*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1439
    • View Profile
I was talking about the ones you claim/suggest were silenced before you learned of them. I thought that was clear from the quote. Without learning of them, you don't actually know if there were any.

So you only have two that you can name. Y/N

Any others are pure speculation. Y/N
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
The ones you did name are still speculation regarding the moon landings as a hoax. Thomas is more credible but in the end it seems he was mostly showing concern for safety of the lander and it's crew because presumably NASA was trying to rush things and ignore a lot of potential risks (of course they were, they were racing against the soviets to land on the moon first, they probably ignored lots of risks and cut lots of corners to get it done).

I could say to my friend "you will never be able to jump  down that waterfall without hitting the rocks" but my friend may ignore my warning jump anyway and land in the water either by luck or skill. Were my concerns valid? Yes. Then I trip and fall to my death by some bad luck.

Suddenly years later there will be a forum and people will say "this guy told another guy they'd never land that jump, but then the other guy claimed to have landed it when there's no way he could have and then killed the guy for showing concern about the jump".
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
I was talking about the ones you claim/suggest were silenced before you learned of them. I thought that was clear from the quote. Without learning of them, you don't actually know if there were any.
Right, let's recap. You took me saying the following:

How many were silenced before I was able to learn of them? :nyan: I don't know. :nayn:
[subtle emphasis mine]

And your groundbreaking contribution to the thread is that I don't know the number of other potential whistleblowers. Amazing.

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, do not post in the upper fora.

[the whistleblowers might not be whistleblowers and could be explained away as coincidence]
Sure they could. If we're in the territory of just explaining things away, we can stay here ad infinitum, throwing around baseless what-ifs. Frankly, I have better uses for my time.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 04:54:11 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

You provided two names with zero evidence to back up that they'd been "silenced". And for what?
The first dude I had to Google, think he's some comedian or something who said something about FE as a joke? Not quite clear about him.
The second is someone who was writing reports about safety concerns, not whistle-blowing about fakery and his death was ruled an accident.
He was killed with his wife and step-daughter, you think "they" really wiped out his immediate family too? Do you have any evidence of foul play?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
You provided two names with zero evidence to back up that they'd been "silenced".
I asked that Chris do his homework. He asked for names so that he can do so. I delivered. It appears that he was able to get started with his reading that way.

Surely you can do that, too?

The second is someone who was writing reports about safety concerns, not whistle-blowing about fakery and his death was ruled an accident.
How do you know the contents of a report that disappeared off the face of the Earth and was never fully released? You speak of it with such conviction and authority! Is there something you'd like to tell us?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 05:01:07 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Sure they could. If we're in the territory of just explaining things away, we can stay here ad infinitum, throwing around baseless what-ifs. Frankly, I have better uses for my time.
Very true. But again this comes down to the fact that there's no solid evidence that cannot be explained otherwise, every other claim so far that I've seen is again speculation and hearsay. And a lot of uneducated speculation at that (refering to youtube videos, not so much here)
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
But again this comes down to the fact that there's no solid evidence that cannot be explained otherwise
You can always come up with an alternative explanation. Unsurprisingly, this becomes easier if you happen to control the world's largest economy.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Well, the NVIDIA video above explains away how it wouldn't have been possible to recreate that environment on a set at the time and you can rule out CGI too. It also addresses a number of things conspiracy theorists say as to why they think it's fake.  This is nothing to do with the government being all powerful and explaining everything away. They independantly recreated the moon landings visual conditions that would otherwise not have been possible at the time. And NVIDIA did it to prove their own tech. Unless you think the government told the company to do it?

It's also easy to say that the government are all powrful and in control but in reality it's not one person, it's not one hivemind pulling the strings. The US and it's government is made up of regular people. It's a shody system at best.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Well, the NVIDIA video above explains away how it wouldn't have been possible to recreate that environment on a set at the time and you can rule out CGI too.
I don't think Nvidia is an authority on what technology a hypothetical secret organisation may have had access to at an unspecified point in time, and you've made no case to suggest that they are. Why do you consider them relevant?

It's also easy to say that the government are all powrful and in control but in reality
What are your credentials to declare what the reality of governments' power is? Is it specific to a particular government, or do you have authoritative knowledge on all of them?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
What would you say is more likely? That the US fumbled around and managed to somehow land on the moon by a mix of luck and skill or that they had 50+ years advanced cutting edge technology in order to fake it? NVIDIA are the current leaders of graphical hardware which is what makes them relevant. I’m assuming you’ve heard of Moores law which is effectively the predictive trend in technology advancement in computers and you can see what 50 years of advancement can bring. NVIDIA’s video showcasing how just with recently technology they were capable of recreating the lighting conditioned expected on the moon which would have previously been impossible in computer technology 50 years ago. This is why I said CGI can be ruled out. Now you have the other issues. Can you recreate the same conditions in a studio? Given you’d have to have lighting from the sun uninterrupted by an atmosphere to get that level of bounce lighting alone I already doubt it.

As for my credentials on the reality of the government. I guess I don’t have any but living in the UK I see first hand how unorganised and messy the government is. Can’t leave the EU but capable of collaborating with all other countries to keep the moon landings a secret, but god forbid two celebrities secretly hook up it’ll be all over the news. Do you think the US government is that much more capable? If so, do you think all other competing countries wouldn’t have outed them by now?

When it comes down to it, I think it’s more likely they landed on the moon at great risk, it would probably be harder to fake it and keep it a secret.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
What would you say is more likely? That the US fumbled around and managed to somehow land on the moon by a mix of luck and skill or that they had 50+ years advanced cutting edge technology in order to fake it?
That's an extremely loaded question, which can be easily flipped around. What would you say is more likely? That the US fumbled around and managed to somehow pull off an unprecedented publicity stunt by a mix of luck and skill, or that they had cutting edge technology way ahead of its time that they were then unable to reproduce in the 60 years that followed?

This sort of whataboutery is pointless, and deferring to my personal feelings won't advance this issue. What you or I find "likely" may well have no bearing on reality.

NVIDIA are the current leaders of graphical hardware which is what makes them relevant.
Says who? They're up there in commercial computer graphics - that says nothing about what the military may or may not have access to.

I’m assuming you’ve heard of Moores law
I'm a computer scientist.

This is why I said CGI can be ruled out.
You haven't demonstrated that at all. The official moon landing footage is of extremely poor quality - you're not going to get anywhere near analysing the lighting on it, because you don't have sufficient data points to do so.

Can you recreate the same conditions in a studio?
Once again - I'd suggest that you first prove that you could infer any of that from the footage, rather than what you expect the conditions on the Moon to be.

As for my credentials on the reality of the government. I guess I don’t have any but living in the UK I see first hand how unorganised and messy the government is.
So, again, you're deferring to nothing but personal intuition. You believe what you want to believe, because you want to. I can't stop you from doing that, nor do I have any interest in stopping you, but I hope you can see why I don't find this approach persuasive.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Quote
That's an extremely loaded question, which can be easily flipped around. What would you say is more likely? That the US fumbled around and managed to somehow pull off an unprecedented publicity stunt by a mix of luck and skill, or that they had cutting edge technology way ahead of its time that they were then unable to reproduce in the 60 years that followed?
The technology wasn't that advanced for it's time (to land on the moon). It was just super risky. I'll put it this way, when I was a kid I would pull stupid and dangerous stunts all the time (like jumping down a full set of stairs) without a care in the world. I walked into the ocean barefoot, I'd jump rivers. Now I'm older and well aware of the risks of breaking my neck or standing on a dangerous sea creature and getting stung, I'd not do those things unless I were absolutely sure of the measures I'd need to take to keep myself safe. This is how I see NASA in the early stages. Can they land on the moon? sure, is it super risky? yes but they didn't care much for the risks so long as they won. Would they do it now, knowing how massively risky it is with little reward? I don't think so. They aren't in a space race or a cold war, they haven't got much to prove and their budget has declined because people care less about it now than when it was super important to 'beat those darn soviets'.

Quote
The official moon landing footage is of extremely poor quality - you're not going to get anywhere near analysing the lighting on it, because you don't have sufficient data points to do so.
I would disagree, but you're free to have that opinion if that's how you feel. What would you say about all of the other missions to the moon? video footage and photos alike. The other countries that have sent unmanned rovers to the moon that all seem to come back looking awfully similar. China and Russia would be the least likely countries to defend Amercia if they were faking such things.

It's basically impossible to keep such a massive lie from being fully exposed and I'm not talking about some illustrator/comedian whistleblower or some guy that thought it was too risky to go to the moon. of the 500+ people who've been into space and the 12 who've supposedly stepped on the moons surface it's crazy to think that all of those people or their friends and family would stay quiet about the moon landings and the earth being flat. That's already at least 1000 people with first/second hand experience of this stuff and by then, the conspiracy will already have collapsed to the public. This is why I can only assume the space race and the globe is real. You're free again to disagree and obviously, you will do for whatever reasons. Even smaller government secrets have had whistleblowers which have caused huge public outcry. I will admit though if an astronaut does come forward and claims it's all fake I'd find the chaos pretty fun to watch. :P

Quote
Once again - I'd suggest that you first prove that you could infer any of that from the footage, rather than what you expect the conditions on the Moon to be.
What would the point be in demonstrating my ability to do this to you when you'll simply disagree anyway? I believe it's you who needs to do this to prove it to yourself. If you aren't capable I can't help you with that. As is the way with the majority of flat earthers, unless you do these things yourself I don't think you'll believe anyone with opposing views. I won't waste my time demostrating to you my own ability. I will say though that since my area of expertise is CGI I'm reasonably confident. Can you prove the videos were in fact made in a studio?

Quote
I hope you can see why I don't find this approach persuasive.
Yes I can see why you wouldn't. All I can say is that my first hand experience with the government is that I get the opposite impression of anything close to a hivemind or anything capable of pulling off such a massive conspiracy. That's not to write it off entirely as impossible. I mean hell, maybe the 'real' government hide behind their moronic fake government persona as a mask. Maybe by some absoutely miniscule fraction of a chance they've managed to keep this whole hoax quiet. I'd be impressed and to be honest, if it turned out the moon landings were a hoax, I'd be impressed and interested to see how they managed that. I've really got nothing to gain or lose from it being real or fake.

As to the point of the thread, I think NASA have achieved plenty of amazing things since the moon landings (real or fake). We have NASA to thank for various inventions however great or small, inventions which we use daily in some cases. I found this a while back just as a quick example;

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/uploads/infographics/full/11358.jpg

And if NASA is to be believed, the Mars rovers are pretty impressve too. They don't get the same kind of publicity but they still do some great work IMO. In this day and age as well, I think it'd be pretty hard to fake things.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2019, 08:59:45 PM by ChrisTP »
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
What would the point be in demonstrating my ability to do this to you when you'll simply disagree anyway?
Personal betterment. After all, you said a dumb thing, and learning why it was dumb would help you grow.

Your assertions are ridiculous, and if you simply looked into them, you'd see why. You assert that the footage of the moon lighting cannot be faked, because it would be impossible to replicate the light patterns. I'm pointing out a simple fact - you have never looked at the light patterns, and you would really struggle to see any if you tried. The footage is of appalling quality, which is either a product of its age or convenience; but regardless of that, your refutation is impossible to replicate.

What Nvidia have accomplished is produced a realistic image of what you think the Moon landing would look like in modern high-res. It serves as no point of comparison to the historical footage.

Can you prove the videos were in fact made in a studio?
Why would I prove a claim I didn't make?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2019, 11:25:14 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
It's great that you can know for a fact what I have and haven't done or seen in my own time without having been here with me. Maybe use that super power to see what the astonauts saw. Or maybe it's as if you're assuming something is a fact when it's actually just your opinion of me. Since you're quick to point out other people for making biased assumptions maybe you should reflect on that, either way your opinions about what I do and don't know or have and haven't done are irrelevant here because it doesn't matter what I've done or what I've seen, you won't believe it until you've come to the same conclusions all on your own. That's fine and all, but there's no point in me showcasing my perceptions to you in this case... Surely you can see why I won't waste my time trying to show you what I see.

Anyway, I don't know if you believe the moon landings were a hoax or not, or maybe you are trying to suggest you just have no opinion on the matter (but you most certainly do). I asked what your thoughts are on the rest of the moon landing missions (manned and unmanned) videos and photos but it seems you're adamant about talking of the lowest quality video footage, rather than all of the evidence together. Or maybe you think all of the footage and images from all of the moon landings are too low a quality to assess, which I disagree with.

I'd still stand by saying that NASA have achieved all kinds of amazing things since the moon landings. It's whether you think they've been lying the whole time I suppose. The Mars rovers IMO are maybe more impressive than getting a man on the moon. To get a rover to travel so far and to land on a planet no one has been to, one with an atmosphere too. The moon would have been easier because it would be a descent through near enough empty space onto a body much closer to us. The precision of the mars rovers missions were far greater achievements and I'd say the only thing people are impressed about with the moon landings were sentimental, being people instead of machines. What are your thoughts on the Mars rovers Pete? Hoax or real?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
It's great that you can know for a fact what I have and haven't done or seen in my own time without having been here with me.
I asked you, and you answered. If you lied to me, that's unfortunate, but ultimately I have to assume that you describe your experiences truthfully. Otherwise, this discussion becomes meaningless.

Surely you can see why I won't waste my time trying to show you what I see.
Of course - given how much time you're wasting on other near-identical things while loudly avoiding this one, your motivation here is crystal clear. I must say I did not expect you to admit it quite so bluntly.

Anyway, I don't know if you believe the moon landings were a hoax or not, or maybe you are trying to suggest you just have no opinion on the matter
As mentioned before, that's irrelevant to the matter at hand. Investigating this issue from the perspective of feelings is useless. Facts and measurable evidence are what matters. If you follow me on this adventure and "waste your time" looking at the footage, establishing whether your prior position made any sense, you might just learn something. It's a sincere offer - try to look past your obvious dislike of me and approach it dispassionately.

Your assertion is that the moon landing footage cannot be faked because the nice people at Nvidia said the light patterns wouldn't match. For your own benefit (you don't have to tell us about it if you'd rather pretend you "don't want to waste your time". I don't want you to "show me" anything, so long as you've actually seen it), have a look at the footage of the moon landing and ask yourself how plausible it is for one to observe the lighting in any meaningful way. Or don't. You can just carry on shouting about how biased I am for exposing flaws in your assertions. I have no intention of forcing your hand :)
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 01:14:47 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1439
    • View Profile
The official moon landing footage is of extremely poor quality - you're not going to get anywhere near analysing the lighting on it, because you don't have sufficient data points to do so.

The still photographs are not of extremely poor quality. So use them for analysis instead of the video footage.

==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
The still photographs are not of extremely poor quality. So use them for analysis instead of the video footage.
By all means - feel free to. You might even be able to contribute something!
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Quote
Of course - given how much time you're wasting on other near-identical things while loudly avoiding this one, your motivation here is crystal clear. I must say I did not expect you to admit it quite so bluntly.
Yes my motivation is clear, I cba to put in the extra effort for you when there is little for me to gain. Practice what you preach and do it yourself if you feel it's important. If you've come to a different conclusion than I have then cool. I don't doubt that you've looked at the footage but it's no secret you think anything that comes from NASA are lies, you've said so yourself.

Quote
try to look past your obvious dislike of me and approach it dispassionately.
I don't like or dislike you, I've never met you... And I am approaching this dispassionately which is why I said I cba to hold your hand or prove myself to you for little to no gain. regarding wasting time; responding to this thread with text is a lot easier and faster than going back through videos, screenshotting and photoshopping lines as examples in an attempt to prove myself to you. I have no reason to do that. I have in fact looked at the footage from all the missions (public at least) and I've clearly come to a conclusion you don't agree with. You can sit there and call me dumb all you like if it makes you feel better but you disagreeing with me does not mean I'm wrong.

And of course both mine and your opinions in this discussion matter. There would be no discussion otherwise. Would you be disagreeing with me if I were saying the moon landings were a hoax? If not then would you say that other NASA's achievements (ie the mars rovers landing on mars) are lies? If so, what evidence do you have that they are lies other than your personal lack of trust in NASA? Are you offended at the idea that you think and have individual opinions and biases? Would you rather I consider you a robot than cannot process information in a human way?

At any rate if you can't move past the fact that I think the moon landings were legit then I suggest we move on to other topics like the mars rovers, since this thread is about whether or not NASA have faked their achievements since the moon landings.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10068
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
it's no secret you think anything that comes from NASA are lies, you've said so yourself.
Have I? Blimey, I must have been unwell that day. Could you please point me to where I said that? I'll have to adjust it accordingly, since it completely contradicts what I've been saying for years (and what I continue to say).

EDIT: I have now re-read every post of mine that includes the words "NASA" or "nasa" and came back empty-handed. I can't help but think that you're once again showing yourself to not be particularly dispassionate - projecting your imagination of what that gosh-darn Svarrior must be thinkin' onto my actual person. If that does turn out to be correct, I'd really appreciate it if you could stop doing that.

I cba to hold your hand or prove myself to you for little to no gain
You cannot credibly claim to hold no ill will towards me while bending what I said so aggressively. I made it extremely clear that you're not proving anything to me. If you are unwilling to discuss this without devolving to petty attacks, then please take it somewhere more appropriate.

Would you be disagreeing with me if I were saying the moon landings were a hoax?
That depends on what arguments you'd bring to the table. I'm not interested in unqualified opinions - they're worthless.

At any rate if you can't move past the fact that I think the moon landings were legit then I suggest we move on
Absolutely not. If your debating strategy is to declare yourself correct with no qualfiication, denounce me as "unable to move past the fact", and demand that I simply accept this and move on, then this discussion ends here. If you make an assertion, you back it up. If your logic is full of holes, you patch them up. "Whatever, I'm right, moving swiftly on!" is not going to fly around here.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2019, 01:47:00 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Quote
Have I? Blimey, I must have been unwell that day. Could you please point me to where I said that? I'll have to adjust it accordingly, since it completely contradicts what I've been saying for years (and what I continue to say).
Apologies I believe what you actually said was not to trust NASA at all, or something along those lines. I won't fish for the comment but it was a long youtube interview with you and globebusters I think. I could have misinterpreted what you said as calling them liars, but I suppose you could also have meant you don't trust that they even know what they're doing, either way in your own words you essentially have said you don't trust what nasa say about anything.

Ok, if you sincerely feel strongly toward this and aren't just making a lame attempt at calling me out as having lied then at some point I'll go through some of the apollo footage and mark up some screengrabs. I'm not against you being curious to more evidence but the way you're coming across is calling me dumb and suggesting I've been bullsh***ing which I do not appreciate, and I'll usually respond in kind. What you've just called petty attacks is simply me talking to you how you talk to me. Either way I don't want to derail this thread and turn it into petty attacks which is why I'm suggesting to move on.

Feel free to actually respond to my questions regarding the mars rovers though.

Quote
Absolutely not. If your debating strategy is to declare yourself correct with no qualfiication, denounce me as "unable to move past the fact", and demand that I simply accept this and move on, then this discussion ends here.
Well you have the means to know what my qualifications are here, my expertise is CGI and particularly environmnet CGI (recreating scenery in 3D) which includes lighting and materials. While I've only a mere decade of industry experience and I'm well aware I'm nowhere near the best in my field of work I'm still quite confident with my own analysis. Again though that's not to say I'm 100% right which is the point I'm trying to make, that if you disagree that's fine, but I was still confident.

My claim was that IMO based on my own analysis of the footage I do not believe it could have been faked at the time, what I didn't do was say "I'm right you're wrong next topic!" I can be proven wrong for sure as can everyone. ^^

So if you are actually interested in seeing a breakdown then I might just do that, if you're just interested in attempting to ridicule and debase my points as bull then I won't bother because like I said before, I've nothing to prove (and the burden of proof is actually on the people claiming hoax which I still haven't seen you do yet in this thread).
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?