Lovell and Shepard Star Sighting Contradiction Proves Navigation Bogus and Apollo Inauthenticity

reply to post by decisively

Let's not go there. Bring a doc on choos or go to medical school.. The way NASA docs run from this, I imagine you'll have finished school, done your residency and returned to debate me as an expert before a current NASA doc does.

I swear upon Maimonides' Oath that I am as qualified a Doctor of Medicine as you are. Is the debate on?

reply to post by choos


OK choos, your assignment for the weekend. Read about INFLUENZA, the Spanish Flu and the Hong Kong Flu pandemics. Then read the May 1969 National Geographic article by Samuel Phillips where he wrote the Apollo 8 astronauts did not have Hong Kong Flu/INFLUENZA because they were vaccinated, and we'll go from there.

I am being serious. I'll give you 3 or 4 days. It will take you at least that long to get up to speed and we'll chat about it next week. If it seems you are literate, I will engage you in debate. If not, I won't .

reply to post by decisively


How about this? Why don't you put up or shut up?

reply to post by decisively


i would rather talk about the logic involved with scripting poop in space.

i dont need to know about the finer details of influenza, when gastroenteritis was more immediately prevalent at KSC than any flu was.

but i want to know why NASA would script in poop in space, when its such an obvious impossibility.

reply to post by DJW001


OK doc, was it reasonable for USAF General Samuel Philips to write in the May 1969 National Geographic that the Apollo 8 "Astronauts' illnesses", in particular Borman's, was not due to INFLUENZA because they were vaccinated ? Yes or no and why ? Do you agree or disagree with Phillips knowing that physicians then(1969) and physicians today do not agree with the good Dr. Phillips ? Doctors then and now do not believe INFULENZA vaccine guaranteed/guarantees immunity, and indeed, the performance of the 1969 hong Kong Flu vaccine was surprisingly disappointing.

reply to post by decisively

OK doc, was it reasonable for USAF General Samuel Philips to write in the May 1969 National Geographic that the Apollo 8 "Astronauts' illnesses", in particular Bormnan's, was not due to INFLUENZA because they were vaccinated, yes or no and why do you agree or disagree with Phillips knowing that physicians then(1969) and physicians today do not agree with the good Dr. Phillips. Doctors then and now do not believe INFULENZA vaccine guarantees immunity and indeed, the performance of the 1969 hong Kong Flu vaccine was surprisingly disappointing.

Is that the topic you are choosing for the formal debate? If so, I accept.

reply to post by DJW001


ooo official challenge, wonder how this will end up?

i wont get the popcorn though.

reply to post by choos

ooo official challenge, wonder how this will end up?

i wont get the popcorn though.

It will take him a while to come up with another pompous way to say "no." (And to Google Maimonides.)

reply to post by choos

The POOP was out of the Bag…….Mistake!!!!!!

The poop was a mistake on their part. The "illness" is for the purpose of making things look less "nominal". I feel a bit like a broken Apollo mission recording, but imagine if the thing were actually real. There would be all kinds of interesting this's and thats, anecdotes and so forth. The missions are fabricated and so they make the anecdotes up.

The most important people to fool are the Apollo workers themselves. They hear stuff like this, and even help to solve problems associated with it, they bite, buy in, believe that it is real. "Borman's sick, must be real......" Who ever heard of fake space vomit ? "

Recall in Borman's January 17 1969 LIFE Magazine article, Borman conveniently left out the poop. They realized this was a mistake, but the poop was already out of the bag and came back to stink them out.




The poop was out of the bag, mistake !!!!!! and so, Borman left the poop out of his LIFE Mag article.

Berry tried to sweep the POOP under the carpet too.

reply to post by choos



Recall Berry left the poop out too, just like Borman. He used a different technique. Recall Berry claimed in the May 1969 preliminary Apollo 7 and 8 Medical Report that it was all collected in the fecal bags so no problemo, No ???? NO !!! Big Problemo.....

By the time of Berry's May 1969 Report, they had already floated the floating in zero G poop tale, and so the poop, they could not recant !!!!

reply to post by decisively


he didnt go into detail, why would he need to go into detail? wouldnt that violate doctor patient confidentiality doc???

and all of it was eventually contained in the bags, did you think they spent the entire trip with faeces/vomit floating about? they spent a few hours cleaning up.

reply to post by decisively


So which part of gastroenteritis made it not an anecdote?? Is vomit and diarrhea so unbelievable to you that it proves the entire Apollo missions a hoax? Is it not conceivable to you that if a 24hr tummy bug was prevalent at ksc that the astronauts will have a chance of catching before launch and not have symptoms until after launch??

Is space sickness not real?? You seem certain that space vomit is fake?

reply to post by decisively

The poop was a mistake on their part.

Would you care to debate that in the Debate Forum? You have been challenged. You are so frightened that you cannot even bring yourself to say no. You demonstrate your own fraudulence every time you bring up this stupid video. Your assertions have been debunked at length, yet you continue to repeat them:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by DJW001


I think that this talk about banning a user extremely off topic, irrelevant (in the thread) and a form of coercion (to the user and the admins) especially since the user has not broken any local dictates.

From my part I do not read the other forums nor do I care much of what transpires there. I'm an ATS user and I like that the stamina and conviction of those that defend uncommon or outside of the box positions, even if I disagree wit them. It is up to me to participate in the discussion or ignore it.

I think you are mislabeling the user as a troll in these circumstances, since in fact you are the one trolling the thread.

There are proper avenues to discuss this issues that does not involve undermining the participant t with offtopic remarks that do not at all contribute to the thread...

Originally posted by decisively

Sorry to bust up Apollo's little party DJW001, but with all due respect, they really do need, NASA does, to trot out a couple of their docs to debate me. We all know it here, as regards the phony Borman cislunar diarrheal illness, Shepard's bogus Meniere's disease cure, Slayton's a-fib issue, no one has ever effectively countered my claims and associated air tight demonstration of Apollo Inauthenticity. And in the world of Apollo, it is indeed I, decisively, and a half dozen friends who are the experts here, experts without peer.

Damn you're smart. I listen to you wherever you go. Talk, speak, I hear O Grate One.

reply to post by Panic2k11

I think that this talk about banning a user extremely off topic, irrelevant (in the thread) and a form of coercion (to the user and the admins) especially since the user has not broken any local dictates.

Please read the thread and the ATS Terms & Conditions.

12e) Compliance With Laws: You agree to comply in all material respects with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations in connection with your activities under the Terms and Conditions of Use (and for members, the Additional Terms and Conditions of Membership).

Decisively is in violation of internationally accepted laws concerning libel. He would not dare accuse respected professionals of fraud were his identity known.

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Is he a mentally handicapped youth or a chess playing physician? One of these is knowingly false.

15a) Offensive Content: You will not Post forum posts, private messages, PODcasts, blog entries, videos, images, and other supported content, links to images or use avatars and/or signatures that are unlawful, harassing, libelous, privacy invading, abusive, threatening, harmful, hateful, vulgar, obscene, and/or disruptive. You will not use text, images, avatars or link to images or domains that contain gore, mutilation, pornography or illegal content. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

Decisively repeatedly posts videos that use tasteless language and imagery. One entire thread of his is dedicated to mentioning feces as often as possible.

15c.) Intellectual Property: You will not Post any copyrighted material owned by others, material belonging to another person, material previously Posted by you on another website, or link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution*, as defined by TAN, to its original source. You will not Post any material that infringes, misappropriates, or violates any patent, trademark, trade secret, or other proprietary rights of TAN or any third party. You will not use your Postings on the Websites to promote your own personal website or any other website with which you may be associated without first receiving permission from TAN.

Decisively does not format his posts properly, making it difficult to determine how much of the content is from the source he alleges and how much of it is his own contribution. He often relies on a book that is not accessible on the internet, making the accuracy of his quotations difficult to confirm. (No, I'm not going to buy the memoirs of an ear surgeon just to settle an on-line argument.) One could argue that by posting his own YouTube videos (on several different YouTube accounts under various aliases) he is engaged in self promotion.

15f.) Relevant Content: You will not Post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums or disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

Decisively's habit of repeating essentially the same thing across all of his threads can be construed as "flooding."

15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.

This one alone should have gotten him banned after his third thread.

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.

Decisively substitutes annoying videos for reasoned discourse.

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Decisively is all about the defamation. Nevertheless, I do not advocate banning him. It is clearly his objective here. Instead, I challenge him to a formal debate in the Debate Forum. If he does not accept, it is because he is not interested in persuading others that his opinions are true, it is because he is trying to disrupt this board for his amusement. That is the definition of a troll.

Decisively posted:

I am a doc remember

No, actually you are not. More about this later..

I also did not know that pilots turned their heads, turned their eye so that dim light would fall on their more peripheral, and more sensitive, rods.

You WHAT? .. and this followed by:

I am not an ophthalmologist, but am very good with human physiology fundamentals and am quite familiar with what can and cannot be seen under any given circumstances

Seriously?? A 'doc' who does not know about averted vision??? That is really, really basic physiology. Even as a non-doctor, anyone who didn't know about averted vision speaks volumes about a complete lack of personal observation, let alone ontopic-education. If nothing else does, that proves you are no doctor of anything.

At any rate, Berry is a big fat quack, that is a FACT indeed indeed indeed.

Yes, these are clearly the words of a medical professional. The same medical pro who has a paranoid fear of human waste, and who, on the basis of their fears, wouldn't be seen dead in a public toilet, let alone anywhere near a hospital, or - heaven forbid - patients. They might have ... illnesses..

I began to study Apollo one year ago. ...
That said, my Apollo fraud bread and butter topics, the Borman, Shepard, Slayton scams; I 'ved owned that stuff since I was an intern some 28 years ago.

Say what? It is just me - have I missed something in there? You began to study Apollo one year ago, and yet your 'Apollo fraud bread and butter topics' - you've owned that stuff for 28 years..? Riight.


Anyway, enough stating the obvious... when will you be backing yourself (oh sorry, I mean representing 'Team Lune') and engaging in a real debate?

Judging by this stuff:

..I make plenty of mistakes...
..I need to be a little careful...
..some "bad people" from another forum hacked my smart phone...
..I won't do this stuff unless it is worth my time

the excuses will now come quick and fast - next will it be the dog eating your homework? Apart from being a doc and all, are you in training for reverse bicycling? BTW, the only other person I've heard drag out the old "I've been hacked" routine is Jarrah White... What do you think of his work, dec? He's been pretty quiet lately, and I don't recall you ever mentioning him..., oh except when you are channeling 'dastardly' (see below)

[or] the risk of wide open exposure

Oh, this FASCINATES me. Why would you be worried about that? MIB been following you (er, I mean 'the team')? Embarrassed about what will happen when the truth is finally revealed?

Time's a wasting ....

Or is it .. ticking ...?

BTW, May I just remind readers that this is the very same 'decisively' who, when he first appeared at ATS posted like this:

It is very easy to see apollo is fony bicnarok because they really could never sight stars the way they say they could sight them in the books about apollo and on tv about apollo i know this because i am a sextant expert and won many awards from when i was a little boy on my dads ship and then grew up and won mopre til i decided i did not need to win the trophys any more and so then i read michel ciollins who is very fony with trying to find menkent and cannot even see the constellation centaurus and then i read apollo 14 debriefing where shepard said in section 7.0 that they were never dark adapted on the way to the moon and that they were not sure about sighting with their sextant so you can relax and know it is fake and fony very very much bicnarok and my girlfriend thinks i should go on tour with my sextant in a planetarium to give demonstrations on how neil armstrong must be a liar and he even sold chrysler cars and so how can a real astronaut who says he can sight mekent go and sell chrysler cars after he retires that is stupid and we know apollo trips are very pretend for absolutely sure

Yes, that was decisively back when he first joined ATS. He has also used multiple sockpuppets on various forums (all now banned). He was busted here by me, and then happily admitted to it here and elsewhere. In those admissions he 'proudly' refers to a favorite sockpuppet called 'dastardly' - who is the kid with the sextant.. But shortly after being busted, he suddenly gained a whole new level of literacy, and 'dastardly' disappeared...

Doctor? Respected researcher? Kid with a sextant? Or ...........

You be the judge, dear reader.

reply to post by DJW001


This is off topic and should have been discussed in private. But I will provide a response with the same visibility. My view is that the admins should just delete this type of tripe from the threads and act on them. As it ruins the readers experience by making as it is impossible to hide and ignore off topics or ignore users.

12e was not infringed (the site rules). Because:

15) would require malice, I have not so far detected malice by part of the user and if anyone can indeed prove that he is not a MD (as he stated then you had grounds to report that as a violation, it may or not be easily verifiable by the adminsitration) as for the rest the user seems to believe the opinions he expresses and he is not attempting to derail or flood threads that the is not the OP nor has it been found in a intentional lie.

This does not invalidate that the user may within this setup be inept, erroneous or inaccurate in explaining his point of view, opinions and perceived facts. For instance I liked and stared your productive reply on your post on 17-5-2012 @ 05:08 PM, that concisely responded to some of the claims.

15a) the word feces to me is not offensive. I agree that too much repetition of the same fact has been made but more as to show the incredibility and even his personal distaste of the option taken and its consequences. Maybe as to shock also others in seeing it as a very implausible course of action. Remember than he is also in the receiving end of very active criticism by very vocal users it is hard to remain reasonable and composed in such circumstances.

15c.) It is a viable use of fair use to quote and use small parts of copyright material. He is not in any obligation to restrict himself in this regard not are you forced to have access to the same material. I agree that it makes it difficult to prove deception but that does not mean it should be assumed.

As for the self promotion I do not think websites as referred on the rule covers generically all creative content, since YouTube is not a personal website but a free video distribution service. Because of this even if he was the creator of all videos it still wouldn't violate the rule as written. (In fact if you could prove that he is supporting the claims based on his own creations alone it would render the claims invalid)

15f.) 15h.) This I believe has to deal with the burden of being forced to deal with multiple criticism that much of the time is not constructive or on topic. In a thread environment it is expected that people know what has been said before but as a rule most people participate without reading much of what has been said. It would be a good change for him to improve on that by simply referring to the previous post. I too get annoyed by the font change but understand in part his frustration (that is why I'm taking the time to defend his participation on ATS, and deflecting a bit of flack to me.)

Admins should admonish him on this, attempt to educate him, not simply ban him on these grounds (I truly like some of the data he has brought forward and so see his participation as positive, even if I agree that the method should improve)

I think he as made an effort in keeping the topic of the threads different (even if in replies he tends to repeat the topic of another thread). This again maybe lack of experience as it ultimately damages his position. Since it does more harm to his own threads that to threads that he is not the OP.

Making it seem as an intentional tactic is not reasonable in this circumstances .If someone took the time to point it out, he would probably have corrected it. That is a function of the administration, a warning fallowed by some more drastic response if needed.

Both 15k.) and 15f.) would get most participants in trouble in any case, especially those less experienced (new members). Even if at times I would also could also see that as a general improvement but even you and now me would be in violation due to the off topic.

16) I haven't seen he attack other users even in a similar way some have attacked him. Criticism of public figures should not be the concern, if they have an issue they can initiate legal action that would even force them to clarify further the truth of some subjects.

I see no reason or support for the claim that he is being disruptive since he is using his own threads. If he was subverting other threads then I would have grounds for labeling him disruptive. In fact and as I stated those that are not being productive on the threads and are flooding them with off topics are themselves at fault here...

Participation in threads is voluntary...

reply to post by Panic2k11


I can only assume you have not read the entirety of this and decisively's other threads. As CHRLZ has pointed out, decisively presents himself in ways that are mutually exclusive. He is being intentionally deceptive. Have you viewed this video?



Do you not see the animus? This video is profoundly disturbing at many levels.

Furthermore, decisively does not further the discussion of the topic at hand. When an objection is raised, he merely ignores it and either repeats himself, cross posts from one of his other threads, or puffs himself and boasts about his supposed accomplishments. Decisively has turned this into a thread about himself.

Finally, although public figures are inevitably the target of scorn as well as adulation, Dr. Berry is a private citizen. Decisively has made it perfectly clear that one of his goals is to defame the doctor's public reputation. I would have left this thread ages ago, content that decisively would continue to troll until he tired himself out, as a child eventually tires of a tantrum. Unfortunately, decisively's abuse of a distinguished professional is intolerable. If his childish behavior alone were not evidence that he is no physician, his reprehensible slandering of someone he should consider a colleague is proof positive.

Originally posted by Panic2k11

I think that this talk about banning a user extremely off topic, irrelevant (in the thread) and a form of coercion (to the user and the admins) especially since the user has not broken any local dictates

I think that this post about a post banning a user extremely off topic, irrelevant (in the thread) and a form of coercion (to the poster and the admins) especially since the poster has not broken any local dictates.

See how that works?