revisiting Apollo

"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.


Um, so snow, being able to retain a footprint, also has the consistency of
mud, does it?

Ian

Jay Windley wrote:

"Paul Lawler" wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| Actually he stated as much:
|
| On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:08:42 GMT, Yoda
| wrote:

I agree. The face-saving I'm talking about is partly Yoda's attempt to
distance himself from Karel's film and partly the attempt to reinvent this
thread as some sort of psychology experiment.

It was a psychological experiment you ****in dumbass. In fact every time
I call someone a dumbass is an experiment. I would like to thank
everyone here for willingly albeit ignorantly participating in this
dumbass experiment. You have all proved yourselves worthy lab rats.


Admitting the film was false is one thing. But trying to claim that he
never touted it as a source is another.

I was asked for evidence when I was all along quoting the film. I
merely pointed out where the quotes came from. I never once said which
quotes I supported or didnt support, merely quoted them you moron.
There it is again spelled out for you, you dumb ****in lab rat.

In his first post he claimed the
documentary proved that the U.S. government retracted its position -- as a
fact, and that it proved -- again as a fact -- that Apollo photography was
faked. After he found out the documentary was bogus, he tried to claim he
was only quoting from the documentary, not expressing belief in it.

Yes exactly, and it isnt a claim, it is a fact that the US government in
the documentary said that they hoaxed the moon landing film. That is
all I said, and you jumped all over me claiming that was my
position....hahahahahah..the joke is on you.


And the attempt to rescue a failed argument by insisting it was just a
"test" or an "experiment" (which the knowledgeable participants invariably
"fail") has been a standard tool of net.kooks since Day One.

****in lab rats don't like being the subject of their own kooky psyche
analysis.

Yoda's
particular style of argumentation is about making people appear silly who
claim to be knowledgeable. Often -- but this is difficult to show in any
specific case -- it's the acting out of feelings of inferiority. Someone
who fails at being a doctor, for example, may seek out or create situations
that make doctors look foolish. This justifies his failure.

What you say above is just angry denial and a mirror of yourself being a
puny little lab rat for my psyche experiment.


Yoda failed to prove, by means of his reference to the "documentary", that
the Apollo photography was faked. Had that worked, it would have made
Apollo fans seem foolish in that they believed in something that was
"revealed" to be false. But now he's found a new way to make Apollo fans
seem foolish: he's going to pretend it was all an experiment to show how
they respond in knee-jerk fashion

And you all proved beyond any doubt that you are indeed knee jerk idiots.

to any assault on their beliefs. This
would suggest they are obsessed and perhaps brainwashed. But of course
obsessed people don't wait around for people to bring up their pet topics.
Nothing has been said about Apollo in this forum for quite some time.

He has suggested that his beliefs on Apollo are still tenable, but he's not
about to submit any of that evidence to scrutiny.

Filling in blanks again I see. I never suggested any such thing.

He's going to make sure
everyone hears him say he has it, but we won't be seeing any real arguments
or evidence from this point on.

You wont see anything from me period. You and my other lab rats online
here in Alt. astronomy dont deserve it. What they do deserve however is
more bull**** like this. If you don't agree, then stop. Stop
responding to this 'loon' .......please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


He doesn't want to run the risk of it being
thrown back in his face again.

Thats all you loons and kooks are good at, throwing things in peoples
faces...and you have proved that over and over again. No wonder usenet
is hated by so many people, its filled with the lowest common
denominator of humanity, and makes most sane people ashamed to see.


There's no real magic or subterfuge going on. Guy makes ludicrous claim,
guy's arguments are destroyed, guy tries to save face. There's nothing odd
about that.

Can't stand it to realize that you have been the subject of a psyche
test without knowing it? What a joke.

Jay Windley wrote:

"Paul Lawler" wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| Actually he stated as much:
|
| On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:08:42 GMT, Yoda
| wrote:

I agree. The face-saving I'm talking about is partly Yoda's attempt to
distance himself from Karel's film and partly the attempt to reinvent this
thread as some sort of psychology experiment.

It was a psychological experiment you ****in dumbass. In fact every time
I call someone a dumbass is an experiment. I would like to thank
everyone here for willingly albeit ignorantly participating in this
dumbass experiment. You have all proved yourselves worthy lab rats.


Admitting the film was false is one thing. But trying to claim that he
never touted it as a source is another.

I was asked for evidence when I was all along quoting the film. I
merely pointed out where the quotes came from. I never once said which
quotes I supported or didnt support, merely quoted them you moron.
There it is again spelled out for you, you dumb ****in lab rat.

In his first post he claimed the
documentary proved that the U.S. government retracted its position -- as a
fact, and that it proved -- again as a fact -- that Apollo photography was
faked. After he found out the documentary was bogus, he tried to claim he
was only quoting from the documentary, not expressing belief in it.

Yes exactly, and it isnt a claim, it is a fact that the US government in
the documentary said that they hoaxed the moon landing film. That is
all I said, and you jumped all over me claiming that was my
position....hahahahahah..the joke is on you.


And the attempt to rescue a failed argument by insisting it was just a
"test" or an "experiment" (which the knowledgeable participants invariably
"fail") has been a standard tool of net.kooks since Day One.

****in lab rats don't like being the subject of their own kooky psyche
analysis.

Yoda's
particular style of argumentation is about making people appear silly who
claim to be knowledgeable. Often -- but this is difficult to show in any
specific case -- it's the acting out of feelings of inferiority. Someone
who fails at being a doctor, for example, may seek out or create situations
that make doctors look foolish. This justifies his failure.

What you say above is just angry denial and a mirror of yourself being a
puny little lab rat for my psyche experiment.


Yoda failed to prove, by means of his reference to the "documentary", that
the Apollo photography was faked. Had that worked, it would have made
Apollo fans seem foolish in that they believed in something that was
"revealed" to be false. But now he's found a new way to make Apollo fans
seem foolish: he's going to pretend it was all an experiment to show how
they respond in knee-jerk fashion

And you all proved beyond any doubt that you are indeed knee jerk idiots.

to any assault on their beliefs. This
would suggest they are obsessed and perhaps brainwashed. But of course
obsessed people don't wait around for people to bring up their pet topics.
Nothing has been said about Apollo in this forum for quite some time.

He has suggested that his beliefs on Apollo are still tenable, but he's not
about to submit any of that evidence to scrutiny.

Filling in blanks again I see. I never suggested any such thing.

He's going to make sure
everyone hears him say he has it, but we won't be seeing any real arguments
or evidence from this point on.

You wont see anything from me period. You and my other lab rats online
here in Alt. astronomy dont deserve it. What they do deserve however is
more bull**** like this. If you don't agree, then stop. Stop
responding to this 'loon' .......please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


He doesn't want to run the risk of it being
thrown back in his face again.

Thats all you loons and kooks are good at, throwing things in peoples
faces...and you have proved that over and over again. No wonder usenet
is hated by so many people, its filled with the lowest common
denominator of humanity, and makes most sane people ashamed to see.


There's no real magic or subterfuge going on. Guy makes ludicrous claim,
guy's arguments are destroyed, guy tries to save face. There's nothing odd
about that.

Can't stand it to realize that you have been the subject of a psyche
test without knowing it? What a joke.

In article ,
says...
All you had to do was watch it all the way to the end, and
you wouldn't have made a fool out of yourself.



I don't believe that would have saved him. Even now, having been
educated as to the scientific relevance of the mockumentary in question,
he still insists that the jokes contained within were, in fact, facts.

Yoda is a joke and, it must be admitted, not an unfunny one.

--
Alan LeHun

In article ,
says...
All you had to do was watch it all the way to the end, and
you wouldn't have made a fool out of yourself.



I don't believe that would have saved him. Even now, having been
educated as to the scientific relevance of the mockumentary in question,
he still insists that the jokes contained within were, in fact, facts.

Yoda is a joke and, it must be admitted, not an unfunny one.

--
Alan LeHun

When I first encountered the Hasselblad camera, it was through a good
friend of mine who was studying for his Masters in Political science. He
owned 3 Hasselblads and numerous photography equipment. It was him who
got me interested in photography and it was him who told me all those
years ago that the Hassalblad was in fact used on the moon.


You people are just a bunch of dumb ****s who hate to loose and when you
do, you scream all the way home to mommy.

CeeBee wrote:

Yoda wrote in sci.astro:



I've owned a Hasselblad, and I really don't care for them. It is just
a name, nothing more.


Of _course_ you have owned a Hasselblad.

Since people told you here that the pictures on the Moon were taken with
a Hasselblad, of course you have owned a Hasselblad.

And all the knowledge about hoaxed Moon pics and videos.

If you think about it, wonderful how all things come together
eventually, don't you think?

When I first encountered the Hasselblad camera, it was through a good
friend of mine who was studying for his Masters in Political science. He
owned 3 Hasselblads and numerous photography equipment. It was him who
got me interested in photography and it was him who told me all those
years ago that the Hassalblad was in fact used on the moon.


You people are just a bunch of dumb ****s who hate to loose and when you
do, you scream all the way home to mommy.

CeeBee wrote:

Yoda wrote in sci.astro:



I've owned a Hasselblad, and I really don't care for them. It is just
a name, nothing more.


Of _course_ you have owned a Hasselblad.

Since people told you here that the pictures on the Moon were taken with
a Hasselblad, of course you have owned a Hasselblad.

And all the knowledge about hoaxed Moon pics and videos.

If you think about it, wonderful how all things come together
eventually, don't you think?

You make me sick the most.

Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:37:43 GMT, Yoda
wrote:


I am a provacteur, and that is no "reinvention of myself" you dense
****. This newsgroup makes me sick to my stomach because its just a
bunch of idiots playing "scientist" while sitting in their armchairs
mocking anything they dont understand.


No, this newsgroup makes you sick because everyone here knows you are
a nutcase and won't take you seriously, so like the retarded child you
are, you are stamping your feet demanding attention.




Jay Windley wrote:


"Yoda" wrote in message
news |
| They are just ****in pictures people!!!!!!!! Who cares that some think
| they are hoaxed.

Obviously you do. Or at least you do until it's obvious that the people
against whom you're arguing know more about the subject than you do. Then
it's all just a big joke, ha ha. Not buying it. Like most conspiracy
theorists, you're used to dealing only with a relatively disinterested
public whom you can browbeat into thinking you know much more than they.
But now you're wallowing and you are trying to reinvent yourself as a
provacateur.

| Does it bother you people that much? Obviously.

It bothers me that people are claiming the photos were hoaxed, and that it
is not scientifically tenable to believe that they're real. What other
aspects of pseudoscience will you tolerate? How would you feel about being
judged someday by a jury composed of people who can't see through bogus
arguments even when they're dressed up as "science" or labelled "common
sense"?

| We have thousands of pictures of Unidentified Flying Objects...why don't
| you apply your "superior critical thinking" to those thousands of
| pictures and videos instead of worrying that someone thinks a few Apollo
| pics were hoaxed. Sheesh men, get a life!

Make up your mind. You seem to be claiming simultaneously that we're
spending both too much and too little effort on this question.

You make me sick the most.

Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:37:43 GMT, Yoda
wrote:


I am a provacteur, and that is no "reinvention of myself" you dense
****. This newsgroup makes me sick to my stomach because its just a
bunch of idiots playing "scientist" while sitting in their armchairs
mocking anything they dont understand.


No, this newsgroup makes you sick because everyone here knows you are
a nutcase and won't take you seriously, so like the retarded child you
are, you are stamping your feet demanding attention.




Jay Windley wrote:


"Yoda" wrote in message
news |
| They are just ****in pictures people!!!!!!!! Who cares that some think
| they are hoaxed.

Obviously you do. Or at least you do until it's obvious that the people
against whom you're arguing know more about the subject than you do. Then
it's all just a big joke, ha ha. Not buying it. Like most conspiracy
theorists, you're used to dealing only with a relatively disinterested
public whom you can browbeat into thinking you know much more than they.
But now you're wallowing and you are trying to reinvent yourself as a
provacateur.

| Does it bother you people that much? Obviously.

It bothers me that people are claiming the photos were hoaxed, and that it
is not scientifically tenable to believe that they're real. What other
aspects of pseudoscience will you tolerate? How would you feel about being
judged someday by a jury composed of people who can't see through bogus
arguments even when they're dressed up as "science" or labelled "common
sense"?

| We have thousands of pictures of Unidentified Flying Objects...why don't
| you apply your "superior critical thinking" to those thousands of
| pictures and videos instead of worrying that someone thinks a few Apollo
| pics were hoaxed. Sheesh men, get a life!

Make up your mind. You seem to be claiming simultaneously that we're
spending both too much and too little effort on this question.

I've posted some other things online here, and there has been no serious
responses, just insults. Go figure...your a bunch of dumbasses and sore
losers and can't stop being a slave to your egos. Impossible for
Pavlov's dog to stop salivating too, I know. Bunch of ****in morons.

Jay Windley wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
|
| This newsgroup makes me sick to my stomach...

Yet, strangely, you keep coming back to it. Why?

| because its just a bunch of idiots playing "scientist" while
| sitting in their armchairs mocking anything they dont
| understand.

I'm sitting in my engineering lab.

We keep asking you to tell us what it is we're failing to understand, but
you seem more interested in insults than in getting down to brass tacks.
I've fairly *begged* you to provide examples of my supposed dim wit. But
all you can do is apply the label over and over.

It's very easy to call someone a fool. It's quite a bit more difficult to
show that someone is a fool. Anyone can do the former, so it's no great
accomplishment. Can you do the latter?