Matthew Lewis

And again, if there are so many deadly cosmic rays in deep space, then what about the astronauts in Earth orbit? The Van Allen belts do not block cosmic rays.

There was no trick with the shadow Duane. You just misidentified the backpack and helmet and continue to do so. The shadow is not and never has been backward.

Duane, if the deep space is so deadly with cosmic rays then how come those astronauts in Earth orbit don\'t have a problem with them? You do know that the Van Allen belts don\'t stop cosmic rays right? Or do you believe that all space travel is a hoax?

They say the monkey died from dehydration. I would think most humans would be smart enough to drink while in space. I would think that the monkey being disoriented and possibly scared, did not feel like eating or drinking. So there is no reason to think that what happened to the monkey would happen to those on Apollo especially since they had already had trips in space before the incident that had lasted longer and had gone around the moon. The idea that the monkey died from radiation is just a rumor with nothing whatsoever to support it. Before it happened they had already been through and past the Van Allen belts and had had information about them for years.

Notice the phrase \\\"unless they were looking through the optics\\\". That was because they were answering a question that specifically asked whether they could see the stars \\\"in the solar corona\\\". They had an experiment where they specifically worked with photographing the solar corona and were referring to that.

Why am I not surprised of such a reply from Jack. You just can't ever admit when you're wrong can you Jack?

I think it is clear that it is in fact a partial print from the boot.

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours. Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building. You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one. There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department. No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself. Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event. Um, yeah, whatever. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was not responding to the BBC thing persay but rather commenting on a funny thing I noticed on the news last week which was why I edited out most of his post when I quoted it. What's with the attitude? Attitude? Not sure what you mean Matthew. I post here because I'm interested in learning - and sharing - what I understand to be the truth about important events. I get rather tired of people who only seem to want to argue a point - however irrational. It seems to be a common trait among posters who, for what ever reasons, invest time supporting the official line on 9/11. Gee, sorry, there must not have been any attitude there. I guess the phrases dropping by on the bike honour us all with most erudite and convincing There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department and probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event. really weren't in your post and wouldn't have looked to most like you were annoyed that I even bothered to post something even somewhat in supoort of an opposing viewpoint to yours. I must have been mistaken.

Now if you really want my opinion, which I doubt from the perceived attitude of your post, I find it unlikely there was any need for precognition. Seeing as how there are firefighters on record from hours before the event as saying they were worried the building might collapse, how much of a stretch is it that the BBC or other news networks may have heard that? Of course I know that won't be good enough for you but frankly, so what? This is yet another thing that won't be proven one way or the other but will instead be argued back and forth for multiple pages. What's the point?

double post

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours. Thanks for "dropping by on the bike" once again Matthew, to honour us all with most erudite and convincing explanations for the BBC's "20-minutes-before-before-it-took-place" reporting of the unprecedented collapse of a 47-storey building. You correctly surmised that even The Great Colby might need a hand with this one. There must be jobs for guys like you in the overworked BBC PR Department. No news from Evan Burton, I notice. He was going to research real precedents for this type of precognitive reporting. Evan's standards are, I trust, rather higher. He clearly needs time to accomplish the feat he has set himself. Evan probably appreciates the difference in kind between confusion over casuality numbers and precognition of an unprecedented catastrophic event. Um, yeah, whatever. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was not responding to the BBC thing persay but rather commenting on a funny thing I noticed on the news last week which was why I edited out most of his post when I quoted it. What's with the attitude?

I've got a story even better than those. Last week when the news stations were reporting on the students dead from a tornado in Alabama they reported different numbers of dead in the same sentence. Even worse, they did this same thing several times over the course of a few hours.

Again, all I'm saying is it doesn't make any sense at all to hand out a script of the events. None. It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. But we do have evidence that news agencies report wrong info or misinterpret info all the time. Just yesterday I was watching the news all morning concerning the tonados in Alabama. Multiple times within the same sentence they would report different numbers of students that had died. Within the same sentence. And this didn't just happen once. It happened multiple times throughout the day. They were reporting numbers from multiple sources even if they contradicted with each other. There were never any retraction made and no explanations offered. For WTC 7 it wouldn't take precognition. It would just take a quick misinterpretation of the few facts that were available. There were reports from earlier in the day that the people on the scene were worried the building was going to collapse. There were reports of the building leaning and a multistory bulge. Can you prove they didn't just get a report saying they were worried the buildin was going to collapse and misreported it as has collapsed? That requires a much lesser leap of logic than somebody was trying to demolish it secretly and did the incredibly stupid thing of telling multiple people beforehand.

Just checking here, is this the same BBC that has lost years worth of "Doctor Who"? Is it impossible for the footage to have been misplaced? Why would anyone in their right mind give a script out that a building has collapsed that intends to do it purposely and secretly? Does that really make any sense? Any sense at all? Wouldn't it just be easier to let the news agencies find out on their own and report it? Isn't it just way more likely that the BBC either got bad info or misinterpreted the reports that said it looked like it would collapse?

Think about what you said here then think about how Mars looks through any telescope. Looks red, doesn't it?

Sorry Duane, you're wrong. Dave even gave you the words to search for to check for yourself. Look up the South Atlantic Anomaly. You will find that the ISS routinely passes through a low hanging part of the Van Allen belts. I'd also like to see this oft quoted but never produced document where Van Allen says they need several feet of lead. Where might it be found? Are you sure it is real and not another fairy tale dreamed up by the conspiracists? And you still didn't address the fact that it is not just NASA that deals with the Van Allen Belts. Numerous countries and companies have satellites in and past the belts. They know what the radiation data is and they know it is the same that NASA has always said it is.

In other parts of the same tape Bin Laden looks much more like the other picture. Why is that single frame where he doesn't always the only one shown? More pictures from the video here http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/ Click on download PDF and go to page 36 Pretty much the same info here without the PDF download http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html So which is right?

So it isn't possible that somebody could have researched the issue and come to a different conclusion than you? They must be a shill? You just always must be right and anyone that disagrees with you is a shill? How paranoid can you get?

I'm still haveing this problem now after more than 3 weeks. Everytime I try to visit the forum I get a 403 Forbidden error. Any idea yet what is causing it or when it will be fixed?

If one gets an email stating that a thread has been updated and comes here to check and then posts, wouldn't that have the same effect as what you are describing? There would be no need for one to wait on the site to "pounce" on a particular poster. Many work on their computers or spend much of their time posting on other sites. Should they be admonished for leaving their email programs open?

I assume you mean frames per second right? But still the number of frames are wrong. It was filmed and transmitted at 10 frames per second and was still 10 frames per second when broadcast in mission control. It had to be filmed off a screen because there was no convertor available to change it to the 30 frames per second need for TV. As stated above, because of the difference in frame rates, they couldn\'t have a direct feed. Filming off of a screen was the easiest way to do it. But that was only done with Apollo 11. The other missions did not need to be filmed off of a screen.

Or if he did find somebody he would claim they only changed their mind because they were bought off or threatened or both.

Just a little nitpick here. Multiple times now you have spelled oops wrong. Its not the multiple P's and S's that bother me although they add nothing to the word. Rather it is the lack of the second O. Without that second O the pronounciation of the word changes. Is it too much to ask for you to spell it correctly? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oops

Here\'s a link to the NTSB report on Payne Stewart\'s jet so one can see the timing for themselves http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=...A005&akey=1 As you can see, the time changes from Eastern to Central which adds an hour to the overall time. Also of note is that the planes that first intercepted Stewart\'s jet were not planes dedicated to air defense but rather unarmed ones that were already airborne for another unrelated mission. It took even longer to get air defense jets to Stewart\'s plane.

I have been having the same problem for about a week and a half now with a 403 Forbidden error message. Like the others I can post from a friend\'s house or via a proxy server so it seems to be related to my IP address.