Matthew Lewis

Flu and dizziness are symptoms of a lot of things. Known for "chemtrails" which happen to look exactly like contrails? Doubtful given what I said before about how long an aerosol at altitude will take to reach the ground. Which brings up an interesting point. One of the primary identifiers of "chemtrails" is that they persist for longer than expected (although possible wih contrails) but if they are persisting and still in the air then how are they affect you on the ground at the same time miles away? I've been walking in that park every day for many years .. I never got sick until the two times the chemtrail grid was overhead.. It's a known fact that the chemicals the military is spraying eventualy reaches the ground, making people ill.. It's also a fact that this is happening all over the world. IF they were spraying chemicals then they would reach the ground sometime but not immediately as every study regarding aerosols has shown and by the time they would, common sense says they would be so dissipated they would be nearly undetectable, but you didn't answer the question. If they are persisting and still in the air then how are they affect you on the ground at the same time miles away? If it was a virus or bacteria that affected you, those take time to incubate. Why assume the source came immediately before symptoms? You mention military, what about all the pictures and videos that show commercial craft leaving these trails? Or the programs like FlightAware or Flight Explorer that show they are commercial flights? What about the thousands of trails left by types of aircraft the military doesn't have?

Flu and dizziness are symptoms of a lot of things. Known for "chemtrails" which happen to look exactly like contrails? Doubtful given what I said before about how long an aerosol at altitude will take to reach the ground. Which brings up an interesting point. One of the primary identifiers of "chemtrails" is that they persist for longer than expected (although possible wih contrails) but if they are persisting and still in the air then how are they affect you on the ground at the same time miles away?

Normal contrails CAN behave that way. They are determined by the air conditions the plane travels through and air is not always uniform. Contrails can persist depending on the conditions. ALL samples that have been tested have been collected on the ground. There is no proof whatsoever that what has been tested has come from "chemtrails". So again, how do you KNOW they were NOT contrails? Everything that has been described as a description of "chemtrails" can be explained by the long known science of contrails. Did you or Jack charter a plane and collect samples directly from the trail? Why would you assume something collected on the ground miles away from the trail must come from the "chemtrail"? How are all other possible sources ruled out? Seems like shoddy science at best

How do you KNOW they were NOT contrails?

Seems more likely there was something in the park that affected you. Since studies of aerosols at altitude (volcanic eruptions, fuel dumps) show that it can take days, sometimes weeks or months for it to reach the ground, how do you know it was the trails multiple miles in the air affecting you? Incidentally, the plane on the upper right your your posted graphic is not spraying, nor a tanker. It is a NAVY E6 Tacamo jet doing a fuel dump.

How many spacecraft have you built Jack? Do you know the difference between structural material (which is not visible in your photograph) and insulative, reflective, and/or micrometeoroid protective material (which is visible)? Apparently not. Just because you are ignorant about what you are looking at doesn't mean anyone else is. Interestingly enough the LM shares many similarities with satellites (much of the same materials used) which also, just like the LM, were designed to spend their entire service life in the vacuum of space. Why do you suppose that the thousands of scientists all over the world that do build and work with spacecraft for a living don't have a problem with the way the LM looked? And they put it together with thumbtacks? How do you KNOW those are thumbtacks?

How many spacecraft have you built Jack? Do you know the difference between structural material (which is not visible in your photograph) and insulative, reflective, and/or micrometeoroid protective material (which is visible)? Apparently not. Just because you are ignorant about what you are looking at doesn't mean anyone else is. Interestingly enough the LM shares many similarities with satellites (much of the same materials used) which also, just like the LM, were designed to spend their entire service life in the vacuum of space. Why do you suppose that the thousands of scientists all over the world that do build and work with spacecraft for a living don't have a problem with the way the LM looked?

When the wheels are in line, the trailing wheels would obiterate the tracks from the leading wheels as they make their own tracks. There are photos that show the multiple tracks when the rover turns.

What about your false accusation of someone here accusing you of faking the picture?

pixel resize Thank you John. As I said, there is definitely something there. How dare NASA release a photo that shows something better that was there all along!

WHO accused you of tampering with or faking it? NOBODY here has done so.

In the old version where the rock is supposedly missing, it looks to be a low quality image. There is also "something" in the precise spot and shape as the rock in the new one. I would say the new image is better resolution and better contrast. That is all.

Of which Evan Burton pointed out some. A hilarious statement coming from one inventing a means of moving the rover for which there is no evidence at all. At least everything I've suggested was actually seen.

I NEVER said that it never left tracks. Don't put words in my mouth. I said I see soil disturbed by astronaut's movement. How is it fantasizing to speculate that tracks may have been covered up or obliterated due to activity we KNOW happened? I am a bit taken aback (not really, I've come to expect it from you and Jack) that you make the jump in logic to "some mechanical or physical means were used to position the rover" when there is no evidence of any such postioning AND we KNOW the vehicle could move under its own power, we KNOW it was light enough to pick up by hand and we KNOW that the soil was easily kicked up and could therefore obscure some tracks. Further, I've seen it pointed out on another forum that there are partial tracks visible in some photos (partial due to footprints in the area, imagine that) and that at least one of the photos in question was taken a half hour after the rover stopped. That is a half hour of activity that might feasibly kick up loose soil. Frankly this whole thing seems like a non-issue. Even if fake and on a set the tracks could STILL be obscured due to soil kicked up by movements of the actors. I'm just waiting for the supposed "good" evidence to be presented. But in the meantime, please continue to post the pictures of what looks like a track from tractor wheels with footprints made from sneakers that was obviously NOT taken on the Moon as your "evidence".

Burton doesn't need my help. I see that in those instances there is loose soil disturbed by footprints. I see absolutely no reason to make the illogical jump to a crane. A crane which would be expensive, impractical and stupid and for which there is no evidence provides a better explanation than the soil was disturbed by the astronauts moving around which we KNOW they did?

Because they could never drive near previous tracks. What is apparent to me is how shallow the tracks are and how easy it might be to obscure them with footprints or kicked soil. What I don't understand is why ANYBODY would devise a crane to move a set piece when the set piece 1. has wheels 2. is light enought to pick up 3. is shown in videos to be able to move under its own power. Now really, is this your best evidence? You can't find tracks in photos that show lots of obvious movement of the soil from footprints so it MUST have been a crane that moved it? I'm starting to see why some hoax believers on other forums think you are a government plant Jack.

Why tape? A strip of tape, unlike a point fastener, spreads the force out over a distance. It makes whatever is being attached less likely to rip.

Could it fly at 500mph close to the ground ignoring ground effect? I don't know. I seen statements both ways from qualified parties but I don't have the knowledge nor the personal experience to speculate, so I won't. I don't really care either. I've commented on what I have knowledge of. Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on. Doing my Pentagon studies, I googled GROUND EFFECT LIFT and found an article by a professor at the University of Washington. I incorporated his information and illustration into my study. I suggest that Mr. Lewis debate the professor on Ground Effect Lift. Jack What would be the point Jack? It is already apparent that neither of us will budge. You really want this to turn into another pissing match like the other "debate" on this forum? And further I have already posted info showing that yours and his misconception for ground effect is wrong. Or did you miss this quote? AGAIN, ground effect DECREASES with increased speed and increases with increased angle of attack. Please check the references I previously posted. Your understanding as stated in your study is backward. That is why it is a notable effect in landing when aircraft are at LOW speeds and High angles of attack. It doesn't make it impossible to land, it is just another factor that a pilot has to take into account. A plane moving at high speed will pretty much go where you point it. Jack, I have a serious question for you not really related to this thread. Why don't you use a web based photo hosting service like photobucket to post your studies? I realize that it may be easier to just upload them to the forum but that means they don't show up in quotes and they use the forum's limited bandwidth. I believe they may also have an expiration. I saw a post of yours from a few months back that did not have an upload attached to it anymore (I don't remember the post or location, sorry). That may be an unintended consequence of the forum software. Linking to photobucket or a similar service would be permanent (at least as long as that service exists), save this forum and others their bandwidth and allow others to link to your studies as well.

Please pardon the intrusion, Jim, and not to break the integrity of your thread, but Matthew's position, as stated in the above sentence, reminds me of Lamson's position regarding JFK. Neither of them care about the core issues contained within the TOPIC of the threads! Lamson has stated that he doesn't care about JFK and Lewis doesn't "really" care about most of 911. Yet both post and argue their respective points with vigor...indeed even argue at times quite passionately--to advance positions on subjects that neither of them care about. Fascinating... I argue about points that I KNOW are presented wrong. I choose not to argue about points I could only speculate about. I don't care about most of 911 because I don't see anything changing. I've seen arguments back and forth for more than 8 years on the subject and NOTHING seems to change. The same issues are brought up over and over with the same arguments and neither on either side make any concessions. I used to care more. I don't care much anymore. As for the points I argue, I don't care who I correct or in other words, which side they are on. All I care about is that the few facts I do know are presented correctly. I can and have corrected and argued with those on both sides of the issue. Is it wrong to want more accuracy overall? Is it wrong to not want to speculate reagrding issues I admit I don't know much about?

Could it fly at 500mph close to the ground ignoring ground effect? I don't know. I seen statements both ways from qualified parties but I don't have the knowledge nor the personal experience to speculate, so I won't. I don't really care either. I've commented on what I have knowledge of. Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.

The compressed air explanation of ground effect is wrong as shown on the references I previously posted. Even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't change the FACT that ground effect DECREASES as speed INCREASES These quotes specifically And this quote which explains Nila And this graphic Notice specifically how ground effect (and lift itself) is less with lower angles of attack No, if you had noticed I said a horizontal trajectory would mean a LOW or ZERO angle of attack which supports me. Even though that site says this? "there is no "cushion of air" holding the plane up and making it "float." " It in no way indicates that it would impossible to fly horizontal at high speeds.

I am a pilot. I have experienced ground effect for myself and know when it does and does not occur. I also have a degree in aviation. Another pilot on this board has also weighed in. I am aware of the trajectory and the lamp posts but that is NOT what I am talking about. I have asked twice if your statement is specifically referring to ground effect and you have until now failed to give a clear answer. I say that it is WRONG that ground effect would cause the trajectory to be impossible for the reasons that I have already stated. Aeronautical science shows this. A flat trajectory would NOT be a high angle of attack. It would be low or more likely zero. Yet again showing that ground effect would be reduced and NOT a factor.

All I asked for is where it says it collapsed in 10 seconds. The rest is superfluous. 10 seconds is OBVIOUSLY wrong. So why accept it? Especially when it is in the official report and you reject the official report? How is that site misinformation? First, not "my site". A site. I happen to agree with that conclusion but I am in no way affiliated with the site, nor do I agree with everything presented. How does that answer my question? How is the site I posted which breaks the collapse down into half second intervals and clearly shows that they each took at least 13 seconds misinformation? I didn't ask about what other sites and sources may say. And Dave Greer did NOT say that NIST said the collapses were 9 and 11 seconds, nor did NIST. They said the first exterior panels hit the ground in that time. That says NOTHING about how long the total collapse took. Still wondering why YOU would claim the collapses took 10 seconds when the available evidence shows otherwise.

refer to ground effect? If so, it was pointed out in another thread that ground effect decreases with speed. It also decreases as the angle of attack decreases (or vice versa) and the impact would have been at a negative angle of attack. Both of these mean that ground effect would have been negligible. What do you think about those facts? You didn't even answer my questions. I don't CARE about light posts, trajectory, or the data recorder. I didn't mention them. Please try to stay on topic. I asked if YOUR STATEMENT was referring to ground effect and stated that if so then according to rules of aerodynamics that ground effect would be negligible. So again, does your statement refer to ground effect? What do you think about the FACTS that show that ground effect would be negligible at high speed and a low angles of attack? Ground effect is caused by induced drag which is highest at low speeds and high angles of attack. At high speeds and low angles of attack, induced drag and therefore ground effect, is negligible. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml http://www.faatest.com/books/FLT/Chapter17/GroundEffect.htm http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft

How is that site misinformation? First, not "my site". A site. I happen to agree with that conclusion but I am in no way affiliated with the site, nor do I agree with everything presented. How does that answer my question? How is the site I posted which breaks the collapse down into half second intervals and clearly shows that they each took at least 13 seconds misinformation? I didn't ask about what other sites and sources may say. And Dave Greer did NOT say that NIST said the collapses were 9 and 11 seconds, nor did NIST. They said the first exterior panels hit the ground in that time. That says NOTHING about how long the total collapse took. Still wondering why YOU would claim the collapses took 10 seconds when the available evidence shows otherwise.