Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
(from post #2308)
What does it tell you that all these real people - many with actual relevant expertise related to Apollo - actually disagree with you?
(from post 8312)
1. You claimed the "lurkers and viewers" at apollohoax agreed with you. Instead, they disagreed with you 19-0.
2. You claimed the "viewers" here disagreed with you. Instead, they disagreed with you 250-1, and 42-0 of the active participants went against you as well.
You people keep repeating this because you know my sincere answer might get me banned. I won't say it directly. I'll post this and you can try to infer my answer from it.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(from post #8310)
Click on the first link and go to page #42 and look at post #1187. You'll see the info that shows the government lies.
I tried. Post #1187 was not on page #42.

Post #1187 did not contain info that shows the government lies.
Page #42 just appeared to show some credulous hoax bleever getting his ass handed to him rather hilariously.
Click on the bottom link in this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

There is a direct link to the post. I made a mistake. It was post #1087. Sorry.

You people can pretend all you want but you all destroyed your credibility when you agreed with Jay Windley when he said this...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

...when he was asked to address this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

The debate is really over now as you've all been discredited and the real viewers and lurkers who've looked at it know so. You'll never recognize it though and you'll just try to control the damage by trying to bury that part of the debate. That's what always happens on moon-hoax threads when the pro-Apollo people lose so we truthers have to keep reposting the part where they lose to thwart them.
 
Last edited:
The debate is really over now as you've all been discredited and the real viewers and lurkers who've looked at it know so. You'll never recognize it though and you'll just try to control the damage by trying to bury that part of the debate. That's what always happens on moon-hoax threads when the pro-Apollo people lose so we truthers have to keep reposting the part where they lose to thwart them.

That is just pathetic. All your claims have been discredited. Not just the ones about Apollo but your claim that other boards censored your material was shown to be false, that there was some silent majority that supported you, shown to be false. If you are preparing to run away that's your prerogative but don't try and pretend you've achieved anything here other than revealing yourself to be an embarrassingly inept HB with an unhealthy fixation on Jay Windley.
 
You people keep repeating this because you know my sincere answer might get me banned. I won't say it directly. I'll post this and you can try to infer my answer from it.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>

The debate is really over now as you've all been discredited and the real viewers and lurkers who've looked at it know so. You'll never recognize it though and you'll just try to control the damage by trying to bury that part of the debate. That's what always happens on moon-hoax threads when the pro-Apollo people lose so we truthers have to keep reposting the part where they lose to thwart them.


So, without any evidence, you believe that 292 people who voted on the poll in this forum are "provocateurs", while the "real viewers and lurkers" silently agree with you?

Such thinking is paranoid and delusional. I would seek some professional help.
 
The debate is really over now as you've all been discredited and the real viewers and lurkers who've looked at it know so. You'll never recognize it though and you'll just try to control the damage by trying to bury that part of the debate. That's what always happens on moon-hoax threads when the pro-Apollo people lose so we truthers have to keep reposting the part where they lose to thwart them.

You keep throwing this canard out there, but apparently you're neglecting the results of this poll, which show that the "real viewers and lurkers" think you're full of it. You are the one who is trying to do damage control, and might I add, failing miserably at it.
 
The debate is really over now as you've all been discredited and the real viewers and lurkers who've looked at it know so.

This is really sad.

Your argument is that you insist it's practicable to wash truckloads of sand clean of dust and therefore men never flew to the moon.

In support of this you have some geologists who opine that if you really had dust free sand then transporting it would not generate more dust.

Opposing it you have the engineers view that you never really get it dust free so transporting it always releases more dust.

I have no relevant expertise, but I can see the hole in you argument.

So in fact you're just talking at cross purposes. And for this, you stalk Jay across the internet for year after year as you appear to have an unhealthy obsession with trying to prove him wrong about something. About anything.


The "real viewers and lurkers" have voted. We think your ideas are nuts.
 
The only discredited person I see in this threat is FF, they have totally failed to provide any hard evidence for their assertions when presented with hard scientific evidence they attack the person presenting it instead of providing any real counter evidence and have displayed no qualifications in any kind of scientific or technical field to allow them to make a coherent and serious argument.
 
Last edited:
...The debate is really over now as you've all been discredited and the real viewers and lurkers who've looked at it know so.

Hi FatFreddy88. Do you have an opinion as to my previous question where I asked why America's enemies haven't exposed the moon hoax, even though it would be rather easy to do so? For instance, Iran has orbital launch capability, so all they need to do is launch a relatively modest telescope into space and photograph the empty spots on the moon where the Apollo hardware is supposed to be. Why have they -- and all the other U.S.A. rivals with space capacity -- not done so, when the political capital they'd gain would literally change the world?
 
Last edited:
You people keep repeating this....

The cheek of this person, the worst spammer on the internet is complaining about repetition:eye-poppi

The debate is really over now as you've all been discredited and the real viewers and lurkers who've looked at it know so. You'll never recognize it though and you'll just try to control the damage by trying to bury that part of the debate. That's what always happens on moon-hoax threads when the pro-Apollo people lose so we truthers have to keep reposting the part where they lose to thwart them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8250684#post8250684

Listen up - run away like you always do, or answer the questions you keep avoiding. You are absolutely pathetic with your idiotic "credibility tests".

You are out of your depth and have nothing but cut and paste spammed LinkbarfTM.

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.....(snip picture showing Jarrah clearly did this!).

Now why didn't White's flag move until he was level with it, when the Apollo flag started moving at 6 feet away?

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?

Oh, and just for good measure, do you have anything to support the use of wave-blowers for neutral buoyancy?

Credibility test fail - "chinese faked their spacewalk" video maker says this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=U54siu8cEe0#t=74s

You can't make up this level of stupidity.
 
Last edited:
(from post #2308)

(from post 8312)

You people keep repeating this because you know my sincere answer might get me banned...

Again, you gain no sympathy for refusing to follow forum rules to which you agreed when you registered. But if your word means that little, so be it.

... I won't say it directly. I'll post this and you can try to infer my answer from it....

No, David, we're already past that point - don't you remember? The claim that everyone is a liar or sock-puppet has already been dismissed for lack of support. Feel free to bring it up again when you have any actual, explicit evidence for any of it.

Now, again, what does it tell you that all those people don't agree with you?

What does it tell you that I, an engineer actually working in this field, really don't agree with you?

Can you think long enough for yourself to face this question? David, what are you afraid of?

(You people can pretend all you want but you all destroyed your credibility when you agreed with Jay Windley when he said this...

Shame on you for your hypocrisy. You keep railing against oppressive regimes and whatnot, and yet you zealously use their "loyalty test" tool to stifle dissent and demonize the opposition. No, I won't subscribe to the tools of oppression favored by you and your repressive buddies.

(The debate is really over now as you've all been discredited and the real viewers and lurkers who've looked at it know so.

First, yesterday I showed that your authoritative patronizing scornful attitude is just another tool of paid disinformationists. I said in that post that even though you exhibited these signs, in spades, I didn't really believe you were one. But your persistence in doing might make me reconsider.

Second of all, where are all the "real lurkers and viewers" who support you? You have garnered exactly one vote in two polls, and at last count 269 votes against you.

Third, these are real viewers and lurkers. You may challenge their authenticity when you have explicit evidence otherwise. No one here is interested in your hypocritical loyalty tests.

(You'll never recognize it though and you'll just try to control the damage by trying to bury that part of the debate. That's what always happens on moon-hoax threads when the pro-Apollo people lose so we truthers have to keep reposting the part where they lose to thwart them.

In post 8312 I linked directly to forums where I reposted your information for you. And this is the thanks I get? I think I may have to stop doing so much work for you.

And when will you acknowledge that your predictions (that said information couldn't be posted) were unambiguously wrong? It's two mouse clicks away.

Now, back to (bolding mine)
...You people keep repeating this because you know my sincere answer might get me banned...

rocky, I accept that it is your sincere answer, as delusional as it is. I accept that you really believe it. In other words, I have done you the courtesy of believing that you believe what you say.

I have also stood up for you against people who have accused you of sock-puppetry (even though you then directly claimed registering a sock-puppet at BAUT).

I have also stood up for you against a number of people who said you were a troll. I think, as manifestly wrong as you are, that you really believe this stuff you endlessly repost, even the bits that are contradictory.

And, even though a few posts back I clearly identifed how your posting behavior is, according to your own criteria, clearly symptomatic of a "paid disinformation agent", I stated for the record that I do not believe you are one.

And yet, you can't do me even the most basic courtesy of accepting that I actually might believe what I say?

What does that tell you about your beliefs, and your need to protect them? Can you come out of your shell long enough to think about that?

Rocky, what are you afraid of?
 
FatFreddy88's criteria for engaging in debate: 1. must disagree with Jay.

2. Must agree with him otherwise they are a paid NASA shill.

3. He must refuse to answer telling questions.

4. He must continue to post the same stuff over and over and ignore all replies - see 2. above.

5. He must wait sufficient time between posts so that the telling responses are one or more pages back.

6. he must use the same rhetoric about sophistry, obfuscation, debating halls, lame responses ad nauseum.


Anyone could conclude that as delusional behaviour, or the act of somebody that is the opposite of a truth seeker, or the act of somebody with a hidden anti-USA agenda.
 
So... not only are there many lurkers who agree with him, but we somehow managed to prevent said lurkers from voting...
 
(from post #2308)

(from post 8312)

You people keep repeating this because you know my sincere answer might get me banned. I won't say it directly. I'll post this and you can try to infer my answer from it.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(from post #8310)

Click on the bottom link in this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

There is a direct link to the post. I made a mistake. It was post #1087. Sorry.

You people can pretend all you want but you all destroyed your credibility when you agreed with Jay Windley when he said this...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

...when he was asked to address this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

The debate is really over now as you've all been discredited and the real viewers and lurkers who've looked at it know so. You'll never recognize it though and you'll just try to control the damage by trying to bury that part of the debate. That's what always happens on moon-hoax threads when the pro-Apollo people lose so we truthers have to keep reposting the part where they lose to thwart them.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive

Humm...
 
(from post #2308)
...
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.)...

Oh cool. I'm a provocateur. I've always wanted to be a provocateur. It makes me sound so louche.

By the way FF88, I find your arguments jejune.



(I do apologize for this post, I normally wouldn't interrupt. I made it partly because I've always wanted to use the word "jejune" without getting a slap, and partly because it seems this thread has become so farcical that nobody would mind too much. Anyway, carry on.)
 
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive

Humm...

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.........simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. Example: "This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters." Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

Fatfreddy88: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialogue or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Fatfreddy88: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?

:boxedin:
 
I think it's telling that given all the evidence supporting the veracity of the Apollo missions (I suspect a complete list would be too long to post), FatFreddy focuses solely, almost obsessively, on a short clip of a flag that doesn't move the way he thinks it should and a quick shot of a jacket that doesn't billow they was he thinks it should.


That alone speaks volumes to the value of his arguments.




ETA: I'm a glutton for self-punishment...

For those interested Patrick1000 has shown up at ATs as Decisively

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread836449/pg1


I went there. It didn't take long for him to be asked what the purpose of faking the lightning strike was.

IIRC, he said here that NASA faked the lightning striek (for publicity, storytelling, or something), and that the lightning strike meant it was too risky to go to the moon and that the ship should have come right back to earth because the parachute controls might have been damaged (can't go to the moon with bad parachutes, you might not get back to earth safely. Better just to come back to earth) and the LM might not have worked (can't go to the moon without a working LM, right Apollo 8?), and therefore Apollo 12 was fake and everyone involved is a horrible lying criminal which proves that Apollo 12 did indeed go to the moon, but carrying robotics and automated craft (of which no records exist).

I think I hurt my brain...
(How has he not completely stripped the gears of his mental transmission?)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom