THE DERAILING ROOM

[albatrosv14]

Okay got it - positive results only.

[CluedIn]

Doesn't it seem odd that these people are all dressed in perfectly clean white and yellow suits? where is the sense of urgency?

I'd say these photos speak for themselves.

I don't have any intention of "picking fights", just thought that this could be a worthy contribution to this section.

Doesn't the similarity alarm you at all?

CHEERS! the last thing I want is to piss people off in the forum.

Take the photos, or leave them. I've said my piece!

theyBOUGHTit - I am trying really hard to believe you are here as an "ordinary person", when you make so many contradictory statements. You claim you are not here to piss anyone off, but then start making passive/aggressive statements like the one above. I also don't appreciate your comment: "SO-- unless you are suggesting that flight 93 actually happened according to the official story..." by me simply stating I don't see the similarities since 93 had no plane.

You claim you understand how some people interpret using all caps as yelling, so you say you will refrain. But then you make a ridiculous statement like the Oops comment - why include that if not to agitate?

"#1 where are the engines from flight 2933? are we to believe that the crash was so forceful that the engines flew off, but there were survivors? The wing is also UPSIDE DOWN (OOPS! sorry for yelling!), and yet somehow placed as if it had just snapped off the plane. "

And finally, I don't like how you come on this board as a new member and start dictating how WE should behave, ESPECIALLY after your cavalier entrance on this board!

"One thing I would ask of people is to try to keep conversations civilized, as though the person you are talking with were sitting in the room.people seem to say a lot of things on the internet in comments that they would clearly not say if their subject were sitting in the room with them. Don't take things so personally, please! this is supposed to be a FORUM where we can express ourselves in a civilized manner without all the mud slinging. I just want to go out of my way to express my respect for EVERYONE who submits articles here, and hope that this can be maintained NO MATTER WHAT people have to say. We all deserve respect.

[theyBOUGHTit!]

Never meant to get off on the wrong foot with anyone. I'm just bored surfing the internet, and wanted to chat. Never meant to get into conflicts. Perhaps it's best that I just read the forum from now on? Also, I honestly didn't mean any disrespect in the ways you may have perceived, and I apologize for that. I can't say for sure that everything I say is always 100% accurate, and probably almost nobody can. I just wanted some stimulation, not conflict.

[hoi.polloi]

Dear theyBOUGHTit!

I am not sure you are suited to the forum, even though you are an enthusiastic proponent of media fakery.

The concern I have is that you are not a dry, understated or calm enough read for the average person.

The enthusiasm is very lively and wonderful in every day practice, or even less moderated discussion forums, but you seem like a bit of the proverbial bull in the china shop here. Rather than reasonable posts on topic it seems you like to careen around to whatever occurs to you.

You could be a very intelligent and fun person to be around, that's for sure. I might love to meet you if you're legitimately that personality type. But your enthusiasm is translated poorly on a forum that prizes reason and discourse. Thanks for your understanding. Nothing personal.

[patrix]

D'OH!! We know, we know! It hurts your pride a bit, but until you FINALLY take THIS red pill, you really are not doing this forum much good.

Hi there.

I find this attitude a bit odd. No one here can "FINALLY" say if satellites or manned space travel for that matter are real/fake because we are controlled by people that lie to us. But we can look at the imagery and conclude it is fake. So what does that tell us? It tells us that the images are fake. Nothing more, nothing less. I does *not* tell us whether there are people in space. But if there are, they are not showing us any imagery of that.

That is as far as we get with image analysis. To get further we need to look at other things. Reentry is something I find improbable. I think anything that reenters meets the same fate as a meteor. You burn and then you crash. And *that* *combined* with the obviously faked ISS footage is why I conclude that manned space travel is *most likely* a hoax.

Satellites on the other hand we can observe. There is the Moon which is a natural satellite, and if you look at the Moon at night with a telescope you will see dots moving in front of it, which probably are satellites. I at least cannot find any better explanation. And then there is GPS and satellite TV which I wrote about before.

It is up to the story teller to provide the evidence of his story.
We, on the other hand, have evidence that the people we are dealing with have a history of telling untruthful stories.

HonestlyNow, Who are "we"? Are you suggesting I'm against you/this forum for wanting to discuss whether satellites exist? How unbiased and scientific...</irony>

Yes there is evidence showing that Sputnik and other imagery is manipulated/faked but again that does *not* say that satellites is a hoax. So if you're the story teller, I don't think you have the evidence.

[hoi.polloi]

There is the Moon which is a natural satellite, and if you look at the Moon at night with a telescope you will see dots moving in front of it, which probably are satellites. I at least cannot find any better explanation. And then there is GPS and satellite TV which I wrote about before.

Yes. There are established observable natural celestial objects moving in predictable patterns ostensibly through the viewfinders of simple telescopes, and the tracking data that can be viewed in simple table format on observation web sites.

"And then" there are the GPS and satellite TV subjects you merely mentioned without offering any proof of their connection to such objects.

You are conflating natural satellites with the claims of lying humans speaking of manmade satellites. Again. This is a big flaw in your reasoning, and it's a deceptive way to teach people to talk about the subject.

Now, have you anything further to offer on this topic, or will you continue to try to muddy everyone's thinking?

[patrix]

You are conflating natural satellites with manmade satellites. This is a big flaw in your reasoning, and it's a deceptive way to teach people to talk about the subject.

I'm speechless. Why would comparing natural satellites with manmade satellites "a deceptive way to teach people to talk about the subject"? That's absurd.

[Flabbergasted]

I'm just bored surfing the internet, and wanted to chat [...]I just wanted some stimulation ...

Remember your posts are read by hundreds, maybe thousands, of people coming to CF in search of sober, independent insights on how the State within the State controls world events and shapes our beliefs about human nature, history and purpose. There aren´t many oases on the net where you can get away from trivial blabber, kooky theories, gatekeeping, mainstream parroting and destructive quarrels. That´s why posting on CF is a responsibility, not a relief for boredness, and so much zeal is put into preserving hygiene and quality.

[HonestlyNow]

We, on the other hand, have evidence that the people we are dealing with have a history of telling untruthful stories.

Who are "we"? Are you suggesting I'm against you/this forum for wanting to discuss whether satellites exist? How unbiased and scientific...

"We," in this context, means "those of us who can see through the fake stories and images of the mainstream news media."

Yes there is evidence showing that Sputnik and other imagery is manipulated/faked but again that does *not* say that satellites is a hoax. So if you're the story teller, I don't think you have the evidence.

An entity puts out a story. The story is purported to be about reality. This entity provides images to back up its story. The audience listens to the story. The audience peruses the images. The audience determines that the images lack coherence with reality.

Now class, here's a question: Does the audience now become a story teller by disputing the entity's story?

[hoi.polloi]

You are conflating natural satellites with manmade satellites. This is a big flaw in your reasoning, and it's a deceptive way to teach people to talk about the subject.

I'm speechless. Why would comparing natural satellites with manmade satellites "a deceptive way to teach people to talk about the subject"? That's absurd.

You're not "comparing". You are, it seems deliberately, creating an association and confusion between the two as if natural and artificial satellites have equal logic.

Only the former has been shown to be proven. The latter is speculative until proven otherwise, which you don't seem to want to do. I see that you haven't anything further to offer us on this subject besides trying to wedge something into the semantics of the discussion? I am moving your strange protests to the derailing room until we get something of substance from you on the subject. Thanks.

[patrix]

You're not "comparing". You are, it seems deliberately, creating an association and confusion between the two as if natural and artificial satellites have equal logic.

Um, it's called inductive reasoning. You observe something, for example that the Moon and Sun are discs, and then argue that it's resonable to assume that the celestial body we're standing on would look the same from afar. If natural sattelites work (as I assume the moon is) it's resonable to assume artificial ones also would work.

[hoi.polloi]

Well, that's much more clear, at least. But you still could be wrong and you haven't really offered proof otherwise.

By assuming the moon is in place because of principles you can understand (and that is something that is still hotly debated) you are basically saying you trust you understand principles you cannot actually explain.

After all, you're still talking in terms of pure speculation and simply adopting what others have said holds true. Saying "it would work" to create an artificial moon or artificial rock is just speculation.

To say "manmade satellites are real because they would work theoretically" doesn't really offer anyone much. You can say something will theoretically do something and it's just talk until you have demonstrable proof.

At this point, you're not being much better than the people who once said all that is known on Earth extends infinitely into outer space. Not very reasonable.

In any case, if rocketry fails, how is one supposed to "launch" these contraptions? And how can they survive the supposed harshness they claim is up there? None of it adds up very well. Why would you trust NASA, the people that brought us the phony moon landings, fake launch videos, etc.? They lie, cheat and gamble with public trust on a regular basis. I think your single argument is on very shaky ground.

[patrix]

Why would you trust NASA

I don't. And because of that, I want to find the extent of their lie. I don't think manned space travel work because re-entry is impossible. But sattelites I find harder to dismiss. And my arguments are:
* Things I can confirm work myself like GPS and Sattelite TV I find hard to explain without the existence of sattelites.
* The Moon is in orbit, so it seems objects can be in a stable perpetual orbit around earth.
* Anders Björkman, a countrymen of mine but who I have not met claims manned space travel is not possible but that Sattelites and rockets in vacuum works http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#D

[hoi.polloi]

Alright.

This is getting very circular again.

Is there a reason you continue to spell misspell the word "satellite" though it's repeatedly typed right in front of you?

Things I can confirm work myself like GPS and Sattelite TV I find hard to explain without the existence of sattelites.

You find it "hard to explain" but many people do not seem to find it so hard.

I am going to move this discussion to derailing room.

[hoi.polloi]

It seems we have a lot of former military or people with military training that cannot seem to dislodge themselves from an investment in a dubious story. I can't help but wonder if there isn't a connection. Some people are more effected by such programs than others, I'd imagine.