Duane Daman Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 I asked Mike to submit a bio to Mr. Simkin and gave him his e-mail address ... So hopefully that will work ... If not , Craig is welcome to debate him here.. Mike's PS quote .. "I'll challenge Lamson to come onto my 2 co-produced with Pedro videos comments on YT, on my PB now. Then he'll have no excuses and nowhere to hide." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 I asked Mike to submit a bio to Mr. Simkin and gave him his e-mail address ... So hopefully that will work ... If not , Craig is welcome to debate him here.. Mike's PS quote .. "I'll challenge Lamson to come onto my 2 co-produced with Pedro videos comments on YT, on my PB now. Then he'll have no excuses and nowhere to hide." As I stated at the onset, I'm not debating anything on youtube. The format is incompatable for debate. Perhaps St. Marks missed that since he has no time nor interest in debating anyone on this forum... I'm here, I'm at Apollohoax, I'm at BA, and if St Marks has a proper forum where he would like to meet, I'll be happy to join. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 (edited) I asked Mike to submit a bio to Mr. Simkin and gave him his e-mail address ... So hopefully that will work ... If not , Craig is welcome to debate him here.. Mike's PS quote .. "I'll challenge Lamson to come onto my 2 co-produced with Pedro videos comments on YT, on my PB now. Then he'll have no excuses and nowhere to hide." As I stated at the onset, I'm not debating anything on youtube. The format is incompatable for debate. Perhaps St. Marks missed that since he has no time nor interest in debating anyone on this forum... I'm here, I'm at Apollohoax, I'm at BA, and if St Marks has a proper forum where he would like to meet, I'll be happy to join. Your insistance on debating Mike is only a distraction and stalling tactic because you obviously can't refute this evidence . The reason you want him to debate you on Apollo Hoax or BAUT is because you will have all of your buddies skirts to hide behind and all of them in the position to gang up on the one lone " CONSPIRACY NUT" ! ... That's the way you boys always work , in gangs ... That's what bullies always do . So instead of continuing to stall , why not debate me ? ... I'm the one who presented this evidence here and I even now have one or possibly both hands tied behind my back, because your pal Burton is moderating my posts . Kind gives you and him both the advantage , don't you think ? ... He can read , edit and then relply to my posts IMMEDIATELY , while I have to wait sometimes as long as six hours for my replies to be posted . Looks to me like you would be very happy with this type of unfair set up ... Just to set things straight; other moderators can and will approve posts on this Forum as well. By the way 6 hours is nothing. You can ask Miles Scull, he probably waited 12 or 24 hours at times. Sorry. Antti Hynonen Edited October 7, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) I asked Mike to submit a bio to Mr. Simkin and gave him his e-mail address ... So hopefully that will work ... If not , Craig is welcome to debate him here.. Mike's PS quote .. "I'll challenge Lamson to come onto my 2 co-produced with Pedro videos comments on YT, on my PB now. Then he'll have no excuses and nowhere to hide." As I stated at the onset, I'm not debating anything on youtube. The format is incompatable for debate. Perhaps St. Marks missed that since he has no time nor interest in debating anyone on this forum... I'm here, I'm at Apollohoax, I'm at BA, and if St Marks has a proper forum where he would like to meet, I'll be happy to join. Your insistance on debating Mike is only a distraction and stalling tactic because you obviously can't refute this evidence . The reason you want him to debate you on Apollo Hoax or BAUT is because you will have all of your buddies skirts to hide behind and all of them in the position to gang up on the one lone " CONSPIRACY NUT" ! ... That's the way you boys always work , in gangs ... That's what bullies always do . So instead of continuing to stall , why not debate me ? ... I'm the one who presented this evidence here and I even now have one or possibly both hands tied behind my back, because your pal Burton is moderating my posts . Kind gives you and him both the advantage , don't you think ? ... He can read , edit and then relply to my posts IMMEDIATELY , while I have to wait sometimes as long as six hours for my replies to be posted . Looks to me like you would be very happy with this type of unfair set up ... DUane, I'm quite happy to "refute" this so called evidence. I'm here, not hiding, and in fact I've asked for some simple answers from the both of you that remain unanswered. But facts are facts. YOU posted someone elses arguments and then YOU started the silly email debate thing with St.Mark. Now that you got it going I'm more than happy to debate St.Mark. You claim he is a photographer, which would be a welcome change from the current program of debating you, given your real weakness in the subject. I'm really not all that interested in debating you Duane, it has become quite pointless. As I have stated quite a number of times, I'm even willling to debate this at a real forum of St. Marks choice. Plus I have offered THREE other choices. IF St. Mark's arguments are based on solid fact and science he should have no trouble presenting those ideas and defeating any objections....NO MATTER WHAT FORUM! If his agrumants are made of conjecture and the misuse of accepted science, or just outright ignorance of the subject matter, he will be in trouble. I had to laugh when I read your "gang up stuff", considering that for the most part the "Controversial Issues in History " is populated with members that SUPPORT "CONSPIRACY". But if you want to talk about gangs and bullies, all one needs to do is spend a bit of time on your and St. Marks favorite youtube haunts...... My terms are clear. What happens is up to St.Mark. I'm here. I'm ready. I've gotten my facts in a row. Does St. Mark? Edited October 7, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 Mike does have all his facts in a row ... and I presented them here at the beginning of this thread and also in the latest links I posted to his photobucket account . This isn't about attacking Mike on BAUT and clavius/Apollo Hoax ... This is about ONE THING ONLY .... The photograph which PROVES that the Apollo 'Sun' was nothing but a SPOTLIGHT ON A MOON SET . This one photogragh of Alan Shepard allegedly on the Moon is the one that you can not even PRETEND to debunk ... If you could , you already would have . The REAL SUN IS ROUND ... THE SPOTLIGHT NASA USED TO FAKE THIS PHOTOGRAPH ISN'T ! "IF ONLY ONE PHOTOGRAPH PROVES TO BE FAKE , THEN THEY ARE ALL FAKE . So I do believe that would be GAME , SET AND MATCH ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) Mike does have all his facts in a row ... and I presented them here at the beginning of this thread and also in the latest links I posted to his photobucket account .This isn't about attacking Mike on BAUT and clavius/Apollo Hoax ... This is about ONE THING ONLY .... The photograph which PROVES that the Apollo 'Sun' was nothing but a SPOTLIGHT ON A MOON SET . This one photogragh of Alan Shepard allegedly on the Moon is the one that you can not even PRETEND to debunk ... If you could , you already would have . The REAL SUN IS ROUND ... THE SPOTLIGHT NASA USED TO FAKE THIS PHOTOGRAPH ISN'T ! "IF ONLY ONE PHOTOGRAPH PROVES TO BE FAKE , THEN THEY ARE ALL FAKE . So I do believe that would be GAME , SET AND MATCH ! Then I can't wait to debate St. MArk and his facts. Here I am. Where is he? If the stuff on his Photobucket is an indication of of his facts and his rebuttals, he is in deep trouble. Edited October 7, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 Mike already told you where you can "debate" him ...It's not his problem if it's not where you would like it to be ... Or to be more precise , where you and your friends can gang up on him and turn this into a circus . So just as I suspected Lamson ... You have NOTHING to refute the Apollo 14 visor reflection photo . Repeat after me ... The Sun is ROUND ... The light source in the visor reflection is NOT round ... It's shaped more like a four leaf barn door stage light with some distortion at the bottom of it . Mike's not the one in deep trouble here ... You are ... So are your pals on BAUT and clavius/Apollo Hoax ... But more importantly , so is NASA for faking the Apollo photography ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Mike already told you where you can "debate" him ...It's not his problem if it's not where you would like it to be ... Or to be more precise , where you and your friends can gang up on him and turn this into a circus .So just as I suspected Lamson ... You have NOTHING to refute the Apollo 14 visor reflection photo . Repeat after me ... The Sun is ROUND ... The light source in the visor reflection is NOT round ... It's shaped more like a four leaf barn door stage light with some distortion at the bottom of it . Mike's not the one in deep trouble here ... You are ... So are your pals on BAUT and clavius/Apollo Hoax ... But more importantly , so is NASA for faking the Apollo photography ! St. Mark having a hard time joining here? Think his rant about John might have something to do with it? ONE MORE TIME... Here, BA,AH or ANY NORMAL FORUM where St. Mark is a member. Youtube is not a proper forum for debate. If thats the best he can do then I'm not available. Gosh, now it a "four leaf barn door that is distorted at the bottom! Quite the transition, first a "five sided octagon" (a classic to be sure!) then a pentagon barndoor (can't find one eh?) then maybe flash lighting ( someone PLEASE inform St.Mark that the only real difference between a flash and tungsten/HMI is that the light from a flash...well flashes) and now we get the four leaf distorted sillyness. Boy you guys are grasping at straws! Please keep it up I love the entertainment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 Here is Mike St. Mark's follow up evidence to this debate .... He made a YouTube video showing that the Apollo 14 pentagonal shaped light source reflection , could in no way have been the real Sun , but rather an artificial light source . Moon Hoax. The Lies in their Visors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHtpz7PwMUY Mike's offer to debate you on his personal YouTube profile page still stands Lamson .... But I can understand why you won't accept his offer and would prefer that he join BAUT or Apollo Hoax or this forum instead .... It's so much safer to 'debate' the CT's when they are out numbered by about twenty to one , isn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) I don't usually do this, but I am now bumping this post and a few others, as there were moderated posts here that were not approved immediately, and they might be left in the back possibly unnoticed. Edited October 19, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) Here is Mike St. Mark's follow up evidence to this debate .... He made a YouTube video showing that the Apollo 14 pentagonal shaped light source reflection , could in no way have been the real Sun , but rather an artificial light source .Moon Hoax. The Lies in their Visors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHtpz7PwMUY Mike's offer to debate you on his personal YouTube profile page still stands Lamson .... But I can understand why you won't accept his offer and would prefer that he join BAUT or Apollo Hoax or this forum instead .... It's so much safer to 'debate' the CT's when they are out numbered by about twenty to one , isn't it ? I have said it more than once Duane, but just in case you missed it, I will not debate at youtube, because the format will not allow threaded debate, making it a meaningless venue. I've offered to join ANY normal forum that supports threaded debate, and yet St. Mark has failed to offer up EVEN ONE! St. Mark came looking for me...here I am...where is he? Oh and just for you guys I even created a forum where you can bring all of your freinds if you want better odds. I'm sure you know where to find it since you monitor Apollohoax but in the sprit of fair play, here is the address: http://forums.delphiforums.com/fstopinn/start Edited October 19, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 Okay , enough of the pretense that this thread is about debating Mike on this forum or on any another one you created to attack him ... He is not interested and neither am I . So how about we get back on topic and discuss the evidence that I posted here originally ? I have posted the definative proof that the Apollo 14 visor reflection was caused by some type of pentagonal shaped light source and so far you haven't produced any evidence which proves otherwise ... Oh , and invisible smudges on a tubular shaped motorcycle helmet doesn't exactly cut it as any kind of counter evidence . Yes I have been checking out the posts at Apollo Hoax and I must say they have been quite entertaining .... especially yours and Waspie_ dwarf's ....You both seem to be more fixated on "straydog " than you do trying to prove that Apollo wasn't a hoax . I also couldn't help but notice that my topic here about the Apollo 14 visor reflection is nowhere to be found there ... Does this mean that even Mr. Windley hasn't managed to come up with a pretend rebuttal either ? Forget about debating Mike ... I borrowed his visor reflection evidence to post here with his permission ... So the only person you need to be concerned with is me now ... and the only evidence you need to be concerned with , is that one faked Apollo 14 photo which you obviously have no 'rebuttal' for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) Okay , enough of the pretense that this thread is about debating Mike on this forum or on any another one you created to attack him ... He is not interested and neither am I .So how about we get back on topic and discuss the evidence that I posted here originally ? I have posted the definative proof that the Apollo 14 visor reflection was caused by some type of pentagonal shaped light source and so far you haven't produced any evidence which proves otherwise ... Oh , and invisible smudges on a tubular shaped motorcycle helmet doesn't exactly cut it as any kind of counter evidence . Yes I have been checking out the posts at Apollo Hoax and I must say they have been quite entertaining .... especially yours and Waspie_ dwarf's ....You both seem to be more fixated on "straydog " than you do trying to prove that Apollo wasn't a hoax . I also couldn't help but notice that my topic here about the Apollo 14 visor reflection is nowhere to be found there ... Does this mean that even Mr. Windley hasn't managed to come up with a pretend rebuttal either ? Forget about debating Mike ... I borrowed his visor reflection evidence to post here with his permission ... So the only person you need to be concerned with is me now ... and the only evidence you need to be concerned with , is that one faked Apollo 14 photo which you obviously have no 'rebuttal' for. Sorry Duane you don't have the skillset to discuss these images so I'll pass. Your inability to understand the reason for the picture of the Motorcycle helmet is a perfect example of why I'll not debate this with you. If St. Mark wants to discuss his conclusions ( he has yet to offer any evidence to support them) he knows how to make it happen. Edited October 19, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) Sorry Duane you don't have the skillset to discuss these images so I'll pass. And that particular uncalled for insult would be Lamsonspeak for " I don't have a rebuttal to your evidence that the Apollo 14 visor reflection is an odd shaped , artificial light source , so I will continue to go off topic and pretend that I need to discuss this with Mike." I didn't think you had anything worthwhile to post about this ... So thanks for once again proving me right .... This has nothing to do with debating Mike and you know it ... and since when haven't you relished in trying to make me look stupid ? I'm sorry Lamson , but this attempt to derail this evidence has fooled no one ... Not even your game playing pals on Apollo Hoax and BAUT . Edited October 19, 2007 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Sorry Duane you don't have the skillset to discuss these images so I'll pass. And that particular uncalled for insult would be Lamsonspeak for " I don't have a rebuttal to your evidence that the Apollo 14 visor reflection is an odd shaped , artificial light source , so I will continue to go off topic and pretend that I need to discuss this with Mike." I didn't think you had anything worthwhile to post about this ... So thanks for once again proving me right .... This has nothing to do with debating Mike and you know it ... and since when haven't you relished in trying to make me look stupid ? I'm sorry Lamson , but this attempt to derail this evidence has fooled no one ... Not even your game playing pals on Apollo Hoax and BAUT . Sorry Duane but you have stated many times your ignorance of the subject of photography. As I said, and you have confirmed , you don't have the skillset to discuss this subject. You further disclosed to those willing to check this very thread that you can't even remember WHY the motorcycle image was posted in this thread. It was posted at YOUR request and it had NO BEARING on the images in question and was not offered as evidence to refute them. You confirmed that you were unable to understand this by suggesting it was evidence in this matter. Your words on all of this are a matter of record. Finally St. Marks Apollo 14 image claim is stillin his court. He has yet to identify a SINGLE example of a pentagonal lighting fixture or barndoors to support his claim that the light source was actually pentagonal. Looks like St Marks "proofs" are a little thin to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now