(from post #8600)
You said that you knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create a dust cloud when the sand is driven over...
All the people I know with backgrounds in geology laughed when I told them about that.
Really? Who did you talk to? Because going back to
post 7985, one guy seemed to agree with you; others disagreed or had inconclusive opinions; another guy whose endorsement you assumed said "the moon hoax is a stupid idea" and that you were "putting words in [his] mouth". (Note that
you said "Putting words in someone's mouth is a very low tactic", so shame on you.)
1.
What other persons with "backgrounds in geology" have you talked with, and what are their qualifications?
2.
Why is geology the most relevant discipline for evaluating this question?
3.
Why did you trumpet the apparent endorsement of one source but not mention the explicit disavowal of another?
You obviously don't believe your own arguments. That's only circumstantial evidence but who else would say such lame things?...
...Your behavior is the classic behavior of a disinfo agent. Why else would you behave that way?
OK, let's evaluate your behavior according to your criteria:
...an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance.
This fits you perfectly: You have been posting the same thing for years. Everywhere where you post, you get told you are wrong - even the "lurkers" you claimed support you have overwhelmingly rejected your arguments, and several have directly questioned your sanity. But you persist in repeating yourself and spamming the same links over and over again.
This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything,...
"We can't know that." "That evidence could be faked." "It never went there." "We don't know that." "Everything they say is a lie." "You can't say that you believe that with a straight face."
All in the face of detailed explanations by informed laymen - which you are not - and by actual experts with hands-on space flight experience.
Yes, this one fits you perfectly too.
...no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.
Again, this is you
exactly. In your years of posting, you have never altered your pattern of behavior, never altered your fanatical insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, never taken the time to learn anything about the science or engineering involved, and you constantly spam the same links over and over again. You continually dodge questions, misrepresent answers, and regurgitate the same claims from random web sites, even when they contradict you.
rocky/DavidC/FF88/etc. said:
You people have authoritative patronizing attitudes...
"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."
"None of you has any credibility. All of you obviously know that the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do."
"Any sixth-grader could see this."
Yes, that's you alright.
You clearly fit your criteria for being a "disinfo agent", and since you spend so much time on so many web sites vomiting third-hand arguments, you must be getting paid to do so. Don't whine about it; I'm using your reasoning.
4.
According to your criteria, you are a paid disinformation agent. Can you prove otherwise?
Worst of all, you continually employ that tool used by repressive regimes and anti-free thought thugs everywhere to stifle dissent and demonize the opposition: the loyalty test. "If you don't believe this video is a fraud, you are a liar". "If you agree with his opinion, you obviously don't believe what you are saying."
Where have I heard that before? Let's see, "If you're not with us, you're against us."
You
hypocrite.
5.
Please explain why you rely on loyalty tests while you lambaste others for not being free thinkers.
Oh, and in case you haven't noticed it the first umpty-ump times I've asked,
6.
You've said you live in Madrid. So you must not be far at all from Fresnedillas, right?
