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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #361684

Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes

Show all headers | View raw

On 8/20/2015 12:01 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:30:24 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:43:19, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a
>>> hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to
>>> understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is
>>> no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so
>>> outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>
>>
>>> the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by
>>> constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's
>>> pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA
>>> knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that
>>> many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything
>>> metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can
>>> withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in
>>> the radiation zone.  <shrug>
>>
>>> At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the
>>> magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.
>>> So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very
>>> good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only
>>> recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing
>>> would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much
>>> easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>
>>
>>         You are out of your fucking mind, asshole.
>
> Is reality really that difficult to accept?  <shrug>
>

There is no point in trying to reason away a delusion, Koobee. That's 
why they're called delusions. People who are broken in the head cannot 
REASON their way to fixing what's broken.

Just keep working with your therapist, who may or may not find a way to 
help you out, but at least might make things manageable so that you can 
function.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Nuclear testing at high altitudes John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 18:44 -0700
  Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:50 -0700
    Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 07:49 -0500
      Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 16:17 -0700
      Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 22:43 -0700
        Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-19 02:30 -0400
          Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 22:01 -0700
            Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-20 02:08 -0400
              Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 20:31 -0700
            Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 09:54 -0500
              Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 00:18 -0700
                Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-25 20:50 +0200
                Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 22:20 -0700
                Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-26 13:14 +0200

csiph-web