I now have future plans to continue with debunking disk 2 of the awful David Percy film "What Happened on the Moon", the Bart Sibrel film and the James Collier film. I am currently creating a Mars "fake" blog. Even though the futility of such a project, given the evasion from Cosmored, is now obvious to me. He is seriously one of the most underhand characters I have ever encountered. He makes no effort to "seek the truth". He is simply on a confirmation bias fixation and will do anything, including the most idiotic of explanations, running away, evasion, to avoid seeing how his 20 year project has unravelled completely.
These are examples of the forum spamming to this day still occurring:-
I wonder, if like me, you think this behaviour is a symptom of some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder. It really isn't the action of somebody searching for the truth, but rather one that has an axe to grind.
1. For images or video: "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake."
He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own images and videos. He will never actually prove it is faked or offer the number of people involved in such.
2. For websites: "It's possible that your sites are genuine and it's possible that some public-relations agency created them to help fool the public. Something that may or may not be bogus can't be used as proof." Source.
"That's a disinfo site."
He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own appallingly inept websites. He will never address any website that solidly refutes his claims. He never offers any proof that any website is "disinfo" or "public-relations".
3. For Expert Testimony: "Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it "
For "photography" insert anything. He is a layman on everything associated with space travel so uses this evasion tactic frequently. Basically if he doesn't understand it, it is ignored and of course the person providing the information must automatically be in on the moronic hoax.
4. For Rebuttal: "...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. "
"I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure he's a paid disinfo agent but his behavior fits the profile perfectly."
This enables him to completely ignore any response, which he routinely does anyway, but throws this in for effect. Needless to say, he will never offer anything to backup his ad hominem statement.
5. Miscellaneous: ".anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist."
This is probably the worst one of all. For this enormous diversionary statement, he gets to ignore every single thing written by an expert in almost every aspect of the Apollo Missions. He gets to ignore a concise website detailing debunks for almost all his total crap. He gets to ignore every post made where he always get his ass handed to him. The basis for this is his "credibility test".
6. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?
This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored.
7. When all else fails: "I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage ...."
So when he routinely gets his claim debunked, it is "moot" because of "all the others". It never occurs to him that all the other evidence has been debunked and was also "moot" when it was addressed. When pushed to provide a list of items to address, at all costs he will not do this because it can be seen where they have all been debunked.
8. Just deny everything: "I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked." or "I can't see what you're referring to."
He's never seen ANYTHING debunked? An utterly ludicrous statement that he uses based on his own inept layman understanding. His ignorance apart, he seeks to pigeon hole every single debunk into responses that he says are diversion, because he says so. Or, he simply denies seeing something that is completely irrefutably obvious.
9. Idiotic Closes: "You'd get laughed out of the debating hall ..."
"you're about as impressive as the Black Knight in this video"
The sheer irony of this is always lost on him. If ever there was somebody who behaved like the Black Knight - as his arm gets chopped off it's a "moot point" it would be this serial forum spammer. There is not a debating environment on this planet where this person would show up to. He knows more than anyone that he would get the floor wiped with his drivel.
10. Divert/Obfuscate/Re-spam: This is where he avoids the item completely and gish-gallops away with repeated spam. Almost certainly he will keep avoiding the original claim.
"Anyway, there's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and zero proof that they were real."
"This lame stand of your totally exposes you as a shill*"
"It just makes you look like a horse's a-s and the viewers can see it. I don't see any point in my continuing to reiterate this."
12. Credibility Referbacks: When this hopeless individual has no answers he often resorts to just one liners concerning previous bullshit "Credibility Tests".
"You've already said some pretty lame things so your judgement is obviously flawed."
"....said the Man who tried to obfuscate the clear evidence of the Chinese Spacewalk"
"Translation: The proof that the Chinese spacewalk is so clear that I'll just look silly if I try to obfuscate it so I'd better avoid addressing it."