• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Vixen said:
I might have been regularly and horrendously victimised for no reason other than...
Click to expand...
...your own bad behavior.

Vixen said:
I have never bullied or victimised anyone.
Click to expand...
You claimed Marcus Allen had some valid and reasonable points that you thought deserved more deference. You accused me directly of treating Allen and others unfairly in the OP video.

Now here I am trying to defend myself against your scurrilous and uninformed accusations and you think my defense is "moot." How can you possibly be carrying out a neutral, objective examination of the hoax claims and their rebuttals if you are leveling accusations against one party and refusing to be questioned about the relevant evidence?

Marcus Allen claims we should be seeing stars in the Apollo 11 photos despite your concession that it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on film. Was Allen's claim based on an objectively reasonable expectation?
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
"Air is expelled at the rear in a tremendous blast of energy..."t
View attachment 72604
Click to expand...
The most hilarious thing about this is that the original seems to be completely in earnest, albeit fictional. It's the back-cover blurb for the August 1942 edition of Amazing Stories. And yes, there really is a more detailed description of these airships on page 238!.

archive.org

Amazing Stories v16n08 1942 08 (Ziff Davis : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Amazing Stories v16n08 1942 08 (Ziff Davis
archive.org
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I might have been regularly and horrendously victimised for no reason other than hate because of my interests but I am proud to say I have never bullied or victimised anyone. Glad to be a triple niner.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Stop playing the victim. Your arguments are being attacked - and yes, sometimes witheringly and mockingly attacked - because of your crazy-high levels of ineptitude and scientific ignorance, coupled with your astonishing level of imperviousness to any form of criticism or education.

And as for that "triple niner" bollocks...well, the factual evidence in this and other ISF threads would very strongly suggest that Mensa (or whoever) have got their calibrations completely screwed up.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh please. Stop playing the victim. Your arguments are being attacked - and yes, sometimes witheringly and mockingly attacked - because of your crazy-high levels of ineptitude and scientific ignorance, coupled with your astonishing level of imperviousness to any form of criticism or education.

And as for that "triple niner" bollocks...well, the factual evidence in this and other ISF threads would very strongly suggest that Mensa (or whoever) have got their calibrations completely screwed up.
Click to expand...
Maybe Mensa hired accountants to do their calibrating.
 
JayUtah said:
...your own bad behavior.


You claimed Marcus Allen had some valid and reasonable points that you thought deserved more deference. You accused me directly of treating Allen and others unfairly in the OP video.

Now here I am trying to defend myself against your scurrilous and uninformed accusations and you think my defense is "moot." How can you possibly be carrying out a neutral, objective examination of the hoax claims and their rebuttals if you are leveling accusations against one party and refusing to be questioned about the relevant evidence?

Marcus Allen claims we should be seeing stars in the Apollo 11 photos despite your concession that it takes tens of seconds to expose stars on film. Was Allen's claim based on an objectively reasonable expectation?
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to discuss the topic under debate.

However, I am not used to rough language and any man (who theoretically could be a rapist or wifebeater) telling any woman to 'stop wittering' disgusts me and makes my skin crawl. Yet I am instructed I have to take it.

Incidentally, you haven't addressed the radiation damage issue (fogging) which Allen raises re the camera film.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Oh please. Stop playing the victim. Your arguments are being attacked - and yes, sometimes witheringly and mockingly attacked - because of your crazy-high levels of ineptitude and scientific ignorance, coupled with your astonishing level of imperviousness to any form of criticism or education.

And as for that "triple niner" bollocks...well, the factual evidence in this and other ISF threads would very strongly suggest that Mensa (or whoever) have got their calibrations completely screwed up.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the topic under debate. If someone spreads a factually untrue statement that I am a moron then I will issue a factual correction and I don't care if the true verified fact of the matter upsets you
 
Vixen said:
I am more than happy to discuss the topic under debate.
Click to expand...
Apparently not, as I have had to ask the same question several times without any meaningful answer from you.

Vixen said:
Incidentally, you haven't addressed the radiation damage issue (fogging) which Allen raises re the camera film.
Click to expand...
Yes I have, and will do so again if necessary. But right now we're talking about a specific other claim so kindly don't try to change the subject.

Marcus Allen claims stars should be visible in Apollo 11 photos. Yet you tell us (correctly) that it would take tens of seconds of exposure for stars to show up in photographs with that film. Is Allen's expectation reasonable according to the facts?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
If someone spreads a factually untrue statement that I am a moron then I will issue a factual correction and I don't care if the true verified fact of the matter upsets you
Click to expand...
If someone spreads a factually untrue statement that I am a moron then I will issue a factual correction urging them to consider the possibility that, when they see me on TV or ISF, I am only pretending to be a moron.

:bgrin:
 
Vixen said:
I am more than happy to discuss the topic under debate.
Click to expand...
Then respond to the question regarding film exposure time, instead of engaging in histrionic attempts to deflect those questions by characterizing yourself as a tragic victim.
Vixen said:
However, I am not used to rough language and any man (who theoretically could be a rapist or wifebeater) telling any woman to 'stop wittering' disgusts me and makes my skin crawl. Yet I am instructed I have to take it.
Click to expand...
No more than you could "theoretically" be a child abuser or a petty thief. And I'd expect a "triple niner" to understand the formal meaning of the word "theoretically", as well as the meaning of the word "hypothetically". You're just doing that thing you claimed you don't do - playing the victim - because you don't like that you're being asked to acknowledge facts that destroy your argument.
Vixen said:
Incidentally, you haven't addressed the radiation damage issue (fogging) which Allen raises re the camera film.
Click to expand...
Yes, he did. Others have as well. You may ignore information that doesn't support your desired conclusion, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't see you pretending it hasn't been shown to you.
 
Vixen said:
However, I am not used to rough language and any man (who theoretically could be a rapist or wifebeater) telling any woman to 'stop wittering' disgusts me and makes my skin crawl. Yet I am instructed I have to take it.
Click to expand...
Wait - "wittering" is "rough language"? In what world?

(Or alternatively, on what moon?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom