1

Technology / Re: It's possible to build a full size car that gets 200 mpg

« on: 29/10/2016 13:22:52 »

Something happened to the links to my videos in my posts so I'm going to repost them.  There must be some kind of glitch.  If they disappear again, do YouTube searches on the titles.

"Running Your Car on Gas Vapor - Stop Getting Screwed at The Pump"

This white vapor comes from separating the Atoms in gasoline.

the truth about gas and vapor part 1

the truth about gas and vapor part 2

Diesels, Gaswagons & Zyklon-B Part 3 of 6

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=200%2B+MPG+Gasoline+Vaporizer+Project+Original+Design+%28Driving+On+Only+Gasoline+Vapor%29


Here's some additional info.

http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=968
http://www.rexresearch.com/auto2/blackmoreconomy.pdf
http://www.apparentlyapparel.com/uploads/5/3/5/6/5356442/200mpg-carb.pdf

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/gashole-video_4af5b6c2e.html

If the above link disappears, click on this one.
https://www.google.es/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=eJEUWN-sGeOJ8QfqiIGgDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=Gashole

The name of the documentary is, "Gashole".

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Were the Apollo moon landing photos faked?

« on: 14/07/2016 18:32:04 »

I think that the "Clavius" site is a disinfo site.  I think all the posters on its forum know the Apollo moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do.  Can't we discuss that?

3

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Were the Apollo moon landing photos faked?

« on: 04/07/2016 13:36:24 »

MOD EDIT: Please note that we welcome friendly discussion on topics, but just linking to other sites will be considered spam or advertising and such posts will be deleted. Repeated infringements will lead to a ban.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is NASA Lying about the Levels and Nature of Space Radiation?

« on: 29/09/2015 14:23:57 »

  I fail to see the problem here. We have perfectly adequate measurements of cosmic radiation intensity at all levels from the ground up to the far side of Pluto, and good maps of the Van Allen belts. These came as a bit of a surprise but are entirely explicable, as is practically all the cosmic radiation background.   

The question is whether NASA is making the real info public.

This is from post #1.

  To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. 

I'm not saying I'm sure of anything.  I'm just saying that all we know is what they tell us.  We have no way of knowing whether they're telling us the truth.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is NASA Lying about the Levels and Nature of Space Radiation?

« on: 23/09/2015 13:46:45 »

This link just went dead.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

It led to an important article on space radiation.  Luckily, I saved the article.  I'm going to post the whole thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Did NASA steal $30 Billion to Fake
The Apollo Moon Landings?
Home Paper Moon Page

ARTICLE IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE,  SEPT.  1997
 THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA
 By Phylis and James Collier

In the early 1950's, a 35-year-old State University of Iowa physics professor and some of his students were cruising the cold waters ofnorthern Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, sending a series ofrocket-carrying balloons- which they dubbed "rockoons" - 12 to 15 miles into space.

They were trying to measure the nature of low-energy cosmic raysswirling around the earth. The experiments continued for five more years. Then, in 1958,Professor James Van Allen discovered his monster. Suddenly, his instrumentation warned of a giant beast of a thing, spewing enough deadly radiation counts to kill any human who ventured into its domain unprotected.

Van Allen and his students weren't sure of the size, shape and texture of the monster, they just knew they had encountered an incredible phenomenon.

Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.

That's when the monster grew all encompassing. It appeared to surround the entire earth and extend out some 65,000 miles, maybe even 100,000 miles.  The Geiger Counter confirmed that the region above the earth, and in the path of the rocket, was cooking with deadly radiation. That radiation was born from solar flares that would race through the universe and become trapped by the earth's magnetic field. A deadly mixture of protons and electrons.

 It was then that Van Allen realized the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights, was actually a visual manifestation of that tremendous energy from the sun. You could actually see the radiation swirling in a magnificent and deadly dance.  His eventual finding of two such lethal radiation belts, put his name in the history books as the man who discovered the Van Allen Radiation Belts.  There was an inner belt and an outer belt. The inner belt went from 40 degrees north and south of the Equator and was basically a doughnut surrounding the earth. Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military proved that belt was so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit. The outer belt was   equally as destructive, and separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation.

 Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959.  He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.

 "All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said.   Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself.  These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

 Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid.  It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America's destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. With that statement, the space race become a political game, worth 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to the winners.  National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA, became the caretaker of Kennedy's dream.

 It was their job to build a spacecraft that would meet Van Allen's scientific requirements of safety through the radiation belts. Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or  another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration.  One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.

 All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?

 The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established low "permissible doses" of  radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. However, where the critical dosage on earth might be 5 rems of radiation in a year, the astronauts would receive that amount within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.

 In order to penetrate Van Allen's belt, in l965 NASA requested the two regulatory groups modify the existing standards for space flight. It was simply a matter of "risk over gain" and NASA convinced them to change the standards and allow them to take the risk.  Whether or not future astronauts would be advised of these dramatically lowered standards and substantial risk is unknown at this time.

 The next problem NASA faced was the shielding of the spacecraft. It was solved in a report NASA issued in Aerospace Medicine Magazine in 1965 and 1969. The report was written prior to the first Apollo mission to the moon.

 NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted.  Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight.  We telephoned North American Rockwell, the builder of the Command Module which carried the astronauts to the moon and back. They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.

 It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus?    We had to speak to Van Allen.

 Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."

 "Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

 "Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them."  In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he  once called deadly.  When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement."  So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?

 If you don't believe we went to the moon, then you will say that NASA created the perfect cover story. It allowed them  to continue receiving funding for a spacecraft they could not build, to enter a region of space they could not penetrate.  If you believe we went to the moon, then you have to disregard Van Allen's years of research and published findings. You would also have to believe that aluminum, and not lead, is adequate protection against radiation in the very heart of the Belt. . .exactly the spot where Apollo rocket ships entered from Cape Canaveral in Florida.
-----------------------------------------------------

Here's some more stuff I've found.

http://apollotruth.atspace.co.uk/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This link is dead but I saved part of the article.
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://hugequestions.com/Eric/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html

(23 parts)

NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts (Just for you Gary Gorrell)

There's a good discussion on it here.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo


Of course this issue isn't about whether they faked the moon missions.  It's about why they faked them as there is a mountain of proof of fakery in the footage and still pictures.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

6

Just Chat! / Re: The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

« on: 12/08/2015 18:28:36 »

I want to add this video to the list in post #1.

Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out!

7

Just Chat! / Re: Evidence The Titanic Was Sunk on Purpose

« on: 12/08/2015 18:25:06 »

It seems that I jumped the gun. I can't find any photos that confirm the one in my last post. All I can find are photos of a ship with a half covered promenade deck and unevenly spaced windows on B deck with the name Titanic on it. The official story is that they modified the Titanic to look like that; it originally looked like this.
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/exhibition/belfast/social_conditions/full/H10-46-135.jpg

It later looked like this.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/RMS_Titanic_3.jpg/300px-RMS_Titanic_3.jpg


It's still not certain which ship was modified though. The Olympic underwent a seven-week repair; it might have been modified during that time.


I would say the issue is up in the air. I'm going to sit on the fence for now.

8

Just Chat! / Re: Evidence The Titanic Was Sunk on Purpose

« on: 02/08/2015 16:36:34 »

Look at the photos in posts #1, #7, #21, #22, and #24 of this thread. You can enlarge them by clicking on them.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46847-RMS-Titanic-was-in-fact-the-RMS-Olympic-Insurance-fraud-by-JP-Morgan

They seem to show that the wreck is the Olympic.

9

Just Chat! / Re: How do we get rid of these selfish spammers?

« on: 31/07/2015 21:18:06 »

Can you link to something that you consider to be spam?

10

Just Chat! / Re: Evidence The Titanic Was Sunk on Purpose

« on: 31/07/2015 19:17:26 »

  Keeping an open mind doesn't mean keeping an empty mind. 

I'm proceeding cautiously.  I haven't made a committment.  If I see some clear proof of one scenario or the other, I'll just go with it.  I don't have a foregone conclusion.  If you're so sure this is BS, tell us why.  Thinking people aren't swayed by empty rhetoric.

An a priori incredulity is just as fallacious as a naive willingness to believe.


Here's an article I'm checking out.
https://wewhoopposedeception.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/titanic-the-shocking-truth-insurance-fraud-by-famous-investor-without-conscience/

11

Just Chat! / Evidence The Titanic Was Sunk on Purpose

« on: 30/07/2015 22:06:44 »

I just came across this video.

Evidence The Titanic Was Sunk on Purpose

They do make a good case. I'm going to sit on the fence for now though.


Check out what is said about the portholes at the 10:00 time mark. Some good points are made at the 47:46 time mark too. Their info about the number on the propeller, the portholes, etc has to be verified I suppose. If it turns out to be true, it closes the whole case.

The part that's got me wondering is the claim that the letters M and P can be seen at the stern of the wreck. Check it out at the 49:57 time mark.

This video seems to show something different than the other.
http://www.williammurdoch.net/articles_34_Titanic_switch_theory_02.html#19

It looks like there has been some video doctoring somewhere as I can't find the M or the P in the above video.

12

Technology / Re: It's possible to build a full size car that gets 200 mpg

« on: 28/02/2015 14:28:21 »

Start watching this video at the 2:00 time mark.

Diesels, Gaswagons & Zyklon-B Part 3 of 6

If a gas engine can run on wood smoke, its running on gas fumes doesn't seem that implausible.

13

Just Chat! / Re: The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

« on: 27/02/2015 13:43:41 »

  What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you know how to think clearly? All of those assertions have more than one interpretations. Claims made by others are always made with the impression that there is no other possible way to see it and that's how conspiracy theories stay alive. And there's never been one of you who'd even consider that it might just be possible. Also there's not one of you who would consider that the other person on the opposite argument isn't as intelligent as you are or can't put the pieces together as well as you have.

It's poor thinking skills that results in these conspiracy theories. I've seen it too many times to count. 

Let's hear you address reply #2.

14

Just Chat! / Re: The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

« on: 21/02/2015 22:39:45 »

Hi Aemilius

Thanks for the support here.  You seem to be good at checkmating sophists.

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Were the Apollo moon landing photos faked?

« on: 11/02/2015 20:35:06 »

  Let me explain why you are unlikely to get answers to your posts here and in chat (9/11 and holocaust denying).
Folks who join and participate here do so for fun and are looking for interesting topics. They have day jobs or other interests so limited time... 

...I suggest you do your homework, look them up and study them carefully. If you are still not convinced read them again until you understand the issues. Also read the books you were recommended so you can understand basic physics. If you then return as a genuine seeker of truth rather than a convert with an agenda, you might find people who are willing to answer one or two technical questions you cannot understand. However, remember that this is not a site for religious, political, or ideological spamming.
Apologies to everyone for long post. This is my last post on this topic, I'm off for newer more interesting items! 

Nothing you said there makes the flag anomaly go away.

"Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings."

16

Just Chat! / Re: Were We Told the Truth about WW2?

« on: 10/02/2015 18:54:55 »

These two videos pretty much explain the revisionists' position.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Auschwitz+-+Why+The+Gas+Chambers+Are+A+Myth&sm=12
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ONE+THIRD+of+the%EF%BB%BF+HOLOCAUST+&sm=12

Have you taken the time to watch them?

17

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Were the Apollo moon landing photos faked?

« on: 10/02/2015 18:50:40 »

We sent a robot there and were able to convince tens of thousands of scientists to lie for the last 40 years. Yah! Right!   

That's what we read, but is it really true?

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
---------------------------------------------

  We didn't send a man to the moon to place a mirror there. 

You seem a little confused about my position.  Watch this video at the 3:26:18 time mark and give your analysis of what's said.

What Happened on the Moon

18

Just Chat! / Re: Were We Told the Truth about WW2?

« on: 10/02/2015 13:33:03 »

You people don't seem to have even looked at the info.

19

Just Chat! / Re: The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

« on: 10/02/2015 13:30:34 »

  Please, not another conspiracy theorist. 

If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.  Why don't you show us why it's wrong?

This analysis seems to prove that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm
(5th picture from top)

Let's hear your analysis of this.

20

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Were the Apollo moon landing photos faked?

« on: 09/02/2015 21:53:29 »

  As SS explained, we know as a fact that men went to the moon because Apollo 11 placed corner reflecting mirrors on the surface of the moon and from that moment we've been able to bounce laser beams off the moon. It'd be impossible to do that otherwise. 

If the Surveyor* program was real, they had the technology to put remote-control craft on the moon.  Such a craft could have adjustable reflectors attached to a rotating upper half.

What Happened on the Moon

(3:26:18 time mark)

  Russians were monitoring radio signals from the astronauts orbiting the moon. If they weren't then the Russians would have pointed it out to the entire world. 

You're assuming that what were being told reflected what was really happening.  What was happening behind the scenes might have been very different.

Everyone should read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war.
http://libcom.org/history/articles/cold-war-1940-1989?quicktabs_1=0
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f


*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program