I cannot see the point of name-calling unless we are back in the school playground.
Could you show us all on the doll exactly where I called you, or anyone else, names?
My pointing out Marcus Allen's opinion about the Apollo photography a reasonable one and that I couldn't see it was at all 'debunked', as claimed, certainly doesn't follow that therefore I must be an antivaxxer and flatearther. (Do look up my comments in the COVID thread.)
If you'll reread my post for comprehension, you'll notice I didn't say you were either of those. I
did compare Apollo hoax claims to other conspiracy theories, and you've been accommodating enough in this thread to demonstrate exactly the sort of behaviors that I find so fascinating:
- Deciding a priori what you want to be true, and then trying to seek out evidence to prove it so.
- Ignoring all evidence that the claim you're supporting is objectively wrong and pretending that it still presents evidence for your pet conspiracy theory, such as by assuming that photographs taken on the lunar surface should show stars simply because the sky is black, and then ignoring all technical evidence to the contrary.
- Misrepresenting your knowledge of the subject in order to assert that you have personal experience that proves the claim you're repeating, even to the point of lying about how easily you've photographed stars on your own (with the implication that you did it with a handheld SLR film camera with settings that would also allow imaging objects in direct sunlight), then demonstrating comprehensively that you know so little about photography that you don't understand the simple reason the Apollo photographs don't show stars.
- Playing the victim when you back yourself into a corner. (see below)
It's not that you
are an anti vaxer or a flat earther (although they could certainly go on the BINGO card at this point), it's that Apollo hoaxers engage in the same behaviors as those who adhere to pretty much every other conspiracy theory, who think belief in these theories makes them special - among the very few too clever to be fooled - when in reality they aren't even clever enough to realize that they're saying all the experts are wrong about a very complex subject of which they know virtually nothing.
Simply calling someone a conspiracy theorist doesn't settle anything either. In China, a 'conspiracy theorist' claiming something horrible happened in Tiannamen Square will likely be taken out and shot at dawn. A CT-er in Russia scoffing at Putin's claim NATO was about to attack therefore he had no choice but to attack Ukraine will likely be despatched to a Siberian prison, stuffed with anti-psychotic drugs and made to stand in the freezing cold with water thrown over one until they snuff it from a pinch of poison in the cabbage soup.
As I am not American and don't 'salute the flag', please excuse me if my response to Trump's recent declaration people will be back gallivanting on the Moon saluting the US flag 'by 2028' - just because China made some noises - is a curled lip and a decent impersonation of a sarcastic Brummie: "Yes, mate!"
To add, it really doesn't make one a 'crazy democrat cat lady'.
Stop trying so hard to play the victim in the vain hope it will distract from your failed argumentation. We've all done
far more than simply call you a conspiracy theorist. We've demonstrated conclusively that you, and the sources you're parroting, have no idea what you're talking about. Remember when you claimed that the 70 mm still photos were suspicious because it was easy to take photos of stars? You claimed to have done it yourself, "no problem". Then when asked to describe how you did it you didn't respond for a while because, as we all knew, you were lying, because several of us
have photographed stars, and we know that your conspiracy theorist, who claims that you should see stars in photos taken with a camera set to f-5.6, 1/125 sec., with ISO 160 film, is either an idiot or a blatant liar. After making an a posteriori investigation into the methodology involved in accomplishing what you'd already claimed to have done, you realized your mistake. I know this because in a previous attempt to play the victim of nonexistent misogyny, you mentioned a tripod, which is necessary for the longer exposure times needed to shoot stars on film. But you couldn't admit to being wrong, so you tried to weasel out with a smartphone image of Jupiter. That's just one example of the many claims that you've presented that have been
empirically shot down.
And again, stop trying to childishly dismiss your opponents in this discussion as jingoistic, flag-waving zealots.
Again, the
worldwide scientific consensus that Apollo was real has
nothing to do with "because the U.S. government says so!". That's a truly pathetic strawman. Why don't you go to the U.S. politics section of this forum and see how popular Trump is. Then contact the engineering department of literally any university in the world and ask them to offer their input on any of the "evidence" you've dragged into this thread.
