Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just wanted to pop in here to mention that I got to spend the morning at work today hanging out with Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders.

Nothing else, just wanted to throw that in... :D
 
Just wanted to pop in here to mention that I got to spend the morning at work today hanging out with Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders.

Nothing else, just wanted to throw that in... :D

Did he look shifty? Nervous? Avoid any mention of lunar travel? ;) :D

Seriously tho I am very envious. I'm very much looking forward to hearing Harrison Schmitt speak this October.
 
(from post #8280)
In my opinion, this point was especially proven over at IMDB.
I think that's why that particular proponent essentially "punched out" of the debate by posting one of his characteristically foul-mouthed rants that he knew would be deleted by the moderators. That gave him an excuse not to take the debate seriously, since he could play the censorship card. In any case, that hoax claimant is back safely at YouTube where he can control the debate, and he now has the departed Patrick1000 to keep him company.
It's only fair to post Jarrah's point of view so people can see what's being discussed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9TXFQLjg4

(If the link doesn't work, do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker: The Punch Heard All Around The World. PART 3".)

How can we confirm that Jarrah gave a foul-mouthed rant? You people have lied before so why should we just believe you?

Jay Windley destroyed his credibility when he gave this response...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

...to this issue...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

...and the rest of you destroyed your credibility by agreeing with him. None of you has any credibility. All of you obviously know that the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do. That above issue is simply too clear to obfuscate and you tried to obfuscate it anyway.
 
All of you obviously know that the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do.

Is it only in regard to Apollo that you suffer from this delusion?

Are you, for example, unable to believe that people are sincere if they express political opinions opposed to your own? Do you think they are just being deliberately contrary to annoy you or for some personal gain of their own?

Do you doubt the honesty of people who express religious beliefs different from your own?

Genuine question.
 
(from post #8280)

It's only fair to post Jarrah's point of view so people can see what's being discussed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9TXFQLjg4
No. Just no. I will not waste time and bandwidth on a pointless JW youtube fiasco. State your point here in your own words.

(If the link doesn't work, do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker: The Punch Heard All Around The World. PART 3".)
I care not a whit if the link does or does not work. Any sputum exuded by that idiot is not worth the bother.

How can we confirm that Jarrah gave a foul-mouthed rant? You people have lied before so why should we just believe you?
JW lies as a matter of course. The null hypothesis for JW is "lie".


You have been burned on this issue, both here and elsewhere.

...and the rest of you destroyed your credibility by agreeing with him. None of you has any credibility.
Where is yours?

All of you obviously know that the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do.
I see. When was it that you developed the ability to read minds?

That above issue is simply too clear to obfuscate and you tried to obfuscate it anyway.
D-K can be treated. Insulting everyone is not likely to win any hearts and minds.
 
FF88: why do you say we all "know" the missions were faked? As I've posted on this thread, that makes me part of "all" and I know the missions weren't faked. That seems to be a fundamental flaw in your argument right there.
 
FF88: why do you say we all "know" the missions were faked? As I've posted on this thread, that makes me part of "all" and I know the missions weren't faked. That seems to be a fundamental flaw in your argument right there.

Because he says so, therefore it must be true. Didn't you know?

And the obsession with Jay is more than a little unhealthy.
 
FF88: why do you say we all "know" the missions were faked? As I've posted on this thread, that makes me part of "all" and I know the missions weren't faked.
Do you also "Know" that Jay Windley was right when he said this...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

...when he was addressing this issue?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

Only someone who doesn't even believe his own arguments would agree with him. That issue is so clear-cut and basic that it makes a good objectivity test.
 
Do you also "Know" that Jay Windley was right when he said this...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

...when he was addressing this issue?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

Only someone who doesn't even believe his own arguments would agree with him. That issue is so clear-cut and basic that it makes a good objectivity test.

Jebus H. Cripes, again with the Jay obsession.

Give it a rest, it is getting old.
 
How can we confirm that Jarrah gave a foul-mouthed rant? You people have lied before so why should we just believe you?

You appear to be cornered, as you show no signs of answering the very simple questions. All we are getting is repeat nonsense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8182240&postcount=8239

That is irrelevant. There are two issues that YOU alone are connecting.

The first slight movement and the after passing movement.

You are totally cornered, and all the rhetoric or sophistry won't sway the viewers. You can obfuscate all you like, but I will thwart your efforts to avoid these points by reposting them until you give an answer that isn't biased and lame.

Why didn't Jarrah White's flag move with "the atmosphere explanation"TM? It barely flickered when he was level with it.

Now stop tapdancing and explain this. The viewers are watching. I would say your success rate is below zero here. You have no answer because no such physics explanation exists.

Urging viewers to do something, when they have already concluded you are hopelessly wrong, is an act of desparation and diversion.

Jarrah White concluded the astronaut was close enough. Is it possible that the astronaut moved the flag with his elbow, just like Jarrah White showed he could have?

You appear to be simply repeating the same line. The viewers are anxious to hear your elaboration of how a man moves air 4-6 feet in front of him.

You have ignored all possibilities in favour of the LEAST likely one, because you have invested 5 years of your life spamming this same thing repeatedly. It must really bug you all these hard questions, I suspect that you know you are wrong so have to avoid them at all costs.

I actually really, really love this video below, it is just so well observed. We have the "maestro" Jarrah White, attempting to disprove ground vibration as the cause, by jumping up and down next to his bed - a wide area, supported by four legs with a low centre of gravity(teehee) - but whilst doing so, he completely debunks his own "atmosphere explanation"!! The sheet he is trying to shake doesn't move a jot when he walks past it, jumps next to it. Nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JixGapxKURc

Now had he done this on the Moon, with a flagpole seated in the regolith there would be a perfectly good chance he would see a little movement, just like they did when Apollo 15 landed there.;)

Jarrah White's flag - It stops in 5 seconds flat - once again you are cornered on this matter.

That's rich coming from you, since you have ignored all the questions and points I keep making. I need to keep asking them to "thwart you"TM. You don't appear to know what billowing means. There is nothing to explain, there is no air on the Moon, so no breeze. The movement was as stated and your continual tapdancing won't make this go away. There is a vast mountain range of information proving Apollo happened, you have nothing but denial.

FF88 "knows we went to the Moon":rolleyes: all his diversion and tapdancing is just like the Black Knight in Monty Python, he cannot answer these questions, and linked to this forum from the SciFiforum - where the same questions were posed to him - and he had the audacity to say they had been answered here. Rubbish.

Now quit with the avoidance and answer the questions. The viewers are eagerly awaiting here and on the other forum.



p.s. Please don't post a link to that forum to say they have been answered.
 
Now quit with the avoidance and answer the questions.
Anyone who goes back and looks at my posts will see that I already addressed those questions. Here's an example.

Jarrah White's flag - It stops in 5 seconds flat - once again you are cornered on this matter.
Here's where this was asked before.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8181518&postcount=8217
Jarrah's flag comes to a stop after 5 seconds, the Apollo flag sped up 150% takes 20 seconds. Now explain, properly this time, it billows much more than Apollo yet stops way quicker.
----------------------------
It's not at all clear how fast Jarrah's flag comes to a stop as the camera is not looking at the flag straight on as would be necessary to see when it comes to a stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:30 time mark)

I've made this point before and you people just ignored it.

Instead of giving a counter-rebuttal to my rebuttal, you just asked the same question again. Only people who are very desperate play these kinds of games. You're trying to draw attention away from the issue in post #8268.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8246579&postcount=8286

Tell us whether you agree with Jay Windley.
 
(from post #8280)
All of you obviously know that the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do.

Nonsense.

You and your fellow travellers need to get it into your head that supporting the moon landings is done out of belief that they actually happened, and a determination not to let lars and charlatans dominate the debate by distributing specious ill-founded nonsense masquerading as 'evidence'.

Did I spend the best part of 8 months analysing satellite and Apollo images of Earth because I wanted to perpetuate a fraud, or because I believed it was worth doing to prove a point?

Am I spending my spare time plotting Apollo lunar orbital images on Google Moon sniggering up my sleeve because I am helping sucker in another generation of NASA loving drones, or because I think it's worth doing to demonstrate that the Apollo missions happened?

Do you not think I have better things to do that argue the minutiae of the missions with people who don't understand a single word that's being thrown at them?

The landings happened, there is no coherent and credible evidence to prove otherwise.
 
Now then, why did you run from the rest of his post?
It's easy to address. I just didn't want to risk getting banned but since you asked, I'll go ahead and risk it.

Did I spend the best part of 8 months analysing satellite and Apollo images of Earth because I wanted to perpetuate a fraud, or because I believed it was worth doing to prove a point?
I think you did it to perpetuate a fraud.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

I think all of you are here to perpetuate a fraud. I think all of you pro-Apollo posters here know that Apollo was a fraud as well as the hoax-believers do.
 
I think all of you are here to perpetuate a fraud. I think all of you pro-Apollo posters here know that Apollo was a fraud as well as the hoax-believers do.

I still want to know if it's only Apollo that you think everyone lies about, or if you just can't quite believe anyone honestly disagrees with you about anything.

Do you think people who support political views opposite to your own really believe what they say, or are they just pretending for some reason?

Do you think people who claim to hold religious beliefs you don't share sincerely believe what they say?
 
Anyone who goes back and looks at my posts will see that I already addressed those questions.

The 3 questions in red above please. Tapdancing bluster is very tiresome. Your avoidance of Jarrah's flag stopping in 5 seconds is obvious to the viewers, it is easy to see that atmosphere brings it to a stop very quickly. Try again - you are cornered and cannot answer this without making yourself look silly.
 
Last edited:
It's easy to address. I just didn't want to risk getting banned but since you asked, I'll go ahead and risk it.

I think you did it to perpetuate a fraud.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

I think all of you are here to perpetuate a fraud. I think all of you pro-Apollo posters here know that Apollo was a fraud as well as the hoax-believers do.

You think wrong.

What would we at jref gain from such a fraud?
 
Do you think people who support political views opposite to your own really believe what they say, or are they just pretending for some reason?
Off topic references edited. Please stick to the topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

People like that should watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4

What those psychologists say in that video also applies to Apollo.

Most persistent pro-official version posters are government disinfo agents who don't even believe their arguments though; people who go into denial usually slink away from a debate as the proof that Apollo was a hoax and that 9/11 was an inside job is simply too clear to obfuscate. Only a disinfo agent will say totally lame things with an authorititative patronizing attitude.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------
6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your avoidance of Jarrah's flag stopping in 5 seconds is obvious to the viewers, it is easy to see that atmosphere brings it to a stop very quickly.
You're being deliberately obtuse about the point I'm making. Look at the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:30 time mark)

We can't see how long the flag keeps moving because we can't see the edge of the flag from straight on. For all we know it keeps moving for much longer. Your saying that it only moves for five seconds doesn't mean it only moves for five seconds. You're basing your question on a false presumption. Only a sophist would use this tactic.

Now tell us whether you agree with what Jay Windley said. It's in post #8286.
 
Last edited:
I think all of you are here to perpetuate a fraud. I think all of you pro-Apollo posters here know that Apollo was a fraud as well as the hoax-believers do.
That must be a deeply scary way to live, thinking that the vast majority of people share your delusions but spend their time lying about it. Why would people lie about what they believe, what do they gain from it? I'm not employed by any government or any part of the aerospace industry, what motivation do I have to lie?

For the record, I don't think Apollo was a fraud.

The three questions in red await your attention.
 
What those psychologists say in that video also applies to Apollo.

Forgive me for not watching the whole thing, but I gather they were talking about reasons why people reject evidence which contradicts their deeply held beliefs. The problem with that is that with Apollo, as surely as with 9/11, the evidence is not on your side. Maybe you should re-watch the video yourself and consider the mountain of evidence you reject because of your own blinkered beliefs.
 
Welcome back, FatFreddy88/David C/rocky/etc. Hey, when are you going to address your failed predictions from post 8222? All that information you said couldn't be posted on BAUT and Apollohoax? Well, it's there. What does that tell you about your convictions?
It's easy to address. I just didn't want to risk getting banned but since you asked, I'll go ahead and risk it.
No, I think you really do want to get banned because you want to feel oppresssed by the Powers That Be. But here's the thing, rocky:

Nobody in the real world cares about you. Not one little bit about your religious beliefs that Apollo was hoaxed and all the world's scientists and engineers are lying because they don't agree with you and that everyone here is a liar and that the South Atlantic Anomaly doesn't exist and on and on. You are utterly irrelevant outside of the web forums you spam, and there is no conspiracy to suppress your ideas.

You really need to come out of this paranoid fantasy you've spun around yourself like a protective cocoon, because you are only hurting yourself. There's much more to life than knee-jerk denial of a scientific triumph because you don't like the government behind it. Can you free you mind enough to think for a minute, and learn? What are you afraid of?

Life is big and complicated. Open yourself up to it.
I think you did it to perpetuate a fraud.
<link-spam deleted>
No, David, you don't get to play the martyr simply because you are not mature enough to follow the rules to which you agreed when you signed up for this forum. If you deliberately violate the rules to spam the same tired links again, it doesn't make you some sort of dangerous rebel; it makes you a liar for willfully violating your agreement.
I think all of you are here to perpetuate a fraud. I think all of you pro-Apollo posters here know that Apollo was a fraud as well as the hoax-believers do.
*Sigh*. We've been through this before, rocky. This claim has already failed for lack of support; but you may revive it if and when you can provide explicit evidence for such a claim.

But before you do that, please explain why someone who is constantly declaiming about evil oppressive regimes - you - is acting the way they do, trying to enforce a loyalty test on everyone. "If you're not with us, you're against us." "If you don't agree this video is faked, you're a liar." Shame on you; that's very hypocritical.

Now, I am a real person, and I disagree with you. I am also an actual working space engineer, and I have lots of education and relevant expertise, so unlike you I actually know what I am talking about. I think Apollo really happened. So do 250 of the "viewers" you claimed would side with you, but instead think you are wrong.

What does it tell you that all these real people - many with actual relevant expertise related to Apollo - actually disagree with you? What does it say for your certainty when you were sure that they would take your side, but instead voted in an open poll 250-1 against you?

Can you put aside your religious, knee-jerk denialism long enough to think about that for a minute? Or are you a slave to your ignorance and fear? Please, no one will think the less of you for having the ability to admit you might actually be wrong about something.

And what does it tell you that your claims that your information would be suppressed on Apollohoax and on BAUT were so easily and explicitly disproven? When you keep making confident predictions and bets that blow up in your face, doesn't that tell you anything about your mindset? Can you come out of your mental bunker long enough to contemplate that?

I'm trying to help you here. What are you afraid of?
 
The 3 questions in red above please.
You're being deliberately obtuse. Look at post #8294 again and answer in a way that shows you understood it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8246830&postcount=8294

Welcome back, FatFreddy88/David C/rocky/etc. Hey, when are you going to address your failed predictions from post 8222? All that information you said couldn't be posted on BAUT and Apollohoax? Well, it's there. What does that tell you about your convictions?
I have to admit that it did surprise me. It broke the pattern; I'd asked several pro-Apollo posters with whom I was debating who were registered at Clavius and Bad Astronomy to post stuff and, with only one exception, they all refused.

and that the South Atlantic Anomaly doesn't exist and on and on.
I never said I was sure it didn't exist. I only said we have no way of being sure it exists as all we have is what we read and the people who write what we read are proven liars.

I have a link to some info that shows they were liars but I've been told I can't link to other forums here. If I post the whole thing, it will probably get deleted for being off-topic even though it furthers my argument about Apollo because there is some info which proves the government lies but the examples are not Apollo-related so please look at this post from this forum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8032171&postcount=57

Click on the first link and go to page #42 and look at post #1187. You'll see the info that shows the government lies.

Also, tell us whether you agree with Jay Windley's position in this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8246638&postcount=8291
 
Last edited:
Click on the first link and go to page #42 and look at post #1187. You'll see the info that shows the government lies.

I tried. Post #1187 was not on page #42.

Post #1187 did not contain info that shows the government lies.
Page #42 just appeared to show some credulous hoax bleever getting his ass handed to him rather hilariously.
 
You're being deliberately obtuse. Look at post #8294 again and answer in a way that shows you understood it..

Again the avoidance. Your post does not answer the 3 numerously asked questions. You cannot answer them can you? It ruins your whole case.

Now, let me put all my questions in one place and I will keep reposting them until you directly answer them all. You are the one making the claims, now back them up properly instead of doing what you always do, running away or trying to commit death-by-mod so you can claim "victory".

1/ Jarrah White's "demonstration" shows him approaching the flag perpendicularly to him. The Apollo 15 flag is about 45 degrees away from Scott.

Why doesn't White's flag move until he is practically level with it, when the circumstance is even more favourable for air movement.

2/ You claim the "atmosphere explanation" is the reason the flag moves when the astronaut is 4-6 feet away from the flag. I am not aware of any laws of physics that make air move this way. It seeks the path of least resistance and moves to the side creating a wake. Very little is pushed in front. Betamax101 did a video showing a plastic bag did not move at all until a wide book was practically on top of it. Jarrah White in his dopey jumping routine to try to debunk the vibration explanation, failed completely to move the bedsheet when he walked past it or jumped numerous times.

Explain using citations, examples or anything whatsoever why you think a human being pushes air more than a few inches away.

3/ Jarrah White did a computer analysis which determined that the wide angle camera gave a deceptive impression that the astronaut was too far away. He concluded that the astronaut could have moved the flag, but dismisses this as unimportant in view of the initial movement before he reached the flag. regardless of why he thinks this as unimportant, the fact remains he admitted he was close enough to have touched it. i have shown 3 different videos confirming this and you have shown NOTHING showing it was not possible.

Is it possible that the astronaut moved the flag with his elbow, just like Jarrah White showed he could have? If not, do you have anything other than your opinion as to why not?

4/ Your explanation for why ground vibration could not have moved the flag relies on your baseless observation. If air moved the flag, or vibration moved the flag, the top rod would barely move.

Other than your uninformed observations, please detail proper analysis as to why ground vibration would not cause the tiny flag movement.
 
I have to admit that it did surprise me. It broke the pattern; I'd asked several pro-Apollo posters with whom I was debating who were registered at Clavius and Bad Astronomy to post stuff and, with only one exception, they all refused.

Really? Who did you ask?

Anyway, I was happy to do it for you, because it was a good way to empirically test your confident predictions.

Your predictions failed. What does that tell you about your certainty in your beliefs? Consider:

1. You claimed the "lurkers and viewers" at apollohoax agreed with you. Instead, they disagreed with you 19-0.
2. You claimed the "viewers" here disagreed with you. Instead, they disagreed with you 250-1, and 42-0 of the active participants went against you as well.
3. You claimed your information would be barred from being posted on BAUT. Instead, I posted it with no problem, even though the forum policy frowns on posting third-party links.
3a. You then claimed that they had "changed the rules" just to allow me to do that - which is false - and asked for examples of a "real hoax-believer" being allowed to post such materials on BAUT, implying that such would not be allowed. Instead, I cited multiple examples of your own posts on BAUT.
4. You also "bet couldn't get that posted at ApolloHoaxNet." Instead, I posted it with no problem, and the forum administrator added a search link for all your posts on the old forum.

Above are four (and a half) examples of explicit predictions you made, which I went to the trouble of testing on your behalf. Each one of them unambiguously failed.

What does that tell you? Can you set aside your reflexive, knee-jerk denialism for a moment, and think about that?

I never said I was sure it didn't exist. I only said we have no way of being sure it exists as all we have is what we read

In this post I listed almost two dozen countries of origin for students and scientists who have studied the South Atlantic Anomaly. You claimed, wrongly, that the only way we knew whether it existed or not was through governments. Never mind that you have no evidence whatsoever for an intergovernmental cover-up of the SAA's alleged lack of existence; your claim was incorrect. You simply didn't know what you were talking about. I explained the extensive multimodal campaign to investigate the SAA, much of which did not require governmental access.

Another poster (ka9q) has cited direct personal experience with modeling the response of amateur satellites to the radiation environment including the SAA, and comparing said model to direct personal experience operating said satellites. I have also seen similar effects personally issuing commands to and monitoring a spacecraft transiting the SAA.

Your claim is demonstrably wrong. We do know that the SAA exists, and not simply because of "what we've read". You really need to grasp the concept that not everybody is as helplessly ignorant as you about such topics.

and the people who write what we read are proven liars.

So, for example, J.G. Roederer (Dynamics of Geomagnetically Trapped Radiation, which I just pulled from my shelf) is a liar? All those scientists and students from Russia, Italy, Ukraine, Brazil, Peru, Japan, Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, India, China, Canada, South Africa, France, Argentina, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Chile, and the Czech Republic that have studied the SAA are liars?

Hey, you have said you live in Madrid. Why don't you ask some of the Spanish researchers who have dealt with the SAA and its effects?

I have a link to some info that shows they were liars...

You have provided no evidence that anyone is lying about the South Atlantic Anomaly.

...If I post the whole thing, it will probably get deleted for being off-topic even though it furthers my argument about Apollo because there is some info which proves the government lies but the examples are not Apollo-related...

If they are not Apollo-related, it does not further your unsupported claim that Apollo was faked.

...You'll see the info that shows the government lies.

I know "the government lies". Just not about everything. "The government" tells me its going to be partly cloudy and about 79 degrees F today. "The government" tells me that lead is bad for children. "The government" tells me that fly-by-wire control works for aircraft, and that the Chesapeake Bay is suffering from fertilizer runoff (among other things), and that I should put on sunscreen if I'll be on the beach all day this summer, and that something like 135 million boxes of oranges were harvested in the U.S. a few years back.

So we've established that "the government" lies and tells the truth. Therefore, it is possible that the government is telling the truth about Apollo.

David, given your track record of failed predictions, and factual errors, and how many people demonstrably do not agree with you - including people with genuine hands-on spacecraft experience - can you set aside your religious denial for a moment and think about your conviction that Apollo was a hoax?

What are you afraid of? Being wrong? Nobody will laugh at you for admitting mistakes.
 
Last edited:
I think all of you are here to perpetuate a fraud. I think all of you pro-Apollo posters here know that Apollo was a fraud as well as the hoax-believers do.

I'm a "pro-Apollo" poster. I'm so "pro-Apollo" that I want to see the US pick up the space program where it left off in the 1970's. I know we went to the Moon. I know I'm not perpetuating a fraud. Don't presume to tell me what I believe, nay, know.

Oh, for the record: Jay Windley is right, since you asked.
 
(from post #8280)
How can we confirm that Jarrah gave a foul-mouthed rant?
multiple witnesses. In character for JW. Not the first nor the last time he's done it.


(
You people have lied before so why should we just believe you?

Hilarious that you posted this considering your frequent line that others would be laughed out of a mythical debating hall! EVERYBODY in the world has lied before. EVEN YOU. Does that make every single person non-credible? Of course not! Of course you have yet to prove anybody here has lied yet. Your personal flawed and delusional opinion doesn't count.
 
Do you also "Know" that Jay Windley was right when he said this...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

...when he was addressing this issue?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

Only someone who doesn't even believe his own arguments would agree with him. That issue is so clear-cut and basic that it makes a good objectivity test.

What does it say about you when your objectivity test is far from objective?
 
It's easy to address. I just didn't want to risk getting banned but since you asked, I'll go ahead and risk it.


I think you did it to perpetuate a fraud.

[pointless spam link removed]

I think all of you are here to perpetuate a fraud. I think all of you pro-Apollo posters here know that Apollo was a fraud as well as the hoax-believers do.

Does using the words "I think" somehow make it ok to call someone a liar? You can tart it up all you like but really you're just squealing 'NASA shill' and wringing your hands like we're making you say it.

I am here to challenge stupidity. That's it. No other motive than to speak the truth. I'm not even going to qualify it by saying "what I believe to be the truth", just: The Truth.

You can post that spam link all you like, it doesn't prove anything. You can question people's motives all you like but it does not change the truth one bit.

I know that what I like to call my 'research' is genuine, I know that it supports and proves the pro-Apollo view, and it does that because they actually happened. You can use your feeble sophistry all you want, it will never take away from the fact that I believe I am 100% right and that you are completely and utterly wrong.

If you believe I am here to perpetuate a fraud prove it. Not 'prove Apollo didn't happen", but "prove I am here to perpetuate a fraud".

Provide this forum with any evidence you like that I know Apollo to be fake and I am deliberately posting lies to keep up a myth. Find my NASA pay cheque, my secret service membership card, the bank details showing payments, the secret emails providing me with evidence to post on someone else's behalf. Anything will do. Fail to do that and you, well, you pretty much fail.

Go ahead, knock yourself out.
 
It's easy to address. I just didn't want to risk getting banned but since you asked, I'll go ahead and risk it.


I think you did it to perpetuate a fraud.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

I think all of you are here to perpetuate a fraud. I think all of you pro-Apollo posters here know that Apollo was a fraud as well as the hoax-believers do.

An accusation like that deserves proof. All we have so far is your flawed delusional opinion.
 
I have to admit that it did surprise me. It broke the pattern; I'd asked several pro-Apollo posters with whom I was debating who were registered at Clavius and Bad Astronomy to post stuff and, with only one exception, they all refused.
Which only proves that previous people didn't want to play your childish games, not that the boards in question wouldn't allow it to be posted. You never considered that did you?
You'll see the info that shows the government lies.

Guess what? EVERYBODY lies! Including YOU! Why should we believe anything you say then?
 
I think all of you are here to perpetuate a fraud.

Sorry, but NOPE. The only "fraud" is people who REFUSE to acknowledge the evidence....YOU are the fraud.


I think all of you pro-Apollo posters here know that Apollo was a fraud as well as the hoax-believers do.

Is that the best argument you've got? That Jay, STS60, and the rest of us are lying about Apollo and we KNOW is was a hoax???


I don't know which is worse, that you would make such an ignorant argument, or that you actually might believe such an ignorant argument.
 
Provide this forum with any evidence you like that I know Apollo to be fake and I am deliberately posting lies to keep up a myth...snip...

Go ahead, knock yourself out.


While I would be satisfied with freddy doing the former, personally, I would prefer he do the latter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom