Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[fess]

Tomorrow is over...

You got that right. You've "burnt" those bridges by posting lies...

It would appear to me that Peter has burned so many bridges that he has no way to get back across the river. In other words, he is stuck on the wrong side again.

 

[sts60]

Well, frantically spamming the Economist web site with dozens of sock-puppets does take a lot of time, even when the posts are mostly copy-and-paste gibberish.

 

[Philth53]

I've always wondered.

If the Apollo landings were hoaxed, (they weren't,) why are ALWAYS these absurd notions are always in the "Conspiracy" sub-forum, and not in the "Fact" type forums?

Phil

 

[000063]

Because we don't know any better and blindly believe the official story, duh.

 

[Belz...]

If the Apollo landings were hoaxed, (they weren't,) why are ALWAYS these absurd notions are always in the "Conspiracy" sub-forum, and not in the "Fact" type forums?

You mean, aside from the fact that the hoax believers claim there's a conspiracy to hide the truth ?

 

[Philth53]

Oh yes. What was I thinking?

Sheesh.

Phil

 

[sts60]

It would appear to me that Peter has burned so many bridges that he has no way to get back across the river. In other words, he is stuck on the wrong side again.

Well, he's got 20 of his imaginary buddies to keep him company - and that's just at The Economist alone.

 

[JayUtah]

No "Peter May" anymore. Maybe there was something in his "indifferent claret."

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

It occurs to me I could probably take P1k off "deep ignore" now, so this thread shows up when I'm logged in . . . .

 

[JayUtah]

I hope this helps to clear up any misunderstandings since my first post.

It does not. In fact, it adds to the confusion and misunderstanding. You were asked several times to state your posture regarding the testimony of an alleged Russian cinematographer. You have once again failed to do so, and instead have raised additional irrelevant points from an as-yet unspecified footing.

Here, once again, is my post asking you to clarify your intent.

My questions to Peter May are:

Do you endorse any of the claims made in the statement you quoted from the Russian cinematographer?

If so, are you willing to answer questions about it dealing with its credibility, content, and so forth, in the manner of the sort of debate that prevails here?

If not, would you please clarify your intent in posting and discussing it, and give us some indication whether your intent is being met?

Please answer those questions, and only those questions, without further delay. Thank you.

 

[Peter May]

I'm sorry Jay, I do not feel I am obliged to answer your questions, albeit after the fact you have changed your form of questioning from. Do you believe this alleged cinematographer's claims have merit? If so, elaborate. (A command) (not a request) If not, why did you post it? To, Please answer those questions, and only those questions, without further delay. Thank you.
I do not think my only recourse to being believed is to ”only” answer your questions, ”without further delay” Please understand I am not kindly disposed towards you.
The reason should be plain if you have read all the postings as I advised.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rules 0 and 12.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sorry Jay, I do not feel I am obliged to answer your questions...

I have no further business with you. [Added to ignore list]

 

[TheRedWorm]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

 

[Erock]

I'm sorry Jay, I do not feel I am obliged to answer your questions.....

Do you believe this alleged cinematographer's claims have merit? If so, would you please kindly elaborate. Now a polite request.

If not, I wonder if you could share with us the reason why you posted it?

Please answer these when you get time.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sorry Jay, I do not feel I am obliged to answer your questions

I do believe this concludes your purpose here.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm sorry Jay, I do not feel I am obliged to answer your questions, albeit after the fact you have changed your form of questioning from. Do you believe this alleged cinematographer's claims have merit? If so, elaborate. (A command) (not a request) If not, why did you post it? To, Please answer those questions, and only those questions, without further delay. Thank you.
I do not think my only recourse to being believed is to ”only” answer your questions, ”without further delay” Please understand I am not kindly disposed towards you.
The reason should be plain if you have read all the postings as I advised.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for quote of modded post.

Do you believe this alleged cinematographer's claims have merit?

 

[DJW001]

Here are a couple of my refutations to some of the fanciful ”studies” by Jack White et al that have been posted on Aulis. I wonder have any other contributors to the thread sent similar refutations to Aulis?

Here's an idea. You seem to have rather gotten off on the wrong foot here on this thread,which is dedicated to the mad ravings of a now banned member. Why not start fresh by creating your own thread where you can make your critiques of the Aulis claims without the cloud of ambiguity you have inadvertently created here.

 

[BazBear]

I'm sorry Jay, I do not feel I am obliged to answer your questions, albeit after the fact you have changed your form of questioning from. Do you believe this alleged cinematographer's claims have merit? If so, elaborate. (A command) (not a request) If not, why did you post it? To, Please answer those questions, and only those questions, without further delay. Thank you.
I do not think my only recourse to being believed is to ”only” answer your questions, ”without further delay” Please understand I am not kindly disposed towards you.
The reason should be plain if you have read all the postings as I advised.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for quote of modded post.

You brought up the Russian cinematographer's claims, so it was certainly fair for Jay to ask you what you think of those claims.

 

[threadworm]

Let's have some more clarity about the issue:

I believe the alleged Russian cinematographer's claims are entirely without merit, in that they display a lack of understanding about the technology involved in the Apollo landings and the LRV's part in them, and also some confusion about the techniques that his claimed profession would use in producing Apollo footage in a terrestrial studio.

The claims are merely vague opinion based on incomplete knowledge, and demonstrate nothing more than the standard Aulis technique of misrepresentation, obfuscation and paucity of knowledge masquerading as factual information from an 'expert' of dubious provenance.

 

[Peter May]

Hello Erock,
Vsevolod Yakubovich’s video is 2mins 22 secs long and might probably take a prize at the worlds worst video awards. Surprisingly naïve for someone with so many films to his credit, it has no credibility whatsoever. One of the reasons I posted the complete text was that I cannot post URL’s being a new member. I also thought the forum might find the complete text of interest, being easier to follow as apposed to the “one line, continuity of the video. I mistakenly thought this to be self evident. I realize now this was a huge mistake on my part, and will not be repeated. (Hopping, skipping, jumping, etc)
Please feel free to ask any other questions you might have. As I have already said I have many refutations to the fanciful Aulis “studies” they may be of help for the forum.

Best regards
Peter.