Evidence? What evidence?
That was a rant about the inability to tell exactly where skylab would hit when it came down. Please all the others correct me if I misunderstood.
So what has skylab coming down to do with something going up?
Are you claiming that some mysterious illuminaty organisation faked all the debris spread out all over Australia?

Now, show some evidence or I will ask the Mods to shut this thread down!

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

That's not all he is about. There are many posts on his many, many blogs talking about 'End Times', Armegeddon, The Anti-Christ, the plots of the Illuminati (who are apparantly Satan's minions on Earth according to this dude). The Illuminati appear to encompass NASA, as well as any international orgs. No doubt anyone with scientific or technical training is included under the Illuminatus label.

MM claims to be able to predict the future and to have predicted what has occurred since ~1949 (start of end times, according to him).

Yikes.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I recall a picture of debris clearly identifiable as coming from Skylab, but I can't find it through googling. (It was a storage tank of some sort IIRC.)

If the claim is that the illuminati planted the debris found in Australia, then how did the illuminati obtain a piece of Skylab to "plant"?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

On this website of the Central Coast Astronomical Society, if you scroll down to Photo # 11, there is a picture of some in a museum in Australia.

On this page is a photo of some on display at the Huntsville Space and Rocket Center.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Because they build thet debris!
Easy CT logic...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

This "looks" like it. The only difference being the picture I remember was taken when it was still sticking out of the ground.

Thanks, Swift.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I think most of these guys fall into the same category: They discover this website by accident and feel that they can just register and post any kind of ATM idea because that's what they do on most other forums. It must be a rude awakening for them when, instead of a lot of "Wow dude - that's really cool!", their "arguments" are seriously questioned.

Implying that I state "there are no geostationary sats" is not nice. So please correct your post.

1. It's "Europa", not "Europe".
2. No photos? Europa has been photographed by spacecraft for decades.

Pioneer 10.



Pioneer 11.



Voyager 1.



Voyager 2.



Galileo.



Hubble Space Telescope.



Cassini.



New Horizons.



And let's not forget the international campaign observing the 1995 Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact event on Jupiter:
This page catalogs some ground-based observations of the event, which was imaged by Galileo, Hubble, and ground-based astronomers both professional and amateur. Including - what else? - images of Europa.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

What exactly do you think is real? Yes or no to the following:

1a. Space Shuttle in low Earth orbit.
1b. ISS in low Earth orbit.
2. Other satellites (communications, sensing, imaging, astronomy) in low Earth orbits.
3. Commercial Earth-imaging satellites in low Earth/sun-synchronous orbits.
4. Commercial communications satellites in geosynchronous (including geostationary) orbits.
5. Tracking (e.g., GPS) satellites in medium Earth orbits.
6. Spacecraft in lunar orbit (e.g., Selene, just launched by the Japanese).
7. Spacecraft in Sun-observing orbits (e.g., SOHO, Ulysses).
8. Spacecraft orbiting Mars/Jupiter/Saturn (e.g., Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter).
9. Spacecraft on interstellar trajectories (Pioneer 10/11, Voyager 1/2).

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Also, if you believe in any spacecraft in orbit - any one at all - explain exactly why one is possible and the others are not.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Then please...please...clearly state your premise and your evidence to support it.

Because, as it stands right now, you appear to have a problem with LEO craft like Skylab, the ISS, et al but you admit the existence of geostationary satellites at a much higher altitudes. Then farther out, you have a problem with lunar probes...even though the Moon itself is in Earth orbit.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

You basically claimed, with vague terminology, that no spacecraft has ever left low earth orbit. You certainly claimed that no spacecraft can make it as far as the moon, which is also orbiting the earth. That therefore leaves it for one to conclude that you're referring to all non-low earth orbits. I will not rephrase unless you wish to be more specific as to the radius of orbit that you will not accept as "possible" or "achieved." Also, would you care to explain how it is even possible, in light of your claim, the other pictures I showed of genesis and apollo, both going to the moon or beyond? And here's one more, an idea from someone else's suggestion; a picture of the comet 9p/temple 1 before and a few hours after impact as taken by yet another private citizen with no connection to any conspiracy. The sudden increase in brightness was caused by a spacecraft from earth intentionally impacting the comet; something you claim is impossible for us to have achieved.

Au contraire mon capitaine.
Beeing that imprecice about what it is that you actually claim is not nice!
Now will you present evidence? The clock is ticking....

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Well, people, something different now.

I propose we give MattMarriott a day or two to read everything posted here, and give a response to what's needed. Adding more and more to read every time he comes around isn't going to give us the answers we're looking for.

Also, if we all stop posting before he answers some questions there will be less opportunities for Matt to... overread the questions raised. An overload of information will not help Matt to give a comprehensive response.


Now, Matt, just go ahead (and take notes, if you want to ) and read the first two pages of this thread. There are quite a lot of questions asked, there's a lot to answer. Take your time, but don't forget to let us know you're on it.

__________________
Spread the Love!

STS60, thanks a lot for your replies. Besides Nicolas in the first page, (BertL and JayUtah to some extent also), you were the only poster to really REPLY to my article.

Now first of all: don't mix Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with the rest of the links you provided.

All your links belong in one of two categories:
- observable from Earth;
- NOT observable from Earth.

Comet Shoemaker-Levy impact on Jupiter is the only thing that belongs in the first category. BTW, It also belongs, from another perspective (End Times or not) in the End Times category, but that's another story.
More later.

Implying that I state "there are no geostationary sats" is not nice. So please correct your post.

You're the one shifting and obfuscating the goalposts, so you're the one who suffers the consequences of ambiguity. You're the one saying that certain space feats have been genuine and certain others have been faked. It is therefore your responsibility to identify which exact ones fall into each category. You have been asked by a number of people, including myself, to explain exactly what categorization you intend, because the definitions you offer are ambiguous. Instead of answering, you're trying to take people to task for not reading your mind. It doesn't work like that. Please identify the specific space missions you say were fake -- not just some vague description like "all those outside Earth orbit."

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Theoretically, is there actually something as "outside earth orbit"?
Isn't earths gravity expanding infinitely?
At least theoretically?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Oooh! Oooh! Can I be one too?

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

*cries hysterically* But what about the Moon Rocks? Won't someone ever think about those poor defenseless moon rocks!!!!

I mean that is some /expert/ hoax those NASA fellows did some 40 years back. Fooling their geologists then and all of those guys in the field Since.

Where did those poor helpless unspoken for Moon rocks come from if not the moon. I mean someone would have to go there? and um..pick them up! and then return with them? Right?

It's just me but I think it would be less expensive in the 60's just to go up there and get them than the money that would be spend trying to manufacture such an eleborate hoax to have kept on fooling modern geologists.

So My Questions Matt, Welcome to the boards by the way . If we never left the orbit of the Earth? Where and how did we aquire the lunar samples that we have? Not the meteorites, the ones that show no sign of re-entry?

(edited because I forgot a word or two! )

__________________
Mission Control : "Please don't kick the robot Bill. "

How is the comet 9p/tempel 1 impact NOT applicable to your claim? Explain please. And I'm sorry, but one more picture; how about this one of Rosetta? An ESA spacecraft currently on the way to comet 67P? Taken by amateur astronomer Ole Nielsen.

How does this not apply? This was DEFINATELY observable from earth, as was the 9P/Tempel 1 impact.

You obviously don't believe this geostationary satellite, since it flew by the moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGS-1

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Well, the typical Moon Hoax believer will just say that they aren't Moon rocks, that they were gathered from here, and ask you to prove that they are Moon rocks.

No. We are not going to disclude relevant and similar physics and events because you don't like them. You are going to have to find a way to deal with the reality of them.

In addition, you're posts are anything but clear. I cannot fault any board member who isn't precisely addresing what you feel to be pertinent, because you 1) don't understand the lingo you're using, and 2) aren't being clear in your stated premise.

We are not going to exclude perfectly relevant science in debunking your claims. Instead, the burden falls upon you to additionally address these, and show how they succeed or fail to impact your theory.

Finally, you need to produce evidence. Not grandstanding, not paranoid conspiracy fingerpointing. Evidence. Or I will ban you for life in short order.

And the next time you refer to any member(s) as sheeple, you will be banned for life.

Please take this warning very, very seriously

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Well, he did say "More later.", so I expect him to be coming back with some good answers.

__________________
Spread the Love!

From my first post: Soviet Union's Luna 1 "spacecraft" hoax, early 1959, marks the begin of the relevant stage for implementing the ultimate goal.
From Illuminati's controlled Wikipedia: "Luna 1 was the first of a number of spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Moon"

Which items, besides those that I explicitly marked (ISS, MIR, Skylab, Space Shuttle) are not clearly delimited by Luna 1?

I'm not holding my breath. I read that as "More (claims) later" since it follows a sentence that ends "but that's another story." Considering that on his own blog he makes the claim that ISS, the shuttle, and skylab were all hoaxes as well I don't understand why he bothers to make this ambiguous distinction between earth orbit and non-earth orbit missions. He doesn't seem to believe that any manned missions are real, but he believes that unmanned missions are real if they only go to an earth orbit, but not including the moon? I really wish he'd be more specific about what he believes is a hoax and what isn't (and a logical explanation for why he believes this would be REALLY helpful too), because right now he can just move the goalposts every single time anyone proves that a specific mission happened. It's like a moon hoax believer attacking the idea of astronauts being able to pass through the van allen belts safely without actually using the words "van allen radiation belts." It's confusing and annoying.

Matt,
I don't understand what you are claiming. I think sts60's post, if answered, would clarify your position.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Specifically, what is your evidence that Luna 1 was a hoax?

If you are saying these are not hoaxes, what is the difference?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser