THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

Mitch Matrixx wrote:Simon,

I agree with your statements, and do not wish to create an environment of friction or disagreement.
You just came here to tell us we're ignorant, ludicrous and insane but you don't want to create any friction. I see.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by fbenario »

Mitch Matrixx wrote:where I discover what the truth is for me
...
Which data is credible is another issue and left to individual discovery.
Either truth is objectively knowable, based on evidentiary analysis, or it's not. What is never permissible is for each person to decide for himself what truth is, since that leads ineluctably to relativism, hijacking the analysis away from objective reality into philosophy.

The relevance and credibility of evidence is also not appropriately left to subjective, individual analysis.

Every bit of evidence discussed in the 27,000 posts on this forum is set forth for critique and contrasting analyses.

If our methodology doesn't appeal to you, why are you wasting your time here?

EDIT: In any case, your post is defensive, which is never welcome here, and renders you almost immediately untrustworthy. Don't do it again.

If you find the atmosphere here unsupportive, why haven't you already moved on?
Last edited by fbenario on Wed May 09, 2012 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

Mitch Matrixx wrote: If standing up for my opinions and judging for myself if where the evidence is the strongest and to what degree I should take that evidence seriously is arrogant, then call me egotistical.
No. Calling our posts ludicrous and our members insane is arrogant. Not to mention your apparent ignorance of your own odious behavior and lack of common courtesy.
I have no specific need or desire to be taken seriously ...
Fortunate for you.
There is a major difference between speculation, and experience with something.
And there is a difference between "documentation" and real evidence.
I base my thinking on educated and repeatable scenarios...
Meaning ... what? You do Shakespeare in the Park?
... but off of real life situations that I have been a part of.
OK. Tell us about the "real life situations" as regards satellites that you have been a part of.
So, if my experience and my interaction with 'alleged' satellite devices and such is to be believed as real, then I have every reason to believe credible documentation that backs my experience up.
Yes, tell us about your interaction too if you can manage doing so without insulting the forum and its members.
Balls in your court chief. I'll be in the the Chatbox if you wish to continue your ad-hom.
Speaking of ad hom it was you who began that game with your arrogant insults as outlined above. Now you are accusing another of the misconduct you yourself initiated. You really should pay more attention to your own behavior as it appears to others.
Last edited by lux on Wed May 09, 2012 2:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

corncob2 wrote:The moon landing? The space program? I didn't come here to analyze some goofy old NASA footage.

I came here to state that while people here smugly deny the existence of space borne platforms and sensors, terabytes of information about the earths surface is being recorded by this technology. Airplanes! Wow! :puke:

Here's a great exercise. Go to mapmart.com. You can use their tools to define any fucking point on the earths surface and then scroll through visual data spanning back a number of years from a number of different sensors. When one of the sensors has a bad pixel or other technical malfunction, surprise surprise, years of imagery all over the planet will be negatively effected by the malfuction. If you really think the absolute ridiculous wealth of data collected by quickbird, worldview etc. etc. are not the result of space-based systems, great, YOU are the one making outrageous claims with no evidence.
I think where you're going wrong is that you assume that the mere existence of an abundance of data proves that the data is true. However there is no logical reason to assume that. The existence of data only proves that the data exists, not that it is true or that its source is as claimed.

We all know there are mountains of data that disagree with our findings, opinions and musings. We simply believe that much of it is false and do our best to sort out the truth from the lies. We try to decide things based on the quality of data rather than the quantity.
CTGal1011
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by CTGal1011 »

So now I am caught in between that familiar "what to believe and what not to believe" circular reference. Sucks.

Are there any sites/documentation that in "general" could be taken as even somewhat legitimate on how this stuff works?

Specifically how my damn GPS keeps getting me where I want to go. Because everything I read involves satellites "now" as opposed to LORAN, which we could actually see and verify as existing, as the system is used in multiple countries, with multiple receivers, stations etc. Maybe I am not looking hard enough? Is there alternative hypotheses or explanations? I want to learn more. Until then, my GPS will remain, as I have affectionately named her "Bitch in the box", and her and I will continue to argue on how to get from A to B.

But I do want to state there are a ton of really smart and educated people on this forum. Can learn a lot.
Last edited by CTGal1011 on Wed May 09, 2012 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

corncob2 wrote: Wrong. I am not pointing to 'the data' as if it is an abstract monolith from which truth emanates. "The data" are an internally consistent body of information based on an active scientific field of inquiry that is ALSO consistent with other fields of legitimate inquiry.
Internally consistent? So are the beliefs of most major religions. That doesn't mean they're true. "Internally consistent" data can simply mean the lies match. Adolph Hitlers philosophy of life was "internally consistent."
I wont spoon feed you any more than that.
I think you know where you can put your spoon and the rest of your insults.
The whole coffee break statement was based on this: I was not allowed to take geographic location 'measurements' (which would be used to define the location of extremely expensive industrial equipment) when satellite coverage was poor. These decisions were made based on the PREDICTABLE, PERIODIC and ORBITAL nature of GPS satellites.
You're just accepting the data you're given and its claimed origins. You really have no way to directly verify either. Why is that so hard for you to admit?
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

corncob2 wrote:
lux wrote: Internally consistent? So are the beliefs of most major religions. That doesn't mean they're true. "Internally consistent" data can simply mean the lies match. Adolph Hitlers philosophy of life was "internally consistent."
How irrelevant. You missed the important part of my statement where I alluded to the fact that this technology is consistent with everything else that we know about technology, science and the universe.
No, I didn't miss that point. The thing is that what you call "everything else that we know about technology, science and the universe" likely contains a great deal of falsity, something I'm sure you are not prepared to believe and probably makes you more than a little nervous to seriously consider.
This may be inconsistent with some fringe concept that you hold to be gospel, but that doesn't make your doubts any more realistic.


Yes, it's true -- I hold "fringe concepts." :lol:

Concepts like: something has to make sense for me to accept it, don't automatically accept whatever anyone says as being true, investigate what seems suspicious, known liars like NASA and the mass media shouldn't be trusted, and beliefs such as that.
Fortunately, I'm guessing we live within a reality where your beliefs and assessments don't hold very much weight to influence others. ;)
The truth holds the ultimate weight to influence others. It just takes some time to get through the lies, fears and dense matter that surrounds many people's universes.

BTW, I never said there were no satellites though you probably assumed that was my belief. I believe there are. I just don't believe everything I'm told about them and that some are likely non-existent or quite different than represented.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

corncob2 wrote:In that case my "ire" was not aimed squarely at you. Believe me, I wouldn't be at this forum if I trusted "the government" and the official story for 9/11 etc.

I was responding to claims that satellites are wholly false or impossible.
If that's the case and you might try clarifying a person's position before arguing against non-existent ideas.

It saves time for all of us.
MattMarriott
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:48 pm

NORWAY massacre HOAX: EVERYBODY can prove that 75 out of 77

Unread post by MattMarriott »

NORWAY massacre HOAX: EVERYBODY can prove that 75 out of 77 "victims" never existed

Illuminati photoshop 75 pictures, where the "victims" from small towns are conveniently specified only a few months after the theater was staged and in foreign media ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... tures.html
... but as always, the bigger the LIE the easier it is to expose.

There were only TWO burials: the undesirable stepbrother of princess Mette Merrit and the Iraqi girl (2).

So 75 out of these 77 do not exist. (3)
Eventually 1 or 2 out of these 75 are indeed real people and were given other identities, but the most probable is that the illuminati did not even bother with such details.

To confirm this, all you have to do is to apply the Laws of End Time Reductionism (1). In this case:
1. take the first names of the list:
Torjus Jakobsen Blattmann, 17 from Kristiansand
Anne Lise Holter, 51, from Vaale
Aleksander Aas Eriksen, 16, from Meraaker
Aasta Sofie Helland Dahl, 16, from Sortland
Anders Kristiansen, 18, from Bardu
Hanne Ekroll Loevile, 30, from Oslo
Fredrik Lund Schjetne, 18, from Eldsvoll
Tina Iversen Sukuvara, 18, from Vadsoe
Carina Borgund, 18, from Oslo
Elisabeth Tronnes Lie, 16, from Halden
Mona Abdinur, 18, from Oslo


2. take the smallest villages referred in the previous list:
Vaale 2,408
Meraaker 1,861
Bardu 757

3. Go to these villages, show the photo and ask if that "person" is known.

4. After the previous step, you will not no longer have to check if that "person" was indeed buried in her/his small town, Norway.

Notes
(1) Laws of End Times - End Times Reductionism
nothing escapes them, including the illuminati scripts.
From 911 "planes" to Oslo "victims" to megamillions and euromillions jackpot "winners"
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=ps ... ductionism
http://end-times-reductionism.blogspot.com/

(2) The first funeral ... was also the last
http://www.google.com/search?q=NORWAY+m ... .osb&cad=b

(3) See the real story here, published only hours after it was staged, as expected from the Laws of End Times Reductionism
http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspirac ... of-it.html
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-NORWAY- ... part-of-it

Now you know why the "coverage" of the "trial" shows about a dozen members of the "families" of the "victims" smiling at each other behind a transparent wall, while the audio goes "a court packed with relatives"
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

corncob2 wrote:lux - I came in here to dispute some of the ridiculous bullshit flying around that brings into doubt the existence of real technology that humanity uses every day. You responded with arguments to my statements along with others and I, in turn, replied.

Can anything truly be known? Is science rife with falsehoods and conspiracy? Is space really black or is it maybe green? I don't know, but if you intend to find the answer I suggest you get an education and investigate on your own. Look into the evidence and ask WHY things are believed to be true. If you ever have a question at this endeavor you can look to the hard-fought work of others to perhaps find your answer. If you have a question whose answer is not forthcoming in the literature, great, you can expand humanities understanding of the universe by using the scientific method to investigate the question.

Gaining sycophant badges from your paranoid contemporaries here will not, and can not, help anybody.

Now, kindly step aside, I'd like to hear from some of the posters who dispute the existence of artificial satellites.
This post deserves 3 LOLs --> :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't let me stand in the way of your noble mission to right the wrongs of this fringe conspiracy theory forum and show us all how our puny intellects pale in comparison to your vastly superior education.

Godspeed, corncob. :lol:
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

^ A word of advice:

Before proceeding with your arguments you might first isolate the member(s) who actually hold the opinions you wish to argue against and then direct your opinions in their direction. As I've said, I have not stated nor do I believe that "there are no satellites" and I think that Simon (the founder of this forum) has expressed a similar view. In fact, I am not aware of anyone who has stated the idea that "there are no satellites" on this thread but there might be one or a few who did (I haven't read all the posts on this thread).

Perhaps with your self-described superior education you may find it best to argue with me anyway even though I don't hold the opinion that you wish to squash or perhaps you'll choose the dog or a nearby lamp post or anyone who happens to pass nearby. That is your choice of course and far be it from me to question your education but forgive me if I don't participate in your pissing contests.

But, I'm not sure that your using derogatory terms like "moron" to describe members of this forum will do much to encourage cooperation from the others here.
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Farcevalue »

Well, that's a shame, Lux. I guess we can't all expect to come out on top when rasslin' with them dang fancy idears.... ;)
Image
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Farcevalue »

Perhaps zee bot has zee threads crossed, no?

Image
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by lux »

corncob2 wrote:What a stream of shit! mindless fools might "wonder the world" and whatever else you were talking about but I assure you that your acronym-laden diarrhea smells just as bad if not worse than what your children and ex wife have been complaining about.
:wacko:
Terence.drew
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Terence.drew »

Corncob and Mitch..

Is it unreasonable to ask a simple, earth based and observable question?

Meteor showers. Explain please, how anything orbiting the Earth can pass through this Earth based observable phenomenon and not be adversely affected by it?
Lets hear you.

This is my only question.

If you do not answer this directly I will eat you for breakfast.
Post Reply