Merged: Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Buckaroo]

Once again I ask, this time in regards to FatFreddy, whether it is indeed good sport to engage and taunt those who are clearly mentally ill. Schadenfreude is not a noble pleasure.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

I posted some strong evidence to the contrary in this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...32&postcount=1

Click on the bottom link.

So which posts should we read, there...cosmored, or fat freddy's?



Is that website aware that you are "playing with puppets"? Perhaps an email to the adminstration.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Once again I ask, this time in regards to FatFreddy, whether it is indeed good sport to engage and taunt those who are clearly mentally ill.

If you really believe this to be true, then PM the mods/admin. with your concerns. they are solely responsible for the continuation of this thread.

Personally, when anyone tries to tell me that Apollo was faked, they then become "fair game".



Certainly ain't gonna lose any sleep over the mental state of other posters....not only is it not my "problem", but what is the alternative?...allow him to post anything his whim desires, unchallenged.

Hell no....

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Once again I ask, this time in regards to FatFreddy, whether it is indeed good sport to engage and taunt those who are clearly mentally ill. Schadenfreude is not a noble pleasure.

I'm not qualified to determine whether someone is mentally ill, and I doubt you are either. I am however qualified to determine whether someone is reasoning inappropriately (for whatever reason), and I will address statements on that basis. Further, FatFreddy88 has made statements elsewhere that could be considered defamatory against me and others. I believe I am within my rights to attempt to hold him accountable for those statements.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

If you really believe this to be true, then PM the mods/admin. with your concerns. they are solely responsible for the continuation of this thread.

Personally, when anyone tries to tell me that Apollo was faked, they then become "fair game".



Certainly ain't gonna lose any sleep over the mental state of other posters....not only is it not my "problem", but what is the alternative?...allow him to post anything his whim desires, unchallenged.

Hell no....

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I'm not qualified to determine whether someone is mentally ill, and I doubt you are either. I am however qualified to determine whether someone is reasoning inappropriately (for whatever reason), and I will address statements on that basis. Further, FatFreddy88 has made statements elsewhere that could be considered defamatory against me and others. I believe I am within my rights to attempt to hold him accountable for those statements.

Both good points. I suppose it's hard for me to understand how someone who is so single-mindedly and obsessively deluded (not just about the facts of Apollo, but also about his own abilities and arguments) could be considered mentally healthy. But of course I've never read the DSM, so I'm going by a folk conception of sanity.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

You people are tap dancing around my request instead of addressing it. If this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you right now. Please address the issue I raised.

Your position is that the flag didn't move because of air so tell us how it would move if air made it move. How would it be different?


I posted some strong evidence to the contrary in this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...32&postcount=1

Click on the bottom link.

What effect would 1/6th Earth gravity and no atmosphere have on a flag? No links please, answer in your own words.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Both good points. I suppose it's hard for me to understand how someone who is so single-mindedly and obsessively deluded (not just about the facts of Apollo, but also about his own abilities and arguments) could be considered mentally healthy. But of course I've never read the DSM, so I'm going by a folk conception of sanity.

Hey, you see people that single-mindedly deluded in the business world. Sometimes thet rise to CEO and take whole companies with them when they finally crash and burn.

[FatFreddy88]

Quote:

FatFreddy88 has made statements elsewhere that could be considered defamatory against me and others.

The truth is not defamatory. People can see what I've said and decide for themselves. Look at link at the bottom of this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=128


Hey Jay.

My position is that the movement of the flag in this clip is consistent with the atmphere explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
(2:36 time mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

If your position is that this footage wasn't taken in air, how would the flag move in air? How would the movement be different than it is?

[FatFreddy88]

Quote:

What effect would 1/6th Earth gravity and no atmosphere have on a flag?

It would swing wider and it wouldn't come to a stop as quickly as the Apollo flag does in this video at the 2:00 and 2:15 time marks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

It would continue swinging back and forth the way the flag does at the 00:50 time mark.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

It would swing wider and it wouldn't come to a stop as quickly as the Apollo flag does in this video at the 2:00 and 2:15 time marks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

It would continue swinging back and forth the way the flag does at the 00:50 time mark.

That would depend upon how much impetus was given to the flag. How many experiments have you carried out with flags in a vacuum? If it was a hoax do you think that NASA would be stupid enough to release footage that gives the whole thing away? Use your brain man.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

Hey Jay.

I have told you what you must do first before attempting to engage me directly again.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Both good points. I suppose it's hard for me to understand how someone who is so single-mindedly and obsessively deluded (not just about the facts of Apollo, but also about his own abilities and arguments) could be considered mentally healthy. But of course I've never read the DSM, so I'm going by a folk conception of sanity.

Sure, and by those standards nearly every conspiracy theorist on here would be considered nuts by at least somebody. And on the other side of the coin, I know people who have been diagnosed by fully qualified psychiatrists as mentally ill in some respect or another, but who nevertheless have full reasoning faculties. "Rational" and "mentally ill" are not opposites.

FatFreddy88 is clearly irrational. That much we can conclude by observation. You may argue that he is so irrational as to preclude intelligent conversation with him, and many would agree with you. But I see no reason why he deserves sympathy, at this point.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

FatFreddy88 is clearly irrational. That much we can conclude by observation. You may argue that he is so irrational as to preclude intelligent conversation with him, and many would agree with you. But I see no reason why he deserves sympathy, at this point.

Point conceded. Agreed.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Point conceded. Agreed.

I shake your hand, good sir.

[FatFreddy88]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=43

Quote:

Cosmored's claim that I will debate only when there are moderators to "ride to [my] rescue" is false, misleading, and highly misrepresentative of the nature of the debates I participate in.

Why don't you come over to the moon thread at Spurstalk? That's one of the few places I've seen where the moderators don't use their power to tie the hands of the hoax-believers.

Quote:

I have entertained several third-party requests to present my views in public under my real identity. Those requests have come from the journal Science, The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The History Channel, National Geographic, The Ron Reagan Show, the Discovery Channel, and a host of skeptics organizations. In many or most of these cases, noted conspiracy theorists are also invited to present their views. Some agree, most don't. In a few cases, they demand exorbitant appearance fees.

I'd be very surprised if one of the above venues would permit the showing of the clearest hoax evidence such as these two videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

...or the way Collins' jacket corner bounced up and down the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=230521

That proof is simply too clear to obfuscate. MythBusters didn't dare show the above flag footage.

Quote:

Cosmored's spurstalk.com post goes on to link here to a debate at IMDb between me and Jarrah White. He asserts that Jarrah left that debate because the moderators were deleting his posts. In fact, the moderators deleted only one of his posts, which contained foul and abusive language.

Jarrah knows why the post was deleted; he posted a cleaned-up version of it later than day, but then tried to tell his fans that IMDb was preventing him from posting key evidence that would have proven his claim. Further, IMDb was Jarrah's choice of forum to debate in, not mind, and he explicitly agreed to be moderated there. He chose the venue and accepted the ground rules. His inability to follow them is his fault and his alone.

Jarrah debated for a considerable length of time after he was moderated, before finally resigning the debate. He resigned because he was losing badly the argument he had made regarding solar weather. It was becoming increasingly clear that he had incompetently misinterpreted the NOAA data (which Cosmored also alludes to in his post, when discussing Ralph Rene) and was being held accountable for it. His attempts to replay debunked arguments had failed, and his attempts to change the subject to Apollo 1 had failed. Further, he was also being held accountable to respond to an Australian poster's invitation to set up a panel of academics in Jarrah's area to endorse Jarrah's findings in person.

I'd like to hear Jarrah's side of this story. We have no way of confirming anything you've said. All we have is your word.

Quote:

Cosmored's claim that I will debate only when there are moderators to "ride to [my] rescue" is false, misleading, and highly misrepresentative of the nature of the debates I participate in.

When I debated at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums, the moderators tied my hands so that I couldn't properly make my case.

Quote:

Ideally I would like him to debate at BAUT, where the moderation for conspiracy theories includes rules that require proponents to focus on the debate and evidence, rather than upon debate tactics.

Now at Baut, when a hoax-believer makes a post, a note comes up saying that the post will have to be approved by a moderator before it can appear. If it's something that's too clear to obfuscate, it doesn't appear.

Quote:

In no online forum where I debate do I have any authority to control who posts, what is posted, or what may be said to or about me. I post here, at BAUT, and at Apollhoax.net. None of the moderators at any of these places bow to my will.

You don't have to; they do it on their own.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

People can see what I've said and decide for themselves.

Fairly irrelevant since no one here (excepting one person) agrees with you.

240 - 1...against, is not something to "brag" about, yet you keep posting that "they deicde for themselves".

Well, they have decided and found your ideas "wanting".

Quote:

My position is that the movement of the flag in this clip is consistent with the atmphere explanation.

...and you would be incorrect....nothing wrong with making mistakes...everyone has at one time or another. It only becomes a "problem" when against all evidence, you "choose" to embrace those mistakes.

Quote:

If your position is that this footage wasn't taken in air, how would the flag move in air? How would the movement be different than it is?

Irrelevant...watch the mythbusters episode where the "build team" demonstrate the difference...


Then concede your error.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

Why don't you come over to the moon thread at Spurstalk? That's one of the few places I've seen where the moderators don't use their power to tie the hands of the hoax-believers.

So you can promote irrationality without interference?

Sorry, I have no reason to join a "spurs" message board...

Quote:

I'd be very surprised if one of the above venues would permit the showing of the clearest hoax evidence such as these two videos...

So you really haven't learned a thing from the poll, have you.

Quote:

MythBusters didn't dare show the above flag footage.

...and that is what I would call a flat out lie.

But go ahead....dig yourself in deeper.

Quote:

I'd like to hear Jarrah's side of this story. We have no way of confirming anything you've said. All we have is your word.

...you've chosen to take the word of an ignorant, proven liar...but you won't take the word of someone with actual expertise...

I'd call that willful ignorance....congratulations on exposing yourself for all to see...

Quote:

When I debated at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums, the moderators tied my hands so that I couldn't properly make my case.

You don't understand what a debate "is"...what it isn't, is someone spouting garbage, and not being held accoutable for hoax believer lies.

Quote:

Now at Baut, when a hoax-believer makes a post, a note comes up saying that the post will have to be approved by a moderator before it can appear. If it's something that's too clear to obfuscate, it doesn't appear.

...and again YOU LIE. Do you think no one here reads the BAUT board??


Liars who continually lie are not going to be convincing TO ANYONE.


Remember the poll??

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

MythBusters didn't dare show the above flag footage.

Aside...re-watched the episode in question recently, and had forgotten the flag waving experiment. the "build team" actually DID demonstrate that the flag waves longer when moved in a vacuum, than when moved in an atmosphere. The reasoning being no air resistance in a vacuum to slow it as fast as air resistance from one atmosphere.

So basically, freddy's idea re. the mythbusters is crap....no other way to say it.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

I'd like to hear Jarrah's side of this story. We have no way of confirming anything you've said. All we have is your word.

Prove that you have more than Jarrah's word.

[FatFreddy88]

Quote:

Now at Baut, when a hoax-believer makes a post, a note comes up saying that the post will have to be approved by a moderator before it can appear. If it's something that's too clear to obfuscate, it doesn't appear.
.................................................. ...........................................
...and again YOU LIE. Do you think no one here reads the BAUT board??

Why doesn't some lurker go and register at Baut and try to post the info that's in the link that's at the bottome of this post?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...32&postcount=1

I'll bet he or she won't succeed in getting on the forum where people can see it.

Quote:

If your position is that this footage wasn't taken in air, how would the flag move in air? How would the movement be different than it is?
Irrelevant...watch the mythbusters episode where the "build team" demonstrate the difference

MythBusters has been exposed as a sham by this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

An objective truth-seeker would simply answer the question. I want to hear Jay Windley explain it.

Quote:

MythBusters didn't dare show the above flag footage.
----------------------------------------------------------
...and that is what I would call a flat out lie.

Please link to where they dealt with this anomaly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

Quote:

Remember the poll??

I commented on the poll and my post got deleted. I can't speak my mind here about that poll.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

An objective truth-seeker would simply answer the question. I want to hear Jay Windley explain it.

No you don't. Satisfy my criteria first, otherwise no debate with you.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

I commented on the poll and my post got deleted. I can't speak my mind here about that poll.

...and I simply do not believe you....you have demonstrated a decided lack of personal integrity, and I just don't believe anything you have to say.


That's the "consequence" of exposing yourself as an ignorant hoax believer...people tend to not believe you.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

Why doesn't some lurker go and register at Baut and try to post the info that's in the link that's at the bottome of this post?

Well, this is just a guess, but they don't have any reason to do your dirty work for you?...that they know crap when they see it?

You were banned from BAUT for being unresponsive and not providing evidence for your ideas...that you are unable to understand that, is part of your delusion.

[FatFreddy88]

Quote:

I'd like to hear Jarrah's side of this story. We have no way of confirming anything you've said. All we have is your word.

Prove that you have more than Jarrah's word.

You're right about that but you showed yourself to be less-than-sincere at the Clavius forum. It's all explained in the link at the bottom of this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=128

I'd like to post the info directly, but I've been told I can't...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7988

...so please don't play dumb about the info there.

Yes, I know that the forum is called "Apollo Hoax Net". I refer to it as the "Clavius" forum so that viewers will know what I'm referring to; I've seen that forum referred to as the Clavius forum on a few other sites. A lot of people might not know what I'm referring to it I call it by its correct name. When I click on "Web forum" at this site...
http://www.clavius.org/

...that's the forum that appears so I don't think it's unreasonable to call it the "Clavius forum".

Quote:

No you don't. Satisfy my criteria first, otherwise no debate with you.

I thought I had in post #8135. You just want to avoid the question because you know that anomaly is too clear to obfuscate. You prefer to deal with issues that aren't as clear. I doubt you will ever address the issues I've asked you to address such as this one...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...32&postcount=1

...as they're such clear hoax evidence that any attempt to obfuscate them will be futile.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

I thought I had in post #8135.

Insufficient and unacceptable.

Quote:

You just want to avoid the question...

It's clear you simply want to play the same old games you've been banned for everywhere else.

You claim I know the Apollo missions were fake, and that my defense of them is what the government pays me to do. You will provide evidence for that claim right now, or you will withdraw that accusation right now.

[FatFreddy88]

Quote:

I commented on the poll and my post got deleted. I can't speak my mind here about that poll.
----------------------------------------------------------------
...and I simply do not believe you....you have demonstrated a decided lack of personal integrity, and I just don't believe anything you have to say.

Posts that get deleted on this forum go to the "Abandon All Hope" section that only logged in viewers have access to. Here they are.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=233480

Hey Jay-

Why don't you come over the moon thread at Spurstalk and we can discuss the flag issue and the issue of Collins' swinging jacket corner?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

....you showed yourself to be less-than-sincere at the Clavius forum. It's all explained in the link at the bottom of this post.

Oh, KNOCK IT OFF. You're opinion of Jay is irrelevant.

Quote:

...I don't think it's unreasonable to call it the "Clavius forum".

There ya go..."thinking" again. No one cares about your opinion....only that one lone person...who is NOT coming to your defense AT ALL. Why is that?

Quote:

You just want to avoid the question because you know that anomaly is too clear to obfuscate.

This is just another "version" of "you don't really believe what you are saying".

Why don't you stop that right now.

Quote:

I doubt you will ever address the issues I've asked you to address such as this one...

How does this in any way effect you, and your presentation of evidence that Apollo was faked?

Quote:

...they're such clear hoax evidence....

Clear as mud.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

Why don't you come over the moon thread at Spurstalk...

No. You lost the privilege of engaging me directly when you spent the last 5 years spreading lies about me all over the web. Now substantiate your claim or withdraw it immediately.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

Why don't you come over the moon thread at Spurstalk and we can discuss the flag issue and the issue of Collins' swinging jacket corner?

Why can't you present your evidence for a hoax, here? We all know why you want a "change of venue", and it just ain't gonna happen.


Do you understand?

[FatFreddy88]

Quote:

You claim I know the Apollo missions were fake, and that my defense of them is what the government pays me to do. You will provide evidence for that claim right now, or you will withdraw that accusation right now.

You showed you don't believe your own arguments when you made this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7990

That was your response to this issue.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7907

Sorry, but this issue is simply too basic to obfuscate. You're not fooling any of the real viewers.

You're also playing dumb about the info in the link at the bottom of this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=128

You may sway a few people who don't take the time to look at the info, but people who look at it will see you for what you are.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

Posts that get deleted on this forum go to the "Abandon All Hope" section that only logged in viewers have access to. Here they are.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=233480

What you posted is not evidence...it is links to other posts...you "do" understand the difference??...don't you???

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

You may sway a few people who don't take the time to look at the info, but people who look at it will see you for what you are.

Just stop it...no one agrees with you...


DO YOU UNDERSTAND, or should i repeat??

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

The truth is not defamatory. People can see what I've said and decide for themselves. Look at link at the bottom of this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=128


Hey Jay.

My position is that the movement of the flag in this clip is consistent with the atmphere explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
(2:36 time mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

If your position is that this footage wasn't taken in air, how would the flag move in air? How would the movement be different than it is?

Simple; if it were in air, it would move at different times (not just the one example.) Why point at the one time it appears to have been moved by the breeze of a passing astronaut, and ignore all the times it does NOT move -- even in the slightest -- in response to activity near it.

In addition, when it does move, it moves in a way inconsistent with being in atmosphere. It does not billow. The motions it makes are extremely un-natural for an object in atmosphere.

Plus, of course, there are other objects within the same footage that also fail to react as if they are in atmosphere.

Finally, the proposed mechanism (a breeze made by a passing astronaut) has not been successfully demonstrated by experiment. So, again, "atmosphere" fails as an explanation.

[FatFreddy88]

Quote:

Why don't you come over the moon thread at Spurstalk and we can discuss the flag issue and the issue of Collins' swinging jacket corner?
Why can't you present your evidence for a hoax, here? We all know why you want a "change of venue", and it just ain't gonna happen.

I presented an issue for you people to address, but so far, you've just tap danced around and avoided it.

I want you all to explain how you think the flag would move in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

Your positions are that it's not in atmosphere, so please explain how it would move if it were in atmosphere.

You seem to be checkmated by this issue. Objective truth-seekers modify their opinions when they see their positions don't add up. They don't tap dance around and hope the issue will go away.

I suppose you'd just tap dance around on the moon thread at Spurstalk too though.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

You're not fooling any of the real viewers.

The invisible "real" viewers, who don't EVER post...they can't even be bothered to vote in a poll.



Or are you still implying that there is some kind of censorship on this board...ya never know what will "set off" the mods. Perhaps if you repeat that enough times, you'll get banned. A "win, win".

Naw...that's just wishful thinking.

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

It would swing wider and it wouldn't come to a stop as quickly as the Apollo flag does in this video at the 2:00 and 2:15 time marks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

It would continue swinging back and forth the way the flag does at the 00:50 time mark.

Wider than WHAT?

How have you measured the original impetus? How have you determined the forces involved? All you have is the observation of what it looks like in the video. Your only way to judge the forces involved is by measuring the results shown in the video.

So the appropriate motion is -- exactly as seen in the video. This is regardless of whether the video was taken in atmosphere at 1 G or on the Moon.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

You showed you don't believe your own arguments when you made this post.

Nonsense. You're simply repeating the same inference that got you banned at Apollohoax -- anyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto insincere. You know that neither I nor anyone else accepts that explanation. Do better than that.

You say I'm being paid by the government to dispute Apollo hoax theories, which I know to be true. Present your evidence for that accusation or withdraw it. There is no point in my debating you at any time or in any place if your response to everything is merely to accuse me of being a paid shill.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

I want you all to explain how you think the flag would move in atmosphere.

...and I want you to stop posting nonsense....guess we'll both be disappointed.

Quote:

Objective truth-seekers modify their opinions when they see their positions don't add up.

Nice admission that you are most certainly NOT a "truth-seeker".

Quote:

I suppose you'd just tap dance around on the moon thread at Spurstalk too though.

You really need to stop with these "predictions". That is, unless you don't mind being laughed at.

[FatFreddy88]

Quote:

Simple; if it were in air, it would move at different times (not just the one example.) Why point at the one time it appears to have been moved by the breeze of a passing astronaut, and ignore all the times it does NOT move -- even in the slightest -- in response to activity near it.

I've never seen a case where an astronaut trotted by a flag in the same manner. Please link to one.

Quote:

In addition, when it does move, it moves in a way inconsistent with being in atmosphere. It does not billow. The motions it makes are extremely un-natural for an object in atmosphere.

It would take a bigger wind that 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.

Quote:

Plus, of course, there are other objects within the same footage that also fail to react as if they are in atmosphere.

Please point one out; I've never seen one.

Quote:

Finally, the proposed mechanism (a breeze made by a passing astronaut) has not been successfully demonstrated by experiment. So, again, "atmosphere" fails as an explanation.

I've never seen one that duplicated the exact condition; the astronaut would have to trot by at a forty five degree angle. I've never seen that done.

You have failed on all counts.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88

Quote:

Remember the poll??

I commented on the poll and my post got deleted. I can't speak my mind here about that poll.

No--what you can't do is make baseless accusations about sockpuppetry, which is a bannable offense.

You believe the poll was somehow rigged? Feel free to go to the Forum Management forum and post your claim there.

But you won't, because you have absolutely no evidence, and there are likely many members (yes, "real viewers")--me, for one--who participated in the poll willing to prove they are real people who voted freely about not believing your nonsense.

Your claims would be torn to shreds, and you know it.