Added: 2 years ago
From: shanedk
Views: 13,954
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (990)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Even on the moon white men can't jump.

  • @exodus21v20 lol

  • no matter what, i will never believe that people were on moon. period.

  • @zmajcek11 Thats the stupidest stance to take on anything. By that logic if nasa put you on a space shuttle and took you to the moon and you stood on it yourself you still wouldn't believe it. This would clearly be ignorant and close minded.

  • Comment removed

  • 00

  • Since the moon doesn't have an atmosphere, you can guarantee there is no air friction. If you've already proved the astronaut and dust fall at the same rate, there's no need to calculate whether or not the force of gravity exerted upon the astronaut is consistent with lunar gravitation because the only reason dust would ever fall at a slower rate than an astronaut is the friction from the air (in other words, the reason a feather falls slower than another object), you know what I mean! :P

  • Shane Killian, why do you and so many people go into such effort to debunking this retarded shit?! Anyone who knows anything about gravity wouldn't claim the dust falls faster than the astronaut because even if this were filmed on the earth and slowed down, the astronaut and dust would still fall at the same rate! It's how gravity works! Everything falls at the same rate no matter what is the mass of the planet/moon. Why go into such detail?!

  • @GuitarMannnnnn I mean that respectively of course. An object on the moon and an object on earth fall at different rates, but multiple objects on the earth or moon all fall at the same rate given the same atmospheric friction (earth) or lack thereof (Moon). A steel ball falls at the same rate as a rubber ball. So what is the point of incorporating the math?

  • The Moons gravitational pull is what causes tides on Earth, and you guys actually believe that a human being would be able to jump, with such powers at work? The power of the moon moves massive bodies of water, this means any person standing on the moon would be crushed by the sheer impact of the moons gravity.

    So, Shane get your so called science right, and start thinking rationally.

  • @sondio Dude, you're retarded. The only reason the moon causes tides is because its gravity pulls on the surface of the earth. The earth has MORE mass than the moon. You can jump on the earth with ease. The earth doesn't cause tides, it pulls the ENTIRE FUCKING MOON into orbit. You get your science straight. You have no idea what you're talking about!

  • @sondio And you conclude that "the sheer impact of the moons gravity" would crush anybody standing on it?! That's completely ridiculous."Such powers at work", eh? The moon is 0.07349 x 10^24 kg. Earth is 5.9742 x 10^24 kg. The ratio between the moon and earth's mass is 1.23%. That's pitiful! The earth is much more massive. Why are we not being crushed?! This is the exact reason you lunar landing hoax perpetrators should be exposed for the illiterate, preposterous lies you spread.

  • @GuitarMannnnnn

    Careful there. The surface of the moon is also CLOSER to its center of gravity. That bumps the force up a bit. But not enough.

  • @rkyeun Well in the face of a speculation such as "the moon's gravity would crush people! They wouldn't be able to jump at all!" That's a minor detail, but I guess it is still worth noting. Not like it makes a hell of a difference. The earth's gravitational field is still greater, by 6 times I believe.

  • @GuitarMannnnnn hook, line, and sinker!

  • @sondio What? You're still wrong you know?

  • @GuitarMannnnnn What one might conclude from my "Hook, line and sinker" remark. Is that you, not only took the bait, but also swallowed it whole! But by the looks of it your not done there! guess you want the rod and reel as well!

  • @sondio Are you seriously that stupid? You really think the moon's gravity would crush someone??? I hardly accepted any hook, line or sinker... but if anything I pulled you into the lake without having to do any of those things. I presented to you that the earth has more mass, thus more gravity and the earth doesn't kill anybody from its gravity. What makes you think you're the one making sense here? You still must not know what you're talking about. Go back to school.

  • @GuitarMannnnnn Hmmm...looks like, sondio, you also got his fishing hat and the front half of his boat as well!

    GMan, look up "Poe."

  • @shanedk I know what a poe is. Is he a poe? He can't be a poe. I thought poes were only a term used to describe fake creationists, not fake lunar landing hoaxers.

  • @GuitarMannnnnn I do not know what a Poe is, so i would not count my self as one. All i did was make an obvious ridiculous comment, while being some what mildly intoxicated.

    Just to make things clear. I know we landed on the moon, i know the moons gravity is not going to crush a man, and I REALLY know the true meaning of hook, line and sinker!

  • @sondio Well, if you're just saying that to cover yourself: Shame on you!

    If you really were drunk trying to be satirical, then I guess you got me good. But seriously.. if you know the facts, then you know how bad it sucks to converse with people who deny the facts. Why in the world would you fake being a dumbass? It sucks bad enough to deal with REAL dumbasses.

  • @sondio You proved NOTHING. You have nothing to support your claim that the moon's gravity would crush somebody. I knew what line and sinker meant. I was asking why the hell you still think you're right. You're wrong. Just google it! Did you really expect me to be like, "Wow, this guy actually IS right because he said something about fishing! I should really accept pseudoscientific babble from people who don't know anything about science more often!"

  • @sondio

    I challenge you to pour some water on the floor, stand next to it, and see which of you can jump higher.

  • Comment removed

  • @mafehmalum Not only seen it, but debunked it, LONG ago. It does NOT show the video being fake. Bart Sibrel IS A LIAR.

  • @shanedk It's clear man. Don't be ridiculous.

  • @mafehmalum It is NOT a clear fake! Sibrel claimed that they shot the Earth through a round portal. But if you watch the ENTIRE video, you see them pull back and show that they're clearly shooting the FULL Earth through a RECTANGULAR window! SIBREL LIED!

  • this is filmed at 24fps or may be 30fps. Clearly for 0.3 seconds the clown did not drop because it is suspended by a wire. There is no way we can not see it is dropping for at least 7 frames from its peak. it's 24fps for gods sake. anyway, it is clear that you are a paid debunker. so good luck!

  • this is the reason why the dust falls down at accurate free fall while the clown going up and up and then suspended for 0.3 seconds at the peak. and have you seen the documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon" just google it. It shows how the astroboys faked their videos. Why faking it man?! Then they magically reached the moon in a short time. LMAO!

  • Shane, you are...a genius. Brilliant debunking vid. :)

  • Clearly you are lying. How much you are paid? 

  • @mafehmalum The numbers prove I'm not.

  • This is a more accurate time frame analysis:

    speedge.free.fr*nasa*jumpflag1­*jumpflag-1.htm

    change * to /

  • @mafehmalum Paranoid conspiratard nonsense. I've already made a video where I count both height and time for both astronaut and dust, and BOTH fall at EXACTLY the same rate. The dust falls first because it doesn't go as high! YOUR SOURCE EVEN SAYS THAT!

    Morons.

  • @shanedk what kind of physics book you are reading? if both falls in the same rate in a vacuum then they should have the same height. you think you can foul me?

  • @mafehmalum Where in your deluded mind did you pull that from? Objects falling from different heights DO fall at the same rate; it's just that one reaches the ground sooner.

  • The time (t) the astroclown from peak to down is 0.898 sec

    (gm) gravitational constant of moon is 1.622m/square sec.

    d = 0.5(gm)(t)^2

    d = 0.5*0.622*(0.898)^2

    d = 0.654meters

    d = 2.14ft

    4.2:1

    Astroclown height = 9ft

    He should play in the NBA!

  • @mafehmalum How the FUCK did you get that ratio for the astronaut? I COUNTED THE PIXELS. You are NOWHERE NEAR RIGHT!

  • @shanedk 4.2:1 ratio is according to you. that is the problem of lies, it's difficult to remember.

  • @mafehmalum I showed ALL the math. You are WRONG. The height is EASILY calculated, and it is NOT WHAT YOU SHOWED IT TO BE. You're either pathetically inept, or an outright liar.

  • @mafehmalum Making the same claim with no modification is NOT a reply. Watch the video again and see what that ratio is and how it's PROPERLY used. It shows a besuited astronaut about 6 feet tall, NOT 9 feet!

  • AND I BET YOU ARE A ATHEIST THERE IS AVERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT TALKS ABOUT GOD PUTTING A BARRICADE TO STOP HUMANS FROM LEAVING EARTH ITS CALLED VAN ALLEN BELT ATHEIST LUCIFERIAN BOOKWORM

  • @MegaWhitesox05 Shut the hell up,God doesn't exist you retarded christian.

  • PS YOU SAY YOU ARE A THIRD GRADER THAT EXPLAINS YOUR WAY OF THINKING BEEEEHEHE SHEEPLE

  • HEY YAHOO SHANEDORK IF THE MOONS GRAVITY IS ONE SIX EARTH YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME CLOSE TO JUMPING 6 TIMES WHAT YOU JUMP ON EARTH SO STOP BEING A RETARD BESIDES I DONT BELIVE THEY CAN GO THROUGH VAN ALLEN BELT AND THEY ARE MASONS OR SATANIC LIARS WAKE UP SHEEPLE

  • All Lunar missions were tracked not only by the United States, but by England, Australia, and the former Soviet Union. So all of these countries, at the height of the cold war, were involved in some grand conspiracy to fool the world about a moon landing? If America tried to fake the moon landing, the Soviet Union would have had a field day exposing it. And they would have found it out: they had some of the world's best physicists. We landed on the moon. Case closed.

  • Nonsens. The falling sand show the hoax! He moves exact as in gravity of earth !

  • @paule1333 Already debunked in earlier videos. The dust and the astronaut fall at EXACTLY the same rate, and that is EXACTLY lunar acceleration.

  • @shanedk

    This is a nonsense. Only the fact that the sand can trickle generally from the shoes proves the deception!

  • @paule1333 Could you explain wtf you're saying? Do you mean the speed at which the dust falls? The fact that it falls? How it falls?

  • OMG this was so freaking funny. Thanks for the funny but accurate commentary LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • lol xyzLLLzyx closed his account

  • In this video the theory prove nothing.Epic fail..lots of blablabla based on hoax and Data from Nasa lied 50 years ago.When the narrator of this video Claim to know how much is the hight of a jump on the moon..he only base is knowledge on pure might.You can argue and debunk as you want is not going to change a damn things..there is to much prove from astronaut to scientific evidence that Nasa and the US government took us for a long ride of lies and deception.

    U fuking live on the moon lol.

  • @sattanhellsing No, it's called "photogrammetry," and it's as old as photography itself. The techniques of photogrammetry are just trigonometry, so if this video is wrong, then basic trigonometry is wrong, too.

    Is trigonometry a conspiracy, too?

  • @sattanhellsing youre kidding right? You do realize we can show you photos of the landers on the moon? Why is it so hard to believe we actually made it to the moon? Everything you guys come up with is debunked yet you cant accept it. Man went to the moon with less computing power than any cellphone today. That is amazing. honestly why is it that you don't believe we went to the moon?

  • IMO all the sand is back on the ground when the astronot is at the highest point. So total rise and fall time of sand is exactly half of the astronot.

    Calculate heights for yourself.

    Nothing debunked here.

  • @losability I did the dust a long time ago. The dust and the astronaut both fall at precisely the same rate.

  • @shanedk What's up Shane? I found another video that proves the moon landings never happened, enjoy!!

    watch?v=OzH4iSRZYgI

  • @ironman197268 Whaddya mean, "another"? There would have to be at least one that actually managed to do so before now in order for that to be "another."

  • @shanedk Shane, comments like that prove you're wrong about the moon landing missions and deep down, you know it!!

  • @ironman197268 No, deep down, I know perspective--I trained in it in college. And that guy does NOT understand perspective if he doesn't understand how a far-away mountain appears in the same place even though you've moved a bit laterally.

  • @ironman197268 Oh, look--another idiot that doesn't understand the concept of perspective. I wonder if he thinks the moon chases him at night, too?

  • @shanedk Another idiot? No... I'm the same idiot you've been talking to from the beginning. These proof that the Apollo missions never happened videos just keep popping up. For something to be so true, there sure is a lot of conundrums involved, just like the theory of evilution.

    watch?v=nm-xLKIqp9Q

  • @ironman197268 The "another idiot" refers to the idiot that made the video you referenced. I'm sorry; I thought that since that would be perfectly obvious to anyone with a greater mental capacity than a turnip it wouldn't be necessary to clarify. I forgot I was talking to a hoaxtard...

  • @shanedk OK, what do you think about the latest video I sent? You know, one day the moon landings are going to REALLY be exposed for the HOAX that they are, and I sure am glad I'm not a defender of it like you and all the others. NASA could totally put an end to it all if they would just send a couple of astronauts back up there for just a few hours, and let them video the old landing sites live. With today's technology it should be simple and cheap. What are you gona to do about all that Shane?

  • @ironman197268 "NASA could totally put an end to it all if they would just send a couple of astronauts back up there for just a few hours"

    The ISS goes through the lower part of the belt several times a day, you idiot! Astronauts go there all the time!

  • @shanedk How in the world you think "narcissism" relates to this debate is beyond me you little daffodil. Well then why don't they send someone back up there today? I know, because the entire planet would be watching and monitoring the whole thing with every ounce of technology they have to see if it was really happening. That's why they stopped going in 1972 because of all the new satellites being put into space, they knew if they continued they'd get busted. What do you think about that?

  • @ironman197268 The entire planet DID monitor the Apollo programs! The Apollo craft were tracked by LOTS of independent observatories, including amateur radio astronomers--and even the SOVIETS! So, if this is so easy to figure out, why did the Soviets stay silent and be embarrassed at losing the moon race? Why didn't they splash it all over the front page of Pravda?

  • @shanedk "The ISS goes through the lower part of the belt several times a day, YOU IDIOT!! Astronauts go there all the time!!" Yes, through the LOWER levels of it, not the outer, and more harmful depths of it. So they debunked this decades ago huh, well then they should just send some more astronauts back up there to shut this whole HOAX thing up for good. Why is it an IDIOT like me can figure this out, but the geniuses at NASA can't?

    

  • @ironman197268 The INNER belt is the most dangerous, idiot! The outer belt is the WEAKEST, and the astronauts only skimmed that part of it!

    Astronauts DO go through the belt. ALL THE TIME. DEAL with it.

  • @shanedk I'm talking about satellite technology we have today, not "Sputnik." So Shane, why do you think thy (NASA) don't send some more astronauts back up there? You know they really should, just for some good high quality photos for Neil, Buzz, and Mike to have, so they can have a little reunion and reminisce. They could do it that way and have a huge tax write off!!

  • @ironman197268 Let me guess Shane, you're going to tell me "NASA is TAX funded you IDIOT!!"

  • @ironman197268 Besides the fact that they could take you on the mission and you still would claim it's a hoax since facts aren't relevant to you hoaxtards. Also I'm not sure it would be worth billions of dollars to shut up all 7 of you guys up since you only contribute about $40,000 to GDP combined.

  • @ironman197268 Uh, I don't know who you think NASA is, but I'm pretty sure they can't use a "tax write off." That seems like a huge multi-billion dollar project to give them a few photos. Also since they are all in their 80's they'd probably die before they got the picture. You're not the guy Buzz popped are you?

  • Comment removed

  • @johnrainrules According to your buddy Shane, they already have these pictures from a 70mm Hasselblaad. Oh no, if got in a rocket and went to the moon and saw all the moon landing sites, I would most definitely believe that they happened. There is way more that just 7 of us I assure you, I wish I did contribute that much to the GDP because that would mean I make a lot more money than I do now.

  • @ironman197268 $40,000 divided by 7 is a lot more than you make right now?

  • @ironman197268 "why do you think thy (NASA) don't send some more astronauts back up there?"

    Because most things can be done more cheaply and effectively with robots, maybe?

    "just for some good high quality photos for Neil, Buzz, and Mike to have"

    They HAVE those. From a 70mm Hasselblaad.

  • @shanedk Where are some of these pictures taken by these cheap robots? I'd like to see those. That would help me believe the moon landings happened.

    

  • @ironman197268 Check the LRO photos.

    (And the 70mm Hasselblaad referred to the original moon pictures. Try to follow the thread of conversation.)

  • @shanedk Aww heck Shane, I don't want to see those old pictures that were taken out there in the desert of Area 51. I want some present day high definition video from a cheap robot NASA could send up there and let it ride around and video tape the landing sites. They sent one of those to Mars, so they should have no problem sending one to the moon.

  • @ironman197268 Why would they do that, just to satisfy idiots like you? The Mars rovers brought back a LOT of new scientific data. Why would they do all that on the moon just to satisfy you hoaxtards, when apparently the LRO photos showing the landing sites INCLUDING the astronauts' foot trails isn't enough?

    NOTHING will be enough for you i-dots. If they spend $10 convincing you, it will be $10 wasted.

  • @shanedk Fine!!

  • @shanedk Well said.

    Even if the astronauts brought a bunch of hoaxers with them on the moon journey they would still be like "wth get me out of this hologram NASA feykerz" etc etc etc.

  • @ironman197268 The Van Allen Belt garbage was debunked DECADES ago. You must be the mother of all narcissists if you think you're providing anything new.

  • @ironman197268 Wow!!! Here's another one Shane.

    watch?v=nm-xLKIqp9Q&feature=gr­ec_index

  • "Stupid theories a 3rd grader could debunk?" Hehehehe... excellent video, as always :P

  • no stars??

  • @DSCW33 No, too dim to show up on those camera settings. Even if the video camera had been able to take that kind of exposure, it would have overexposed the surface and the astronauts. Photography 101.

  • @shanedk They always went to the moon during the day and came back to Earth before dark right? Who set up that video camera for Neil Armstrong to be video taped as the first man to walk on the moon?

  • @ironman197268 You do realize that daylight on the moon is two weeks long, don't you?

    When Armstrong got on the ladder, he pulled a lanyard that unfolded the equipment tray. The camera was already positioned on that tray, pointed at where the ladder would be, so this historic moment could be caught on camera.

    It's a good thing for posterity that the folks at NASA were a LOT smarter than the moon hoaxers...

  • @shanedk There's no way, otherwise, there would always be a full moon in the sky for 2 weeks and a new one for 2 weeks. And... a camera contraption that worked perfect the first time... back then...On the Moon?

  • @ironman197268 Wrong, IDIOT! Think about it: You just said the equivalent of "It's only daylight at noon!"

    And at that point we'd been doing live television for DECADES. It wasn't even hard. Just because YOU'RE too stupid to figure it out doesn't mean other people couldn't.

  • Americans - people who think the moon landing is fake and professional wrestling is real.

  • @ShwangShwing

    dumbass only kids think WWE is real and rednecks. Only people with common sense and intelligence believe the moon landings were fake. How come no other country will make the trip? Japan would do it in a heartbeat if they knew it was safe.

  • @dragnet53 USA did it, because they raced the Soviet Union. That was a very big motivation for the USA.

  • @ShwangShwing

    Yes, it was a big motivation to either do it or fake it. Either way it was a win-win situation for them.

  • @dragnet53 it's too expensive nowadays to make a trip to the moon, and it would serve no purpose unless they have an idea to place a base of some sort there, there's been enough soil samples.

  • @TheToxicRadio

    bullshit! that is a sad lame ass excuse! Now I hear they are sending a robot crew to the moon now. What trying to place a couple of moon landers on the moon?

    Don't give me that crap answer again.

  • @dragnet53 LoL, you mad.

  • @TheToxicRadio

    no but why did you take my line son. :)

  • @dragnet53 well cuz you mad!

    :D

  • @TheToxicRadio I dont get what the point of lunar base would be. first: it would be ridiculously expensive for maintenance. second: what would be the point? the moon is completely empty.

    Id much rather see the money invested into invasions to muslim countries than into such a pointless project as a lunar base.

  • @Del249 yes it would be expensive, thats why i'm saying why go back to the moon unless if there's some kind of purpose to serve. i know we don't agree that they'd gone up there in the 1st place, but we do agree on that it would be too expensive to go up there and say "now what." invasions to muslim countries? that would only increase more of these "holy wars"... that crap has to end

  • I never noticed the dust from his feet falling so much faster than it should if it where really on the moon. Another great piece of evidence for the faked moon landings.

  • @ironman197268 No, idiot, the dust falls at the same rate. I proved that in a different video.

  • @ironman197268 Whoa, you're dumb. Faster??? The dust falls at the same rate as the astronaut, meaning either this was shot on the moon (which this video proves) or it was shot in a huge vacuum chamber with an area 51 gravity reducer in the floor.

    That last bit is sarcasm btw, i figure I'd better tell you since you seen easily confused.

  • @jib1000 This video does anything but prove the moon landings were real, there's a whole lot more problems than that dust.

  • @ironman197268 I guess if you watched the video you'd know it isn't about the dust.

    There isn't ONE "problem" with the moon landing, it happened. You can't dispute it.

    The thing is if only ONE piece of evidence proves we went to the moon then none of the other so called evidence matters. It only takes one piece of evidence to prove we went there.

    If you can tell me how to fake the hammer and feather video, i'd like to hear it.

    All it takes is a lil bit of an education to know its not a hoax.

  • @jib1000 It's simple, "Reverse photography"

  • @ironman197268 What the hell is that supposed to mean?

    Do you even know what the hammer and feather is?

  • @jib1000 I can't remember, but yah, it's that video of one of the astronauts dropping that hammer and dinosaur feather and they hit the ground at the same time right?

  • @ironman197268 Close, its a falcon feather.

    How could that be faked?

    What the hell is "reverse photography"?

  • @jib1000 It's like in those old cheap ninja movies where the guy jumps up on top of a building but it's really just him turned around backwards and jumping off the building, then they just play it in reverse. I'm sure NASA had some kind of chamber they could suck the oxygen out of to film the hammer and feather trick.

  • @ironman197268 That doesn't explain the amount of time it takes for them to drop. How would you jerk them up off the ground?

    No NASA doesn't have a vacuum chamber that can hold a sound stage.

    You're just stupid.

  • @jib1000 They did in that movie Armageddon!! I just thought of something, how do you know that was a real hammer he dropped in the video?

  • @ironman197268 Armageddon? They used CGI to fake the moon landing in 1969? Wrong again dummy.

    It doesn't matter if it was a real hammer or a fake hammer. If you drop any object from a known distance above the ground you can figure out the acceleration of gravity from the amount of time it takes to hit the ground.

    d=1/2*a*t(squared) d=distance a=acceleration of gravity t=time

    Its simple physics.

    Why is it that only the uneducated beleive in conspiracy theories???

  • @jib1000 You say NASA doesn't have a large chamber that the oxygen can be sucked out of today, but... you believe they landed on the moon 40 years ago? That's what I was talking about when I said the movie Armageddon and, It was a joke!

  • @ironman197268 What does the movie Armageddon have to do with anything?

    The fact that NASA doesn't have a sound stage size vacuum chamber has nothing to do with the moon landing.

    Get your science from scientists not from movies.

  • @ironman197268 Dinosaur feather???

    Well, some paleontologists do classify birds in Dinosauria, so I guess that's right!

  • I don't know for certain if the moon landings really took place but what I do know is that oneday in the future the truth will come out - and there will be some people who's comments and convictions, in hindsight, make them look very, very silly indeed.

    I'm glad I don't post videos on UTUBE calling hoax believers idiots.

  • @DOCSOCKBFD777 Hoax believers are idiots. Especially moon landing hoax believers.

    There is 100% proof that we landed on the moon. If you "don't know for certain" then you are an uneducated buffoon.

  • Wait, his elbow not his shoulder!

  • Did he really brush it with his shoulder or was it because of the vibrations in the ground caused by him walking so close to it that it waved?

  • @rebelq1 I doubt that; the lunar surface is pretty solid. I guess he could have kicked some dust onto the flagpole, but if you'll look I have another video where I show that he's certainly close enough to have brushed the flag with his elbow.

  • @shanedk,

    I didn't say dust, dumb-dumb! I said 'vibrations'! The vibrations in the ground travelled into the flag pole and that might have caused it to wave a little bit too!

  • @rebelq1 I KNOW what you said, and as I said, I doubt it could have been vibrations because lunar rock is pretty solid.

  • @shanedk,

    If he did kick some dust then the dust would've barely even budged it, unless it would've been like a fistful. It's the vibrations in the ground caused by him walking so close to it that most likely caused it to wave it he didn't brush it with his shoulder!

  • @rebelq1 Look at the videos of them walking on the moon: they kick up mounds of dust all over the place. The flagpole would have exacerbated the lower vibrations at the top, and the flag itself could have acted like a pendulum, especially since there's no air to retard the flag's motion.

    I'm still saying he most likely brushed it with his elbow.

  • Shanedk, with all these debunking videos I'm suprised that you haven't started debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories yet.

  • Probably because even he, don't believe in the official story. Imagine that ! .

  • No, it's crap. I wrote the SkepticWiki entry for it.

    I will NOT do a video, however, until I know I can do it with the full respect to the 3000 lives lost. Unlike the so-called "truthers," I have respect for that.

  • Oh, so you sincerely believe that planes (which are fragile and not dense at all) vanish into a steel and concrete building making cartoon-holes in the face in the process ? are seriously and sincerely believing this (you have to, to believe in the official story, remember this)

    Do you also sincerely believeing, that you will find the passport of the supposed hijackers in god know how many tons of debris and dust after such an accident ? (again, you have to to believe the official story)

  • Are you also, sincerely believing, that these screaming turboreactor (which have yet to be proven able to suck enough air at the speed they supposedly were flying at this low altotude) wouldn't have made the loudest most terrifying sound one can ever experience in his life, and this sound (reverberating on the many tall building becoming even more epic) wouldn't have been the FIRST thing mentioned by the witnesses ? how so it is not the case ?

  • Are you also believing, that this 4th plane crashing near a forrest, VANISHED under the ground, and only left an handfull of debris (if one can even call this debris since it was looking lmike nothing) don't you realize that a plane crashing here, would have left his TAIL SECTION over the ground (and not vanishing completly, are you aware that planes have a tail section, that survive accident because planes usually enter noe first you know ... the tail have always less damage it is undeniable.

  • The number of fairy-tales, one have to eat in order to believe in the official story of the 9/11 is beyond my imagination, but somehow, i'm not even shocked that you shanedk, believe in it !

  • Any chance you could re-write the skepticwiki entries on laissez-faire, libertarians, etc?

  • I haven't seen them; they must have been added since I was last active. I'll check them out.

  • This is the part where I tell you to be drinking a large glass of water while you're reading it. =P

  • I just checked: it doesn't seem to have entries for those. Are you sure you're not getting it confused with someone else?

  • Hmmm... Maybe it's rationalwiki.

  • Yeah, two different sites.

  • Lol. Sorry. But yeah, the rationalwiki articles are just infuriating.

  • this lunatic LOOL

  • Despite the humorous thumb down party, shanedk have yet to counter ANYTHING that i've pointed out (his flaws) that you can see in hd in my profile page; as main video.

    The very silent shanedk tell a lot actually ...

  • Buuuuuuurned.

  • Just a reminder for the peoples falling in shanedk trap by watching this video.

    shanedk is a pathological liar, I have proved his lies in my video (featured as main video in my profile page at the time i wrote this message) He lied about proving that the dust and the naut are falling at the same rate. He also misrepresent my claim by suggesting that I've said that the clown must be less than 4 ft tall just for the sake of it ! while my argument was in a context, that he conveniently avoided !

  • Yes, you want to make it SO clear that I lied, that you deleted your comments AND your video AND your previous profile and made this new one so you could make all of these statements AFTER I made this video.

    Riiiight.

  • Oh you are still on that defensive stance heh ? Well, i can't say i'm surprised, afterall, you have nothing else but lies to protect your older lies, since i've exposed your flaws, point by point, in my video already. Again, i didn't deleted my old account for YOU or because of YOU, get over it shanedk, you are trying to find something that doesn't exist, and i also didn't deleted my post (if i except the ones that were in my deleted video because the video is deleted of course)

  • Just for the record shanedk, i've asked you if you would like that i re-post my old video (2 or 3 times already) and you didn't responded by the positive ONCE ! It's like you didn't even convinced yourself that this deleted video is any argument (i wonder why... Maybe because you perfectly know that the subject is the same, and therefore the exposure of your ridiculous 12,98 x 6,5 - 7.x times astro-clown is also present, in other words, that the subject is THE SAME, unlike what you suggest)

  • Yes, because we can CERTAINLY trust you when you say that you upload the old video without any changes, right?

    Come off it, LIAR--this is TRANSPARENT. The best way for you to have made this claim would have been to leave the old video up. That way anyone could have checked the date and verified it was older. Now you just want another chance to LIE and save face. Pathetic.

  • @shanedk

    Calm down, big Shaney.

  • shanedk, i gladly admit, that i didn't considered that you would be so low, as to take my deleted video as an argument to distract from the exposure of your flawed comparison (that was also featured in my old vidoe, although less thoroughly) so there, by deleting this video i made a mistake in this regard. I asked you if you wanted mt to repost the video , you never answered, that was about two weeks ago now.

    Nothing changes, that you didn't countered anything i've pointed in my video.

  • I will upload the video right now, just for the sake of it, and i will not allow any comments on it, because this video is obsolete, and i would rather debate of the subject in my more recent video, anyone will be able to judge, if you want to say that i modified it for your defense, then be my guest, but you and me will fully know that it's not the case , i'm starting to get used of your desperate lying technique anyway.

  • "and i will not allow any comments on it"

    Typical liar. Just like the creationists. Enjoy your low and filthy company.

  • I stated why i wouldn't allow comments on it, because it is obsolete ! You have a serious problem with the understanding of the word obsolete have you ?

    Why should i allow comments on an obsolete video ? I've covered the same thing BETTER, in a more recent video, this one is then ... You guessed it, obsolete.

  • I have a lot of "obsolete" videos. I still allow comments on them. Pathetic excuses again.

  • It is not an excuse here, it's my explanation, i don't feel any need to make any excuse for not allowing comments, on an obsolete video that i re-uploaded JUST so you can check if the subject is the same (which is the case) it is not if it was a video that i just made up and decided to not allow comment for no reason.

  • Except that they CAN'T check it. All anyone knows is that it's a video you uploaded; there's no way anyone has of checking to make sure it's the same one you uploaded before.

    And you don't want anyone calling you on it, so you're refusing comments.

    And you REALLY think that'll fool anyone?

  • shanedk, this is useless, i have no proof (and you don't have any aswell) to show that i didn't modified it, and as i said, IF you want to say that i modified it, don't hesitate to point out WHAT i modified, and don't hesitate to point out, what did i modified is changing in my argument, and you will quickly realize, that you have nothing, since my argument is the same in both my videos, and you also know that i didn't changed anything, so do I.

  • Do you have anything to say about your flawed comparison, that i pointed out in both of my video ? Or will you just continue to try to find ridiculous excuses to AVOID anything i've pointed in my video ? I already know the answer, but just to be sure, i'd like to read it from you directly.

  • For example, do you even TRY to deny, that you completly missed your astro-clown apex placement in the video : The dust did NOT fall too fast blahblahblahblah.... or will you just continue to act as if NO ONE IN THE WORLD, have noticed this flaw ? (remember you misplaced the apex by 4 frames, 5 if I use your dust apex measurement, jump starting point)