Jump to content
The Education Forum

Dave Greer

Members
  • Content Count

    1,051
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dave Greer

  1. This is a shocking abuse of power, as well as indirect evidence of CIA culpability over failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. I despair to hear that the UK looks to be going down a similar route. Freedoms that have been centuries in the making are being silently taken away, under the guise of national security. Sadly very true.
  2. The link doesn't work. Try this. http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/the-46-drills-of-911-by-webster-tarpley/
  3. Please can you demonstrate how you calibrated the size of the superimposed plane in this image. Please can you also demonstrate how you took into consideration how the angle of incidence of the plane's approach relative to the Pentagon would affect it's appearance and relative length as seen from the security camera. (Hint below).
  4. This discussion seems to have been manoeuvred away from Jack's original claim (in his attachment), which is clearly false, on to something completely irrelevant to anything. This demand to see a Hasselblad image of the rover being unloaded is just a smokescreen to hide the moving goalposts. (Who cares? What does it prove, other than what we already know, that unloading the rover was a 2 man job, they probably weren't wearing the cameras yet, and the whole thing was being recorded on TV anyway?) For once Jack, do the right thing and admit you made a simple mistake in your original study, and w
  5. That's patently absurd. If I accuse you of beating your wife, anything you say to defend yourself is self-serving and must be disregarded. You cannot prove my assertion wrong, ergo, you are a wife-beater. Jack This has been proven to be wrong. The rover has clearly been unstowed from Quad 1 (to the right of the ladder as seen in the photo). Evidence has been provided that clearly supports that. If you still insist that the rover hasn't been unloaded, please provide proof. (You're going to struggle with that one, since we've all seen the video of it actually being unloaded). Looking at the
  6. I'm curious as to what extent the lawn should be "blemished", and in what manner. As far as I'm aware, the plane allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, not the lawn itself. Watch from 3:30.
  7. BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay over a photocopy print. IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow. Jack You missed my point. I'll try to be clearer. For argument's sake, let's assume you're right about the crosshairs not being in the camera. How does the overlay of cross-hairs on the images (yet somehow missing out the brighter/over-exposed areas of white) prove that the photos must have been taken on Earth? Why can't they have been taken
  8. BECAUSE the crosshairs cast shadows, they CANNOT be in the camera film plane. They have to be on an overlay over a photocopy print. IF in the camera, the crosshairs ARE THE SHADOWS (keeping light from the film) and cannot cast an ADDITIONAL shadow. Jack You missed my point. I'll try to be clearer. For argument's sake, let's assume you're right about the crosshairs not being in the camera. How does the overlay of cross-hairs on the images (yet somehow missing out the brighter/over-exposed areas of white) prove that the photos must have been taken on Earth? Why can't they have been taken
  9. It might take a minute to read through the list, but it would take many weeks of research to thoroughly investigate each patent, to see whether it backs up the assertion that "persistent spreading contrails" as seen in some of the photos you've posted are actually "chemtrails". I looked at a few of them. 1. Self-focussing antenna system - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3174150.pdf I couldn't figure out why a patent for such a device would help prove the existence of "chemtrails" as I characterised them above, so I looked at the patent. I'm still none the wiser. Please explain how this dev
  10. That's a frustrating, worrying, and not entirely unexpected direction for this whole saga to take. The entire media focus has switched from the leaks themselves, onto Assange. The US Government will be mightily relieved that in Sweden, the legal classification of "chatting up a bird" seems analagous to "demanding sex with menaces". As John has pointed out, it may well work in Assange's favour if he is deported and claims political asylum. He really should consider grasping the nettle and handing himself over voluntarily to the Swedish authorities.
  11. Finally had chance to have a quick look into this one. Didn't take long to find out that the engine bell on the descent stage was increased in length by 10" for the J-class missions - leaving just 12" ground clearance. I suspect that's why there was a requirement for those missions to shut the engines off before landing. Makes sense that there would be an increased danger of the "blowback" that Cernan referred to. Look at the ground clearance in this Apollo 11 image - AS11-40-5915 and compare it to the the ground clearance on this Apollo 17 image - AS17-147-22517
  12. Thanks for the extra IP addresses John. Let's hope it doesn't result in EF getting more DOS attacks. I appreciate concerns that some leaks may put some people at risk, but I think there's a bigger picture here. If we'd been privy to some of this kind of information prior to the phoney war against Iraq, maybe it could have been avoided - and 100,000+ lives saved.
  13. Whoever it was must have been a member of this forum since they knew the password format, which I hadn't changed (my mistake). They likely had a grudge to bear against me re Apollo. Their IP address was traced to Savannah, Georgia. Join the dots. Why don't you contact the owner of the site and ask him why he took the site down? It's back up minus the forum apparently. http://www.worldofthestrange.com/form_contact.htm Oh, I wasn't impolite to you, it was someone from Scotland. Nothing wrong with being Scottish of course. Well, my subjective experience says exactly the opposite, such as
  14. The Apollo hoax theories do have an uncanny ability to polarize opinion, and sadly some people on either side take it too far. Jarrah White's obsession with Jay Windley for example. Or SVector's personal attack on Sibrel in the opening sequences to his otherwise excellent series debuning his claims re Apollo TV fakery. Incredibly, a hoax believer hacked my EF account and posted messages under my name saying I believed Jack White was right after all! Amazing the depths some people will stoop to to try and discredit someone who has a different opinion to them. The point I'm making is, the kind
  15. I have to pull you up on the "no evidence at all of landing on the lunar surface" claim. There are plenty of photos taken under the LM after landing on most of the Apollo missions which clearly show evidence of scouring, as shown by the radial striations. Take a look at AS11-40-5921 for example. There are similar images from most of the other missions. The issue of when the descent engine was switched off is an interesting one, I'll have a look at it when I get some free time next week.
  16. That statement is not only the height of hypocrisy, but almost too funny for words, considering the type of constant character assassination, ridicule and lies Windley and his apollogist pals spew about Jarrah White (among other conspiracy researchers ) on forums like BAUT and apollohoax.net. Here's an e-mail reply from Jarrah, hopefully clearing up any misunderstanding about who lied about what. Well, that certainly cleared up what Jarrah White thinks, but I don't think it clears up any possible misunderstandings about who lied about what. Jarrah White says I'm clutching at straws claim
  17. Maybe the viewers would like to see the real reason Buzz Aldrin punched out Bart Sibrel and how Sibrel feels about that unfortunate encounter.. They might also be interested in the fact that one of the leading Apollo defenders, Jay Windley, lied about how and why this encounter took place between Aldrin and Sibrel, in an attempt to further slander Bart Sibrel. To quote conspiracy researcher Jarrah White; "Previously we have exposed Clavius webmaster Jay Windley as a promoter of deliberate false charges against Bill Kaysing and Ralph René. Now we can conclusively and unequivocally prove he is
  18. I don't know for sure whether Von Braun is responsible for the quote, or whether it is completely accurate. The 1953 impression shows three authors and one editor: Wernher Von Braun (Author), Fred L. Whipple (Author), Willy Ley (Author), Cornelius Ryan (Editor). Apparently there is a copy at a library about an hour's drive from where I live: I'll be passing it in a couple of weeks, I'll see if it's open on a weekend and see if I can get a copy of the relevant passage for the sake of accuracy. That said, I'm prepared to accept that the quote is indeed from Von Braun for the purpose of discussi
  19. Thanks Jim, I always appreciate a good laugh! I'll give you some clues Jim. The "fuel" referred to is for the RTG, NOT the rover. That's the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. Generated electricity for the ALSEP. The object that the author of the video (ArcAngel4Myke) is trying to fool you into believing is a "fuel can" is the TGE - Traverse Gravimeter Experiment. Here we have two horns of a dilemma! Either you accept that the old fox guarding the hen-house (nasty NASA), actually DID have such technology (how boringly plausible!); or you accept that they decided to build a fake rov
  20. Really? Let's take a look at what you said yesterday shall we? I'm sorry Jim, but once again your own words prove you wrong. That's not what you said Jim! Neither is it factually correct. But hey, you're on a roll - why let your own words and actuals facts get in the way of a good conspiracy? For example, as posted before - the abstract from one of YOUR sources that showed many similarities between Apollo and Luna samples. 1300 microprobe analyses of glasses, pyroxenes, feldspars, oxides, olivines, troilite and metal in two 0.025 g samples of the Luna 16 return were made in order to ch
  21. The bizarre thing is, I expected a lot more from Jim. I didn't really know much about him previously, other than he's a scholar, well educated, and clearly an intelligent man. I actually thought that he might be approaching this with a view to analysing how people respond to poorly researched, parroted arguments, drenched in a sea of rhetoric and mangled logic. One such example. (Paraphrasing) The Russian samples came from the moon. They exhibit differences to Apollo samples. Therefore, the Apollo samples are fake. He makes two assumptions here to "prove" his case. Firstly, that the Russian
  22. Ah well. I guess the questions got a little too tough. You're right about one thing: it's certainly been surreal!
×
×
  • Create New...