Evan Burton

I should get into Facebook, but it's one aspect of technology that I don't really want to partake in.

My Twitter account is rarely used; I use it to check when favourite podcasts are released more than anything else.

Could it be that some gold is still there?

I ask because in Australia there was recently a case of where $50,000 of gold jewellery was accidentally thrown out with garbage. They know which dump it went to, but people don't believe even the most enthusiastic scavenger would have a hope of finding it.

And on a side note: if they did find it, could they keep it?

Doug,

You might want to read this:

http://www.911myths.com/loose_change_2nd_ed._a_critical_review_of_the_gold_story_segment.pdf

It's good to see that Avery has been talking to witness, seeing evidence, etc, and come to the right conclusions... but people have been pointing to the facts for years, and I thought he interviewed witnesses?. I think the line of "...it's easy to come to that conclusion..." is a bit of a copout.

I do agree that the real cover-up needs to be investigated: who was responsible for the intelligence failures?

Sorry, but I don't consider Hoagland to be in any way credible. What will be the excuse when the aforementioned dates pass without any strange activity?

It's interesting to see his views are softening, and he talks about being "sucked in".

I wonder what exactly are his views, and what caused him to change to them?

Edited posts where Duane insinuates Craig is working for NASA.

Warning given to Duane that unless he has positive proof of such, any further accusation will result in his immediate moderation.

Who were the princes who died?

Hi Sherry!

Welcome to the Forum. I'm betting you are going to have some fantastic tales to tell us - Can't wait!

When you consider the scenario of Jim being a disinformation / misinformation agent, it all makes sense.

He can swear that Mary Poppins shot JFK; it doesn't make it true.

Peter,

Do you seriously expect Jim to change?

Besides, his claims and "proof" do more to discredit Twoofers than any debunker could ever achieve.

Well, don't look at me for JFK stuff. I'm space and aviation orientated and know close to nothing about the JFK assassination. If you want to know about Apollo, or manned spaceflight, then I'm your man!

Hope you enjoy yourself here and you find the forum a wealth of information.

Cheers!

G'day Ray, and welcome to the Forum. What did you do in the RAF? I'm RAN myself, with the FAA.

Hi Hugo! Welcome to the Forum.

Happy Birthday Bill! You are only as old as the women you are feeling....

Kennedy saw the lunar landing programme as a political tool; he wasn't as enthusiastic about it as others were (LBJ, Agnew).... but he used it and he inspired people. Regardless of his personal enthusiasm, it was his administration that started it all.

BTW, the original speech had a landing for 1967; plans at that time thought it could be achievable. It was decided, however, that the "end of the decade" would give them more breathing room (which was needed!), sounded better in the speech, and could even be stretched out to the end of 1970 (which was technically the end of the decade)..

Michael,

I totally agree regarding Kennedy; if he had not pushed then who knows what would have happened? Von Braun had proposed a huge space station first, and then exploration of the planets; that may not have been a bad idea.

I'm glad you raised Gemini; most people don't realise it actually came after Apollo even though it was first a 'Mercury MkII'.

That's correct. Even the plans for a lunar landing were started at a similar time; Kennedy simply made it a national goal.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/protester-arrested-for-chopper-damage/story-e6frfku0-1226099023604

This guy crossed the line. I may not agree with him, but I'll stand up for his right to protest against military activity. What he has done, though, is criminal damage and I hope they throw the book at him. That little stunt will be costing a huge amount of money; and the ones who will profit from it are the aircraft manufacturers. Nice one you dopey idiot.

I think the calls for an investigation into media ownership in Australia should be supported. On a personal level, I am very disturbed that a News Corp controlled company could be responsible for Australian overseas broadcasting. I may not always agree with the ABC, but I think they are to be trusted to be the national broadcaster.

Ron,

I'm not an expert in those matters, but the footage doesn't seem incorrect to me at all.

What you need to do is go to a nearby university, and see if you can hunt up some QUALIFIED people in the physics / engineering departments. Show them what you have and ask them for their opinions. Then go to another university and ask those people what they think.

In each case, ask if they can give you some time to explain what is happening, and why it is happening, so you can get a better understanding of it and have confidence in whatever opinion you come to.

You might want to start with these people, who are experts:

http://www.cs.purdue...ase3/index.html

http://www.cs.purdue...ase4/index.html

When forming an opinion without expert knowledge, just keep in mind that we have never had modern airliners like that deliberately flown into buildings of similar construction before. We've had an accident or two that are similar in some respects, but there is not a lot of data to go on.

It's regarding the way people have beliefs, and getting them to change those beliefs is not often achieved by calling them names. It's directed at the sceptical community, saying to some people that telling people they are stupid because they believe (insert your choice here) is not going to change their mind. It is better to get people to start investigating the evidence for themselves, seeing where it leads, etc.

A very good presentation, and worth the time to watch.

Doesn't matter how many times those things have been answered or proven wrong, you just love re-running them up don't you?

I was confused about why Jim would raise such easily disproven points, why he teaches critical thinking but chooses not to apply those skills to his own 9-11 work, etc, but now I understand: Jim is actually on our side! He is some type of disinfo agent. I mean, all his claims have been rejected by the mainstream 9-11 truthers:

http://www.911review...agon/index.html

Then I found out about how many people questioned his actions and motives.

http://911research.w...dex.html#fetzer

http://gastronamus.p...int&thread=2635

http://en.wikipedia....or_9.2F11_Truth

Now it all makes sense!