Author Topic: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa  (Read 455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tradman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • Reputation: +128/-92
  • Gender: Male

Offline apollo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 618
  • Reputation: +310/-204
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2020, 02:55:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSucJJ9jAT0&feature=youtu.be
    This is about the problems with NASA and the Media.  There's nothing
    about Heliocentrism and nothing scientific in this video.   This guy is an
    amateur. 


    Offline Tradman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 273
    • Reputation: +128/-92
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #2 on: May 28, 2020, 10:24:13 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is about the problems with NASA and the Media.  There's nothing
    about Heliocentrism and nothing scientific in this video.   This guy is an
    amateur.
    This kind of response doesn't address anything in the video but relies on personal attack against the presenter rather than discussing the issue.  Why do this?

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4146
    • Reputation: +2145/-2082
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #3 on: May 29, 2020, 07:30:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've so far only watched the first 35 minutes of the video in the OP. Here are my simple notes on some of what has been stated in the first 35 minutes (I include the minute marks so that they can be easily found on the video):

    At about the 8:35 minute mark, the speaker says that in 1975, the CIA had paid employees who work in the media.

    "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

    ~William Casey, Director of CIA

    11:55:

    Whistleblower Amy Roback, who worked for ABC news, gives an account off-air about the truth of the Jeffrey Epstein case, and how she had the truth about Epstein three years ago, but ABC wouldn't allow her to air it.

    21:36:

    One of the things they continue to teach in an age where nobody can figure it out and understand it is gravity.

    23:38:

    "Let's talk about science vs. pseudoscience. We have to ask ourselves: which belief is truly scientific? Which belief is pseudoscientific? The one based on empirical evidence; the one based on observations and actual experiments, or the one that is simply built on mathematical transform equations and garbage?"

    24:20:

    "Has anyone ever seen an atom? No...[…] and they tell you what is inside the atom."

    Quote from Michio Kaku:

    "Nobody that I know of in my field, uses the so-called scientific method."

    27:00:

    Another quote from Michio Kaku, taken from the film, "The Principle" :

    "Usually in science, if we are off by a factor of 2 or a factor of 10, we call that horrible. We say, something is wrong withy the theory. We're off by a factor of 10! However, in cosmology, we're off by a factor of 10 to the 120. That is 1 with a hundred and twenty zeros after it. This is the largest mismatch between theory and experiments in the history of science."

    The speaker (Jeron) then gives a definition of pseudoscience:

    "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative because it suggests something is being presented as scientific inaccurately or even deceptively."



    "There is no religion higher than my own opinion."

    ~ Traditional Catholics

    Offline Tradman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 273
    • Reputation: +128/-92
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #4 on: May 29, 2020, 06:47:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've so far only watched the first 35 minutes of the video in the OP. Here are my simple notes on some of what has been stated in the first 35 minutes (I include the minute marks so that they can be easily found on the video):

    At about the 8:35 minute mark, the speaker says that in 1975, the CIA had paid employees who work in the media.

    "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

    ~William Casey, Director of CIA

    11:55:

    Whistleblower Amy Roback, who worked for ABC news, gives an account off-air about the truth of the Jeffrey Epstein case, and how she had the truth about Epstein three years ago, but ABC wouldn't allow her to air it.

    21:36:

    One of the things they continue to teach in an age where nobody can figure it out and understand it is gravity.

    23:38:

    "Let's talk about science vs. pseudoscience. We have to ask ourselves: which belief is truly scientific? Which belief is pseudoscientific? The one based on empirical evidence; the one based on observations and actual experiments, or the one that is simply built on mathematical transform equations and garbage?"

    24:20:

    "Has anyone ever seen an atom? No...[…] and they tell you what is inside the atom."

    Quote from Michio Kaku:

    "Nobody that I know of in my field, uses the so-called scientific method."

    27:00:

    Another quote from Michio Kaku, taken from the film, "The Principle" :

    "Usually in science, if we are off by a factor of 2 or a factor of 10, we call that horrible. We say, something is wrong withy the theory. We're off by a factor of 10! However, in cosmology, we're off by a factor of 10 to the 120. That is 1 with a hundred and twenty zeros after it. This is the largest mismatch between theory and experiments in the history of science."

    The speaker (Jeron) then gives a definition of pseudoscience:

    "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative because it suggests something is being presented as scientific inaccurately or even deceptively."
    Yea, lots of clues to their lies, all out of their own mouths.   


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4146
    • Reputation: +2145/-2082
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #5 on: May 30, 2020, 05:01:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yea, lots of clues to their lies, all out of their own mouths.  
    True. 
    "There is no religion higher than my own opinion."

    ~ Traditional Catholics

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4146
    • Reputation: +2145/-2082
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #6 on: May 31, 2020, 12:54:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I watched the rest of the OP video.

    A good and lengthy analysis of the huge problems with NASA and the fake moon-landings. 

    At 37:30, he says (and I think he's partly quoting from another source):

    "For a plot to last for five years, only 2,500 people would have to be in on the conspiracy. For it to last more than 10 years, you'd have to have fewer than 1000 in on the conspiracy. And for it to last 100 years, you'd have to have less than 100 collaborators. Well, that's exactly what we're saying. We're saying that only the astronauts and very few people knew."

    38:48:

    "The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real missions."

    ~Apollo flight director Gene Kranz
    "There is no religion higher than my own opinion."

    ~ Traditional Catholics

    Online cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2186
    • Reputation: +1233/-168
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #7 on: June 12, 2020, 06:44:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is about the problems with NASA and the Media.  There's nothing
    about Heliocentrism and nothing scientific in this video.   This guy is an
    amateur.

    Ok lads, I went through the video rather quickly and here is my opinion. This talk can be divided into two main principles, his opinion regarding science (deductive method) and pseudo-science (inductive method). He was perfectly correct in showing that modern cosmology, macro (the universe) and micro (atoms) is nothing more that ideas (inductive mehod) of men who make a living out of science-fiction.

    Then he made reference to Hubble and red-shifts. He explained that if all the stars are moving away from the Earth as Hubble found, that is evidence for geocentrism. He then explained how Hubble tried to rescue heliocentrism by proposing IF the universe is a baloon and Earth, planets and stars exist on the surface of this baloon universe then the red-shift expanding universe can be explained non geocenterically. Again, not science, but invented pseudo-sciernce. Einstein used this baloon form of universe in his theories of Relativity. To sum up, this man did address the GvH issue and dismissed heliocentrism as pseudo-science and not based on real science. In other words his HvG arguments are scientifically correct. Heliocentrism is an invention.

    As regards the space thing, am I correct in that he doesn't believe there are satellites up there, satellites anyone can see going past in ther sky at night? What he really does say is that the moon-landing was rigged. For me, it is 99% true, and 1% false. My arguments are that such a rigging by so many people, is beyond belief. We all saw pictuires, some saw the real thing, of astronauts getting into spaceships and taking off into space. Were all these rigged or man made illusions. Astronauts got killed in this scam. Do you think Russia would let America get away with boasting they were the first to put men on the moon when both has been competing for years with dogs and men going into space? Yes, I did see pictures that possibly depicted photos of them on the moon taken on Earth. These could have been used to support the real thing, not necessarily to deceive the world.

    Now if they did set up a scam, it backfired when they announced they found only 3 inches of dust up there. Previous to the announced moon-landing they expected to find huge deposits of dust on the moon, millions of years of dust falling on the planet. What they said they found was only 3 inches, that is about 7,000 years of dust if today's dust-falling calculations are worked out on the moon that has no rock forming ways of turning dust into sandstone. That is Biblical timing as it puts the Moon at 7,000 years old. Now who would want to scam that?

    Finally, with our experience of today's lies from governments ets., nothing would surprise me any more. That accounts for my 1% thinking a scam was possible.                  


    Offline Tradman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 273
    • Reputation: +128/-92
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #8 on: June 15, 2020, 01:45:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Ok lads, I went through the video rather quickly and here is my opinion. This talk can be divided into two main principles, his opinion regarding science (deductive method) and pseudo-science (inductive method). He was perfectly correct in showing that modern cosmology, macro (the universe) and micro (atoms) is nothing more that ideas (inductive mehod) of men who make a living out of science-fiction.

    Then he made reference to Hubble and red-shifts. He explained that if all the stars are moving away from the Earth as Hubble found, that is evidence for geocentrism. He then explained how Hubble tried to rescue heliocentrism by proposing IF the universe is a baloon and Earth, planets and stars exist on the surface of this baloon universe then the red-shift expanding universe can be explained non geocenterically. Again, not science, but invented pseudo-sciernce. Einstein used this baloon form of universe in his theories of Relativity. To sum up, this man did address the GvH issue and dismissed heliocentrism as pseudo-science and not based on real science. In other words his HvG arguments are scientifically correct. Heliocentrism is an invention.

    As regards the space thing, am I correct in that he doesn't believe there are satellites up there, satellites anyone can see going past in ther sky at night? What he really does say is that the moon-landing was rigged. For me, it is 99% true, and 1% false. My arguments are that such a rigging by so many people, is beyond belief. We all saw pictuires, some saw the real thing, of astronauts getting into spaceships and taking off into space. Were all these rigged or man made illusions. Astronauts got killed in this scam. Do you think Russia would let America get away with boasting they were the first to put men on the moon when both has been competing for years with dogs and men going into space? Yes, I did see pictures that possibly depicted photos of them on the moon taken on Earth. These could have been used to support the real thing, not necessarily to deceive the world.

    Now if they did set up a scam, it backfired when they announced they found only 3 inches of dust up there. Previous to the announced moon-landing they expected to find huge deposits of dust on the moon, millions of years of dust falling on the planet. What they said they found was only 3 inches, that is about 7,000 years of dust if today's dust-falling calculations are worked out on the moon that has no rock forming ways of turning dust into sandstone. That is Biblical timing as it puts the Moon at 7,000 years old. Now who would want to scam that?

    Finally, with our experience of today's lies from governments ets., nothing would surprise me any more. That accounts for my 1% thinking a scam was possible.                  
    I'm definitely at 100%.  NASA seems to like to lie.  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25909
    • Reputation: +14698/-3834
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #9 on: August 18, 2020, 04:46:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now if they did set up a scam, it backfired when they announced they found only 3 inches of dust up there. Previous to the announced moon-landing they expected to find huge deposits of dust on the moon, millions of years of dust falling on the planet. What they said they found was only 3 inches, that is about 7,000 years of dust if today's dust-falling calculations are worked out on the moon that has no rock forming ways of turning dust into sandstone. That is Biblical timing as it puts the Moon at 7,000 years old. Now who would want to scam that?

    They couldn't really lie about that, since any country could simply send a probe up there and find out how much dust was actually there.  They simply ignore the scientific ramifications of the little amount of dust.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25909
    • Reputation: +14698/-3834
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #10 on: August 18, 2020, 04:47:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We all saw pictuires, some saw the real thing, of astronauts getting into spaceships and taking off into space. Were all these rigged or man made illusions.

    One explanation is that they went up into low earth orbit and then came down when it was time.


    Offline Yeti

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1403
    • Reputation: +647/-176
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #11 on: September 06, 2020, 06:01:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you think Russia would let America get away with boasting they were the first to put men on the moon when both has been competing for years with dogs and men going into space?
    Yes, this sticks with me too. It's not a direct argument against the moon landing, but the race to the moon was a competition between the USA and Russia, and it's hard to see why the Russians wouldn't have cried foul if we had faked a victory.

    Offline Yeti

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1403
    • Reputation: +647/-176
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #12 on: September 06, 2020, 06:03:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As regards the space thing, am I correct in that he doesn't believe there are satellites up there, satellites anyone can see going past in ther sky at night?
    I didn't watch the video, but if he really thinks this, I wonder how he explains how GPS works.

    Offline angelusmaria

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 211
    • Reputation: +110/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sources about heliocentrism, pseudoscience and Nasa
    « Reply #13 on: July 12, 2021, 01:21:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Unfortunately, the video has been censored by YouTube and is no longer available so I haven't seen it.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16