RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.  THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.<br>
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added.  This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons. www.richplanet.net community built on miniBB / RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added. This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons.
/

WORLD CONTROL / NWO

 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  187  188  189  190  191  ...  390  391  »» 
dreamkatcher
Member
#2821 | Posted: 19 Jan 2012 02:22
Reply 
IOH

Me too
nordsee220
Member
#2822 | Posted: 19 Jan 2012 10:31
Reply 
skipman:
Me thinks they already have the ability to control people's minds. very Orwellian

Let's pretend.

Let's pretend that the Apollo astronauts were the subjects of mind control. That they were somehow hypnotised into believing they actually went to the moon. That they acted out the samples collections, moon walking, buggy driving etc in some studio/outdoor location.

Maybe there'd be the feint shadow of doubt that they actually went there and for that reason they won't swear on a bible.

Enough to make a grown man, regarded as a hero turn to tears?

I think it would mentally destroy me.

George
Arrmand
Member
#2823 | Posted: 19 Jan 2012 11:09
Reply 
I watched the BBC stargazing live, was very disappointed I would hazard a guess he is one of these big D Sceptics, I got a tweet from Richard Lennie tweeted him telling him if he wanted proof of something up there to use night vision, well he did not and I think the BBC could afford a pair of NV.
nordsee220
Member
#2824 | Posted: 19 Jan 2012 13:10 | Edited by: nordsee220
Reply 
Arrmand:
I watched the BBC stargazing live, was very disappointed

I was quite surprised by Prof Cox's remark to the effect, "If you don't believe men went to the moon then I don't want you here. Switch over to ITV or something."

Mr Cox. If this gets to you please consider this: As an 8 year old kid in 1966 I was fascinated by space. As school book prizes I received Dr H C King's Book of Astronomy. Over the next 2 years I won prizes covering subjects of Manned Spaceflight and the design/construction of civil airliners. I was informed, educated and very very interested.

As a scientist you ask, nay ORDER us to dismiss some growing and very compelling evidence which suggests things didn't happen as we were told.

Answer me this one question Mr Cox, then I'll follow your orders:

Q; If radio waves in free space travel at the speed of light (186 262 miles per second in English) and the moon was 240 000 miles away then a radio signal would take approximately 1.3s to get there from earth. If the men there needed approximately 0.6s to mentally process the fact an instruction or question had been posed then another 0.4s to begin to reply that would be quite normal. If their response was then begun, it would take another 1.3s for the reply to travel to earth. That's a total of 3.6s delay between the end of earth transmission and the beginning of reception of the moon transmission. and doesn't take into account the fact the signals may have had to be sent around the world as the USA wasn't necessarily facing the moon PLUS general processing of signals. So a delay approaching 5s is not unreasonable.

How did Capcom transmit messages (heard LIVE on TV) and following a short 0.5s beep, Tranquility Base began their reply?

That, Mr Cox is impossible.

If you CAN'T answer that one then please, as a scientist, do NOT order people to accept what you say is Gospel. As a scientist yourself you KNOW it is your DUTY to ALWAYS question, question, question and never accept anything as finite. After all, WHY continue to investigate Einstein? Why postulate that it's possible to exceed the speed of light if it is absolute?

"Ye canna change the laws of physics"

And you can't put down people because they differ from your, very learned I grant you, opinion.

George (Radio Amateur Class A)
ImOverHere
Member
#2825 | Posted: 19 Jan 2012 15:44
Reply 
nordsee220:
very learned I grant you

( under the auspice of an approved curriculem)
wensam
Member
#2826 | Posted: 19 Jan 2012 16:58
Reply 
ImOverHere:
you then run mood control with a Project Bluebeam image you are well on the way to get everyone eating out of your hand.

They already control some of the population through meaningless pop music and computer games and adverts on TV, they like to muck about with our response to hearing music wit ha tempo similar to that of the heartbeat.
According to project Bluebeam they would con us with holographic images. What is the best way to expose or shut down a hologram- sorry, you know Im non tech! I was wondering if a certain frequency might scramble the signal? Or do I need to make a crystal jumpsuit and turn myself into some kind of generator! lol, but seriously, what is the best way to detect and sabotage a holographic image?
Ww
dreamkatcher
Member
#2827 | Posted: 19 Jan 2012 18:23
Reply 
Arrmand:
I watched the BBC stargazing live, was very disappointed I would hazard a guess he is one of these big D Sceptics,

I started to watch last night's programme because it said it was to discuss aliens, etc. I had given up after 15 mins. I dont like his arrogant manner, & his side-kick (Dara) didnt impress me either with his grovelling.

Maybe I missed an informative programme but well....... thats my loss & it doesnt bother me.

nordsee220:
I was quite surprised by Prof Cox's remark to the effect, "If you don't believe men went to the moon then I don't want you here. Switch over to ITV or something."

nordsee220:
As a scientist you ask, nay ORDER us to dismiss some growing and very compelling evidence which suggests things didn't happen as we were told.

Maybe Prof. Cox should watch RP to see what compelling evidence really is, & find out that text books/science is NOT ALWAYS CORRECT.

ImOverHere:
nordsee220:
very learned I grant you

( under the auspice of an approved curriculem)

You cant beat questioning things, doing your own research & finding out the truth.......
Books, methods, systems are always being updated. eg. medical science "found" anti-biotics, ignored the time proven methods & look where that left us.

dk
nordsee220
Member
#2828 | Posted: 20 Jan 2012 11:31 | Edited by: nordsee220
Reply 
dreamkatcher:
You cant beat questioning things, doing your own research & finding out the truth.......Books, methods, systems are always being updated. eg. medical science "found" anti-biotics, ignored the time proven methods & look where that left us.

Very true. And one of the things I enjoy about this site is we can have different opinions.

DK, you and others are 'into' crystals and various other things which I dismiss wholeheartedly. It doesn't mean you are wrong or that I am right. Time will tell just as many things scientific which were enough to get one burned at the stake onceover are now part of everyday life.

We have different views and we accept that.

It's when scientists get uppity, like Prof Cox did that my niggle button gets pushed. In a scientific world it's just plain out of order to say something is a certain way and if you don't accept that I'm taking my ball home.

There is lots of evidence to show man went to the moon and lots to show he did nothing so daft.

When Richard visited our radio club about a year back a few of us debated this very subject. John was adamant it happened and laughed at the conspiracy view. Gerard was open minded. Some remarked, "Not that old chestnut again!" Others were totally disinterested.

As radio hams and with John being a retired electronics design engineer, I put forward my point about the time delay sending radio signals there and back. Richard looked. John half walked away then came back when I asked him to explain to me just how it was done. He suggested the views we saw might have been edited to cut down on broadcast time and maintain viewer interest. I said, "How do you edit live TV?" John said, "But WAS it LIVE?"

My final remark was, "If it wasn't shown live and we were told it was, then it was a lie. Period."

John didn't argue.

Carry on with your crystals, candles, smelly things, whatever fits with your world DK. That's fine by me. I'll carry on being a right pain in the arse by asking bloody awkward questions. It's what I do best.

None of us REALLY know the truth.

George

Incidentally, I've not heard anyone else mention the radio time thing at any point. I've recently watched a lot of moon flight coverage just to check my perception was right and it was. Messages went back and forth virtually immediately yet if you watch the tv news or even Prof Cox's programmes, when a team is on location there's a delay between a question and answer. Not just time to react but the time it takes to process and deliver signals, probably including high orbit satellites (23 000 miles or so, therefore a 46 000 mile round trip or roughly 1/4 second EACH WAY, PLUS sending to/from whatever earth station and all of the associated links adding even more delay) then the reverse.

One thing I do recall is, in 1969 at junior school I asked our sceince teacher, Mr Robinson why there was a beep as we watched Apollo 11. He replied that it was the time taken for the signal to go back and forth. Even then as an 11 year old in July 1969 I said it wasn't possible, that because radio waves travel at light speed and if they were 2/3 of the way to the moon it should take a few seconds. Mr Robinson looked at me as if it was the kind of question I shouldn't ask but said, "You'll go far."
dreamkatcher
Member
#2829 | Posted: 20 Jan 2012 14:47
Reply 
nordsee220:
As radio hams and with John being a retired electronics design engineer, I put forward my point about the time delay sending radio signals there and back. Richard looked. John half walked away then came back when I asked him to explain to me just how it was done. He suggested the views we saw might have been edited to cut down on broadcast time and maintain viewer interest. I said, "How do you edit live TV?" John said, "But WAS it LIVE?"

You know me, I admit when I dont know/understand something. but Id like to ask you something ~ maybe daft, ~ but it makes me wonder.

Regarding the delay in sending signals ! On local news last night (BBC1 ) someone was being interviewed on location (Yorks somewhere I think) & each time they asked a question & the camera was on him, there was a definite pause before he answered. It happens often, & that was only a short distance away.

nordsee220:
Carry on with your crystals, candles, smelly things, whatever fits with your world DK. That's fine by me. I'll carry on being a right pain in the arse by asking bloody awkward questions. It's what I do best.

I only use crystals & articles charged with radionics !! Not into smelly things, candles, etc. & my own "energies."

Good thing we are all different eh?

dk
quark1
Member
#2830 | Posted: 20 Jan 2012 15:03
Reply 
I believe that some time-lag between LIVE signals has often been used as a profanity control and possibly to quell controversial statements?

This has often been regretted as being omitted with some appearances by certain comedians and actors who have been know to debag themselves and/or swear in such a manner at which well-seasoned troopers would blush!

On a more serious note - I always gathered that any time delay over and above was due to the signals coming from the moon and then having to be bounced about various satellites etc into outr homes. Not being even a 'novice' in these things that seemed to make sense to me. But some of what is being alluded to indicates that the time delays were LESS than would be expected - have I read/interpreted right?

As a young thing I did look on in awe at those pics in 1969 and many years later was 'convinced' that it was faked.

However I am now of the opinion that even if humans did not actually set foot on the moon as broadcast we did at least circumnavigate the moon in orbit and I believe the stories of various constructions being observed on the dark-side and unseen to us. The art of the airbrush has been is use long before photoshop.
ImOverHere
Member
#2831 | Posted: 20 Jan 2012 15:04
Reply 
wensam:
What is the best way to expose or shut down a hologram

The only ways I can think of Ww is by smoke or some irregular reflected particles suspended in the atmosphere. Of course the fool proof method would be to cuy power to one of thr transmition / emition station.

You never know the masses may react to the number of people who are swiched on and are jusy pointing and laughing.
dark star
Member
#2832 | Posted: 20 Jan 2012 15:31
Reply 
nordsee220:
And you can't put down people because they differ from your, very learned I grant you, opinion.

Brian Cox is a wanker.....someone aught to kick his bollocks good and proper !

love&peace.
wensam
Member
#2833 | Posted: 20 Jan 2012 15:47
Reply 
ImOverHere:
The only ways I can think of Ww is by smoke or some irregular reflected particles suspended in the atmosphere. Of course the fool proof method would be to cuy power to one of thr transmition / emition station.

Ok, thanks IOH. So my joke about a crystal jumpsuit wasn't too far off!! Sounds complicated and only achievable by a few. My only exciting exerience during 1st year physics was watching the teacher sprinkle chalkdust in the air to expose a red laser, does this have anything to do with what you are saying?
I would get kicked off the Thunderbolts forum for that question, wouldn't I!
wensam
Member
#2834 | Posted: 20 Jan 2012 15:57
Reply 
dark star:
Brian Cox is a wanker.....someone aught to kick his bollocks good and proper !

love&peace.

Ha ha ha, sad but nearly true. He is a brainwashed wafty cranker! Watched a little Stargazing, but knew that it was prob. nonsense so didn't waste my time.
nordsee220
Member
#2835 | Posted: 20 Jan 2012 16:12 | Edited by: nordsee220
Reply 
dreamkatcher:
Regarding the delay in sending signals ! On local news last night (BBC1 ) someone was being interviewed on location (Yorks somewhere I think) & each time they asked a question & the camera was on him, there was a definite pause before he answered. It happens often, & that was only a short distance away.

Let's see if I can explain delays in broadcast signals.

For censorship, like phone ins where someone could be abusive etc there's usually a 5-10 second delay between what happens and what's broadcast. The delay is built up slowly, oerhaps during banal chat so yoo don't notice. Then the programme goes out, like being tape recorded and played back only instead of some time next day or whatever it's done in a few seconds time. That way if someone says 'wanker' a simple button press inserts a jingle etc and the wanker doesn't get to say wanker on air.

Next re news etc it simply takes time to process signals and send them maybe via satellite to a studio somewhere else. If the satellite is 23000 miles up and radio/tv signals travel at 186000 miles per second, it takes about 1/8th second to get to the satellite then another 1/8th to come back down again. Add the delays sending through various links between say BT and the studios and you get a noticeable delay when the guy/girl on location is asked a question.

In the case of the moon, if NASA Capcom ask a question it will take roughly 1.3 seconds to get to the moon IF the signal goes directly. If it's fed from one side of the world to the other via one or more satellites, telephone links etc that delay could easily be 2-3 seconds or even more. That's because radio/tv signals travel at light speed, 186000 miles per second, the moon is 240000 miles away and communications satellies are parked about 23000 miles above earth. Their question could go thousands of miles to an uplink to a satellite, back down again then many more miles to the earth to moon transmitter. Possibly around 300000 miles plus the inherent delays in electronic circuits everywhere. Signals from the moon to earth would do the reverse bouncy trip.

Re Brian Cox, he definitely went down in my estimation and Dara who was one of my favourite comics just proved himself to be part of the machine.

You just can't trust people nowadays.
 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  187  188  189  190  191  ...  390  391  »» 
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Image Link  URL Link 

   
» Username  » Password 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please enter your login/password details upon posting a message, or sign up first
TO JOIN THIS FORUM: WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
We may be considering adding new members on a "block basis". We will collect new member requests and then introduce a new batch. The new memebrs will be identifiable by a prefix in their username as a "new member". Anyone considered to be trolling or causing trouble will be immedialtey removed. To be put on the list please email richard@richplanet.net AND GIVE YOUR US NAME, A USERNAME, PASSWORD. I would imagine a new batch of new members will be added in January 2012.
 

Forums are powered by miniBB®