Added: 1 year ago
From: hunchbacked
Views: 565
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (65)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Faust knows "scientists" and "astronauts" can always be bought.

  • Congratulations hunchback, what a stunning piece of self diagnosis! Your inability to recognize or accept that you might be wrong and the breathtaking arrogance you display, deluding yourself that you have outwitted some of the worlds greatest scientists, is a textbook example of the Dunning Kruger effect. FYI, I never claimed to be a photographic expert,I merely suggested that a foundation level course covers most of the photographic principles that you appear to have problems with.

  • @Raliams

    I have not outwitted some of the worlds greatest scientists, because those who ardently defend Apollo are not the world's greatest scientists but just amateurs.

    Many real scientists have doubts about Apollo, that's the reality, but you prefer to ignore it.

  • @hunchbacked Really? Which ones? Stephen Hawking? Brian Cox? The Scientists at CERN? I know a small number of scientists with PhDs who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs, but they are wrong. So what some scientists believe proves nothing.

  • @Raliams

    Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox are just writers, talented may be, but not real scientists; they are not specialists of space travel.

  • @hunchbacked Either you are being disingenuous or just plain ignorant. Stephen Hawking has held the position of professor of mathematics at Cambridge and is a world renowend theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Professor Brian Cox is a particle physicist and a leading researcher at CERN. Both are real scientists. I suspect they know a great deal about space travel, but who are they when compared with the giant intellects of the moon hoax believers. This nonsense is a waste of time. Adieu

  • @Raliams

    Then I guess they have not much studied the Apollo project.

    I have studied it much in depth and seen many incoherencies in it.

    I am a space engineer, and when I say that the computer of Apollo is incoherent and the electronic interfaces are full of (intentional) errors, I really mean it!

    I would suggest them to read the documentation of Apollo in detail, for I am sure they have not done it.

  • @Raliams

    Sometimes, when someone is fascinated by an even; even if he has some intelligence, he may be unable to use his intelligence to see that what he believes in makes in fact no sense, and contains aberrations.

    I am afraid it is the case of Hawking and Cox.

    It is with reason that I believe in the moon hoax, and I am not impressed that these men believe in Apollo; too bad for them.

  • @hunchbacked You have the balls to think you are as intelligent as Hawking and Cox! Go get a good telescope and see the landing sites for yourself. And stop thinking you're intelligent!

  • @Raliams

    I am even going to be brutal; I don't deny that Hawking and Cox may have intelligence, but, when it is about Apollo, I am afraid their intelligence is going down to the toilet, and I really think it!

  • I'm not an apologists for anyone, but if you are going to make such substantial claims you need to back them up with credible evidence and you don't. I am not making any claims, just disputing your's and you don't seem to be able to take it. I don't need to provide photos as you have done that. As for stupid, your choice of Daffy duck as a personal symbol, speaks volumes. The advice on the photography course still stands, you then might begin to understand and run the risk of making sense.

  • @Raliams

    Yes, you are an apollogist, and you confirm everything I was thinking about you: Very arrogant, but much less competent than you think.

    You like to gargarize yourself with words, but you have provided no evidence that what I said was wrong.

    You seem to be of the ones who replace competence with arrogance, and that bears a name: the syndrome of Dunning-Kruger.

    I really have a poor opinion of you.

    Go on with your void arrogance and ignorance that goes with.

  • Yeah! and the truth has irrefutable, scientifically proven evidence to back it up not the subjective interpretation exhibited above. I suggest you try a foundation level photography course to help you get a basic understanding of perspective and other basic principles of photography.

  • @Raliams

    Thanks, but I don't think that you are in a position to give me lessons, because I think that I know more than you about photography and perspective unlike you think.

  • @Raliams

    You are really extremeny arrogant as are most of Apollo believers.

    You really think that you are an expert in photography and perspective?

    Expert of my ass, yes!

  • @hunchbacked , Expert of your ass??? I'm not what you think, besides we haven't even been formally introduced. Its not about being arrogant it's just that none of the evidence moon hoax believers present stands up to scrutiny. If it did then your case would be more credible.

  • @Raliams

    Unlike you, stupid apollogists, I am able to provide real photos backing up my claims.

    You are not, you only gargarize yourselves with words, but are never able to back up your claims.

  • Hi Hunchbacked, Gonetoplaid blocked me from commenting on one of his uploads, neither he or his acolytes could get the better of me so he just barred me instead, that's how he/they win their arguments, gagging free speech and opposing views to their own :)

    " Ultra Close-Up Views of the Apollo 11 Landing Site "

    ^^^Copy and paste that and throw in a few words of support for me while tearing the clown a new asshole - thanks.

  • @Kenmorfdublin

    I have admitted some misinterpretations (I am not perfect, and at the beginning I was making some), but he has never admitted any of his misinterpretations, and god knows he has made more than one.

    I have never seen an Apollogist admit he had made an error, they are totally unable of it, they think they are perfect; that tells about them!

  • @hunchbacked That's the difference between us and them, we have integrity, they don't!

    Loving the 'Apollogist' play on words by the way, must use that sometime.

  • @Kenmorfdublin

    I think they have integrity on other subjects.

    Take the creationists who don't believe in Apollo; when it comes to creationism, they have no integrity, because they don't want their dream to be scorched; but, when it comes to Apollo, then they have integrity.

    For the Apollo believers, it is the converse.

    Fanaticism and integrity are incompatible, they fight each other.

  • @Kenmorfdublin

    Each one has a God; the creationists have their bearded God, the Apollogists have Apollo, and my God is the truth.

    The truth is better than any golden dream, even though it may be cruel, because the truth is the reality we must live in.

  • For the longest time, GTP has deserved a debunk. I am about to press play on this video... it'll be awesome.

  • For someone with a decent camera, you have no concept of basic photography! LOL

  • @dijhili

    It's not enough to say it, explain why!

  • @hunchbacked; shapes, shadow distortions....your cleaver, but wrong. For one, the plate on the side has a varied position due to it being on an octagon and you failed to acknowledge the corrected perspective of the plate. Follow that and you will see you are wrong.

  • @dijhili

    Oh great: the shape of octagon changes due to the change of perspective, right.

    But this change of perspective also acts on the footpad's shadow.

    Unless you think that this shadow is exempt from the change of perspective?

    I think you didn't well understand: the anomaly doesn't lie in the change of perspective of this octagon, but the not change of perspective of the footpad's shadow!

    You should perhaps better watch my video before calling me incompetent!

  • @hunchbacked

    I did not say the shape of an octagon will change, but the plate on the octagon side will appear to move but you failed to understand there was also a change in the perspective of the plate which is correct behavior

    Shadows can change from topography.

  • @dijhili

    The problem is not with the footpad itself, but with its shadow!

    Yes, shadows can change from topography, but the problem is precisely that the direction of the shadow of the footpad does not change.

    With the change of perspective, this direction should have changed.

    Now, if you think it should not be the case, make a photographic demonstration.

  • @hunchbacked I have no time, at work. I just feel its insulting to the astronauts. I don't believe this conspiracy theory like the 911 one. It's insulting. Why not ask the astronauts that have been? You think the CIA will kill them?

    You are trying to be too factual without reasoning to natural phenomena. Just look how Index of Refraction can change dramatically with a slight angle adjustment. Camera photography always screws up.

    Please don't answer, just ponder that thought.

  • @dijhili

    This is a very very minor point, and it that was all there is, I wouldn't be a moon hoaxer just for this.

    But there are many other points, notably a really weird computer (and I can judge it for I am a professional computer engineer), and electronic interfaces full of (intentional) errors; also a mechanics of the flight completely wrong (and I'm originally an aeronautical and spatial engineer).

  • @dijhili

    Yes, I believe there is something very wrong with Apollo, and I am not going to hide it because it would be insulting to some astronauts.

    It would be like saying that Zola had not to be believed, because what he was saying was insulting to the French army.

    The truth may be disturbing, but it's the truth, and truth is sacred for me.

  • @dijhili

    I don't mean to insult the astronauts.

    If I was doing this while I feel I have no evidence, and I tried to create false evidence in the sole aim of insulting the astronauts, it would be extremely mean of me, I would never do that.

  • @dijhili

    I don't know how the astronauts were convinced in this game; perhaps the CIA used with them its techniques of mind control (they are experts at this), perhaps they served them a sermon that it was their patriotic duty to play this game for reasons they didn't have to understand.

    The astronauts were just puppets in this game orchestrated by the CIA.

  • @hunchbacked "The astronauts were just puppets in this game orchestrated by the CIA."

    Do you have evidence to support this contention?.

  • @TheEntropyEpoch

    I have no direct proof, but plenty of indirect proofs.

  • @hunchbacked The only connection I have discovered concernng the CIA and NASA was anaylisis of the Soviets space program. All espionage space programs ran by the CIA was connected with the Air Force. NASA did not launch spy satellites such as the CORANA.

    The astronauts were very puplic promoters of the space program. Read an autobiography of an astronaut.

    All of them spent a sizable amount of time at puplic speaking engagements. Most came to dread this aspect of the profession.

  • @hunchbacked Let's just put it this way, I've never had the impression that the astronauts felt like they were being maniipulated by the CIA or any other agency. In fact most were very public figures which gave them a certain amount of clout concerning the direction of the programs. Many in Congress cozied up to the astronauts which was helpful in maintain funding.

    If you have indirect proofs concerning the CIA and astronauts please post them, I would like to read them.

  • @TheEntropyEpoch

    It's not because you don't feel manipulated that you are not.

    I'll even say: When you start realizing you are manipulated, then you stop being manipulated.

    You can't be manipulated and the same time be aware you are manipulated (unless you are extremely stupid and masochist).

  • @hunchbacked If you have indirect proofs concerning the CIA and astronauts please post them, I would like to read them.

    You offer a characterization concerning manipulation. I want to see your evidence.

    Seems this is a profile of your own making to prop up your contentions.

    Why don't you debate analysis offered?

  • @TheEntropyEpoch

    At the beginning Kennedy was manipulated by the CIA and unconscious of it; but, when he started to be conscious he was manipulated, he planned to get rid of this manipulation, i.e. dismantle the CIA, and that's why the CIA assassinated him.

  • @hunchbacked When did Kennedy ever state he was going to get rid of the CIA?

    If Kennedy was being manipulated by the CIA why did he not support the Bay of Pigs invasion? Kennedy was being manipulated by the CIA why did he trust the intelligence concerning Soviet missle in Cuba?

    Why would he dismantal an intelligence agency during the height of the Cold War?

    Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman, not a plot.

    Oswald was an opportunist

  • @hunchbacked haha. Kennedy was not manipulated by the CIA. You sound like a nutjob. It's one thing to think we didn't go to the moon... but JFK?? Let me ask you... Do you think that the 9/11 attacks in New York were an inside job?

  • @yesiamawizardjonny

    At the beginning he was, but he realized the CIA was trying to manipulate him, was lying to him.

  • @hunchbacked Ok, and you know this from the extensive time you spend with John F. Kennedy. Sorry, I should have remembered... You guys were total buds...

  • What bothers you is that the landings were done by the Americans.

  • @bethpage89

    Absolutely not.

    I could not bother less.

    If the event was real, I would celebrate it without hesitation.

    If it were the French who had faked it, I would also denounce it as well, and with much rage moreover, so much I would be angry.

  • @bethpage89

    Nationality has nothing to do with it.

    I feel rage that the French army wrongly accused Dreyfus.

    I feel rage that the french trusted too much the maginot line and completely fucked up with Hitler.

    It's not a question of national pride, it's purely a question of honesty.

  • Hunchbacked, you have really gone over the edge. This latest "debunk" video is riddled with mistakes and astounding errors in logic.

  • @GoneToPlaid

    Mistakes and astounding errors in logic?

    It's the pot calling the kettle black.

    No, you are the one who makes errors in logic, I have proven it.

    Your demonstrations are totally meaningless.

    But you still have your friends who believe in them.

    Really your understanding of perspective is extremely poor!

  • @GoneToPlaid

    I think I am going to go "over the edge" more than once.

  • This is just so monumentally dumb that it defies belief.

    Hunchbacked, thank you for providing a text book demonstration of the Dunning Kruger syndrome.

  • @adilbert

    I have registered on HoaxNet.com, a site common to Clavius, Phil Plait and company.

    On this site, the members are as arrogant as ignorant.

    One of them thinks that the LCM can take any orientation on its orbit, and that it continuously turn as it orbits the moon, and that keeping it parallel to the moon would need an attitude control; I have told him that parallel to the moon is its natural attitude, if not countered, but he doesn't believe me.

  • @adilbert

    Another one, when I have shown him my animation of the LEM in Apollo 14 going to outer space with brutal rotations has told me that these rotations were "to allow the CSM's pilot to view all the sides of the LEM".

    And after that they dare call me an idiot and a naive chump...the pot calling the kettle black!

  • @hunchbacked So hunchbacked, now you are a rocket scientist, a specialist in orbital mechanics, an expert about how the Apollo missions should have been flown, and smarter than all of NASA's engineers and scientists combined? Instead perhaps, with your expertise, France should have landed men on the moon.

  • @GoneToPlaid

    Those who contradict me are not NASA engineers; they are just ignorant amateurs who think they know a lot, but who know much less than they think.

    NASA engineers would back me up in what I'm saying, because what I'm saying makes sense.

  • @hunchbacked NASA engineers would laugh you out of the room.

  • @GoneToPlaid

    No, they would congratulate me.

  • @stalkervision Watch my original debunk video of hunchbacked's fakery claims and see what hunchbacked has left out in this "debunk" video of his.

  • @GoneToPlaid

    I have left out nothing, you make flawed demonstrations full of misconceptions.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more