Kinetic energy: by virtue of its motion (which will initially be close to 700 m/s) it will move horizontally till it has lost its kinetic energy due to air resistance, or hits something.

- Since it is also falling towards the Earth, it will follow a curving trajectory and eventually hit the ground.

*) It will also have rotational energy, which is kinetic, and heat energy, which is a third form of energy.

Quote:
So can we reach an agreement? Is a glass of water being transported by another object in a state of potential energy, or in a state of kinetic energy?
It is not a question of states. It is a question of posessing various forms of energy, and any object can possess an arbitrary number of energy forms.

The glass of water in a vehicle has kinetic energy with reference to the surrounding world (kinetic energy is relative, remember) because it is in motion. It has potential energy if it can fall down, and it has some heat energy.

Quote:
We know it's not flowing, but we also know it's being transported/moved.
Unless you just stirred the water, it is moving as a single object.

Quote:
Maybe there is a distinction between relative motion and kinetic motion?
No, but motion, and hence kinetic energy, is relative. The glass of water has kinetic energy relative to the surrounding world, but none relative to the vehicle.

Quote:
I agree with you, that from the perspective outside the train the glass is moving with the train. From this perspective it us moving with kinetic energy. But do you agree with me, that from the perspective inside the train and the fact that the water is not flowing it is therefore true to say it is in a state of rest?
Relative to the train it is at rest, yes.

Quote:
Why is this important? The earth is said to be spinning, this should cause the atmosphere to also spin with kinetic energy. A river flows with kinetic energy. The water in a swimming pool doesn't flow with kinetic energy even when it's being transported on a cruise liner. Our atmosphere should be spinning with kinetic energy there should be a constant unidirectional spin.
The atmosphere is at rest (disregarding weather) with reference to Earth's surface. With reference to some frame outside Earth (e.g. satellite or moon) it is moving and has kinetic energy.

Quote:
But we experience no spin or rotational force? In other words we experience an atmosphere like a swimming pool but we should experience our atmosphere like a river/whirpool. Do you agree?
No. With reference to us and everything else in Earth's inertial reference frame, there is not force from the spin (there is Coriolis force, cut that is another matter). We are all either at rest of moving within that frame.

Quote:
Can you name one single thing that exists that has no energy? If you can, then you have grounds to refute the claim that everything is energy.
Do you have a dollar? Does you mean that you ARE money? Of course not.
It is possible to imagine matter that posesses no energy, but in practice, I doubt you will find any, anywhere in the universe. That does not mean that it is, energy, however, just that it posesses energy.

Quote:
The final claim is not a religious statement. You can believe that everything in existence is conscious living energy and not subscribe to any religion at the same time.
Whatever it is, it has no place in a scientific discussion.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 07:20 AM   #1398
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,761
What I'd like to see is some actual physics being done in the framework that thewholesoul is promoting. He clearly disagrees with newtonian physics, let alone relativity, yet the predictions of modern physics are incredibly well tested. Can he even give a mathematical framework from which to understand a simple physical situation?

I doubt it.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 07:46 AM   #1399
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,575
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
... It doesn't make sense...
Yes it does.


Impasse.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 07:56 AM   #1400
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,560
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
there is always more than one way to describe a relationship. I believe everything is energy, and that physical matter is simply a form of energy vibrating at a lower frequency than mental and spiritual energy. But what way would you describe the relationship?
Energy is not a physical thing that can vibrate. Energy is a property of other things. It does not exist on its own.

And "mental and spiritual energy?" Seriously?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

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 Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.