| 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! |
| We Never Went to the Moon; It looks like we got fooled | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 12:52 PM (28,019 Views) | |
| weasel_turbine | Jul 7 2009, 06:54 PM Post #876 |
|
Fact. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong. |
 |
 
|
| weasel_turbine | Jul 7 2009, 06:57 PM Post #877 |
|
Aw. It sounds like the sock-puppet had his feelings hurt. What a "coincidence" that you and DavidC joined within a day of each other!
Hey EOR, care to have a little patience? Did you really need an answer to such an obvious question? Your impatience makes you look even more like a DavidC sock-puppet. And in the future, it might help if you used a posters full handle. I consider it rude for someone I don't know to truncate my username. That or just lazy. Either one doesn't make you look good. Edited by weasel_turbine, Jul 7 2009, 07:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| EOR | Jul 7 2009, 07:08 PM Post #878 |
|
I'm not saying you are wrong, just asking if you based that on a fact or on an opinion, and since you gave me your answer, could you please give your independent and scientific source that backs it up? |
|
|
|
| EOR | Jul 7 2009, 07:18 PM Post #879 |
|
Yes, I've been crying alot over this matter. 
Sorry if I was rude, I truly am. 
|
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Jul 7 2009, 09:58 PM Post #880 |
|
No. Why? It is such a basic fact that everybody should know it. (Sounds stupid when somebody tries to say that for something doesn't it?) Edited by weasel_turbine, Jul 7 2009, 10:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
| EOR | Jul 8 2009, 02:50 AM Post #881 |
|
Ok. I like this "basic fact" category where stuff is public knowledge, not opinions or feelings, but facts you don't have to prove scientifically. Thanks for bringing this up. |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Jul 8 2009, 07:23 AM Post #882 |
|
Just using the same argument that DavidC used. Looks pretty silly doesn't it? |
|
|
|
| EOR | Jul 8 2009, 10:02 AM Post #883 |
|
Could you please define "hypocrite" for me? |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Jul 8 2009, 10:56 AM Post #884 |
|
See the entry titled "DavidC." |
|
|
|
| EOR | Jul 8 2009, 02:09 PM Post #885 |
|
Nah, I know David C, he's not one. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jul 10 2009, 07:22 AM Post #886 |
|
Hey HeadLikeARock Have you disappeared? I'm still waiting for you to answer this simple Apollo-related question. Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? I've asked you about seven times now. What are you waiting for? |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jul 10 2009, 11:08 AM Post #887 |
|
I'm still waiting for you to answer these questions. 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." You've hesitated far too long David. Answer ALL the above questions, YES or NO. Otherwise, by your own rules, you clearly aren't a truth-seeker. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jul 12 2009, 05:52 AM Post #888 |
|
I'd asked you my question about three times with no answer from you when you asked your questions. You're cornered by my question and you're not fooling anybody with this diversion tactic. There's nothing difficult about those questions of yours; you're just trying to put off answer ing my question.
Yes. As soon as I realized I was wrong, I just said so. I didn't start to tap dance and use diversion tactics to draw attention away from the issue the way an obfuscator would do.
Same as above.
Yes. I had simply forgotten what had transpired as the thread on which all of this took place was deleted. The deleted thread is discussed here. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18777
You are trying to mislead people here. Anyone who reads this thread can see that I wasn't pretending to be your friend. http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand
What you seem to be doing here is trying to mislead the people who haven't read the part of the thread where all of this was discussed. The people who read it know you're distorting reality. This all starts with post #801. I've seen two different sized reflections of the sun in Apollo visors. The one that's in the first six seconds of this clip... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE ...and the one seen at the 2:20 mark of this clip... http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=rhoWabHSm_g ....which looks just like the reflection of the artificial light at the 1:45 second mark of the same clip. I always figured they were reflections of two different lights of different sizes. When I saw the picture you posted in post #801, I realized that there was the possibility that the bigger reflection was mostly glare and that if you took away the glare it would probably look like the reflection at the 2:20 time mark of the second clip above. The glare in the picture you posted in post #806 is clearly glare. The glare in the helmet visor in the first six seconds of the first of the two above clips does not look at all like the glare in the picture you posted. Your trying to say they were comparable was an obvious attempt at obfuscation and anyone who reads every post in this thread can see that.
This was a desperate attempt at obfuscation on your part. Anyone who reads post #795 and post #800 can see that all I was saying was that I didn't mind if he drifted off the topic of the moon hoax as we have to look at the big picture as all the goverment lies are part of the big picture.
It doesn't duplicate the conditions exactly but if that's all I have, what else can I do? If the results are reasonably close we can at least say it points in the same direction. As long as I consider all of this, why isn't this the behavior of an objective truth-seeker? HeadLikeARock- You are lamely playing for time because you're cornered by my question in light of the evidence I posted that Jay Windley is a liar who's working for the government. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=273756&t=51606 http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1584&page=1#48055 This is how debates end with you people from Clavius. When it's made clear that all of you know perfectly well that the moon missions were faked, you try to clutter up the thread with BS to reduce the number of people who see the said evidence. The only way to thwart you is to keep asking the the questions that have you cornered so for about the seventh or eighth time-- Do you think that Jay Windley is an objective truth-seeker? |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jul 12 2009, 07:11 AM Post #889 |
|
I've answered your questions about other forums, and explained why I think they're irrelevant to the discussion about Apollo, many, many times over the last, ooh, couple of years? Certainly seems that long. You keep on posting the same old same old, or minor variations thereof. I keep on telling you that IN MY OPINION it has nothing to do with the validity of Apollo, but you refuse to accept that.
So, you believe that objective truth-seekers are justified in calling people liars, even when they are wrong. Interesting.
Again, you believe that objective truth-seekers are justified in calling people liars, even when they are wrong. You have a strange definition of "objective truth seeker".
Again, you think that accusing someone of lying, WHEN YOU ARE WRONG, is the behaviour of an objective truth seeker. I disagree. I don't think an objective truth seeker would instinctively accuse people with whom he disagrees of being a liar, based purely on their own ignorance. He would make absolutely sure of his facts first.
Really? In that thread I referred to you as a "proponent of the Apollo Hoax conspiracy", which I think is a fairly objective and truthful description. Your very first sentence in your very first post on that forum? "I'm the friend he was talking about." Despite your protestations that I'm trying to mislead people, it's pretty clear that YOU'VE been trying to mislead. Basically, you're trying to defend one lie with another lie, and just hoping people won't read the thread. No doubt you consider covering up one lie with another lie to be the sign of an "objective truth seeker". I don't. Others can come to their own conclusion.
I can't comment on this section yet as Youtube is down for maintenance.
Your exact quote was "Don't worry about hijacking the thread". When I described this as "urging someone to hijack the thread", you accused me "total fiction" and "slanderous tricks". Now you're trying to say that when you said "Don't worry about hi-jacking the thread", you really meant to say "I don't mind if you drift off the topic of the moon hoax". And you accuse me of obfuscation? I smell some serious BS here David. Just to recap. When I describe your sentence "Don't worry about hijacking the thread" as "urging him to hijack the thread", you accuse me of "total fiction" and "slanderous tricks". You then say that "Don't worry about hijacking the thread" means "I don't mind if you drift off topic". Well pardon me for not understanding your unique interpretation of the English language, but it's pretty clear that you got caught out and are furiously back-tracking to cover your own increasingly sorry ass. Oh, I notice you "accidentally" missed out the part about you trying to get him to disclose the contents of a PM.
It doesn't come CLOSE to duplicating the conditions. An objective truth seeker would have realised this, and admitted that his conclusion might be flawed. Or, he would try to duplicate the conditions more accurately, perhaps by purchasing an inexpensive 5' x 3' nylon flag, like I did? Remember your reaction when I told you the result of my experimenting? You accused me of "probably lying". Yes, there's a definite method to your madness David. You assume you are correct, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a liar, until such a time as they can prove you wrong. Objective? No. Truth seeker? No.
Hmmm, a small cotton pillowcase in an atmosphere behaves in a similar way to a large nylon flag in a vacuum. The fact that you fail to grasp why this "comparison" of yours is flawed proves your lack of credibility.
From what I've read of Windley's posts, he doesn't come across as being a liar. Many of his photographic demonstrations are easily reproduced. Many of his claims on Clavius can be tested through other sources. When he's shown to be wrong he admits error. He has a scientific approach to evidence. Whether he works for the Government, I don't know. Does he actually "know" Apollo was faked? I don't believe that for a single minute. The evidence in favour of fakery is poor, much of it is easily refuted, the rest of it has been refuted by hours of diligent research, or is based on nothing more than incredulity. If I "know" (99.99%) that Apollo happened, why shouldn't Jay Windley? Compare that to your approach. "I am right. Anyone who disagrees is a liar who doesn't believe what they are saying. Oh, I was wrong about X. Well, I'm still right about all the other stuff, and anyone who disagrees is a liar who doesn't believe what they are saying. Oh, I was wrong about Y too. Well, I'm still right about all the other stuff, and anyone who disagrees...." yadda yadda yadda. You get the picture. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jul 12 2009, 07:19 AM Post #890 |
|
While you seem so hung up on other forums, I want you to explain why you were pushing this BS as evidence, under the pseudonym FatFreddy, that the moon landings were faked a couple of years ago. http://forum.sbrforum.com/politics-economics/49943-did-we-really-go-moon.html
This is typical of the kind of crap you've been spamming many different forums with over the years. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jul 12 2009, 11:40 AM Post #891 |
|
HeadLikeARock- You can keep engaging in diversionary tactics but I assure you that you look very silly when you tap dance around my question. Once again- Do you consider Jay Windley to be an objective sincere truth-seeker? Considering who Jay Windley is, this is a very relevant Apollo-related issue. http://www.clavius.org/about.html Your wishing to avoid this issue is pretty understandable considering you're one of the regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1 http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=postbaguk You're pretty much washed up so this is all you can do I suppose--try to play down this issue and change the subject; I suppose it attracts less attention than disappearing. The only people who you're taking in are people with an IQ of ninety or below. You're stuck between a rock and a hard place- You can't say the obvious which is that Jay Windley is a liar because you are one of his team. You can't see he's an objective truth-seeker because you'll look silly. I'm still waiting for your answer. I can keep this up for twenty more pages and you'll end up looking silly for twenty pages. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jul 12 2009, 01:02 PM Post #892 |
|
To my mind, Jay Windley comes across as being an 'objective truthseeker'. Problem is, when it comes to Apollo, like me he KNOWS men have landed on the moon (in as far as it's possible to 'know' something you don't have firsthand experience of). So, he doesn't have to 'seek the truth' about Apollo, because he already knows it, based on studying the evidence for and against the landings. The evidence for is pretty much over-whelming and self-consistent: the evidence against is based on poor science, incredulity, poor photographic analysis, ignorance of the facts, and a hatred of the US government. You, on the other hand, have been un-masked as a proven liar on this very thread, more than once. Perhaps you should be paying more attention to your own online behaviour, rather than unhealthily obsessing over someone elses?
I'm not part of any 'team'. I know that doesn't fit with your worldview, but that's your problem, not mine. You need Apollohoax.net to be a government-run forum, infiltrated by paid shills who don't believe their own arguments, because it makes you feel special and superior. If it was just full of ordinary people, many of whom have a scientific background, who actually know that Apollo happened because they have invested a lot of time and energy looking at the evidence, that wouldn't fit with your worldview. Oh, don't worry, if I caught him in a lie, I'd call him out on it. Just like I did with the web of deceit you're guilty of. I've disagreed with him in the past and I'm sure I will in the future.
Your pathetic attempts at steering the thread away from discussion of HARD EVIDENCE will have been noted by EVERYONE following the thread David. You have to do that because you're struggling to defend your 'evidence'. This isn't a recent phenomenon, you've been forced to do it for YEARS. If you had a case, you could argue it solely on the evidence alone. Since you know you can't, you're forced into ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies, anything rather than a rigorous analysis of the evidence. Why? Because you KNOW that rigorous analysis shows you to be wrong, as it has on so many occasions in the past. You didn't even have the balls to defend your false claim I posted in my last post. You just hope to be able to get away with spamming as many forums as possible with page after page after page of guff that has been dismantled many times. And I have no doubt you could keep this charade of a thread going for 20 YEARS, nevermind pages. You'll still be hung up on Jay Windley long after Mankind has returned to the moon, the Apollo Hoax is just an amusing footnote in internet forum history, and all its previous proponents have quietly got on with their lives. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jul 12 2009, 02:26 PM Post #893 |
|
Now take a good long look at the way Jay Windley lied. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=273756&t=51606 He said he knew what he knew from experience which can't be true because what he said he knew is wrong. I assure you that you look very silly when you ignore this. Your credibility is pretty much shot here but I guess you'll go on as if that weren't so just like the Black Knight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 You're pretty much washed up HeadLikeARock. I know admitting defeat is unthinkable for a regular poster at the Clavius forum so you're going to play this down and try to bury it. You won't succeed though as I'm going to keep bringing it up on a regular basis. You can pretend all you want but lot's of people have seen the way you ignored my question about eight times and then finally gave a lame answer which ignored the evidence. You're a good obfuscator but you can't obfuscate this. I also asked Domenick DiMaggio and Lin Kuei if they thought Jay Windley was an objective truth-seeker with no response so far. I'm still waiting guys. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jul 12 2009, 04:13 PM Post #894 |
|
Thank you for COMPLETELY proving my point! Your ridiculous objectivity test was nothing more than a loaded question. And you've also COMPLETELY avoided my previous answers to your questions, where I said (a) he could be lying, (b) he could be telling the truth, (c), he could have practical experience which is different to the theoretical answers given on the geologists forum (in other words, he could have experience using hoppers, 'travelators' and other equipment that increases the amount of weathering, or possibly the sand wasn't well washed/sifted). You've just ignored this because you NEED at all costs to think you've appeared win this argument! There's even ANOTHER possibility that your closed-mind couldn't possibly fathom. It's POSSIBLE that Jay Windley said what he said just to piss you off: not because you had him between a rock-and-a-hard-place, but just to shut you up because of your incessant, emotionless, robotic, troll-like posting style, and also because what you were discussing had nothing to do with the validity of Apollo! So what if it's possible to wash sand so it doesn't produce dust? Apollo happened. Your 'thought experiment' as to how they might be able to reproduce some of the video is just that: a though experiment. With not a great deal of thought gone into it. If that IS what happened (and who am I to know, or even care?), then all it says is Jay Windley is human, and allowed himself to be wound up by a tw@t like you, and responded in kind. Did you even think of this as being a possibility? Of course not. You just need your pound of flesh. The bottom line is David, if the pro-hoax evidence was solid, you'd be discussing that, rather than avoiding it like the plague and turning this thread into a train crash. I doubt whether DD and LK are even following this thread anymore, let alone motivated enough to reply. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jul 13 2009, 11:59 AM Post #895 |
|
HeadLikeARock- You really pour on the rhetoric but something silly said in a rhetorical authoritative patronizing way is still silly. Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo people at the Clavius forum considered the point I made to be completely debunked when they 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. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=2 (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, since dust aerosolizes profusely in atmosphere, the visible lack of aerosolization can be taken as evidence of a lack of atmosphere. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=7 (excerpt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I wanted to keep dust from billowing up for a fake moon shot, I'd get some sand and sift it and wash it so there wouldn't be any particles small enough to float in the air. A few dozen truckloads of that would do it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More here. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094 If Jay Windley and his friends considered my argument to be completely debunked, they were considering using all of the possible processes other besides the ones you mentioned.
They aren't that dumb. The fact 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 is such a basic fact that any high school science student would laugh at Jay Windley's explanation. I know that I would have when I was in high school. Also, you know I'm not avoiding the other evidence. It's all been discussed over and over. You're trying to say this is a non-issue because it's an embarrassment to you and your friends at Clavius. If you play it down and avoid questions and try to bury the issue instead of dealing with it, all I can do is keep bringing it up. That doesn't mean I'm trying to avoid the other evidence. Jay Windley and his friends were caught in a blatant lie and you destroyed your credibility by trying to tap dance around the issue. It's clear that you're not debating in good faith. It's clear that you and Jay Windley and the rest of his friends at the Clavius forum know perfectly well that Apollo was a hoax because truth-seekers don't tell blatant lies and truth-seekers don't try to play down the fact that someone like Jay Windley told a blatant lie. After your lame behavior concerning this issue I don't know who's going to take you seriously when you analyze the anomalies in videos such as these. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=rhoWabHSm_g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA Jay and his friends considered my point to be completely debunked. Tell me this. Do you think they completely debunked the point I made when they 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. I want to see an answer to this question in your next post. Here's another video relevant to this issue in case anybody hasn't seen it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jul 13 2009, 01:49 PM Post #896 |
|
David, it really is time to stop all this silliness. I've addressed this issue over and over again. I even went to the effort of registering on another forum (you know, the one where you lied about being my friend, and also twisted the words of another poster to such an extent that he refused to have anything more to do with you). Despite him supporting your position, you even accused the admin of being a paid government shill simply for having the gall to say he didn't think it would be something the average layperson would be expected to know!
So has the silliness over Apollohoax.net! It's all been refuted over and over, or has been shown to be nothing more than an argument from incredulity, or has perfectly good explanations based in real science, not pseudo-science.
You deliberately ignore a very important point. Three little words. IMO. IN MY OPINION. IMO whether Jay Windley, or anyone else at Apollohoax.net or any other forum, is paid by your government, is irrelevant to the validity of Apollo. This has been explained to you MANY times. The best way forward in these situations is to AGREE TO DISAGREE. If you feel very strongly about the issue, you should find someone to discuss it with who actually gives a sh!t. Persistent badgering of someone who has answered your questions, explained why they think it's irrelevant, and completed your hilarious "objectivity tests", is symptomatic of the sort of creepy, troll-like, obsessive behaviour that has seen you banned from several forums.
I've addressed the issue, multiple times. You just don't like my answers. Tough sh!t.
You keep forgetting an important fact. You are in no position to judge others, because you've been caught out in several lies, as pointed out on this very thread. On top of that, you believe that accusing others of lying (when you later admit they weren't), is perfectly acceptable behaviour for an objective truth-seeker.
Well, if you'd taken me seriously over the rooster tails and JW mystery toe-print issues, you wouldn't have face-planted yourself into a bucket-full of eggs, and you wouldn't have had to embarrass yourself by saying it's OK for objective truth-seekers to falsely accuse people of lying, would you? You seem quite happy to wallow in your ignorance. Not a lot I can do about that.
If you ask politely, you might get an answer. Your last sentence above earns you nothing more than a virtual slap.
Already discussed in this thread. You based your mis-understanding of what is happening on a false comparison, i.e. your infamous pillow-case. Come back when you've saved up $5 and bought a 5'x3' nylon flag, and repeated the experiment. Then we might actually start getting somewhere.
Please put this into your own words. Which reflections do you say cannot possibly be caused by the Sun (reference numbers please), and more importantly, why. You might want to re-visit the montage of different reflections of visors I posted previously (the one where you inferred I may have been tampered with the images).
Chinese spacewalk? Irrelevant to Apollo. IMO.
I shake my head in disbelief whenever I see this. There are loads of examples of very small foot movements creating large arcs of dust in the Apollo footage. Look at how much effort Jarrah White has to put into kicking up sand into arcs at the 6 minute mark. He's deliberately trying to stub his toes into the sand, while running, and the sand moves about 2-3 feet. Compare that to how far the regolith moves with just small astronaut foot movements. Also compare to how far the dust moves when Aldrin deliberately kicks it for the 4th time at 6:49, it goes around 15 - 18 feet! Can you address these specific points please, because IMO that is actually good evidence in favour of Apollo. No doubt Jarrah will have fooled some of the fawning pop-corn munchers on his YouTube channel, but I'm sure an objective truth-seeker like you will be able to understand the point I'm getting at. Edited by HeadLikeARock, Jul 13 2009, 01:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Jul 13 2009, 03:29 PM Post #897 |
|
That is your opinion, not fact. Fixed it for you. Still waiting for answers to my questions. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jul 15 2009, 04:49 AM Post #898 |
|
You seem to be cornered. I`m going to keep asking you this question until you answer if it takes twenty pages. Pretend all you want but you look very silly when you play down perfectly legitimate questions when you're cornered by them. Nobody of average intelligence is fooled by your attitude. Please answer the question. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jul 15 2009, 07:04 AM Post #899 |
|
There you are, being polite isn't too painful is it? Your polite reply to the original question is: No. (Don't bother trying to lure me into a detailed debate on the topic, as I've stated before it isn't evidence against Apollo, it's just a "maybe they faked it this way argument that I'm not interested in.) |
|
|
|
| David C | Jul 15 2009, 07:53 AM Post #900 |
|
So, in your opinion, were they being sincere but just mistaken, or were they consciously lying?
Sorry but the issue of whether the Clavius site is an objective truth-seeking site or a government damage-control site is a bona fide Apollo-related issue. You'll look pretty silly if you try to play down this issue. Also, you're registered at Clavius. If you think they were wrong, why don't you make a post on that thread and tell them so and continue the debate taking this evidence into account? http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand If they're really sincere truth-seekers who were just mistaken, they'll want to know about this, won't they? If Jay Windley is really a sincere truth-seeker, he'll want to know how mistaken he was when he made this post, won't he? http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=273756&t=51606 Hey weasel_turbine Regarding the pictures of reflections of the sun provided by HeadLikeARock in this post. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=250410&t=51606 If you were in my place, would you insist that HeadLikeARock provide links to the original pictures released by the government, or would you simply take him at his word that the pictures weren't doctored? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
3:20 PM Nov 27
