A response to ‘les berger des photons’ comments on my last post:
So nice of you to blame my ‘paranoia’ on ‘the stress (I’m) feeling’, rather than a critical thinking/common sense reaction to your ‘professional photographer brother’s’ horse shit analysis of an area I’ve been researching and writing about and making videos about for over a year (Spacex). I don’t believe he’s your brother or a lawyer in Texas, by the way… (In fact, I’ll bet you a hundred bucks he’s not your brother or a photographer or lives in texas. More on this at the bottom.)
But let’s take a look at his best shot:
Any you want to know why the exposure for a light colored object that is up in the air in direct sunlight, which looks to be the underexposed surface of white rocket, which normally would be glowing, isn’t enough to make sidelit water, apparently approaching dusk, not enough to make the water as bright blue as in the pictures from space where it is hit with full sun.
Do me a favor, since you seem to respect me so much: Read that ‘sentence’ aloud. Go ahead, do it. Anyone else out there who found yourself nodding when you first read it, please do likewise. Start with this aloud: ‘Any you want to know…’
Mmmm. And it goes downhill from there. That… paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Does it? DOES IT? This is your ‘lawyer’ (and ‘professional photographer’) writing, knowing it will be quoted online? (I won’t even deal with the Sistine image crap, since all I said about it was that the eyelines were different. Go back and look. That you would try to discredit me about so minor an issue is a ‘tell’ that your agenda here is not truth, but misdirection.)
And this:
So the picture on the left is shot with a lens longer than wide angle and you are wondering why everything is not in focus in the background. Depth of field comes to mind.
A couple possibilities occur to me, especially given that whatever your ‘pro photog’ thinks he’s saying is wrong to begin with. The two cameras ARE THE SAME – as I showed in an early video, Musk claims to use Gopros in hardened cases. I’ve been using them for over 10 years and know their properties very well. Anyone – let alone a photographer – looking at those two images can clearly see that the earth is not right in either of them, but especially on the left. Why would… anyone claim that the cameras were different? The best they could do?
With the gibberish paragraph your ‘lawyer/pro photog’ ‘brother’ is using NLP, i.e., trying to confuse the reader into ‘giving up’, since the sentence is literally nonsense (the ‘pro photog’ bit is ‘appeal to authority’).
And your little details about your life and your ‘brother’s’ life is more bull shit. (But you made him up out of whole cloth, anyway. Didn’t you?)
And you write this as a capper: ; He found what he saw as faults in your analyses of these images and pointed them out. Surely one is allowed to disagree with you allan?’
Half-assed NLP. What you are not ‘allowed’ to do on this blog is lie and misdirect.
He’s a lawyer and a professional photographer, huh? How do you describe him? Here: ‘he’s in texas and working as a lawyer for people who are generally getting fucked by our system and have been lucky enough to find him.’
Wow. ‘people getting fucked by the system.’ Must mean he’s honest and on our side, huh? Is that what you mean? And his clients are ‘lucky enough to find him.’
Really? Let’s take another look at his argumentational skills:
‘Any you want to know why the exposure for a light colored object that is up in the air in direct sunlight, which looks to be the underexposed surface of white rocket, which normally would be glowing, isn’t enough to make sidelit water, apparently approaching dusk, not enough to make the water as bright blue as in the pictures from space where it is hit with full sun.’
Lucky enough to find a lawyer who can’t write a coherent sentence?
You know what? Is there anything more I need say here? You’ve wasted my time (and hiked a mile to send this) and my subscribers’ time with your misdirection and deceit. Do you have kids? What do you tell them about your job?
$100 bucks. Take a screen shot of your brother’s email (same last name I assume) and another of a letter head or whatever that proves he’s a lawyer in Texas; also prove he’s worked as a pro photog and I’ll send you $100. 36 hours from the time of this post.
Oh, a question about the ‘theJoff@gmail.com address. Does it go over well when you email women looking for a date?
Excuse me Mol, but I can’t believe you are still talking at that Bozo.
Flat out means quickly.
I only ever pay GENTLEMEN money on bets, like my good friend next door, who bet me $50 that Trump would win the Presidents seat. Shock horror, my pet $50 note was his.
There are some people trying to comprehend the world they are living in, they have doubts about the veracity of what they’ve been led to believe, they are seeking answers and wind up here and other online communities where they feel as if they are finally beginning to get a truer view of, in Allan’s words – HTWRW.
Then this happens.
But this is all a learning experience and the message one repeatedly is given is trust no one. Do your own due diligence and seek your own answers. Yes, there are others with good minds and intentions who have been searching and who have found some answers, but they are human with human weaknesses too. I find that applying the Latin question qui bono? – “as a benefit to whom?” is always a solid place to begin any quest as to an important event or story you have been told and expected to believe.
I like Allan and have met him by chance once. I have given him some donations. But even so, I do not agree with several things he says and so I go my own way looking into HTWRW.
Best wishes to all of you seeking to comprehend HTWRW and try not to gang up on anyone just because someone you look up to is having an argument with him.
“and try not to gang up on anyone just because someone you look up to is having an argument with him.”
I have to strongly disagree sorry.
There was mostly less than 5 of us, backing Allan with any support against that trouble maker troll (he could be a mole).
He was a caustic, rude, aggressive, damaged goods PSYCHO.
I couldn’t agree more. On the other hand, your implication that folks ‘ganged up’ on someone overlooks the fact that the ‘disagreement’ started via an incorrect — transparently so and in the context of a monumental fraud that is suspiciously ignored by those who call themselves ‘truthers’) — ‘debunking’ of about a dozen videos and posts I have done, all ‘cumulative’ arguments, any one of which is sufficient to prove fraudulence, even if some arguments are incorrect. In other words, the anger voiced by some folks here was not unmotivated. The debunking ‘analysis’ offered was both ignorant and ‘stupid’. Since I have already dealt with the reasons why this is so, I’ll not repeat it here.
Most folks here know that Spacex is a fraud and did not much care for the distraction of ignorant/incorrect observations, especially by an ‘appeal to an authority’ that could not even construct a coherent sentence.
So, again: I agree with your general sentiments and only would add that in this case the context is important.
Hey le berger des photons, when Allan posted that he had given up on his boat and his RV was in need of repairs, I immediately sent him 100 bucks (the least, and also the most I could do) . So in a roundabout way that is my money you are so eager to get your hands on. You’re welcome. Now please, and kindly, shut the fuck up.
Send any proof that you think you have to my personal email – onslowbay@yahoo.com and I will verify that you have earned it.
Hopefully that will satisfy you and end your ridiculous ramblings. Yeah, Allan probably misjudged you as a mole and screwed up by posting your email. But who really gives a rat’s ass? And how do you have the time for this nonsense? Don’t you have a job?
On second thought, don’t answer any of that. For the love of God, please don’t answer.
And Allan, please be more careful with your money…
Yep, Miles, right on all counts. I gotta be more careful in so many ways.
Allan, the moles have come out in full force for this one, appearing to support one another at times. This exercise could be put to good use to 68 some of these scumbags.
todd, you’re such a clever doofus.
ask your buddy allan for my phone number and let’s talk about it personally.
it’s free for me to call you on your land line, or 1 cent a minute on your cell phone.
So if you’re too busted to pay for the call, I can call you back, but then I’ll know YOUR number.
Awwww, you poor victim, throwing a wild tantrum venting at anyone ratting your sick-ass out. You are either ignorant, delusional, schizophrenic, or a paid agent provocateur/mole.
This will disappoint you, but Allan is not my buddy nor does he answer all my emails, but I don’t go throwing around a tantrum like you.
There initially was no reason to call me names when I was simply reiteration the terms of Allan’s bet that you REPEATEDLY FAILED TO NOT UNDERSTAND. You’ve gone completely off the rails, unglued yourself. As far as your brother’s analysis, if he even exists, was nonsense.
All ask you again, explain earth’s lighting issues in the video? Oh, I forgot, you have no obligation to do so. You poor lad, I’m so sorry for you. You must be one of those sensitive mole types.
If I had some tissue I would give it to you – you can go cry to someone who cares about you. LMFAO. Your writing is hilarious, absolutely HILARIOUS.
C’mon, spill the beans – you must be working overtime, attempting damage control for your handlers?
“I’m a giant intellectual?” Thank you, I’ve never been called that, but never considered myself to be one and never would say that myself. I have admitted ,even on this website, to having bad grammar sometimes.
Good catch re my double-negative – thank you. I should have written, “REPEATEDLY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND.” I was too rushed getting my response out.
Why should I have to explain anything to you about your “brother’s” nonsensical critique (since it was nonsensical to begin with I cannot even really respond to it even IF I wanted) of the video when you will not look into it yourself and will not explain the lighting irregularities (among other things that Allan and others have pointed out) which proves the video is a fraud. You don’t need to have an ‘expert photography brother’ having to analyze it for you. It’s easy enough that you can analyze it yourself, but maybe you don’t have the capacity to do that. I could be wrong.
After Allan posted one of his more recent comments saying that you might, MIGHT, really have a brother who’s a ‘photographer/lawyer’ (he was still needing to verify it), I started to feel sorry for you and was considering writing an apology, but your behavior attacking myself with names, saying you provided the proof when you admitted you didn’t provide the correct proof, just being an all around jerk of an asshole, etc., This got me thinking that you ARE really an ASSHOLE, even if your ‘bro’ might be legit. I’ll hold off my final judgement until further evidence is brought forward on this blog.
If I have typos in this current set of comments, my condolences in advance.
I knw. And you are more or less correct in your assessment of the photo 32 secs in. What they’ve done is fucked with the perspective by putting one camera up-side down… it’s complicated but yes, it is another tell that the whole deal is a fraud.
That was good popcorn munching material. Hope you get yer hundred and an apology.
Some folks here sure have their critical thinking synchronized with others. Funny that.
And I haven’t asked my brother whether the word “any” was just a typo for the word “and”, but that’s what I immediately guessed. Anybody going after a typo with such venom would seem to be somebody with anger issues and an ego problem.
As far as it being a run on sentence. It surely is. It’s comprehensible I think.
I know that my brother’s attitude (he made it obvious with his words) was that m. weisbecker is not worth his time to edit a response. I didn’t agree with my brother until Allan Weisbecker decided to call me an asshole and a liar and then subsequently lied to me so visibly on his blog by exposing my email address.
Unless he wants to pull a bill clinton regarding the meaning of “won’t be published”.
Or maybe I should call it a “Max Igan” who said:
people died at the mosk in new zealand (my paraphrase)
When I said that he said that “he knew” that people died in new zealand his argument was that he didn’t use the words “I know”.
Lying is lying.
still waiting for one of the acolytes to show me where I lied. If they can’t, then logically that means that yes, Allan Weisbecker did lie to me.
Are you really going to go on and on? I asked for simple evidence that you were not lying about your ex-pro photog/lawyer brother in texas and you think you can blab your way around the lack of response. Do you think these people are that stupid? (They are not.)
I guess what this means is that you are going to lie about what you received from me in my emails to your address:
allan@banditobooks.com
?
I”m trying to do this without my brother (who knew right away that you’re a crazy person) having to be bothered with you or any of your doofus acolytes.
Are you lying (once one is caught in a lie as you have been) again?
Or did you just not spend the time to look at my message in which you see:
1.) the screen shot of my brother’s email to me
2.) the proof that he shot pix for the Philadelphia Inquirer
3.) his letterhead showing you that he’s an attorney in TX
?
You are really turning out to be quite a disappointment, just like you said about Max Igan.
I think you and Max are similar. Both sincere, but both victims of your egos.
You both do good work, but then ruin it by figuring you can trample over a “little person” with lies and bullshit.
I’ve got the documentation on both of you.
You have nothing saying that I’m a liar other than your pathetic opinion.
Are you really going to go on and on? I asked for simple evidence that you were not lying about your ex-pro photog/lawyer brother in texas and you think you can blab your way around the lack of response.
Maybe you should now admit that I’d sent your responses immediately but that you don’t know how to open an attached file.
That’s why I sent you one with the files embedded. To compensate for your extreme lack of knowledge in that domain.
Do you think these people are that stupid? (They are not.)
One sure can’t tell by reading their comments that they’re not really stupid. But all the same, I wasn’t taking them for stupid.
YOu were giving them bad information (for a change), that I hadn’t sent the documents you needed.
I don’t have time right now to go much further with this guy (yes, a true asshole). Here he is admitting that he lied then says he didn’t, based on my lack of ‘proof.’ My offer of 100 bucks for some simple screenshots and his failure to even deal with it is proof that he is dirty. That or a complete moron that he would continue to blab (misdirection) rather than dealing with the proofs he does not have.
I’ll be banning him as soon as I have a good connection. We are now truly wasting our time. It’s over.
I don’t have time right now to go much further with this guy (yes, a true asshole).
Nice Allan. All that based on your error in your hasty incorrect judgment.
Here he is admitting that he lied
Where did I admit that I lied? What did I lie about? When are you going to admit the obvious fact that you lied when you published my email address?
then says he didn’t, based on my lack of ‘proof.’
waiting for you to show me where I said that I lied. Sounds like another one of your lies or a misunderstanding.
My offer of 100 bucks for some simple screenshots
which you received quickly but were too spastic to understand how to see…
and his failure to even deal with it
oh, I failed because I didn’t anticipate that you’d be too dumb to open an attached file or even see that it was there?
is proof that he is dirty.
It might be if any of it was true.
That or a complete moron that he would continue to blab (misdirection) rather than dealing with the proofs he does not have.
wrong again, moose breath. I can prove that I sent you what you wanted and I can prove when I did it.
I’ll be banning him as soon as I have a good connection.
in fact, he admitted that he was wrong. Granted he did it with an extreme lack of grace, but that seems to be all he can muster when he has to admit a mistake.
We are now truly wasting our time. It’s over.
When will you apologize to me for having wasted MY time? That’s clearly what has happened here as I’ve proven that you’ve lied to me and you still only have baseless accusations.
And I’ve asked you questions that would require you to think. You haven’t responded yet, I hope you will.
hey drud,
how hard was that to predict that they’d call you a mole for agreeing with me? They’ll fabricate stories of us collaborating together, drinking at the same bar after we get our guvmint paychecks for “mole-ing”.
I came to this blog thinking allan was smart.
He is smart, but he seems to be letting personal problems get in the way of doing a good job.
Dommage!
that’s french for “too bad!”
Yes, drud, funny that. But what do you really mean? Can’t you just say it?
thank you all for your amusing responses.
Your hero has already violated my trust:
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
He has published my email in the original blog post to which you have already responded.
And you’re all here arguing for his integrity and against mine. And none of you can prove that anything I’ve said is a lie. You may be able to prove that I’ve written something which is factually incorrect. You may be able to point out that I’ve expressed an opinion with which you don’t agree. But if you can demonstrate that I’ve lied about something, please do.
I’ve already demonstrated that Allan has lied. It’s right there in black and white.
he published my email address, even mocked me for my choice of email address.
Very childish.
You must be so totally bored, and at a lose end there in France.
We all pitched in (from this side of the pond), to help you out of your tantrums…..
your $100 in green folding > https://youtu.be/PSKQ3ZNQ_O8?t=15
Ok, Brett, I’m bored because I wrote what I wrote? You’re the one who read it. You must be really bored wherever you are.
I see that you don’t have the integrity to confirm or deny the FACT that M. Weisbecker lied to me while calling me a liar and being unable to prove his claim.
I’m not surprised, Brett. I wouldn’t have called you a liar or an asshole without knowing it to be true. I suspected it from the first word I read of yours.
But I didn’t and don’t know it to be true. Of course it can’t be true, it’s only an opinion. Opinions are subjective.
Blatant provable lies from a person claiming to be the seat of integrity? That generates that my opinion of m weisbecker is that he’s a hypocrite.
Just an opinion, only based on the fact that he says one thing and does another.
Leave a Reply
Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
He published my email address.
He is a liar.
You are very rude, because you haven’t thanked me for that cash gift I gave you.
As well as being one of THE worst Troll/Molsters in history, you are as thick as a block of firewood (low intelligence).
You really should run off and play outside, and never come back.
You are the absolute pit’s here, and a prime example of the worst Troll/Mole.
You’ve VIOLATED humanity you piece of shit. When you finally go 6 feet under, I hope your soul/consciousness rots in whatever and wherever makes you have the most pain.
You’ve VIOLATED humanity you piece of shit. When you finally go 6 feet under, I hope your soul/consciousness rots in whatever and wherever makes you have the most pain.
was it when I put up the link to George Carlin dissing everybody named Todd?
he wasn’t really dissing all Todds. He was dissing useless doofuses (other than the mockery potential) like you who are named Todd.
Thank you Allan – “les berger des photons” hasn’t responded yet or maybe never will respond to my question even after he posted comments later than I did. I’ll repost it again here to make sure it wasn’t overlooked.
“les berger des photons”, please explain the backwards lighting in the video at 32s https://youtu.be/YHnEPgwy1U4?t=32
If the Sun is on the right (as you can tell by the light being reflected off the rocket ‘fins’), how come the earth (in the background) is brighter on the left side of the screen than the right side? Since the sun is towards the right (off screen) the earth’s reflection of light should be strongest (brighter) on the right than the left, debunking your brother’s theory about approaching dusk. It’s just the opposite of what he claims is what we visually see in the alleged video. And if you say it’s light from the moon, then you would also have to explain why the moon would be brighter than the sun at any moment in time when the sun is providing the lighting.
AND
To make this even more clear for you, all my comments above with respect to the lighting (because of the split screen), are only for the video on the LEFT.
todd, I haven’t looked at the video and I don’t intend to. I don’t see why this would be an obligation on my part. I sent the link to my brother and I reported back with his response. And now I just have to thank him for earning me 100 dollars with his run-on sentence, his typographic error and perhaps a faulty undrestanding of some element of photography. More likely it’s just a case of unclear references and/or misunderstandings.
I don’t care. The hundred bucks that needs to land in my pocket is certainly going to give me the last laugh here if Allan is honest.
You didn’t watch the video – interesting statement.
I don’t see any obligation for Allan to pay out anything. Allan’s terms were pretty clear. You failed to supply a photo of your bro’s letter head. You admitted this yourself to reply to Brett down below. Right?
“Ah, Brett! Another genius heard from! fake letter head. I didn’t do the letter head. I did the link to his identity on the site of the texas bar association.”
Here is the definition for letter https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=define+letterhead
let·ter·head
/ˈledərˌhed/
noun
noun: letterhead; plural noun: letterheads; noun: letter heading; plural noun: letter headings
a printed heading on stationery stating a person’s or organization’s name and address.
“write to the company’s registered office, which you can normally get from their letterhead”
a sheet of paper with a printed heading stating a person’s or organization’s name and address.
If this is wrong, please clarify. Since I don’t have access to Allan and your email, I’ll never really know what you sent him, if you send anything.
Yes Todd, when he said > ” I haven’t looked at the video and I don’t intend to.” ….
It fully reveals what a time waster troll he is – just like Allan said, in no uncertain terms.
yes Todd, when he said > ” I haven’t looked at the video and I don’t intend to.” ….
It fully reveals what a time waster troll he is – just like Allan said, in no uncertain terms.
I guess that was before he admitted that he was wrong about me being a troll.
wow. a conversation between Todd and Brett. Stop the presses!
you’re an idiot. The letterhead is quite easy for me to have. Probably have something in my emails. Do you think I faked the entry in the texas bar association?
You doofus acolytes, get a life.
ok. doofus, just found and sent a letterhead to Allan. You’re such a fan-boy, trying hard to defend allan’s wallet from his own ego.
Look who the idiot and doofus is? You’re the one who couldn’t provide the CORRECT proof. You made your self look like the FOOL you really are.
Have you thought about how much time you put into getting your hundred? I’d estimate you made about 2 bucks an hour. And I spent no time reading the drivel. So who’s the fool. My mistake was not believing an illiterate fool could be working at a Dallas law firm. So again, who is the fool.
This will be my last reply to anything you write.
Todd, as mentioned elsewhere, you are correct but possibly for the wrong reason. The views from the two cameras are spooky to say the least. They go back and forth between the darkness of space being to the right of the craft, then they switch to the left. This had me confused for the longest time — it’s an indication of fraud but it’s difficult to explain what exactly is going on. One of my videos deals with this but I forget which one. Thing is, there are so many tells that these missions are faked that there is no sense in spending too much time on any one. If you get my drift.
Studio Lighting………… 😛
Aloha
Thanks, folks. We’ll see, won’t we. Maybe he’ll… no he won’t. To those who figure i’m wasting my time, take a look at some of his long and oh so ‘sincere’ comments. There are many out there who need to be clued in on how far they will go. It’s an important issue, this mole issue.
I’ll be offline for a day or so, I think.
off line for a day or so? when does the 36 hour clock start? The minute I responded or when you get back on line?
thanks again, Allan
It was clearly stated in Allan’s blog post. The clock started 24 or so hours ago based on the first commenters posted timestamp, which normally comes in AFTER the posting of a new webpage, by another member Brett. You certainly have less than 12hrs left.
It was clearly stated in Allan’s blog post. The clock started 24 or so hours ago based on the first commenters posted timestamp, which normally comes in AFTER the posting of a new webpage, by another member Brett. You certainly have less than 12hrs left
really todd? You find it clearly stated? My interpretation is that he has 36 hours to send me the cash after I fulfill his demands. I just finished even by your standards. He now has the letter head.
$100 bucks. Take a screen shot of your brother’s email (same last name I assume) and another of a letter head or whatever that proves he’s a lawyer in Texas; also prove he’s worked as a pro photog and I’ll send you $100. 36 hours from the time of this post.
regarding your hero’s integrity, here I’m copying from what I see in this very screen:
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Perhaps you’re too blinded by love to notice that your hero has published my email in the blog.
I’d call that a serious lack of integrity.
I’ll probably regret having trusted him with my brother’s identity. Given the above he’s already proved that he’s a liar and he’s called me one based only on his giant misplaced ego about his ability to see HTWRW.
You really know how to play the victim, don’t you, you poor sap. Another proof of your lack of intelligence by not understanding clear instructions.
You certainly are showing your true colors here.
Mmmm. And it goes downhill from there. That… paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Does it? DOES IT? This is your ‘lawyer’ (and ‘professional photographer’) writing, knowing it will be quoted online?
no. He didn’t know that it would be quoted on line. Why do you think that he did? Did somebody tell you that? or is it perhaps more of your amazing insight?
See Todd? Allan’s logic is lame. He has assumed that my brother knew he’d be quoted on line. He didn’t, nobody told Allan that he did.
When you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME.
Allan right there made a major fault, showing clearly his inability to reason correctly.
Only one example of many.
Bravo and touché good sir!
Regards
thanks eric,
I’m really enjoying this. Ask Allan how he feels about having to send me 100 dollars.
The ‘Bravo’ comment was for Allan if that wasn’t clear enough.
yes, I know. I was thanking you for saying bravo to allan in a comment regarding how he lost 100 dollars and in which he violated his own rules:
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
He published my email in the blog.
Your hero is a cad, victim of his own ego and his misdirected anger.
The writing style resembles what a “reply bot” would post, in my opinion. Or an under-educated or “English is my second language” human being could write that sloppy (no offense meant to non-English speakers out there as my foreign language skills pretty much suck.).
You really should not let either the idiots who post such drivel (or Bots, whichever) get to you, sir.
It seems to me the point of “his” post was to piss you off, and it seems that much was successful.
You are looking in the correct places. Share what you want. The comments section lets you know there is somebody out there, actually reading your posts. For this I thank you.
Please try not to take such BS attacks so personally. The internet is a very impersonal place.
> (no offense meant to non-English speakers out there …
I’m not offended – English is my third language.
Writing such convoluted sentences as stated above shows either a mental focus issue, or malintent.
Anyway, it all boils down to proof. After lots of experience, I tend to ignore anyone who can’t prove anything he says. Perhaps Allan posts an image of the letter head here … 😉
you think that’s right? to post the letterhead on the blog? I guess you also think it’s right that he posted my email address on the blog in spite of what I see right above where I’m typing? Let me copy it for you in case you’re somehow blinded to it.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Seems your buddy Allan has certain lapses of integrity when somebody tickles him the wrong way. But no doubt none of you acolytes will ever agree with me that he has violated my trust.
Because you’re a bunch of fan-boys, living his celebrity through Allan.
Otherwise you’d have to agree that he violated my trust. And here you are advocating for violating my trust more. I sent the letter head to his private email and asked him not to annoy my brother.
Is that too much to ask?
Seconded
seconded?
No doubt you think that your comment is perfectly clear. I guess I have to go by the time stamps?
so that means that you agree that allan who has already failed to keep his promise by posting my email address here after saying that he wouldn’t in writing should now expose my brother to annoyances that he doesn’t want?
How is it that you people can fantasize that you have some sort of sense of justice, of right and wrong?
It sure isn’t this group that’s going to improve the world I’m living in in any way.
Allan, does this refer to your post with the two different Michelangelo pics? These were two different pics, one of them not even a wall picture but a pen drawing.
I recently stumbled upon Mona Lisa and there is this “other” Mona Lisa called Mona Lisa del Prado showing details the original Mona Lisa no longer has probably due to all this restorations in the past. Other than that, it supposedly was painted at the same time. Is the great Leonardo still so great then, if one of his scholars could paint in the same quality? At least regarding Leonardo as a painter.
Mole ALERT
See my comments at https://blog.banditobooks.com/a-fly-in-the-ointment/#comments
Again, notice the subtle doubts being injected into conversations.
thanks for warning us that you are a mole Todd. I was aware of that.
Conversations consist of asking questions and giving answers by the way. The last one you’re totally lacking. Maybe it’s just a lack of manners.
His writing was terrible junk to try and read and comprehend – almost gave me a headache. And that “living the good life in Paris” sort of thing (for one thing) – what a lie! LOL!
And he was such a rude smart ass, I had to swear sorry.
….I would bet $100 he is flat out trying to conjure up a FAKE letter head. Don’t ever pay him a cent Allan (sorry I couldn’t edit the above).
….I would bet $100 he is flat out trying to conjure up a FAKE letter head. Don’t ever pay him a cent Allan (sorry I couldn’t edit the above).
Ah, Brett! Another genius heard from! fake letter head. I didn’t do the letter head. I did the link to his identity on the site of the texas bar association. I hope that Allan has the decency to keep my brother’s identity to himself. He didn’t do the same for me, publishing my email address.
I doubt it matters much. Google seems better at determining what is spam than all of you are at determining who is a liar.
Yes, I am bright enough to know, you are a typical lying hound Troll – with bad English -, and which everyone despises.
Allan hates trolls on his blog, and he will never pay you a cent Sucker!!!
France / Paris – what ever, I have been there.
this from Brett:
Yes, I am bright enough to know, you are a typical lying hound Troll – with bad English -, and which everyone despises.
Really? My english is bad? or my brother’s english is bad? How about your english. let’s see. Please tell me what your relative pronoun “which” refers to in this sentence. Aren’t trolls living breathing beings? Wouldn’t that mean that your relative pronoun should have been “who”?
I don’t think it should be whom, because I think “lying hound Troll” refers to the subject of the dependant clause which is “you”.
And an argument could be made that your complex sentence is run on, but that seems to be more a question of fashion.
Meantime, unless I’m mistaken, you have improperly used a relative pronoun in the sentence you have constructed to denigrate the quality of my or my brother’s english.
If I’m mistaken, please straighten me out politely. thank you.
Allan hates trolls on his blog, and he will never pay you a cent Sucker!!!
sucker seems accurate, after all I gave my email to Allan based on his assurance that it wouldn’t be published and yet there it is, published.
France / Paris – what ever, I have been there.
I’ve been here for 30 years. I’m quite glad that it’s big enough that I never had to endure your company.
$100US? It’s your claim, how long for your proof? Obviously I can’t prove a negative, so I’ll give you a week to provide your proof of your claim. To an agreed upon charity would be fine – may I suggest @billpulte for his Twitter philanthropy.
Oops getting snarled up in the comments – to be clear I’m accepting Brett’s bet that le berger is ‘flat out trying to conjure up a FAKE letterhead’
Mol
September 10, 2019 at 10:30 pm
Oops getting snarled up in the comments – to be clear I’m accepting Brett’s bet that le berger is ‘flat out trying to conjure up a FAKE letterhead’
Can I get in on that action? I send you the letterhead to your personal email address and you’ll send me 100 dollars?
That would be fine with me. Then I’d see if your integrity lives up to your easy talk.
well mol, looks like you’re a shmuck too. Too bad you didn’t get to lose money betting that I”m a liar.
It’s funny that the attached document with the letterhead I sent the other shmuck showed my brother keeping a bank from foreclosing on his client by lying about a date.
So it turns out that my brother is not only a lawyer, but one with more scruples than more than 9 out of 10 of them.
just like I said.
None of you shmucks have caught me in any lie because I haven’t lied.
Allan has been caught now in multiple lies.
exposed my email in the blog
took more than 36 hours to pay the bean
said he would no longer respond but then did.
and he’s a shmuck for calling my brother illiterate because of a typo and a possibly run on sentence.
such a smug shmuck. he seems like a good guy, weisbecker, until you get to know him.
then he’s a shmuck
$100US? It’s your claim, how long for your proof? Obviously I can’t prove a negative, so I’ll give you a week to provide your proof of your claim.
You’ll give me a week? Why would it be up to you? Is it your 100 dollars?
To an agreed upon charity would be fine
and now you’re going to tell me what I must do with it? You haven’t written it, but it seems you’re suggesting that you’ll put up your own 100 dollars. Maybe you need to make this more clear.
– may I suggest @billpulte for his Twitter philanthropy.
I don’t use twitter, I don’t see why I’m going to give you information you don’t need and I don’t really want you to have so that you can give money to somebody I don’t know.
Le berger – I was taking Brett at his word that he “would bet $100 he is flat out trying to conjure up a FAKE letter head.” referring to yourself. This claim – that you are “flat out” etc struck me as so absurd I thought I’d dive in & challenge Brett to bet – or withdraw this exaggeration. I do not think you’re faking letterheads let alone “flat out” at this. Anyway enough filling Allan’s comments section with silliness; I drop in to read Allan infrequently & his writings on human evolution have led me to read on the subject, to find that the ‘gaps’ ‘puzzles’ ‘problems’ with current scientific knowledge are immense & fascinating so I thank Allan for bringing this to my notice; well out of my depth as I am. Nuff said?
His writing was terrible junk to try and read and comprehend – almost gave me a headache.
whose writing? Mine? or my brother’s? He didn’t write that for you. Maybe you should just try to understand the points rather than criticize the grammar. He gave his reponse much less thought than all of you people have given to his response.
And that “living the good life in Paris” sort of thing (for one thing)
send me your email and I’ll show you how I’m living in France. Paris is far from here, I never go.
– what a lie! LOL!
Makes me laugh how you people all think you’re so smart and have gotten everything wrong. Let’s see if Allan has the courage to admit that he was wrong. I sent him all of the details he asked for to make him owe me 100 dollars.
And he was such a rude smart ass, I had to swear sorry.