Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[gillianren]

I'd just point out that anyone who still, in 2016, needs "confirmation" that the Moon landings happened as described nearly fifty years ago hasn't been paying attention.

[Count Zero]

Ishkabibble, I don't know why, but your last paragraph was rendered as microscopic font on my screen.  In case anyone else missed it, it reads,

It's unfortunate that we must be suspicious of purportedly honest and neutral questions. Asking questions and being open is key to establishing dialogue and understanding one another. When you are the target of a sealion or a brigade of sealions, though, the purpose is to get you to waste your time responding to every little complaint, and falsely-amiable questions are the easiest way to get you to waste it. It is never about the answers, the factual responses that might be given, or the documented evidence that refutes the claim. It is about engaging you in repetitive response, so that the one who is doing the sealioning is never actually pinned down and forced to answer any questions of their own. The original responder usually gets angry first, and that is all the confirmation that the sealion needs to show his version is correct. If it weren’t you wouldn’t have run away angry.

[bknight]

Ishkabibble, I don't know why, but your last paragraph was rendered as microscopic font on my screen.  In case anyone else missed it, it reads,

It's unfortunate that we must be suspicious of purportedly honest and neutral questions. Asking questions and being open is key to establishing dialogue and understanding one another. When you are the target of a sealion or a brigade of sealions, though, the purpose is to get you to waste your time responding to every little complaint, and falsely-amiable questions are the easiest way to get you to waste it. It is never about the answers, the factual responses that might be given, or the documented evidence that refutes the claim. It is about engaging you in repetitive response, so that the one who is doing the sealioning is never actually pinned down and forced to answer any questions of their own. The original responder usually gets angry first, and that is all the confirmation that the sealion needs to show his version is correct. If it weren’t you wouldn’t have run away angry.

Mine was ok, Gremlins.

[bknight]

I'd just point out that anyone who still, in 2016, needs "confirmation" that the Moon landings happened as described nearly fifty years ago hasn't been paying attention.

Or An HB

[smartcooky]

Apparently, Burns thinks he's merely getting a rise out of the forum, in which case it is to his benefit that he can keep doing so. This is clearly part of his intent to control the discussion, without actually having to participate in it.

I therefore note that his actions can clearly be categorized as "sealioning"

<polite snip>

It's unfortunate that we must be suspicious of purportedly honest and neutral questions. Asking questions and being open is key to establishing dialogue and understanding one another. When you are the target of a sealion or a brigade of sealions, though, the purpose is to get you to waste your time responding to every little complaint, and falsely-amiable questions are the easiest way to get you to waste it. It is never about the answers, the factual responses that might be given, or the documented evidence that refutes the claim. It is about engaging you in repetitive response, so that the one who is doing the sealioning is never actually pinned down and forced to answer any questions of their own. The original responder usually gets angry first, and that is all the confirmation that the sealion needs to show his version is correct. If it weren’t you wouldn’t have run away angry. [/font][/size]

"Sealioning" is a very good description of the kind of posting that idiots like Adrian, A C Weisbecker, Baker and Burns indulge in. Their belief in their uniquely crafted andistorted world-view is absolute; their simple minds are immutable, closed, bolted and locked. They will never be convinced to change no matter how irrefutable the evidence is.

[Ishkabibble]

I honestly can't take the credit for it, nor was it my intention to try.

I had to take my daughter over to a friend's house, as they are all going on a school trip tomorrow, and was running late as I was posting, when I should have been heading out the door. Amidst the cries of  "Dad, hurry up, we're already late" (as if I don't have to wait around for both daughter and her mother to change clothes, earrings, and shoes 47 times just to go to the supermarket) I failed to notice that the attribution for the article was missing in my haste to post it.

http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/

The whole thing started over the "GamerGate" controversy, but it is just as applicable to hoax nuts. They simply don't care if they're right or wrong, they just want to punish people.

[sts60]

But how can you decide which?  You are obviously not certain otherwise you would agree with me.

Hello, jockndoris.  You still haven't answered my question:  Why should anyone pay any attention whatsoever to your ridiculous story?  Other than to point and laugh?

[onebigmonkey]

Wonderful news for JayUtah

Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for that Apollo 16 most definitely landed a rocket on the moon in 1972.  The proof comes from no less an authority than NASA themselves .

 http://www.space.com/31503-apollo-16-moon-rocket-crash-site-photo.html

How can be possibly deny such concrete, up to date, definitive evidence.

Jockndoris

If you used your eyes you might have spotted that there was already a thread for this. You appear to be posting in a thread about good books. Yours isn't one.

India has also imaged Apollo hardware on the moon. How can you deny that concrete evidence?

[Zakalwe]

Hey- he's back!

Lest your septuagenarian memory fails you Mr Burns, you appear to have ignored any attempt to explain why Buzz didn't confess in your timescales. Or indeed, still hasn't confessed.

So Mr Burns......what of your claims that there'd be a confession today?

[bknight]

Hey- he's back!

Lest your septuagenarian memory fails you Mr Burns, you appear to have ignored any attempt to explain why Buzz didn't confess in your timescales. Or indeed, still hasn't confessed.

So Mr Burns......what of your claims that there'd be a confession today?

Convient memory loss?

[Abaddon]

Snip for brevity

The subtle was not unappreciated. I wonder how many more will notice.

[Peter B]

Wonderful news for JayUtah

Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for that Apollo 16 most definitely landed a rocket on the moon in 1972.  The proof comes from no less an authority than NASA themselves .

 http://www.space.com/31503-apollo-16-moon-rocket-crash-site-photo.html

How can be possibly deny such concrete, up to date, definitive evidence.

Jockndoris

Please provide a list of people who said this image was proof of the reality of Apollo 16.

Once you've done that, please explain how this rock came to be on the Earth: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/atlas/compendium/61016.pdf

Thank you.

[JayUtah]

Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for...

No.  The vast majority of the world has already believed for 43 years that Apollo 16, and all of the rest of the Apollo missions, were successful as claimed.  A few self-aggrandizing holdouts do not amount to anything that requires more attention than they have already received.

How can be possibly deny such concrete, up to date, definitive evidence.

You certainly can, as you do it repeatedly in your book in the case of Apollo 11.  I proved you are willful liar and a fraud.  I renew that accusation, and I challenge you to address the proof I provided.  Your prediction that your claims would be confessed to has also proven false.  Are you finally ready to admit you just made up your stories at others' expense just to get attention?

[bknight]

Here is the proof we have all been waiting 43 years for...

...

How can be possibly deny such concrete, up to date, definitive evidence.

You certainly can, as you do it repeatedly in your book in the case of Apollo 11.  I proved you are willful liar and a fraud.  I renew that accusation, and I challenge you to address the proof I provided.  Your prediction that your claims would be confessed to has also proven false.  Are you finally ready to admit you just made up your stories at others' expense just to get attention?

Methinks you will grow old awaiting for this admission.

[JayUtah]

Methinks you will grow old awaiting for this admission.

Just as he will grow old waiting for praise for his dishonest literary vomitus.