With NASA of Today How long Would it Take To Go To TheMoon?

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
SNIP


You see what you want to see. Do your own research, or remain the ignorant
baffoon that you must be.


In other words, just like the kook you are, asked to provide evidence to
back up your onager assertion that governments have declared UFO's real, you
dance around and refuse to do so.

Just like a kook

You guys are the kooks here. If any military observers are watching
your responses, they are laughing at how stupid you people are.

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:11:11 GMT
Mad Scientist wrote:



Ray Vingnutte wrote:


On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:45:40 GMT
Mad Scientist wrote:



Ray Vingnutte wrote:
All of them refer to government statements. You obviously didn't

look

very hard. I am not going to waste my time responding to you
anymore.


That will be fine Mad, I wish you luck in whatever direction you
feel you may be heading.


This is my last response to you, since you don't bother to really do
any research on your own and lazily expect others to do it for you.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp?p...eqRecord=ufo.t

xt


Look Mad, if you are going to respond to me then it is only fair I
respond to your response.

So what have we here. Reports of people seeing objects, UFO's.
Well that happens everyday Mad all over the world. Nowhere did I
read that these objects are in fact alien craft or are evidence of
alien visitation. All they are at this time are UFO's, that is
Unidentified Flying Objects, nothing more.

Fact is if you bother to read any of the government reports, you will
clearly see that the crafts are known by everyone to be alien in
origin because no government the world over understands how they fly
in violation of known physics.


Again people prefer to play their mindless games of ring around the
posie incessantly on this topic, and in effect learn nothing.


Is it possible for you to use a far more critical eye over what you read
on the web. There is nothing wrong in being critical, I would consider
it a must when it comes to the web. Some of your posts have been
interesting to read, but others leave a lot to be desired.

I was like that once, believed everything I read, believed everything
I was told, but luckily I began to realise that most of it was complete
and utter nonsense.

Stay cool and stay sane Mad!.

Well you gave up eh? Not everyone is like, and know when the evidence
stares them in the face. Ofcourse the usenet loons will say,
'obervation is unreliable'. Ofcourse they never say that in a court of
law. They just play mind games, going around in circles. Their only
motivation is debunking and maintaining their superior stupidity.

I will continue to speak the truth regardless of such insane people.

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:13:12 GMT
Mad Scientist wrote:



Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
SNIP

I notice that you Usenet sociopaths never tell off people like Wally

for harassment. I wonder why that is?


Possibly because the harassment is all in your mind?

Kill file me. Do yourself a favour, its much quieter around here than
having to listen to your bull****.







If I am such a crackpot as he suggests, then just ignore me. Afraid

I might get some attention from people that are new to astronomy?


Correcting your ignorance. Of course koks want to just shout out
anything they want without challenge. Ain't gonna happen kookboi.

You are obviously obsessed in your little corner of the universe.
Pitiful little person you are.






Is that what provokes you and him to 'gang up' on my posts? No

doubt it is.


Paranoia ahowing. Perhaps you need to realise that it might be YOU
that's out of step.

No you demonstrate harassment with everyone of your sick rants.




(For example we have eyewitness testimony from police officers

worldwide


- but they don't speak for the polic forces official position. We

also have testimony from astronomers - but not in any official
capacity. Their career is incidental to the sightings and
information about those sightings) But that isn't the problem,
the problem is with the nut cases of astronomy and 'science' and
the media (and the governments silence on the issue) proclaiming
it all hoaxes, or blurred pictures (they obviously don't look at
the non blurry ones) or mass hysteria, etc. They only prove that
mankind is still in the dark ages where excommunication and

denouncements still exist for what are plainly obvious facts.

Obvious to whom? Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.

So much for scientific observation in the scientific method.


He's right. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Of course you
beleive pretty much anything that's said tghat agrees with your
fantasy.

I see this statement only applies to UFO sightings, never in a court
of law.


I think I am right when I say this, but in the UK I do not think eye
witness testimony alone is enough to convict in a court of law. You
still need actual hard evidence.

yes perhaps, and pictures and video footage of someone stealing the item
in store is evidence that the person caught on camera is a thief.

I suggest we take people like Phillip Klass(less) to a mountain top,
throw him off, film it and then when he is found dead, declare the film
a hoax and inadmissible as evidence that he was thrown off the cliff.
Since ofcourse he declares the same about UFO footage all being a hoax.

We'll make sure to make to downgrade the film so no actual features can
be seen furthering the fact of it being a hoax.

Bwaahahhahahahhaahhahh

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...


Wally Anglesea wrote:
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
.rogers.com...
SNIP


I notice that you Usenet sociopaths never tell off people like Wally for
harassment. I wonder why that is?


Possibly because the harassment is all in your mind?

Kill file me. Do yourself a favour, its much quieter around here than
having to listen to your bull****.

Why? So you can post your drivel unchallenged? You'ld like that, wouldn't
you. It still wouldn't make your fantasies real, you know. Live with it
kookboi.








If I am such a crackpot as he suggests, then just ignore me. Afraid I
might get some attention from people that are new to astronomy?


Correcting your ignorance. Of course koks want to just shout out anything
they want without challenge. Ain't gonna happen kookboi.

You are obviously obsessed in your little corner of the universe. Pitiful
little person you are.

Aww, poor kook, wants centre stage, and eveyone to take his fantaises as
real.








Is that what provokes you and him to 'gang up' on my posts? No doubt it
is.


Paranoia ahowing. Perhaps you need to realise that it might be YOU that's
out of step.

No you demonstrate harassment with everyone of your sick rants.

http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm

How many of the signs are you demonstrating now, kookboi?
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/

oh, and by the way:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/whiners.html#vvf

scrol down to the bottom of the 2004 vvf award. Well done!!









(For example we have eyewitness testimony from police officers

worldwide

- but they don't speak for the polic forces official position. We also
have testimony from astronomers - but not in any official capacity.
Their career is incidental to the sightings and information about those
sightings) But that isn't the problem, the problem is with the nut
cases of astronomy and 'science' and the media (and the governments
silence on the issue) proclaiming it all hoaxes, or blurred pictures
(they obviously don't look at the non blurry ones) or mass hysteria,
etc. They only prove that mankind is still in the dark ages where
excommunication and denouncements still exist for what are plainly
obvious facts.


Obvious to whom? Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.

So much for scientific observation in the scientific method.


He's right. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Of course you beleive
pretty much anything that's said tghat agrees with your fantasy.

I see this statement only applies to UFO sightings, never in a court of
law.

BZZT!! Wrong again. Eyewitness testimony in a court of law is secondary to
physical evidence. Sorry about that.






Recent scientific surveys taken show that over 2/3rds of the US
population believe that UFO's are real.


So what? Since when do people's "beliefs" constitute physical evidence?


So what? Your observation here is unreliable.


Again, he's right. Beliefs don't constitute physical evidence. Do you
think they do?

Do try to keep up


Your observations are unreliable in this instance. Photos and video
footage proves more reliable in this instance.

Fuzzy photos and out of focus film isn't evidence of much. Anyway, we were
talking about beliefs. You want beliefs to constitute evidence of fact?


from
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm

a.. Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not
require proof.

Well don.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...


Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
SNIP

I notice that you Usenet sociopaths never tell off people like Wally for
harassment. I wonder why that is?


Possibly because the harassment is all in your mind?

Kill file me. Do yourself a favour, its much quieter around here than
having to listen to your bull****.


Why? So you can post your drivel unchallenged? You'ld like that, wouldn't
you. It still wouldn't make your fantasies real, you know. Live with it
kookboi.







If I am such a crackpot as he suggests, then just ignore me. Afraid I
might get some attention from people that are new to astronomy?


Correcting your ignorance. Of course koks want to just shout out anything
they want without challenge. Ain't gonna happen kookboi.

You are obviously obsessed in your little corner of the universe. Pitiful
little person you are.


Aww, poor kook, wants centre stage, and eveyone to take his fantaises as
real.







Is that what provokes you and him to 'gang up' on my posts? No doubt it
is.


Paranoia ahowing. Perhaps you need to realise that it might be YOU that's
out of step.

No you demonstrate harassment with everyone of your sick rants.


http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm

How many of the signs are you demonstrating now, kookboi?
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/

oh, and by the way:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/whiners.html#vvf

scrol down to the bottom of the 2004 vvf award. Well done!!


Wally recommends his hobby and life focus to others on line.







(For example we have eyewitness testimony from police officers

worldwide


- but they don't speak for the polic forces official position. We also
have testimony from astronomers - but not in any official capacity.
Their career is incidental to the sightings and information about those
sightings) But that isn't the problem, the problem is with the nut
cases of astronomy and 'science' and the media (and the governments
silence on the issue) proclaiming it all hoaxes, or blurred pictures
(they obviously don't look at the non blurry ones) or mass hysteria,
etc. They only prove that mankind is still in the dark ages where
excommunication and denouncements still exist for what are plainly
obvious facts.


Obvious to whom? Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.

So much for scientific observation in the scientific method.


He's right. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Of course you beleive
pretty much anything that's said tghat agrees with your fantasy.

I see this statement only applies to UFO sightings, never in a court of
law.


BZZT!! Wrong again. Eyewitness testimony in a court of law is secondary to
physical evidence. Sorry about that.

Who said anything about secondary evidence verses primary evidence there
****twaddle? I see this is where you twist things some more as per your
sociopathology?






Recent scientific surveys taken show that over 2/3rds of the US
population believe that UFO's are real.


So what? Since when do people's "beliefs" constitute physical evidence?


So what? Your observation here is unreliable.


Again, he's right. Beliefs don't constitute physical evidence. Do you
think they do?

Do try to keep up

Why would I want to keep up with your insanity?




Your observations are unreliable in this instance. Photos and video
footage proves more reliable in this instance.


Fuzzy photos and out of focus film isn't evidence of much. Anyway, we were
talking about beliefs. You want beliefs to constitute evidence of fact?


Liar. That is all you will ever be, a liar and stinkin scoundrel.




from
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm

a.. Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not
require proof.

Well don.

Wally recommends his kook life focus and hobby to others.

"Wally Anglesea" wrote in message
...

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...


Wally Anglesea wrote:
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
.rogers.com...
SNIP


I notice that you Usenet sociopaths never tell off people like Wally
for
harassment. I wonder why that is?


Possibly because the harassment is all in your mind?

Kill file me. Do yourself a favour, its much quieter around here than
having to listen to your bull****.

Why? So you can post your drivel unchallenged? You'ld like that, wouldn't
you. It still wouldn't make your fantasies real, you know. Live with it
kookboi.


No he wouldnt. He only posts the crap he does so that he can get a response
to it. He scores troll points for getting the most responses to a thread.










If I am such a crackpot as he suggests, then just ignore me. Afraid I
might get some attention from people that are new to astronomy?


Correcting your ignorance. Of course koks want to just shout out
anything
they want without challenge. Ain't gonna happen kookboi.

You are obviously obsessed in your little corner of the universe.
Pitiful
little person you are.

Aww, poor kook, wants centre stage, and eveyone to take his fantaises as
real.








Is that what provokes you and him to 'gang up' on my posts? No doubt
it
is.


Paranoia ahowing. Perhaps you need to realise that it might be YOU
that's
out of step.

No you demonstrate harassment with everyone of your sick rants.

http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm

How many of the signs are you demonstrating now, kookboi?
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/

oh, and by the way:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/whiners.html#vvf

scrol down to the bottom of the 2004 vvf award. Well done!!









(For example we have eyewitness testimony from police officers

worldwide

- but they don't speak for the polic forces official position. We
also
have testimony from astronomers - but not in any official capacity.
Their career is incidental to the sightings and information about
those
sightings) But that isn't the problem, the problem is with the nut
cases of astronomy and 'science' and the media (and the governments
silence on the issue) proclaiming it all hoaxes, or blurred pictures
(they obviously don't look at the non blurry ones) or mass hysteria,
etc. They only prove that mankind is still in the dark ages where
excommunication and denouncements still exist for what are plainly
obvious facts.


Obvious to whom? Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.

So much for scientific observation in the scientific method.


He's right. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Of course you beleive
pretty much anything that's said tghat agrees with your fantasy.

I see this statement only applies to UFO sightings, never in a court of
law.

BZZT!! Wrong again. Eyewitness testimony in a court of law is secondary to
physical evidence. Sorry about that.






Recent scientific surveys taken show that over 2/3rds of the US
population believe that UFO's are real.


So what? Since when do people's "beliefs" constitute physical
evidence?


So what? Your observation here is unreliable.


Again, he's right. Beliefs don't constitute physical evidence. Do you
think they do?

Do try to keep up


Your observations are unreliable in this instance. Photos and video
footage proves more reliable in this instance.

Fuzzy photos and out of focus film isn't evidence of much. Anyway, we were
talking about beliefs. You want beliefs to constitute evidence of fact?


from
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm

a.. Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not
require proof.

Well don.

BV It was always needed an Earth great project of mankind to explore
space A moon station for "all" mankind was needed to get our thoughts
away from killing. Man's intinsic feature is to find new
horizons(explore) I have hoped all my life it would be a stronger
feature than killing,but like Darwin I don't think so. Bert

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:47:09 GMT, "Wally Anglesea"
wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
SNIP
I notice that you Usenet sociopaths never tell off people like Wally for
harassment. I wonder why that is?
************************************************** *********
WALLY A.:
Possibly because the harassment is all in your mind?
***************************************
Poor little Mad Scientist, when he makes one of his claims and is
reminded that, as he is asserting something, it is up to him to
provide proof, not simply an assertion that "people believe they saw
something", and when he is labasted for trying to claim the Kook-sites
are solid foundation for any real discussion (( pyramids on the moon,
whether or not photographs on the Lunar surface where taken there,
etc.,etc)) to help preserve his illusion of being the little martyr,
he projects upon others his own antics and proclivities.
Poor little Mad Scientist, maybe, just maybe, he will heed the advice
Wally gave him and inquire as to whether his school might be advanced
enough to have a Debate squad and whether or not he might begin
learning how to properly debate, using facts...
---Mac

Mad Scientist wrote in news:BCDWc.7789$y5J1.1647

There is hard evidence in the form of clear cut video footage and (now
mountains of video footage exists)

Video can be faked (ever hear of Hollywood?)

and metal samples which have been
shown at worldwide UFO conferences and the metal was analysed by
scientific teams and the conclusion drawn declared the metal to be
composed of material not found on earth.

Prove it.

Plus there are a number of countries who have 'beat the Americans' and
come forward, ending the silence and ridicule by stating in no
uncertain
terms that UFO's (meaning alien in no uncertain terms) are real and
have
been sighted by their militaries on innumerable occasions. But you are
free like others to deny such statements have been made by the
Brazilian, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Belgian, Italian, Polish,
Mexican
Air Forces all you wish.

Statements by governments are not proof. You obviously don't trust the
U.S. government, why would you trust someone else's?

You are free like other nutcases to insist that there is no evidence,
there is no proclamations from any government and all the
pictures/videos are 'blurred images' and ofcourse you are free to say
and believe that no metal samples have ever been found, nor analysed by
any scientific team anywhere in the world. In effect you are free to
believe whatever you wish on the subject and call all Ufologists
crackpot cab drivers.

And you are free to provide CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for these claims, but you
still choose not to do so.

--
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an
argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer
clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they
don't even invite me." -Dave Barry

Mad Scientist wrote
Ray Vingnutte wrote:
Trouble is none of them are government sites Mad, or indeed refer
to any government statements.

All of them refer to government statements. You obviously didn't look
very hard. I am not going to waste my time responding to you
anymore.

It is not OUR job to look for evidence to support YOUR position. It is
YOUR job to PROVIDE evidence to support your position.

We note that so far you have not provided any.