The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

[pwil]

Just because adobe photoshop was used doesn't mean objects were added to the LRO pics. There are other uses for it.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-russell-b ... hop-touch/

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[ProfWag]

Syd, if you're going to voice an opinion on the moon hoax, you should at least post your own views. Plagiarism is not a good thing and as far as I'm concerned, you no longer have any credibility--with me at least.
Here is a link to what Syd posted above that shows solid evidence of my assertion that his views are not his own: (about 1/4 of the way down the page)


You should be ashamed of yourself, Syd.

[SydneyPSIder]

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

so I should put '[quote]' tags around everything even when I cite the website source underneath? is that what's got your panties in a bunch again? you want to start a diversion instead of addressing the facts of the matter?

I haven't been caught 'plagiarising' anything, where did I attribute any writing as my own? The sources are cited. Even if I didn't cite a source, copy and pasting from a website is not claiming the writing as my own, it's copying and pasting. So it's a non-event. Half the pics and youtubes that are pasted in here are uncited, is that plagiarism? I sure as hell didn't take the pics or make the videos. Apparently this is a website of record and has to conform to the highest standards of academic referencing.

Meanwhile your claim that says there is not a shred of evidence when very clearly there is is just another favourite ego defence mechanism of pseudosceps, or govt operatives and failed sceptics who couldn't pass the true sceptics entrance exam: denial. Or de Nile, the longest river in the world, pseudosceps like to make pilgrimages to it to wallow in it.


Picture of a pussy in denial. [uncited source]

[ProfWag]

What it tells us all, Syd, is that you aren't using critical thinking when you post. It tells us that you look up a conspiracy website, say to yourself "hey, I'll just post this as my own and come across as knowing what I'm talking about" when in reality, it appears now that you don't. It's one thing to post the same idea as someone else's after researching the subject, but another thing altogether when you cut and paste a lengthy post, complete with pictures, and try to come off as knowledgeable about a subject. It's a lazy way of debating a subject and disrespectful to the person who took the time with the original post, regardless of how far off in left field the original's poster's ideas were.
I'll re-engage on this subject if someone posts anything new and original, otherwise, rehashing someone else's opinion makes it a dead topic.

[SydneyPSIder]

haha, a dead topic? really? that would make all the science of the last 500 years dead and fruitless also, as people frequently build on other people's work to make new discoveries, formulate or develop theories, etc. but I guess a pseudoscep takes the scientific history of the last 500 years and the process of acquiring knowledge pretty much for granted. I'm presenting information from a variety of sources here to make a case. a lot of similar info has already been presented on recent threads.

but any excuse to run away from the evidence.

apparently things on scepcop are dead topics when profwag says they're dead topics, a time-honoured tactic that has gotten the US govt out of addressing the evidence of 9/11, JFK, Apollo and a host of other dubious operations it has engaged in.

So we will assume the OP's remarks stand, I guess, since profwag has once again chosen to disqualify himself from comment, and we can consider all his inputs to be null and void, as usual.

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]