You've almost made a career out of being factually wrong, so why should one more error surprise you??
Last edited:
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
You've almost made a career out of being factually wrong, so why should one more error surprise you??
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Why didn't you simply post a link to the discussion itself? You posted a link to Jarrah's parting shot delivered from his safe haven.
You can ask the many people who read it. Of course you simply dismiss them all as liars, so I'm not really interested in trying to prove anything to you. You shall have no debate from me until you've answered to me satisfactorily for your five-year obsession with posting lies about me in as many places on the internet as you can get hold of.
You shall have no debate from me as long as you insist that I and others secretly agree with you.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
I suspect the whole Apollo Hoax thing is just about on its last legs, because unlike some other CT's, this one is 100% disprovable. I just got my latest issue of Sky & Telescope magazine. The cover story is "NASA's Incredible New Moon," and it contains amazing images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Among the photos published in S&T are shots of the Apollo 12 and Apollo 17 landing sites. Not only can you see the lunar module decent stage, you can see actual footprint trails and (for the Apollo 17 site) rover tracks.
So there it is, complete and irrefutable proof that we've been to the moon and walked around on it. I suppose some Apollo Hoax believers will just say the LRO photos are also faked along with everything else; but really, do even they believe it anymore?
So there it is, complete and irrefutable proof that we've been to the moon and walked around on it. I suppose some Apollo Hoax believers will just say the LRO photos are also faked along with everything else; but really, do even they believe it anymore?
Erock
Muse
How very typical of FF88, he logs on, avoids answering any highly significant points, posts a load of spam and repetition, calls everyone a fraud and a liar, then scuttles back to spursforum to complain about his posts being censored when they contain spam about 911 and are off topic.
He didn't respond to this one either, which was a direct rebuttal to his Apollo 17 flag "anomaly that was too clear to obfuscate"TM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8182330&postcount=8243
He didn't respond to this one either, which was a direct rebuttal to his Apollo 17 flag "anomaly that was too clear to obfuscate"TM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8182330&postcount=8243
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, which is why most of the world has banned him or put him on perma-ignore.
Unfortunately that's his standard litmus test. If you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, that's proof for him that you're not objective enough for him to take your arguments seriously. Basically it's, "If you're not a conspiracy theorist, I don't have to listen to you."
BazBear
Possible Suspect
So you're now calling those of us who know that the Apollo missions are historical fact liars? I don't even know how to begin addressing this load of bovine excrement without violating the MA
Erock
Muse
I think his litmus test is even worse than that. It's the Chinese Spacewalk was faked nonsense, the main video being produced by a man who believes Apollo was real. I just shudder at the mental gyrations he makes to hold that circular illogic together.
He doesn't respond to the blindingly obvious debunks for that either.
000063
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 5,398
Since when has that ever stopped any CT?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Right, we have nothing better to do than search the Web and spread misinformation. How do you know that the ones selling the hoax aren't shills?
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Why do you assume that others share your deluded beliefs? I do not know that the moon landings were faked - for the simple reason that they were not faked.
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Christ on a crutch. How many times has been debunked? Your links may prove something, but they do not prove that the landings were faked.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
It's not avoidance. I've addressed this all before and you're pretending I haven't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
It isn't more favorable to air movement. I tried running by a flag at a 45 degee angle and it move exactly the same way the Apollo flag moved.
Again, I've addressed this and you have the attitude that haven't.
If the flag obviously starts moving before the astronaut is close enough to touch it, we can conclude that its having been touched didn't make it move.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
Anyone who watches the above clip can see that this is simply not what happened. The direct distance between the astronaut's arm and the flag is more than a foot when the flag starts moving. You seem to be trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to look at the footage as it obviously belies what you say.
No, it isn't possible as the footage clearly shows that the flag starts moving before he gets close enough to touch it. I'm referring to the direct distance between the astronaut's arm and the flag. I'm not talking about the distance between his arm and the flag when the astronaut is directly between the flag and the camera. The flag started moving before he arrived to that point. You seem to be trying to muddy the waters with these two different distances and confuse the viewers.
In a scenario in which air moved the flag, the rod wouldn't noticably move unless there were a bigger gust which would cause a bigger flag movement by which the flag would cause the rod to move.
In a scenario in which ground vibration moved the flag, there would certainly be both noticable pole and rod movement–not only pole movement with no rod movement as your doctored video shows–and the rod movement is what would cause the flag to move.
(from post #8153)
This is simply wrong. As I've said a few time before, it would take a bigger wind than the one created by the astronaut to make it billow; he was at a forty five degree angle to the flag when he trotted by it. He would have to trot by parallel to it at a slightly greater speed to make it billow. It's not billowing doesn't mean it was in a vacuum. It just means that the astronaut was moving fast enough to make the corner move slightly but not moving fast enough to make it billow. Any sixth-grader could see this.
This video shows that it wasn't a video artifact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
You people have authoritative patronizing attitudes but your actual arguments would get you laughed out of the debating hall.
Here it is...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/thread/133905495?p=1
...and here's Jarrah's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9TXFQLjg4
The people who say they read it and that he gave a foul-mouthed rant also agree with you on this issue...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990
...so they have no credibility.
Jarrah said in his video that you put conditions on your answering his questions. That's a good way to avoid issues that are too clear to be obfuscated. Some issues are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective and, if people try to obfuscate them anyway, they just end up looking silly. If I were in your place, I'd probably use the same avoidance tactic as it attracts less attention. It's pretty clear that you know as well as hoax-believers that the moon missions were faked, or you wouldn't avoid these clear impossible-to-obfuscate-without-looking-silly issues.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Nonsense.
The same conditions I place on everyone I debate: that it occur in public and that it be civil. Jarrah violated both repeatedly.
No debate with you.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
Hi FatFreddy88. Just for the record, what are your views on the recently published images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which show lunar module decent stages, as well as unmistakable signs of human activity around them (footprints and lunar rover trails)?
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
With today's technology those pictures are fakable so they don't prove anything. They also don't make the mountain of hoax proof go away.
Click on the bottom link in this post to see the proof.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
Pictures from other nations aren't proof either as deals can be made behind the scenes.
Do you think those pictures are proof that humans were on the moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRE7grId3sI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKj5fckUX-c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc2kijG8YdY
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You're making a mountain out of a mole hole.
Erock
Muse
Your lame attempts at obfuscation don't count as "addressing" something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
What a crock! Something directly in front of air is more likely to move than something 45 degrees away from it. This is so blindingly obvious it is just pathetic that you assert it.
I think you are lying about your home "experiment" - prove it! Now why didn't White's flag move until he was level with it, when the Apollo flag started moving at 6 feet away? You would be laughed out of the debating hall with your daft comments.
Your lame attempts at obfuscation don't count as "addressing" something. You are lying blatantly. You have not addressed this at all, you refuse to acknowledge it.
Now for about the sixth time......
Regardless of whether Jarrah White concludes this is not important!!! Did he show with his graphics that the astronaut was close enough to touch it. A straight answer please. Did his demonstration show he was close enough - here's a clue for you.....
You are totally cornered here, you know by admitting this it makes your case a pile of nothing.
There ARE NO VIEWERS who agree with you, or are swayable, and once again you are just blatantly lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ888vXaKNM
Squirming much? Avoiding the obvious proof much? Your replies are pathetic and lame and I asked if you had anything apart from your uninformed opinion, which clearly you do not.
I am aware of 3 seperate analyses done on youtube including Jarrah White, all showing that Scott was easily close enough to have brushed the flag with his elbow.
I didn't see your "atmosphere explanation" - the one that defies the laws of physics. can we have it please and some references or citations?
I'll respond to the rest of your obfuscating later.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
Ah, OK. I suppose it's fair to say your response isn't altogether unexpected. It does raise some interesting corollaries, however. For on thing, it means that the U.S. is continuing to perpetuate this hoax, by having NASA produce these fake pictures today. Thus the Apollo hoax isn't just something that occured in the distant past, it's actually ongoing -- although for what possible purpose I can't even begin to say, since the presumed reason for the initial hoax no longer applies.
There's also another issue: the LRO is beaming down raw image data to the Earth, where really just about anyone with the ability to capture the RF broadcast (which I don't believe would be particularly difficult for any government or even technically inclined and equipped group of individuals) could also capture and process it. Thus if the cited images are faked, the U.S. is taking a massive risk that someone unfriendly to our interests would capture and publish the pre-processed images, proving that they've been tampered with. So not only are we continuing with the hoax for some reason, we're doing it extremely stupidly.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
If that turns out to be true, why can't that image data be bogus?
According to that picture from the video he was but it doesn't matter because the flag started moving before the astronaut's arm was close enough to touch it as this video shows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
As I said before, when I say "Close enough", I'm referring to the direct distance between his arm and the flag. My point is pretty clear so I doubt your attempts at obfuscating this are having much effect on the viewers. If something lame is said in an authoritative patronizing way, it's still lame.
Please present evidence that the images were faked, or retract that claim. Anything else will only "expose" your unwillingness to discuss this topic rationally.
Such as disregarding evidence because it is "inconvenient"??...such as making a claim of "bogusness" without any evidence whatsoever??
Is that what you are talking about??
They prove that hoax believers will go to ANY LENGTHS to "protect" their irrational ideas. You've demonstrated beyond any doubt that you are a rather "typical" hoax believer...nothing more...
Irrational...there is no evidence of a hoax, no matter how many times you repeat, rinse, wash.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
If you think fakable pictures are proof there were people on the moon, you're simply not mentally equipped to deal with this topic. This is really pretty basic.
Do all of you pro-Apollo people consider those pictures to be proof that there were people on the moon? Do any of you think those pictures were fakable?
No sir...you are being untruthful, and we can all see that.
I detect no pretense...you haven't addressed those 3 questions, and you are being "called" on it.
That you would continue to deny this reflects poorly on your credibility, and your character.
Repetition does not make your claim any more true...lying about something so easily confirmed is not rational.
So tired of this crap....NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU so just who is this "we" you speak of????
Same as above....no one here agrees with you so stop with the "anyone" crap.
???? You can't possibily be THAT delusional.
If Jarrah has the "balls" to come here to debate, then allow him to do so, but I REFUSE to debate his "proxy".
In other words, stop posting Jarrah vids...
Jarrah is not here....you are. Can't you form your own arguments?, or must you be Jarrah's "puppet"?
Stopm misrepresenting the opinions of others, AND STOP IT NOW. You either need to prove that claim, or stop making that claim...
Do you understand?...or do I need to repeat?...no oine here agrees with you, so stop saying that we do...
Prove that claim or shut the hell up
This makes no sense whatsoever...what in the hell are you talking about??? No one here agrees that the images were faked, so your premise is outrageously irrational.
Yes it is...Apollo happened "as advertized", and the hoax "community" hasn't been able to provide ANY evidence for fraud...
Why bother asking when you MISREPRESENT other posters opinions ON A REGULAR BASIS.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
You're missing an important point, I think. The issue isn't whether or not the picture are fakable. It's whether or not you have proof that they were. If you believe the pictures were faked, it's up to you to provide the proof. It isn't up to us to prove that they weren't -- it simply doesn't work like that. You made the claim, you therefore must back it up.
But it the end, it hardly matters any more, because the whole moon hoax thing is coming to the end of its shelf life. Even the most modest space power has within its grasp the ability to prove or disprove whether or not we've been to the moon. This includes the Russians and Chinese -- especially the Russians and Chinese, who have high motivation for proving us liars and gaining massive geopolitical capital in the process.
You see, the problem with viewing the Apollo hardware left behind on the lunar surface isn't that the moon is so far away, it's that Earth's atmosphere blurs all incoming light so that there's a lower limit to how small a detail we can see. It's kind of like pixels on a TV -- no matter how powerful the telescope, sooner or later you hit this limit. However, from space this problem goes away. This means that anyone so inclined can go into space and with even a moderately sized telescope prove once and for all whether or not the U.S.A. has been to the moon. It actually would be quite trivial technologically -- hell, with new advances in image processing, we're coming very close to be able to do this from the earth, atmosphere and all. And yet, no one has done so, not even our bitterest rivals. Why not?
As I said, if this is an ongoing hoax, it's an exceedingly stupid one.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Agreed, usually because the debunker has failed one of his litmus tests and therefore doesn't deserve his attention. He constantly appeals to a gallery that steadfastly refuses to endorse him, and endorsements for his critics are simply dismissed as having "no credibility" for the fact that they disagree! You're right: it doesn't get much more circular than that.
And as you've seen, FatFreddy88 tries to criticize me for placing conditions on debate when he does worse. Unless you pass his litmus tests and agree with his claims, he won't listen to you. If you disagree with him on any grounds, that's automatic proof to him that you're a disinformation agent. What kind of rational debate can be entertained with someone who argues that his own claims are so self-evidently correct that disagreement with them automatically disqualifies that disagreement from consideration?
My conditions for debate are primarily that a third party moderate for civility, and that it occur in public. Those apply to everyone. Jarrah was the motivation for the civility condition, based largely on his infamous meltdown on Yahoo! in 2004, but it applies equally to everyone. The public debate requirement was initially so that I wouldn't have to answer the same emails over and over, and later because things said in private get mutilated when reproduced later by one of the parties. Jarrah wanted special treatment. He wanted private debate, or failing that, a debate where he controlled the content. I stipulated to neither. So he accepted the terms and chosen the venue. He was ultimately unwilling to continue that debate, and that is a fact not even remotely in dispute by either party. Beginning with his banning from Yahoo! in 2004 and continuing to his departure from IMDb, he has tried to say that I or someone else has censored him. He has, to date, provided not one shred of evidence for any of those claims; it is simply his lame excuse to hide out at YouTube and control what is said to and about him there.
Both FatFreddy88 and Jarrah White seem to have an unhealthy personal fixation on me, so for that reason I don't generally consider them worth my attention.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
I've actually given that a bit of thought. I think at that point, the Apollo Hoaxer crowd will insist the evidence was recently planted there, just moments before the confirmatory pictures were taken. Thus the conspiracy will morph into "Oh sure, we've gone to the moon now -- but we faked in in 1969!!" and thus be undisprovable forever.
That is a major problem trying to discuss this topic...those that believe in a hoax simply can not debate rationally...and when they are "forced" to do so (like on BAUT), they fail miserabily, and inevitably end up being banned for not following (fairly straightforward) board rules.
Yeah...no sense "fueling" that fixation by engaging it.
Unfortunately, I completely agree. You could rub their collective noses in the Lunar regolith, and they would just deny, deny, deny.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, he hasn't missed that point. His assertion, made a few pages ago, is that evidence isn't evidence unless its proponents can prove it's absolutely unfakable. Which, of course, is not a usable standard of proof. But it's why he doesn't accept any refutory evidence from his critics.
Indeed it doesn't, but conspiracy theorists never think that way.
It's not possible to prove something is authentic. You can ever only prove that it hasn't been faked by any means you know how to detect. Affirmative proof can only ever exist for fakery, not for authenticity, so that's where the burden of proof always lies.
The argument, "But X is fakable, and if it's fakable it can't be used as proof," simply doesn't wash. It applies universally to every object, and in any case represents an entirely unreasonable standard of proof. "Fakable," as you clearly not, is not at all the same concept as "was faked."
Erock
Muse
Arrrghh, are you claiming expert status on how rods and supports move on a flag now?!
Any movement of material connected to a movable support would cause movement in the movable support. This is just so basic, so brain shatteringly basic.
Bovine excrement. Your claim for expert flag moving status is even worse than your persistent avoidance of the issues that debunk your own argument.
If the pole moves, the rod moves, they are CONNECTED! Get it?
And now you claim expert status on flag billowing!
The flag didn't billow because it was in a vacuum. As for your utterly ridiculous assertion that air is less likely to move something when it is square on, than something angled away, you obviously "don't believe your own argument"TM.
On the initial movement where the ground vibration was small, I would agree with this. But it was in a vacuum, we have ground disturbances showing the soil moving quickly that when speeded up look too fast, we also have a flag moving 3-4 times longer than White's Earth flag and with gently reducing pendulum motion.
I'm betting that you think this whole Apollo 15 flag ceremony is one small isolated clip, when it occurs during an EVA continuosly running for a few hours - replete with hundreds of examples where speeded up even 150% the footage looks very odd and the astronauts are not returning to the surface fast enough.
Plus, we have Jarrah White going beserk next to his bedsheet and with his jumping and walking failed to make his sheet move AT ALL. Kindly explain that.
Any sixth grader could see the vertical rod moving when they do a frame grab, and any troll could deny this movement and make unfounded claims of doctoring the video. So go on, prove I doctored my animated gif - not only will you not do this, even if you did and it showed that I haven't doctored it, you lack the integrity to admit it.
It only shows a close up of the corner, there is the same movement in the vertical rod and the flag itself.
Last edited:
BazBear
Possible Suspect
Hopefully, there will be enough left in the budget to bring them back, but if we have to cut costs somewhere...
Last edited:
With today's technology ALL of the posting you do is fakable. I've said it before on another forum and I'll say it again. I think you're really a program responding and not a real person. You repeat the same nonsense too often and ignore too much with the same unhealthy obsession with Jay. Prove me wrong.
You had a typo there. Good thing I was here to fix it.
I think he's lying too. He was asked repeatedly to prove it years ago. A simple video would suffice. He never did I'll bet he never will.
Many of them already think that Apollo was just a cover for the secret tech that really got us there and allowed us to supposedly have bases there and elsewhere. Of course they can never provide any evidence for this supposed secret tech (how do they know about it?) but they don't need to because it's secret!
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
An excellent point. I think I can make a very good case that FatFreddy88/DavidC/rocky/cosmored is a paid disinformation agent:
This fits FF88/etc. to a T: He has been posting the same thing for years.
Everywhere he goes (at least on the five forums that I have checked) he is told he is wrong - even "lurkers" he claimed supported him have directly questioned his sanity, and have overwhelmingly rejected his arguments. But he persists in repeating himself and spamming the same links over and over again.
"We can't know that." "That evidence could be faked." "It never went there." "We don't know that." "Everything they say is a lie." "You can't say that you believe that with a straight face." All in the face of detailed explanations by informed laymen - which he is not - and by actual experts with hands-on space flight experience.
Yup, check that one on the list too.
rocky has been doing the exact same thing for years: link-spamming to sites unrelated to Apollo, appealing to general conspiracy, accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being liars, saying that "we can't know" about things we certainly can know about, and worst of all he has absolutely refused to actually learn anything about space flight in general or Apollo in particular.
He can't even use his sources consistently: he endorses a video whose maker believes Apollo went to the Moon, or cites as support a geology forum poster who calls Apollo hoax claims "crazy" and says rocky is "putting words in [his] mouth", he happily cites Holocaust deniers... you get the idea. Needless to say, the quality of his sources is also execrable, like the one that claimed no images of stars or planets had been taken by spacecraft - that was pretty funny.
[ETA:] So much for "making adjustments to criticisms". Of course, there's another thing that DavidC keeps saying is a disinfo tactic:
"... they have no credibility."
"If I were in your place, I'd probably use the same avoidance tactic as it attracts less attention. It's pretty clear that you know as well as hoax-believers that the moon missions were faked, or you wouldn't avoid these clear impossible-to-obfuscate-without-looking-silly issues."
"None of you has any credibility. All of you obviously know that the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do."
"Any sixth-grader could see this."
Yep, that's Disinfo David alright.
[End edit]
I regret that I must also remind everyone that FatFreddy88 continually employs that tool used by repressive regimes and anti-free thought thugs everywhere to stifle dissent and demonize the opposition: the loyalty test. "If you don't believe this video is a fraud, you are a liar". That is shamefully hpocritical of Mr. Rage-Against-the-Machine.
We can therefore reasonably conclude, based on his own history, and his own sources, that FatFreddy88/David C/rocky/cosmored is a paid disinformation agent. The "paid" part comes from the simple fact that anyone who spends so much time posting the same stuff on so many forums must be paid to do so.
***
Actually, FatFreddy88, I don't believe you're a "disinformation agent". I think you really believe this stuff, which is much more depressing.
But do you see how easy such a cheap and vacuous exercise is? Can you grasp how poor a substitute it is for actually engaging with people who genuinely disagree with you, and for reevaluating your convictions in light of your history of failure - instead of clinging ever more tightly to them?
Please read my post 8312 and ask yourself what it means. Can you free your mind from you religious denialism long enough to do that? Are you willing to think, not just repeat the same cliches again? If not, what are you afraid of?
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Yootuube malarky is precisely that. You have addressed nothing. Lo-res videos are worse than useless.
Another low-res fail.
And failed, because that was not the angle of incidence of the astronaut in the video you posted.
You have not addressed it, otherwise you would post it.
You didn't recognise the word "If". You bear sole responsibility to prove that "If". It is your claim.
Yet no one does.
Unsopported opinion.
Another unsupported opinion.
Another unsupported opinion
Clearly, paralax is opaque to you. Please provide proof of the "doctoring".
Yeah, Right.
At last, truth.
Provide your qualifications in fluid dynamics, please.
Please give it up with your argumentum ad yootuubem.
They wouldn't entertain such arguments in the debating hall.
Really, the one where Jarrah got toasted?
- Status