Lovell and Shepard Star Sighting Contradiction Proves Navigation Bogus and Apollo Inauthenticity

I am hardly frightened, I wrote long, courteous, albeit strongly worded warning letters to Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and others I have named as PERPS and gave them, and continue to give them, ample chance to debate/counter me. I encouraged them to speak up or I would write.

reply to post by DJW001


Were they to cop to their folly, I offered in exchange my not lifting a pen. They made their choice, and so witness the fallout.

They indeed should reconsider as I am just warming up. You find me a kook. They are scared to death of my capabilities.

Your name calling has not earned you my respect DJW001, and so the answer to your proffer is NO!!! This person you called and call an "idiot", a "moron", and this person that paradox called a "retard", has no desire whatsoever to debate either of you except as we are now, and should you continue to engage in your name calling, I will consider no longer responding to you directly, if at all. Thank you very much.

And if you have a problem with my tauntings as regards the astronauts and other PERPS, they were well and FAIRLY warned. I spelled out for them all that I knew, and furthermore informed them as to what I was capable of. I was more than fair, and now they pay the price for jerking our collective chain and mine in particular. Abject embarrassment and shame as we expose every ever loving detail of their patently transparent ruse. Their choice. I need not carry on. They could cop to it all and save face.

To Neil armstrong, "Don't urinate on my back and tell me that it is raining......."

Hope that is clear and somewhat helpful, to Neil and all the rest........Can't say we appreciate your efforts....

Originally posted by decisively
You find me a kook.

Why? I'm answering one.

Neil Armstrong does not share your views

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular


As alluded to previously, the rather poetic irony of it all is that the closer to the ruse, the closer to the Apollo fraud an individual is, the less "kooky" a guy like me is. By the time one gets to a Neil Armstrong type, they are beyond horrified of what we have learned. They now must countenance with ever more and more horrific embarrassment the details of their obscene comportment as we go over it in our methodical quotidian way, turning up more and more as regards the nauseating specifics of this shameful deceit.

Originally posted by decisively

As alluded to previously, the rather poetic irony of it all is that the closer to the ruse, the closer to the Apollo fraud an individual is, the less "kooky" a guy like me is.

No. You're full blown. Don't deceive yourself.

reply to post by decisively

Your name calling has not earned you my respect DJW001, and so the answer to your proffer is NO!!! This person you called and call an "idiot", a "moron", and this person that paradox called a "retard", has no desire whatsoever to debate either of you except as we are now, and should you continue to engage in your name calling, I will consider no longer responding to you directly, if at all. Thank you very much.

You were the one who assumed the character of an idiot savant. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Now, if you refuse to debate me because you don't like my manners, why should anyone from NASA debate you after you've called them "frauds," "perps," "liars," "incompetent" and so forth? If you are ever going to have a proper debate to demonstrate your brilliance, it's here and now.

Incidentally, I hope you didn't really send threatening letters to the astronauts or NASA employees. The Secret Service investigates those.

You did not hurt my feelings

reply to post by DJW001

I said you had not earned my respect, and so I cared not/care not to debate you. My prerogative. Had your comportment been different, my attitude as regards the prospect of, value of, a debate with you, may have been different.


My decision is final. Perhaps when/if a colleague of mine chooses to join in, he/she will view the situation differently assuming you change your approach in your interactions with those of our ilk, highly educated, fully modern Apollo historians with a particular interest in the medical details of the fraud.

reply to post by decisively


I think we can all see by the amount of time you spend posting on here and replying to people that this is nonsense. You could at least have the common courtesy to offer the man a polite response. Instead you demean him and claim that he is beneath you, despite the extensive history of replies.

I have lost any respect I had for the effort you had put in.

Originally posted by decisively
Perhaps when/if a colleague of mine chooses to join in, he/she will view the situation differently assuming you change your approach in your interactions with those of our ilk, highly educated, fully modern Apollo historians with a particular interest in the medical details of the fraud.

Oh. So that's the modern definition of a kook!

Learn something new...

Originally posted by DJW001

Decisively, you were the one who assumed the character of an idiot savant. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Now, if you refuse to debate me because you don't like my manners, why should anyone from NASA debate you after you've called them "frauds," "perps," "liars," "incompetent" and so forth? If you are ever going to have a proper debate to demonstrate your brilliance, it's here and now.

So that's why Jim Oberg hasn't shilled up!

Originally posted by DJW001
Incidentally, I hope you didn't really send threatening letters to the astronauts or NASA employees. The Secret Service investigates those.

I sent the SS a copy of his post. Was I bad?

To Neil armstrong, "Don't urinate on my back and tell me that it is raining......."

You are probably the first person to ever say that in any form. I'll be the second, but really the first to say it correctly, as I will include his name in the statement where you pretend you are talking to him, kind of seeing him in a room and yelling across a table "Don't urinate on my back and tell me that it is raining...." (and with the dots at the end indicating that there is more to the sentence). And you spelled Armstrong with a small 'a', so I'm not sure if he'd recognize it. Without further ado, may I say properly:

Neil Armstrong, don't urinate on my back and tell me that it is raining.

I thank Mr. Armstrong for being a good sport and playing along (Neil's over here lolrofpuhd. Gotta go pat him on the back, get some air in there).

Edit:He's okay, don't worry.

Thanks for saying it properly

reply to post by Aleister


In a small sense, I believe Armstrong has in fact been a good sport about it all, struggling with demons as he must have, and must today, present tense, this very moment, dealing with this huge hand he played in the perpetration of this immense fraud and inuring us all so terribly in consequence.

That said, he's not off the hook, not by any means. He made an incredibly bad decision, and so, Armstrong must pay the price. He is known by many now as a thespian, not an astronaut, and this is only the beginning .

His children and grandchildren will suffer greatly to be sure. This must pain Armstrong tremendously, his awareness that Apollo as fraud may not be accepted as such by the public at large in his lifetime, but without question, it will be a feature of the public mindset at large within the next 10-25 years, no question.

reply to post by decisively


Today's unwitting self revelations:

struggling with demons as [I] must have, and must today, present tense, this very moment, dealing with this huge hand [I] played in the perpetration of this immense fraud and inuring us all so terribly in consequence.

That said, [I'm] not off the hook, not by any means. [I] made an incredibly bad decision, and so, [I] must pay the price. [I am] known by many now as a thespian, not a [doctor], and this is only the beginning .

I've told you before and I'll say it again: "Think before you post." Perhaps a properly moderated debate might lift the burden from your shoulders a bit.

Incidentally, I'm not a Freudian, but I can't believe you actually wrote "inuring us all so terribly...."

reply to post by exponent

Would you agree to debate someone who with regularity called you a MORON ?

DJW001 is not beneath me. I suspect that in his own field, DJW001 is every bit as well educated, every bit as competent, and every bit as hard working/dedicated/responsible as I am. That said, I said, and said rather directly/explicitly, that I took offense to the fact that DJW001 called me an idiot and a moron, and this sort of thing, not every now and then, but on a rather regular basis. Would you agree to a debate with me if I called you a moron ? Of course you would not, and of course I would never agree to debate such an individual either.
In addition, he consistently referred to my postings as nonsensical, despite my pointing out to him that he sure as shoot was spending a lot of time reading them and making an effort to counter my well documented claims.

reply to post by decisively

Would you agree to debate someone who with regularity called you a MORON ?




DJW001 is not beneath me. I suspect that in his own field, DJW001 is every bit as well educated, every bit as competent, and every bit as hard working/dedicated/responsible as I am. That said, I said, and said rather directly/explicitly, that I took offense to the fact that DJW001 called me an idiot and a moron, and this sort of thing, not every now and then, but on a rather regular basis. Would you agree to a debate with me if I called you a moron ? Of course you would not, and of course I would never agree to debate such an individual either.
In addition, he consistently referred to my postings as nonsensical, despite my pointing out to him that he sure as shoot was spending a lot of time reading them and making an effort to counter my well documented claims.

I called you a moron exactly once. Why is your skin so thin? You regularly call NASA doctors, scientists and astronauts fraudulent, quacks, etc, yet you want them to debate you? Stop with your tired excuses Why are you really afraid to debate me?

Originally posted by decisivelyWould you agree to debate someone who with regularity called you a MORON ?

No. If I was you (thank deity I'm not), I would run away and come up with any excuse possible to:
- try to pretend I wasn't one
- escape the inevitable thrashing I would get.

Exactly like you are.

DJW001 is not beneath me.

No, you're right, he isn't. He's in a completely different class, for the following reasons:
- his knowledge is very sound and comprehensive - you can tell he has real world experience and is NOT a pretender/troll
- he researches stuff properly
- he presents logical arguments that reach valid conclusions from valid bases
- he doesn't handwave
- he doesn't argue from incredulity
- he doesn't ever find the need to pretend to be other people to bolster his case
- he doesn't ever need to pretend he is part of an imaginary group of friends (none of whom ever post)
- he doesn't use terms that are normally only heard in mental institutions, like 'booger gonads'.
- on the rare occasion he makes an error, he not only fully acknowledges it, he also learns from it and logically looks at how that error affects the argument
- he doesn't argue from ignorance
- he doesn't post walls of text
- he takes a logical approach that does not involve selective misquotes, ridiculously flawed interpretations, and moronic readings of inevitably flawed and exaggerated personal recollections
- he knows bulldung when he sees it.
- he doesn't troll forums.

Gee, he's a lot like me..

So, you are right, decisively/dastardly/Patrick1000/fattydash/ad infinitum. DJW is NOTHING like you. Thank heavens for that.

I suspect that in his own field, DJW001 is every bit as well educated, every bit as competent, and every bit as hard working/dedicated/responsible as I am.

Now if ever there was an insult, that was one. Call me a moron, please - I'd rather be called that than be compared to you in any way.

of course I would never agree to debate such an individual either.

Because you know what the result will be, for all the reasons above.

In addition, he [CORRECTLY] referred to my postings as nonsensical

Fixed that for you.

BTW, decisively, can you explain two things to me?

Over the period you have been posting, you have made many, many claims about you/your 'group' going to do this and that, post various treatises, publications, etc. Yet all we have seen so far is *your* virtually ignored TotallyStoked youtube channel. Any update on all of those *other* things? Real soon now?

Secondly - where to from here? Now that you have been banned from all the forums where you might have had a chance to garner some support, are clearly unwilling to debate and are having little success here either, what will be your next step [s]backwards[/s]?

A court case? (giggle)
A press conference? (chortle)
A ... website?

or another persona, maybe at ..Godlike..? It seems to be a downhill road, but best of luck...


Anyway, call me totally skeptical .. of your abilities...

Would you care to comment on the topic of the thread

reply to post by CHRLZ



Now that you have gotten that off your chest, whatever it was and for whatever reason, would you care to comment on the topic of the thread ?

Shepard claims he need not be absolutely sure about the identity of stars when sighting them for the purpose of aligning the IMU/platform.

What do you think CHRLZ ? Do you agree with Shepard ? Is it OK to go to the moon and not be absolutely sure about one's platform alignment ?

reply to post by decisively


houston confirms the platform for shepard, shepard has full confidence in the computer to sighting stars, if he wanted a little extra confidence he would have planned himself time in the flight plan to allow the required time to sight stars.

the reason they didnt plan to have time to sight stars through the scanning scope was because they had full confidence in the auto aquisition of the computers. Now if the computer can do what the scanning scope does in a fraction of the time it takes to do it manually wouldnt you agree its much more efficient? after getting the readings can houston confirm the angles? will this not give them full confidence that they have the correct stars??

with all these arguments if you were really serious about any of it, why do you not start a class action law suit? why do you go around spamming web forums where the likely-hood of any experienced or important people (perpetrators to you) seeing it is close to 0%..

is your goal just to try to obtain infamy through ignorance? your stated goal of bringing justice is completely irrational given that you are spamming the wrong forums.. when did you email Neil? and which address did you email it to? a generic email that no one ever reads or his personal one?

you are making no serious attempt at all to bring any of your views to some real attention, so in effect you are trolling and spamming.. if you were serious and truly believed what you say you would have started a class action lawsuit by now.

I just LOVE these headlines you use, decisively. They give one.. such a credible visage..

Originally posted by decisively
Now that you have gotten that off your chest, whatever it was and for whatever reason

I don't see anybody else who doesn't get what I'm saying. Indeed, if they do ask, I'll happily clarify anything. What, specifically, did you have a problem with?

would you care to comment on the topic of the thread ?

It's been covered comprehensively by DJW, choos and others, to the satisfaction of the majority of the readers (judging by the stars and lack of any questions or criticisms..), so why would I need to repeat stuff that:
- you don't bother to read
- you don't comprehend
- you ignore
and that no-one else seems interested in? Anyway, you've now shown you haven't got the right stuff, by your refusal to debate.

I'd have to observe that your visit to ATS has probably been the least successful of all your attempts at flogging this dead horse. Which is rather damning, given the nature of the audience. I don't mean that unkindly, dear readers - I am just observing that ATS is normally quite receptive to conspiracy theories, even when they are quite silly.

Problem is, to be successful (anywhere), you have to at least *try* to present yourself well. Apart from the dismally woeful nature of your 'evidence' you have alienated yourself very effectively by playing the fool when you first came here, clearly in order to deceive the ATS readership - may I remind readers that this is decisively when he first posted here:

i study apollo a lot mostly because i learned it was sony when i read parts about how the astronauts said they sighted stars i am a sailor but mostly a navigator and have won many awards with my sextant even when i was a little boy and this is how i learned apollo was fony comparing the astronauts stores with how i do things and know about sighting stars
...my reading is good but my writing not so good and my sister says she will help me sometimes answer your posts because her writing is good ...
...i was about 5 i started to play with a sextant and i had a disability but it turned out i was good with patterns and numbers very fast with numbers and patterns and because i was on the boat and always looking at the stars and learning how to use a sextant for real i became a good navigator and could sight stars and navigate without electronics better than anybody

Yes, that was the old decisively, and remember he has already gloated about using this 'dastardly' character at another forum as part of his sockpuppet games.

Just what sort of person pretends to be 'disabled', and why? Do tell us, decisively.. Me, I don't like pretenders, sockpuppets and people who mock those with disabilities.

And then he went on to use ridiculously childish language like 'bed buddies' and 'booger gonads'. Here is decisively in some of his more revealing moments:

..NEIL ARMSTRONG IS A FAKE CLOWN CHARLATAN THAT SELLS CRHYSLERS
..IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH WHAT I THINK OF YOUR PANTY WAIST HERO
..BART SIBREL BEING AN INSIDER AND ALDRIN'S BED BUDDY
..we could sue lovell for that and take away all his wife's money for having her hideous beehive hairdos done
..i think we should cut off the cash flow to lovell's skanky wife
..lovell's and aldrin's gals are skanks beyond hope
..their boys got microscopic sized boogers for gonads
..maybe we can collect all of the itsy bitsy booger gonads of the fony apollo astronauts and put 'em on display
..BOOGER GONADS, armstrong, he is a first rate pathetic clown, sad sad sad clown
..HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR ENOUGH

Any questions? Yes, that's how decisively wants to present his 'case'. All those words were his, in a sad series of a posts starting here. There's lots more elsewhere - just browse back through his posts. But now, decisively has changed his little act, and hopes you won't remember all that...

So, who thinks the guy who posted the words in the quote above is in any way credible? I stand by the content of any post I make. How about you, decisively?

Or was that all typed by someone else using your login?

Be careful how you answer.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Brilliant post. I also especially like this post of yours here. I knew he had multiple aliases but I had no idea they were so broad!

I am thinking decisively could possibly have a personality disorder of some sort.

No, incorrect

reply to post by choos


Houston confirms nothing, the ground RESPONDS to alleged successful sightings with shaft and trunnion recommendations.

Houston, the ground has nothing to say about the platform as regards the star sightings per se. Houston does not know where the stars are and cannot help the astronauts find stars. Only the astronauts themselves can sight stars in these fraudulent cislunar platform align scenarios.

Once the stars are alleged by the astronauts to have been sighted, Houston, or "the ground" if you prefer, may send to the astronauts shaft and trunnion angle recommendations/adjustments given the raw data so generated by alleged successful star sightings.

But again to emphasize, the ground cannot align a platform, only the astronauts can do this.