We never went to the moon.

[David C]

But is he an honest engineer?

In the absence of anything to prove otherwise, yes he is.

Nobody I've asked agrees with him.

You are a liar. Unless of course you posed this question to some equally ignorant people. Nobody on any message board you have spammed this to has agreed with you(except a few idiots over the years).

There are a lot of paid sophists* working discussion forums trying to sway public opinion by obfuscating the hoax proof**.

Maybe, but for Apollo that isn't necessary, as there are thousands of Apollo enthusiasts out there ready to kick your backside.

This is such a clear issue that it makes a good objectivity test. Nobody who maintains that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over is to be taken seriously. You people seem to side with Jay Windley*** on that so none of you are to be taken seriously either.

The issue is very clear. You are wrong, you are ignorant, he is fully experienced. You have no case and your worthless opinion is irrelevant. You use "objectivity tests" to enable you to dismiss evidence that proves you are full of crap. You are an appalling coward by the way. I made a huge post with requests etc. and you've barely answered any of it!

I have never seen you answer this request below. You ALWAYS fall back to your spam post as your list, because you know that if you make such a list it can be directly and easily addressed to refute your claims.

List your best 10 pieces of direct evidence that show these so called anomalies. I'll start the list for you:

1/ The mega spammed Apollo 15 flag movement.
2/ Michael Collins jacket.
3/ ????

Debunk for your list:

1/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html

2/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html
3/ Awaiting the list that will never arrive!

 

[FatFreddy]

In the absence of anything to prove otherwise, yes he is.

The fact that he maintains that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over shows he isn't honest. You're agreeing with him shows you're not either.

Here are two more examples of his lameness.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...racy/page2&s=598c3741beaf539f0f868cc6e0294a6b
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/1584

You are a liar. Unless of course you posed this question to some equally ignorant people. Nobody on any message board you have spammed this to has agreed with you(except a few idiots over the years).

I was referring to these...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

...and a few people with backgrounds in geology whom I was acquainted with. I wasn't referring to any internet shills.

The issue is very clear. You are wrong, you are ignorant, he is fully experienced. You have no case and your worthless opinion is irrelevant. You use "objectivity tests" to enable you to dismiss evidence that proves you are full of crap. You are an appalling coward by the way. I made a huge post with requests etc. and you've barely answered any of it!

This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry. When sophists are checkmated, they deny reality and try to muddy the waters and eventually bury the issue. Then they go on as if nothing had happened. I've seen that pattern quite a few times.

1/ The mega spammed Apollo 15 flag movement.

Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.

(2:35 time mark)

The above anomaly proves the hoax all by itself. Start reading at post #21 here.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.15

Here's a discussion on this I had with a disinfo agent.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-move-so-it-was-obviously-in-a-studio.362999/

He has an attitude but he says some pretty lame things. He pretty much destroyed his credibility when he said that you couldn't duplicate the movement of the flag here on earth by trotting by it at a forty five degree angle.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nd-the-apollo-15-flag.438617/#post-1065699308
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796

2/ Michael Collins jacket.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1145.0

This anomaly is too clear to obfuscate. Betamax lamely tried to obfuscate it anyway. No matter how lame his arguments are, he does the victory dance.

He agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue so he's a known shill anyway. Debating with known shills is pretty much just a waste of time once they've said enough lame things for all of the viewers to see and realize they're just paid shills.

 

[Kittamaru]

Folks, seriously, just put the foolish little troll on ignore and go about your day happier for not having to deal with his bullshit.

 

[RADII]

There are a lot of paid sophists* working discussion forums trying to sway public opinion by obfuscating the hoax proof**.

Prove this absolute nonsense. The rest is nonsense, but prove this. I'll give you a headstart: they have paid disinformation agents on sciforums.com because almost 22K subscribers exist there, & if just 10% of them know the truth & are influential, then that's 2K people [out of 324M] we'll have that much of a jumpstart on controlling the flow of information to the uninformed population...

That sounds right?

 

[David C]

The fact that he maintains that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over shows he isn't honest. You're agreeing with him shows you're not either.

It would appear that you think your ignorant opinion has value. It does not. To reiterate, YOU are the one with no education on the subject, HE is the expert. What you think is irrelevant and moronic. NOBODY agrees with you on anything.

I was referring to these...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

...and a few people with backgrounds in geology whom I was acquainted with. I wasn't referring to any internet shills.

Ditto. Your worthless opinion is dismissed. You spam the same replies over and over and ignore responses. I made the list and you used it as an excuse to respam the moronic claims yet again.

This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry. When sophists are checkmated, they deny reality and try to muddy the waters and eventually bury the issue. Then they go on as if nothing had happened. I've seen that pattern quite a few times.

I don't care what younthink or claim. You are the least credible and most ignorant individual on the internet.

Apollo 15 flag,

Spam, already addressed in the given link.

This anomaly is too clear to obfuscate. Betamax lamely tried to obfuscate it anyway. No matter how lame his arguments are, he does the victory dance.

You are the one who does the victory dance, just before crashing into the manure truck. The anomaly has explanations, the least likely one being air. Video yourself trotting by a flag. Please don't "assess" my credibility, your opinion and you, are not even close to significant.

He agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue so he's a known shill anyway. Debating with known shills is pretty much just a waste of time once they've said enough lame things for all of the viewers to see and realize they're just paid shills.

He's a known shill? Known by whom? YOU? Show evidence that isn't based on your idiotic opinion. Answer his blog, coward.

List your best 10 pieces of direct evidence that show these so called anomalies.

I'll start the list for you:

1/ The mega spammed Apollo 15 flag movement.
2/ Michael Collins jacket.
3/ ????

Debunk for your list:

1/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html

2/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html
3/ Awaiting the list that will never arrive!

Complete the list coward. All you do is spam the same things, be a man, elaborate, say something new!

 

[FatFreddy]

The fact that he maintains that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over shows he isn't honest. You're agreeing with him shows you're not either.

It would appear that you think your ignorant opinion has value. It does not. To reiterate, YOU are the one with no education on the subject, HE is the expert. What you think is irrelevant and moronic. NOBODY agrees with you on anything.

You can pretend all you want but you've got no credibility now. Any seventh-grader could tell you that it would take a team of people hitting the placed sand with sledgehammers for quite a long time before there was enough dust to create a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. You're not a serious poster.

The dust-free sand issue is so basic that it makes a good objectivity test. You've failed it.

Go ahead and do the victory dance all you want. Nobody with any brains is going to take you seriously now no matter how authoritative and patronizing your attitude is. Something lame said with an authoritative patronizing attitude is still lame.

 

[David C]

He's a known shill? Known by whom? YOU? Show evidence that isn't based on your idiotic opinion. Answer his blog, coward.

List your best 10 pieces of direct evidence that show these so called anomalies.

I'll start the list for you:

1/ The mega spammed Apollo 15 flag movement.
2/ Michael Collins jacket.
3/ ????

Debunk for your list:

1/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html

2/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html
3/ Awaiting the list that will never arrive!

Complete the list coward. All you do is spam the same things, be a man, elaborate, say something new!

You appear to lack the integrity to do even a basic response. I find it amusing that you refer to anybody with brains. That disqualifies you completely. The engineer knows the problem. The spammer troll does not. You lost this debate years ago. NOBODY agrees with you.

 

[origin]

I think the 'moon landing' was actually filmed on Mars. Clearly the Uliminati are trying to keep the truth from us, and that truth is that we obtained technology from Reptilian hominoids (home planet in the Pleiades) that allowed space travel. The moon hoax was an attempt to dupe the sheeple and divert the fact that the powerful people can now live on other planets with out a bunch of lower class humans bothering them.

I'm sure there is a youtube to support that - I will find it and get back to you....

 

[exchemist]

You appear to lack the integrity to do even a basic response. I find it amusing that you refer to anybody with brains. That disqualifies you completely. The engineer knows the problem. The spammer troll does not. You lost this debate years ago. NOBODY agrees with you.

Do you really think this troll is serious? It's all a huge wind-up, surely?

 

[David C]

Do you really think this troll is serious? It's all a huge wind-up, surely?

TBH I don't know or care, I think he's mentally ill. He's been doing this for a decade, yep, 10 long years. He's posted on hundreds of forums, been banned from most of them, yet still makes the same identical threads and responses. He may think he's a warrior for the truth, as opposed to a blithering nutter


"A very troubled individual.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[birch]

Do you really think this troll is serious? It's all a huge wind-up, surely?

I have met people who actually believed this. Well, one actual person, in person. He believed in general government conspiracies.

 

[FatFreddy]

Can't a guy have a hobby? There are people who watch soap operas and reality shows all day. The idea of doing that makes me sick.

I enjoy starting threads on suppressed info and talking about it. Some people have sent me PM's and thanked me saying they appreciate my efforts. Here's some of the stuff I debate about.
http://well-temperedforum.groupee.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9130004433/m/6371082656/p/1

 

[exchemist]

I have met people who actually believed this. Well, one actual person, in person. He believed in general government conspiracies.

Hmm. It would make a change if we could get him onto Roswell or the Bermuda Triangle.

 

[David C]

Can't a guy have a hobby?

My god, you think your antics is a hobby? Signing up to Motorbike forums, Pot smokers, Cure fans, One legged Gnomes, anything at all, you sign up and do the same identical thread! That is mental illness.

You cannot possibly think every item on your spam list still stands, that is why I asked you to supply your top ten. You are afraid to do it. In addition to being possibly the worst spammer on the internet, you also act like a troll and ignore massive replies and numerous damning questions.

Now, provide the top ten anomalies you keep going on about, without referring to your wall of spam. Because every single point on it has been addressed and debunked, whether you agree or not!

 

[FatFreddy]

(from post #442)

Debating with known shills is pretty much just a waste of time once they've said enough lame things for all of the viewers to see and realize they're just paid shills.

I know you'll never admit anything.

http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. Butdisinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect topretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's justa job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communicationsmedium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, 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, or simply give up.
------------------------------

The only thing that matters is whether you're swaying the viewers. You all destroyed your credibility by agreeing with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue and all of the viewers have seen that so your success rate is probably close to zero right now. You can't save this by having attitudes. You might be able to bury the issue though and go on as if nothing had happened which is what usually happens when disinfo agents are checkmated in a debate.

Since your success rate is close to zero, there's really nothing more for me to do here except link back to where you're checkmated from time to time to thwart your efforts to bury it.

 

[Kittamaru]

Since your success rate is close to zero, there's really nothing more for me to do here except link back to where you're checkmated from time to time to thwart your efforts to bury it.

The only one checkmated here is you.

 

[David C]

The only thing that matters is whether you're swaying the viewers. You all destroyed your credibility by agreeing with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue and all of the viewers have seen that so your success rate is probably close to zero right now. You can't save this by having attitudes. You might be able to bury the issue though and go on as if nothing had happened which is what usually happens when disinfo agents are checkmated in a debate.

Since your success rate is close to zero, there's really nothing more for me to do here except link back to where you're checkmated from time to time to thwart your efforts to bury it.

You seem to be cowering in your boots at the simple request. I want you to do a top ten list without referring to your spam list which has been addressed hundreds of times. You are being a big coward.

NOBODY is agreeing with you. I don't need to "sway" rational, logical viewers and I certainly don't care about your useless opinion about my "success rate"!

Now Mr. Spam, let's have those anomalies in a nice easy to see 10 point list.

 

[FatFreddy]

I want you to do a top ten list without referring to your spam list which has been addressed hundreds of times.

Look at footnote number two in this post.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-22#post-3475257

I've never seen those anomalies debunked. I've only seen people try to obfuscate them and then just consider them to be debunked so I stand by them.

If you people were serious posters, I'd stick around and debate but since all the viewers have seen that you agree with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue, you've already lost if we measure success by your success rate at swaying the viewers.

 

[origin]

If you people were serious posters, I'd stick around and debate

Please don't.

 

[David C]

Look at footnote number two in this post.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-22#post-3475257

You appalling liar. Your dishonesty is nauseating.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...sion-of-a-photo.442528/page-3#post-1065891326

"A quick summary:-
1. Step 3 of the proposed process mentions applying transformations in image space, such as perspective distortions, independent x- and y-axis scaling, and rotations. First, some of these would not be projection-preserving, and thus are invalid in rectification. Second, there is no mention made of how the parameters for these transformations are derived. Hence they amount to manual processing and therefore cannot be scientifically reproducible.
2. The proposed antiprojection, La = Lb b/a, is linear. Most lenses do not implement a linear projection model, and the Zeiss Biogon explicitly does not. Hence the mathematical framework is simplistic and incorrect.
3. Fig. 7 purports to show a parallax difference between two Apollo photos that include a distant background. The author believes that because a geometric change is apparent in the blink-comparator, this should be attributed to parallax. In fact the method fails.
4. No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.
5. A simple contrast expansion of the "difference" image shows misalignment in the ridge lines consistent with a rotation between raster images roughly coincident with the original line of sight. The author has misapplied his broken method and thus interprets the difference in rotation (and possibly subsequent distortive attempts to correct it) as parallax.
6. Figs. 10 and 11 are similar. The author applies uncontrolled, arbitrary image-space manipulations that are not projection-preserving, then proceeds to attribute resulting misalignment of the raster to parallax. And again, no method is shown for deterministically deriving the distortion parameters; it is purely subjective and therefore irreproducible.
7. The author then imagines that the effects he introduces through non projective-preserving manipulations are explicable in affine space by a sort of concave screen. This is pure fantasy: a much simpler explanation exists, that of the ineptitude of the author's image-space manipulation and his fundamental misunderstanding of the actual projective geometry at work here. He has proven absolutely nothing other than his ability to produce in one instance a distortion map that corrects for the distortion he previously applied in another instance. There is absolutely nothing here that is valid or proven to be a method for determining the authenticity of photographs.
8. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography).
9. Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.
10. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Conspicuously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.
11. He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.
12. He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.
13. In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and assume that he got all the rest of it right.
I await your standard avoidance, obfuscation, diversion or other spammed response.
I attribute all 13 items to the expertise of Mr Windley."

This is where you point me to your concise rebuttal on this. But we both know you never offered any, so the debunk stands.

I've never seen those anomalies debunked. I've only seen people try to obfuscate them and then just consider them to be debunked so I stand by them.

You are ignorant of everything related to space travel, photogrammetry and basic physics. What you "stand by" is irrelevant. You run away like a whimpering coward and then go somewhere else to tell blatant lies.

If you people were serious posters, I'd stick around and debate but since all the viewers have seen that you agree with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue, you've already lost if we measure success by your success rate at swaying the viewers.

Translation: Now you are getting your backside kicked you'll run away for a few months. To reiterate, NOBODY agrees with you, there are no viewers who need "swaying". You however, need some psychiatric assistance.

List your best 10 pieces of direct evidence that show these so called anomalies. I'll start the list for you:

1/ The mega spammed Apollo 15 flag movement.
2/ Michael Collins jacket.
3/ Aulis and their "expert" on stereoparallax.

Debunk for your list:
1/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html

2/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html
3/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...sion-of-a-photo.442528/page-3#post-1065891326
4/ Awaiting the list that will never arrive!

Well, we've made it to 3 now, hurrah! Seven more please coward.