Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're misrepresenting what the thread says to sway those viewers who don't actually click on the link and read it.
Projection duly noted.
Again, projection duly noted.
I urge all viewers and lurkers to withhold judgement until you've actually read the whole thread.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that people should read that thread in its entirety, and take careful note of what you left out in your selective quoting. Just like one should take note of your previous "expert's" claims that there are no images of stars or planets taken from space.

Now, I am still waiting for your explicit evidence, or a retraction and apology, regarding your claim that I don't believe what I post here.
 
I wander if people once believed the first powered flights were a hoax too

Well, many people in Europe were initially skeptical of the Wright brothers' claims. The Wrights worked largely in secret whereas the various powered-flight pioneers in Europe made large public spectacles of their demonstrations and progress. It was chic to watch these people at work.

After the Wrights' patents were secured in both the U.S. and Europe, the Wrights voyaged to Europe and conducted some demonstration flights. After that, skepticism largely dried up.
 
After seeing the effortless flying of the Wright flyer at the French field of Hunaudières in 1908

French aviator Léon Delagrange summed up the matter succinctly: “Nous sommes battus.” (We are beaten.)

On the matter of FatFreddy's claim

Yes cherry picking and attempts to deceive

But also, it is nearly impossible to fully clean sand. You can wash it and wash it and there will likely still be some dust left, hidden in small pits on the sand surface that stuck to the sand when wet but when dry may fly away. Also, the water you use to wash with likely has dust particles in it as well (unless you use distilled water or something), which will be on the sand grain once the water evaporates off, not to mention any dissolved elements that solidify once the water is gone. This is why you get water spots when you clean your car and why your car actually gets dirty when it rains.
 
Last edited:
May I enquire as to what your qualifications to make judgements on geological matters are?

Are you a geologist?

The problem is that geologists don't generally concern themselves with the processes used to condition materials for use in some purpose. The careful grading of aggregates is a civil engineering topic, not a geology topic. Yes, civil engineers make use of geological principles and expertise when considering the problems of creating aggregates from natural minerals. But the processes in question are owned wholly by engineers and extend from that original expertise into proper engineering practice. This means engineers own their implementation, evaluation of success, and characterization of the results. The question is whether one should trust the speculation of geologists (or geology aficionados in a web forum) or the real-world experience of engineers who actually do what's being asked.
 
Jay Windley said it was impossible and the geologists said it was possible and now you say it's possible. Is Jay Windley right, or wrong?

Oh, no....you're not going to get me to beat my wife.

Translation...ask the question without making assumptions in the question.
 
Last edited:
Wait.......what were these legals threats about?


Mod policy is not to reveal the substance of the communications.


Now that the main show is done I feel I'm safe in asking a little question. I remember reading a claim in the lines of "Jet engines don't work in space." as evidence of hoax.


The word "jet" is not specific. It just means that you use a controlled explosion to generate thrust. Since explosions need oxygen, most jets built for the air (like for airplanes), hold just their fuel and take oxygen in from the atmosphere. But there's no reason you can't bring your oxygen with you when you leave the atmosphere. You generally use a substance that releases its own oxygen when it burns. You can bring compressed or cryogenic oxygen, but that sounds more dangerous.
 
Translation...ask the question without making assumptions in the question.

The way conspiracy theorists consult bona fide experts follows a pattern. First, they're never up-front about the questions or their reasons for asking. They ask them in a roundabout fashion, or ask only part of what they really want to know. It's dishonest and evasive.

Then they incorporate the partial answers (often selectively quoted) into a line of reasoning that contains substantial inference or argument on the part of the conspiracy theorist. In this way, the line of reasoning leading to the hoax conclusion is authored by the conspiracy theorist, but because it contains information provided by a bona fide expert, it can be styled as having been drawn up by the expert himself.

This comes full circle when the experts in question realize that they've been conned into supporting a larger theory they don't believe in. That's what creates the reticence among legitimate experts to answer conspiracy-prompted questions, and why the conspiracy proponents have to be so evasive about it in order to avoid an appropriate blanket dismissal.

For example, David Percy quotes a verifiably expert physicist on the subject of radioisotopic half-life, then tries to use those half-life figures to support his claim that Project Dominic high-altitude explosions would have produced radiation that wouldn't have dissipated by the time Apollo was flown. But radioisotopic decay is the wrong model to use. Percy doesn't know that, because he's not the expert. The choice of which model to ask the physicist about was Percy's. And the physicist doesn't know what question Percy is trying to answer, so he has no way of knowing that his answer will end up being used in the wrong context. So the end result is that Percy presents an entirely wrong conclusion on the "authority" of a recognized physicist. The question Percy didn't ask, but should have, is, "Would the lingering effects Project Dominic detonations have hampered Apollo operations?" The answer is no, but Percy makes it seem like and expert physicist has said yes.
 
He had the attitude that he was winning but he was in fact losing. People can read it and decide for themselves.

I did read it. You ran away and barely answered a single post from him. Most of what he wrote was bang on the money and tore your arguments to pieces. His blog containing all his responses to your 5 year repetition of the same things, should be standard cut and paste to all your posts:D


Already answered this in the other thread. Here's my analysis. It isn't an anomaly and you don't know what you are talking about - there are dozens of continuous signs of weightlessness. I am mystified how you can dismiss them to be honest.

eta: Please don't respond with your "laughed out of the debating hall" drivel.

Now kindly respond to the other points in my post.

What about this -
It makes it a monumental "continuity" problem to have a duplicate set for photographs that corresponds exactly to one for video, and just for Apollo 17 that is 21 hours worth of EVA and hundreds of photographs.

Also, respond to the contradictory statements you made.

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

I've never seen any of the prints that show fine outlines actually being made. Can you link to any footage of that?

The flag deployments from Apollo 15 and 17 spring to mind. The really good quality footage, unbroken for quite some time, is on the individual mission box sets, and I am betting big money that you have only seen stuff on youtube:D

Jay Windley said it was impossible and the geologists said it was possible and now you say it's possible. Is Jay Windley right, or wrong?

I have no relevant qualifications in aggregates/geology, so if Jay is saying it is not possible who am I to disagaree with that. Your divide and conquer routine is not fooling anybody.
 
Last edited:
Mod policy is not to reveal the substance of the communications.

Understood, and I agree that is a good policy. However, we trust that if any potential individual liability is at stake, the proper disclosures will be made in an appropriate manner. Thanks for your help dealing with a legitimately vexing customer.

The word "jet" is not specific. It just means that you use a controlled explosion to generate thrust.

Or even just matter expelled with significant momentum. That's the bottom line for a "jet."

There are cold-gas methods of generating momentum. They occur, as you mention, by storing materials that can be mechanically or chemically (i.e., adiabatically) expanded and directed through proper orifices and ducts to generate momentum. We can decompose unstable materials rapidly by chemical means to achieve a dramatic change in volume. We can expel fluids stored under pressure. We can even accelerate materials to great velocity by electrostatic means. All these have real-world implementations in our engineering vocabulary.

But thermodynamic processes provide very attractive solutions. Thermal expansion is rapid, dramatic, and easily achievable through chemical processes. They add the advantage of combining the thermodynamic process reactants with the working fluid. We specifically seek low molecular weight compounds with small heat capacities so that the thermal energy of the chemical reaction translates more directly into mechanical expansion of the working fluid.

In what we commonly call a jet engine, we use ambient materials not only to sustain the combustion process that implements the thermodynamic component of the engine design, but also to provide the reaction mass. The oxygen sustains combustion, and a large portion of the heat thus produced is transferred to more inert elements of the working fluid. This minimizes the amount of reagents that must be carried in the vehicle. But further, most jet engines today are high-bypass turbofans, meaning that a large portion of the thrust is not created by thermodynamic means, but rather by ordinary aerodynamic means in the forward part of the engine. The ducted fan, driven by mechanical power generated from the hot gas in the engine, directs ambient fluid along the annulus of the engine.

Rocket engines, which are also "jets" in the sense that they rely on Newton's third law to produce thrust, obviously must carry all their reagents with them.

The layman's confusion occurs often when he misunderstands the coupling in the Newtonian engine. He wrongly believes that the thrust is produced as the high-velocity exhaust stream pushes against the ambient atmosphere or some solid surface, much as would occur if you sat in an office chair and pushed off from the wall with your feet. That's not how thrust works. Directing a jet of material in one direction produces a reaction in the opposite direction, with equal momentum. This is how momentum is conserved. It works even in a vacuum. Better, in fact, since the exhaust stream is not impended by an ambient.
 
Erm, I assume you mean Phil Plait, a.k.a. The Bad Astronomer. To Americans, at least, Dr. Phil is someone very different.

Oh yes, I meant Phil Plait. And I don't live under a rock so I have been exposed to Dr. Phil's (McGraw) drivel. It's just that common use meaning of the word "doctor" in Finnish is somewhat different than in English so that particular joke really doesn't work.
 
The layman's confusion occurs often when he misunderstands the coupling in the Newtonian engine. He wrongly believes that the thrust is produced as the high-velocity exhaust stream pushes against the ambient atmosphere or some solid surface, much as would occur if you sat in an office chair and pushed off from the wall with your feet. That's not how thrust works. Directing a jet of material in one direction produces a reaction in the opposite direction, with equal momentum. This is how momentum is conserved. It works even in a vacuum. Better, in fact, since the exhaust stream is not impended by an ambient.


Isn't that why the New York Times claimed that Goddard's rockets wouldn't work in space?
 
The word "jet" is not specific. It just means that you use a controlled explosion to generate thrust. Since explosions need oxygen, most jets built for the air (like for airplanes), hold just their fuel and take oxygen in from the atmosphere. But there's no reason you can't bring your oxygen with you when you leave the atmosphere. You generally use a substance that releases its own oxygen when it burns. You can bring compressed or cryogenic oxygen, but that sounds more dangerous.

I think the claim implied turbojet or turbofan, ie. air breathing engine, as opposed to rocket (solid or fluid propellant) engines. Kinda simplified explanation there as with turbojets/fans the air itself provides some of the thrust when being accelerated through the engine. And I certainly wouldn't say there are explosions of any sort inside any commonly used engine, jet, rocket or piston.

But yeah, you're correct that CTist could go the nitpicky route to try to mask the stupidity of the claim.
 
The way conspiracy theorists consult bona fide experts follows a pattern. First, they're never up-front about the questions or their reasons for asking. They ask them in a roundabout fashion, or ask only part of what they really want to know. It's dishonest and evasive.
In this case, it's even worse. DavidC/FF88 didn't even ask the original question; he quoted HeadLikeARock (who started the thread) without attribution, implying that he (DavidC/FF88) started it.
Then they incorporate the partial answers (often selectively quoted) into a line of reasoning that contains substantial inference or argument on the part of the conspiracy theorist. In this way, the line of reasoning leading to the hoax conclusion is authored by the conspiracy theorist, but because it contains information provided by a bona fide expert, it can be styled as having been drawn up by the expert himself.
And in this case, the answers did not support his claim, but he selectively quoted them to make it appear they did. In fact, the one person who arguably responded to him directly called his conspiracy claim "a stupid idea".
 
I want to add my praise and thanks to the experts - I also learnt a lot!

I was still at school when Armstrong made his small step - it was enthralling to follow the progress of the whole project. IMO the greatest project ever!

It made me proud to be an American - and that's pretty good as I'm from Ankh-Morpork!

:)
 
I should also add that FF88/DavidC's Magic Sand is just another in endless series of ad hoc attempts to deny parts of the Apollo record. Not only does he have no evidence for any of his claims, nor any clue about any of the relevant principles; he has no coherent narrative - even less so than poor delusional Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea - as to how a hoax might actually work. All he can do is reflexively deny anything to do with the Apollo record - like his hilarious premise that there's no such thing as the South Atlantic Anomaly.

The problem with such knee-jerk denialism is that he must expand the pool of conspirators and conspiracy victimes to include everyone who doesn't agree with him. Thus, if you point out his claims are ridiculous and unsupported, you must be a gullible dupe - unless you show you know what you are talking about, in which case you must be a conspirator and liar. Thus, his claim that Jay, others, and myself must be lying when we debunk his claims - in DavidC/FF88/rocky's paranoid mindset, everyone who's not with him must be against him. He simply can't conceive that people who understand the subject (which he manifestly does not) honestly don't agree with him.

Oh, that reminds me, DavidC/FF88 - I'm still waiting for that direct evidence, or that retraction and apology.
 
Indeed, and they've never lived it down even after publishing a correction.

Especially considering when they published that correction...

I'm not sure which was worse, that the NYT printed the editorial or that no one seemed to notice the glaring mistake at the time.
 
I should also add that FF88/DavidC's Magic Sand is just another in endless series of ad hoc attempts to deny parts of the Apollo record. Not only does he have no evidence for any of his claims, nor any clue about any of the relevant principles; he has no coherent narrative - even less so than poor delusional Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea - as to how a hoax might actually work. All he can do is reflexively deny anything to do with the Apollo record - like his hilarious premise that there's no such thing as the South Atlantic Anomaly.

The problem with such knee-jerk denialism is that he must expand the pool of conspirators and conspiracy victimes to include everyone who doesn't agree with him. Thus, if you point out his claims are ridiculous and unsupported, you must be a gullible dupe - unless you show you know what you are talking about, in which case you must be a conspirator and liar. Thus, his claim that Jay, others, and myself must be lying when we debunk his claims - in DavidC/FF88/rocky's paranoid mindset, everyone who's not with him must be against him. He simply can't conceive that people who understand the subject (which he manifestly does not) honestly don't agree with him.

Oh, that reminds me, DavidC/FF88 - I'm still waiting for that direct evidence, or that retraction and apology.

It seems to be a common CT phenomenon; they latch onto some small piece of evidence and think if they can somehow prove its faked, or could be faked that the whole mainstream account will unravel. They never seem to understand that even if they could prove their once small piece was fake, or fakeable the rest of the evidence is untouched. So yes even if FF88 could prove it was possible to create a perfect lunar soil simulant that behaved just like in the Apollo footage that wouldn't prove it had been used to fake the footage, and it wouldn't do anything to the mass of video, telemetry, and lunar rock samples that support the reality of Apollo.
 
I did have a sad thought; say in 40 years when all the Apollo experts are sadly gone - will the hoax loons range supreme with no one upto date on the then arcane technology of the Apollo program - or is the documentation strong enough? (I suspect it is)
 
Hans said:
I did have a sad thought; say in 40 years when all the Apollo experts are sadly gone - will the hoax loons range supreme with no one upto date on the then arcane technology of the Apollo program - or is the documentation strong enough? (I suspect it is)

I have faced onslaughts of history truthers that deny lots of facts that happened barely 30 years befor Apollo...to loons, facts and evidence do not seem to matter alas.
 
I did have a sad thought; say in 40 years when all the Apollo experts are sadly gone - will the hoax loons range supreme with no one upto date on the then arcane technology of the Apollo program - or is the documentation strong enough? (I suspect it is)


I think that Pearl Harbor CTs are instructive. Even though everyone involved at all but the lowest levels is gone, there's still plenty of documentation to refute hoax claims.
 
Now that this thread isn't moderated, this post may not get deleted this time. Let's see.

IF it got deleted before it was b ecause it was off topic. What don't you understand about that?

Besides you got your first sentence wrong. It should read:

Now that this thread isn't moderated, I can dump some more spam on here and ignore the many replies. Let's see.

Fixed it for you.
 
He had the attitude that he was winning but he was in fact losing. People can read it and decide for themselves.

You've ignored the FACT that they HAVE decided for themselves. Without fail they have agreed you're full of it.
 
I read it too. You did indeed get your butt handed to you and I can't see how you can imagine otherwise. On the very narrow point of whether transporting sand would noticeably abrade it, they said no. But on the subject of making sand do what you want - a fine, dry powder which holds a sharp impression yet raises no dust clouds - they clearly told you you were dreaming.
 
Mr. 88, why do you keep returning to the same points- the jacket and the lack of dust when you been told over and over, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, the same answers?

If it's any help, YES, that jacket looks totally FAKE! I can see the wires, even!

YES, that IS dust-free sand! In fact, you can even see "TONKA" on the LEV, at certain angles.

Problem solved? Yes?

Go outside for a walk. It's probably nice out.

You're welcome.
 
Indeed, and they've never lived it down even after publishing a correction.

That might be because it was too little too late? http://astronauticsnow.com/history/goddard/index.html

A Correction. On Jan. 13, 1920, "Topics of the Times," and editorial-page feature of the The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows:

"That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react - to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.

Looks completely inadequate to me. So why not publish their regrets in the 1920's? Surely they had some people on the staff that graduated from high school? They could have done it in the 1950's after sputnik went up also. It seems they only regret being caught in an embarrassing lie. Nothing about how they attempted to ruin Goddard's reputation with their most likely deliberate distortions of the truth. I guess someone at the paper had an ax to grind.

Here is more of the actual content that appeared in the Times.
http://astronauticsnow.com/blazingthetrail/gruntman_btt_pages/gruntman_blazingthetrail_p_117.pdf

The Times goes on to insult Goddard some more in another paragraph, but no mention of that in their apology. If they published something so blatantly false today, would they be open to a libel suit?

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Based on past form, I would expect a new user espousing views suspiciously similar to p1000 to turn up sooner rather than later.

I can not say more without being a bad person, but you were to visit the Conspiracy section at the BAUT.......
 
I've been reading Moon Base Clavius on and off for some years now. Found it through good Dr. Phil's site.

Now that the main show is done I feel I'm safe in asking a little question. I remember reading a claim in the lines of "Jet engines don't work in space." as evidence of hoax. Now I can't find it anywhere. I'm almost sure it was in Stundies late last year but for the life of me, I can't find it anymore.

That's one of the internet era claims I'll add to my presentation, just for kicks. Main points will be the "Nine space oddities" list from David Milne article. I think these originate from Ralph Rene and should be considered classics, in this context.

Oddly enough, it's a perennial. I've seen the "Rockets don't work in space" on several forums now. My favorite part about that claim, though, is how established it is -- the NY Times made it once, then printed a front-page retraction and apology to Goddard. Woody Woodpecker also made the claim -- as animated in the hilarious training film-within-a-film in "Destination Moon."

It was a variation of the "rockets can't work in space because there's nothing to push against" that actually got me into following the Apollo Hoax; the interesting "insight" by Interdimensional Warrior that a rocket couldn't work in space because without conduction or convection to reject heat, the heat of combustion would soon melt the rocket itself!

There's also a subtler variation that it took Jay to finally hammer through my head; the error of thinking that a rocket balances on the thrust like a pencil balanced on a finger. This usually shows up in hoax believer circles as the claim "Rockets can't land on their tails." Because balance or something (and why this isn't a problem when going up? The hoax believers can't answer that!)
 
There is some hoax evidence that's so clear that it can't be obfuscated...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8014461&postcount=128
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

... so we know Apollo was a hoax so this issue about the dust-free sand is not about whether they went to the moon. It's about Jay Windley's credibility the credibility of the Clavius site and its forum.

This video is about the issue in case any viewers are confused.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

Yes cherry picking and attempts to deceive
Quote:
But also, it is nearly impossible to fully clean sand. You can wash it and wash it and there will likely still be some dust left, hidden in small pits on the sand surface that stuck to the sand when wet but when dry may fly away. Also, the water you use to wash with likely has dust particles in it as well (unless you use distilled water or something), which will be on the sand grain once the water evaporates off, not to mention any dissolved elements that solidify once the water is gone. This is why you get water spots when you clean your car and why your car actually gets dirty when it rains.

The issue is not about whether sand can be made dust-free. The issue is about whether just moving and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Nowhere in this thread do I see anyone say that.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

I read the links and I concur that you are being selective. Do I get a badge?
And in this case, the answers did not support his claim, but he selectively quoted them to make it appear they did. In fact, the one person who arguably responded to him directly called his conspiracy claim "a stupid idea".
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that people should read that thread in its entirety, and take careful note of what you left out in your selective quoting.
DavidC, that was a very interesting job of selective editing you did there. See, I actually read that thread, and the responses flatly refute your Magic Sand claims

Please post an actual quotation from the above thread that says that just transporting and placing sand that's already dust-free will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

These two quotes from post #7915...
1. The type of sand you need for there to be no dust clouds won't hold bootprints, which lunar soil does beautifully.
2. Several of the respondents remarked that it would be very difficult to get rid of all the smaller dust particles.

...are not about that issue and do not refute the claim that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will not cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.


The guy who said this seems to have some good credentials.
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-geology&tid=628
Sand like that will be clean and dust-free in the scenario you pose.
http://geology.about.com/bio/Andrew-Alden-453.htm

He and the people on the other thread disagree with Jay Windley and the other posters on the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

It looks to me like Jay and those other pro-Apollo posters are quite wrong on this issue. It also looks like they weren't simply mistaken, but lying as Jay said he knew what he knew from experience.
Quote:
This whole idea of not being able to make sand dust-free is totally silly.
----------------------------------------------------------
Not to the people who have actually tried to do it. And that would not be you.




"I will leave you with just the two comments from my videos made by the user cosmored, who is in fact the same person that created this thread:-

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"

Then in reply to my video showing the puffed up back and shoulders of his jacket:-

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

To anybody with rationale, logical thought, with even mild powers of discernement, I would say that fairly conclusively closes the door on that little piece of the "mountain of evidence"."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you care to comment on the conclusions or the selected comments you made?

Anyone who actually watches all the footage...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

...and compares the movement of the corner of Collins' jacket to the movement of the jacket corners moving on earth will see that it's the same and the puffed up shoulders is not a sign of zero-G. The movement of the back of the jacket is consistent with movement in gravity.

I did read it. You ran away and barely answered a single post from him. Most of what he wrote was bang on the money and tore your arguments to pieces. His blog containing all his responses to your 5 year repetition of the same things, should be standard cut and paste to all your posts

I stopped when he discredited himself by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank. Here is a different thread where he looked especially silly. Start reading at post #110.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-11.html#post4764783

Once the viewers know that someone is deliberately trying to obfuscate anomalies, what's the point of continuing? The guy has no credibility.
 
Last edited:
There is some hoax evidence that's so clear that it can't be obfuscated...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8014461&postcount=128

... so we know Apollo was a hoax so this issue about the dust-free sand is not about whether they went to the moon. It's about Jay Windley's credibility the credibility of the Clavius site and its forum.

All that shows is that you don't understand elasticity or damping, so the person lacking credibility would be yourself.
 
I stopped when he discredited himself by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank. Here is a different thread where he looked especially silly. Start reading at post #110.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-11.html#post4764783
But the Chinese spacewalk was not faked in a water tank.

Once the viewers know that someone is deliberately trying to obfuscate anomalies, what's the point of continuing? The guy has no credibility.
Coincidentally that's how we all feel about you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom