The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

  • 580 Replies
  • 65916 Views
*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #420 on: December 04, 2011, 10:04:26 AM »
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

This was a grammatical error on my part. In the context of my paragraph it should have been known what I meant. The first "you" should be "I" within the quotation.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 10:06:40 AM by Irushwithscvs »

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #421 on: December 04, 2011, 10:12:25 AM »
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

This was a grammatical error on my part. In the context of my paragraph it should have been known what I meant. The first "you" should be "I" within the quotation.

Oh really? If I said that the String Theory isn't true, the burden of proof would be on me.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #422 on: December 04, 2011, 10:42:42 AM »
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

This was a grammatical error on my part. In the context of my paragraph it should have been known what I meant. The first "you" should be "I" within the quotation.

Oh really? If I said that the String Theory isn't true, the burden of proof would be on me.

Like Markjo said, if you're offering a negative hypothesis, yes, yes it would be. If you're simply saying that string theory isn't true, it wouldn't be.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #423 on: December 04, 2011, 11:14:39 AM »
That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.


Not really.  In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments.  However, the burden is not always the same for both sides.  Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.

Not true. The side with the less accepted argument does not incur greater burden. The side with the most unobserved or unsubstantiated claims bears the most burden.

Say that we're living in the 1400's. Everyone believes in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Doctors believe it, scientists believe it, everyone takes for granted that witches exist. Even the king himself believes it. Is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of witches to prove that witches don't exist and there is no such thing as witchcraft, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that witches do exist and that witchcraft actually occurs?

Space travel clearly contains the most unobserved and unsubstantiated claims. It is claimed that NASA has developed rockets which can breach escape velocity, that NASA has landed men on the moon, and has sent robots to mars, and sends space ships to explore the solar system. These claims are unsubstantiated. NASA never went through any kind of peer review with the Apollo missions, for example. Indeed, there is much evidence that the Apollo missions were staged.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 11:52:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #424 on: December 04, 2011, 11:20:08 AM »
That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.


Not really.  In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments.  However, the burden is not always the same for both sides.  Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.

Not true. The side with the less accepted argument does not incur greater burden. The side with the most unobserved or unsubstantiated claims bears the most burden.

Say that we're living in the 1400's. Everyone believes in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Doctors believe it, scientists believe it, everyone takes for granted that witches exist. Even the king himself believes it. Is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of witches to prove that witches don't exist, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that they do?

Space travel clearly contains the most unobserved and unsubstantiated claims. It is claimed that NASA has developed rockets which can breach escape velocity, that NASA has landed men on the moon, and has sent robots to mars. These claims are unsubstantiated. NASA never went through any kind of peer review with the Apollo missions. Indeed, there is much evidence that the Apollo missions were staged.

There is much evidence that the so-called evidence that Apollo missions were staged are bogus. They were, in a way, peer reviewed by thousands of scientist from every possible nationality who would have detected any possible fraud.

Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #425 on: December 04, 2011, 11:23:09 AM »
See? This is exactly what the other thread was talking about - everybody's disagreeing, as always, about who burden of proof lies with. When are you guys gonna realise that mentioning burden of proof never ever helps any arguments for either side?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #426 on: December 04, 2011, 11:25:57 AM »
That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.


Not really.  In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments.  However, the burden is not always the same for both sides.  Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.

Not true. The side with the less accepted argument does not incur greater burden. The side with the most unobserved or unsubstantiated claims bears the most burden.

Say that we're living in the 1400's. Everyone believes in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Doctors believe it, scientists believe it, everyone takes for granted that witches exist. Even the king himself believes it. Is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of witches to prove that witches don't exist, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that they do?

Space travel clearly contains the most unobserved and unsubstantiated claims. It is claimed that NASA has developed rockets which can breach escape velocity, that NASA has landed men on the moon, and has sent robots to mars. These claims are unsubstantiated. NASA never went through any kind of peer review with the Apollo missions. Indeed, there is much evidence that the Apollo missions were staged.

There is much evidence that the so-called evidence that Apollo missions were staged are bogus. They were, in a way, peer reviewed by thousands of scientist from every possible nationality who would have detected any possible fraud.

Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?

Claiming that the Apollo missions did not happen (witches don't exist) is a negative claim. You are asking us to prove a negative.

Claiming that the Apollo missions did happen (whiches exist) is a positive claim which could easily be proven.

For example, NASA could let an interested third party disassemble one of the Lunar Landers which are displayed in museums, to prove that 6 billion dollars worth of engineering actually went into it. Without such demonstration people will look at the available evidence and conclude that the Lunar Lander was thrown together with junk yard parts and stationary supplies over a weekend.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 11:48:20 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #427 on: December 04, 2011, 11:30:52 AM »
That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.


Not really.  In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments.  However, the burden is not always the same for both sides.  Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.

Not true. The side with the less accepted argument does not incur greater burden. The side with the most unobserved or unsubstantiated claims bears the most burden.

Say that we're living in the 1400's. Everyone believes in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Doctors believe it, scientists believe it, everyone takes for granted that witches exist. Even the king himself believes it. Is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of witches to prove that witches don't exist, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that they do?

Space travel clearly contains the most unobserved and unsubstantiated claims. It is claimed that NASA has developed rockets which can breach escape velocity, that NASA has landed men on the moon, and has sent robots to mars. These claims are unsubstantiated. NASA never went through any kind of peer review with the Apollo missions. Indeed, there is much evidence that the Apollo missions were staged.

There is much evidence that the so-called evidence that Apollo missions were staged are bogus. They were, in a way, peer reviewed by thousands of scientist from every possible nationality who would have detected any possible fraud.

Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?

Claiming that the Apollo missions did not happen (witches don't exist) is a negative claim. You are asking us to prove a negative.

Claiming that the Apollo missions did happen (whiches exist) is a positive claim which could easily be proven.

For example, NASA could let an interested third party disassemble one of the Lunar Landers in a museum, to prove that 6 billion dollars worth of engineering actually went into it. Without such demonstration people will look at the available evidence and conclude that the Lunar Lander was thrown together with junk yard parts and stationary supplies over a weekend.

There are people who try to proce that those missions were faked; you do not want to do it, OK. So you say, because your link is a way of saying that the Lunar Module is a fake.

But those missions did happen. That's all.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #428 on: December 04, 2011, 11:36:35 AM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark
Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?

No, it doesn't. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. People believe in a lot of things which are not true. Astrology, Ghosts, Miracles, Angles, Luck, the existence of William Shakespeare.

The fact that people believe it does not make it true, or evidence that it is true.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #429 on: December 04, 2011, 11:38:48 AM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark
Since there are much more people saying that men did land on the Moon, doesn't the burden of proof fall upon you?

No, it doesn't. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. People believe in a lot of things which are not true. Astrology, Ghosts, Miracles, Angles, Luck, the existence of William Shakespeare.

The fact that people believe it does not make it true, or evidence that it is true.

Too many evidences that man went on the Moon.

Too many evidences that it was impossible to fake.

You really have to do better than this, Tom.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #430 on: December 04, 2011, 11:42:31 AM »
Quote
Too many evidences that man went on the Moon.

Incorrect. The "evidence" NASA produces actually suggests that they did NOT go to the moon.

See the Apollo Moonbuggy Problems article on the Wiki for instance.

Quote
Too many evidences that it was impossible to fake.

What evidence?

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #431 on: December 04, 2011, 11:48:37 AM »

Incorrect. The "evidence" NASA produces actually suggests that they did NOT go to the moon.

See the Apollo Moonbuggy Problems article on the Wiki for instance.
Quote

This has been debunked. Look on the internet. See Mythbusters for instance.

Quote
Too many evidences that it was impossible to fake.
What evidence?

Start with good sense: a conspiracy involving so many people, so many organizations, for so many years?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #432 on: December 04, 2011, 11:55:00 AM »

This has been debunked. Look on the internet. See Mythbusters for instance.

Mythbusters did not discuss the images in my link. Please demonstrate that the images in the link have been debunked.

Quote
Start with good sense: a conspiracy involving so many people, so many organizations, for so many years?

That assertion doesn't sound like "Too many evidences that it was impossible to fake."

Obviously NASA wouldn't need to hire or contract with many tens of thousands of people to build a genuine space program and genuine ships that work in space if they're not running a real space program and not really sending things into space.

Obviously NASA doesn't need to hire a 2500 strong support and engineering staff to work on a 6 billion dollar Lunar Lander if it just needs to be thrown together by a couple guys over a weekend after a trip to the junk yard.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 12:34:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #433 on: December 04, 2011, 11:58:28 AM »
This has been debunked. Look on the internet. See Mythbusters for instance.

Further evidence that you are reading what you want to read and nothing else.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #434 on: December 04, 2011, 12:09:57 PM »
Obviously you have no idea how a scientific program works.

Obviously you don't know how to look on the internet.

Obviously you look only what interest you.

Obviously, to go bac to the topic, you don't have a FE map.

Obviously I am no going to bother until you provide a FE map.

Obviously you are going to provide a RE map telling me it's a FE map.

Etc.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41795
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #435 on: December 04, 2011, 12:23:11 PM »
Claiming that the Apollo missions did not happen (witches don't exist) is a negative claim. You are asking us to prove a negative.
If you make a claim, are you not obligated to prove that claim even if it is a negative claim?

Claiming that the Apollo missions did happen (whiches exist) is a positive claim which could easily be proven.
Not when you refuse to accept any of the evidence provided.

For example, NASA could let an interested third party disassemble one of the Lunar Landers which are displayed in museums, to prove that 6 billion dollars worth of engineering actually went into it. Without such demonstration people will look at the available evidence and conclude that the Lunar Lander was thrown together with junk yard parts and stationary supplies over a weekend.
Why ask NASA when you could ask Grumman Aerospace (you know, the guys that claim to have spent the $6 billion to design and build the LEMs)?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #436 on: December 04, 2011, 12:34:29 PM »
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #437 on: December 04, 2011, 12:51:33 PM »
Quote from: markjo
If you make a claim, are you not obligated to prove that claim even if it is a negative claim?

Negative claims don't have to be proven. I don't have to prove that ghosts "don't" exist in a discussion on the existence of ghosts. The person mumbling in favor of the existence of ghosts needs to prove that ghosts exist.

Quote from: markjo
]Not when you refuse to accept any of the evidence provided.

I looked at the evidence. I did not dismiss the evidence without assessment. The moonbuggy images tell us quite clearly that NASA's Apollo missions were a sham.

Quote from: markjo
Why ask NASA when you could ask Grumman Aerospace (you know, the guys that claim to have spent the $6 billion to design and build the LEMs)?

Grumman Aerospace is a hand of NASA. Government Contractors are public-private entites beholden to the government. When I speak of NASA I'm talking about NASA and the contractors it does its work through. The entity called NASA does not actually employ many people and is mostly managerial.

Grumman is little more than a temp agency which hires out people to the government. Government contractors work in government facilities with government clearances. They get their direction from government managers. It is appropriate to say that anyone working for a government contractor is working for the government.

If you've ever worked for a government contractor you would know this to be true.

Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

The rover is only addressed in three points, none of which discusses the things in the Apollo Moonbugy Problems Page.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 01:29:13 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #438 on: December 04, 2011, 12:56:58 PM »
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #439 on: December 04, 2011, 01:33:36 PM »
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Obviously you have no idea how a scientific program works.

Obviously you don't know how to look on the internet.

Obviously you look only what interest you.

Obviously, to go bac to the topic, you don't have a FE map.

Obviously I am no going to bother until you provide a FE map.

Obviously you are going to provide a RE map telling me it's a FE map.

Etc.

Evidence please.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 02:26:18 PM by Tausami »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #440 on: December 04, 2011, 01:40:45 PM »
Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

That paragraph is nonsense. He incorrectly contends that hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion are not used in cataloging NASA's hoaxery.

Please look at the article in question:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems

In the very first image, for example, the investigator looked at the four images in a panorama and made the hypothesis that the left Rover tracks were passing into a 4 foot deep crater. The investigator experiments by pasting together the panorama shots, and indeed, the left Rover tires have impossibly passed through a crater. Conclusion: NASA fakery

In the trackless Lunar Rover photos the investigator finds one trackless photo and hypothesizes that if some of the pictures depict miniature sets, or if a crane was transporting the Rover in place, there should be more trackless Rover photos. The author performs an experiment by searching through NASA's photos and finding other images where the Rover does not leave tracks in the moon dust (despite footprints abundant). Conclusion: NASA fakery
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 03:26:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #441 on: December 04, 2011, 01:42:48 PM »
Continuing to cite yourself as a reference is just further reason not to believe anything you say.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #442 on: December 04, 2011, 01:48:01 PM »
Continuing to cite yourself as a reference is just further reason not to believe anything you say.

The pictures come from NASA, not me.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #443 on: December 04, 2011, 01:49:38 PM »
Continuing to cite yourself as a reference is just further reason not to believe anything you say.

The pictures come from NASA, not me.

How am I supposed to know you didn't photoshop those pictures to meet your own needs?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #444 on: December 04, 2011, 02:00:16 PM »
Continuing to cite yourself as a reference is just further reason not to believe anything you say.

The pictures come from NASA, not me.

How am I supposed to know you didn't photoshop those pictures to meet your own needs?

Because if you are suspicious you can easily do a reverse image search on Google and find that the images on NASA's site are exactly the same as the ones on the Wiki page:

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001117.jpg

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/04/21/21apr_ducttape_resources/ducttape_apollo17_big.jpg
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 02:02:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #445 on: December 04, 2011, 02:10:57 PM »
Maybe FET has an elite hacker photoshopper that uploaded subtle changes to the pictures in an attempt to discredit NASA?

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #446 on: December 04, 2011, 02:27:27 PM »
Maybe FET has an elite hacker photoshopper that uploaded subtle changes to the pictures in an attempt to discredit NASA?

NASA would notice that.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #447 on: December 04, 2011, 02:28:18 PM »
It's interesting to see that you stick to your 2 or 3 feebles examples of supposed hoax (no; I don't have an answer for everything) but that more than 20 hoax debunking cause no problem with you.

The so-called hoax about the American Flag has been widely debunked, and you have no problem with it! That's the problem with conspirationists: they stick to details to avoid seing the big picture: men landed and the Moon and almost everything is explainable!

But I get it: men on the Moon => Earth is round. That's tough!
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #448 on: December 04, 2011, 02:28:33 PM »
Maybe FET has an elite hacker photoshopper that uploaded subtle changes to the pictures in an attempt to discredit NASA?

NASA would notice that.

Accusing the Flat Earth Society of hacking into government servers and replacing mission photos is about the only thing RE'ers could do in a fruitless attempt to keep their beliefs alive.

RE'ers truly are brainwashed.

It's interesting to see that you stick to your 2 or 3 feebles examples of supposed hoax (no; I don't have an answer for everything) but that more than 20 hoax debunking cause no problem with you.

The so-called hoax about the American Flag has been widely debunked, and you have no problem with it! That's the problem with conspirationists: they stick to details to avoid seing the big picture: men landed and the Moon and almost everything is explainable!

Some of those moon hoax claims can be explained away, but the ones I included on the Wiki are the strongest ones and not easily explained.

No one can touch the images in that Moonbuggy Problems page with a 10 foot pole. You can't make up a lame static electricity/lighting/perspective excuse for that. The rover was clearly lowered in place for those shots.

The Apollo moon missions were indisputably faked.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 02:36:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #449 on: December 04, 2011, 02:31:25 PM »
That was trolling, my good ol' Tom!
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.