Moon hoax - not seen this debunked?

ApolloGnomon said:
I've wandered into "that" forum where he posts, and I've wondered . . .

is he for real??

I have a hard time believing an adult could be that dense.
Click to expand...
.
I've talked to Jack on Compuserve's Conspiracy forum years back.
He is sincere.
But really really strange when it comes to looking at photos.
Even though living in Dallas, with access to Dealey Plaza and help, he gets it wrong.
He'd discovered this gal moving across the infield in the Zapruder film was 8 feet tall!
Compared her image size to the lamp post, which he and that other doofus Groden measured during filming of some JFK film thing..
When I posted this, Deany Richards of JFK Lancer said that she'd talked to that lady, who had been identified, and she was just barely 5 feet tall.
 

Attachments

  • jrBZRL.jpg
    jrBZRL.jpg
    48.5 KB · Views: 11
I think it was another Jack White when he found at a blue car parked near WTC7 early on the day, yet in a picture after the buildings had collapsed some sneaky conspiracy had snuck in, towed it away, and replaced it with a similar-looking brown or black car....
 
And the buildings, which he said were grey (instead of black) and therefore... fakery!
 
Obviousman said:
And the buildings, which he said were grey (instead of black) and therefore... fakery!
Click to expand...

How about the claim that building 6 exploded BEFORE either tower collapsed and nobody noticed? All based on a single doctored video frame.
 
frenat said:
How about the claim that building 6 exploded BEFORE either tower collapsed and nobody noticed? All based on a single doctored video frame.
Click to expand...
.
He works with what he has.
I've been told a medication that requires taking one pill twice a day is beyond his comprehension.
 
I Ratant said:
.
He works with what he has.
I've been told a medication that requires taking one pill twice a day is beyond his comprehension.
Click to expand...

That would explain why he ignored when I provided proof that the frame in question not only came from during the collapse of the first tower (his explosion cloud was just the dust rising from the collapse) but that it was also from about 2 hours later when they were showing clips from various angles. That was why it also had the news crew talking to Tom Clancy.

I provided a link to the clip his single frame came from and showed how the tower was collapsing and how the time stamp that he claimed was legit was NOT on the original footage and he accused me of doctoring all of that.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
The proof that the moon mission were faked is crushing. Here's a link to some of it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html
Click to expand...

Question to you. Do you understand what a debate is?

The reason I ask is because in every forum you have spammed on, you seem to get your behind kicked into smithereeens.

Did it ever occur to you to read the answers given, or watch the videos presented to you, then offer a counter argument in a coherent manner?

Plastering the same link over and over again is called spamming. Ignoring responses is just ignorant. It seems to be a common theme adopted by HBs all over the internet.
 
Every time I sit down for a few hours and analyze the responses to my posts and respond to them, the next day all the posts in which I'd made my main points have been deleted and sent to the section called "Abandon All Hope" which can only be read by members who are logged in. The viewers then read a debate in which your arguments aren't properly addressed and it looks like I chickened out when I had in fact addressed them properly. This forum is not neutral ground; that's probably why Jarrah White won't waste time debating here.
 
If you read the member agreement and complied with the rules for posting you wouldn't have any problems.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Every time I sit down for a few hours and analyze the responses to my posts and respond to them, the next day all the posts in which I'd made my main points have been deleted and sent to the section called "Abandon All Hope" which can only be read by members who are logged in. The viewers then read a debate in which your arguments aren't properly addressed and it looks like I chickened out when I had in fact addressed them properly. This forum is not neutral ground; that's probably why Jarrah White won't waste time debating here.
Click to expand...

You don't respond to all the posts at all. You repeatedly ignore them and it seems to be a regular occurence with all HBs.

Take for instance your repetitive assertions about Michael Collins and his weightless jacket - where the corner according to you is in gravity. They are quite frankly absurd. On the one hand you argue that it must be in gravity, when the whole sequence is littered with signs of weightlessness, then present a backup position that it was filmed on a plane and they got careless. You seem oblivious to the glaring contradictions, where this 'jacket animaly' occurs during other instances of weightlessness, and there is no other sign of gravity apart from what you (and it appears only you!) can actually see.

The word 'plausible' that you frequently use to describe anything that you assert, belies the fact that it is always anything but.
 
Here are some other threads where I got banned because I was winning the debate.
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=49656
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=109609
(this one was closed and is about to disappear completely)

You can pretend all you want. Censorship is only necessary when a lie is being defended. If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.

People can read about the anomalies you mentioned in those two threads and decide for themselves whether your analyses of them are valid.

Can you point to anything I'd done to merit getting banned in those two threads? In the first one the guy who banned me said the footprints on the moon could be seen with a telescope on earth. What do you think of him and his banning me?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.
Click to expand...


Why is it Conspiracy Theorists never ever think through the implications of what they post?

The implication of your post is this: If a theory is right, it will become accepted by all but the crankiest cranks. You've been spouting the same nonsense for how many years? And still your theory isn't accepted.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Here are some other threads where I got banned because I was winning the debate......
Click to expand...

Define winning. I could go outside now and out argue my next door neighbour's 3 year old. You won't 'win' any debates with people who understand the sciences that you obviously do not.

Censorship is only necessary when a lie is being defended. If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.
Click to expand...

How is the action of a forum moderator relevant to truth? What they want appearing on their forums is their business, equating it to censorship is ridiculous. They may view your actions as being a repeat forum troll, with a history of avoiding acknowledging any of the points raised.

I would also say, that including this forum, you have now referred to about 6 other ones where you have made identical posts. I find your actions rather weird.

Can you point to anything I'd done to merit getting banned in those two threads? In the first one the guy who banned me said the footprints on the moon could be seen with a telescope on earth. What do you think of him and his banning me?
Click to expand...

He's a very naughty man for 'censoring' you:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.
Click to expand...

Only to those who have the sense to see it is wrong; there are numerous examples of hoaxers blissfully ignoring provable facts and continuing to chant their own mantra undeterred. Logic, evidence and fact are words the hoaxers use but do not understand.
 
Can any of you three people who replied to my last post point out anything I did in this thread that you think justified my getting banned?
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=49656

I didn't get banned here but the thread got closed.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=109609
(Do this one fast as it's about to disappear.)

Can any of you three point out anything that justified closing the thread?

Look what the moderator said.
And while we often enough remove conspiracy theories to Pseudoscience, I think it's fair to wait until someone comes up with something of substance, instead of sheer noise and bluster.
Click to expand...
Anyone who actually reads it can see it's full of substance and the pro-Apollo posters were the ones who were all sheer noise and bluster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom