The Coward and Fraud Stuart Robbins:
Is Book Burning Next?
Skeptic can’t handle truth about Apollo moon-landing hoax, removes links proving Billy Meier accurately forewarned of latest NASA trick and NASA film clip debunking its own claims
NOTE: On October 4, 2011, I was notified that Stuart Robbins found this page and article to be defamatory. I found that to be hypocritical since Robbins clearly accuses the man I represent in the media, Billy Meier, of being a liar, by claiming that he "retrodicted" information. Robbins never qualifies his statement with "I think he may have" "it's possible that he may have", etc. and he provides no proof to substantiate his accusations.
Mr. Robbins - in clear contradiction to his own stated poliices online - allows Mr. Meier and me to be defamed at will by Robbins' (mainly anonymous) supporters. Despite this hypocritical double standard having been pointed out to him, he allows such defamatory comments to continue.
However, I think my main error was not making it abundantly clear that this is an opinion piece. So I will now state the following in clear, unequivocal language:
The following article, and its title, are strictly the OPINION of the author, Michael Horn. They are based solely on the experiences of the author and his interpretation of them. Mr. Robbins authors and hosts blogs that contain an abundance of clearly defamatory comments, from both Mr. Robbins and his supporters, in violation of his own publicly stated rules. I am now further of the OPINION that Mr. Robbins behaves in a hypocritcal, cowardly way by troubling himself to complain about my wiritng, while not enforcing the same standards on HIS OWN blog.
As the subjects of, literally, hundreds of pages of unapologetic defamatory attacks online, neither Mr. Meier nor I trouble ourselves to respond to any but the most severe ones, i.e. the ones that contain death threats, etc. Perhaps the difficulites one encounters in the online world are too much for Mr. Robbins to contend with. So he may wish to find another, safer place to voice his opinions, where they won't be subject to criticisms and...OPINIONS, such as mine.
October 4, 2011
I really am hesitant to publicly call out a person as an obvious coward and fraud. The online world is filled with people hurling invective against each other, often from the safety of anonymity, false identities, etc., so much so that real, accurate criticism may lose its bite. One should be careful also to not wrongly accuse, as if that concerned most of the people on internet forums and blogs.
So when someone who’s supposed to be a scientist – but who proudly defers to the title of a pseudo-scientific skeptic – engages in the most obvious, cynical and cowardly act of censorship, it’s time to speak out loudly and clearly. So I’ll do it here, where that this person, Stuart Robbins, can’t censor it again.
On September 23, in response to someone named Jennifer, I posted two comments on Robbins’ blog about the moon-landing hoax with links to information that was apparently too much for Robbins to allow them to remain on his blog. So ethical corruption, cowardice and religious fundamentalism got the better of “astronomer” Stuart Robbins. He removed the posts without any comment, publicly or by email to me, to explain why he did it.
One post linked to proof that Meier was also accurately forewarned of the exact tactic NASA would use to try to prove that the landing had occurred, i.e. NASA “finding” evidence of the materials left behind as viewed later. Another pointed to a film clip, which if it is indeed authentic, shows NASA effectively debunking and deconstructing their own fraud.
Here is how the posts appeared, briefly, on September 23 (click here for a larger, more legible version):
And here’s how that page appears now…after I inserted a benign comment today:
Gone. As if they were never there.
A true scientist examines evidence; he doesn’t remove it from view. To do so is to effectively lie about its existence. Too fine a point? Well consider his actions then simply nakedly deceitful and cowardly. The real scientist confronts the evidence in a factual, objective manner –the pseudo-scientific skeptic denies, avoids or…censors it.
Why, would he sneakily do that if the information was so easy to debunk and doing so would make him look good? Isn’t it ironic that Robbins and his devious, fearful ilk accuse Meier of retrodiction, backdating and falsifying…while in the best tradition of the politically and religiously correct, he censors the posts, he removes them?
Well this wasn't Robbins' first cowardly retreat from confronting the truth (a word I don't think he uses too much). He also was unable to deal with answers I provided to one of his own claims that Meier lying. Ironic, as I said.?
Be forewarned, this is the new breed of overly ambitious, superficial, celebrity-seeking dolts for whom book burning would apparently be a comfortably logical means of preserving the fundamentalist skeptical faith...at any cost.
September 26, 2011