give your opinion... government lying about technology

[FatFreddy]

You seem to be a little bit confused here. The camera is sideways on. You said the "bubble" went straight up, clearly it isn't a bubble and clearly it comes towards the camera. Bubbles don't look like that and don't fly off sideways diagonally. Again you said..."and then goes straight up" !!

This doesn't address what I said about Betamax's blunder.

He then attributed the increase in size to its coming close to the camera.

This was always his position - he even quoted where he made that statement. You shouldn't leave links to these threads - he really does kick your sorry butt.

Here's where we discussed this.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/#post-1072488086

The object that has caused most of a flap amongst hoax claimants, is merely a piece of debris that has moved diagonally towards the camera, in itself adding to what looks like even more acceleration. We can deduce this quite easily from it's apparent change in size which does not comport with a small depth change for a so called bubble.

His position is that the physical size of the bubble increases. He doesn't say that it looks bigger as it's getting closer to the camera.

He later changed his position.

One of the good things about believing and being able to properly define my analysis is that I don't actually forget anything. The ice particle appears bigger because it is coming diagonally towards the camera. This has always been my position.

He changed his position because he realized he'd made a big blunder. First he said it was a piece of debris. Then he said that that the object couldn't be a bubble because a bubble's size wouldn't change that much in that short distance. He clearly meant physical size. Then, when I pointed out that a piece of debris wouldn't change in physical size, he changed his story.

This is clear to anyone who takes the time to read the discussion. Your tactic of misrepresenting what was said is only going to work on some of the viewers who don't take the time to read the discussion.

 

[David C]

This doesn't address what I said about Betamax's blunder.

Sure it does and why do you keep lying about a blunder?

His position is that the physical size of the bubble increases.

A lie. His position is that the size of the object appears to get bigger.

He doesn't say that it looks bigger as it's getting closer to the camera.

Yes he does you liar.

He later changed his position.

No, you are lying. It has always been his position.

He changed his position because he realized he'd made a big blunder. First he said it was a piece of debris.

Which it could be, ice or debris. His position never changed.

Then he said that that the object couldn't be a bubble because a bubble's size wouldn't change that much in that short distance.

Another lie. The animated gif shows it isn't a bubble, the size change is just rock solid proof it cannot be, using physics.

Repeating because of course you always run away -

So to summarise, you claim the flat, clearly rotating, clearly jagged, diagonal trajectory bubble coming towards the camera and not vertical is a bubble, because of reasons that you have failed to provide, meanwhile all the other objects firing out of the hatch at a whole myriad of angles don't actually help you understand how colossally dumb your claim is. Is that about right?

You cowardly avoided this:

Only 3 seconds before the idiotic "fluttering" video which is being moved by his hand ridiculously fast in water, we see the flag being PUSHED edge first. In water, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that is possible in a viscous medium with drag!"

To add to your unbelievably dumb claim about the obvious NOT bubble we now have the 100% impossible fabric being pushed edge first in water.

He clearly meant physical size.

Nope, he has always maintained it was coming towards the camera.

Then, when I pointed out that a piece of debris wouldn't change in physical size, he changed his story.

But it doesn't need to change physical size if it is approaching a wide angled lens!

This is clear to anyone who takes the time to read the discussion.

You teach English I understand, yet you have appalling comprehension failures.

Your tactic of misrepresenting what was said is only going to work on some of the viewers who don't take the time to read the discussion.

YOU don't read the discussion do you!?

From July 2011 - Click HERE

"It doesn't move "along the visor", it just follows a path in front of it. It changes size much more than an object in water would do, in a variant drop in water pressure of 2 feet. This indicates a trajectory towards the camera. "

You see, the big problem you face when spamming the crap out of the internet and ignoring replies is that sooner or later they come back to bite you in your lying butt! 100% proof right there that you are lying and wrong. You won't ever admit it though will you. What next, more spam and evasion?

 

[billvon]

You're a joke - not just in the endless garbage you post, the repeat spam, or the fact you ignore so much of what gets written. No. You have appalling comprehension - obvious things just whoosh right over your head.

I am not sure what's worse. Thinking that he's really that ignorant, or thinking that he's pretending to be that ignorant to get a rise out of people.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

if you ask your government to tell you the latest science they are researching...
what will they tell you ?

"here have free money & destroy the entire economy because your narcissism deserves it"
& sell it to a foreign country, preferably one with lots of terrorists

because ego ...

uh huh ...

have you tried walking into one of the USA(or Russia or China) air craft companys and demanding to know what they are working on in their secret labs ?

 

[David C]

if you ask your government to tell you the latest science they are researching...
what will they tell you ?have you tried walking into one of the USA(or Russia or China) air craft companys and demanding to know what they are working on in their secret labs ?

You confused me for a second before I realised that you were actually posting on topic. I've often wondered what the next step would be and it simply has to be advanced AI. Miniaturisation of technology continues and one day it could be used to create robotic organisms.

Scientists create organic 'molecular computer' (newatlas.com)

 

[FatFreddy]

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/#post-1072488086

We can deduce this quite easily from it's apparent change in size which does not comport with a small depth change for a so called bubble.

I guess that could be interpreted to mean it was getting closer to the camera. I'm human. I make mistakes.

Anyway, the proof that it was filmed in water is crushing.

Only 3 seconds before the idiotic "fluttering" video which is being moved by his hand ridiculously fast in water, we see the flag being PUSHED edge first. In water, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that is possible in a viscous medium with drag!"

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm referring to the movement at the 00:30 time mark of this video when he moves the flag from right to left.

Chinese Space Walk - 2008

The only identifiable force that would make the flag move like that would be its being dragged through a liquid or gaseous medium.

There's also the anomaly of the buoyant safety cables.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-sir-questions-sir.211182/page-5#post-4767755

 

[David C]

I guess that could be interpreted to mean it was getting closer to the camera. I'm human. I make mistakes.

So after all your ridiculous posturing both here and there, you grudgingly admit you are wrong about this basic, totally obvious thing. BUT, you fail to respond to the very, very significant thing it pertains to!

Anyway, the proof that it was filmed in water is crushing.

Oh shutup! Bubblz that aren't bubbles that only a blind man could fail to see, bubblz that don't fly upwards and come towards a sideways facing camera? Now, why don't you carry on with this sudden streak of honesty that is as rare as rocking horse poo, and answer the following:

• You said unequivocally that the bubble was going upwards, how is it coming towards the camera to grow in size?
• Since you have no understanding of motion and forces in a vacuum, how are you qualified to suggest only your idiotic "flutter" force is the only one?
• What level of denial do you have to say a flat, rotating, jagged, diagonally travelling object is a bubble?
• How the crap in any sane world can you claim a piece of fabric is travelling edgeways on in water?
• How can y0u possibly suggest the footage is slowed down to even remotely explain the unrestricted movement of fabric then deny it in your stupid "fluttering" clip?
• How have you ruled out shape memory and thermal effects from the sun and vacuum for cable motion?
• Why have you ignored sideways moving cable motion?

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm referring to the movement at the 00:30 time mark of this video when he moves the flag from right to left.

Don't you play your bullshit diversion game, we are talking about that same sequence, 3 seconds earlier!

The only identifiable force that would make the flag move like that would be its being dragged through a liquid or gaseous medium.

You are as unqualified as any person could be to make such a claim. It's his wrist and anyone who fails to understand this is kind of dumb.

There's also the anomaly of the buoyant safety cables.

Oh of course, because this makes perfect sense - design a whole scenario in water and take incredible steps to avoid the thousands of bubbles you would see, the impossible to remove shimmering of light as it passes through disturbed water, ensure the astronauts are neutral buoyancy, invent magic to make fabric swirl around in impossible ways underwater. THEN, fail to easily remove any "bubbles" and chunks of paper etc, fail to see the "incriminating" flutter and now fail to make simple cables neutral buoyancy.

You are delusional beyond words. You won't answer any of those questions honestly.

 

[FatFreddy]

Don't you play your bullshit diversion game, we are talking about that same sequence, 3 seconds earlier!

The issue I raised is the fluttering that happens at the 00:30 time mark. Maybe you didn't understand. Please address that movement.

 

[David C]

The issue I raised is the fluttering that happens at the 00:30 time mark. Maybe you didn't understand. Please address that movement.

Already addressed - once again you are doing your troll act. Evading difficult questions and pretending things haven't been answered!

• You said unequivocally that the bubble was going upwards, how is it coming towards the camera to grow in size?
• Since you have no understanding of motion and forces in a vacuum, how are you qualified to suggest only your idiotic "flutter" force is the only one?
• What level of denial do you have to say a flat, rotating, jagged, diagonally travelling object is a bubble?
• How the crap in any sane world can you claim a piece of fabric is travelling edgeways on in water?
• How can y0u possibly suggest the footage is slowed down to even remotely explain the unrestricted movement of fabric then deny it in your stupid "fluttering" clip?
• How have you ruled out shape memory and thermal effects from the sun and vacuum for cable motion?
• Why have you ignored sideways moving cable motion?

 

[FatFreddy]

Since you have no understanding of motion and forces in a vacuum, how are you qualified to suggest only your idiotic "flutter" force is the only one?

I want to concentrate on this particular anomaly until it's clearly debunked. I think it's such clear proof of fakery that it renders everything else moot.

It's his wrist and anyone who fails to understand this is kind of dumb.

It's clearly not his wrist. The movement is identical to the way it would move in a medium. The wrist movement would not cause the back of the flag to move in that way.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/#post-1072065420

I can't see what your video proves.

 

[David C]

I want to concentrate on this particular anomaly until it's clearly debunked. I think it's such clear proof of fakery that it renders everything else moot.

I don't give a crap what you want "to concentrate on" - nothing ever said will provide closure to somebody who is in perpetual denial. You are ridiculous and afraid to be wrong. The big list of questions makes your idiotic observation and conclusion completely moot.

• You said unequivocally that the bubble was going upwards, how is it coming towards the camera to grow in size?
• Since you have no understanding of motion and forces in a vacuum, how are you qualified to suggest only your idiotic "flutter" force is the only one?
• What level of denial do you have to say a flat, rotating, jagged, diagonally travelling object is a bubble?
• How the crap in any sane world can you claim a piece of fabric is travelling edgeways on in water?
• How can y0u possibly suggest the footage is slowed down to even remotely explain the unrestricted movement of fabric then deny it in your stupid "fluttering" clip?
• How have you ruled out shape memory and thermal effects from the sun and vacuum for cable motion?
• Why have you ignored sideways moving cable motion?

It's clearly not his wrist.

Complete bullshit, how have you determined that!! We can't even see what he is doing.

The movement is identical to the way it would move in a medium.

And again - bullshit. The whole sequence is impossible in water, every single twirl of the fabric, it being pushed with no resistance, no billowing, no shimmering and even being pushed edge on. A simple shake of the wrist and voila a little transfer to the flag. So simple, but not for you, the completely unqualified layman who provides the most impossible and ridiculous of all explanations.

 

[FatFreddy]

• How have you ruled out shape memory and thermal effects from the sun and vacuum for cable motion?

• Why have you ignored sideways moving cable motion?

You can read what I said about that here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-sir-questions-sir.211182/page-5#post-4764783

 

[David C]

You can read what I said about that here.

Post it here!! Stop posting links to other forums you've spammed on.

• You said unequivocally that the bubble was going upwards, how is it coming towards the camera to grow in size?
• Since you have no understanding of motion and forces in a vacuum, how are you qualified to suggest only your idiotic "flutter" force is the only one?
• What level of denial do you have to say a flat, rotating, jagged, diagonally travelling object is a bubble?
• How the crap in any sane world can you claim a piece of fabric is travelling edgeways on in water?
• How can y0u possibly suggest the footage is slowed down to even remotely explain the unrestricted movement of fabric then deny it in your stupid "fluttering" clip?
• How have you ruled out shape memory and thermal effects from the sun and vacuum for cable motion?
• Why have you ignored sideways moving cable motion?

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

FatFreddy, stop posting links to other forums instead of posting an actual reply. You are literally advertising other forums on this one. You have been warned about this in the past. Stop doing it.

 

[Dennis Tate]

do you believe that there are technology out there that are very complicated to make and are being regarded as science fiction and not true or possible. and yet the government has made this technology and denies the public any knowledge that it is possible to create?
examples: force field techonology (practically every question about force field technology is told that there is no such thing, would the government lie about this?)
portals and teleportation: everyone in the science community would automatically say this is not possible, yet I think even if someone discovered it, it definitely would be kept a secret.

those are just some examples.

please im new here yall give me your opinions.

I hope there are many people who think like I do and believe it is possible.

I met a poster on another forum who impressed me as being amazingly well informed. He replied in a personal message to one of my discussions on the Stanley Meyer hydrogen fuel dune buggy that he knew from his experience in the CIA / NSA that a particular weapons manufacturer in the USA had the original Stanley Meyer technology and had greatly advanced it since the time that Mr. Meyer was killed.


http://www.theorionproject.org/en/hydroxy.html

Hydroxy Gas Energy Systems

The same Stan Meyer fuel cell today.

Stanley Meyer “fuel cell” producing hydroxy gas (Grove City Record, Oct. 25, 1984).

Techniques for using electrolysis to break apart water molecules into a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen had been known centuries before Michael Faraday did his quantitative electrolysis experiments in the 1830s. Today the mixture of gases produced by electrolysis of water is commonly termed “Hydroxy Gas” or Brown’s gas (named after Yul Brown who researched and promoted this technology for many years). A detailed history of hydroxy gas can be found in Robey (2006).

See also: The Orion Project Visits Stan Meyer’s Technology

Stan Meyer’s ‘Water Powered Car’
as seen in January, 2008.

Many researchers have developed techniques for producing this gas in order to add it into the fuel stream of a fossil fuel burning engine, where it has been shown to increase the efficiency of the engine and reduce pollutants by a claimed MPG percent increase of between 10 to over 50%. One of the many problems with this technology is that a lot of electrical energy has to be used to produce the gas, so that burning the gas alone to power a generator to produce power to produce the gas just does not work. There are just too many inefficiencies in the loop.

However, in recent years a number of different inventors have developed technologies that produce hydroxy gas in quantities much greater than would be predicted using standard “brute force” electrolysis. These techniques typically include a combination of multiple high frequency pulsed voltages applied to specially designed electrolysis cells that resonate the water molecule, basically causing it to “shake” apart with a much reduced amount of electrical power per unit gas produced.