Climate Change

This is a discussion on Climate Change within the The Foyer forums, part of the Off the Grid category; Originally Posted by tomorton Exactly. The evangelical movement isn't known or understood over there, maybe not in Europe either. It ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 18, 2017, 5:28pm   #31
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomorton View Post
Exactly. The evangelical movement isn't known or understood over there, maybe not in Europe either. It only clicked for me when I saw that the flat-earthers are committed Christians, not just potty elderly eccentrics.
What do they say about those pictures of Earth from Space?


I suppose there must be lots of demand for moving movies like this one.

__________________
Know your L I M I T A T I O N S

Last edited by Atilla; Jun 18, 2017 at 5:42pm.
Atilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2017, 5:44pm   #32
Joined Feb 2002
NASA conspiracy. Like the moon landings.
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2017, 5:47pm   #33
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomorton View Post
NASA conspiracy. Like the moon landings.
I have questions about the moon landings actually? Not 100% on that one.


However, recent space expeditions obviously not. Either photoshop has improved or space travel really is true.

Oh I believe in Branson and Bezo too doubt they spend millions on space projects as a hobby to fool people. Comonnn they're businessmen, not politicians
__________________
Know your L I M I T A T I O N S
Atilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2017, 10:53pm   #34
Joined Feb 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
I have questions about the moon landings actually? Not 100% on that one.

Well I was prepared to think about the logistics and difficulties of faking the moon landings, seems like harmless anti-government slightly deranged and rather jovial eccentricity.
Until I realised the Christian church backs these people. The church is not eccentric. The word that comes to mind now is sinister.
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2017, 12:07am   #35
 
dbphoenix's Avatar
Joined Aug 2003
You should find a copy of a movie called Capricorn One. Excellent example of the conspiracies-everywhere period we went through in the 70s.
__________________
Trading Price
The Wyckoff Method
dbphoenix is offline Training literature vendor (e.g courses / spreadbetting guides / eBooks)   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2017, 12:29am   #36
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomorton View Post
Well I was prepared to think about the logistics and difficulties of faking the moon landings, seems like harmless anti-government slightly deranged and rather jovial eccentricity.
Until I realised the Christian church backs these people. The church is not eccentric. The word that comes to mind now is sinister.
Sinister would not be what comes to my mind old boy.

All through out history when ever science challenged the authority of religious nobs, the challenger would be dealth with one way or another. In fact if one had a blocked up nose and ones mummy made one mint tea to help relieve the symptoms of stuffiness then anyone hearing of this treatment will report the discovery and ones mother would be duly dipped into a pond all tied up. If she floated she'd be cast as a witch and burned alive and if she drowned then they had made a mistake with the lady.


As for the moon landing, don't you think its all very staged. I was thinking one of two things.

1. US did go to the moon but staged the filming as they didn't want the Russians have it for free which could help them in their space program

2. US just simply didn't go at all but wanted to beat the Russian into claiming they had.

3. I wonder why there have been no other such manned missions to the moon as I envisage it's easy enough with our level of technohow.


Those pictures definitely not right. The flag fully opened up in a square shape just doesn't add up to the physics of it all. No background no nothing. Compare to more recent photos of space and the skyline is just not there.
__________________
Know your L I M I T A T I O N S
Atilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2017, 1:13am   #37
Joined Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
Those pictures definitely not right. The flag fully opened up in a square shape just doesn't add up to the physics of it all. No background no nothing. Compare to more recent photos of space and the skyline is just not there.
This has all been debunked. There is no wind and very little gravity on the moon. No reason why the flag wouldn't be standing exactly as it was opened.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/my...pictures-fake/

https://mythresults.com/nasa-moon-landing

FYI, one can find holes in any theory, including creation and evolution theories.

Peter
wackypete2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2017, 1:46am   #38
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by wackypete2 View Post
This has all been debunked. There is no wind and very little gravity on the moon. No reason why the flag wouldn't be standing exactly as it was opened.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/my...pictures-fake/

https://mythresults.com/nasa-moon-landing

FYI, one can find holes in any theory, including creation and evolution theories.

Peter

Forgive me but those debunked bold red text and explanations are comical to say the least.

1. The MythBusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon’s natural topography.

I find it impossilbe to accept this as an academic. It's nonsense?

I don't see the explanation. Because of the way light falls on the moon... Says who? FGS what a load of tosh.

One must ask what is the because? Explanation is bull. Think about it???


2. The MythBusters explained that Armstrong was visible because of ambient light being reflected off of the Moon’s surface.


Once again because of ambient light being reflected. What ambient light. Ambient light bouncing off what exactly. What were the sources of light?

Once again comical piece of total rubbish.


3. In vacuum conditions, manipulating the flag caused it to flap vigorously as if it were being blown by a breeze. This demonstrated that a flag could appear to wave in a vacuum, as the Apollo flag did.

Well of course it would flap if the flag is manipulated. Totally ignores gravity, dismissing it saying there is very little. Not so. There is gravity on the moon otherwise when they jump they wouldn't be able to land back down. We see them hopping around and landing back down.

A body continues in straight line forever, unless acted upon by a force. If a flag is moving to one side, it would continue to wrap it self round the pole. What force would it cause it to flap? ie move in the opposite direction?

I think anyone who's done physics will realise these explanations are more dismissals than proof.


What ridiculous explanations...
__________________
Know your L I M I T A T I O N S
Atilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2017, 2:07am   #39
Joined Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
Forgive me but those debunked bold red text and explanations are comical to say the least.

1. The MythBusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moonís natural topography.

I find it impossilbe to accept this as an academic. It's nonsense?

I don't see the explanation. Because of the way light falls on the moon... Says who? FGS what a load of tosh.

One must ask what is the because? Explanation is bull. Think about it???


2. The MythBusters explained that Armstrong was visible because of ambient light being reflected off of the Moonís surface.


Once again because of ambient light being reflected. What ambient light. Ambient light bouncing off what exactly. What were the sources of light?

Once again comical piece of total rubbish.


3. In vacuum conditions, manipulating the flag caused it to flap vigorously as if it were being blown by a breeze. This demonstrated that a flag could appear to wave in a vacuum, as the Apollo flag did.

Well of course it would flap if the flag is manipulated. Totally ignores gravity, dismissing it saying there is very little. Not so. There is gravity on the moon otherwise when they jump they wouldn't be able to land back down. We see them hopping around and landing back down.

A body continues in straight line forever, unless acted upon by a force. If a flag is moving to one side, it would continue to wrap it self round the pole. What force would it cause it to flap? ie move in the opposite direction?

I think anyone who's done physics will realise these explanations are more dismissals than proof.


What ridiculous explanations...
You say nothing about bouncing a laser off the moon...
How many more debunking stories do you want?

try these links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...-debunked.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7122186.html

https://www.thoughtco.com/did-men-re...n-moon-3072611

Peter
wackypete2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2017, 2:11am   #40
Joined Sep 2008
Do you really think it could have been faked and nobody claims to have been on the team doing the faking? That sort of information always comes out sooner or later.

Peter
wackypete2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2017, 8:03am   #41
Joined Feb 2002
In the end, everything can be faked if you throw enough money at it.

But its certainly sinister that some branches of the church should wish to support crackpot ideas. Whether they get them accepted, such as a flat earth, or not, the authority of science, experts and therefore leaders who employ them, is undermined. This is political interference on a vast scale, leading to the large numbers of vociferous people today who oppose any and all authority, even when its for their own benefit. Think about the MMR vaccine issue, and the continuing debate over whether climate change is man-made and there is in reality no ground for a debate. All the scientific communities in the world agree on those two issues but there are substantial portions of the electorate who won't believe anything they're told, even if it can be scientifically proven.

What chance has democracy when education on accepted facts - like the age of the earth, evolution etc. - are rejected by frightened voters?
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: Pat494
Old Jun 19, 2017, 12:17pm   #42
 
dbphoenix's Avatar
Joined Aug 2003
At some point, even the dumbest begin to realize that they're being lied to, and have been being lied to for many years, and failing to choose correctly those who deal in facts (real ones) and the truth, they distrust everyone. Hence the current attitudes re science and even the rising distrust of religion. As for politicians . . .
__________________
Trading Price
The Wyckoff Method
dbphoenix is offline Training literature vendor (e.g courses / spreadbetting guides / eBooks)   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2017, 12:36pm   #43
Joined Feb 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbphoenix View Post
At some point, even the dumbest begin to realize that they're being lied to, and have been being lied to for many years, and failing to choose correctly those who deal in facts (real ones) and the truth, they distrust everyone. Hence the current attitudes re science and even the rising distrust of religion. As for politicians . . .

And so the dumbest stay dumb, just a different kind of dumb. But ignorance is no crime. The imposition of ignorance for selfish gain however is a crime against all humanity.
tomorton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2017, 1:44pm   #44
 
dbphoenix's Avatar
Joined Aug 2003
Ignorance may be no crime, but elective ignorance is a form of crime against humanity, an abdication of one's responsibilities as a member of one's society, however that society may be organized. For example, the general population is by now completely unfamiliar with the process of scientific inquiry. These trading forums are a good example, given that nearly every beginner hasn't the least idea how to put together a thoroughly-tested and consistently-profitable trading plan.
__________________
Trading Price
The Wyckoff Method
dbphoenix is offline Training literature vendor (e.g courses / spreadbetting guides / eBooks)   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why do you use indicators that change values when period change? TheRumpledOne Technical Analysis 61 Jun 9, 2014 3:50pm
Climate Change: How Much? How Soon? dcraig1 The Foyer 30 Aug 11, 2010 5:05pm
Global Climate Change Atilla The Foyer 46 Nov 27, 2009 11:53am
Are these climate chaps serious? homer7929 General Trading Chat 11 Mar 20, 2009 6:21pm

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)