Who's more entertaining?

[petereldergill]

I didn't include Jay here, as he is by far more entertaining, but given the choice, who would you pick?

BTW I don't post here much, mainly over at BAUT, but have been reading here quite a bit recently.

Both have their qualities...

Pete

[Al Johnston]

"There's no settleing the precedence of a louse over a flea"

Moonman marginally takes the "prize" over Stargazer's one trick pony: the Victor Meldrew impersonation got old very quickly...

[Grendels dad]

I also had to give moron man (oops, how did that "R" slip in there? I obviously meant moon man) a slight edge. At least he made some attempt to justify his positions, unlike the gazer who just keeps repeating the same old lines.

[Bob B.]

Stargazer isn't entertaining at all, but the thread still has entertainment and education value. I always enjoy reading posts by Jay, sts60, and the rest of the gang.

Moon man is only marginally better, but at least he made an effort to construct an argument.

[PhantomWolf]

I had to pick Moon Man too. Stargazer gfives moments of wonder, but really most of his bluster is he doesn't belive it. Moon Man tries to defend his position, and just comes up with absurdities that are laugh out loud funny.

[brotherofthemoon]

Moon Man honestly believes thinks that explosive bolts have to be manually unlatched, hypergolic rockets mix together all of their propellant at once, that the Moon has a scorching-hot vacu-phere, and that only Russian space capsules are capable of re-entering the Earth's atmosphere.

We can't seem to elicit that sort of inspired idiotry from Stargazer. Just tired Kaysingisms.

[gwiz]

Agree that Moonman takes the prize. The no shadows on a sunny day on earth line was the best.

[sts60]

Yes, but stargazer's whips up some good waffles. Of course, he knew all along (after we'd discussed them) that the Van Allen Belts didn't stop EM radiation, or maybe only a little. He had a physics degree, but of course after his guesses were shredded it was only a "little" degree, and of course nothing much compared to his other degrees. Sam Colby's website is one of the better Apollo-debunking websites, but after we shredded Colby's drivel, well of course he makes a lot of mistakes, but he makes some good points too.

And on and on.

The shrill insistence on how the rising tide of truth is gonna wash over us and the whole paranoid you're-a-paid-NASA-agent thing gets old in a hurry, though.

[iamspartacus]

I voted Moon Man but if the question was, "Who's more interesting" I would vote for Stargazer. He shows the classic profile of a HB, eg:

1. I used to believe in the Moon landings
2. Years of research have prove to me that they were faked
3. Nothing you say will make me believe otherwise
4. Refusal to comment on the counter evidence but continues post ever more bizarre claims and links to already debunked HB sites
5. Ends up getting personal and abusive.

The psychology is fascinating.

[stargazer]

iamspartacus said:

I voted Moon Man but if the question was, "Who's more interesting" I would vote for Stargazer. He shows the classic profile of a HB, eg:

1. I used to believe in the Moon landings


true.

Like most people I fell for it hook, line and sinker.

2. Years of research have prove to me that they were faked


false.

It took me a couple of months.

3. Nothing you say will make me believe otherwise


false.

Show me non-manipulated pictures of the alleged moon landing sites and untampered with radiation data from the moon. ESA could provide both now. When I see this evidence I'll be convinced of the Apollo moon landings.

4. Refusal to comment on the counter evidence but continues post ever more bizarre claims and links to already debunked HB sites

false.

No counter evidence has been presented and HB sites have not been debunked except in wishful thinking, rather you look for the slightest mistake in irrelevant details and when you have found it you claim victory.

5. Ends up getting personal and abusive.

false.

Read through the posts and look who is getting personal and abusive.

The psychology is fascinating.

true.

[bughead]

This thread is a bad idea. By making it personal, stargazer is given ammo to take it personally. Stargazer obviously has no informational or logicall ammo, just emotions.

Bad play, guys.

I vote Margamatix, I still find him interesting. When I can find him.

[lenbrazil]

stargazer said:

Show me non-manipulated pictures of the alleged moon landing sites

What evidence do you have that the photos were manipulated with, I guess following your logic all photos are suspect because they were taken by NASA

and untampered with radiation data from the moon. ESA could provide both now.

So is the ESA in on it too? Do you have any radiation data from any source (hopefully credible) that indicates it would have been an insurmountable problem? What about Van Allen's insistance that it was not?

When I see this evidence I'll be convinced of the Apollo moon landings.

I doubt it the evidence has already been presented. You will discount any info that contradicts your belief.

[LunarOrbit]

This is not an "Apollo hoax theory" section of the forum. Keep all discussions of the theory in the proper section or I will lock the thread. And I agree that this thread may not have been a good idea... do not attack the messenger(s), attack the message.

[petereldergill]

Sorry Lunar...won't happen again. Feel free to lock it (not that you need my approval!)

Pete

[Retrograde]

I bucked the trend and voter for stargazer, but that's largely based on my expectation that his meltdown will come soon, and will be a good one...

N