revisiting Apollo

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?

In article .com,
says...


I've owned a Hasselblad


You are a liar.


--
Alan Lehun

In article .com,
says...


I've owned a Hasselblad


You are a liar.


--
Alan Lehun

**** you asshole. I know more about the universe than you can even imagine.

Paul Lawler wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
ogers.com...

Oh c'mon, Hawking is allowed to make errors, and in the words of some
crank on here, that is the mark of good science. True scientists know
when they are wrong and man enough to admit it.


Too bad you're not.

**** you asshole. I know more about the universe than you can even imagine.

Paul Lawler wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
ogers.com...

Oh c'mon, Hawking is allowed to make errors, and in the words of some
crank on here, that is the mark of good science. True scientists know
when they are wrong and man enough to admit it.


Too bad you're not.

Lab rat getting anxious for the scientist to open the trap door? Face
Ceebee, you're stuck in a maze and you dont have a clue.

CeeBee wrote:

Yoda wrote in alt.astronomy:



True scientists know
when they are wrong and man enough to admit it.



You could take an example from them.

Lab rat getting anxious for the scientist to open the trap door? Face
Ceebee, you're stuck in a maze and you dont have a clue.

CeeBee wrote:

Yoda wrote in alt.astronomy:



True scientists know
when they are wrong and man enough to admit it.



You could take an example from them.

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
|
| I cited a documentary to make fun of asswipes like you who
| have nothing better to do than showing how superior their
| analytical skills are.

I fail to see how we have been made fun of. You attempted to support a
claim by citing material that was rather immediately shown to be an admitted
falsehood. We seemed to know that, but you didn't; you required it to be
shown to you. Unless I'm mistaken, you admitted you believed it was true
until we showed you it wasn't.

| ...when you guys look stupid, get even more vengeful and pedantic.

Apparently from your point of view it's all about making other people look
stupid, for whatever reason. Except that we haven't been made to look
stupid. We rather quickly and conclusively saw through the holes in your
argument.

| So what do you guys do, run around and search for my posting history.

You made your posting history relevant by making assertions about what you
had claimed and what you had not claimed. You accuse us of misrepresenting
your arguments. Why would it therefore be improper to revisit those prior
arguments to show that we have not mispresented them?

| why don't you 'brilliant' and socially superior (sic) put your
| analytical skills to use on what really matters....like UFO sightings.

Why do we have to agree that UFO sightings matter more? Why are you trying
to change the subject?

| What you don't get and insist like other loons online is that
| I play the devils advocate sometimes when it suits my purposes.

And what would that purpose be?

The problem with this story is that your attempts to play "devil's advocate"
are indistinguishable from real attempts to argue farfetched conclusions.

| And you have all been had

Funny, I don't feel "had".

| Well, you certainly have the inferiority complex that many conspiracy
| theorists seem to share.
|
| Oh [expletive] man, read the paper, applaud the naked emperor some
| more, and go back to [expletive] sleep.

Am I wrong in concluding that your activity here is designed to make you
feel good by making others appear foolish? If I am wrong, what then is your
purpose? You say Usenet makes you sick to your stomach, but you keep
returning and posting. That's interesting behavior to say the least.

| Wow you researched a hoaxed film? Must have had you fooled.

No, because I watched the film all the way to the end and saw where it was
revealed as a hoax. I contacted the filmmaker to discuss his motives for
having made it. I know now for a certainty why the film was made. Others,
sadly, were not so careful and have come away with incorrect knowledge which
they nevertheless believe.

The question I think is more relevant is why you *didn't* research the film
before you concluded that it was worth claiming as evidence that the U.S.
had admitted photo fakery. Weren't you suspicious when no announcement was
made on CNN or Sky News or Al-Jazeera? Weren't you suspicious when no call
was made in Congress to cut NASA's funding or to prosecute those
responsible?

The reason Karel's film works is because the premise is *undeniably*
incredible. He wants to see if he can get you to believe something that is
utterly preposterous.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
|
| I cited a documentary to make fun of asswipes like you who
| have nothing better to do than showing how superior their
| analytical skills are.

I fail to see how we have been made fun of. You attempted to support a
claim by citing material that was rather immediately shown to be an admitted
falsehood. We seemed to know that, but you didn't; you required it to be
shown to you. Unless I'm mistaken, you admitted you believed it was true
until we showed you it wasn't.

| ...when you guys look stupid, get even more vengeful and pedantic.

Apparently from your point of view it's all about making other people look
stupid, for whatever reason. Except that we haven't been made to look
stupid. We rather quickly and conclusively saw through the holes in your
argument.

| So what do you guys do, run around and search for my posting history.

You made your posting history relevant by making assertions about what you
had claimed and what you had not claimed. You accuse us of misrepresenting
your arguments. Why would it therefore be improper to revisit those prior
arguments to show that we have not mispresented them?

| why don't you 'brilliant' and socially superior (sic) put your
| analytical skills to use on what really matters....like UFO sightings.

Why do we have to agree that UFO sightings matter more? Why are you trying
to change the subject?

| What you don't get and insist like other loons online is that
| I play the devils advocate sometimes when it suits my purposes.

And what would that purpose be?

The problem with this story is that your attempts to play "devil's advocate"
are indistinguishable from real attempts to argue farfetched conclusions.

| And you have all been had

Funny, I don't feel "had".

| Well, you certainly have the inferiority complex that many conspiracy
| theorists seem to share.
|
| Oh [expletive] man, read the paper, applaud the naked emperor some
| more, and go back to [expletive] sleep.

Am I wrong in concluding that your activity here is designed to make you
feel good by making others appear foolish? If I am wrong, what then is your
purpose? You say Usenet makes you sick to your stomach, but you keep
returning and posting. That's interesting behavior to say the least.

| Wow you researched a hoaxed film? Must have had you fooled.

No, because I watched the film all the way to the end and saw where it was
revealed as a hoax. I contacted the filmmaker to discuss his motives for
having made it. I know now for a certainty why the film was made. Others,
sadly, were not so careful and have come away with incorrect knowledge which
they nevertheless believe.

The question I think is more relevant is why you *didn't* research the film
before you concluded that it was worth claiming as evidence that the U.S.
had admitted photo fakery. Weren't you suspicious when no announcement was
made on CNN or Sky News or Al-Jazeera? Weren't you suspicious when no call
was made in Congress to cut NASA's funding or to prosecute those
responsible?

The reason Karel's film works is because the premise is *undeniably*
incredible. He wants to see if he can get you to believe something that is
utterly preposterous.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
|
| It was a psychological experiment you [expletive].

If I had a nickel for every time someone on Usenet tried to use the
"psychology experiment" when his arguments went awry...

| 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's not at all what you said. You said the documentary proved the "fact"
that the U.S. government had recanted. I provided the relevant quote from
your original post.

| 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.

You said there were many other discrepancies to the Apollo record. What did
you intend by that statement, if not to suggest that belief in Apollo's
authenticity is foolish?

You said there were photographs that were "laughable". I asked you to
identify one, and you refused. What was the purpose of that statement, if
not to continue to support your statement that the Apollo photos were faked?

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

I've heard that rescue attempt far too often over the years to believe in it
anymore. I responded to your posts dispassionately and with a firm command
of the facts, ignoring your repeated attempts to "rile" me. How does that
make me a "lab rat"? You made allegations of fact in a field that happens
to interest me and about which I know a great deal. I challenged your
assertions and provided discussion to say why I doubted your claims. Why is
this somehow irrational?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org