Bitcoin Forum

As an American, I vividly remember watching the footage of nighttime attacks on Israel during the Gulf War.  Saddam had Scud missiles filled with chemical weapons, and he was intent on gassing the poor Jews.  The only thing standing in his way was the brave American military and their Patriot missiles.

Or, at least, that's what we were told:
CNN faking the Gulf War, using bluescreens at Sandy Hook (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM5ZdO-IgEE)

They also told us that Saddam's army, when they entered Kuwait, "took the babies out of the incubators and threw them on the floor."  Turns out that was bullshit as well:
"Kuwaiti girl" turns out to be daughter of Kuwait Ambassador, coached by PR firm to lie to Congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y)

Propaganda in the US media is apparently an open secret.  Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, recounts a conversation with an old-timer around the time of the moon landings:

Well, people would speak up and expose the truth, right?
Mainstream Media is a Hoax what are you some kind of conspiracy nut?   :D

"The term propaganda rings melodramatic and exaggerated, but a press that—whether from fear, careerism, or conviction—uncritically recites false government claims and reports them as fact, or treats elected officials with a reverence reserved for royalty, cannot be accurately described as engaged in any other function."
~Glenn Greenwald

I did link to the sources.  But, like the video says, the original CNN clip is on archive.org.  You can find it with about two minutes of Googling.

Do you believe the moon landings are fake? If so, without using links to explain why you believe such a thing, explain why. In your own words (even if reciting the garbage from other sites), please, in the most credible way possible, provide an explanation.

Years ago when I was in Haiti I lived at a special forces outpost. Two of the guys there told me over a few beers about their exploits in the first gulf war. They had dressed up as reporters and went to a hotel bar to look for real reporters. Then they just made stuff up. Both were shocked to see their lies in the NYTimes, and vowed to never believe the press again. 

This is probably different than intentionally lying, I would not categorize this as hoax, but the unprofessionalism and intrinsic difficulty to collect accurate information

Funny, I remember the Scud attacks, and although they were afraid of chemical payloads, they never actually said that they'd been used. Saddam did gas the Kurds though, so it's not an irrational fear.

As for the incubator story, it's been long known that it was bogus.

“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” – William Casey, CIA Director

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-pundit-alex-jones-made-chris-dorner-a-hero/

the mainstream media news open and public like on radio and tv and paper stores dominated by them are brainwashing machines. I've started calling them the " Troll" Press.

Thankfully, with more and more people switching from public/cable TV and getting more into Hulu and Netflix, the mainstream media's lost a bit of its grip; at least on me.  I still have to take any news I get from a 'reliable' source with a grain of salt.

But I swear to Zeus, I'll never stomach a minute of Fox News again.  Talk about mind control, they can't get a few sentences out without reminding you how you need to feel about everything.

SHOCKING NEWS, A DISTURBING/HORRIFYING/TRAUMATIZING blah blah blah.

bitcoin fund for false flag crisis actor investigations:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=249342.0

True that. This was a real PsyOp. They were lying to get the press to falsely report the positions of U.S. troops. 

Of course now, we have outstanding Lunar Recon Orbitor/LOLA 3d moon datasets.  We've mapped that whole damn moon down to a half meter, and those Apollo guys footprints and equipment are clearly visible.  You or I can download that entire planetary database to our PC and run it (of course we'd need some of the very best graphics cards, but who in the bitcoin community doesn't have THOSE...LOL)

So to answer your/Clintons/old fellow's fear and mythological superstition...

If we set our minds to it, we can do things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjkPeexEdyI

Yeah, your 'old carpender' was a fool, let's take a look at someone else's comments from that era.

Ayn Rand, from the launchpad of Apollo 11, wrote this about the 'doubters'.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_apollo11

Now, who you gonna believe...Old carpender....Ayn Rand....Bill Clinton....

LOL...

The real PsyOps was the use of NASA as a propaganda crutch to show the awesome capabilities of the USA in advanced technologies, long after the brilliance and capabilities were destroyed by leftist bandits intent on stealing the tax dollars for short term gains....

LMAO...you're really so galactically stupid to believe that this:

http://www.septclues.com/MOONHOAX/moonhoax%20LUNARMODULE0.jpg

took off from the moon and had enough fuel to travel 200K+ miles back to earth using 1960s technology? How do you survive day to day being such an idiot? Do people spoon food in your mouth for you?

For a start, you can simply look at the specifications of the thrusters and the propellant, as well as the vehicle mass fractions.  Then use the equations ....

Quite a few high school students could answer your question, using math and a piece of paper, and a calculator with a log function....

As an aside, the rocks they brought back prove they went to the Moon beyond a doubt.  But that takes some understanding of geology to explain and understand...

Why did you include "mainstream" in your statement? Are you implying that other forms of media are less prone to bullshit? I'd say no, they are not less prone to bullshit. It's just other biases - more personal and more chaotic - that drive the bullshit in the alternative sources of information. In other words, big media is driven by the big - and more orchestrated - interest groups.
From mainstream media, you could "prove" particular stories as true. From the alternative media, you could prove any story true.
The trick is to observe and keep track of whom to trust, and to what extent. No media can beat my direct observations, but even those are prone to my own biases and wishful thinking.

so you're an idiot, and you use logical fallacy to "prove" your arguments. Here, read these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

For extra credit, figure out which ones you just used. So exactly how much fuel do you think that completely unrealistic spaceship with rippled poster board siding and christmas wrapping heat/radiation protection required to get back to earth?

Seriously, you really see that at a plausible craft capable of traveling 500,000 miles through space? How old are you? Here's a better link:

http://www.freewallpaperpic.com/wp/apollo11/51440/Apollo11_5927_NASA.jpg
http://www.freewallpaperpic.com/wp/apollo11/51440/Apollo11_5927_NASA.jpg

Now really look at that. Try to take off your American Exceptionalism blinders and use those dormant frontal lobes of yours and ask yourself if that is a credible spacecraft.

Here are the relevant characteristics.  A 3500 lbf thrust rocket motor you can pick up with one hand.  That was used to place the ascent module in low lunar orbit, then the orbiting unit made the return to Earth.  As you can see, fuel for the ascent stage was about half the weight of the unit.

Mass including fuel: 10,300 lb (4,700 kg)
APS thrust: 3,500 lbf (16,000 N)
APS propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer
APS specific impulse: 311 s (3,050 N·s/kg)
APS delta-V: 7,280 ft/s (2,220 m/s)
Thrust-to-weight ratio at liftoff: 2.124 (in lunar gravity)

These methods have been well understood for over a century.
total change in velocity = specific impulse * ln(takeoff mass/final empty mass)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Let me repeat something you may have missed:  Modern radar mapping has shown us these landing sites, and has resolved the equipment left there, the vehicle tracks, and even the footprints of these men in the surface powder. (starts at 2:50 or so)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPJDxEkmjJo

Previously I noted Ayn Rand's comments immediately after the Apollo 11 launch.

Ayn Rand, from the launchpad of Apollo 11, wrote this about the 'doubters'.  She talks about the doubters, and the skeptics...You see, they were definitely around then, just as now.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_apollo11

Oh, final thing, actual operational spacecraft don't tend to look pretty or elegant.  And yes, I have worked in this field and made a small contribution.

Sounds like you were unable to wake up those frontal lobes. You think that you can travel over 200K miles with less than 10,000 lbs of fuel? You must have watched a lot of cartoons because you have quite the imagination. What kind of magic fuel was that?

Oh yeah, and appealing to Ayn Rand is a logical fallacy. She was a great philosopher, but not a rocket scientist.

Yes, I do have sometimes difficulty waking up the frontal lobes.

What kind of fuel was that?  Hypergolic propellants.  Very, very nasty stuff.  You would not want to be around it, take my word on that.  But you seem to have some misunderstandings about energy use in orbital transfers.  
Do you think that a rocket going between planets must continually burn fuel, like a car or an airplane does, in order to stay on course?

wow...well, you're either a shill or in some kind of dreamworld. I think you've already proven my point.

Actually, that must be said of you.  

You've refused to acknowledge the accuracy of the mass equations as they related to the Lander Ascent module.  You apparently do not care to understand the way to calculate energy required to move off planet and between planets, even when it is clearly laid out for you.

Neither do you acknowledge my linking to the 3d radar map datasets of the entire Moon which we have today (and which I have here on computers) with which you or I or anyone else can easily look at the Apollo equipment and the ground tracks left by those guys.

Finally, you completely ignored my comment about geology, which is absolute proof that men went to the moon (and incidentally, that the Soviet unmanned robotic landers did, also).  The rocks they brought back tell a story.  Their story is one of being formed over billions of years on a world with no water and no atmosphere, with a chemical composition such as that on the Moon.  To put it bluntly they are rocks that couldn't be faked.

High power magnification of those rocks shows micrometeorite impact craters on any small chunk of rock.  We can't fake that.

Even the dust on the surface is wildly different than anything here.  It is formed from a billion years of vapor deposition on several substrates. Vapor from vaporized meteorites, of course.  


http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/regolith_breccia.htm

This is how scientists can tell that rocks found at the South Pole are meteorites from Mars, or the Moon or other places.

Funny thing is, you and I likely are 95% in agreement that "Mainstream Media is a hoax.."

LOL...  

This thread has been hijacked and wrecked.

It was supposed to be about the media, now it's about the inertia, acceleration, vacuum, and gravity.

Indeed.

Given the gravity of the situation, and the inertia of the mainstream media, and the vacuum which is the public mind, why would one think the subject could be accelerated?

around the world in 90 minutes x3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY87RTXzA04

Fake!

I can't remember why I originally ignored cryptoanarchist but now I'm glad I did.

What's next? Anyone who believes physics is a shill?

You do. As well as anyone stupid enough to believe the video we were all shown of an aluminum plane slicing into a steel and concrete building intact and not exploding until the entire thing was within the structure. Aluminum crashes against steel and concrete - it doesn't pass through it like the road runner through a cliff. But morons like you can only use ad hominems and other logical fallacies.

Here's my favorite from the shills: The plane was able to do that because of the speed it was going at, like straw going through a telephone pole. Now, THAT is ignoring Newton's 3rd law of motion. So don't bring up physics, dickhead, you clearly aren't remotely competent.

I'm curious....if we wish to make the assertion 'mainstream media is a hoax', then how/why/who gets to pick what the hoaxes are?  Does actual knowledge of science play a part?

Does someone have a monopoly on it?  Is it a democratic decision process?  A fascist decision?  A imperialistic or capitalistic decision?

And what is a hoax, anyway?  Is a hoax the same as a conspiracy?

Let me pull from the shelf my science textbook from the turn of the 20th century which seriously has a chapter on Piltdown man and think about it...

This is news to me. REALLY????
 ???
 :o :o :o


 ;D :D ;)

I'm still bewildered that people do not realize that Reptiles run the world.

People who see auras can see the hybrids because they have no aura.

YES!!!

Thank God!

Another intelligent soul who realizes that Planes did not crash through the buildings and we were shown CGI videos, pr-emade on the morning of 9-11.
Bravo!

Brilliant!

I love this!

"LOL yea math and science but I mean come on LOOK at thing u can't be srs!!"

Well, I have refuted his argument but he has a point.  The Apollo landers don't look at all like what people may have thought spaceships would look like in the 1950s.  It took a while to figure out what they had to look like to work.

Using the same logic, I can see somebody today looking at a 1960s computer and saying
...

"I mean come on LOOK at thing, that's no computer.  Look at it, man.  There's no mouse, screen, nothing, just that bunch of stupid little flashing lights and toggle switches.  Like what are you trying to put over on us, you think we stupid?"

Evil Jews regime own news companies to dumb down Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze1Z_Ow3d-o&feature=c4-overview&list=UUczrL-2b-gYK3l4yDld4XlQ

Here's an interesting link:

http://nodisinfo.com/Home/nodinsinfos-list-of-phony-sandy-hook-actor-parents/ (http://nodisinfo.com/Home/nodinsinfos-list-of-phony-sandy-hook-actor-parents/)

I haven't looked through all the site but its a good start towards what I'm suggesting here.

Stuff like this is moronic and offensive to those with brain cells.
 
Do you really believe that school shootings are made up? It's one thing to believe that the moon landings are fake (you're still an idiot if you believe they're fake) or that 9/11 is a hoax (double idiot points) but it's another to believe that stuff like this is fake. Why would anyone bother faking this, and why wouldn't someone who lives in the Sandy Hook area come out and say something if it was fake?

Also, that website is hilarious. That guy doesn't wear tinfoil hats, he wears tinfoil suits.

If you believe that that shit was real you're industrial strength stupid. My guess is you're a shill., as usual.

If I'm industrial strength stupid, then you're what? Military grade stupid? You still didn't explain why no one in that entire town didn't say something about the school shooting that made national news not actually being real.

You're already ignored shill/moron. No one buys your shit.

First sign of an idiot: Uses the ad hominem argument (especially of the "you're very stupid (but I'm not)" variety)

Second sign of an idiot: When not using the ad hominem argument: propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.

This subforum has degenerated into a shit-sling.  What's a rational argument anymore?  Forget those--lets just say the exact same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, until someone agrees. :-\

Wait a minute.... if someone uses ad hominem but also provides scientific, mathematical and historical evidence what does that make them? :P

If one needs ad hominem to make a point, they're an idiot; if one includes it anyway, they're a dickhead ;)  But nobody really wants to listen to either.

Wow...so you used an ad hominem to describe people who use ad hominems - classic!

As far as scientific proof these fake shootings actually happened - there isn't any, just fake witness accounts. As far as rational arguments that they've been staged - there are mountains of proof.

Sandy Hook is possibly the most obvious fake event (although the moon landing is pretty obvious too). I'd like to hear the "TV-never-lies" people explain some of the stuff brought up here: http://nodisinfo.com/Home/sandy-hook-what-we-know-for-sure/ with something beyond the usual "tin foil hat" comments. But I won't, because they can't/

Remember: ad hominem is a direct attack at a person as an argument.  In this case, I am making a definition; though one may find this, upon realizing themselves fitting into this definition, as insulting, someone's gotta be "it"--all I'm doing is making clear the difference between the makeup of an idiot and the non-idiot.  There's no way to say it without questioning someone's intelligence, since that's exactly what's happening.  Though I could use "highly irrational" instead, I also don't call cripples "differently abled".

Exactly.

I'm glad we agree.  Once you point out the spot where I used ad hominem against a person to argue for a point or against another point, I'll be happy to concede that your last response was entirely correct.

im skeptical of the moon landing myself (note this is not the same thing as saying "i know we never landed on the moon") but you dont seem to understand the physics of traveling in a zero g vacuum. it doenst require a great deal of fuel to lift off of the moon and from that point you just coast along, there is no friction to slow you down so you only need enough fuel to accelerate and decelerate.

It's pretty easy to figure out to me. The moon's gravity is 1/6th of the earth's. Look at the NASA picture I posted of the fake spacecraft - does that in any way seem like 1/6th of a Saturn rocket? Keep in mind that the bottom portion supposedly stayed on the moon and just the top half takes off. It's about the size of a SUV. Logically, that would mean that the Saturn rockets would have only needed to be the size of about 6 SUVs. That and about 1000 other things don't add up.

Next time you're trying to figure out how big a spacecraft needs to be, try using math (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation) instead of just guessing.

Does this mean that the Saturn V that carried both the lunar lander and itself does not have to be 6 times bigger than the part of the lunar lander that doesn't have to carry any part of the Saturn V even if the gravity difference is 6x?

And does it mean that as the fuel is exhausted that the vehicle loses mass at the rate of the fuel exhaustion and so takes less to move it over time?

I don't really need math to spot such an obvious fraud. It's pretty simple: It took a Saturn rocket to take off from earth, but only something the size of a Lincoln Navigator to take off from the moon. Does that really require anything more than common sense to see that that's bullshit?

And that's just one thing. We could talk about the mountains of problems with the footage and photos, the fact that NASA conveniently just lost all the flight data, the problem with traveling through the van allen belts, the behavior of the astronauts after the fact, the proven fake moon rocks, and the fact that with 40+ years of advancing technology, no one seems to be able to go there anymore.

If you can look into all those things and still blindly think that America and the TV would never lie to you, then you're just a brainwashed dumbass.

What's your deal anyway? Are you here to give crypto anarchists a bad reputation by acting mathematically illiterate?

I happened by an unexpected chance, to see the full exhibits of Tsiolkovsky at the Museum of Jurassic Technology in Los Angeles.  This part of that Museum is worth visiting if you have a chance.

As for cryptoanarchist, here he shows that he does not understand the rocket equation.  More basic than that, his error is in not understanding the relation between velocity and momentum.

I don't know if you saw this link, but the work of Kooima is absolutely amazing.  Basically you can download lunar maps to under a half meter resolution and explore the place.  It takes a high end gamer style computer.

Modern radar mapping has shown us these landing sites, and has resolved the equipment left there, the vehicle tracks, and even the footprints of these men in the surface powder. (starts at 2:50 or so)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPJDxEkmjJo

The entirety of the Museum of Jurassic Technology ought be studied.
http://mjt.org/

I'm sure I'm better at math than you. I went through three Calc courses. Are you trying to prove you're an idiot by not getting the point that math isn't needed? Are you trying to prove that only shit fills your cranium by not understanding the point that common sense is enough to prove that moon landings never happened?

You're clearly a dumbass. What you're saying is like saying that I'm acting mathematically illiterate for not believing in Santa Claus because I won't debate the velocity characteristics of reindeer in-flight or the aerodynamics of sleighs.

or gravitational potential energy, or Newton's laws of motion...

Yeah...great explanation. I suppose you're gonna say the Easter bunny is real too? "CryptoAnarchist just doesn't understand the candy-giving bunny equation." Do you realize how pathetically stupid you sound?

I guess you believe this too:

http://www.septclues.com/MOONHOAX/NASA_MOON-ROCKET_APOLLO-17.gif

Yeah, totally looks real.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwDBraef3YU-_J4njF3O1fDp-uvFx3PsfO08HjOMAhble8HOVbGQ

I'm not sure why you use words like "believe".  They have no real place in science or engineering.  There is a world of facts.  You are in denial of a lot of those facts.

I didn't say "I believe", dumbfuck. I said I guess "YOU believe", because you aren't basing your arguments on facts or logic, but just believing what you've been told, like children believe in santa.

Well, you've definitely carved out a rather unique spot for your self.  I'm certain that after you decisively research these issues and discover the missing keys, that you'll have to decide whether to reveal the truth to the world.  You found me out, that you did.  It was probably that slip up where I asserted that ISP had a gravitic component, or perhaps where I mistakenly stated that momentum was proportional to the square of velocity.  Maybe it was the Twinkie wrapper at the moon landing stage set, or that McDonald's bag that we later saw in the crater.

You see, there was no way we could use the regular unionized stage crews.  We had to bring in Ethiopian and Ugandans straight from the bush, and they were always fighting with each other.  I mean, like trying to actual kill each other.  It was crazy.  But what else were we to do?  We brought them in on the CIA planes, and paid them in McDonalds Happy Meals.  They really liked those.  And we dumped them back off the same way.  Their respective governments slaughtered those tribes by pre arrangement with the CIA of course so there wasn't any evidence left.

And yeah, you caught us on the cardboard and Christmas tree tinsel mockup of the Lunar Lander and Ascent Module.  I admit we could have done better, but what between the whores, cash and the drugs floating around, who gave a shit?  They kept us well supplied, dude.

Mainstream media has always been a tool for people in power to manipulate the masses.  Control the minds, control their actions. 

Influence the story, through airbrushing thru the controlled media and boom, you have all of a sudden brain washed the majority of people.

History is littered with examples of state collusion and media mongols.  It is a rampant cancer. 

Long live the freedom of the internet so that the masses can tune into what is really going on in the 'news' and draw their own conclusions rather than being spoon fed man handled propaganda spat out from the media machine.