Moon Landings

[wolfy 12]

All 1,619 of your posts may as well have been just that. I quite admire your peculiar brand of madness Wolfster but you are annoyingly convenient when it comes to backing up what you have to say.

That's just the point. I cannot back up what I say as far as space is concerned no more than the top egg heads can genuinely back up what they say. Except, they have the ball in their court and can push it out as true because of their status.

I'm a mere mortal giving an alternative to what's given out and it's as simple as that.

[wolfy 12]

No, I believe what has been proven and from that basis believe what has been explained that follows a logical progression.

 

You may "prefer" your belief, but it's a less valid belief than one backed by proof and sense.

 

It'd be like me believing in Fairies and having no proof, you're in your rights to ask for proof and you're within your rights to state my belief is unfounded.

You denying my belief is like you believing in Rhinos, and showing me a rhino and me still refusing to believe in them.

 

It's just a failure to comprehend.

Do you challenge those that believe in God?

[The Fish 9086]

Do you challenge those that believe in God?

I'd challenge those that said there was proof of God and those that refute proof of (say) evolution, the age of the planet, because it doesn't fit into the world order that they've chosen to subscribe to. Especially those who try to muddy the water between faith and science, like Creationists, for example.

 

But this isn't about religion, or faith, this is about you stating that all this scientific evidence is bollocks, without a scrap of evidence to back your claims.

[wolfy 12]

I'd challenge those that said there was proof of God and those that refute proof of (say) evolution, the age of the planet, because it doesn't fit into the world order that they've chosen to subscribe to. Especially those who try to muddy the water between faith and science, like Creationists, for example.

 

But this isn't about religion, or faith, this is about you stating that all this scientific evidence is bollocks, without a scrap of evidence to back your claims.

Equally, you cannot back up your claims, other than to go with what you have been conditioned to believe, so it's a bit of a stalemate here whether you like that or not.

[The Fish 9086]

Equally, you cannot back up your claims, other than to go with what you have been conditioned to believe, so it's a bit of a stalemate here whether you like that or not.

Not at all.

 

I can prove that the ISS is up there in space

I can prove that a vacuum is the absence of particles and that cold is the absence of heat

I can prove plenty of my assertions and you can't prove any of yours.

I can back up my assertions with reasoned argument and volumes of further evidence and you cannot/will not do the same.

I thought you were open minded wolfy? Your entrenched positions suggest otherwise.

Edited September 15, 2012 by The Fish

[wolfy 12]

Not at all.

 

I can prove that the ISS is up there in space.......... You can't.

I can prove that a vacuum is the absence of particles and that cold is the absence of heat..............cold is the absence of heat on Earth but in space there is no hot or cold.

I can prove plenty of my assertions and you can't prove any of yours. You have proved nothing to me except what you have been conditioned to believe and that's not proof and it's the same as I cannot prove directly to you about why I believe different.

I can back up my assertions with reasoned argument and volumes of further evidence and you cannot/will not do the same..................................You don;t back anything up, you merely push a point that you have been told to accept by scientists and go with that...that's far from backing anything up....think about it.

I thought you were open minded wolfy? Your entrenched positions suggest otherwise.

I am open minded,as I said before....I started off believing everything that was officially told and never even thought to question it....for many many years I did that until I saw things that just didn't make sense and defies logic. A for instance, the silly struts holding the shuttle and the big rusty tank together all balanced on 2 outer rockets......

For anyone to tell me that this shuttle can actually stay upright and also take off, attaining 17,000 mph without these things falling apart, just makes me laugh.

I don't need a science degree of an engineering degree to know that the shuttle is as fake as all the other shite they pretend to put into space.

All anyone has to do is look at it all and think of the supposed weight bearing down on those struts and that's all you should need to convince you that the shuttle is a big fake.

there are many many more things wrong about it all but that's a major point.

 

This is why I question things. The moon landings are easily questioned and look to be exactly what they are ...FAKES.... not only I believe they are fakes...millions of other people know there something fishy about it all.

 

If you can fake one thing, you can fake two and three and hundreds, if you have a gullible public that prefers to go with the flow and question nothing.

 

Once you see anomalies with anything , you then open your mind to the possibilities of other anomalies with many other things and it spirals from there and wakes you up to what's going on......or in many cases, it doesn't wake you up as most people prefer not to even question things, which is fair enough.

 

There's 3 categories of people where stuff like this is concerned.

 

1. Those who don't care about news and prefer to just go about life doing what they do.

 

2. Those who hang onto every news story and discuss it all as gospel and not wavering in their trust of what they see or hear.

 

3. Then there's the likes of me that sees stuff and takes a step back to get the bigger picture and question it before I make my mind up whether it's real life true as spoken or an attempt to dupe the public into believing something by faking an event for whatever gain is required, which could be money, war, scare tactics e.t.c.

 

Now space travel as far as I'm concerned has never been conquered and I do not believe there is one scrap of tin in space that has been put up there by us humans.

Can I directly prove what I'm saying? The answer is , no, I can't because I have no access to verifiable proof just as nobody else has access to verifiable proof of the opposite, regardless of what they say.

 

I'm a very very sceptical person with many many things that are spun to us in the news and what we are taught to accept ..but I wasn't always like this, as I said.

I'm in a minority as far as questioning events goes but only as far as putting my views forward. I'm probably more in the half and half bracket as far as sceptics go, it's just that many sceptics would rather sit and agree with their minds and not their mouths or typing fingers for fear of being ridiculed.

Luckily I don't hold that fear, so I say what I think.

[The Fish 9086]

That is all nonsense.

 

For one, there are many many more than three categories of people when it comes to this kind of thing.

For another, there is verifiable proof, you just choose to ignore it. Like, as has been said countless times, you can stand in a field and see a very obviously man made structure (the ISS) in space. Rather than face that fact you live in closed-minded ignorance.

There are so many holes in all of your arguments it's hilarious and when your arguments are torn asunder you hide behind the "Yeah well, I believe it, and you're wrong, so nerr" which is why people call you thick etc.

 

That you can't even follow your own argument to it's logical conclusion proves you don't know what you're talking about and sedek to be contrary, rather than seeking the truth.

[wolfy 12]

That is all nonsense.

 

For one, there are many many more than three categories of people when it comes to this kind of thing.

For another, there is verifiable proof, you just choose to ignore it. Like, as has been said countless times, you can stand in a field and see a very obviously man made structure (the ISS) in space. Rather than face that fact you live in closed-minded ignorance.

There are so many holes in all of your arguments it's hilarious and when your arguments are torn asunder you hide behind the "Yeah well, I believe it, and you're wrong, so nerr" which is why people call you thick etc.

 

That you can't even follow your own argument to it's logical conclusion proves you don't know what you're talking about and sedek to be contrary, rather than seeking the truth.

I can't follow any argument to a logical conclusion, just the same as you can't or anyone else, except those who perpetrate the actual events...it's those that can give a logical answer to any questions we might have.

 

You cannot prove anything with verifiable evidence to me about anything I've said, you just believe you can because you simply say you can see this and that and do this and that, yet you can't.

 

The fact that you say you can stand in a field and see the ISS is laughable it really is.

[The Fish 9086]

I can't follow any argument to a logical conclusion, just the same as you can't or anyone else, except those who perpetrate the actual events...it's those that can give a logical answer to any questions we might have.

Then you don't understand argument. To follow something to it's logical conclusion is as simple as: If A=1 and B=2, then A+B = 3. That is following something to it's logical conclusion. Heat is excited particles, vacuum is the absence of particles, no particles = no heat. That is following an argument to it's logical conclusion. That is irrefutable.

 

You cannot prove anything with verifiable evidence to me about anything I've said, you just believe you can because you simply say you can see this and that and do this and that, yet you can't.

I can prove the temperature of a perfect vacuum is absolute zero.

 

The fact that you say you can stand in a field and see the ISS is laughable it really is.

There's a whole stack of times that you can see the ISS in the sky from Newcastle, knock yourself out.

[wolfy 12]

Fish.

The sightings are given to you aren't they. They are fed to you. What you see in that sky , is not the ISS. The ISS only exists in a large training pool designed to dupe us into believing they space walk. That's all this ISS is.

 

Oh and there is no temperature in a perfect vacuum. Space is neither hot nor cold, it is nothing.

Edited September 16, 2012 by wolfy

[The Fish 9086]

Fish.

The sightings are given to you aren't they. They are fed to you. What you see in that sky , is not the ISS. The ISS only exists in a large training pool designed to dupe us into believing they space walk. That's all this ISS is.

 

Oh and there is no temperature in a perfect vacuum. Space is neither hot nor cold, it is nothing.

This is where your stance makes you look ridiculous. I'm stating that you, on your own, by yourself, can go stand in a field and view quite clearly the ISS through binoculars and see that it's obviously a man made structure in space. Yet, instead of refuting that, you just say "No, it's in a pool". How could you possibly see it in space, if it were in a pool? How can we predict exactly where and when the ISS will be visible, if we didnb't put it there?

 

You've agreed that heat is the excited particles transferring energy to you in a way that we describe as heat, you've also agreed that there are bugger all particles in space. Then you go back on what you've agreed and state, with no proof or evidence or even a supposition worthy of the name, that space is neither hot or cold.

 

Admit that your theories are based on nothing but baseless guesswork and are contradictory to notions you've already agreed upon. Admit you're not open minded and are in fact just contrary.

 

Repent!

[The Fish 9086]

i've not got involved in these threads for one simple reason, you're a moron.

 

it's not conspiracy theory now, it's idiocy

it's one thing to bang on about who shot jfk and the like but to argue with proven science is frankly beyond stupid, i assume you're just doing it on the windup, and these lads are happy to keep it up (which is why i can't be arsed joining in)

 

to pick and choose what bits you question and make sense and then blatantly ignore other things that follow the same rules honestly.

 

i'm off to feed the faeries that power my microwave and sack the one that overcooked my eggs.

Homophobe

[wolfy 12]

Fish.

I said cold is the absence of particles, I mean less agitated particles. On Earth this is true. In Space there are no particles or minutely...(going by what we are told about space mind you, which again is only guesswork by those that issue this shit ) so basically there is nothing in space...no hot, no cold, it's just space.

Anything in space (discounting the SUN) for instance if hot, would stay hot and anything put in space that was cold, would stay cold. Anything warm would stay warm but space in itself is neither hot/warm or cold...it is nothing.

 

Again, your ISS viewed through binoculars. Tell me exactly what you see through your binoculars Fish, what do you see?

[wolfy 12]

i've not got involved in these threads for one simple reason, you're a moron.

 

it's not conspiracy theory now, it's idiocy

it's one thing to bang on about who shot jfk and the like but to argue with proven science is frankly beyond stupid, i assume you're just doing it on the windup, and these lads are happy to keep it up (which is why i can't be arsed joining in)

 

to pick and choose what bits you question and make sense and then blatantly ignore other things that follow the same rules honestly.

 

i'm off to feed the faeries that power my microwave and sack the one that overcooked my eggs.

So what science is proven that I'm arguing against then?

[wolfy 12]

To clarify the hot and cold, let's go back to the good old thermos flask.

 

As we all know, we can put hot coffee in it or a cold liquid and it will stay cold for a great length of time.

The reason why it loses it's heat or chill is simply because it's not quite a perfect vacuum and the reason for this is because the neck of the thermos meets at the top creating a bridge for heat to cool down to room temperature or the chilled drink to come up to room temperature, plus of course we have the stopper which adds to the release.

 

If we could somehow take away the connecting neck and stopper and just keep it as a perfect vacuum, you could open that flask in 5 years time and drink your hot tea, in theory.

 

The reason it would stay like that is because of the vacuum which is neither hot nor cold and is basically a nothing.

[catmag 336]

I'd have used Pixies, but i don't think Frank and Kim would fit in the microwave

 

Leprechauns, surely?

 

And Wolfy - Peanuts are not delicious, you are wrong there too.

[Kid Dynamite 6010]

When Wolfy reveals himself to be KSA theres going to be egg on a lot of faces mind

[@yourservice 67]

When Wolfy reveals himself to be KSA theres going to be egg on a lot of faces mind

[wolfy 12]

Leprechauns, surely?

 

And Wolfy - Peanuts are not delicious, you are wrong there too.

I love peanuts. Normal salted one's are my favourites and the dry roasted are my least favourite. The Chilli coated one's from Aldi are nice but you do end up with an arse like a Japanese flag mind.

[wolfy 12]

When Wolfy reveals himself to be KSA theres going to be egg on a lot of faces mind

Who is KSA and what's the name short for?

[Meenzer 14117]

Who is KSA and what's the name short for?

 

"Kolfy S. Assilleekunt"

[The Fish 9086]

Fish.

I said cold is the absence of particles, I mean less agitated particles. On Earth this is true. In Space there are no particles or minutely...(going by what we are told about space mind you, which again is only guesswork by those that issue this shit ) so basically there is nothing in space...no hot, no cold, it's just space.

Anything in space (discounting the SUN) for instance if hot, would stay hot and anything put in space that was cold, would stay cold. Anything warm would stay warm but space in itself is neither hot/warm or cold...it is nothing.

there's something wrong here. Heat requires particles, we're agreed on that. You seem to think it's the particles that are hot... it's not, the particles aren't hot. The energy that is released when the particles bang against each other is what we feel as heat. So.

 

Cold is absence of heat

Heat requires particles.

Hardly any particles in space

These are all statements you've agreed to and stated yourself. However, then you've moved into the realm of denial when you state there's a mythical state whereby there is no temperature in space.

Given everything in the universe is made of particles, and heat is simply the energy of particles colliding, then everything in the universe must have a temperature.

 

Your flask thing would only work if the material insulating the liquid was perfectly resistant to radiation. In the same way as the sun radiates heat into the vacuum of space, as does EVERYTHING else. This liquid would radiate heat into the vacuum unless the the material surrounding it was perfectly insulated.

 

If you put a container of coloured gas inside a vacuum, then release the gas, the coloured gas would fill the vacuum but the strength of it's colour would lessen and lessed until it was barely visible at all (depending on the volume of the vacuum). Now apply that to the particles that are radiated from anything in a vacuum. They spread into the available volume, and in space, there's a lot of available volume. I think this is what you don't get. You don't seem to understand that you can radiate into a vacuum, that excited particles escape from their origin, their bonds weakening until they break.

 

Again, your ISS viewed through binoculars. Tell me exactly what you see through your binoculars Fish, what do you see?

 

depending on the binoculars, the weather etc. you can see anything from

to

 

Both of these are amateurs. Both used the predicted position of the ISS to line up their shot. So tell me, if that's not the ISS, what is it? An incredible piece of coincidence?

Either all the myriad members of your incredibly convoluted and complicated conspiracy have a aircraft permanently looping around the globe just on the off chance someone who wants to, snaps a photo of it

OR

It's the ISS

 

 

If they didn't want people realising they'd faked it, why make it visible at all? Why not simply say that because of the way it's got to operate it's not visible from the surface of the Earth?

 

Your fearful conspiracy theory is immeasurably more complicated and would take a helluva lot more to maintain than the truth.

[wolfy 12]

A blob of light and a bag of assorted toffees is the space station. Oh ok then it must be real.

 

Come on Fish man, if I posted up some pictures like that , you would be jumping up and down calling them fake..and rightly so because they're not only fake, they're pathetic fakes.

 

Anyone who thinks that these two pictures are the space station, I truly feel sorry for.

[The Fish 9086]

A blob of light and a bag of assorted toffees is the space station. Oh ok then it must be real.

 

Come on Fish man, if I posted up some pictures like that , you would be jumping up and down calling them fake..and rightly so because they're not only fake, they're pathetic fakes.

 

Anyone who thinks that these two pictures are the space station, I truly feel sorry for.

wolfy, you've ignored the first part of my post because it reveals how little you understand.

You've ignored the questions in the second part of my post because you've no answer to them.

 

Face it wolfy, you're just plain wrong.

[Renton 17926]

Wolfy, you've got a massive chip on your shoulder regarding people who are more intelligent and educated than you ( 'tefals'). I imagine you're feeling quite embittered being unemployed and essentially unemployable living in Hartlepool. That's understandable but your not doing yourself or your situation any favours persisting with this foolish 'belief system'.