JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No you don't. Satisfy my criteria first, otherwise no debate with you.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
No you don't. Satisfy my criteria first, otherwise no debate with you.
...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.
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
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
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/forums/showpost.php?p=8014461&postcount=128
I'd like to post the info directly, but I've been told I can't...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8142390&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".
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/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
...as they're such clear hoax evidence that any attempt to obfuscate them will be futile.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Insufficient and unacceptable.
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
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
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/forums/showthread.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?
Oh, KNOCK IT OFF. You're opinion of Jay is irrelevant.
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?
This is just another "version" of "you don't really believe what you are saying".
Why don't you stop that right now.
How does this in any way effect you, and your presentation of evidence that Apollo was faked?
Clear as mud.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
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.
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
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
You showed you don't believe your own arguments when you made this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990
That was your response to this issue.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&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/forums/showpost.php?p=8014461&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.
What you posted is not evidence...it is links to other posts...you "do" understand the difference??...don't you???
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
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
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.
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.
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
Penultimate Amazing
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.
...and I want you to stop posting nonsense....guess we'll both be disappointed.
Nice admission that you are most certainly NOT a "truth-seeker".
You really need to stop with these "predictions". That is, unless you don't mind being laughed at.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
I've never seen a case where an astronaut trotted by a flag in the same manner. Please link to one.
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.
Please point one out; I've never seen one.
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
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
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.
Last edited:
- Status