Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
I really like Americans but cannot understand why people think they need guns.
-
Seems this guy was over at ATS as well:
-
Merged two topics regarding Giffords shooting.
-
It's been noticed that shooting victim Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was on Sarah Palin's 'take back the twenty' 'hit list'. Co-incidence? Are the Tea Party taking more 'direct measures'?
-
Robert,
That is always good advice. Because members here sometimes create lengthy posts that involve considerable effort, a recommended method is to create the text in an application like Word, then cut and past the text into the post. You can then save the Word file, and you can spell check / syntax check the text before posting.
You can also save the forum web page to your puter, or use the 'download' icon on this and similar boards.
If you are unaware of the icon, when you are looking at a thread, down the bottom of the page will be a row of icons marked SHARE THIS TOPIC. It allows you to Digg the topic, Twitter it, etc. The last three icons on the right are e-mail the topic, print the topic (remember the environment!) and download the topic.
-
Yeah... pity the threads I "shut down" get re-opened. Democracy is a pain, ain't it?
-
Nice to see they are still upholding their standards: attack anyone who does not conform.
-
If you're really interested in reading stuff there, go to the library, Evan.
My apologies for not replying earlier, John.
Thanks, but I can read the DPF with a second account which has a dynamic IP. This means they would have to ban a large proportion of Australia in order to stop me reading it. Also, I have some software which would allow me to bypass the ban in any case.
Even so, what you say is correct. Thanks for the advice!
-
It totally agree Robert.
And Evan is being a bit disingenuous.
That was another thread that he closed.
MB and Colby have now opened NEW threads on this subject with MB saying she is being black mailed and Colby...well..being Colby.
This has no place here and its sorry to see that some of the mods, and former mods, are as biased as Colby.
MB knows that, that is why she is here.
Jim,
Earlier, I also suggested that the various threads be combined, since they were all discussing the DPF. The consensus was this would just raise complaints and might be seen as suppressing free speech. I agree to a degree, but to my OCD mindset, I would have preferred it done. Everything would be on one thread. Still that's why we try to operate the place along democratic lines: majority rules. If you - or any other member - feel otherwise, you should use the REPORT function and state your opinion and reasons. It'll then be further discussed by the mods and a consensus reached.
People have also said that this is non-JFK related; I agree with that, too, and feel it is much more suited to the PC board. However when I have moved non-JFK threads in the past, I have been often accused of 'abusing my position as a moderator' by some people. Therefore none of we moderators will move the threads until we have reached a consensus that it is appropriate to move the thread/s.
-
That's why I said once the DPF was back up, the thread should be closed. Since people objected to that, I'm exercising my right to revel in schadenfreude.
-
I wouldn't expect anything less from those people.
-
fwiw should i change my password here also, ??
It shouldn't be necessary. I am presuming that the e-mail address that got hacked was a web mail one like, Hotmail, G-Mail, Yahoo, etc? If so, your computer itself should not have been compromised.
Even so, a little paranoia isn't a bad thing. Make sure your virus files are up to date and run a full system scan, not just with an anti-virus programme but also with malware / trojan hunters (e.g. Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware, Spybot Search and Destroy). Make sure your firewall is up to date and effective. Once you're happy you have a clean computer, change passwords.
-
Correct that it was a difficult task, but the Soviets took it on anyway. They were still trying to make a manned landing in 1972 but their Saturn V equivalent, the N-1, kept failing.
LK lunar lander
N-1 lunar launcher and LOK lunar spacecraft
-
Still banned at the "new" DPF:
If I use my static IP, the above is what I see when I go to the DPF.
-
However, that you and Horne "reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board" are opinions not supported by the facts. Those who know the facts of the cases you mention can successfully defend any point you object to, much in the manner that Z film alteration can be explained.
Jack
No, you have opinions which are not supported by the facts, and every time people who are familiar with those facts ask you to debate them, you refuse to do so, claiming various reasons.
oh? "refuse to do so"... well then, close this thread down, as you're wont to do when you can't get your way..... otherwise, do a little research on your own for a change....better yet, regarding the JFK assassination, read HOAX; Murder in Dealey Plaza, etc... in short, get familiar with the JFK assassination -- till then and only then, maybe, just maybe some one will debate the alleged "WCR case" facts with you!
You're misinterpreting what I said, David. I claim no position or knowledge regarding the JFK assassination; in fact I am almost completely ignorant on the subject... but I was referring to the Apollo and 9-11 claims, and debates regarding those matters. I'm an expert in Apollo, and know a reasonable amount regarding 9-11. Jack won't debate me on his Apollo claims.
-
Another inference may be drawn from the "successful" missions of 40 years ago and the NASA admissions of today that present technology is not sufficient to permit
moon missions for another "20 years". If they could do it 40 years ago, why is it NOW IMPOSSIBLE?
I can answer this.
Firstly, Jack is misquoting what NASA has said. They say that on the current budget will not allow a return to the Moon and travel to Mars, as per the Constellation vision. For instance, to quote an MSNBS science and technology report of 8 Sep 2009:
WASHINGTON - A White House panel of independent space experts says NASA's return-to-the-moon plan just won't fly.The problem is money. The expert panel estimates it would cost about $3 billion a year beyond NASA's current budget.
"Under the budget that was proposed, exploration beyond Earth is not viable," panel member Edward Crawley, a professor of aeronautics at MIT, told The Associated Press Tuesday.
The panel's report provided options for President Barack Obama but said NASA's current plans would have to change in any case. Five years ago, then-President George W. Bush proposed returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. To pay for it, he planned on retiring the shuttle next year and shutting down the international space station in 2015.
For a lot of Apollo, the motto was 'waste anything but time'.
Okay, so we know money is a problem. If we threw enough money at it, we should be able to go there next year, right? Perhaps, but unlikely because you have the other two problems: facilities and technology.
The facilities for producing the spacecraft and launch vehicles were pretty unique. Unlike earlier launch vehicles, the Saturn series were essentially meant to support manned exploration / a lunar programme. The lunar modules were practically hand built. The facilities to test the various stages of the Saturn V were built for that sole purpose. So you have to have facilities to support the construction of the spacecraft and launch vehicles. The old ones are gone, so a Saturn V construction and test facility would have to be rebuilt from scratch, or new facilities constructed for a new rocket... which would take just as long and cost just as much.
Still, we have decided that money is no object, so let's just restart the production of all the Apollo-era equipment that we knew worked. Well, now you have the problem of technology. Not that we don't have the technology, but rather that we are going to use old technology. Things like guidance computers used electronics from the 1950s / 60s; where will you find those parts? The inputs by the astronauts were in the form of things like pressing buttons 'NOUN 27 ENTER VERB 23 ENTER PROCEED' rather than 'Fire the main engine'; shouldn't we update that to make things easier?
The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) Display and Keyboard (DSKY)
The problem is that the technology has evolved, that we don't use old technology, and incorporating new technology poses problems to the point where you may as well just take your design and start from scratch!
For instance, the Space Shuttle. When it was first designed, it used state of the art technology - for the early 1970s - in its General Purpose Computers (GPC). By the late 1980s and early 1990s, NASA was buying up stocks of old computer technology in order to support the AP101 computer! It was old technology but upgrading the computers to completely modern standards would require redesign and requalification of the systems.
Think about this: you know Concorde was built and flew. You may have even travelled on it yourself... but if the airlines wanted a supersonic passenger transport aircraft again, how long do you think it would take them to design, produce and test a new aircraft? Or would they just rebuild the Concorde? How long would it take - in both time and money - to restart the Concorde production line?
What if you needed to build a B-17 bomber from scratch again? How much would it cost, and how long would it take? No-one makes radial engines anymore. Does anyone still build the old radios with valves? Sheet metal shouldn't be too bad, but what about metal cogs from the early airborne computers? They were producing B-17s at the rate of about 1 per day; how long would it take to build one... from scratch?
That's why it will take a long time to return to the Moon and go to Mars. Once you throw away the capability, it is very difficult to restart it.
-
Sorry, but my other ISP is all but offline right now (thus why I have a second). I'll check again tomorrow, when hopefully they have gone into their work!
-
I haven't tried to look on my static IP for some time, so I'll check that and see if it is still blocked.
-
-
-
However, that you and Horne "reject theories that we did not go to the moon (multiple times, I might add) or the 9/11 theories propounded on this board" are opinions not supported by the facts. Those who know the facts of the cases you mention can successfully defend any point you object to, much in the manner that Z film alteration can be explained.
Jack
No, you have opinions which are not supported by the facts, and every time people who are familiar with those facts ask you to debate them, you refuse to do so, claiming various reasons.
-
Why am I not surprised that Evan Burton would arrive on the scene to defect the fact that none of
these critics are able to deal with the arguments and evidence that we have presented? Instead, he
endorses a blatant ad hominem attack by someone who knows neither the medical evidence nor the film.
Stephen has nothing to contribute here and neither do you. Let DiEugenio stand up for himself, if he can.
Very well said. IMO, Len should heed this advice with respect to Jack.
To Jim DiEugenio:
An unsolicited observation (although I note that you may be "leaving the room":
It may be a pointless waste of time and energy to debate with Jim Fetzer on these issues. No citation of evidence or logic will discourage him from firing back on all cylinders. Several months back, in an epic thread on Judyth Baker, I came to realize that Jim, despite obvious talents, has a fatal flaw which prevents him from discussing matters without descending into childish putdowns of those who disagree with him. He may question your credentials, intelligence, familiarity with the subject, sincerity and/or motives, all while puffing his own perceived strengths. It will take much time and energy but ultimately accomplish nothing. I think it is best to make your case, let him make his, and be done with it. The rest of us know what the score is.
I am expressing an opinion JIm, and it is not an ad hom. In fact, you are confirming what Stephen said.
-
You are persona non grata at many truther sites.
There are what I would call "full on CT sites" that claim Jim F is a disinformation agent! I think it is just another case of them eating their young (e.g. 911 scholars, DPF, etc) but according to some, anything is possible.
-
Very well said. IMO, Len should heed this advice with respect to Jack.
To Jim DiEugenio:
An unsolicited observation (although I note that you may be "leaving the room":
It may be a pointless waste of time and energy to debate with Jim Fetzer on these issues. No citation of evidence or logic will discourage him from firing back on all cylinders. Several months back, in an epic thread on Judyth Baker, I came to realize that Jim, despite obvious talents, has a fatal flaw which prevents him from discussing matters without descending into childish putdowns of those who disagree with him. He may question your credentials, intelligence, familiarity with the subject, sincerity and/or motives, all while puffing his own perceived strengths. It will take much time and energy but ultimately accomplish nothing. I think it is best to make your case, let him make his, and be done with it. The rest of us know what the score is.
Arizona Rep Giffords shot, at least 5 killed
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
Erad3 seems to be the same person, as they were talking about exactly the same things, using the same language.