THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby patrix on Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:06 am

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.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:11 am

theyBOUGHTit! wrote: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.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Tue Dec 27, 2016 1:20 am

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...

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

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.

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?
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Dec 27, 2016 1:36 am

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.

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.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby patrix on Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:41 pm

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.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:10 am

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.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby patrix on Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:02 am

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
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed Dec 28, 2016 3:54 pm

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
Administrator
 
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed Dec 28, 2016 4:31 pm

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.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread postby smj on Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:24 pm

“It was only the beeping reality of Sputnik that suddenly made the threat of intercontinental atomic warfare with ballistic rockets more than a science fiction story.”
-william pickering
http://www.nzedge.com/legends/william-pickering/
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1070&start=795#p2402484

satellites have got to be the hoaxiest shit ever, except for the nuke hustle of course. both hustles were built on the orbital hustle of course. neils bohr brought the quantum mechanics hustle to rutherford's cavendish atom with his discrete orbital bullpsience and kepler and newton gave us the celestial mechanics hustle using orbitals. it's just a coincidence of course that the platonic ideal of the atom is bohr's quantum mechanical nonsense; it's also a coincidence of course that the platonic ideal of the modern soccer ball is the telstar satellite. butwhatever, the propergander site has some good work on the subject...

http://www.aamorris.net/properganderatp ... satellites
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/bohr_atom.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_orbit
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-conte ... Alamos.jpg

...loran and sonochemistry (the real chain reaction) were dreamed up by alfred loomis in his castle in tuxedo park. i'll be explicit this time for patrix, loomis invented the shit that kept you from getting lost on the ocean and the bullshit hustle that goes down at nuclear power plants. alfred loomis was henry stimson's first cousin and protégé. i repeat, alfred loomis was henry stimson's first cousin, please google monster henry stimson and the manhattan project fellow skeptics. and please google sonochemistry and the chain reaction fellow skeptics; then google cherenkov radiation and sonoluminescence, the hustle will become apparent. you'll realize how the reactors make steam and produce that pretty blue light. then look into the loomis family; i suggest starting with mahlon loomis, the first wireless telegrapher, and his f'ing kites.

https://www.smecc.org/mhlon_loomis.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahlon_Loomis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loomis_Gang

loomis' loran has been around since the early forties. lorana was accurate to the tens of miles while the modern loranc is accurate to about 10 meters we're told. perhaps it's even more accurate now and it's called gps or maybe the psichotic hustlers at nasa, darpa, rand, and a famous psience fiction writer invented "world traveling spaceships"...

https://www.rand.org/pubs/special_memor ... 11827.html

...if you're of the philosophical bent, bust out your occam razor fellow skeptics if need be; but please sharpen it first. we're also told gps confirmed einstein's relativity and lorentz'/minkowski's/poincare's transformative time dilation and mass contraction bullshit like a good narrative device should. butwhatever, that was psience and whatnot...

"In 1956, the German-American physicist Friedwardt Winterberg proposed a test of general relativity — detecting time slowing in a strong gravitational field using accurate atomic clocks placed in orbit inside artificial satellites.
Special and general relativity predict that the clocks on the GPS satellites would be seen by the Earth's observers to run 38 microseconds faster per day than the clocks on the Earth. The GPS calculated positions would quickly drift into error, accumulating to 10 kilometers per day. The relativistic time effect of the GPS clocksrunning faster than the clocks on earth was corrected for in the design of GPS."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_ ... ing_System

...38 microseconds sounds about right; but i'm no psientist. and as for television signals let's recall that the spanish-american war was about laying submarine cable across the pacific; and cyrus west field had laid the first transatlantic cable all dafeckin' way back in 1858. but jfk, the son of a movie mogul, couldn't talk televised live to europe until 19fuckin'62 cause of clarke et al's spaceships. actually now that i think about it a dull occam razor ought a suffice to slice thru the spaceship bullpsience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_West_Field
https://www.cnet.com/news/when-telstar-met-jfk/

...and it's pure coincidence of course that ken feckin' feinberg is the long-time chairman of the board for the kennedy (jfk gave a speech that said we was going to the moon if i recall correctly) library and that his big sis', kick, married into the cavendish clan or that kennedy has the busiest performing arts (acting) center in the world named after him in the heart of d.c. that just so happened to be designed by the stanford research institute. the video of kennedy giving his famous speech to europe thru the telstar spaceship was shown to gullible apes across the world by pathé, another programming tool that was once owned by his dear old dad of course...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRI_International
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F. ... rming_Arts
https://www.jfklibrary.org/About-Us/JFK ... nberg.aspx
http://www.usvsst.com

...the fuckin' rooskies launched sputnik during the international geophysical year. the igy was dreamed up in dc at james van allen's house. he was the geiger(hans geiger teamed up with rutherford to make his famous counter) counter expert that worked with the disney actor, von braun, and the head of jack parson's lab, bill pickering, on 'murica's brave response to sputnick. the van allen belt is the reason many so called space psience experts say we haven't returned to the moon in half a century; how convenient for the narrative, no? their little beeping hustle response to the dastardly nuke wielding commies was called explorer one...


http://explorer.lib.uiowa.edu/mobile.html
http://people.uncw.edu/emslies/document ... hofIGY.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Geiger

...some heroic fucks in the army documented the explorer one launch for posterity and it's hilarious. enjoy...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjcQASp8Kg

...but anyways you seem like a pleasant enough chap so bienvenue dans notre réalité, patrix.
smj
Member
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:29 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby patrix on Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:21 am

Honestly - To me you sound like people at work saying it's perfectly natural that a building cave into it's own footprint by office and jet fuel fires. To perform an experiment at home with some steel wire and gasoline would be utterly pointless. And likewise it's impossible to design some kind of experiment here on earth that could refute that rockets cannot work in the vacuum of space. What happens if NASA does a 180 and admits they've been lying all the time and that rockets actually don't work in space? Does that mean they have to work since the opposite of what they claim seems to be the only true source of truth?
And just to be clear so I don't get accused of slipping in any disinfo - I agree that most likely all imagery from 911 is fake.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby pov603 on Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:50 am

:wacko:
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Engineering 'disease'

Unread postby patrix on Fri Dec 30, 2016 7:23 pm

FYI - maybe read thru a thread a little before replying to the last post.


I have, but did honestly not find much of interest which is not surprising at a forum where someone gets criticized and censored for using verifiable observations and high school physics to question some of the hypothesizes postulated.

[Flagged for unjustified complaints. See patrix's "verifiable observations" and "high school physics" in preceding posts. -HP]

I am however very grateful of and impressed by Simon, hoi.polloi and other forum members knowledge and work in image analysis and ability to apply that to understand the inner workings of the conspiracy we are confronted with.

And I agree that most diseases, especially the so called western ones (eg. obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia) are engineered, but I think the main culprit is the diet, and that the social engineering to accomplish this goes all the way back to the sixties when the free mason Walt Disney made animals our soulmates through his movies so that we would oppose eating them.

At the same time Rockefeller promoted Ancel Keys and his junk science that argued animal fat is unhealthy. The so called diet-heart hypothesis.

Animal fat is the most essential nutrient to humans. The liver needs it to produce cholesterol which is the raw material needed to repair cells, create hormones and keep the immune system working.

Less animal fat also means more carbohydrates which the body can only tolerate so much of before the hormone system gets disrupted and results in hyperinsulin/diabetes and obesity.

The best hypothesis regarding cancer in my view is that it's not really a disease but a natural mechanism the body uses when it's being poisoned. We actually all get cancer every day. Some cells transform and grow to a sponge like substance that absorbs and isolates the toxic substances from the rest of the body. When less poison is being added and/or the liver, kidneys and lymphatic system (that all detoxifies the body) resumes normal function the "tumour" naturally recesses.

I think this is confirmed by Thomas Seyfrieds work, but he doesn't dare to spell it out. The Nutwork keeps doctors and researches in a tight leach, and add some psyops involving murdered alternative doctors on top of it.

So what causes the poisoning that has given us the alarming numbers of cancer? The culprit is the diet and health advice the Nutwork promotes through their propaganda, psyops and social engineering. It is designed to weaken the immune system, clog up our lymphatic system and promote microbe growth that produces toxins. We are also conditioned to eat frequently and sleep less which makes it harder for the body to detox.

Vegetable oils or "unsaturated fat" as it is also called, should be avoided. It clogs up our lymphatic system and promotes insulin resistance.

Grain, starch and sugar should be consumed moderately since it promotes microbe growth that in turn results in toxic buildup and cancer.

Soy products, sunscreen oil, fluoride, artificial sweeteners and most additives and pesticide residues should be avoided since its highly toxic.

And the icing of the cake is of course the chemotherapy. When a patient goes into chemo the doctor often gives an estimate on how much time the patient has left. The ability to do so is because the toxins added by the chemotherapy usually pushes the cancer over the hilltop and kills the patient within the estimation.

My favorite vegetarian Hollywood psyop is the key scene in Silence of the lambs where Jodi Foster as Agent Starling gets traumatized for life by growing up on a farm and witnessing a lamb slaughter...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeKqD2g9-ic
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering 'disease'

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:34 am

patrix wrote:I have, but did honestly not find much of interest which is not surprising at a forum where someone gets criticized and censored for using verifiable observations and high school physics to question some of the hypothesizes postulated.


This is the kind of comment we get for putting up with your malarkey and your refusal to follow forum rules like reading the thread you're commenting in? Fuck that.

Patrix, you are rightly criticized for acting like you cannot understand when people don't accept your most ignorant assumptions without question. In what way have your most blase, stupidest and most petulant posts been censored? I moved them to the Derailing Room for everyone to see how you poorly reason, where they are archived as a testament to exactly the kinds of tiresome and lazy arguments that prevent reason from prevailing in our culture. Furthermore, we don't have time to deal with you if you're going to take every opportunity to complain about the very platform you are using for your opinions.

It's also true that I have seen animal fats, or other fats, be absolutely critical in helping people with poor diets recover to full and balanced health. I am skeptical that the "frugivore" method works for all. But that's not an excuse for you to tear into CluesForum's moderation.

As for censorship, it's called moderation. And for being a troll in threads that call for the highest civil discourse, you can leave now and simply start a blog all about your high school physics opinions and egotistical manner. Farewell.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Manchester Arena bombing 22/05/2017

Unread postby Robbow93 on Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:06 pm


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiiAW5ItPhI

The "Truth" is out! This girl says it definitely not fake :P :P
Robbow93
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests