theyBOUGHTit! » December 26th, 2016, 11:06 am wrote: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!
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.
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.
patrix wrote: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.
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.
theyBOUGHTit! wrote:I'm just bored surfing the internet, and wanted to chat [...]I just wanted some stimulation ...
HonestlyNow wrote:We, on the other hand, have evidence that the people we are dealing with have a history of telling untruthful stories.
patrix wrote:Who are "we"? Are you suggesting I'm against you/this forum for wanting to discuss whether satellites exist? How unbiased and scientific...
patrix » December 26th, 2016, 6:43 pm wrote: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.
patrix » December 27th, 2016, 12:06 am wrote: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.
Why would you trust NASA
Things I can confirm work myself like GPS and Sattelite TV I find hard to explain without the existence of sattelites.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests