You've almost made a career out of being factually wrong, so why should one more error surprise you??
Last edited:
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
You've almost made a career out of being factually wrong, so why should one more error surprise you??
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Why didn't you simply post a link to the discussion itself? You posted a link to Jarrah's parting shot delivered from his safe haven.
You can ask the many people who read it. Of course you simply dismiss them all as liars, so I'm not really interested in trying to prove anything to you. You shall have no debate from me until you've answered to me satisfactorily for your five-year obsession with posting lies about me in as many places on the internet as you can get hold of.
You shall have no debate from me as long as you insist that I and others secretly agree with you.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
I suspect the whole Apollo Hoax thing is just about on its last legs, because unlike some other CT's, this one is 100% disprovable. I just got my latest issue of Sky & Telescope magazine. The cover story is "NASA's Incredible New Moon," and it contains amazing images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Among the photos published in S&T are shots of the Apollo 12 and Apollo 17 landing sites. Not only can you see the lunar module decent stage, you can see actual footprint trails and (for the Apollo 17 site) rover tracks.
So there it is, complete and irrefutable proof that we've been to the moon and walked around on it. I suppose some Apollo Hoax believers will just say the LRO photos are also faked along with everything else; but really, do even they believe it anymore?
So there it is, complete and irrefutable proof that we've been to the moon and walked around on it. I suppose some Apollo Hoax believers will just say the LRO photos are also faked along with everything else; but really, do even they believe it anymore?
Erock
Muse
How very typical of FF88, he logs on, avoids answering any highly significant points, posts a load of spam and repetition, calls everyone a fraud and a liar, then scuttles back to spursforum to complain about his posts being censored when they contain spam about 911 and are off topic.
He didn't respond to this one either, which was a direct rebuttal to his Apollo 17 flag "anomaly that was too clear to obfuscate"TM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8182330&postcount=8243
He didn't respond to this one either, which was a direct rebuttal to his Apollo 17 flag "anomaly that was too clear to obfuscate"TM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8182330&postcount=8243
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, which is why most of the world has banned him or put him on perma-ignore.
Unfortunately that's his standard litmus test. If you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, that's proof for him that you're not objective enough for him to take your arguments seriously. Basically it's, "If you're not a conspiracy theorist, I don't have to listen to you."
BazBear
Possible Suspect
So you're now calling those of us who know that the Apollo missions are historical fact liars? I don't even know how to begin addressing this load of bovine excrement without violating the MA
Erock
Muse
I think his litmus test is even worse than that. It's the Chinese Spacewalk was faked nonsense, the main video being produced by a man who believes Apollo was real. I just shudder at the mental gyrations he makes to hold that circular illogic together.
He doesn't respond to the blindingly obvious debunks for that either.
Since when has that ever stopped any CT?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Right, we have nothing better to do than search the Web and spread misinformation. How do you know that the ones selling the hoax aren't shills?
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Why do you assume that others share your deluded beliefs? I do not know that the moon landings were faked - for the simple reason that they were not faked.
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Christ on a crutch. How many times has been debunked? Your links may prove something, but they do not prove that the landings were faked.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
It's not avoidance. I've addressed this all before and you're pretending I haven't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
It isn't more favorable to air movement. I tried running by a flag at a 45 degee angle and it move exactly the same way the Apollo flag moved.
Again, I've addressed this and you have the attitude that haven't.
If the flag obviously starts moving before the astronaut is close enough to touch it, we can conclude that its having been touched didn't make it move.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
Anyone who watches the above clip can see that this is simply not what happened. The direct distance between the astronaut's arm and the flag is more than a foot when the flag starts moving. You seem to be trying to sway those viewers who don't take the time to look at the footage as it obviously belies what you say.
No, it isn't possible as the footage clearly shows that the flag starts moving before he gets close enough to touch it. I'm referring to the direct distance between the astronaut's arm and the flag. I'm not talking about the distance between his arm and the flag when the astronaut is directly between the flag and the camera. The flag started moving before he arrived to that point. You seem to be trying to muddy the waters with these two different distances and confuse the viewers.
In a scenario in which air moved the flag, the rod wouldn't noticably move unless there were a bigger gust which would cause a bigger flag movement by which the flag would cause the rod to move.
In a scenario in which ground vibration moved the flag, there would certainly be both noticable pole and rod movement–not only pole movement with no rod movement as your doctored video shows–and the rod movement is what would cause the flag to move.
(from post #8153)
This is simply wrong. As I've said a few time before, it would take a bigger wind than 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. It's not billowing doesn't mean it was in a vacuum. It just means that the astronaut was moving fast enough to make the corner move slightly but not moving fast enough to make it billow. Any sixth-grader could see this.
This video shows that it wasn't a video artifact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
You people have authoritative patronizing attitudes but your actual arguments would get you laughed out of the debating hall.
Here it is...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/thread/133905495?p=1
...and here's Jarrah's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9TXFQLjg4
The people who say they read it and that he gave a foul-mouthed rant also agree with you on this issue...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990
...so they have no credibility.
Jarrah said in his video that you put conditions on your answering his questions. That's a good way to avoid issues that are too clear to be obfuscated. Some issues are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective and, if people try to obfuscate them anyway, they just end up looking silly. 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.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Nonsense.
The same conditions I place on everyone I debate: that it occur in public and that it be civil. Jarrah violated both repeatedly.
No debate with you.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
Hi FatFreddy88. Just for the record, what are your views on the recently published images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which show lunar module decent stages, as well as unmistakable signs of human activity around them (footprints and lunar rover trails)?
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
With today's technology those pictures are fakable so they don't prove anything. They also don't make the mountain of hoax proof go away.
Click on the bottom link in this post to see the proof.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
Pictures from other nations aren't proof either as deals can be made behind the scenes.
Do you think those pictures are proof that humans were on the moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRE7grId3sI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKj5fckUX-c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc2kijG8YdY
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You're making a mountain out of a mole hole.
Erock
Muse
Your lame attempts at obfuscation don't count as "addressing" something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
What a crock! Something directly in front of air is more likely to move than something 45 degrees away from it. This is so blindingly obvious it is just pathetic that you assert it.
I think you are lying about your home "experiment" - prove it! Now why didn't White's flag move until he was level with it, when the Apollo flag started moving at 6 feet away? You would be laughed out of the debating hall with your daft comments.
Your lame attempts at obfuscation don't count as "addressing" something. You are lying blatantly. You have not addressed this at all, you refuse to acknowledge it.
Now for about the sixth time......
Regardless of whether Jarrah White concludes this is not important!!! Did he show with his graphics that the astronaut was close enough to touch it. A straight answer please. Did his demonstration show he was close enough - here's a clue for you.....
You are totally cornered here, you know by admitting this it makes your case a pile of nothing.
There ARE NO VIEWERS who agree with you, or are swayable, and once again you are just blatantly lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ888vXaKNM
Squirming much? Avoiding the obvious proof much? Your replies are pathetic and lame and I asked if you had anything apart from your uninformed opinion, which clearly you do not.
I am aware of 3 seperate analyses done on youtube including Jarrah White, all showing that Scott was easily close enough to have brushed the flag with his elbow.
I didn't see your "atmosphere explanation" - the one that defies the laws of physics. can we have it please and some references or citations?
I'll respond to the rest of your obfuscating later.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
Ah, OK. I suppose it's fair to say your response isn't altogether unexpected. It does raise some interesting corollaries, however. For on thing, it means that the U.S. is continuing to perpetuate this hoax, by having NASA produce these fake pictures today. Thus the Apollo hoax isn't just something that occured in the distant past, it's actually ongoing -- although for what possible purpose I can't even begin to say, since the presumed reason for the initial hoax no longer applies.
There's also another issue: the LRO is beaming down raw image data to the Earth, where really just about anyone with the ability to capture the RF broadcast (which I don't believe would be particularly difficult for any government or even technically inclined and equipped group of individuals) could also capture and process it. Thus if the cited images are faked, the U.S. is taking a massive risk that someone unfriendly to our interests would capture and publish the pre-processed images, proving that they've been tampered with. So not only are we continuing with the hoax for some reason, we're doing it extremely stupidly.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
If that turns out to be true, why can't that image data be bogus?
According to that picture from the video he was but it doesn't matter because the flag started moving before the astronaut's arm was close enough to touch it as this video shows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
As I said before, when I say "Close enough", I'm referring to the direct distance between his arm and the flag. My point is pretty clear so I doubt your attempts at obfuscating this are having much effect on the viewers. If something lame is said in an authoritative patronizing way, it's still lame.
- Status