Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by zvezdar

At least you can admit that those who read this thread will see through JW's nonsense.

If he had balls, and genuinely believed he was right, he'd link to it (and other similar threads) on his Youtube channel and show why he is right.

Maybe if you pay him a fee he will advertise this thread/your posts in his youtube videos.

One should not feel entitled to such a thing and expect it for free.

I'm sure that many people would want their links posted with his videos for free, but that is just not realistic.

*However due to the large number of his videos posted here in this ridiculously huge thread, if Jarrah White profits from hits then perhaps he could be persuaded to post the thread for a reduced fee, or even for free (like in Glorious Soviet Union for Make Preservation of the Communism).

Just sayin'.

And I'm not sure if he would even be open to the offer, just that you cannot expect it for free my glorious comrade for make preservation of awesomeness.

Well, since every single one of White's arguments have been torn to ribbons here, and since only the court jester remains to take up his banner, I'd say he's been well and truly debunked.

reply to post by Smack


Do you think that your side's use of insults and derogatory remarks has detracted from your credibility?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Smack

 

Do you think that your side's use of insults and derogatory remarks has detracted from your credibility?

Do you think your complete inablility to articulate even ONE reasonable argument on this whole thread detracts from yours???

reply to post by Tomblvd


Your retort was an excellent example of what I was just talking about.

Foosm's posts are not so heavily laden with insults and derogatory marks whereas his opponent's posts are. This take's away from their credibility; but I am just stating the obvious there.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Your retort was an excellent example of what I was just talking about.

Foosm's posts are not so heavily laden with insults and derogatory marks whereas his opponent's posts are. This take's away from their credibility; but I am just stating the obvious there.

Uh, I was just "stating the obvious" also.

You have been completely unable to produce a single fact in your posts. Only showing up every now and then with an "atta boy!" for your hero.


BTW, if you make an assertion ("Foosm's posts are not so heavily laden with insults and derogatory marks whereas his opponent's posts are"), you are expected to support it. Of course, it's not an accurate statement, so you can't.

There is absolutely no reason to take you seriously.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Oh, reeeeaaaalllllly?

Foosm's posts are not so heavily laden with insults and derogatory marks...

Care to review his record, and count the numbers of s??

You don't think that using the emoticon excessively, after trying to "make" oe of his "points" is derisive and insulting??? :shk:

Originally posted by Tomblvd

BTW, if you make an assertion ("Foosm's posts are not so heavily laden with insults and derogatory marks whereas his opponent's posts are"), you are expected to support it. Of course, it's not an accurate statement, so you can't.

Are you claiming that the posts of Foosm's opponents do not contain insults?

Or are you claiming that they do, but that the insults and derogatory remarks do not detract from the credibility of the one making them?

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Tomblvd

BTW, if you make an assertion ("Foosm's posts are not so heavily laden with insults and derogatory marks whereas his opponent's posts are"), you are expected to support it. Of course, it's not an accurate statement, so you can't.

Are you claiming that the posts of Foosm's opponents do not contain insults?

Or are you claiming that they do, but that the insults and derogatory remarks do not detract from the credibility of the one making them?

No, I am claiming the opposite of the quoted statement.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Tomblvd

BTW, if you make an assertion ("Foosm's posts are not so heavily laden with insults and derogatory marks whereas his opponent's posts are"), you are expected to support it. Of course, it's not an accurate statement, so you can't.

Are you claiming that the posts of Foosm's opponents do not contain insults?

Or are you claiming that they do, but that the insults and derogatory remarks do not detract from the credibility of the one making them?

Soon as I came into the thread FoosM accused me of being slow.

I don't know who started it but FoosM was not nice till very recently. So IMO it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Pinke

Soon as I came into the thread FoosM accused me of being slow.

The old "he did it too" technique. That is a childish excuse.


Your arguments are quite sound and would be better if they did not contain insults. It is a pity you could not go back and edit them all out, as this thread would be an excellent research resource without them. Alas.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Tomblvd

BTW, if you make an assertion ("Foosm's posts are not so heavily laden with insults and derogatory marks whereas his opponent's posts are"), you are expected to support it. Of course, it's not an accurate statement, so you can't.

Are you claiming that the posts of Foosm's opponents do not contain insults?

Or are you claiming that they do, but that the insults and derogatory remarks do not detract from the credibility of the one making them?

Soon as I came into the thread FoosM accused me of being slow.

I don't know who started it but FoosM was not nice till very recently. So IMO it doesn't matter.

It also has a lot to do with the vitriol used delivering the insults. For a great example of pure nastiness, just read over the comments of a Jarrah video in which he participates. He can be a nasty person.

The arguments and facts presented by the Apollo believers on this thread stand on their own merits. Anyone is welcome to dispute them with facts, not baseless assertions.

Exub's argument is a lot like debating someone by correcting a misspelled word.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Pinke

Soon as I came into the thread FoosM accused me of being slow.

The old "he did it too" technique. That is a childish excuse.


Your arguments are quite sound and would be better if they did not contain insults. It is a pity you could not go back and edit them all out, as this thread would be an excellent research resource without them. Alas.

He didn't say "he did it too". He merely pointed out Foos was the one with all the insults.

Can you give specific examples?

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Tomblvd]

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Tomblvd]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Pinke

Soon as I came into the thread FoosM accused me of being slow.

The old "he did it too" technique. That is a childish excuse.


Your arguments are quite sound and would be better if they did not contain insults. It is a pity you could not go back and edit them all out, as this thread would be an excellent research resource without them. Alas.

Point to where I insulted FoosM. I'm pretty sure I didn't.

It's the internet. Sometimes people post that way, and sometimes they don't.

You've successfully taken the moral high ground on the internet which is essentially a tiny slope in a large field.

Whilst I think the insults/tone has been harsh at times ... After 180 pages of unmoderated debate I would expect some of this. It doesn't have much baring on the content of a lot of posts. Agentsmith and others have even admitted they've been getting a little frustrated/fired up ...

So other than having people say 'yes we've got out of hand a few times over 180 pages' - there isn't much anyone can say.

It has little to do with the topic of the thread at this late stage.

PS - You'll note I didn't say who started anything. I specifically said I had no idea. Pretty sure I'm not being childish at this junture but I'll have a think about it and get back to you.



[edit on 29-8-2010 by Pinke]

Come on people, play nice. Exuberant1, you are hardly in a position to critique anyone's credibility, given that many of your posts consist mostly of ! Remember, the tone of the discussion can be colored by the use of terms like astro-NOT. Everyone here has made good points, and everyone here has taunted or slighted someone. Let's get back on topic before the Mods close the thread.

Here, let me give it a nudge. I considered trying to do a formal debate, but it would be, in the words of Richard Brautigan, "like shoveling mercury with a pitchfork." The Moon Hoax camp has yet to form a specific hypothesis they can defend. Who was behind it? Where did they film it? How did they fake the telemetry? Where did the spacecraft really go? They keep changing their story. Here is my challenge: provide specific details and be prepared to defend them. Stanley Kubrick did it? Fine. Where's your evidence? Meantime, we can scour the records for documentation of his whereabouts. If we can prove he wasn't where you think he was, then you would have to admit you were wrong. Go ahead... I'm open to any specific, concrete hypothesis you want to put out there.

Originally posted by DJW001
The Moon Hoax camp has yet to form a specific hypothesis they can defend. Who was behind it? Where did they film it? How did they fake the telemetry? Where did the spacecraft really go? They keep changing their story. Here is my challenge: provide specific details and be prepared to defend them. Stanley Kubrick did it? Fine. Where's your evidence? Meantime, we can scour the records for documentation of his whereabouts. If we can prove he wasn't where you think he was, then you would have to admit you were wrong. Go ahead... I'm open to any specific, concrete hypothesis you want to put out there.

Oooooh, good question. That indeed, is the very large, very boisterous pachyderm lounging in the living room. And he is getting much harder to ignore (esp. if they continue to fail to clean up after him). I've asked HBs the same question numerous times and for the most part, they let it go without even addressing it. In the rare event they do acknowledge it, they merely say it isn't their responsibility to provide an alternative. They're more than happy to sit there and attempt to poke holes in the evidence.

What does that prove? Well, first it shows that they have no idea how a hoax could have been pulled off, start to finish. But more importantly, it shows the astonishingly lazy and incurious mind of the typical HB. How could you be so sure of yourself that Apollo was fake yet never ask yourself how the fake was accomplished?

Your question, DJ, demonstrates better than almost anything, the intellectual deficiencies of the typical HB.

reply to post by Exuberant1


My credibility is not at issue here. Jarrah White and his disciples is; and it has been established that Mr. White has none what so ever, or hadn't you read the topic.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Pinke

Soon as I came into the thread FoosM accused me of being slow.

The old "he did it too" technique. That is a childish excuse.


Your arguments are quite sound and would be better if they did not contain insults. It is a pity you could not go back and edit them all out, as this thread would be an excellent research resource without them. Alas.

Exuberant won't see this (the 'champion of debate' has me blocked..) but I would URGE the other members here to make exuberant responsible for his words. He should be asked to back up his very clear inference that many or all of Pinke's arguments contain insults.

If he cannot back that up, he should have the cojones to admit he was wrong, and APOLOGISE.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Pinke

Soon as I came into the thread FoosM accused me of being slow.

The old "he did it too" technique. That is a childish excuse.


Your arguments are quite sound and would be better if they did not contain insults. It is a pity you could not go back and edit them all out, as this thread would be an excellent research resource without them. Alas.

Exuberant, we're still waiting for you to point out Pinke's insults.

That's a pretty serious charge. If you can't support your allegation I'd say you owe Pinke an apology.