Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because if he can catch the great Jay Windley in a lie, well, by golly, that obviously proves that Apollo is a hoax. Yet again. Somehow.

Jarrah White has followed that strategy for years, which is probably why he doesn't venture outside of YouTube. The real world is a big scary place when all you've got is the willingness to accuse strangers of lying.
 
The real world is a big scary place when all you've
got is the willingness to accuse strangers of lying.
Especially when you can do it completely anonymously, without any accountability whatsoever, all the while talking about what big risks you're taking. I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with "Howard" here.
 
Last edited:
Especially when you can do it completely anonymously, without any accountability whatsoever, all the while talking about what big risks you're taking. I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with "Howard" here.

Showered? ;)
 
Jarrah White has followed that strategy for years, which is probably why he doesn't venture outside of YouTube. The real world is a big scary place when all you've got is the willingness to accuse strangers of lying.

By the by, I meant to thank you for the immense amount of knowledge you have poured into this thread. I'm a geek and I get my kicks from absorbing information, and I love reading posts from real experts. So, thank you for that, despite Freddy's attempts to get you disowned as a government disinfo agent.
 
By the by, I meant to thank you for the immense amount of knowledge you have poured into this thread. I'm a geek and I get my kicks from absorbing information, and I love reading posts from real experts. So, thank you for that, despite Freddy's attempts to get you disowned as a government disinfo agent.

Thanks, I'm glad you find this helpful. If space engineering hadn't been my passion as well, I probably wouldn't have gone into it for a living. :)
 
By the by, I meant to thank you for the immense amount of knowledge you have poured into this thread. I'm a geek and I get my kicks from absorbing information, and I love reading posts from real experts. So, thank you for that, despite Freddy's attempts to get you disowned as a government disinfo agent.


I can assure everyone that Jay is not a government disinformation agent. I know because he never comes to our meetings. :D
 
Van Allen is on record as saying specifically that the hoax claims are nonsense. I have in my files a signed letter from him to that effect. This is a non-starter. Hoax believers try to infer this or that, or to sew together different quotes from different times, all in the vain effort to make it seem like Van Allen's views on this subject are favorable to them, or at best are contradictory. All that simply flies in the face of Van Allen's clear statement that the hoax believers are spewing nonsense when they say radiation would have prevented Apollo astronauts from going to the Moon. He has directly and specifically repudiated the conspiracists' statements. Full stop.

Did he also indicate why they kicked out David Lee Roth for Sammy Hagar? :boggled:

I once heard an Apollo denier go on about "The Van Halen Belt radiation."
 
Last edited:
I can assure everyone that Jay is not a government disinformation agent. I know because he never comes to our meetings. :D

Maybe he doesn’t attend the meetings for the same reason I don’t… you never sent me a schedule. :D
 
from post #8600)

You said that you knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

All the people I know with backgrounds in geology laughed when I told them about that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem in this statement is bolded for your convenience. A geologist, or more properly "someone with a background in geology" since I doubt you know any true geologists, does not have experience with the practical applications of transporting sand. That is the province of engineers.
Sorry, but this issue is too basic. Jay lied and destroyed his credibility and you destroyed your credibility by agreeing with him. If there are any young teenagers reading this who are confused, you can ask your science teachers. Go to any university and ask an engineering or geology professor.



your position on the Chinese spacewalk is that it was real when any seventh grader can see that it was faked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chinese spacewalk was real. Your position on it is hilarious.

<edit> PS Does anyone know why it is that FF88 needs to believe the Chinese didn't make a spacewalk? Would it undermine his Apollo fantasy in some way, or does he just think the Chinese simply couldn't achieve such a thing despite being the world's second largest economy and the US and Soviet Union having achieved it half a century ago?
The anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk show it was faked.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8452301&postcount=8545

There are plausible scenarios of why they faked it. We just don't know which one it was. You didn't analyze the actual evidence of fakery; I suppose you're trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to actually look at the evidence.

(from post #8600)You said that you knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
----------------------------
Yes. I have that experience, and you have done absolutely nothing to undermine or refute that. Everyone sees this but you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
All the people I know with backgrounds in geology laughed when I told them about that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant. Geology does not concern itself with the manufacture, handling, and transportation of milled aggregates. "People with backgrounds in geology" are not relevant experts. None described having any experience handling aggregates. I explained this earlier, but you ignored it entirely.
As I said before, anyone who is doubting can ask a professor at a university or a high school science teacher to see who is full-of-it here.

Also, your position on the Chinese spacewalk is that it was real when any seventh grader can see that it was faked.
-------------------------------------------------------
No, you simply beg that question. In any case it's another one of your meaningless loyalty tests that has nothing to do with your Moon hoax claims. It's simply another excuse for you to ignore your critics.
The Chinese spacewalk was obviously faked so it makes a good litmus test to see who is objective and therefore to be taken seriously when he or she speaks authoritatively. The thread on the Chinese spacewalk at the Clavius forum was hilarious. I've been told I can't post links to other forums so I'll have to post this link instead.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Click on that link and then click on the bottom link. The link to the Chinese spacewalk at Clavius is in post #1; do a page search on "Chinese" to find it.

In the discussion they ignored the actual anomalies that showed it was faked to mislead the viewers. Anyone who has actually looked at the anomalies can see that thread is a discussion among a bunch of sophists who knew it was faked.

You also refused to address the flag issue...
-----------------------------------------------
No, I refuse to debate you because you are delusional. There's a difference between having an interest in the issue and realizing that one's opponent is delusional beyond reach.

There will be no debate with you on any point so long as you continue to accuse me of not believing my own arguments and of being a paid disinformation agent, for which you admit you have no evidence.
Translation-

The flag anomaly is so clear that the best sophist in the world couldn't try to obfuscate it without looking silly so I'd better just avoid the issue with lame excuses.

Jarrah White has followed that strategy for years, which is probably why he doesn't venture outside of YouTube. The real world is a big scary place when all you've got is the willingness to accuse strangers of lying.
It's only sporting to show what you're criticizing so that viewers can decide for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...0.0.484.812.3-1j1.2.0...0.0...1ac.CW1Gw-whcsg
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear....344.1063.0j3j1j1.5.0...0.0...1ac.5GI9SWi9HO8

If those links don't work, do YouTube searches on "MoonFaker" and "MarsFaker".
 
Sorry, but this issue is too basic. Jay lied and destroyed his credibility and you destroyed your credibility by agreeing with him.

You were asked to show evidence of my "lies" and you admitted you could not. You were told by three professional engineers that your idea would not work. You were told by many of the other people you consulted that it would not work. The one person you say agrees with you accuses you of putting words in his mouth.

I have asked you repeatedly for 5 years to prove your accusation that I am a paid government disinformationist. You admit you cannot; you can only infer that I "must" be from the simple fact that I disagree with you.

I assure you I have no credibility problem.

The Chinese spacewalk was obviously faked so it makes a good litmus test to see who is objective and therefore to be taken seriously when he or she speaks authoritatively.

No. Your obsession over loyalty tests demonstrates your deliberate unwillingness to face your critics.

The thread on the Chinese spacewalk at the Clavius forum...

There is no "Clavius forum." You've been told this repeatedly. Your continued, deliberate misrepresentation of this reveals your dishonesty.

If those links don't work, do YouTube searches on "MoonFaker" and "MarsFaker".

Yes, we all know you're just a shill for Jarrah White.
 
Hey FF88, have you ever taken your own advice and asked an engineering professor?

Didn't think so.

Instead of telling us the Chinese spacewalk was proven fake and complaining you're not allowed to link to the evidence, why don't you just tell us yourself what the evidence is? You already told us about bubbles (which were square, so weren't bubbles at all) and the single wave of the flag which might have been in a fluid (except it was in a continuous sequence which absolutely definitely wasn't, so that's BS too) and an umbilical cable which you claim keeps floating in a direction you define as "up" (except without gravity the umbilical would tend to assume whatever shape it liked, so again you got nothin').

So, other than that rubbish, just what is the compelling evidence of fakery?
 
The anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk show it was faked.

No they don't, they show you to be a gullible spammer.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

The man who made the film is a pro-Apollo supporter. Your credibility test has no credibility. Your explanation that he was "got at" to say this, is off the scale of insane .

As I said before, anyone who is doubting can ask a professor at a university or a high school science teacher to see who is full-of-it here.

An engineer is more likely to know about aggregate preparation and movement. How would a college professor of geology know this?

The Chinese spacewalk was obviously faked so it makes a good litmus test to see who is objective and therefore to be taken seriously when he or she speaks authoritatively. The thread on the Chinese spacewalk at the Clavius forum was hilarious.

It is not the "Clavius" forum and the spacewalk was obviously not faked. The spinning flag shows this beyond any doubt - it is totally impossible, at any speed, in water.

In the discussion they ignored the actual anomalies that showed it was faked to mislead the viewers. Anyone who has actually looked at the anomalies can see that thread is a discussion among a bunch of sophists who knew it was faked.

What bovine poo. The links above tear that video to bits. Anybody gullible enough to believe this nonsense is off their rocker. Anybody who spams it all over the internet and ignores responses never had a rocker to begin with:D

The simple fact that you, and only you, think that piece of space debris is a bubble proves that you have the cognitive abilities of a packet of crisps.

bubgif.gif


The flag anomaly.......snip

Has explanations. The only "explanation", spammed the world over by you, that is totally implausible is that air moved it from several feet away.

VW-New-Polo-Wind-Tunnel-Simulation.jpg


Snip spam about Jarrah and his moronic Marsfaker nonsense.
 
Sorry, but this issue is too basic. Jay lied and destroyed his credibility and you destroyed your credibility by agreeing with him. If there are any young teenagers reading this who are confused, you can ask your science teachers. Go to any university and ask an engineering or geology professor.
You are wrong freddy, again.

Just two examples.
http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200904.pdf
http://epdfiles.engr.wisc.edu/pdf_web_files/tic/bulletins/Bltn_013_DustControl.pdf

And there are thousands more.




Linking yet again to your debunked youtube spam fails to impress.

There are plausible scenarios of why they faked it. We just don't know which one it was. You didn't analyze the actual evidence of fakery; I suppose you're trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to actually look at the evidence.
Not one of which stands up to any scrutiny.


As I said before, anyone who is doubting can ask a professor at a university or a high school science teacher to see who is full-of-it here.
Indeed they will. How will you respond when you are found out?


The Chinese spacewalk was obviously faked so it makes a good litmus test to see who is objective and therefore to be taken seriously when he or she speaks authoritatively. The thread on the Chinese spacewalk at the Clavius forum was hilarious. I've been told I can't post links to other forums so I'll have to post this link instead.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Click on that link and then click on the bottom link. The link to the Chinese spacewalk at Clavius is in post #1; do a page search on "Chinese" to find it.
Link to a spam fest with a link to a spamfest, with yet another link to a spamfest. At the end of which we find that you are in fact referring to Apollohoax.net, and not Clavius at all.

If you are unable to distinguish between two distinct web sites, then why should any claim of yours be entertained?

In the discussion they ignored the actual anomalies that showed it was faked to mislead the viewers. Anyone who has actually looked at the anomalies can see that thread is a discussion among a bunch of sophists who knew it was faked.
Anomalies which only exist in your mind.

BTW, what is it with this "viewers" rubbish? There may be participants. There may be lurkers. There may be readers. But "viewers"?

Translation-

The flag anomaly is so clear that the best sophist in the world couldn't try to obfuscate it without looking silly so I'd better just avoid the issue with lame excuses.


It's only sporting to show what you're criticizing so that viewers can decide for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...0.0.484.812.3-1j1.2.0...0.0...1ac.CW1Gw-whcsg
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear....344.1063.0j3j1j1.5.0...0.0...1ac.5GI9SWi9HO8

If those links don't work, do YouTube searches on "MoonFaker" and "MarsFaker".
Again with the "viewers".
Again with the youtube spam.
Do you realise that your spammage of crappy youtube links has gotten so bad that I, and others no longer click any of them? Does it sink in to your noggin that you are forcing people away from anything you may present by your inability to do anything other than post youtube links? Are you incapable of presenting your own arguments in your own words?
 
You were asked to show evidence of my "lies" and you admitted you could not. You were told by three professional engineers that your idea would not work. You were told by many of the other people you consulted that it would not work. The one person you say agrees with you accuses you of putting words in his mouth.
Not quite. Rocky specifically referred to two posters endorsing him. One person pretty much agreed with him with regard to the Magic Sand. The other said he was putting words in his mouth (which rocky himself had previously called a "low tactic") and called the hoax idea "crazy". (A few other posters' contributions were inconclusive or against rocky's claim.)

So I've seen (in the boards I've observed) three people agreeing with him: one poster on the geology board, one guy on spurstalk, and one person who voted for him in the poll on this board.

I have no problem recognizing that there are people who will endorse his claims (or some subset thereof). I have no need to claim that they're lying because they don't agree with me. That's DavidC/rocky/FF88's issue.

Now, rocky/FF88/DavidC is still wrong about radiation.

And needs to explain his geology thread claims, and prove to us that he is not actually a paid disinformation agent, and explain his hypocrisy in trying to impose loyalty tests on everyone.

And I am still guessing that living in Madrid, he must not be far from Fresnedillas. Hello? Is this thing on?


Edited to add: oh yes, he's got a lot of other behaviors to answer for as well.
 
Last edited:
As someone whose undergraduate & doctoral theses involved a lot of particle size distribution analyses of soil samples, I can confirm that doing the amount of sieving required by FF88's rather ludicrous claims would be totally impractical to the point of impossible.

You don't just sieve samples to grade them, you wash them to make sure you have got all of the fractions through the sieves. Then you have to dry them.

That University educated enough for you?

Find us the sieves and the ovens big enough to cover a moon set freddy, let's see where you think it was done. Let's also have the sources of the sieved material. Where did it come from? Who transported it? When and where was this material delivered? Where did they dispose of what must presumably have been a considerable amount of unwanted material? Who drove it away? Where did they take it to?

Answers on a very small postcard please...
 
Originally Posted by FatFreddy88
There are plausible scenarios of why they faked it. We just don't know which one it was. You didn't analyze the actual evidence of fakery; I suppose you're trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to actually look at the evidence.
You mean that there are several fantasical scenarios that you can envision as possibly being plausible and that this is enough proof for you to believe that one of them must be true.

Now back in the real, researched science world, what you propose is nothing more than fiction as opposed to anything plausible
 
As someone whose undergraduate & doctoral theses involved a lot of particle size distribution analyses of soil samples, I can confirm that doing the amount of sieving required by FF88's rather ludicrous claims would be totally impractical to the point of impossible.

You don't just sieve samples to grade them, you wash them to make sure you have got all of the fractions through the sieves. Then you have to dry them.

That University educated enough for you?

Find us the sieves and the ovens big enough to cover a moon set freddy, let's see where you think it was done. Let's also have the sources of the sieved material. Where did it come from? Who transported it? When and where was this material delivered? Where did they dispose of what must presumably have been a considerable amount of unwanted material? Who drove it away? Where did they take it to?

Answers on a very small postcard please...

sooper secret gravel pit?
maybe there's one in area 51?
then they could use alien ships to transport it to the desert set.
:D
 
Sorry, but this issue is too basic. Jay lied and destroyed his credibility and you destroyed your credibility by agreeing with him. If there are any young teenagers reading this who are confused, you can ask your science teachers. Go to any university and ask an engineering or geology professor.

I took your advice and went to my local uni, found someone in the Geology department that was willing to give me 10 minutes of his time, and showed him a printout of your claims. Once he had finished laughing, he said that you were talking rubbish.
 
I took your advice and went to my local uni, found someone in the Geology department that was willing to give me 10 minutes of his time, and showed him a printout of your claims. Once he had finished laughing, he said that you were talking rubbish.

But according to FF88 this isn't valid because you didn't ask him about 9/11 or the Chinese spacewalk.
 
Maybe he doesn’t attend the meetings for the same reason I don’t… you never sent me a schedule. :D


Sorry about that. Our regular meetings are every month on the [redacted] weekend, from [redacted] evening until [redacted] afternoon. Plus we have week-long retreats/training sessions/conferences during the months of [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted], in lieu of regular meetings, starting on the same days as regular meetings, and ending on the [redacted] afternoon of the weekend following.

If you have any questions about this schedule, feel free to contact [redacted] at [redacted].
 
Sorry about that. Our regular meetings are every month on the [redacted] weekend, from [redacted] evening until [redacted] afternoon. Plus we have week-long retreats/training sessions/conferences during the months of [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted], in lieu of regular meetings, starting on the same days as regular meetings, and ending on the [redacted] afternoon of the weekend following.

And then, after the [redacted], we all like to [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted], while we [redacted] our [redacted] over one shoulder into a bowl on the the [redacted] and [redacted] our [redacted] with a melon.

Dave
 
Absolutely incredible that this thread is still going.

FWIW FF88, I think you need to take a step back and reassess your position.
 
Twice on this thread I pointed out that a regular pro-Apollo poster from the Clavius forum agreed that Jay Windley was wrong about the dust-free sand issue. Here's the post where I first mentioned this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8141778&postcount=7982

You have to click on the fourth link from the top to see the part where he agreed with me. Go to the preceding page to see more.

I don't think I ever got an answer. Let's hear what everybody thinks.
 
Twice on this thread I pointed out that a regular pro-Apollo poster from the Clavius forum agreed that Jay Windley was wrong about the dust-free sand issue......

.....You have to click on the fourth link from the top to see the part where he agreed with me.

Hmmmm, let's see what you said -

you-elsewhere said:
Do you think they completely debunked the point I made when they said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over

HLR-reply said:
"No", "it's just a "maybe they faked it this way" argument that I'm not interested in."


He "agreed" with you by saying the issue wasn't completely debunked. NOWHERE did he say Jay was wrong, NOWHERE did he say YOU were right. Are you just delusional and completely obsessed about this irrelevant rubbish.

Now, where is my list of the hundred questions you have avoided:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
... said that you knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create a dust cloud when the sand is driven over...

All the people I know with backgrounds in geology laughed when I told them about that.
...I asked a couple of people with backgrounds in geology and they said that Jay and the other pro-Apollo posters were quite wrong...

Some posters on a geology forum said the same.

Just exactly who have you talked to about this, and what are their qualifications? Have you in fact had any exchanges with anyone "with backgrounds in geology" other than two guys on a geology forum?,

One of them, a self-described "amateur geologist" seemed to agree with you, although there were other problems with his opinion, as noted in my post 7985 linked above.

The other guy with whom you had an exchange said "the moon hoax is a stupid idea" and that you were "putting words in [his] mouth". (Note that you said "Putting words in someone's mouth is a very low tactic", so shame on you.)

Other posters disagreed or had inconclusive opinions.

1. Other than the two guys on the geology forums, with what other persons with "backgrounds in geology" have you actually consulted, and what are their qualifications?

2. Why is geology the most relevant discipline for evaluating this question, other than, oh, soil mechanics for civil engineering?

3. Why did you trumpet the apparent endorsement of one source but not mention the explicit disavowal of another?

(see my next post for 4, 5, 6)

...If there are any young teenagers reading this who are confused, you can ask your science teachers. Go to any university and ask an engineering or geology professor...
As I said before, anyone who is doubting can ask a professor at a university or a high school science teacher to see who is full-of-it here.

As someone whose undergraduate & doctoral theses involved a lot of particle size distribution analyses of soil samples, I can confirm that doing the amount of sieving required by FF88's rather ludicrous claims would be totally impractical to the point of impossible...

I took your advice and went to my local uni, found someone in the Geology department that was willing to give me 10 minutes of his time, and showed him a printout of your claims. Once he had finished laughing, he said that you were talking rubbish.

threadworm's doctoral dissertation addressed the issues of sorting soil as you claim, so he has directly relevant expertise in this subject, and he thinks you're wrong. Multivac did exactly what you suggested, and the answer flatly contradicted you.

7. Will you now reconsider your assertion now that your criteria have been explicitly met, and your claim contradicted? If not, why not? Note that any attempts to impose your hypocritical loyalty test will be rejected, and the question repeated.
 
I don't think I ever got an answer. Let's hear what everybody thinks.

You got an answer; you just didn't like it so you put the words you wanted in his mouth.

I grow weary of asking you to show proof that I am a paid government disinformationist. Why do maintain that accusation when you admit that all you have is a cursory inference?

Show proof or withdraw the accusation. Put up or shut up.
 
You obviously don't believe your own arguments...
Your behavior is the classic behavior of a disinfo agent.

OK, let's evaluate your behavior according to your criteria:

...an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance.
This fits you perfectly: You have been posting the same thing for years. Everywhere where you post, you get told you are wrong - even the "lurkers" you claimed support you have overwhelmingly rejected your arguments, and several have directly questioned your sanity. But you persist in repeating yourself and spamming the same links over and over again.
This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything,...
"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 you are not - and by actual experts with hands-on space flight experience.

Yes, this one fits you perfectly too.
...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.
Again, this is you exactly. In your years of posting, you have never altered your pattern of behavior, never altered your fanatical insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, never taken the time to learn anything about the science or engineering involved, and you constantly spam the same links over and over again. You continually dodge questions, misrepresent answers, and regurgitate the same claims from random web sites, even when they contradict you.
You people have authoritative patronizing attitudes...
"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."

Yes, that's you alright.

You clearly fit your criteria for being a "disinfo agent", and since you spend so much time on so many web sites vomiting third-hand arguments, you must be getting paid to do so. Don't whine about it; I'm using your reasoning.

4. According to your criteria, you are a paid disinformation agent. Can you prove otherwise?

Worst of all, you continually employ 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". "If you agree with his opinion, you obviously don't believe what you are saying."

Where have I heard that before? Let's see, "If you're not with us, you're against us."

You hypocrite.

5. Please explain why you rely on loyalty tests while you lambaste others for not being free thinkers.


Oh, and in case you haven't noticed it the first umpty-ump times I've asked,

6. You've said you live in Madrid. So you must not be far at all from Fresnedillas, right?
 
He "agreed" with you by saying the issue wasn't completely debunked. NOWHERE did he say Jay was wrong, NOWHERE did he say YOU were right. Are you just delusional and completely obsessed about this irrelevant rubbish.

Postbaguk/HeadLikeARock (HLaR) went further. FF88 cherry-picked only the post he wanted and didn't report the rest of the conversation. He has cleverly referred back to an earlier post in this thread where he link-spams his previous adventures on other forums. Since this thread has a special restriction against linking to debates elsewhere, it is disingenuous of FF88 to ask us to address a debate made elsewhere when we don't have the ability to document our references to it. If you follow the endless chain of hyperlinks back to the alleged "admission," and then manually expand to view the entire thread (not just the single post FF88 lets you see), you get a different, much clearer picture.

FF88, posting as "David C," keeps trying to bait HLaR into explicitly repudiating my statement or explicitly calling me a liar or paid shill. Naturally he refused, saying:

IN MY OPINION they [Jay et al.] didn't completely refute your argument.

MY OPINION may be wrong, and they may be right. Or, they may have been mistaken. Or, they may have fed you a porkie. Or, something else. (For example, you may have bored them to distraction with your robotic, repetetive, inane postings, and they simply tried to make you STFU. Who would blame them?)

I simply don't care, like I've explained to you umpteen times! If YOU care (and given that you've made it your purpose in life to raise the issue at every possible opportunity), kindly discuss it with someone who thinks it IS an issue.

THAT PERSON IS NOT ME!

FF88 doesn't want you to see where HLaR admits it may be he who is wrong. When FF88 presses HLaR to try to straighten me out and be his proxy, HLaR responds:

You seem to be playing games here. You don't give a [expletive] about whether Jay Windley or anyone else on Apollohoax.net is 'enlightened' or otherwise: you think they are all paid shills. You just want me to waste my time engaging them in a pointless discussion that I don't care about.

He's simply tired of FF88 trying to bait him.

If you read the thread in context, you can see that the overarching theme in FF88's argument is desperately trying to bait someone into disagreeing with Jay. The remainder of the posts are "Jay is wrong about this," and "Jay is wrong about that." Since 2007, FatFreddy88 has gained a reputation as a serial spammer with a sick personal obsession over me. The facts bear this out in spades, but of course not any facts you'll be hearing from FF88.
 
Twice on this thread I pointed out that a regular pro-Apollo poster from the Clavius forum agreed that Jay Windley was wrong about the dust-free sand issue. Here's the post where I first mentioned this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8141778&postcount=7982

You have to click on the fourth link from the top to see the part where he agreed with me. Go to the preceding page to see more.

I don't think I ever got an answer. Let's hear what everybody thinks.

There's a Clavius forum?
Got a link?

ETA: how about a link to the original post by this supposed supporter of yours rather than a link to YOUR post in which YOU say that you have such support?
Why are you afraid to post such a link?

BUT DON'T FORGET THAT LINK TO A THE CLAVIUS FORUM PLEASE!
 
Last edited:
And then, after the [redacted], we all like to [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted], while we [redacted] our [redacted] over one shoulder into a bowl on the the [redacted] and [redacted] our [redacted] with a melon.

Dave

[redacted]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom