bishop's failures to deliver on accusations, assertions, commitments

  • 62 Replies
  • 26777 Views
?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: bishop's failures to deliver on accusations, assertions, commitments
« Reply #60 on: December 17, 2007, 07:41:14 PM »
Everything you are doing is old.  Everyone has had their time making arguments against Tom, and there's no need to go repeating the same shit over and over again every time Tom does a copya pasta (as the argument you present will be made by any worthy noob anyway).  Tom is a troll, you are doing nothing but supporting him by pointing out how wrong he is every time he posts.  If noobs can't defeat Tom, then that's their problem.  Let them sort out their business with Tom's FE theory (although some [not 'TOM U IZ RONG LOL'] intervention is great).  Pointing out he's wrong is alright once in a while, but when it's all the time it's old.

quoted for self-irony.

the only one i'm choosing not to feed at this point it time is you.  maybe later.  but thanks.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: bishop's failures to deliver on accusations, assertions, commitments
« Reply #61 on: December 20, 2007, 03:07:09 PM »
bumpage.  giving bishop another chance to rebut the status of his fantastic failures.

bishop, you are a master of exactly and only three things:

a] making random unfounded assertions

b] defending them with rowbotham copy/pastes

c] and/or running away from the hard questions that naturally follow either disappearing, or by introducing *new* random, unfounded assertions and lies that derail attention from your original unfounded assertions and lies .  kind of like the liar's version of a ponsey scheme.

every *new* random, unfounded assertion you have introduced into this thread has been thoroughly shot down.  and yet you keep making new ones faster than the old ones can be discussed.


so let's review the status of the original hard questions:

1.1] "The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown"  status: bishop failed to adequately support.  another baseless and inexcusable accusation of nasa fraud.

1.2] "The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another."  status: bishop failed to adequately support.  another baseless and unconscionable accusation of nasa fraud.

1.3.a] "Clouds have shadows in one image but no others."  status: bishop forfeited.  another baseless and cowardly accusation of nasa fraud.

1.3.b] "Et cetera."  status: huh?  where does this belong in rational debate as an accusation?

2] bishop can see a beach from 33 miles away while viewing through a telescope just above water level.  we need a commitment from bishop to provide evidence.  status: failure to even just commit, much less deliver.  another random assertion pulled out of [some dark and nasty area].

3] on oct 31, bishop stated "I do have video evidence for reproductions of Rowbotham's work coming in today through the post. I'll have it converted and uploaded online within a few days."  status: bishop gets a pass on this one, with nothing proven or disproven.  he was [conveniently?] thinking of a different video.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: bishop's failures to deliver on accusations, assertions, commitments
« Reply #62 on: December 20, 2007, 03:09:33 PM »
bumping this to demand that bishop account for his direct self-contradiction.

I don't see any dust. I see stars. If it was just dust on the film, why is there no dust overlapping the earth?

this also of noteworthy interest in another way: he directly contradicts himself.  (for the ten zillionth time.)

in a post on this very thread, while dicsussing the horrible ms-paint job on the stars in the earth shot, he confidently states: "The stars are clearly coming from within the image"

then later in this same thread, he finds what he claims (and seems to be) the original, much higher-res scan of the same scene, mysteriously and completely lacking the giant ms-paint "star" blobs - but now with dust, lint, and fuzzies on the image.  to which he states equally as confidently (my emphasis): "these stars are actually in the scene"

both cannot be true at the same time, yet he has stated unequivocally just that.

edit: fixed concatenated quote.