|
Post by seemoe on Aug 14, 2010 22:09:47 GMT -4
Jack White
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 14, 2010 22:20:34 GMT -4
I've never understood that kind of logic... I guess that means I'm still sane. If the landings were real why would they need to fake the photographs?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 14, 2010 22:47:37 GMT -4
It is Jack White who utters the lie, and with a total lack of logic.
He claims he admires the achievement but then desecrates and denigrates the achievements of Project Apollo.
He is a hypocrite of the first order.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 15, 2010 14:53:43 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 16, 2010 19:22:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 16, 2010 20:27:53 GMT -4
There is so much wrong with her post that I don't know where to begin. It sounds like the YouTube video she is referring to is "Dark Side of the Moon", which is actually a mockumentary designed to show the dangers of blindly trusting the information in documentaries. A lot of conspiracy theorists don't seem to understand that.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 17, 2010 9:23:40 GMT -4
Oh great, Fetzer's entry to the "debate" is to post pretty much the same list of long debunked videos for the fifth time.
Seriously even if I knew nothing about the subject I would wonder why he can't explain anything himself.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 17, 2010 13:19:15 GMT -4
Someone needs to tell Fetzer to limit how much he quotes other people. He has so many nested quotes in this post that it looks like what happens when you hold a mirror up to a mirror. It makes me dizzy.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 17, 2010 13:47:55 GMT -4
And Jack White's insistence of putting each photo "study" in a separate posts by quoting the posts above.
I wonder if these guys are really that clueless about clear communication? Or are they trying to obfuscate there own positions.
Either way, it appears that White and cronies do not really want to debate, in any meaningful sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 17, 2010 16:46:44 GMT -4
Gee, I'm really disappointed! I thought maybe this Fetzer fellow might be some sort of intellectual HB or something - instead he turns out a very unsophisticated and simplistic argument like so many others that believe in the moon hoax. His reliance on the hoax films instead of using his own words are also a letdown. Seeing what I've seen so far, I wonder why Evan would bother debating him any further. Evan made some excellent indisputable points right off the bat about the moon rocks, but Fetzer casually dismisses it all and doesn't even address the most important evidence, like how can every geologist from many countries around the world be wrong in their expertise. This line "Everything else about the moon landing is fake, so why not "zap pits"? It sounds like it would be a piece of cake." is so uninformed that its laughable. The old "it sounds like" phrase tells you how the thread is going to go.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 17, 2010 16:50:53 GMT -4
Oh great, Fetzer's entry to the "debate" is to post pretty much the same list of long debunked videos for the fifth time. Seriously even if I knew nothing about the subject I would wonder why he can't explain anything himself. Yep. "Argumentum ad youtubum" should be outlawed. Other than that, it should exclude the poster from being taken seriously. You are right, if you need a youtube video to get your point across, you shouldn't be inserting yourself in the debate.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 17, 2010 17:06:12 GMT -4
And he suggests 'Capricorn 1' as a source for seeing how to fake a landing, good grief!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 17, 2010 17:43:54 GMT -4
I always suspect the people who say that never actually watched that movie.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 17, 2010 21:32:35 GMT -4
...if you need a youtube video to get your point across, you shouldn't be inserting yourself in the debate. If the proponent in the debate had some hand in making the video, and if the evidence is best suited to a video format, then I see no problem. A good example would be the videos some of you have made showing the outbound TLI trajectory versus the Van Allen belts. You are responsible for the content, the subject is best illustrated visually, and you stand by the results. In contrast, showing a video someone else has made on the subject and following up with nothing more substantial than a tacit, "I saw this video and believed it," is intellectually lazy -- especially if the video format is simply used to grease the message down using slick presentation and doesn't convey information beyond that possible in, say, the written word.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Aug 17, 2010 21:38:24 GMT -4
And Jack White's insistence of putting each photo "study" in a separate posts by quoting the posts above. I wonder if these guys are really that clueless about clear communication? Or are they trying to obfuscate there own positions. Either way, it appears that White and cronies do not really want to debate, in any meaningful sense of the word. I wonder if these guys are disinformants, paid by the government to do everything in their power to discredit the Hoax Movement and portray the lot of them as ignorant bumbling idiots.....? If they are, that's probably been the best return on Gov't dollars in decades... Cz
|
|