Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #530504 > unrolled thread

Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 06:08 +0100
    a.p'e niss noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 20:03 -0800

#530504 — Re: The Progress Of Black Hole Nonsense

Am 01.11.2015 19:08, schrieb Wayne Olmstead:
> JanPB wrote:
>
>>>> Thanks, I never know, 13500000000000 metres is HUGE. You won't call
>>>> such an object for a "black hole".
>>
>> Size alone does not determine the model.
>
> Btw, first time I see this thing here, must be new. Seems genuine.
>
> Secret Moon - NASA fake moon and mars hoax PROVEN
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNxxzEIzDVU


The video is made quite well.

I had made some 'studies' on the subject myself and came to similar 
conclusions.

These were: the pictures we had seen on tv , had been some sort of fake.

This would not say, that Nasa astronauts had not been to the moon, but 
it shows, that 'reality' in tv is actually created intentionally.


There seem to be kind' of 'schools' where some sort of 'bullshit 
artists' are created, that lie to the public, without loosing track of 
their script.


But in those days, the art of cheating was not that developed, hence we 
can find these little gaps in the story, where things are not made well.

(Or: these inconstancies are meant to be found, but people are requested 
to swallow the nonsense -nevertheless- unless they want to face serious 
sanctions.)

We have similar patterns of 'virtual reality' on several other 
occasions. Most prominent example would be pop music.

E.g. did 'The Beatles' consist of British boys?

This seems to be a stupid question, but how are you sure?

There exist a video, who's author assumes, that Paul McCartney was 
actually female.


How about Elvis?

How certain are you, that Elvis had sung himself?

I would say: singing nicely and making a good show are different 
qualities, that usually do not come in a single person. So: why not hire 
an actor  for the 'front job'?


These assumptions are - of course - just assumptions. And in reality 
Elvis sang, Paul McCartney was male and Nasa had been to the moon.

But the pictures were a stupid fake.


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#530709 — a.p'e niss

George r.r martiN created them,
with some sort of classical training in music, and
they really did take-off farther than that

> E.g. did 'The Beatles' consist of British boys?
> 
> This seems to be a stupid question, but how are you sure?

Paul was definitely the walruS,
which is a joke about a penis, as I recall

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web