Bart's 5:1 Russian superiority claim

[Mr Gorsky]

Welcome back margamatix ... now, how about addressing sts60's points above.

[Jason Thompson]

Margamatix, since you have seen fit to respond to this thread, how about a direct response to the events I have described? What do you think about Sibrel's conduct in this matter?

[sts60]

At first, I couldn't work out what rocketdad was talking about here,

I believe he was going from your hobby of yanking the chain of 419 scammers to saying that you were just here to yank our chains. I disagree with that.

or what his logic was for suggesting that someone who takes on hoaxers should be so feared.

He didn't say "feared", and his apparent point did not imply that. In any case, no one here is afraid of you.

But of course, when you think about it, what's the greatest hoax of all?

Presumably you mean the Apollo "hoax". But your arguments for this are thoroughly unconvincing and, in fact, unoriginal.

I gave you a menu of 6 claims you presented, all of which have been refuted, above. You bypassed that in favor of a quick reply to a perceived insult. Do you intend to address any of them directly?

[scooter]

Best as I can tell, Mr M has never replied to nuthin'...he gets swamped with evidence to his remarks, some very technical, some of second grade intellect level...then changes the subject without coherent reply/rebuttal. I think Rocketdad is on to something here...
He has a challenge posted on this board, to him and him alone, and is supposedly "studying" the issue in question. Will be watching this carefully.
I believe now that he has no intention of studying anything, any response will be based on the BS "scripture". He has no mind of his own and has zero common sense, intuitive thinking, nor a capability of thinking outside his carefully constructed, Earth centered "box"....like all his ilk.
I agree with rocketdad...given the volumes of carefully constructed evidence presented him, he ignores all and warrants no further valuable time from the very knowledgeable folks here. It is time wasted, with all due respect.
Mr M, I simply find you very closed minded, to the extreme. This is not meant as a "slam", simply an observation. I am dismayed by your behavior. You must learn to think, sir!
Apologies for the rant, just fed up with the game.
Regards...

Dave, schoolbus driver

[margamatix]

Look, I have explained to you that my time is limited, but despite this, PeterB has seen fit to start a new thread, directly addressed to me, on the subject of radio, a subject in which I have never professed to have any specialist knowledge.

As I said, I will look into his claims if and when I have the time.

Now this thread too seems to have turned into an "I'm obsessed with Margamatix" thread, despite the fact that I have not contributed to it before or offered any opinion whatsoever on Bart Sibrel's 5 to 1 claim.

Would you all please keep your discussions on a general level, rather than repeatedly addressing posts to me personally.


Meanwhile, if you would care to look at this footage again,
www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/apollofilm.rm

specifically the footage which starts at 55 seconds, you can see that this "astronaut" is quite clearly being jerked up on a wire

[frenat]

So you're starting that again? As has been explained to you multiple times already, he is bracing himself on the other astronaut and using the suits rigidity to help him get up. I believe this exact procedure is even spelled out in the ALSJ.

Why do you insist on using this very low res version of the video? It has also been pointed out that in the high res version this is much easier to see.

[sts60]

I doubt anybody's "obssessed" with you, margamatix. You yourself pointed out this is the right place to talk about Apollo hoax/conspiracy ideas; you came here to talk about it; so we're talking to you about it. It's not our fault your currently the only hoax believer active on the Apollo threads.

As for keeping discussions on a "general level" - no. You have made a variety of claims related to Apollo, and collectively we have the specific knowledge needed to rebut those claims. It is only appropriate to make detailed replies. The purpose of my itemized post was to see if you cared to respond to our refutations of your claims, other than by simply repeating yourself - as I see you have done once again, appealing to a low-resolution video, ignoring the high-resolution imagery offered you, ignoring the analysis and corroborating evidence offered you, and insisting someone is "quite clearly" being jerked up on a wire, when in fact no wire is visible and a valid explanation for the astronaut's motion exists.

If you are so interested in showing us something "quite clearly", why don't you make use of the higher-resolution video? Why don't you make clear the details defending any of the six claims I referred to above?

The problem is, you want to believe Apollo was a fake, but you are unable to make your case here because you cannot appeal to ignorance in front of a group of people who have actually taken the time and trouble to understand the subject. You have absolutely failed to defend any one of your claims; you've barely even tried - repeating your original statement is not a defense. Kindly don't cry foul because we remind you of the fact, and address posts to you personally - they're your claims.

I understand that everyone's time is limited and you cannot be fairly expected to reply in detail to a dozen different people. I for one would be happy if you would defend in detail just one single claim.

[JayUtah]

As I said, I will look into his claims if and when I have the time.

And you will be taken seriously when and if you have the time.

...despite the fact that I have not contributed to it before or offered any opinion whatsoever on Bart Sibrel's 5 to 1 claim.

You have repeatedly cited him as a source for your beliefs. That source has now been shown to be intentionally deceptive. Why do think that doesn't affect your arguments that you've based on his?

Would you all please keep your discussions on a general level, rather than repeatedly addressing posts to me personally.

No, I won't. You personally are making specific claims. Therefore you personally are responsible for supporting them.

specifically the footage which starts at 55 seconds, you can see that this "astronaut" is quite clearly being jerked up on a wire

Asked and answered.

You say you have limited time that prevents you from fully supporting your claims. Please do not waste it by simply repeating your original claim as if no subsequent discussion had occurred. Dave Cosnette has intentionally withheld the evidence that clearly explains what is going on in his brief clip. You categorically refuse to examine that evidence. There can be no further intelligent discussion on this point until you are prepared to pay attention to what other people say.

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

If you are so interested in showing us something "quite clearly", why don't you make use of the higher-resolution video? .

If you would care to direct me to the url for it, I will certainly be only too pleased to take a look.

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

No, I won't. You personally are making specific claims. Therefore you personally are responsible for supporting them.

I hadn't made any claim whatsoever on this thread.


Therefore, I can't see any reason why my name needed to be invoked on this thread, or any reason why I should be criticised for having not replied to posts on this thread.

Are your beliefs and your funding interconnected?

The new designation below your user name certainly gives an adequate idea of your own self-delusion and conceit.

[JayUtah]

I hadn't made any claim whatsoever on this thread.

You've made them all over the forum. Whether you provide support for your many claims by putting them in this thread or provide them in another thread is largely immaterial. Just deal with them somewhere and quit being so evasive.

Therefore, I can't see any reason why my name needed to be invoked on this thread, or any reason why I should be criticised for having not replied to posts on this thread.

Because people are talking to you, and you're not listening. We're all the same people. Heavens, why does it matter what thread it appears in? You started threads to challenge our beliefs and expect us to respond. Why can't we start threads that challenge your beliefs and expect you to respond?

This attitude of "I don't have to answer because it's not my thread," is pure evasive codswollop. Can you argue in favor of your beliefs, or can't you?

Are your beliefs and your funding interconnected?

No.

But Bart Sibrel's beliefs and income are connected. What say you to that?

The new designation below your user name certainly gives an adequate idea of your own self-delusion and conceit.

I have nothing to do with those labels; they are set by the forum administrator based on the number of posts written. Frankly I think it's blasphemous, and if I could do something about it, I would.

Now please address the arguments.

[apollo18]

margamatix said:

sts60 said:

If you are so interested in showing us something "quite clearly", why don't you make use of the higher-resolution video? .

If you would care to direct me to the url for it, I will certainly be only too pleased to take a look.

Here's the link, www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1473136.ram and might I add that you have been directed to it before.

[margamatix]

Thanks for the link. The motion of the astronaut's lower body is exactly the same, of course- in that both of his feet leave the "lunar surface", entirely against the laws of physics. The action of the assisting astronaut does not provide an equal and opposite reaction.


But hey- there's something else! Look at the footage immediately after this bogus manoeuvre. The newly-righted astronaut drops the bag in which he was collecting rocks.

Does this bag fall to the surface as though it was in an environment of one sixth gravity? What do you think?

If anybody is able to edit this type of film footage, I would be absolutely fascinated to see this footage played at double speed- ie restoring it to the original speed as though the speed of the film was halved after it was filmed.


Any offers?

[LunarOrbit]

Margamatix:

The new designation below your user name certainly gives an adequate idea of your own self-delusion and conceit.

I didn't choose the titles, they were the defaults of the forum and they are based on the number of the posts a user (any user) makes. It is purely a messure quantity of posts, not quality. That means you too, Margamatix, can be a "God".

I don't really like the default titles either which is why I intend to customize them to something more related to the subject of the forum... as soon as I can think of something to use. Any suggestions?

Now, if you want to contribute something of value to the discussion, rather than just attacking people over titles they did not choose, then please feel free to do so.

[LunarOrbit]

margamatix said:

But hey- there's something else! Look at the footage immediately after this bogus manoeuvre. The newly-righted astronaut drops the bag in which he was collecting rocks.

Does this bag fall to the surface as though it was in an environment of one sixth gravity? What do you think?

If anybody is able to edit this type of film footage, I would be absolutely fascinated to see this footage played at double speed- ie restoring it to the original speed as though the speed of the film was halved after it was filmed.


Any offers?

d**n it, will you please respond to people before you start new arguments? Why can't you understand that it's important to bring closure to one debate before starting new ones? Are you this irratic in all aspects of your life?

I bet your family loves how you change the channel on your TV after watching a program for five minutes.

Seriously... do you have "Attention Deficit Disorder"?