Regarding plagiarism, you give the name of Bennett and Percy's book. You say that the film footage is taken from Percy's film. Your photographs in many cases are attributed to "Aulis," but only the knowledgeable reader will understand that "Aulis" refers to Adventures Unlimited, the company through which the authors publish their book.

But what concerns me more are your wholesale repetitions of claims such as the "Una Ronald" story and the alleged testimony of Bill Wood, which appear only in the book and are not identified on your page as being the claims of Bennet and Percy and not the claims of David Cosnette. While you give the name of the book, you do not inform your reader that you are in fact simply repeating the principal claims of that book.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Yes, that is true. But unlike yourself, who has posted over 9,000 posts, I actually have a life outside the internet. For instance, I was over in Texas for 5 weeks until this past Monday. What I find funny is that you feel it is ok to make certain claims about me, when If I turned the tables you would go running to a moderator to get me banned for making unsubstantiated claims.

Actually, you failed to grasp what I meant. From what I see of this forum, you have an opinion on everything, no matter what you really know about the subject. In otherwords, a jack of all trades and master of none. Its just a pity that the OP's never demand for your evidence to prove your point, as you do here time and time again (and have just done so in the above post).

Why does it bother you so much what I say on my website? Anybody can read our past debates here on BAUT and there are plus and minus points for both you and I. I have acknowledged errors and as you have now realised, updated my page a while ago. Your biggest defence to anybody who comes on here and talks about my article is that Percy and Bennett have never debated you and therefore my theories are also wrong.

I have never stood down to any challenge that either you or anyone else here on BAUT have put forward. In fact, I would say that perhaps I am the only Apollo hoax writer who has remained here for so long and has actually taken on board a lot of what has been said during debates.

However, I am entitled to free speech and free thinking, and no matter what your belief in certain areas of this subject may be, I disagree and will put forward my thoughts to the readers of my website. What gives you the right to dictate to me what I can and cannot do? The day you start paying my electric and internet bills will be the day that I will allow you to alter my website as you see fit. Until then, concentrate on your own website. You have attacked and dissected my Apollo article on Clavius and yet your still not satisfied. What about mistakes on your own website like saying Kaysing died in 2004 when he died in 2005?

This has absolutely no relevance to my original post. Why not get hold of his book? Im sure that will answer your question.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

I should hasten to emphasize that some changes indeed appear to have been made to Dave's site since my last visit. Hence while it was for a long time true that the site had not been corrected, I can see that at least one error has been. I may be tough, but I am to be fair. I will definitely review the site again when Dave has finished his revisions.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

My page takes into consideration many theories that have developed over the years. It also has information that I bet you wont find elsewhere on the internet. I have a copy of their book published by Aulis. When I contacted them they said that I had to mark all pictures as coming from Aulis too. If you have a problem with that then please contact them and ask them why.

I'm off to bed..... Goodnight.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

Wow, that is certainly a major factual error! Tsk, tsk, Jay...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Personal attack noted.

You seem to be playing both sides of the field. On the one hand you're indignant because I don't notify you ever time I mention your name on the internet, so that you can rush over and defend yourself. And on the other hand you can hardly be bothered to keep track of doings on the internet because you're so occupied with real life.

It seems you're determined to think of yourself as disrespected no matter what it takes.

Example, please. Since you haven't visited this forum "for quite a few months," I'm interested in how you seem to be so well-roundedly informed about my activity here.

You are welcome to test my expertise at any time.

Because much of it is ignorant and wrong. And because it happens to be about a subject of interest to me, and a subject in which I am considered quite well informed, I choose to speak out. If you choose to publish your writings, you cannot pick and choose what others say about it.

No, that is not my "biggest defense." While it is true that David Percy has declined two explicit invitations from television producers to defend his findings against my criticism, my "biggest defense" here simply comes from my knowing what I'm talking about; knowledge gained through considerable training and experience in the relevant sciences and practices that you and others seem to have bypassed.

When people bring up David Percy or his arguments and suggest that he and they are well formed and worth consideration, then I resort to talking about Percy and his evasion. But that's not what I say every time, in every case.

The facts are what they are. Your thought, speech, and belief to the contrary does not affect that. If your knowledge of the facts is incomplete or incorrect, you will be corrected. That is the price of desiring the public's attention.

You seem to have this odd notion that you can say whatever you want in public without fear of criticism. Criticism is not dictation. As I said, you will earn the respect you seek when you behave like a responsible scholar.

My web site is devoted to correcting claims made by you and others.

I'm concerned only with the alterations you had previously agreed to make, some of which it appears you may be making. If you wish to leave the rest of your site as it stands, errors and all, then so be it. But in doing so you will not escape attention and criticism.

A mistake that was promptly corrected, as with all other errors brought to my attention. I do not represent that my site is free of error. In fact, I maintain through the auspices of a colleague a forum administered entirely by him for no other purpose that for people to bring my errors to my attention. Where on your site do you provide any such facility?

I have Bill Kaysing's own press kit, sent to me by mail by him at my request. I also have his book. I am quite well enough equipped to inform myself about Kaysing's claims in his own words.

However, I am now asking you about claims you are making about Bill Kaysing. Do you believe Bill Kaysing was involved in conducting "advanced research?"

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Do you intend your page then to be a history of moon hoax claims, including those you believe have been debunked? Since you do indeed acknowledge the error made about the Surveyor footage, I wouldn't be surprised at that intent. If that is what you intend, I can suggest ways in which your page might make that intent more clear. Otherwise you will likely continue to receive criticism for claims you may not wish to defend.

That is fine. I have accused you of plagiarism, but that is not to say that you do not also present original material.

I'm equally comfortable debating your material and Aulis's with you, should you choose.

No, I think you misunderstand my concern. I certainly don't have any problem with you attributing to Aulis the photographs you got from them. I believe they are quite within their rights to ask you to attribute them as you have.

My concern was that while the attribution "(c) Aulis" is extremely clear in the photographs, it is not apparent to the reader that "Aulis" refers to the book written by Bennett and Percy. I did find at the bottom of the page the ordering information for the book and video that does explicitly establish Aulis as the publisher, so perhaps I'm chasing a windmill here.

Since a significant portion of your page involves discussing Aulis-supplied photographs, it is more accurate if you note that the discussion and analysis you present comes from the Bennett and Percy book. Someone who is unfamiliar with the authors' publishing arrangements will not automatically equate the obvious source of the photograph with the book in which the claims regarding them will be found.

I don't want you to lose sight of my overarching objection: a very substantial portion of this page http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html consists of claims that originated with David Bennett and/or Mary Bennett, but which are not attributed to them. You may believe that such an attribution has been made, in which case you don't intend to claim their work as your own; but such a conclusion will be erroneously drawn by a reasonable reader.

Good night; I too am about to retire.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Apparently, you didn't read very closely. A number of us pointed out that not only was LMEU talking nonsense, but that it seemed clear he knew it was nonsense.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

LMEU was treated with as much scorn and derision as the BAUT rules allowed. If he wound anybody up, it was only in the way that a persistently whining child winds people up. Nobody was in any way "gulled" by him, at least none of the BAUT regulars.

Your misinterpretation of this is astonishing. It makes one wonder what else you misinterpret.

Well, if that were the case, why have so many of you devoted so many pages to gobbledegook? I get emails from guys like LMEU all the time - I can quickly see who legitimately knows what they are talking about against those who haven't got a clue.

It ticks me off when a moderator turns up saying that I should read the rules about etiquette, when JayUtah quickly tells me to 'shut up.' Is that the way contributors to this forum should be treated?

And for every question that Jay thinks he has the answer, there are several that, although he has answered, I don't agree with. The blue sky theory and moon transparency on the window being just two of them. And as I said earlier, I am well entitled to have both those subjects on my webpage and bring it to the attention of many unknowing readers that would not otherwise know that information.

As I said earlier, there is a lot of new information that will be added in the update to my page - for instance the recently released news of Russian Cosmonaut Valentin Lebedev who claims that he has lost his sight due to the radiation he experienced in low Earth orbit. (http://english.pravda.ru/science/ear...et_cosmonaut-0)

And as far as Jay's claim that he alters his website when he is told of errors, you still have Kaysing's death as occuring in 2004! http://www.clavius.org/kaysing.html

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

Way to misquote him, cosmicdave. Jay said "Put up or shut up".

In other words, if you don't have anything of substance to bring up, then there's nothing to discuss at all. Those three extra words make a whole difference to what Jay said.

__________________
Spread the Love!

Why do you keep harping on this trivial point? What overall difference does it make to Bill Kaysing's claims? Is this all you can find?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Well, if that were the case, why have so many of you devoted so many pages to gobbledegook?

I can answer for me: I found it entertaining. The guy was clearly improvising his claims as he went. I wanted to see how far he could sustain that improvisation. The rules of our forum are meant to establish accountability for claims, and are strictly enforced. If anyone is able to keep up a line of blatant hogwash for any lengthy period under those rules, I think that's a sight to behold.

It ticks me off when a moderator turns up saying that I should read the rules about etiquette, when JayUtah quickly tells me to 'shut up.' Is that the way contributors to this forum should be treated?

I told you to "put up or shut up." That's an invitation to forego your distractive complaints and bluster and to provide a substantive argument for your claims, whatever they may be here. "Put up or shut up" is a common American vernacular for simply being asked to step up to the expected standard. (Google for "put up or shut up")

And for every question that Jay thinks he has the answer, there are several that, although he has answered, I don't agree with. The blue sky theory and moon transparency on the window being just two of them.

Be your disagreement there as it may, that doesn't satisfy your claim that I speak on subjects I don't know about.

I will hasten to note that while your list of "unanswered" questions has grown from 32 to 33, you still do not acknowledge that they have indeed been discussed. It is your prerogative not to agree with answers that were given. But it is an objective falsehood to suggest that answers have not been provided. http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html . I wrote these and brought them to your attention during our previous debate on you Moon hoax page, some years ago.

And as I said earlier, I am well entitled to have both those subjects on my webpage and bring it to the attention of many unknowing readers that would not otherwise know that information.

But why do you seem to believe no one is allowed to criticize you on their web sites or in public forums for your handling of those subjects? Why is my and others' commentary on your claim any less justified. I am well entitled to point out your errors to uknowing readers who may not otherwise be equipped to detect them.

As I said earlier, there is a lot of new information that will be added in the update to my page...

I look forward to reading it. I hope you will let us know when you believe it has reached a reasonably stable state. And naturally if any of my prior responses require revision, it will be my responsibility to make them.

And as far as Jay's claim that he alters his website when he is told of errors, you still have Kaysing's death as occuring in 2004! http://www.clavius.org/kaysing.html

That is both puzzling and embarrassing. I recall clearly making that change, because it arose not more than a couple of months ago from someone following the same line of reasoning as you: if Jay is never wrong then why is Kaysing's death date wrong?

I'll change it as soon as I am able this morning, which will mean that the link BAUT readers will follow later will not contain the error. I apologize that this will make your argument seem unsupported.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Well, first off, it's "you're." If you're going to pick on someone for claiming to be right always, you might want to be a little more careful yourself.

Further, it's blatantly untrue. I, myself, have corrected Jay on more than one occasion, as have others. It's true that it's rare, but Jay, like any sensible person, tends to keep his mouth shut when he doesn't know much about a subject. There are areas where I have expertise and Jay has only a layman's interest, and I'm sure that's true for quite a lot of people around here. I'm also sure that there are places where you know more on a subject than Jay, but it simply hasn't come up, because it isn't relevant to Apollo, where Jay demonstrably knows more than you do.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Perhaps you need to exercise this skill on yourself. Next time you find yourself laughing your socks off at someone's apparent foolishness, bear in mind that you might have misread the situation again.

Yes of course it is.

I am referring, of course, to what Jay actually said, not what you're trying to misrepresent him as having said. You either back up your claims or you refrain from making them.

I mentioned this because it is a direct answer to Jay's constant wittering about not having the correct information and demanding that errors on my page should be changed. How can he talk when he cannot even get the most basic of facts correct on his own page?

You know what they say... 'Whats good for the goose...'

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

I think it's one thing that tends to be characteristic of regular BAUTers - they tend to know when to talk, and when to just listen or ask questions.

I consider it more basic to know what the man did than to know in which precise year he died. Why do you still resist talking about your characterization of his activity at Rocketdyne?

As you can no doubt confirm, I have corrected the error in Kaysing's death date as it appears on Clavius. It was first brought to my attention here http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ay&thread=1745 . And I recall it having been discussed elsewhere, but I can't recall where. This morning I confirmed that the script I use to update modification time stamps on my local copy of the site, in order to keep it in synch with the server's copy, failed to refrain from updating it if certain transmission errors occurred. This is in turn due to a change in my provider's authentication mechanism. And so that page, along with several others, reverted on the server to older copies. I believe I have corrected that root cause.

In any case, I believe Kaysing's death date should appear correctly on my site as 2005.

I will also point out that other press releases (including those favorable to Kaysing) Bill Kaysing is dead. Passed away at the end of March also erred in the particular's of Kaysing's death date. I will echo the sentiment of my colleagues that you seem inordinately focused on detailed minutiae in an apparent attempt to excuse your own glaring errors in content and logic.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Oh, before I forget it: cosmicdave, the embedded YouTube video at the top of your Moon hoax page has been removed from YouTube.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

But that is the difference. I never claim to know all the answers. Since when did punctuation make a theory incorrect?

As far as Jay goes, it seems that he gets involved in every single debate I have ever had on here, and has a say on every topic I have ever raised - even on ghosts. He may have done a little engineering for the industry, but that in no way means that he knows every little question I have ever asked pertaining to the Apollo hoax. Unfortunately, his tactics are 'show me the evidence', which, in many cases, you simply cannot, save for actually being there stood next to Armstrong and Aldrin on the lunar surface.

Jay also does not take official NASA photographs as being reliable parts of building up your evidence. I remember the last time I was here you refused to take some pictures I posted as being correct, even though they were straight off NASA's database. If that is how you wish to argue then I will not waste my time. In fact, that is why I didn't return until now - your arguments are always one way - even if I showed you good photographic evidence, you still refute it, even if it comes directly from NASA. So its a lose-lose situation for anyone coming on here with a theory concerning Apollo.

You very often ask for evidence in situations where you well know that such evidence is not available readily, even before you ask the question. Then the rest of you join in and the OP very often gets a little mad and then gets banned. Its the tactic you guys have been using for as long as I have known this forum. In all my 19 years on the internet, I have never known a forum like this where people get banned so often for simply having a difference of opinion.

The difference between myself and Jay is that I am not a know-all. If I don't know about a subject then I keep quiet. I do not stoop to keep hijacking certain peoples threads and constantly ask 'where's the evidence' just because I do not see eye to eye with that person. And as far as this forums rules go, regarding members should only post questions if they already know the answer - that is rather defeatist don't you think?

From what I have seen, its simply impossible to come onto BAUT and ask questions without somebody reading you the Spanish inquisition.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

You should have been a Government spin doctor. How convenient of you to demand me to correct errors on my page (which were done long ago anyway) and yet try and turn the argument against me when I could see errors on your own page within 1 minute of visiting it. You see, that is part of the problem - you jump to conclusions without even checking. Now, If I had done the same there would be hell to play. Its a poor excuse to say that you updated the page but the server didn't. Don't you ever check your pages to see if they uploaded correctly then?

And while it is fresh - what do you think of the Russian Cosmonauts claim about radiation? How come that he has suffered blindness through radiation when he was only in low earth orbit? He never went near any of the van allen belts which the Apollo astronauts did.

As far as the 'put up or shut up' comment goes - that was his first response to me returning to this forum. We had not debated anything, and that is his attitude. I can bet now that If I had said the same thing to him that I would have been banned. But as usual, there seems to be certain 'favourites' on this forum.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

Probably never - but again, if you actually care about whether or not you're communicating...

Face it, he knows more than you, and move on.

Don't make a claim if you can't show the evidence. Why is that so hard to understand?

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

In many cases evidence has come forward (the tape uncovered showing Apollo 11 astronauts using Earth transparencies on windows for example) where the footage is at best, questionable. When such evidence comes forward into the mainstream, people here first say that such film footage either does not exist, or is faked by the person who is showing the evidence. I remember the odd occasion on here where people showing official NASA pictures are accused of photoshopping the evidence, when the plain truth is that those pictures appear exactly 'as is' on official NASA websites.

The end result is always the same - the accuser is wrong and BAUT is right, no matter how unusual the explanation. And that is where we have a difference of opinion and why I have stuff on my page that you may not agree with.

__________________
There are several of us who do believe in UFOs and who have had occasion to see a UFO on the ground, or from an airplane. There was only one occasion from space which may have been a UFO."

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut (Mercury-Atlas 9, May 15, 1963; Gemini 5, August 21, 1965), Col. USAF (Ret); letter to Granada's Ambassador Griffith at the United Nations, November 9, 1978

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk - Europe's biggest UFO database.

I just visited your website and read your 33 questions.
Your questions show no knowledge of anything important about Apollo, nor photography, nor computers nor anything else.
If you would follow your own advice as quoted, then IMO your website would be empty.

There is a thread about it here if you're interested.

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

I never claim to know all the answers.

No one expects you to know everything about Apollo. But you are expected to be sufficiently informed about the points you do raise regarding Apollo. If you profess to teach others what is wrong about Apollo, then your notion of why it's wrong will indeed come under examination. If you cannot bear that examination, then too bad: you don't get to be the venerated teacher you hope to be.

This is why it's important for your reader to understand when you are speaking from your own study and when you are just repeating the claims made by others.

Since when did punctuation make a theory incorrect?

Since when did an error in Bill Kaysing's death date make my analysis of his claims incorrect?

You commit gross errors on your page -- not of punctuation but of fact and reasoning. When those errors are brought to your attention, you defend yourself by pointing instead to others' trivial errors. If you thus believe that trivial errors are as important as those of content, then you will likely have to suffer criticism for your own trivial errors along with the more significant ones. You take part in setting the level of pedantry in this debate by choosing what points you criticize. I for one am willing to excuse your small errors if you will excuse mine.

As far as Jay goes, it seems that he gets involved in every single debate I have ever had on here

Backpedalling. You originally claimed that I habitually spoke here upon matters that are not within my expertise. You said this despite having admitted not visiting the forum "for quite a number of months" prior to that claim. I therefore rightly ask for examples of such alleged behavior, which you have not provided.

Now you're narrowing that claim instead of substantiating it.

"Every single debate you have had on here" consists, to my recollection, of three topics: the Moon landing hoax in general (some time ago), a claim of plant life revealed in an Apollo photo (which you deceptively made under a different identity), and a few claims regarding some UFO sightings.

I am a recognized authority in the Moon hoax claims and the sciences that pertain to it. Therefore my participation in that debate is within my expertise.

As has been evident both here and elsewhere, I am well-trained and experienced professionally in the art and science of photographic interpretation, and have special experience in the photography from the Apollo missions. I have demonstrated that expertise here on more than one occasion, and in venues far outside the Internet. Therefore my participation in that debate is also within my expertise.

I did not largely participate in your debate regarding certain UFO claims. You were more anxious to discuss those topics with astrophotographer, whom I acknowledge to be better informed upon them than I.

...but that in no way means that he knows every little question I have ever asked pertaining to the Apollo hoax.

I am considered by many in the mainstream -- including by astronaut Ed Mitchell -- to be an expert in the Apollo missions. I am considered by many to be an authority on the Moon hoax claims, with a fairly extensive knowledge of them, including those of Bennett and Percy which form the backbone of your own writings. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that I can make a meaningful and relevant comment to each of your claims?

Which of your claims do you consider me unqualified to comment upon and why?

Unfortunately, his tactics are 'show me the evidence', which, in many cases, you simply cannot

Give an example of a case in which I have demanded specific evidence that cannot practically be provided.

In all my 19 years on the internet, I have never known a forum like this where people get banned so often for simply having a difference of opinion.

A testable allegation of fact is not merely a difference of opinion. A testable allegation of fact is either true or false. You seem to want to make testable allegations of fact without submitting to the test, and to excuse that by trying to call them opinions instead. Sorry, but you cannot expect the world to allow you to level accusations of fraud and and then walk away from requests to supply and defend proof of them.

The difference between myself and Jay is that I am not a know-all.

No, the difference between you and me is that I know more than you about at least one of the subjects you have chosen to write about. Your claims are more often than not based on expectations that arise from your unfamiliarity with the relevant behavior of the world and the relevant documentary facts. Any who wish to can peruse our former debate and see your deficiency.

If I don't know about a subject then I keep quiet.

I have show that not to be true in the case of the Moon hoax claim.

I do not stoop to keep hijacking certain peoples threads and constantly ask 'where's the evidence' just because I do not see eye to eye with that person.

If the problem with someone's claim is that it lacks evidence, where is the impropriety in asking for it? I suppose you want rebuttals to unfold along your predetermine lines of argument, and you don't want people noticing that certain of your claims are just plainly unsubstantiated. The real world does not work that way. A meaningful evaluation of your claims requires you to substantiate them with evidence.

Elsewhere I do indeed adopt a "live and let live" attitude. Here I do not.

From what I have seen, its simply isn't impossible to come onto BAUT and ask questions without somebody reading you the Spanish inquisition.

If you come to BAUT and say "The Moon landings were fake," or at best, "The record purporting to be of the Moon landings has been faked," you will be asked to present your evidence, which will be examined and tested with great fervor by people quite knowledgeable of the facts. That process is clearly stated in the rules that every new member is asked to read, and which you have lately been asked to review.

If you do not agree to that level of scrutiny (which, by the way, is essentially the level scrutiny the real world applies to any claims such as yours), then simply do not present your opinion at BAUT. If you are bothered that people discuss your published opinions in a manner you deem unfair, then don't publish your opinions. You want the glamor of having published opinions without any of the responsibility. Too bad; I have no sympathy for you.

You're quite a piece of work. You complain when you don't receive a kid-gloves invitation every time I mention your work here. And then when you arrive, you complain about what a hostile and unforgiving environment this is. Do you want to participate here or not? If you don't like the type and degree of examination your claims receive here, then don't participate. And don't complain when you're not specially invited to participate.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I missed this remark until Jay quoted it. Consider this a direct question, cosmicdave: who has been banned for "simply having a difference of opinion"? Please provide the name(s) and rational for your assertion or withdraw it.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

How convenient of you to demand me to correct errors on my page (which were done long ago anyway) and yet try and turn the argument against me when I could see errors on your own page within 1 minute of visiting it.

As of the date of your return to this forum to debate the alleged plant in the Apollo photo, the changes you agreed to make to your page -- which included describing Bill Kaysing's true role at Rocketdyne -- had not yet been made. I specifically checked then because I was surprised at your return and desired to once again hold you accountable for those changes which I felt were long overdue.

As of last night, when I attempted to verify again the Kaysing characterization at your specific request, I saw that some of the changes had been made. I made haste then to notify this board of my observations and to withdraw the claim I had made based on stale evidence.

I believe that Bill Kaysing's true role at Rocketdyne, which you misrepresented for a very long time, is a significant error. Many of Kaysing's claims would be credible only if the reader accepted that he was who you said he was. Leaving that error uncorrected for many years is, in my opinion, not a sign of good scholarship.

In contrast you found a trivial clerical detail on my site (which I have to think you had found before and were holding in reserve), which I have corrected as soon as it was practical to do so. I have also found and corrected the source of the secondary error that prevented the previous correction from taking effect.

Please explain why my actions regarding reporting the date of Kaysing's death violate a reasonable standard of scholarship, while yours satisfy that same standard.

And while it is fresh - what do you think of the Russian Cosmonauts claim about radiation?

I have not yet examined your claim on that point. Since you say you are currently revising your site, I had mentioned yesterday that I would wait until you had completed them, then review the newly revised site in its entirety, making comments as appropriate and corrections to my own site in response as needed. That is my preference, if only to forestall debate on content that may change during the debate itself.

Do you believe that portion of your page to be in a finished enough state that you would like me to comment on it immediately?

As far as the 'put up or shut up' comment goes - that was his first response to me returning to this forum. We had not debated anything, and that is his attitude.

Let me refresh your memory.

In this post Why disclosure will never happen I responded to your accusation that I did not invite you here to defend your claims against my ongoing criticism. I wrote
In that statement I made a clear reference to the previous debate you and I had on your findings. I expressed my willingness to continue that debate, noting that you had resigned from it. Far from not having "debated anything," I was responding in the context of a substantial unfinished debate we had several years ago.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base