#141
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com... What is there to discuss? You guys know everything and we know nothing(sic). This is the second time I've seen you misuse this, so I am taking this opportunity to enlighten you. (sic) is used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message news | | I didnt change horses at all. Whats the matter, don't like being had? I wasn't "had". I've reported on Karel's work on my web site for some time. | Don't like being insulted when all you can do is insult others? Where have I insulted you? I've been trying to talk to you about your claims. You seem more interested in riding roughshod over everyone, whether they're nice to you or not. | So? You are saying that Hollywood movies aren't attempting for | accuracy? Thats bull**** and you know it. Actually I know for a fact that it isn't false. Have you ever worked in Hollywood? Have you worked in the motion picture or theater industry? I have. Sacrifices to accuracy are made all the time -- habitually -- in order to avoid confusing an audience or to convey something that's just hard to convey any other way. Show business is *all* about giving people what they think they expect, not what actually is the case. If you want to show lovers in the starlight, you have to photograph the lovers against black with relatively bright light and insert false stars later in the darkroom. That's how it's done, because our film can't do both. Do you really intend to argue that *fictional* programs such as 2001 or Star Trek or Star Wars are meant to be taken literally and depict actual space dynamics? | The only joke here has been you attempting to foist | it off as a real program showing real evidence. | | I never attempted anything of the sort, I quoted it that is all. False. "Yoda" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com... | | The US government openly admitted recently that the moon pictures were | hoaxed on the direct order of President Nixon. And to top it all off, | Stanley Kubrick is the man responsible for the moon landing hoaxed | pictures. And then you continue in the same article: | Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is | fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC. It featured interviews with many | of the people involved in the hoax, and the reasons for the hoax. You most certainly *did* claim that your "documentary" was real proof that the Apollo photography was faked. If you wish to concede that claim, by all means do so. But to say you never made it is to deny reality. | It is a real documentary No. It is a fictional program made in the style of a documentary. It specifically disavows that it is reporting real fact or reaching supportable conclusions. | ...the fact that the CBC or any other news network would spend | money and the time to put out disinformation or | misinformation proves that there is a cover up. How so? Are the Christopher Guest mockumentaries also propaganda belying a sinister motive or cover-up? Considerable money and time were spent on the them too. | | There is still alot of discrepancies regarding the Moon landings. | | Such as? | | Need we go there? I have better things to do than be subjected to more | insults? I have yet to insult you, despite having been insulted and called several names by you. Ignore the others, if you wish, but I'm not interested in insults, either to receive them or to dish them out. It's easy to call someone dimwitted and brainwashed, as you have called me. But it's quite a bit more difficult to demonstrate that someone is dimwitted and brainwashed. You say there is evidence that proves your point and thereby shows us to be dimwitted. But you won't present it. Fine, but you can't later claim that we are the ones who are refusing discussion. I'm specifically inviting you to present your evidence, and I'm representing to you that it will be discussed on its merit without insults, as I have hitherto done. By refusing that, you establish that you're the one not interested in the evidence. | Hardly. But I do know more than your average dumbass out there. Then present your evidence. If you're right, you should be able to prove your point. | Yeah ok, I thought it was real (sic), now you can feel superior. It is not a matter of feeling superior. It is simply a matter of you conceding a point that you realize now was in error. That's the way intelligent discussion happens. Debate is not merely chest-beating. It is a process by which ideas are discarded when they are no longer supported by evidence. Transparent attempts at saving face do not help your credibility. You will find it much more advantageous to admit error when you make it. Otherwise people will get the idea that facts do not deter you from belief. -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Windley" wrote in message
... "Yoda" wrote in message | Yeah ok, I thought it was real (sic), now you can feel superior. It is not a matter of feeling superior. It is simply a matter of you conceding a point that you realize now was in error. That's the way intelligent discussion happens. Debate is not merely chest-beating. It is a process by which ideas are discarded when they are no longer supported by evidence. Transparent attempts at saving face do not help your credibility. You will find it much more advantageous to admit error when you make it. Otherwise people will get the idea that facts do not deter you from belief. Actually he stated as much: On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:08:42 GMT, Yoda wrote: All it proves is that the mass media likes to brainwash people and shouldn't be believed in anything they say period. I haven't changed my opinion concerning the fluttering flag, nor the footprint, nor others. The people stole the idea of a moon hoax and made a video of it as if it were real investigative work. How nice of them at CBC to promote such viscious lies in the name of laughter. I am glad they are and those with them are having a good laugh, only shows how insane our world has become. And I hope the the true Gods are watching. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message . rogers.com... | | And do you see why comparing it to today's standards is wrong? | | No I don't see that. Then that is why you cannot be taken seriously. If you refuse to account for 30 years' worth of development in television technology in your opinion, then your opinion is hardly worth paying attention to. | But a camera with such poor quality is a joke. Why do you insist on limiting your examination only to the elements of the available evidence that support your point? Why are you unwilling to do more than scratch the surface of the available evidence? | | | Such as the glare showing up when Neil Armstrong gets off the lander. | | | That glare is a laughable. | | | | Please identify the photo you're describing. | | Why do you care so much? Because you're trying to get rhetorical mileage out of the ad hominem arguments others are making. You come off looking better if you can spin the discussion to look like people are beating up on you without provocation. But if you are presented with a choice -- respond to legitimate invitations to discussion, or respond to ad hominem attacks -- we can see where your goals really lie. You spend lots of time trading insults with the other posters, but when encouraged to get back to the meat of the discussion, you refuse. How then can you argue that the vitriol in this thread is entirely everyone else's doing? | Is it part of your superiority complex...that | you need to prove to the world, how smart you are, how brilliant you | are, how much you have it all figured out? Um, no. It's a matter of examining evidence you say is going unanswered in favor of jibes and insults. You lament that you're being dismissed unfairly. I'm trying to correct that, but your behavior seems to indicate that you *want* to be dismissed unfairly, for whatever reason. | What is there to discuss? You guys know everything and we know | nothing(sic). Why allude to evidence if not to present it? You seem to be trying to find a way to appear right without submitting your evidence to proper scrutiny. We aren't irrational if we reject evidence we have asked for but not received. You alternate between accusing us of elitism and accusing us of being dimwits. Is it too much to ask that you make up your mind? | A used Hasselblad 500/EL still costs about $1,500. | | Whatever...you'll argue everything and anything. You seem to be claiming to have experience in photography. If you had any, that would be considered material to your claims that the Apollo photography is somewhat suspicious. So the question of whether you have any experience is relevant, and your supporting arguments merit attention. You say you've owned an expensive camera, and apparently that is supposed to support your argument to be an knowledgeable photographer. But I find that hard to believe. People willing to spend that much money on a camera generally already know how to use it. Do you have any other arguments that would tend to establish you as a photographer with enough expertise to support your claims? | What I did find interesting was how emotional stupifying this | newsgroup got over the mere suggestions of faked footage. It was not a "mere suggestion". It was a blatant assertion of fact, as I've reproduced above. People often respond strongly to allegations of fact that are ill-founded. I asked you befo how many lies are too many? How much crapola should we allow to persist before saying something about it? What about "getting a life" requires us to ignore people who impugn our professions, mentors, or beliefs? Most conspiracy theorists would rather the experts "get a life" and ignore their claims. They bank on being able to dupe the rubes and fly "under the radar" of legitimate experts. | You are all slaves! I think not. People who can think and investigate for themselves tend to be more liberated than people who blindly follow any theory that's presented so long as it strikes the right chord. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the historical and scientific underpinnings for my beliefs. You seem unwilling. Which of us is likely the slave? | Isn't it nice since you bring up the military, that science | is used for evil, murder and mayhem rather than the betterment of | mankind. And off we go on another tangent. | This implies that the moon landing missions served a military | purpose from the get go... The first electronic computer was built for the military. You use a computer. Does that imply that whatever you do with a computer serves a military purpose? -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff Quinn wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:02:57 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Yoda wrote: You're the moron to believe that picture which clearly shows moon mud is dust. Dust doesnt leave footprints. And you have wide experience of making footprints in fine material in low-gravity vacuum environments, and can therefore authoritatively state this. Yeah ok, moon dust has the consistency of mud due to its low gravity and lack of an atmosphere. Rest of your bull**** snipped. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com... Jeff Quinn wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:02:57 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Yoda wrote: You're the moron to believe that picture which clearly shows moon mud is dust. Dust doesnt leave footprints. And you have wide experience of making footprints in fine material in low-gravity vacuum environments, and can therefore authoritatively state this. Yeah ok, moon dust has the consistency of mud due to its low gravity and lack of an atmosphere. Excuse me? That would be the "appearance" of mud, not the consistencey of mud (since you weren't there to judge consistency, but are making assumptions based on a photograph. Pssst... you already admitted the "documentary" was a hoax, so you might want to switch horses again now. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Lawler" wrote in message ink.net... | | I do know several people who have spent tens of thousands of | dollars on professional telescope systems and have not learned | the basics of astronomical observing. g And it's not wholly impossible that Yoda purchased an expensive camera system without knowing how to work it. But in that case, and also in the case you bring up, it would be unwise to say that because someone purchased expensive equipment, he is thereby familiar with the principles by which it operates. That's the real argument. He wants to claim expertise because he once had an expensive camera. The problem still remains that he can't demonstrate any expertise, no matter what camera he owned. -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message . rogers.com... | | Yeah ok, moon dust has the consistency of mud due to its low gravity and | lack of an atmosphere. What makes you say moon dust has the consistency of "mud"? What particular properties of mud do you believe moon dust exhibits? The presence of dust on the moon has nothing to do with low gravity, and only a little to do with the lack of an atmosphe no atmosphere means the moon was bombarded by far more space junk than the Earth, and therefore has been subject to more pulverization sources. I'm still waiting for the argument to support the proposition that dust is not impressible. -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Dumbass only proves why people hate usenet.
Dr_Postman wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:38:36 GMT, Yoda wrote: Jay Windley wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message le.rogers.com... | | Well your insults do not bother me one wit, not one. I am laughing my | ass off over all of this. As am I. It's always funny to see people bluster their way into an argument, calling people names and referring vaguely to evidence, only to have people more familiar with that evidence completely deconstruct the argument. It's even more funny to see the original provacateurs try to backpedal their way out of embarrassing gaffes by saying it was all just a prank. Well if you really knew me, you would know that I am fooling around anyway. But who cares eh. No, you aren't: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J62E246D8 -- Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed" Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253. You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com "Did the Venus transit occur during sunset, idiot?" - Grant,on the GLP web board, explains to us how sunrise happens in NY and Asia at the same time. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Because the joke is on those responding. Like as in the joke is on you
because I couldnt care less either way. Your question of why participate can easily be redirected back at you and all the other dumbasses on here. Benign Vanilla wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message . rogers.com... snip Usenet is a joke. snip ...yet you posted over 20 messages to this thread alone. If it's such a joke, why participate? I think you are confused. That was a movie called 'Capricorn One'. That movie sucks. Never seen it and have no intention of watching it ever. If' you've never seen it, how do you know it sucks, or is this another example of your higher level data analysis skillset? snip |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Astronomy Misc | 15 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |