We Never Went to the Moon

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
…
34
35
36
…
42

We Never Went to the Moon; It looks like we got fooled
Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 12:52 PM (27,399 Views)
HeadLikeARock	Jun 28 2009, 10:06 AM Post #851
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Jun 28 2009, 08:10 AM HeadLikeARock- Your behavior is the classic modus operandi of you regular pro-Apollo posters who regularly post at Clavius and Bad Astronomy. When you're cornered by an issue, you skirt around it instead of addressing it and hope it blows over and then continue as if nothing had happened. I assure you that you look very silly in the eyes of all people of normal intelligence. I also assure you that I'm not going to get tired. I can keep asking you this question for twenty more pages. So I'm asking you again to tell us if you think the behavior of these friends of yours is the behavior of truth-seekers. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 Here's another question. Is Jay Windley an objective truth-seeker? http://www.clavius.org/about.html Are are those regular pro-Apollo posters at Clavius objective truth seekers? http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories I can keep reiterating this as long as you keep trying to play down its importance- This issue is well within the bounds of the Apollo hoax debate as lots of people on moon hoax threads cite Clavius and Bad Astronomy as the final authority in the moon hoax debate. Whether the forums of those two sites are full of liars or objective truth-seekers is a bona fide Apollo-related issue and I assure you that you look very silly when you say it's a non-issue. Now please give real answers to my questions. You can keep on playing games for as long as you want. Your question has been answered. Have fun filling the thread with your BS for the next twenty pages. It's about what I would expect from someone who was egging on another member to hijack the thread, and demanding that he disclose the contents of a PM that had nothing whatsoever to do with you. Pretty slimy behaviour for a so-called 'truth-seeker'. If you ever get round to discussing evidence again, I might drop by to say hello.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


David C	Jun 28 2009, 11:32 AM Post #852
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	HeadLikeARock- It's impossible to corner a real truth-seeker as a truth-seeker modifies his opinion if he comes across something that doesn't fit what he thinks the truth is. If something comes up that doesn't fit his theory, he deals with it and he may have to admit that his theory is flawed. A truth-seeker has no problem doing this as he doesn't have a foregone conclusion; he sees where the evidence leads and finds the truth. A truth-seeker never plays down evidence that doesn't fit his theory. An obfuscator has a foregone conclusion and if he is presented with something that doesn't fit his theory, he plays it down and hopes it will go away or he tortures the evidence to make it fit his theory hell or high water. You are behaving like an obfuscator as you are refusing to address serious evidence that the Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites are government damage-control sites. Quote: If you ever get round to discussing evidence again, I might drop by to say hello. This issue is a very important part of the evidence. As I keep saying--lots of people cite Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites as the final authority in the Apollo hoax debate so the analysis of those two sites is within the bounds of the Apollo hoax debate. You refuse to give a simple yes or no answer to the question, "Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites in the threads here is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 " You can pretend all you want but you would get laughed out of the debating hall for the way you're dealing with this issue. Your behavior isn't too surprising considering that your one of those regular pro-Apollo posters at Clavius. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1 http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=postbaguk Jay Windley and the rest of your friends who regularly post at Clavius have no credibility and you have no credibility. It's pretty clear that you and Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo people who regularly post at Clavius know perfectly well that Apollo was a hoax. Truth-seekers don't behave this way. Quote: It's about what I would expect from someone who was egging on another member to hijack the thread, and demanding that he disclose the contents of a PM that had nothing whatsoever to do with you. Pretty slimy behaviour for a so-called 'truth-seeker'. This is total fiction. I don't know what kind of slanderous trick you've got up your sleeve but it won't make your behavior in this issue go away--everybody has seen it and there's nothing you can do about it.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


HeadLikeARock	Jun 28 2009, 06:38 PM Post #853
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Jun 28 2009, 11:32 AM Quote: It's about what I would expect from someone who was egging on another member to hijack the thread, and demanding that he disclose the contents of a PM that had nothing whatsoever to do with you. Pretty slimy behaviour for a so-called 'truth-seeker'. This is total fiction. I don't know what kind of slanderous trick you've got up your sleeve but it won't make your behavior in this issue go away--everybody has seen it and there's nothing you can do about it. David, David, David. You've been caught in another lie. Your last one went back 3 years. This one doesn't even go back 3 weeks. R1G1D-W1LL said: Quote: I do have a serious question for you though HeadLikeARock, what is your take on the theory that people within our Gov knew what was going down on 9/11. I know hijack thread just shoot me a PM with the answer if you dont mind. You said: Quote: I want to know what HeadLikeARock said. Don't worry about hijacking this thread. My bolding. Obviously, what I said was not 'total fiction'. Neither was it a 'slanderous trick' (you should have said 'libellous', either way you're clearly wrong). It was actually the truth, since saying 'Don't worry about hijacking this thread' equates to you egging on another member to hijack the thread: and saying 'I want to know what HeadLikeARock said' (in direct response to a request from another member for me to PM him) equates to demanding that he disclose the contents of PM that had nothing to do with you. So, not only are you actually guilty of the stomach-turning behaviour I accused you of (as anyone following the thread can prove for themselves), you've also been caught out in another bald-faced lie. If you think my comments are libellous, feel free to take up the matter with your legal advisor. I have a copy of your post in this thread that I've quoted from here, which proves you lied by saying 'This is total fiction'. I'm exceedingly confident that the facts support my position. Mr Shotgun, allow me to introduce you to Mr Foot. Ouch.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


David C	Jun 29 2009, 10:07 AM Post #854
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	Quote: It's about what I would expect from someone who was egging on another member to hijack the thread If you think this is egging him on, you're stretching your imagination. Quote: I want to know what HeadLikeARock said. Don't worry about hijacking this thread. I was telling him that I didn't mind if he raised any issue that is even remotely related to the Apollo hoax issue. Of course I'm not going to know you're referring to this when you say I'm egging someone on to hyjack a thread. The idea of egging someone on to hyjack a thread makes no sense to me at all. I had no idea you were referring to this as I wasn't egging him on to hyjack the thread. You people from Clavius are famous for your slick tricks but truth-seekers don't play slick tricks and only people with an IQ of 90 or below can't see through slick tricks. As I said before, this doesn't make your responses to my questions go away. Here are the questions again. Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? http://www.clavius.org/about.html Do you think the regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are objective truth-seekers? http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters who posted on the threads at Clavius and Bad Astronomy which are shown in this link below is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 You can start by giving a simple yes or no to all three. I guess you're going to lamely continue to refuse to answer which would get you laughed out of the debating hall. Remember that the viewers are watching and judging.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


weasel_turbine	Jun 29 2009, 09:24 PM Post #855
Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08	Where are all these mythical viewers DavidC? And this debating hall? Where is that? Are you in one? I'm not. I doubt HeadLikeARock is. If you think you're in a debating hall then you might want to get your head examined. Here's a newsflash for you. You're on an internet forum. Shocking I know. Its not run like a debating hall. It isn't moderated like a debating hall. It is NOT a debating hall. Your insistence that it is somehow similar is comical though. It provides us all with laughs. But while you're on the subject of this nonexistent debating hall, how do you think your actions would be judged in it? How would your lame, rigged credibility tests be looked upon? How would your consistent dodging of the evidence be looked upon? How would your acting like a total twat and expecting to get treated nicely act in various forums get looked upon? There wouldn't be time for anybody else to get laughed out of your nonexistent debating hall because everybody would be too busy laughing at you. As for your lame questions, you know damn well they are NOT simple yes or no questions. That is probably why you keep asking them. Do you really think people can't see through your lame tricks DavidC? Quote: Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? Which version of objective truth seeker are we going with here? Yours or the the rest of the real world's? He deals in facts. He understands the science behind the issues he discusses. When he gets something wrong he admits it. I have seen him get corrected and change his viewpoint. He treats other people with respect. That's five points up on you. Assuming you think that you are an objective truth seeker (isn't that a laugh!) then if the option is do I think he is like you? No. He is the complete polar opposite of you. He is somebody I would be proud to meet in real life. Is he a "truth seeker" like you (still funny every time I type it)? No. Not at all. He is heads above you in every respect. Is he an objective truth seeker in the way the rest of the world looks at it? Yes. Much more so than you'll ever be. Which is probably why you seem to be so obsessed with him. Kinda creepy by the way. Quote: Do you think the regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are objective truth-seekers? Most of them yes for the same reasons as above. Of course there is no "Clavius" forum. The forum you refer to is simply linked to by the Clavius website. It is run by somebody completely different and Jay Windley has no moderator or admin privileges there. As a "truth seeker" you would think you would know that. Especially as you've been corrected on it multiple times before. Quote: Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters who posted on the threads at Clavius and Bad Astronomy which are shown in this link below is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? Now this is definitely a loaded question. What about your behaviour? What about your annoying habit of pissing off nearly everyone you come in contact with? What about your accusations against multiple forums and moderators that they are somehow being influenced to lie about Apollo simply because they do or say something you don't agree with? Don't you think your own actions might have something to do with how you've been treated? Do I think that Bad Astronomy and Clavius are government run disinfo forums? I've seen no evidence of that. Would it matter if they were? Apollo is an issue of FACTS. If someone discusses an issue using FACTS does it matter who they are? Quote: truth-seekers don't play slick tricks Here's a question for you. Are you an objective truth seeker? Every forum I've seen you on you try to play your "slick tricks". You try to get people to fall for your lame, rigged "credibility" tests. You ask loaded questions. You accuse people of not believing what they post. You constantly refer to viewers who never seem to show up. You consistently avoid discussing facts. You act like a twat and expect to get treated fairly. How do you reconcile all that? I'm sure you'll play your usual trick (there's that word again) and twist around what I say into somehow meaning that I'm not an objective truth seeker or I don't believe what I post, etc. Everybody is onto you though. Nobody fall for your tricks DavidC. Edited by weasel_turbine, Jun 29 2009, 10:27 PM.
Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jun 30 2009, 05:56 AM Post #856
Posts: 1,939 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	WORLD EXCLUSIVE: NASA FINDS MISSING MOON LANDING TAPES Daily Express Quote: Sunday June 28 2009 byTed Jeory ECSTATIC space officials at Nasa could be about to unveil one of their most stunning discoveries for 40 years — new and amazingly clear footage of the first moon landing. The release of the new images next month could be one of the most talked about events of the summer. The television images the world has been used to seeing of the historic moment when Neil Armstrong descended down a ladder onto the moon’s surface in 1969 is grainy, blurry and dark. The following scenes, in which the astronauts move around the lunar lander, are so murky it is difficult to make out exactly what is going on, causing conspiracy theorists to claim the entire Apollo 11 mission was an elaborate fraud. However, viewers have only ever seen such poor quality footage because the original analogue tapes containing the pictures beamed direct from the lunar surface were lost almost as soon as they were recorded. Instead, a poor quality copy made from a 16mm camera pointing at a heavily compressed image on a black and white TV screen has been the only record of the event. The Sunday Express can now reveal that the missing tapes containing the original high quality images have been found. If the visual data can be retrieved, Nasa is set to reveal them to the world as a key plank of celebrations to mark the 40th anniversary of the landings next month. The tapes show in much more detail than almost anyone has previously seen the surface of the moon beneath the patriotic symbol of the US flag. Crucially, they could once and for all dispel 40 years of wild conspiracy theories. The low grade, dark and grainy television pictures that were beamed around the world on July 21 1969 were intended to give Americans just a glimpse of their country’s greatest exploratory achievement. Technology at the time meant Neil Armstrong’s film, recorded using a special lunar camera, went through a series of processes, each of which marked a step down in quality before it hit people’s living rooms. From the moon, the signal was beamed to the Earth’s closest tracking station at the Parkes Observatory in Australia where, along with other important data, it was recorded on to high-grade magnetic tapes. From there, the raw images were downsized to American television resolutions by a special scanner in Sydney, heavily compressed so they could be transmitted live, and then relayed to the US via the Intelsat III satellite. The final loss in quality came when Nasa made its US recording of the event—the one always seen in archive footage—by simply placing a 16mm film camera in front of a television monitor in the US. However, it is the original magnetic tapes recorded back at the Parkes Observatory in Australia that contained the unadulterated and highest quality images. To the later horror of researchers and scientists, it was those tapes that went missing. Houston finally admitted to the world it had a problem four years ago and launched a desperate plea for help, issuing a ‘wanted’ notice with clues to where the elusive tapes might be. Most suspected they had been shipped from Australia to an American archive and then mislaid. However, recently scientists looking for other data stumbled across a number of Nasa tapes in a storage facility in Perth, Australia. They thought they merely contained details of moon dust from several Appollo missions. But Nasa confirmed to the Sunday Express that they also contain the video data of the Apollo 11 landing. “We’re talking about the same tapes,” a Nasa spokesman said when challenged. Perhaps unhappy that a secret they had planned to grandly announce in three weeks had been rumbled, he added: “At this point, I’m not prepared to discuss what has or has not been found. “The research team is preparing its final report and we’ll release those findings publicly in the coming weeks.” When asked for an interview with the research team, the Nasa official appeared to give the game away. “Sure,” he said, “although we’re not likely to scoop ourselves on much.” i wonder if these are the same apollo 11 reels said to have been discovered in an old mcdonald's [of all places] a while back.....?
Posts: 1,939 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Lin Kuei	Jun 30 2009, 06:31 AM Post #857
Posts: 1,290 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Domenick DiMaggio Jun 30 2009, 05:56 AM However, recently scientists looking for other data stumbled across a number of Nasa tapes in a storage facility in Perth, Australia. Wowsers! How did they find their way to the most isolated state-capital city on the planet? That shit doesn't make any sense.
Posts: 1,290 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


Domenick DiMaggio	Jun 30 2009, 08:12 AM Post #858
Posts: 1,939 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	what makes even less sense is that i wasn't kidding when i asked if there were the ones found inside a mcdonald's..... http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=apollo+11+tapes+mcdonalds&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=OzgK0dwM7rU
Posts: 1,939 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


sap-guy	Jun 30 2009, 09:01 AM Post #859
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Lin Kuei Jun 30 2009, 06:31 AM Domenick DiMaggio Jun 30 2009, 05:56 AM However, recently scientists looking for other data stumbled across a number of Nasa tapes in a storage facility in Perth, Australia. Wowsers! How did they find their way to the most isolated state-capital city on the planet? That shit doesn't make any sense. Radio telescopes in Australia and Spain were also used to receive Apollo signals.* These were tapes actually recorded in Australia. Why they would end up in storage in Perth is a mystery probably explained by simple economics. *if you're interested, read my post somewhere in this thread about why the direction of the signals would be impossible to fake in any lunar hoax.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


JFK	Jun 30 2009, 09:12 AM Post #860
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Domenick DiMaggio Jun 30 2009, 08:12 AM what makes even less sense is that i wasn't kidding when i asked if there were the ones found inside a mcdonald's..... http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=apollo+11+tapes+mcdonalds&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=OzgK0dwM7rU What makes this story interesting is what is/was located at Moffet Air Field. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/home/directions.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Psychological_Operations_Group Edited by JFK, Jun 30 2009, 09:12 AM.
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


HeadLikeARock	Jun 30 2009, 02:03 PM Post #861
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	Lin Kuei Jun 30 2009, 06:31 AM Domenick DiMaggio Jun 30 2009, 05:56 AM However, recently scientists looking for other data stumbled across a number of Nasa tapes in a storage facility in Perth, Australia. Wowsers! How did they find their way to the most isolated state-capital city on the planet? That shit doesn't make any sense. NASA used 3 dishes to retrieve the TV signal from the moon on Apollo 11, one at Goldstone (California), Honeysuckle Creek and Parkes (both in Australia). For first 9 minutes they switched between the three, trying to get the best picture. Then they stuck with Parkes for the rest of the transmission since the quality was far better. Unfortunately, only Australians got to see the high quality transmission direct from Parkes. The signal was passed to Houston via satellite, and the process of getting the feed into a broadcastable standard reduced the quality noticeably (including a TV camera pointed at a kinescope screen). The version of the TV broadcast that everyone sees now is the one that was recorded at Houston after all the electronic jiggery-pokery had degraded the signal. Fortunatley, the original slow-scan image was also recorded at Parkes. It's this recording that researchers have been trying to get hold of, so it makes sense that it would be stored in Australia somewhere. Incidentally, I'm not sure the Express article has all the facts right on this scoop. I'm going to wait and see how things pan out, it wouldn't surprise me if NASA wait until closer to July 20th to coincide with the 40th Anniversary of the moon landings before releasing the newly discovered footage.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


David C	Jul 1 2009, 09:30 AM Post #862
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	Quote: Which version of objective truth seeker are we going with here? Yours or the the rest of the real world's? He deals in facts. He understands the science behind the issues he discusses. When he gets something wrong he admits it. I have seen him get corrected and change his viewpoint. He treats other people with respect. That's five points up on you. Assuming you think that you are an objective truth seeker (isn't that a laugh!) then if the option is do I think he is like you? No. He is the complete polar opposite of you. He is somebody I would be proud to meet in real life. Is he a "truth seeker" like you (still funny every time I type it)? No. Not at all. He is heads above you in every respect. Is he an objective truth seeker in the way the rest of the world looks at it? Yes. Much more so than you'll ever be. Which is probably why you seem to be so obsessed with him. Kinda creepy by the way. I presented some evidence that Jay Windley was a liar. You're supposed to analyze the evidence and give a rebuttal. You're not supposed to ignore the evidence. Here is the evidence again. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=8 (excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You've obviously never tried to sift and wash particulates. Sifting is commonly done in order to ensure that some batch of particulate contains particles no larger than a certain size. We do this for high-strength concrete, for example. Washing is far less commonly done, and that's because it takes a very long time even for small batches of the stuff. It's not a complete process, and it's not a permanent process. As soon as you handle the particulate again in bulk (e.g., chutes, augers, dumping, scooping), the aggregated rubbing generates more small particles. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=8 (excerpt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sand can be sifted and then rinsed as many times as necessary until there are no dust-sized particles. Until you try to move it, whereupon more dust is created. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=16 (excerpt) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't buy your explanation that the wheel kicking up dirt would cause enough erosion to create enough new dust to form a visible cloud. I have practical experience with this. You do not, and admit that you cannot because you "live in an apartment." Sheer denial. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above is Jay Windley talking. Below is what some people on a geology forum said. http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand (excerpts) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moving and sifting sand is unlikely to produce any finer grains (unless you really go at it and whack it with hammers or something!). However, I think it highly unlikely you could wash and sieve several tonnes of sand and get it all the same grain size... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- transportation and dumping the sand will not be enough to cause dust creation unless you had a very dirty an dusty transport container. driving a vehicle thru it will not creat dust either (unless you repeat the process insanely often to grind down the sand grains) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I asked two different people who had backgrounds in geology if just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Both of them said it wouldn't. Any high school science student can tell you that it wouldn't. Jay Windley said he knew from experience that it would. Now consider this evidence I presented and tell me if you think Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker. HeadLikeARock- I'm still waiting for you to give a simple yes or no answer to my questions. Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? http://www.clavius.org/about.html Do you think the regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are objective truth-seekers? http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums who posted in the threads that can be seen in this link below is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 I'd also like to hear Domenick DiMaggio and Lin Kuei's opinions. Edited by David C, Jul 1 2009, 09:33 AM.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


weasel_turbine	Jul 1 2009, 10:19 AM Post #863
Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08	How do you know that he doesn't have experience in it? How do you know that his experience wasn't different than yours? Is all particulate matter the same? Couldn't some behave the way he described? Seems like a plausible alternative. Based on your own "if there is a plausible alternative then it isn't proof" viewpoint then you have to accept it. Your addition of the "Any high school science student can tell you that it wouldn't." did not come from the forum you asked on. That is your own OPINION and is not backed up by facts. Do you know the difference between opinion and fact? I think you give high school science students way too much credit. IIRC you accused someone on the geology forum you asked your question on of being a paid shill simply because they didn't think that a layperson would know about the answer. Does that make you an objective truth seeker or a paranoid twat? I see no evidence that he lied, just your opinion. I see many other issues he presents with cold hard facts and other issues that he has changed his opinion on when the facts supported a different point of view. Yes, I think he is an objective truth seeker. You I don't. Why? You started with a predefined conclusion and find "evidence" to fit it. Your attitude stinks which has led to your banning on multiple sites. You repeatedly try to use tricks like your lame rigged redibility tests and your mythical debating hall. Still waiting for answers to my questions and waiting for you to actually discuss evidence instead of opinion. That is all your questions are, opinion. Edited by weasel_turbine, Jul 1 2009, 05:58 PM.
Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08


David C	Jul 4 2009, 02:46 PM Post #864
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	Quote: How do you know that he doesn't have experience in it? How do you know that his experience wasn't different than yours? Is all particulate matter the same? Couldn't some behave the way he described? Seems like a plausible alternative. Based on your own "if there is a plausible alternative then it isn't proof" viewpoint then you have to accept it. Your addition of the "Any high school science student can tell you that it wouldn't." did not come from the forum you asked on. That is your own OPINION and is not backed up by facts. Do you know the difference between opinion and fact? I think you give high school science students way too much credit. Here's the thread being discussed. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=1 This is from post #8 Quote: Rocky, what dust does in an atmosphere that it doesn't do in a vacuum is billow about in the vehicle wake and generally hang in the air. The Apollo videos, on the other hand, show dust that falls back to the ground as rapidly as it is thrown up. They considered the fact that there was no dust billowing to be proof that the footage was taken in a vacuum. I pointed out that it was possible to treat sand to make it dust-free. They then said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-cloud when the sand is driven over. Jay Windley and a few others said they knew this from experience. This is simply not true. I knew it wasn't true immediately. I told two people with backgrounds in geology what Jay Windley said. One of them laughed out loud. This is a pretty basic fact. Also, I didn't say Jay Windley didn't have experience in particulates. I said he was lying when he said that he knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. You're having a hard time obfuscating this one. Quote: Where are all these mythical viewers DavidC? And this debating hall? Where is that? Are you in one? I'm not. I doubt HeadLikeARock is. If you think you're in a debating hall then you might want to get your head examined. Here's a newsflash for you. You're on an internet forum. Shocking I know. Its not run like a debating hall. It isn't moderated like a debating hall. It is NOT a debating hall. Your insistence that it is somehow similar is comical though. It provides us all with laughs. But while you're on the subject of this nonexistent debating hall, how do you think your actions would be judged in it? How would your lame, rigged credibility tests be looked upon? How would your consistent dodging of the evidence be looked upon? How would your acting like a total twat and expecting to get treated nicely act in various forums get looked upon? There wouldn't be time for anybody else to get laughed out of your nonexistent debating hall because everybody would be too busy laughing at you. There are a lot of different ways to say someone's response is lame. It can be said that this response is so lame that it would get him laughed out of the debating hall. It can be said that the response is so lame that no intelligent person would be impressed by it. The way HeadLikeARock is responding to my requests that he give straight answers to my questions is just plain lame. I'm really glad he's here because, as the representitive from the Clavius forum, he's making it very clear how full of BS the Clavius forum is. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=postbaguk http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1#33457 Quote: Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? Which version of objective truth seeker are we going with here? Yours or the the rest of the real world's? He deals in facts. You're ignoring the evidence I posted. He lied when he said that he knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-cloud when the sand is driven over. He also refused to answer a direct question put to him here in reply #3. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1584 Quote: Do you think the regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are objective truth-seekers? Most of them yes for the same reasons as above. Of course there is no "Clavius" forum. The forum you refer to is simply linked to by the Clavius website. It is run by somebody completely different and Jay Windley has no moderator or admin privileges there. As a "truth seeker" you would think you would know that. Especially as you've been corrected on it multiple times before. I'm aware of this but on moon hoax threads this forum is generally referred to as the Clavius forum. If I don't call it that, a few people might not know what I'm referring to. This is a trivial point. Quote: Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters who posted on the threads at Clavius and Bad Astronomy which are shown in this link below is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? Now this is definitely a loaded question. What about your behaviour? What about your annoying habit of pissing off nearly everyone you come in contact with? What about your accusations against multiple forums and moderators that they are somehow being influenced to lie about Apollo simply because they do or say something you don't agree with? Don't you think your own actions might have something to do with how you've been treated? It's just a straightforward question. They are obviously trying to obfuscate the evidence. You people can't seem to deal with the issue so you're trying to tap dance around it and bury it. Quote: WORLD EXCLUSIVE: NASA FINDS MISSING MOON LANDING TAPES We have to wait till we see this before we can have a serious discussion about it but with the technology available today, this footage is probably fakable. Anything that's fakable isn't conclusive proof. It also won't make all the crushing hoax evidence go away. Here's something else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCTU1eLTYWM He looks like he's lying to me. This is mere circumstantial evidence but all the circumstantial evidence seems to go in the same direction. There's a good collection of Apollo hoax videos here. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=straydog02&view=favorites I've only looked at a few of them. That's where I found the above one. Be sure to check out the comment sections. None of the people whom I asked to address this in post #862 have responded so here it is again. Quote: HeadLikeARock- I'm still waiting for you to give a simple yes or no answer to my questions. Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? http://www.clavius.org/about.html Do you think the regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are objective truth-seekers? http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums who posted in the threads that can be seen in this link below is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 I'd also like to hear Domenick DiMaggio and Lin Kuei's opinions. I'm waiting.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


David C	Jul 4 2009, 03:09 PM Post #865
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	This should make it pretty clear that Jay Winley is a liar. Read this post of his from the thread in question. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=26#29354 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: You people really made yourselves look silly... Apparently not. Quote: ...when you said that it was impossible to make sand dust-free by sifting and washing it. We know why the dust forms. You just say it somehow didn't happen again during handling after washing and sifting. And those of us who have handled such treated particules know what we're talking about. You, who refuse to acquire any practical understanding of the process, do not. Quote: There's nothing impossible about sifting some sand and washing and scrubbing it until it's dust free and then placing it where the rover is going to drive. It has been clearly explained to you many times why it's impossible to handle particulates without generating dust. You simply say that it somehow didn't happen in this case, but do not say why. Quote: Spinning wheels over dust-free sand would not cause enough sand to erode into dust to make a cloud. he majority of the dust is created as it is removed from the washing apparatus, conveyed to the photography site, and laid down -- not right as the rover wheels pass over it. The rover wheels would aerosolize the dust that was created in those prior steps. Quote: This whole idea of not being able to make sand dust-free is totally silly. Not to the people who have actually tried to do it. And that would not be you. And the whole idea that dust-free sand would exhibit the properties you say you see in the videos is also totally silly. Even if you could make it and get enough of it under the wheels without creating more dust, it still wouldn't be ejected from the wheels in air in the "obviously non-parabolic" way you say. Not only is your sand made magical by the impossible process you say created it, but also by its uncanny ability to selectively defy the laws of aerodynamics -- laws you admit you don't understand. Quote: You can pretend all you want but you destroyed your credibility when you said this. Not according to any who have rendered an opinion. If you can refer to anyone who agrees with you at all, anywhere, now would be the time to identify him. Quote: If a theory that's being put forth is just inherently silly, it doesn't matter how many people there are with scornful patronizing attitudes that agree with it... Ah, so anyone who agrees with us simply has a "scornful patronizing attitude," and their opinion does not factor into your assessment of your own argument's strength. That would be very helpful to maintaining the illusion that there's a silent army of very knowledgeable lurkers supporting you. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now read these posts from a geology forum. http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Moving and sifting sand is unlikely to produce any finer grains (unless you really go at it and whack it with hammers or something!). However, I think it highly unlikely you could wash and sieve several tonnes of sand and get it all the same grain size... Quote: transportation and dumping the sand will not be enough to cause dust creation unless you had a very dirty an dusty transport container. driving a vehicle thru it will not creat dust either (unless you repeat the process insanely often to grind down the sand grains) I guess he was so used to lying about science that he got careless and lied about something basic. Jay Windley told a blatant lie. He has no credibility and the whole Clavius site has no credibility. This lie he told is so obvious that anyone who tries to save him by trying to obfuscate the situation has no credibility. Just the fact that Jay Windley and his friends are there lying is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax as truth-seekers don't tell blatant lies. Just the fact that you people are here trying to defend Jay Windley is more circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


weasel_turbine	Jul 4 2009, 08:07 PM Post #866
Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08	You have no proof he lied. He said he had experience. You haven't proved he didn't. There is still the possibility that he has worked with sand that has the characteristics he says. He said it was impossible to make sand dust free by washing it. The posts from the geology forum back this up. They do back up your view on moving and sifting sand not creating enough dust but nobody indicates this should be so basic that everybody would know it. You still have no proof that it is something "basic". Again, because your answer was lame, but slightly changed to be clearer, how do you know that he doesn't have the experience he claims? How do you know that his experience wasn't different than yours? Is all sand the same? Couldn't some behave the way he described? Seems like a plausible alternative. Based on your own "if there is a plausible alternative then it isn't proof" viewpoint then you have to accept it. The post that you quoted does very clearly show your twat-like attitude though. Even if he did lie, it says nothing about the site. It also says nothing about his multiple other arguments that are based on fact. That you can't understand that speaks volumes. I'm still waiting for your answers to my multiple questions. Not expecting you to ever give a decent answer though. I'm sure in your deluded mind you think you've done no wrong. You're such a one "trick" pony DavidC. But at least you're good for a laugh. Edited by weasel_turbine, Jul 4 2009, 08:13 PM.
Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08


David C	Jul 5 2009, 11:28 AM Post #867
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	Quote: He said he had experience. You haven't proved he didn't. For the second time-- I never said he didn't have any experience. I said he was lying when he said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. It's possible for a liar to have experience. Quote: He said it was impossible to make sand dust free by washing it. The posts from the geology forum back this up. You seem to be playing games here. If you look again at the posts from the geology forum, you'll see that they say that just washing and placing and even driving over dust-free sand will not cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when driven over. What you said here is simply silly. Quote: They do back up your view on moving and sifting sand not creating enough dust but nobody indicates this should be so basic that everybody would know it. That wasn't discussed. I could have told you when I was twelve years old that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would not cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-cloud when the sand is driven over. Quote: Again, because your answer was lame, but slightly changed to be clearer, how do you know that he doesn't have the experience he claims? I never said he didn't have any experience. I said he was lying when he said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Quote: How do you know that his experience wasn't different than yours? Is all sand the same? Couldn't some behave the way he described? His stand was that the fact that there was no dust cloud when the rover drove through the soil proved that they were in a vacuum. This means that he wasn't just thinking of soft rock when he said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-cloud when the sand is driven over. He was putting forth the idea that there was no possible grade of sand which could be made dust-free and transported and placed without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. He would have said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-cloud when the sand is driven over when the sand comes from soft rock but not from hard rock. Quote: Even if he did lie, it says nothing about the site. You must be joking. Jay Windley is the webmaster of the Clavius site. http://www.clavius.org/about.html http://www.clavius.org/ He must have thousands of posts at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=jayutah If he gets caught in a blatant lie and the rest of the posters agree with him, the credibility of that site is shot. Quote: It also says nothing about his multiple other arguments that are based on fact. All it takes is one lie to destroy someone's credibility. Truth-seekers don't have to lie. I'd better post this again. http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html Jay and his friends do a good job of correcting real mistakes but they try to obfuscate the real hoax evidence. Quote: I'm still waiting for your answers to my multiple questions. Show me which questions you're referring to. I thought I'd gotten to all of them. Maybe I missed one or two. I see you three didn't respond to this so here it is again. Quote: HeadLikeARock- I'm still waiting for you to give a simple yes or no answer to my questions. Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? http://www.clavius.org/about.html Do you think the regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are objective truth-seekers? http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums who posted in the threads that can be seen in this link below is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 I'd also like to hear Domenick DiMaggio and Lin Kuei's opinions. It's pretty clear that you pro-Apollo people are just playing games to try to avoid having the appearance that you've lost. You people are pretty good at burying the part of a thread that's an embarrassment to you. It's possible to thwart you though by continuing to ask you the questions that have you cornered. You behavior is like that of someone who's defending a lie as truth-seekers don't play these silly games. They answer all questions without hestitation. This last post of yours was pathetic. You're not fooling anybody of normal intelligence. You people are cornered by this evience that Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are a bunch of liars who know as well as the rest of us that Apollo was a hoax.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


HeadLikeARock	Jul 5 2009, 01:03 PM Post #868
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Jul 5 2009, 11:28 AM You behavior is like that of someone who's defending a lie as truth-seekers don't play these silly games. They answer all questions without hestitation. This last post of yours was pathetic. You're not fooling anybody of normal intelligence. You people are cornered by this evience that Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are a bunch of liars who know as well as the rest of us that Apollo was a hoax. David, this is getting pathetic to the extreme. You've been crying about this for what seems a lifetime. Your questions have been answered, even though IMO they are irrelevant to whether Apollo was faked (and I've explained why I hold that opinion several times to you). Here it is AGAIN. FROM OVER A YEAR AGO:- There are various possibilities. Jay WIndley could be lying. He could be mistaken. Or he could be telling the truth, and has practical experience which contradicts the answers given by the geologists to your "thought experiment". This was reposted, for YOUR benefit, last month. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=98517&t=330206 Here's why IMO it's irrelevant to whether Apollo was faked, re-posted on this thread for, what, the 4th time now? It's not an issue to me, for this reason, which you have been told before and choose to ignore. Even if either of the sites you mention is indeed a government damage-control site, it is not circumstantial evidence that Apollo was faked, because it's perfectly possible that the were set up to counter the false information about Apollo parroted by uninformed people such as yourself. In other words, they could have been set up even though Apollo was a genuine mission, and man did indeed land on the moon. Therefore, wasting your time trying to prove that either site is a 'damage control' site is nothing more than an exercise in futility. You may get your kicks by crying about how the mods at those sites treated you, but I just don't care! What do you expect when you accuse the admin and all the members of being paid government shills who don't believe their own arguments? A warm, friendly welcome? The benefit of the doubt? The same kind of leeway that polite posters are granted? If you behave like a w@nker, that's how you should be expected to be treat. Also this one. Their behaviour is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether Neil Armstrong, or anyone else, has ever walked on the moon. Of course, you know that. The only reason you pose the question is to try to manipulate me into saying something you can use against me. Either I say there's nothing wrong with their behaviour, in which case you accuse me of being a paid shill who knows fine well Apollo was faked, or I say their behaviour is out of line, in which case you say it is because they are paid shills who know fine well Apollo was faked. Either way, you can claim moral victory. Since you seem so hung up on the concept of lying, let's remind viewers that you have bene caught up in two big ones in recent weeks. First, you lied about the glare issue (either that or you have zero analysis skills). Second, you lied when you accused me of "total fiction" and "slanderous tricks" for pointing out that you had been egging on another member to hijack the thread, and trying to get him to disclose the contents of a PM. It's all here in case your 'selective memory' has edited out the gory details:- http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=268813&t=51606 To recap. Even if Jay Windley lied, it matters not a jot as to whether Apollo was faked IMO. The fact you are a proven liar, and continue to try and use lying as leverage against someone else (who to my knowledge has never even posted on this forum), is mildly amusing. As well as amusing, the whole slow-motion train-crash of your line of attack became mind-bogglingly boring a long, long time ago.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


weasel_turbine	Jul 5 2009, 08:46 PM Post #869
Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08	Quote: I never said he didn't have any experience. I said he was lying when he said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Since you seem to be impaired and unable to understand the enlglish language, I'll try to explain it again. He could have experience transporting sand and the transportation causing erosion. This is the experience he claims. YOU have NOT proved he doesn't have that experience. Even if he lied, it doesn't change the many things he does tell the truth about. You will never understand that. Quote: All it takes is one lie to destroy someone's credibility. Truth-seekers don't have to lie. BS. EVERYBODY lies. I KNOW that you've lied. I'm sure Jay has lied at some point. Credibility is determined by the sum total of a person's trustworthiness. Jay's arguments are overwhelmingly based on FACTS. Yours are overwhelming based on opinion and emotion. Even if 1 out of every 5 things Jay said turned out to be lies he would still have far more credibility than you. But, you still haven't proved he lied about this issue. It is STILL just your opinion. But why should anybody care whether a twat thinks they have credibility? Still waiting on answers to my questions. You got your answers. As expected they just confirmed your preset conclusions (as your loaded questions were set to do).
Posts: 59 Group: Members Member #810 Joined: 08/21/08


EOR	Jul 6 2009, 04:21 AM Post #870
Posts: 60 Group: Members Member #135 Joined: 01/19/08	weasel_turbine Jul 5 2009, 08:46 PM EVERYBODY lies. Is this argument based on a fact or on an opinion?
Posts: 60 Group: Members Member #135 Joined: 01/19/08


David C	Jul 6 2009, 11:55 AM Post #871
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	HeadLikeARock- You are still tap dancing around my questions. The questions are- "Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker?" "Do you think the regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are objective truth-seekers?" "Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums who posted in the threads that can be seen in this link below is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 " Quote: Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? http://www.clavius.org/about.html Do you think the regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum are objective truth-seekers? http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums who posted in the threads that can be seen in this link below is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 I'd also like to hear Domenick DiMaggio and Lin Kuei's opinions. Also- what is your analysis of Jay Windley's responses in this link? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=273756&t=51606 He said he knew what he knew from experience but what is said he knew is wrong. Please don't tap dance around these questions. Just give straight answers. It's good to hear from you EOR. What do you think about the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters from Clavius in the above links. Edited by David C, Jul 6 2009, 11:56 AM.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


HeadLikeARock	Jul 6 2009, 02:16 PM Post #872
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08	David C Jul 6 2009, 11:55 AM Please don't tap dance around these questions. Just give straight answers. Do you think accusing someone of not believing their own argument re Rooster Tails, before subsequently changing your mind and agreeing they were right all along, is the behaviour of an objective truth seeker? YES or NO. Do you think accusing someone of not believing their own argument about Jack White's mystery toe-print, before subsequently changing your mind and agreeing they were right all along, is the behaviour of an objective truth seeker? YES or NO. Do you think accusing someone of lying about what response they received regards your question on a Geology forum, only to have to eat humble pie when the link to the forum was supplied, is the behaviour of an objective truth seeker? YES or NO. Do you think that pretending to be my friend on the aforementioned Geology forum is the behaviour of an objective truth seeker? YES or NO. Do you think that understanding the concept of glare for nearly 3 years, yet curiously ignoring it as a possibility in Apollo photographs, is the behaviour of an objective truth seeker? YES or NO. Do you think that accusing someone of "total fiction" and "slanderous tricks" for pointing out that you had indeed urged someone to hijack the thread and post the contents of a PM is the behaviour of an objective truth seeker? YES or NO. Do you think that using a 2.5' x 1.5' cotton pillowcase instead of a 5' x 3' nylon flag, while trying to test the motion of a 5' x 3' nylon flag, is the behaviour of an objective truth seeker? YES or NO. Tap-dancing around these important questions will have you laughed out of your debating hall. YES or NO answers only please. Remember, in your own words, "Truth-seekers answer all questions put to them without hesitation." Answer ALL the above questions, YES or NO. Otherwise, by your own rules, you clearly aren't a truth-seeker.
Posts: 345 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: 03/25/08


David C	Jul 7 2009, 09:25 AM Post #873
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	I only have a minute today but I'll eventually get to all your questions even though its just tap dancing on your part. I'm going to ask you these questions one at a time. Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? Just answer yes or no.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


EOR	Jul 7 2009, 10:16 AM Post #874
Posts: 60 Group: Members Member #135 Joined: 01/19/08	David C Jul 7 2009, 09:25 AM Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? Just answer yes or no. I can answer this one for you. NO, He already knows and therefore more interested in defending his truth rather than checking into new stuff. Jay Windley would have also "known" that the earth was flat if he'd been around like a couple of hundreds years ago. Edited by EOR, Jul 7 2009, 05:49 PM.
Posts: 60 Group: Members Member #135 Joined: 01/19/08


EOR	Jul 7 2009, 06:13 PM Post #875
Posts: 60 Group: Members Member #135 Joined: 01/19/08	EOR Jul 6 2009, 04:21 AM weasel_turbine Jul 5 2009, 08:46 PM EVERYBODY lies. Is this argument based on a fact or on an opinion? Hey weasel, care to answer to my question? David C It's good to hear from you EOR. What do you think about the behavior of Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters from Clavius in the above links. Dude, you know already what I think of liars, hypocrites and elitists
Posts: 60 Group: Members Member #135 Joined: 01/19/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
34
35
36
…
42