Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[CyberRubberDuck]

Too lazy to go check if it's you that was mentioned but do you know what light pollution is?

Wut?

 

[Andy Capp]

Watching you pretend to know what you're talking about is very entertaining. Thank you

Copetastic. Lemme know when you know what words mean and we'll talk like counterparts.

 

[Andy Capp]

@LangfordBarrow I added some further detail to that post after you saw it, I think. Please see the update above.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

No; you're describing what happens in a solar eclipse, when the moon moves between the Earth and the Sun.

I'm talking about a lunar eclipse, where the Earth moves between the Moon and the Sun while the Moon is full. When the Moon is fully covered by the Earth, you get a so-called blood moon, because it looks red.

I'll put some pics I took of the last one in the spoiler below.

Spoiler: Photos

Please read the link for an explanation of the colour. I erred in my description earlier due to a faulty recollection but it doesn't change the main substance of what I'm talking about.

OK, the color aspect is more technical based on the Sun's light passing through the atmosphere(I think, I didn't check your link), but what I mentioned is also a difference. It shows how the Moon orbits the Earth, because on one side we can see the Moon transit the Sun to obscure it's light, while on the other hand the Sun's reflection makes the Moon shine until the Earth's shadow obscures it.

 

[Copper Burner]

You planning on acknowledging the fact that you were fooled by ai generated images?

Oh I know they are fake.

You realize Handi-crap was claiming that the reason no stars can be seen from the moon is because the earth's light is so bright. He gave many reasons why it's impossible and hurled many insults my way. Then Nasa cgi's them into their depiction of earth from the moon lol. Why would they fake if its impossible?

Was it your article that I used earlier? It claimed the reason stars couldn't be captured in photographic evidence when we supposedly landed on the Moon over 50 years ago was becauze the camera used wasn't set up to capture them? That means that they were visible from the moon, they just couldn't get it on film.

Get over it dude. Your boy lost hard and you looked like a fool in this thread. I'm just a guy asking questions.

Can you answer what causes gravity? It supposedly clings the oceans to the earth while the ball spins 1000 mph and hurtles through the galaxy at 600,000 mph. You would think somebody would have figure it out by now.

Do you realize how insane that sounds? I agree more with ancient civilizations that built the pyramids and have accurately predicted celestial events for thousands of years. I also cannot betray my God given senses which says we are not moving at all, while the sky above does its thing.

 

[Copper Burner]

Copetastic. Lemme know when you know what words mean and we'll talk like counterparts.

Do you still believe that stars are not visible from the moon?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Yes, you misunderstood the context. The article is pointing out that his methodology is pseudoscience - if you want to use eye witness accounts as data that's fine, but that data should be collected and evaluated by someone qualified to do so. You have a psychologist take the account from the people, and generate reports of the accounts, including metrics around how solid those testimonials are. Then, someone who is knowledgeable about the specifics of the subject can review the content of those reports. But a person like him shouldn't be taking the reports, or commenting on the validity of them, because that's not his field of expertise. He is likely to influence the eyewitness - as I mentioned earlier, even by just asking questions in a specific way can alter what people saw. Failing to acknowledge all the issues around eye witness reporting and having someone qualified to evaluate those issues as part of his research is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

i do not agree at all with this assessment. you have not read his work or spent any time on him obviously. you just rushed off to some debunking sites and let them do the thinking. that article is the lowest level nitpicking kind of bs that is common to debunking sites. it works on people who have already made up their minds or have little or no actual knowledge on the topic.

not everything meldrum presents in his book for the public is even intended to be a dissertation or a scientific study. he is sharing his expertise AND his own personal experience man... if I took any one of your posts on this site and pretended in an article that you are a hack and practicing pseudo science as if I found it in a scientific paper or that you intended it as such then I would be sinking as low as that article. I would be lying basically... judging his book/statements as if they are dissertations is a kind of lying, the kind hack de-bunkers specialize in I've noticed...

eye witness accounts are absolutely a form of evidence and he is presenting it as such. pretending a psychologist is qualified to analyze an eye witness account and decide true or false is a comically indefensible statement.

nobody I know hangs belief or disbelief in the phenomenon on any one single account (except maybe the patterson footage). it is the plethora of similar accounts across the globe that amounts to evidence. pretending its even possible for any human being to discern accurately any one account is extremely naive. there are tens of thousands of sightings man.... I find it impossible to believe that anyone can really discount ALL of those sightings and I think it even betrays an arrogance on the part of the person who does it or a bias to what is already known maybe some kind of establishment bias.

thousands of accounts across cultures and continents that share many similarities IS evidence. what is the likelihood that tens of thousands of people all hallucinate intricate detailed encounters with these things? mistaken identity ONLY sounds plausible when its a quick glimpse or obscured by the environment but those account for only a small percentage of accounts. you would know that if you had looked into it man. there are WAY too many accounts where the siting was not quick or obscured by the environment and the witness was/is an experienced hunter and and expert in their environment. I cant comprehend discounting all of those. its impossible for me to justify that even.

at best these kinds of debunking can sometimes bring up alternative perspectives and positions. pretending Jeff meldrum has been debunked as a pseudoscience is a lie though.

but on another topic. what do you think of his footprint analysis and the tracks he has found? do you consider those to be pseudoscience also? what did the de-bunkers pretend to know about the prints? he is an expert in that area after all isn't he.

 

[Andy Capp]

Oh I know they are fake.

You realize Handi-crap was claiming that the reason no stars can be seen from the moon is because the earth's light is so bright. He gave many reasons why it's impossible and hurled many insults my way. Then Nasa cgi's them into their depiction of earth from the moon lol. Why would they fake if its impossible?

Was it your article that I used earlier? It claimed the reason stars couldn't be captured in photographic evidence when we supposedly landed on the Moon over 50 years ago was becauze the camera used wasn't set up to capture them? That means that they were visible from the moon, they just couldn't get it on film.

Get over it dude. Your boy lost hard and you looked like a fool in this thread. I'm just a guy asking questions.

Can you answer what causes gravity? It supposedly clings the oceans to the earth while the ball spins 1000 mph and hurtles through the galaxy at 600,000 mph. You would think somebody would have figure it out by now.

Do you realize how insane that sounds? I agree more with ancient civilizations that built the pyramids and have accurately predicted celestial events for thousands of years. I also cannot betray my God given senses which says we are not moving at all, while the sky above does its thing.

Do you still believe that stars are not visible from the moon?

That's not what I said. If you can't defend your position without lying about mine then fuck off for your own sake, dimwit. You aren't ready for me. Or are you really that dumb you didn't understand me?

 

[Andy Capp]

OK, the color aspect is more technical based on the Sun's light passing through the atmosphere(I think, I didn't check your link), but what I mentioned is also a difference. It shows how the Moon orbits the Earth because on one side we can see the Moon come in front of the Sun while on the other side the Sun's reflection makes the Moon visible until the Earth's shadow obscures it.

Indeed, that's a great point. During a solar eclipse, the moon is between the earth and the sun while during a lunar eclipse the earth is between the moon and the sun. I'd love to see that explained on a flat earth with a straight face lol

Oh wait, that's right, it's all fake

 

[Copper Burner]

That's not what I said. If you can't defend your position without lying about mine then fuck off for your own sake, dimwit. You aren't ready for me. Or are you really that dumb you didn't understand me?

Cool story

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

This thread is hilarious. So many fairy tale believers literally claiming ludicrous sci fi shit is real, and then calling others stupid or nuts.
The irony is strong with this one.

Lol.

 

[Andy Capp]

Cool story

Good answer, bitch tits. Now go get your fucking shinebox.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

@dirtypablo

the article also questions meldrums use of his expertise in bipedal locomotion as irrelevant when there is no evidence to analyze!! he a priori assumes ALL of the video and images are fakes AND does not even mention in that paragraph or area the plethora of TRACKS meldrum has found... many of them with unique dermal ridges and features he as an expert thinks are impossible to fake!! what a hack....

the article lies and says meldrum does not consider other experts analysis of some evidence but then fails to demonstrate the truth of that statement..... later he says that dermal ridges can be artifacts from casting (suddenly he is aware of the tracks!!)..... betraying his ignorance on the topic.... meldrum himself has found trackways in silt.... brand new fresh ones with incredibly detailed dermal ridges and features unique to gigantapithicus... funny how the article does not mention that huh man but instead pretends he is just receiving these castings from others? meldum says its the trackways with multiple tracks moving across changing substratum that simply cannot be faked by molds..... and this is exactly his area of expertise!!! it would take an expert sculptor with expertise in the subject to even try. but these tracks are in the middle of nowhere AND they wont last a day or more in that condition. give me a break....

I could go on man. there are maybe a few good points but nothing that amounts to debunking and really its just a hack article.

if you think that article debunks meldrum then you are not thinking at all. at its best it just offers some other valuable perspectives and at its worst its a lie by omission.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Thank you for saving me the trouble.

don't pretend you have not ducked out of our exchanges because you cant deal with logic and reason turned on you man.

if you disagree go back to my last detailed reply and take a shot at it.

 

[Andy Capp]

This thread is hilarious. So many fairy tale believers literally claiming ludicrous sci fi shit is real, and then calling others stupid or nuts.
The irony is strong with this one.

Lol.

Please tell me what about the photos I posted above is not real to you. I can hardly wait.

 

[Andy Capp]

don't pretend you have not ducked out of our exchanges because you cant deal with logic and reason turned on you man.

if you disagree go back to my last detailed reply and take a shot at it.

Our exchange where you modify the plot of a Harlan Ellison story and adapt it to bigfoot sightings? Your non-corporeal bigfoots don't exist unless you can show them to me. I'll be over here waiting to see.

And yes, about that discussion before, I had already dismissed bigfoot as fantasy when you were born.

NEXT!

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Our exchange where you modify the plot of a Harlan Ellison story and adapt it to bigfoot sightings? Your non-corporeal bigfoots don't exist unless you can show them to me. I'll be over here waiting to see.

And yes, about that discussion before, I had already dismissed bigfoot as fantasy when you were born.

NEXT!

yeah... the one you didn't reply to and then went on pretending you have had an honest exchange.

 

[dirtypablo]

i do not agree at all with this assessment. you have not read his work or spent any time on him obviously. you just rushed off to some debunking sites and let them do the thinking. that article is the lowest level nitpicking kind of bs that is common to debunking sites. it works on people who have already made up their minds or have little or no actual knowledge on the topic.

not everything meldrum presents in his book for the public is even intended to be a dissertation or a scientific study. he is sharing his expertise AND his own personal experience man... if I took any one of your posts on this site and pretended in an article that you are a hack and practicing pseudo science as if I found it in a scientific paper or that you intended it as such then I would be sinking as low as that article. I would be lying basically... judging his book/statements as if they are dissertations is a kind of lying, the kind hack de-bunkers specialize in I've noticed...

eye witness accounts are absolutely a form of evidence and he is presenting it as such. pretending a psychologist is qualified to analyze an eye witness account and decide true or false is a comically indefensible statement.

nobody I know hangs belief or disbelief in the phenomenon on any one single account (except maybe the patterson footage). it is the plethora of similar accounts across the globe that amounts to evidence. pretending its even possible for any human being to discern accurately any one account is extremely naive. there are tens of thousands of sightings man.... I find it impossible to believe that anyone can really discount ALL of those sightings and I think it even betrays an arrogance on the part of the person who does it or a bias to what is already known maybe some kind of establishment bias.

thousands of accounts across cultures and continents that share many similarities IS evidence. what is the likelihood that tens of thousands of people all hallucinate intricate detailed encounters with these things? mistaken identity ONLY sounds plausible when its a quick glimpse or obscured by the environment but those account for only a small percentage of accounts. you would know that if you had looked into it man. there are WAY too many accounts where the siting was not quick or obscured by the environment and the witness was/is an experienced hunter and and expert in their environment. I cant comprehend discounting all of those. its impossible for me to justify that even.

at best these kinds of debunking can sometimes bring up alternative perspectives and positions. pretending Jeff meldrum has been debunked as a pseudoscience is a lie though.

but on another topic. what do you think of his footprint analysis and the tracks he has found? do you consider those to be pseudoscience also? what did the de-bunkers pretend to know about the prints? he is an expert in that area after all isn't he.

Dude, this series started because you said he's a serious scientist and no one has attempted to debunk his work. I provided a link to a group of skeptics providing a critical review of his work, and now you're moving the goalposts to, well, that book isn't a scientific study. No, its not, but if he's a serious scientist he should write it in a way that is in alignment with scientific principals and skepticism. He doesn't need to provide a detailed statistical analysis in a book for the public, but he should still apply basic principals like discussing the likelihood of false memories, preferring the simplest solution to the fanatical etc.

As for his footprint analysis, based on what is in that article, I've got no reason to take anything he does seriously. He sounds like a person who has a conclusion, and uses whatever evidence he has found to back that up, rather than being open to all possibilities.

 

[dirtypablo]

Oh I know they are fake.

You realize Handi-crap was claiming that the reason no stars can be seen from the moon is because the earth's light is so bright. He gave many reasons why it's impossible and hurled many insults my way. Then Nasa cgi's them into their depiction of earth from the moon lol. Why would they fake if its impossible?

Was it your article that I used earlier? It claimed the reason stars couldn't be captured in photographic evidence when we supposedly landed on the Moon over 50 years ago was becauze the camera used wasn't set up to capture them? That means that they were visible from the moon, they just couldn't get it on film.

Get over it dude. Your boy lost hard and you looked like a fool in this thread. I'm just a guy asking questions.

Can you answer what causes gravity? It supposedly clings the oceans to the earth while the ball spins 1000 mph and hurtles through the galaxy at 600,000 mph. You would think somebody would have figure it out by now.

Do you realize how insane that sounds? I agree more with ancient civilizations that built the pyramids and have accurately predicted celestial events for thousands of years. I also cannot betray my God given senses which says we are not moving at all, while the sky above does its thing.

Where did NASA cgi photos of the stars from the moon?

 

[Copper Burner]

I love this idea that NASA is smart enough to fake these pictures and write these clever sci-fi explanations, yet too dumb to think to shoop in a few stars. These people think they’re really that clever too for “getting them”.

After all we have learned the last couple of days, this post certainly did not age well haha.