rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 6, 2007 17:20:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 6, 2007 17:26:21 GMT -4
There seems little point in repeating the explantions you have already been given, since you have demonstrated a staunch refusal to listen to everything that disagrees with you already.
Suffice to say i do not accept your expectations of what should be seen as a valid yardstick against which to measure any observation, since you admit ignorance of basic mechanics yet still presume to hold forth at length about how things are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 6, 2007 18:21:44 GMT -4
...but you don't have time to look at Shuttle EVA films. Why start a new thread on a topic discussed elsewhere? You have too many forks in the fire...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 6, 2007 18:42:53 GMT -4
Asked and answered. Subjective opinions are not proof.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Jun 6, 2007 18:51:20 GMT -4
Yow! I knew that was a time tunnel I stepped into! Now I'm back when David C is extolling the 'supported by wires' thing again.. so is it the 6, 10, 12 , 14, 16, 20 or 24 month old version... hmm?
' Course back then we knew him as "Ol'-I don't have the time to look for any footage of xxx- guy"
WIZZ!...And I'm back in the room... Oh- he's still at it.
That Horse is Dead. Stop hitting it, Rocky!
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jun 7, 2007 5:06:47 GMT -4
Well Rocky, the sequential-colour sequence (ie RGB) from the TV camera proves your "hypothesis" (I guess that's what we can call it) WRONG
Not even debatable. JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Next hopeless HB joke, please.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 8, 2007 16:03:52 GMT -4
You people pretty much destroyed you credibility when it comes to photo analysis when you did those silly analyses of the picture I posted in this thread. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1169650064&page=1Some of you refused to analyze the picture. Refusing to analyze a picture doesn't hurt your credibility quite as much as giving a silly analysis of one but your credibility took a big hit when you refused to analyze this picture. I don't know how any thinking person could take any of you seriously when it comes to photo-analysis after that. I'm mainly posting stuff on this thread for the viewers to see. Sure, I'll debate with you but I doubt you even believe your own arguments for the reasons outlined in this link. www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222(excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I might as well speak frankly. I think all of you know that Apollo was a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jun 8, 2007 16:09:55 GMT -4
Rocky, I won't be able to sleep tonight, worrying about what you think of my credibility.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 8, 2007 16:11:06 GMT -4
OUCH BURN! You just brought up 9/11 again in this Apollo related forum. LunarOrbit has repeatedly warned you not to do this. In case he doesn't ban you, be happy. In case he does, don't say he didn't warn you!
You need to stop hiding for the real reasons people don't analyze that picture. The reasons are in the thread. One example. Second post by gwiz: "I can't really see anything that I can identify in the picture, it's all too blurry."
I think you should seek mental help with your thoughts. Saying something like that after the people you accuse of knowing it's a hoax, have outright told you that is not at all what they believe, and that they know for a fact Apollo is real shows how out-of-the-world you are. Paranoia at its best. Seek professional help.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jun 8, 2007 16:19:14 GMT -4
Actually, he's done it twice now, today.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 8, 2007 16:22:01 GMT -4
It's a shame. I would have liked to debate this particular Body Movements difference issue with rocky.
|
|
|
Post by rchappo on Jun 8, 2007 16:25:21 GMT -4
I often wonder if any of these people that doubt the credibilty of proven professionals do the same thing in all aspects of their lives. Do they ever visit dentists and doctors or take their cars to mechanics? And do they display the same paranoia with regard to those people? I can understand people questioning professionals but to outright just disregard what these people say without any debate or reasoning...phew....I can't even begin to imagine what that must be like.
(actually my wife works in a dental practice and has many stories of people that show up for their appointments, get their teeth examined and then refuse to let the dentist do any treatment because they don't believe there is anything wrong with their teeth! sheesh)
sorry if this is off topic....I'm new!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 8, 2007 16:27:04 GMT -4
You people pretty much destroyed you credibility when it comes to photo analysis when you did those silly analyses of the picture I posted in this thread. A thread unrelated to the Apollo hoax theory which is therefore off topic in this section of the forum! Get that into your head! No, what we refused to do is play your stupid games. We know that you will accept no answer other than the one that agrees with your predetermined conclusion. Being objective doesn't necessarily mean we will reach the same conclusion you have. Many people said that the image is too blurry to make out any details, and I agree. There isn't enough detail to say whether it was a 757, an F-16, or a flock of seagulls. It is you who is lacking in the credibility department because you have reached a conclusion based on an extremely poor quality image. The fact that you ignore the rest of the evidence (ie. debris from a 757, eyewitnesses, etc.) further destroys your credibility, so I find it laughable that you criticize ours. That is the last I will say on the matter in this thread. If you continue to discuss 9/11 in the Apollo hoax section you will be banned permanently.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 8, 2007 16:32:53 GMT -4
Rocky, what does a blurry surveillence camera pic have to do with body movements on the Moon?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 8, 2007 16:39:08 GMT -4
Good grief. I wasn't discussing 9/11. I just wanted to point out that these people were not fit to do photo analysis because of a lack of objectivity which they show in that thread. If I want to actually discuss 9/11, I'll invite them to go to a 9/11 thread. Is even mentioning a different thread taboo here?
Let's talk about it on the other thread.
|
|