Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Want to believe

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Found on the 'Net Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Pjay
World Chat Champion



Joined: 18 Jan 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:57 - 15 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kawasaki Jimbo wrote:


I love Bill Burr.
____________________
struan80 - I'll go first - satisfied tick 1
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Chinaboy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:50 - 16 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

If anyone wants to watch an interesting documentary, try this:

Unacknowledged by Dr Steven Greer.

Can find on a torrent site. More food for thought.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Hetzer
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:35 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speed of light limit, pretty much dead since 'spooky particles'

Moon landings, conclusively proven to be fake, using NASA's own footage and stills (irrefutable). Along with additional scientific proofs.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Sister Sledge
World Chat Champion



Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:39 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK OK I can't stay quiet much longer..

Of all the science and all our discoveries, I still can't fathom why gravity has not been beaten yet. Sure we know it's an attraction to another object but why?
(forget all these anti-gravity devices on YouTube - I'm after real answers)
____________________
CCM 404 DS
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Pjay
World Chat Champion



Joined: 18 Jan 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:35 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hetzer wrote:
Moon landings, conclusively proven to be fake, using NASA's own footage and stills (irrefutable). Along with additional scientific proofs.

Yet you ignore all of the evidence that proves it did happen?
The maths for example that have been published that even specify the fuel used all adds up to scrutiny. Very intelligent people have tried to disprove the maths and none have succeeded, but you're happy to pick apart some footage taken on 1969 cameras/film? Tell me more about these irrefutable footage and stills and I will refute them for you.
____________________
struan80 - I'll go first - satisfied tick 1
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

DrSnoosnoo
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:04 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sister Sledge wrote:
OK OK I can't stay quiet much longer..

Of all the science and all our discoveries, I still can't fathom why gravity has not been beaten yet. Sure we know it's an attraction to another object but why?
(forget all these anti-gravity devices on YouTube - I'm after real answers)


Similar to how friction, and drag haven't been "beaten" their forces though can simply be overcome, to a degree.

Gravity affects space-time. It effectively makes you need to drive uphill until it's effects, or attraction, are minimal (i.e.you're at the top of the hill).
____________________
I'm Sam; Northern, Ginger, Lover
Did have: '95 ZZR600 '83 CG125 Do Have: '97 ZZR1100
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:05 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hetzer wrote:
Speed of light limit, pretty much dead since 'spooky particles'

Moon landings, conclusively proven to be fake, using NASA's own footage and stills (irrefutable). Along with additional scientific proofs.


FFS, every telescope on earth was pointed at the moon for the landings. Do you think people couldn't actually see with their own eyes the space craft going there and returning.

OK, the are some SLIGHTLY conceivable conspiracy theories, Kennedy?, Marilyn Monroe was murdered?, Hitler escaped to south America, but the moon landings isn't one of them.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

duhawkz
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:59 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kennedy was shot by one of his own, there was a documentary about it recently, when the septics declassified a load of stuff.

Oswald shot him first but hit him the shoulder, the secret service dude behind him panicked and pulled trigger and fired the fatal shot. Its not conclusive but they made a pretty good case for that being what happened
____________________
"The guy is a worthless cunt and I honestly believe I would be a slightly happier person if he died." - Chris-Red
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mpd72
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:10 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polarbear wrote:


FFS, every telescope on earth was pointed at the moon for the landings. Do you think people couldn't actually see with their own eyes the space craft going there and returning.



I always wondered about that and why it's not brought up more often.

Could it be that the actual landing site was out of sight from Earth and all we could see was the module the lander departed from still in orbit?

I have no doubts they went there and back, but for me the jury is still out on whether they actually set foot on it, wandered about and took off again. Surely there should be some pretty close up images of the abandoned rover, with the modern telescopes we have now, not just some faint, distant tyre tracks?
____________________
TZR250 2MA road, TZR250 1KT road, TZR250 2MA race, TDR250, YZF-750R Boost colours.
Jaguar S Type 3.0 V6 Sport R, VW Transporter T5 GP LWB Shuttle 140ps DSG.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:31 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are.............

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2011/09/apollo_17_landing_site_LRO.jpeg

There are loads to look at. What sort of clarity do people expect, the moon is 225,000+ miles away. You aren't going to get a decent picture with an I phone!
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:47 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hetzer wrote:
Speed of light limit, pretty much dead since 'spooky particles'

Moon landings, conclusively proven to be fake, using NASA's own footage and stills (irrefutable). Along with additional scientific proofs.


If by spooky particles you mean entanglement then that's something else entirely and does not negate the speed of light as an upper limit.

Moon landing conspiracy theory has been methodically and scientifically debunked many many times. Also, as I said before if they were faked, and remember that these missions were being tracked and listened in to globally, not only by state owned technology but also by radio amateurs, the Soviets would have been all over it as a propaganda victory.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:49 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sister Sledge wrote:
OK OK I can't stay quiet much longer..

Of all the science and all our discoveries, I still can't fathom why gravity has not been beaten yet. Sure we know it's an attraction to another object but why?
(forget all these anti-gravity devices on YouTube - I'm after real answers)


Because there has been no discovery of a gauge boson to mediate the force - it may not even be a real force either. It appears to be related to mass and how it works is well understood but that's as far as it goes.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:57 - 17 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone who thinks the moon landing was real has had their mind fucked up by vaccines?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mpd72
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:14 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polarbear wrote:
There are.............

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2011/09/apollo_17_landing_site_LRO.jpeg

There are loads to look at. What sort of clarity do people expect, the moon is 225,000+ miles away. You aren't going to get a decent picture with an I phone!


Sorry, those are crap and exactly what I'm talking about. We have satellites which have been way closer than that. We've had orbiters going so close, you should be able to pick up clear images of all the abandoned equipment, not just distant dots. I really can't believe that over 50 years later, this is the best we can do. We have close up images of rocks on Mars, yet little tiny dots on the moon's surface.

Quote:
pretty close up images of the abandoned rover, with the modern telescopes we have now, not just some faint, distant tyre tracks?

____________________
TZR250 2MA road, TZR250 1KT road, TZR250 2MA race, TDR250, YZF-750R Boost colours.
Jaguar S Type 3.0 V6 Sport R, VW Transporter T5 GP LWB Shuttle 140ps DSG.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Pjay
World Chat Champion



Joined: 18 Jan 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:24 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

mpd72 CPT wrote:
Sorry, those are crap and exactly what I'm talking about. We have satellites which have been way closer than that. We've had orbiters going so close, you should be able to pick up clear images of all the abandoned equipment, not just distant dots. I really can't believe that over 50 years later, this is the best we can do. We have close up images of rocks on Mars, yet little tiny dots on the moon's surface.


Google is your friend. There are plenty of pictures of debris on the moon.
The trouble is people just call foul and say they are doctored pics.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/584637main_apollo12-left-670.jpg

There is heaps of proof, the mirrors for example.
____________________
struan80 - I'll go first - satisfied tick 1
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:40 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

mpd72 CPT wrote:


Sorry, those are crap and exactly what I'm talking about. We have satellites which have been way closer than that. We've had orbiters going so close, you should be able to pick up clear images of all the abandoned equipment, not just distant dots. I really can't believe that over 50 years later, this is the best we can do. We have close up images of rocks on Mars, yet little tiny dots on the moon's surface.


Eh? You're wrong. The LRO mission involved low polar orbits at 50km from the lunar surface. The only other satellites are the two artemis missions which aren't imagers and a Chinese command module for a rover on the surface, again not an imager. The resolution that the LRO has achieved is excellent as shown by the Apollo 11 image below complete with scale:

https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAxNS84MzQvb3JpZ2luYWwvYXBvbGxvLTExLW1vb24tbGFuZGluZy1zaXRlLmpwZw==

You have to remember how small the landers and equipment are in proportion to the overall scale of the images taken. These are superb images - the overall mission was designed to produce images for mapping the surface in fine detail for possible future robotic and manned missions.

mpd72 CPT wrote:
Quote:
pretty close up images of the abandoned rover, with the modern telescopes we have now, not just some faint, distant tyre tracks?


There are no telescopes on the Earth that are capable of even matching this degree of resolution on such a small scale relative to the distance involved. That's simple optics/physics.

Honestly, critical thinking is fine but dogged scepticism/conspiracy acceptance on the basis of no credible scientific evidence is just stupid. Laughing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mpd72
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:56 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pjay wrote:
mpd72 CPT wrote:
Sorry, those are crap and exactly what I'm talking about. We have satellites which have been way closer than that. We've had orbiters going so close, you should be able to pick up clear images of all the abandoned equipment, not just distant dots. I really can't believe that over 50 years later, this is the best we can do. We have close up images of rocks on Mars, yet little tiny dots on the moon's surface.


Google is your friend. There are plenty of pictures of debris on the moon.
The trouble is people just call foul and say they are doctored pics.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/584637main_apollo12-left-670.jpg

There is heaps of proof, the mirrors for example.


More tiny dots needing explanation.

Come on, why not show one of these close up shots then? I can see the types of car parked on my drive from Google Earth using Earth satellites, yet the best the governments and space agencies can do from all the various landers, satellites and orbiters around a much smaller moon, is a load of dots not much different from I can see from a Dobsonian telescope in the garden, on a picture with arrows telling us what they're meant to be?

Doesn't seem right some how.

Here you go, here's one I made earlier...

http://i67.tinypic.com/2hroje1.jpg
____________________
TZR250 2MA road, TZR250 1KT road, TZR250 2MA race, TDR250, YZF-750R Boost colours.
Jaguar S Type 3.0 V6 Sport R, VW Transporter T5 GP LWB Shuttle 140ps DSG.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:03 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

mpd72 CPT wrote:


More tiny dots needing explanation.

Come on, why not show one of these close up shots then? I can see the types of car parked on my drive from Google Earth using Earth satellites, yet the best the governments and space agencies can do from all the various landers, satellites and orbiters around a much smaller moon, is a load of dots not much different from I can see from a Dobsonian telescope in the garden, on a picture with arrows telling us what they're meant to be?

Doesn't seem right some how.


You do realise that the view of the type of car parked on your drive isn't actually a satellite image don't you? The closest views on GE satellite view are aerial photographs taken from a plane flying at 10-20,000 feet. That's why they don't update that frequently and why some remote areas have no high res views. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Seriously, you should do some actual research and also learn just when to stop digging. Laughing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mpd72
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:08 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Islander wrote:
The resolution that the LRO has achieved is excellent as shown by the Apollo 11 image below complete with scale:

https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAxNS84MzQvb3JpZ2luYWwvYXBvbGxvLTExLW1vb24tbGFuZGluZy1zaXRlLmpwZw==



I'm surprised that 50 years on from apparently landing man on the moon, the best images we have from above the surface is a load of dots telling us what the dots are meant to be.

If the bloke who owns Tesla can propel a car well into space with a dummy sitting in it, sending high res colour photo's and videos of the view from car in space, back to Earth, it seems odd this is all we can do for the moon surface with no atmosphere and hardly any gravity.

All we have to go on are the 50 year old photo's with dubious editing evidence.

What do we have back from the Chinese lander so far, other than a shrivelled leaf? That seemed an odd experiment. We have a pretty good idea what the temperatures are in space, so why did they need to send a seedling all that way to find out that they don't do well when the temperature is well over a hundred degree below freezing? Even insulated, there would have been no heat source.
____________________
TZR250 2MA road, TZR250 1KT road, TZR250 2MA race, TDR250, YZF-750R Boost colours.
Jaguar S Type 3.0 V6 Sport R, VW Transporter T5 GP LWB Shuttle 140ps DSG.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mpd72
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:18 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Islander wrote:
mpd72 CPT wrote:


More tiny dots needing explanation.

Come on, why not show one of these close up shots then? I can see the types of car parked on my drive from Google Earth using Earth satellites, yet the best the governments and space agencies can do from all the various landers, satellites and orbiters around a much smaller moon, is a load of dots not much different from I can see from a Dobsonian telescope in the garden, on a picture with arrows telling us what they're meant to be?

Doesn't seem right some how.


You do realise that the view of the type of car parked on your drive isn't actually a satellite image don't you? The closest views on GE satellite view are aerial photographs taken from a plane flying at 10-20,000 feet. That's why they don't update that frequently and why some remote areas have no high res views. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Seriously, you should do some actual research and also learn just when to stop digging. Laughing


How does that make a difference? Why have we never had orbiters or craft orbiting the moon within 20,000ft?

It has no atmosphere and very little gravity, so you'd like to have thought we could have mapped the much smaller moon's surface with a bit more like the detail we can map the entire surface of planet Earth to.
____________________
TZR250 2MA road, TZR250 1KT road, TZR250 2MA race, TDR250, YZF-750R Boost colours.
Jaguar S Type 3.0 V6 Sport R, VW Transporter T5 GP LWB Shuttle 140ps DSG.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

MCN
World Chat Champion



Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:45 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Islander wrote:
mpd72 CPT wrote:


More tiny dots needing explanation.

Come on, why not show one of these close up shots then? I can see the types of car parked on my drive from Google Earth using Earth satellites, yet the best the governments and space agencies can do from all the various landers, satellites and orbiters around a much smaller moon, is a load of dots not much different from I can see from a Dobsonian telescope in the garden, on a picture with arrows telling us what they're meant to be?

Doesn't seem right some how.


You do realise that the view of the type of car parked on your drive isn't actually a satellite image don't you? The closest views on GE satellite view are aerial photographs taken from a plane flying at 10-20,000 feet. That's why they don't update that frequently and why some remote areas have no high res views. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Seriously, you should do some actual research and also learn just when to stop digging. Laughing


Wheeesht... you. Let the man dig.

With some luck all the shit he digs up will cave in on top of him.
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Pjay
World Chat Champion



Joined: 18 Jan 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:53 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

mpd72 CPT wrote:
It has no atmosphere and very little gravity, so you'd like to have thought we could have mapped the much smaller moon's surface with a bit more like the detail we can map the entire surface of planet Earth to.

You're missing the vital point as to why it's not been done.
The moon is verified boring.
Who is going to need close up pictures of the surface for scientific use?
Nobody, so that's why a shit ton of money isn't spent on getting those images to morons that think NASA didn't walk on the moon. They don't rightly care too much, they know they did it.
They have moved on to the planets in our solar system now, I imagine that within my lifetime there will be a manned mission to Mars. Dickheads will fill the internet with pages upon pages of how and why it was faked though and my Son will grow up in a world where morons still exist, posting youtube videos and giving their expert (lol) opinions on how it's fake, because you still cant see stars in the background.

Can we just accept that half the worlds population are of below average intelligence and move on?
____________________
struan80 - I'll go first - satisfied tick 1
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

MCN
World Chat Champion



Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:59 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pjay wrote:
mpd72 CPT wrote:
It has no atmosphere and very little gravity, so you'd like to have thought we could have mapped the much smaller moon's surface with a bit more like the detail we can map the entire surface of planet Earth to.

You're missing the vital point as to why it's not been done.
The moon is verified boring.
Who is going to need close up pictures of the surface for scientific use?
Nobody, so that's why a shit ton of money isn't spent on getting those images to morons that think NASA didn't walk on the moon. They don't rightly care too much, they know they did it.
They have moved on to the planets in our solar system now, I imagine that within my lifetime there will be a manned mission to Mars. Dickheads will fill the internet with pages upon pages of how and why it was faked though and my Son will grow up in a world where morons still exist, posting youtube videos and giving their expert (lol) opinions on how it's fake, because you still cant see stars in the background.

Can we just accept that half the worlds population are religious and move on?


IFTFY. Thumbs Up
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

mpd72
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:00 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pjay wrote:

You're missing the vital point as to why it's not been done.
The moon is verified boring.
Who is going to need close up pictures of the surface for scientific use?


Why do it for Mars then? Why land rovers and modules on asteroids?

It just seems odd that 50 years after man landed there (several times apparently), that we still don't have any more recent close ups of the surface of the closest thing to Earth by quite some margin.

I can only assume the scientists think there's nothing else to learn from it. The place would make a cracking base camp to travel onto other places though. It just seems odd to me.
I suppose I was hoping telescopes like Galileo or Hubble would have had a look on the way past.
____________________
TZR250 2MA road, TZR250 1KT road, TZR250 2MA race, TDR250, YZF-750R Boost colours.
Jaguar S Type 3.0 V6 Sport R, VW Transporter T5 GP LWB Shuttle 140ps DSG.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Pjay
World Chat Champion



Joined: 18 Jan 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:04 - 18 Jan 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

mpd72 CPT wrote:
Why do it for Mars then? Why land rovers and modules on asteroids?

To learn from them.

We have nothing at all to learn from the moon, we have samples of the terrain and plenty of pictures taken on the surface. Some high res pics from miles away are of no use to them.
____________________
struan80 - I'll go first - satisfied tick 1
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Found on the 'Net All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 4 of 12

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: enterprise (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.17 Sec - Server Load: 2.11 - MySQL Queries: 16 - CDN Objects: 52 - Page Size: 149.92 Kb