Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,420 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
Vaccine opponent risks charity status
KATE BENSON
August 5, 2010
THE Australian Vaccination Network has three weeks to show why its charity licence should not be revoked after an audit revealed it was soliciting donations without permission.
Charity inspectors from the NSW Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing visited the group's office in Bangalow to examine records and interview staff after it received a complaint that the group was calling for donations even though its licence had expired.
The group, run by Meryl Dorey, was granted a fund-raising authority from July 5, 2002, to July 4, 2007, but allowed that to lapse for two years. During that time, it is believed the group asked supporters for money to provide brochures on vaccination to be inserted into gift packs, called Bounty Bags, that are given to new mothers across Australia.
But Megan Baker, the organiser of Bounty Bags, said yesterday she had never had discussions with the group and would not permit its brochures to be distributed in the bags, which contain product samples, such as nappies, baby wipes and rash creams, educational materials and parenting magazines.
''We only insert information which follows public health guidelines set down by the [National Health and Medical Research Council] and the AVN doesn't follow public health guidelines. They are just so controversial,'' she said. ''We would only insert materials in support of immunisation.''
A spokeswoman from the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing said the audit had detected a number of breaches of the charity fund-raising law. They included: fund-raising without an authority; unauthorised expenditure; and failure to keep proper records of income and expenditure.
She said other possible breaches of the Charitable Trusts Act 1993 had been referred to the Department of Justice and Attorney-General.
The demand to show cause comes a week after the Health Care Complaints Commission issued a public warning against the group for refusing to display a disclaimer on its website that indicated its information should not be taken as medical advice.
The commission also found that the group's website presented incorrect and misleading information which was solely anti-vaccination and quoted selectively from research suggesting that vaccination may be dangerous.
The Vaccination Awareness and Information Service, which opposes Ms Dorey's work, claims she also solicited donations from June 2006 to test vaccines for mercury, lead and other heavy metals, but the testing never occurred.
''And in 2009 the AVN solicited donations to place an autism advertisement in a magazine. Despite raising thousands of dollars from the general public, these ads were never placed. We are not aware of these donations being refunded,'' the service's website says.
In a Lismore newspaper article yesterday Ms Dorey challenged the vice-president of the Australian Medical Association, Steve Hambleton, to a debate after he publicly sided with the complaints commission.
When contacted by the Herald, Dr Hambleton rejected the offer, saying: ''I have no interest in providing her with any further oxygen. People want mainstream advice from their medical practitioners.''
Ms Dorey did not return the Herald's calls yesterday.
-
What have you done, Evan? You removed my links to proof that man did not go to the moon, which I
have posted here (twice or more now) for the edification of Josiah Thompson. This is an abuse of
your position as moderator, which could hardly be more blatant. I request the post be reinstated!
I realized beneath that calm exterior, you are a nasty piece of work. This is inexcusable conduct.
I have even explained that I was posting it here for the benefit of Josiah Thompson specifically!
Professor,
The Apollo claims have their own thread on the Political Conspiracies board.
Making the same claims on this thread without addressing my (or others) rebuttals to those claims, will be considered spamming.
It was the same cut and paste as before. There has been a request that the Apollo discussion be moved to the appropriate board, and so the posts have been moved there. If you want to discuss the Apollo claims, discuss them there - not here. Josiah can read your replies on the same thread.
Your request that they be "reinstated" is denied.
I might also point out I have already pointed out why your claims are wrong but you have either not done me the courtesy of reading them or simply ignore what others say and parrot the claims again.
BTW, David - I suggest you read the same thread and you'll find why the Professor is completely wrong.
-
Professor,
The Apollo claims have their own thread on the Political Conspiracies board.
Making the same claims on this thread without addressing my (or others) rebuttals to those claims, will be considered spamming.
-
It's not limited to the good Professor, nor just some Moon hoaxers. It can be found, in varying degrees, amongst almost any area of discussion where there are two opposing views.
It's normally where a person, consciously or subconsciously, realising that their point is fatally flawed and for whatever reasons are unwilling to admit it, just make the same claim over and over, ignoring anything that would threaten their belief in the claim.
Notice how the Prof just repeats the same claim - almost verbatim, I think.
Notice how he fails to acknowledge my rebuttals to each of the claims (stand fast the Apollo 15 flag; Dave will be doing that one shortly).
Notice how instead of attempting to find flaw in the rebuttals, he simply repeats the original claim.
How does it go?
"There's no place like home; there's no place like home, there's no place like home...."
-
Okay Len, you have made your thoughts clear and given examples for people to consider. I'm going to close this thread now - your point has been made and it's starting to wander into the 9-11 area, not to mention becoming a personal attack.
Thread closed.
-
Very admirable Greg, and I agree that he is sincere. Is insincerity beyond him? I don't know the Professor well enough to say, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. i don't see actions which indicate a deep, deliberate decption.
I do see an inability to accept that others may be right when he believes otherwise. To not be able to at least examine rebuttals, to not at least consider that a position might be incorrect, is indicative of a blinkered view which seriously compromises the quality of someones work.
-
I didn't want to act unilaterally, for I'm sure some would accuse me of "censoring" them or other such twaddle. I've asked other moderators regarding their opinion and ask them to take the actions required.
-
Good point, John.
Over the next few days we'll cull out the Apollo / 9-11 posts and put them into their own thread on the PC board.
Sorry for not doing it earlier.
-
It's a Forum requirement that all members have a link to their bio in the signature portion of their posts. Here's how to set that up.
Go to the Introduce Yourself board and start a new thread with your name as your title.
In the bio you can put as much or as little as you like, but normally people give a little background into their particular interests here (just 9-11, just JFK, interest in all the forms that a conspiracy may take, etc) and any particular skills they might have (interest in forensics, CPA, 15 years as a consulting engineers, etc). As the board name suggest, it's about introducing yourself.
If you feel happy to do so, you can also just add some personal information, such as where you come from, married or not, etc - stuff you'd put in a normal bio. Remember though - the bio is public, so do NOT put in anything you want to keep private.
After you have posted your bio, copy a link to it. You can do this by going to the number in the top right-hand corner of the post (e.g. #1), and using the right-click command on your mouse, select Copy Link Location (for Firefox) or Copy Shortcut (for IE).
Next, go to your personal profile settings by clicking on your name in the top right-hand section of the Forum. A list of options will appear.
Select My Settings.
On the page that appears, there will be some tabs across the top under MY OPTIONS and a list of menu items down the left of the page. From the top row, select Profile.
The list of menu items on the left will have changed, and one will be Change Signature. Select that.
An edit box will appear. This is where you place the link to your bio and anything else you'd like to add to your bio like. The most common way to add your bio is to write the word 'Biography', highlight it, select add link from the top of the edit box (that's the icon at top, to the right of the smiley face, that looks like a little chain link). Paste the address to your bio (which you copied in the previous steps) in there and click on Insert Link.
When finished, select Save Changes and you're done!
BTW, you should also have a look around the various settings there, so you can customise aspects of the board to your liking.
-
Let's hear from others:
-
Well, there is little point in my responding to Prof Fetzer's claims because they are just a cut&paste of the same claims he made before!
Professor, you might at least do me the courtesy of reading my replies. Still - I can understand why you do not. In the Apollo world, you are a lightweight.
Actually, that is wrong.
A lightweight would have some - even if flawed - knowledge of the programme. You Sir, know nothing about the programme. You just picked something you liked and adopted it, without the care or ability to check its veracity.
-
-
Dr. Fetzer is absolutely correct. I have checked his website, and it is filled with accurate evidence and
apt conclusions. I am convinced that he is the world's foremost authority on 911. He may have a few
minor mistakes, but it makes little difference. If he is "only" 95 percent right, that is pretty impressive.
His critics should check his URLs and learn something, and limit their complaints to facts that they
believe wrong...not what someone else interprets as the Fetzer position.
He correctly stands up to his critics, and in some cases his retorts are perhaps too mild. There is
something wrong when the evidences is available and critics refuse to examine it.
Jack
But Jack, what is the point? If his actions with respect to the Professor's Apollo claims are anything to go by, he - like you - just simply ignores any critics or accuses them of being some type of agent.
Both you and the Professor won't accept any conflicting viewpoints - so why should anyone bother?
-
PM sent to Steven Gaal, warning that he must ceate a biography and link to it.
Steven,
You have still not provided a link to your biography on the bottom of your posts, despite being asked to do so a couple of weeks ago. Please do so within 24 hours, or your posts will be placed on moderation.
If you need assistance in creating your biography and linking to it, myself or any of the moderators are more than happy to help.
Thank you.
Evan
-
Professor Fetzer has given the following in support of his claim that all the point previously made are valid. I'll reproduce it in full then deal with each section individually. I have a comment at the end of the quote.
You have been non-responsive or completely dismissive of the evidence of video fakery, which is
definitive insofar as the videos show events that are physically impossible, involving violations
of laws of aerodyamics, of physics, and of engineering. I have often observed that the official
account is just fine if you are willing to believe impossible things. You are. I am not. Why would
I want to waste my time with someone who is willing to believe impossible things? The moon
landings fall into that category. The very fact that you claim to refute "every point" displays your
degree of irrationality. Why would anyone want to debate with an irrational agent like you? But I can
see you want to show your stuff. OK. This is from http://www.moonmovie...vie/default.asp
10. The Fake Footage in Space.
A model of the moon is used for the Apollo 11 descent footage. Anyone with basic knowledge of motion pictures can see it's a fake moon. This fake footage is on the the tape we received from NASA, compiled on the DVD Monkey Business: False Photography Unedited. Another example is the Lunar Ascent Module footage. It depicts a rotation that immediately commences at full speed, and after rotation, immediately stops. There is absolutely no indication of a drop off in speed or a gradual acceleration, as Newton's law of motion would necessitate. In addition, there are problems with the descent of at least two LEMs as well, as can be seen to the left in the Apollo 17 footage. We've gotten a lot of feedback on this, but perhaps if you'd seen the mislabeled tape sent to Sibrel from NASA's Johnson Space Center, you'd move this reason closer to number 1. The contents of that tape are available - Apollo 11 Monkey Business: False Photography Unedited. You'd better watch it while sitting down. We have accumulated and produced over 250 YouTube videos that you can watch for free. We are convinced that our YouTube videos alone, put together with Jarrah White's YouTube videos will convince any honest person that Apollo did not take men to the moon.
Sadly, our YouTube account was finally removed after a second wave of attacks by 'NASA worshippers'. After having had over 60 of our videos removed, we transferred them to a Justin.TV account and MySpace.com. Both crimes against our free speech were the result of our enemies' handiwork. We learned that the Apollo-Believer propagandists had flagged our videos for 'inappropriate content'.
9. The Means and the Motive.
Does life imitate art, or art imitate life -- or is it possible that sometimes art simulates and manipulates life? Some have claimed that Stanley Kubrick was involved in the production of the Apollo EVAs. And not long ago, a Canadian, tongue-in-cheek film was produced to make a mockery of this claim. We hold no clear position on the matter. In addition, since the 1950's Walt Disney was recruited to create widespread public acceptance of a very expensive trip to the moon, as well as the public approval of a group of NAZI war criminals, led by Wernher von Braun. The result was widespread disinformation, but the end motive is not all together clear. One must ask, "Was the space race itself a fabrication, set up by those behind what Eisenhower called the "Military Industrial Complex"? See Reason 2.
Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey proves that the technology existed to fake the dockings, landings, walks, and takeoffs from the moon's surface. The means existed. On that note, Google Search "Lookout Mountain Studio".
8. The Apollo One Fire.
The three true Apollo heroes who unwillingly gave their life (Grissom's famous quote is taken out of context since he was referring to a mission he was confident in - Gemini) at Pad 34 did not have to die. We all know that, but why did they die? After years of investigation into the findings of the 90th Congress, we believe that the AS-204 crew were not simply victims of neglect - they were executed. The findings are detailed in the multimedia DVD The Apollo One Accident Report, along with the complete 3,500+ page report for your own investigation. Lt. Col. Gus Grissom, a man of the highest military integrity, pulled the largest lemon he could find off the tree in his back yard, and told his wife, "I'm going to hang it on that spacecraft". This was 5 days after the famous media day pictures had been taken at Pad 34, and five days before he would die at Pad 34. Grissom also called a press conference to address grievances against NASA and North American regarding the failures of the CSM Block 1. There is no doubt that he, Roger Chaffee and Ed White [whose wife Pat was later 'suicided'] were on a path that would surely lead to heated confrontations and the public exposure of the manned moon landing hoax. They were sacrificed. There is no doubt about it. The evidence is clear.
7. The Testimony of Apollo Astronauts under Light Duress.
These men were professionals, trained to perform calmly under extreme pressure, but when it comes to defending the most important days of their professional career, they fall way short of producing the facts - resorting to threats of violence, unscientific statements, and absconding behavior. For example, in the film Astronauts Gone Wild, while defending the Apollo 11 footage of the Earth from 130,000 miles out, Buzz Aldrin said things like, "They can do all kinds of things with fake photography" (even though he shot this film with his own hands) and "We're passengers. We're guys going on a flight." Kicking and punching - is that a behavior of someone who knows they are in the right or someone angry at the threat of being exposed? And what about the Apollo 11 Press Conference (DVD)? Armstrong says he can't remember which stars he could see from the surface while shooting photos. Collins covers for him, saying "I don't remember seeing any". Collins of course, was not supposed to be on the moon's surface, so the NASA transcript attributes this saying to Aldrin.
6. "Moon" Rocks.
Wernher von Braun, a NAZI with the honorary rank equivalent of a major in Hitler's SS, took a team to Antarctica, while he was supposed to be perfecting Apollo's Saturn V rocket. This man signed papers to permit the use of slave laborers to build his V2 rockets, and over 20,000 people suffered daily and eventually died under his supervision. In addition, he sent countless V2 rockets into the heart of London - with plans to do so to Washington, D.C., New York, and Philadelphia. If he and his NAZI team were capable of such inhuman activities, it is clearly not a leap in logic to say they would have no problem continuing their unethical practices in this country as well. How? By falsifying the greatest purported evidence we have today for the manned landings -- by collecting meteorites to be later modified in a ceramic lab -- into forged moon rocks. Some say, we have tiny moon-made spheres! But these could have just as easily been collected by the unmanned probes we sent to the moon's surface.
5. The Limitations of 1960's Computer Technology, small meteors, and the Van Allen Belts.
Almost 40 years ago, with *combined CSM and LM guidance computer memory totaling only 10.3% [152kb] of a common 1.4MB [1474.56kb] floppy disk, NASA claims to have traveled 60,000% as far as any other manned spacecraft has gone before or since. Basically a household calculator (or discount watch) took 27 men [Apollo 8 to 17] to the moon and back, with the help of slide rules - accounting for fuel consumption, angle of approach, lunar landing, rate of descent, and so on. Yet at a distance of under 300 miles from Earth, we have lost the lives of 14 Shuttle astronauts who never left Earth orbit. In 9 trips there were no incidents involving small meteors, even though the hull of the craft dubbed the LM had a hull so thin in places that a screwdriver wall fall through the floor if dropped. Yes, Space is a big place - but there were no injuries or damage except Apollo 13's apparent self-inflicted wound? Van Allen made it clear in his 1958-59 report that travelers to the moon would need go around the belts, approaching the moon by first departing through the space directly above the the north or south poles of the Earth. These limitations alone, make the trip to the moon a theory, and not a fact.
4. The Apollo 15 Flag Waving - Untouched.
In order to explain this one, the Apollo Believers must keep you guessing by resorting to claims of a static discharge with the astronaut's distant space suit. View the video for yourself (gif at top left of page), and see why this incident alone hits a lofty number 4 in our top 10.
3. The Lunar Surface Photographic and Video Record.
Problems with lighting and the infamous C-Rock photo with it's "C-less" counterpart doctored photo have been the subject of much debate between those who believe the photos have remained unaltered and others who believe the photos were completely staged. Still there are some photos that seem to fall into the retouched category. Countless photographic anomalies remain in question. There is no doubt that the more significant problem with the C-Rock photo is that it has obviously been altered, and the alteration we refer to has nothing to do with the rock, but the more serious problem is the cut and paste of the rover and astronaut. Also, few people notice the C on the ground, telling the set workers where to place the rock. It's there on the ground, directly below the C on the rock.
Also, under the Apollo 11 LEM, pebbles are still in place and there is no indication of landing by anything other than a cable lowered down on a pristine surface of grayish sand and powder. There are no streaks of dust spreading out from the descent engine.
We do not focus on shadows, except for a few photos. This is because the photos focused on by some have become straw men, easily debunked. The high-powered, fake sun reflected in the astronauts visors as a large circular object is a far stronger argument - and one that cannot be easily dismissed. We've included a link to Jack White's studies (left) for those interested in the photographic record, but again we don't place much weight on this argument. Shadow trajectory changes with terrain. It is the 8% average alb edo of the moon's surface that is more damning than shadow angles.
2. The Precedent of Secret U.S. Government Operations.
A knowledge of true history is needed to understand why the moon missions had to be faked. It had nothing to do with a real space race, but a fabricated and protected farce. The money powers needed to insure a race for arms and a race for space, manipulated for billions in profits for the global bankers and insider industrialists.
Japanese submarines at the mouth of Pearl Harbor were sunk many hours before the 1941 'surprise' attacks commenced. An intercepted, November communication of the attack plan was ignored. The U.S. entered WW II based on a lie. Sound familiar? The corrupt CIA and NSA were formed on the principal of insuring U.S. economic interests around the world and at home -- at any price.
John F. Kennedy, who had plans to unite the space exploration efforts of the Soviet Union with those of the United States, announcing hopes for a joint moon mission with the USSR at the United Nations -- thereby ending both the Space Race and Arms Race, never lived to see that day. The elite, international bankers would kill him before he had the chance, a mere two months after his joint moon mission speech of September 20th, 1963. (See video and documents below)
On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel, under the direct orders of LBJ. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was also a staged event, meant to insure expanded involvement in Vietnam. Area 51 continues to be one of the most heavily protected U.S. installations known today, guarding who-knows-exactly-what. And the list is endless.
Yes, covert operations have a prominent place in the U.S.A.'s recent sordid history. And although this reason in and of itself is not enough to prove the Manned Moon Landing to be a hoax, it certainly shows that the organizations are in place to carry out such an operation - 9 fake trips to the moon. Most .US. citizens are emotionally attached to the idea of "We got there first", so much so that the pride of being a part of the United States has made them forget what being citizen implies.
The foundation of this nation is dissent and rebellion against a corrupt government, never a worship of it. The government is to be a servant of the people, but our laziness has made us a slave to our government.
So, in summation, reason number 2 is that our own pride as a nation has blinded us to the fact that the intelligence community has been used as a tool of the elite to hijack our nation's assets and subject the will of the people to a "love affair" with NASA.
1. The 130,000 Mile Deception.
Apollo 11. July 18th, 1969. Neil Armstrong, having heard CapCom report Columbia's distance from the Earth at 130,000 miles out - begins the unofficial television transmission [to be edited and partially played later] by echoing the same distance of 130,000 miles. In view, out the Commander's window is a small ball of blue, with a terminator line and weather patterns matching Earth's current conditions.
We are meant to believe that the blue ball is Earth. It is not. This evidence is our top reason. There can be no doubt. The Apollo 11 Westinghouse camera was not zooming through deep space to see a distant Earth and zooming back out again through deep space. When truly understood, when one understands that the Earth could not have remained in view through the small window across the room, or suddenly appeared as large as when they zoomed into it - this proves the hoax. This is the 'smoking gun' of Apollo, and the top reason to not believe the official story. Raw footage of this is available on the DVD Apollo 11 Monkey Business with detailed explanations in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, and confrontations about it with 9 of the Apollo astronauts in Astronauts Gone Wild.
Few people have taken the time to analyze this footage, but if they truly approach this footage for what it is and not what they hope it will be - they will come to the same conclusion. It is staged, and the Earth is fake.
Bart Sibrel got it wrong in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. He should have deeply consulted with other Hoax Researchers, but he did not. Sibrel thought it was an "in-orbit' shot of Earth through a circular window. Neither is correct. The commander's window is not circular, and there's no way this was the real Earth at all.
Behind Michael Collins, hanging on Window Number 1 [the commander's CM window] was a transparency - used when they brought down the lights and adjusted the camera exposure. The transparency was a picture of the planet Earth. This was first tested by another Apollo crew on their "flight", which can be examined in detail, through the research & videography of Jarrah White (linked above).
There is no room for "theory" here, in terms of whether or not Apollo safely sent men to the moon and back. The hoax is no longer simply speculation. It's an historical fact.
If you can think of any other reasons that are more convincing CONTACT us via our Contact page.
I am sorry, Evan. You aren't worth the time.
Non responsive? I have continually asked YOU to respond - at last you have and what do we see? More cut and paste from the website of others. Lets face it Professor - you can't argue the position on your own, can you? You have to quote others... and you can't verify those quotes, can you? You can't defend any Apollo position on your own because you have no expertise in the area, do you? You just repeat the claims of others.
par·rot
noun
1. any of numerous hook-billed, often brilliantly colored birds of the order Psittaciformes, as the cockatoo, lory, macaw, or parakeet, having the ability to mimic speech and often kept as pets.
2. a person who, without thought or understanding, merely repeats the words or imitates the actions of another.
–verb (used with object)
3. to repeat or imitate without thought or understanding.
4. to teach to repeat or imitate in such a fashion.
(Bolding mine)
-
Professor - thank you for your response. I intend to move the post to the relevant thread after a short period, allowing people to see it here before moving to it's proper home in the Apollo thread.
Again, thank you for responding - I look forward to proving why your opinions are wrong.
-
How eclectic?
Well, I love everything from Frank Zappa to Adam Ant.
Some of my favorites:
Amazing Grace performed by the Royal Scots Dragoon Band
Khe Sanh by Cold Chisel
Listen to the Band by The Monkees
Pictures of Matchstick Men by Status Quo
New York Mining Disaster by the Bee Gees
Spicks & Specks by the Bee Gees
Juke Box Hero by Foreigner
Angel of the Morning by Juice Newton
Take it on the run by REO Speedwagon
Son of a Preacher Man by Dusty Springfield
Spirit in the Sky by Norman Greenbaum
Metal Gods by Judas Priest
and many more.
-
I try to be very eclectic in my music, and that falls into music that will be around long after all of us are gone.
-
I am sorry, Evan. You aren't worth the time.
-
Professor Fetzer,
All have been addressed here.
(The only exception is the input from Dave Greer, whom I consider to be a better source than me regarding one specific claim)
You do yourself a disservice by repeating the same claims again. At worst I would suggest you link back to your original post.
I'm sure everyone can see how you are floundering, Professor. You endorse claims as being enough to "convince anyone" but you cannot actually stand up and debate them. So your good friend tells you that Pat Boone is in fact a child molester and satanist; because you believe your good friend would not lie to you, you accept what they say?
You have a source that tells you that any claim of helicopter flying a vertical loop is totally impossible, since the aerodynamics of such a situation are clearly impossible. This person has flown many hundreds of hours as a pilot in helicopters, so you assume they must be correct. When shown footage of a helicopter performing a vertical loop you automatically say that the film is faked. Have you checked to see if it is actually possible?
No Professor, you only see what you want to see. You only accept what you want to accept.
-
I have cited sources for those who want to pursue this, which I do not. You are obviously a fanatic about the moon landing and I have enough nonsense to deal with already. I submit that anyone who studies the evidence I have cited will conclude "man did not go to the moon"
So you cite sources, but haven't concerned yourself enough to be able to able to tell if their claims are valid or not. You parrot them.
If you investigated the claims - as I have - instead of parroting them, you'd discover they are baseless.
I think that's why you fear trying to debate me on this matter; you know I have extensive knowledge of the subject and you do not.
-
One, the group of Israelis found celebrating and videotaping the smoking towers (as if they knew there would be something to tape). The moving company they worked for turned out to be a Mossad front, and the owner fled to Israel. The celebrants themselves were jailed for a while and deported.
http://www.911myths....g_israelis.html
Two, the NYC office of an Israeli-owned messaging company received a warning of the attacks. (The government presumably traced the source of the electronic warning, but do you think it would tell us who it was?)http://www.911myths....html/odigo.html
Three, one of the largest if not the largest Israeli-owned shipping company moved its HQ out of the WTC a few weeks before the attacks. (Of course, since 9/11 involves a string of coincidences a mile long, this could just be one of them.)http://www.911myths....m_shipping.html
There is also the killing that Larry Silverstein made on the WTC (with Larry himself just happening to have a doctor's appointment on the morning of 9/11, which his wife wouldn't let him cancel even though he pleaded, thus his unusual absence from the WTC). Which raises the question, if Silverstein knew beforehand he could make a killing, how or from whom did he find out?http://www.911myths....l/windfall.html
If you find any errors or omissions in the website, they'd be very happy to know about it. You can contact them at:
mike@911myths.com
-
No - could you post a link to the relevant ones? Thanks!
-
John,
Are there risks associated with vaccines? Yes. Are they large risks? No. Do the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks? A resounding YES.
Vaccination is important for those too young to be immunised; herd immunity can help protection.
Moon Myth Disinformation
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
The posts have been MOVED, not removed. Anyone who wishes to view them can see them here.
If you are so confident I know nothing about Apollo, why don't you try and defend the claims you so regularly parrot? Are you afraid to debate me on Apollo?