The fraudulent claim of air and the Apollo 15 flag.

A moronic reply that ignores what I posted.

You stay on debate? Don't make me laugh! My whole blog was put up because you kept avoiding my posts.

How is that "pretending"? You freely admit to ignoring what I write, you ignore every single thing on the Clavius website and you ignore every single debunk, You aren't a truther, you are a mad spammer.

You are the waste of time. The flag anomaly has better explanations. Collins' jacket is so obviously in a weightless environment it beggars belief that you still spout this drivel - there is no anomaly to comment on. Nobody ever comes forward to agree with you, so your claim about "objective thinking people" is hogwash.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html

It is not an information war and you are a misguided deluded spammer who has no idea what they are talking about.

It gets deleted because it is hogwash and you sprinkle it around like horse dung. I once took a video screen print of a series of comments you made in one day. It amounted to some 100+ identical cut and pasted comments on every single youtube video you could find. Do you seriously think anyone on that basketball forum is following your idiotic posts? You need to get a life.

 

1. Well, first of all, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FLAG IS PUSHED FORWARD BY THE PRESSURE WAVE - just watch the bottom corner of the flag.

All one has to do is play the video:

MoonFaker: The Flags Are Alive. PART 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ

and at the 8:30 mark keep a close watch on the bottom corner of the flag and as soon as you see movement hit the spacebar to pause the video - and if you are quick enough (because you don't have much time) you will see Jarrah well before the flag - just as we would expect...

2. The flag is aligned very close and parallel to the back wall. As you, yourself, have previously pointed out - a small room can affect the air flow and I think part of the cause for the small amount of movement is that the pressure wave ends up being a standing wave because it is hitting the back wall.

So, are you saying a "wall" will not keep air from moving? Remember your boat example:

There certainly is a pressure wave extending out from the boat - just as there is a pressure wave extending out from a moving object in air.

These dolphins seem to enjoy being pushed around by the pressure wave produced by the ship's bow:

Dolphins Bow Riding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOLUQ-8xoCA

You were wrong about the "wall of water" in front of the boat and you are wrong about the "wall of air" in front of Jarrah and and you are wrong about the "wall of air" in front of the actornaut in the Apollo 15 flag video...

3. Jarrah has the very flimsy flag suspended in an odd sort of way. I think that it is difficult to get a very light weight of material to move in a predictable way under ideal conditions and I think that the odd suspension of the flag acts further to dampen any movement. Try it yourself with a silk scarf.

I was talking about "waving" as opposed to "billowing"

Maybe you do not understand the meaning of "billow":

bil·low:
n.
1. A large rise or swell of water.
2. A great swell, surge, or undulating mass, as of smoke or cloud.
v.intr.
1. To surge or roll in billows.
2. To swell out or bulge: sheets billowing in the breeze.
v.tr.
To cause to billow: wind that billowed the sails.

wave:
v. waved, wav·ing, waves
v.intr.
1. To move freely back and forth or up and down in the air, as branches in the wind.

With "waving" we have the physical quantity of periodic motion - with "billowing" we do not.

4. Jarrah's purpose in making this video was not to show pressure waves or the Bernoulli effect on the flag - his purpose was to demonstrate that static electricity was not the cause of the flag movement - and as a result, he did not try to recreate a perfect Apollo 15 flag setup.

Slows much quicker? I thought we had already gone over this. The duration of the flag movement is not important as pointed out by Ouroboros Null in the "Physics of the Moon Flag" video comment section:

5. I still don't think much of this is relevant...

I back up my opinion with facts - and the fact is we have a flag that looks like it is waving in air - its motion is consistent with the Bernoulli effect - a pressure wave is visible in the video - and the laws of physics tell us that the periodic motion of the flag is consistent with the flag being in earth's gravity. Seems relevant to me...

 

All one has to do is frame grabs to see when the movement begins. Co-incidentally that is exactly what I did! It occurs as he is level with the flag .Years of exchanges with the serial spammer and he has never claimed what you are claiming. You are either lying or are blind.

Use the quote function properly will you! The flag is over 2 metres away from the back wall, you are talking crap! A wall will definitely stop air moving. Once it reaches it. Since the wall is 2 metres beyond his flag, your claim is hogwash.

The boat weighs hundreds of tons, has a huge bow displacement area, is in a medium that is 800 times more dense and is travelling 5 times faster than a jogging person. In addition, the vector above the water acts as a mechanism to redirect the flow and keep it below surface. Allied to gravity there is a bow wave of a few metres in front of the boat.

Comparing this to a human being moving through air is idiotic.

You made that point already. Poor comparison to say the least.

Huh? Where was I wrong? There is no "wall of water" there is a bow wave from the speed/mass/density orders of magnitude higher than a human.

Bullcrap. He doesn't move the flag until he is level with it. Certainly nowhere near the 6ft we see on Apollo.

Finally we see your true colors, you're just another idiot hoax nut who uses the same youtube terminology as the conspiracy herd.

I don't care what you were talking about. His flag billows quite noticeably. The Apollo flag does not.

Maybe you should shut up.

http://darkscarab.com/view/83

You ignored my response in favor of "slows much quicker" which you use a youtube user as your backup??

The flag behaves nothing like it does on Earth. The fabric is a multi-pivotal system and the periodic motion analysis is flawed in the extreme. The flag does not look like it is waving in air, it doesn't billow and moves exactly as expected in a vacuum. There is no advance wall of air 6 feet away from the flag, you are talking complete crap.

 

I don't intentionally lie - but I must admit, I could be blind...

What the ??????? are you talking about ??????

and you are wrong about the "wall of air" in front of Jarrah

The balloon video clearly shows air movement ~ 4-6 ft ahead of the moving person:

Balloons Move - Just Like Flag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO8Fs_nfwNk

I just "calls 'em as I sees 'em" and I notice that you made some youtube videos

It is the periodic motion of the flag that is important - not the duration.

The flag behaves EXACTLY as it would on earth

How about we take a bunch of pendulums and tie them together and get them all swinging in unison - they would behave as one - because that is essentially what a cloth fabric is - so much for your multi-pivotal system theory.

You are right about the statement that is acts as expected in a vacuum - because a flag of this length is not effected much by air friction as shown in this video at about the 2:10 mark - but the problem is it does not act as if it is on the moon - because if it was on the moon it would have a period of 2.5 times what it would have on earth or about 5 seconds - and this is clearly shown at about the 20:30 mark. If you want to see what a flag would really look like on the moon watch the end of the video - it would move very slowly with a 5 second period - and this is not what we see in the Apollo 15 video...

Physics of the Moon Flag - part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EscIMIkiER8

 

He does the same with 9/11. Please go on, this is good stuff.

I don't think there's a CT he doesn't believe.

 

The point you are incapable of admitting dismisses your balloon example! He is level with it when it starts to move and the first motion is away from the camera. Just like my example when hanging a sheet from a light.

The direction of the water is limited by the air pressure above and gravity. The vector is limited by 50% accordingly. In air, there is no such limitation.

Your bare assertion is dismissed. White is level with his flag not 1/4/6 feet away. Incidentally that indicates that YOU are wrong.

This is why I asked you why White's flag doesn't behave that way. You came up with some hogwash about the wall cancelling out the invisible wall of air, then proceeded to contradict yourself by saying it moves well before he arrives. You haven't a clue what you are talking about and it shows.

I am not an idiot conspiracy theorist.

That was what I was referring to! The mechanism is a complex pendulum with energy transfer within the fabric. The analysis you pin your claim to is flawed rubbish,

You have no idea what you are talking about. That scenario would not duplicate the way fabric transfers its energy.

Hogwash! We only have to view the speed of a flag on Earth to see that the analysis of that video is flawed.

To clarify, are you claiming that the footage of the flag is exactly the same as on Earth at its lunar speed or at some other made up bullcrap speed?

I posted the footage before this incident, replete with kicked regolith of ridiculous Earth distances but at speeds consistent with the Moon. Sped up to the claimed 150%, that kicked regolith would look too fast for Earth. You have no case.

 

Beta, I have to give you credit - you continue to stand your ground even when faced with strong evidence to the contrary...

The sad truth is that there is NO CERTAIN PROOF that we went to the moon.

 

I give you no credit. You cling to what you call evidence and ignore clear contradictions to it. You tactfully avoid "seeing" this and make claims that are clearly wrong.

A ridiculous claim highlighting a woeful lack of knowledge on what evidence there is. The lunar samples prove man went to the moon just on their own. I really cannot be bothered to relist the numerous evidence supporting the Moon landings - you aren't a reasonable person you seem to have the same fixation as your spam buddy.

 

What Happened on the Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W79mIGx9Ib4
(3:26:40 time mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Moon+Rocks+Revisited&aq=f


There are other plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks so they can't be used as proof.

 

There are no plausible scenarios. Nothing you posted is plausible and you are to afraid to directly debate it. You just spam your useless links.
What is laughable is that the geologists who you rely on for your Windley credibility test say that anyone who thinks the rocks are faked is an idiot. You ignore that part don't you, "truther".

 

Do you think that at one time trees grew on the moon?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-08-27-moon-rock-museum_N.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...y-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

http://phys.org/news/2009-09-moon-fake.html

 

No. I think it more plausible that yet another conspiracy fool is sucked in to something ridiculous:-

[video=youtube;mHALUGcEEiQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ[/video]

[video=youtube;hGQhArtFqIM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM[/video]

Watch them. Let me know if you still think a gift given by the USA ambassador to an ex-prime minister still plausibly could be a highly valuable lunar sample

Ironically it only came to light after a geologist noticed it!

 

Why don't you say why the scenarios put forward aren't plausible? I don't see a problem with them. Please go into some detail on this.

Here's what's being discussed.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...s-were-backdrops-movie-set-mod-warning-2.html

That might have come from his being in denial or worries about his career. He doesn't say where he works but people in high positions have to be in agreement with the official government version of things. For some people going against the official version is career suicide and they can't say what they really think.

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?
A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but relay on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
-------------------------------------

When he said the opposite of what Jay Windley said, he wasn't aware that this was about the Apollo moon missions.

 

Summarise your case. You don't even understand it do you? If I went into detail you would just respam. Here's a few things. You will not answer any of them.

It can't be an Earth rock because all the samples show signs of significant solar isotope impregnation froma variety of solar emissions. It can't be a meteorite because there is no fusion layer, there is no alteration whatsover from exposure to terrestrial oxygen, humidity, water. In adition, the exposure to solar isotopes is different for meteorites in the way it is distributed, the decay factor and the way in which the exterior of the rock would be altered by being burnt away from atmospheric entry.

Now, this is where you run away.

Hogwash! Might have? Is that your best shot? He said it because it is true. Your bullcrap about every scientist being unabkle to go against the official line is one of the most tortured twisted pieces of non truther expletive that you consistently use. You have no direct argument so fall back to this wooly gibberish.

 

You ingored the part about rocks having been collected by robotic craft. Also, we are told what the characteristics of the rocks are but does what we're told reflect reality? Maybe we're being lie to.

The rocks are really moot point because there are lots of clear anomalies that have already proven the hoax.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=438617&p=1065699308#post1065699308
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

There are other plausible scenarios that would explain the rocks so you're wrong when you say that they prove the missions were real by themselves.

 

Okay, now we may be getting somewhere. Do you acknowledge that that is the ONLY way that the hoax could have been passed off? If not, answer my post properly instead of running away like a coward.

"It can't be an Earth rock because all the samples show signs of significant solar isotope impregnation froma variety of solar emissions. It can't be a meteorite because there is no fusion layer, there is no alteration whatsover from exposure to terrestrial oxygen, humidity, water. In adition, the exposure to solar isotopes is different for meteorites in the way it is distributed, the decay factor and the way in which the exterior of the rock would be altered by being burnt away from atmospheric entry."

Brainless. We aren't. I know several geologists personally.

The rocks aren't a moot point, you are delusional if you think you can dismiss them in favor of your idiotic 2 "anomalies". Nothing you say amounts to proof. Nothing.

Name them. Itemize them one at a time. We can discount Earth rocks, we can discount meteorites. What other "plausible scenarios" can you make up?

You know nothing about this.

 

No, as they may be lying to us about the rocks.

I can't opine on this...

...as I don't have the background. It's really a moot point though as there are clear anomalies that have already proven the hoax (see post #140).
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=438617&page=14&p=1065774157#post1065774157

Also, you are a known obfuscator. You've already made that clear.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819

You are capable of saying things you know to be untrue so we laymen aren't going to take anything you say about geology as fact.

 

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 1, Water In Apollo Samples. PART 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucc_AXP7F8g&list=PLOc2lie-TbY3R8kJnK8FoM90wbUWXYsGl

"In summary, Webb claims that the Apollo samples contain significantly less water than their terrestrial cousins. This can easily be proven false. In fact, had Webb bothered to read Friedman's "fascinating report" from 1970 - the very report that he cited - he would have known that the water content for the breccias is the same as that for freshly errupted Hawaiian basalts! And more recently, Alberto Saal's estimates that the lunar spherules contain as much water as their terrestrial cousins has been confirmed. Since 1970, scientists have been finding as much as 1,000 to 1,500ppm of water in the rock samples. More modern studies have found up to 6,000ppm. These numbers are consistent with those in terrestrial rocks."

"Secondly, the Apollo samples do contain hydrous minerals and ferric iron, sample 66095 is a notorious example of such."

"Webb then claims that the trace water in the Apollo samples was confirmed remotely by Cassini, Chandrayaan-1 and Deep Impact. Although it could be pointed out that all three probes are either owned by NASA or are joint projects with NASA and their partners, all that really needs to be said is that only places where these probes found comparable amounts of water was in the lunar poles. Everywhere else on the moon water would be boiled away due to the vacuum of space and the +100C daylight temperatures."

 

What a crock! Thousands of geologists are lying about their field because of what reason? Most of them aren't even from America. You troll.

You are as clueless about this as all subjects. You can't "opine" on anything yet offer the moronic "moot point" bull!

The serial forum spammer cannot offer rebuttal because he has no clue. He offers his useless spam response.

I don't lie. You are a proven liar, a serial forum spammer and the opposite of a truther with the credibility of a conman.

The rocks prove we went to the moon, your ridiculous "anomalies" don't even qualify as "moot points" they are so insignificant compared to the historical mountain of evidence.

 

A blatant strawman and totally irrelevant to the quote you picked from me. The "water" content is of a hydrous nature containing isotopes not found on Earth. What White does and always does is makes an unquantified claim and uses it as a generality. In this case he cites early analyses that the samples didn't contain water as a means to say they are "false claims" when later analyses with better equipment alter that claim. So what, Lunar rocks contain water. It is nothing like Earth water!

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n6/full/ngeo2173.html
"The hydrogen isotopic composition of lunar samples is relatively similar to that of the Earth's interior, but the deuterium to hydrogen ratios obtained from lunar samples seem to have a larger range than found in Earth's mantle. Thus, measurements of water concentration and hydrogen isotopic composition suggest that water is heterogeneously distributed in the Moon and varies in isotopic composition."

I suggest you read this, White probably has, but deceptively won't refer to it:-

http://www.space.com/10588-moon-water-originated-comets.html

Again White uses the most famous example and suggests it is a generality. In fact the 66095 rock contains tiny fragments of iron that have rusted. This was originally thought to be from short atmospheric(and LM) contamination, but since the interior also showed TRACE alterations, this was discounted as being the cause. VERY significantly, White fails to point out that Earth rocks do not exhibit this absolutely minimal hydrous alteration. Nor does he prove that it was done on Earth.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/66095.pdf


"The brown stain extends into the silicates surrounding the iron grains. It is difficult to believe that this is the result of terrestrial alteration."

Poisoning the well logical fallacy. He uses implied subterfuge to discount confirmation from other sources. His comment though is irrelevant in the extreme to what is claimed. The hydrous material is held within volcanic beads and crystals.

 

MoonFaker: Moon Rocks Revisited. Episode 2, Apollo Samples & Earth Rocks Are The Same. PART 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzUEC_Mg3Q&list=PLOc2lie-TbY3R8kJnK8FoM90wbUWXYsGl

"In my video I played a series of clips from the BBC series "The Planets". One of the episodes covered the overwhelming similarities between earth rocks and moon rocks and the alleged absence of water in the latter, and how it led to the Giant Impact Theory. The similarities discussed in the BBC source are as follows:

a) The moon rock was almost identical to the most basic kind of rock on earth.

b) The isotopes of oxygen in the lunar rocks were exactly the same as on the earth.

c) It was as old as the earth, 4.5billion years.

d) Geologists knew the only way this rock could have formed was if the moon was once completely molten. But a body as small and cold as our moon should never have been that hot."


The Water On the Moon Probably Came From Earth:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...oon-probably-came-from-earth-56638271/?no-ist

"Higher deuterium levels would have suggested that water was first brought on to the Moon by comets—as many scientists have hypothesized—because comets largely come from the Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud, remote regions far beyond Neptune where deuterium is more plentiful. But if the water in these samples represents lunar water as a whole, the findings indicate that the water came from a much closer source—in fact, the same source as the water on Earth".


New kind of moon rock found by Chinese Yutu rover | New Scientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28697-new-kind-of-moon-rock-found-by-chinese-yutu-rover/

"Zongcheng Ling of Shandong University in Weihai, China, and his colleagues analysed data the rover collected on the basalt and found that concentrations of minerals including iron oxide, calcium oxide and titanium dioxide differ from those seen in the samples gathered by the Apollo astronauts and the Russian Luna probes in the 1970s."

Rocks and Crocks!

 

I was going to do a point by point rebuttal but cannot be bothered. I am arguing with another person who has no idea what they are posting. If you go back to my original statement it details exactly why they aren't from earth! This is something that this fumbling HB in his videos never addresses.

Similarities in hydrous quantity is irrelevant. The Apollo samples show different isotopes to earth. Similarities to oxygen isotopes are what scientists use to hypothesise the impact formation theory. But this is a very significant point raised by White that shoots his other claims down in flames!

The oxygen isotope ratios are the same between moon rocks and earth rocks. However meteorites from other sources have no such similarity. By stressing a point about this, he has effectively managed to dismiss meteorites as being the source for the rocks. Not that it was needed, there are other major problems identified previously.

So where does that leave us? The big problem not identified or addressed by White - Tha Apollo rocks have isotopes from solar irradiation that is totally impossible for earth rocks.

Rocks schmocks? You are way out of your depth yet again and it clearly shows. I have barely touched the surface with problems related to Jarrah White and his ham fisted inept videos!

Keep going though, you may even learn enough to change your mind.

P.s. So what if China found different types of rocks. Look at the earth and any planet for the same variance. It is fo be expected.

 

I don't think your statement is true. What isotopes are you talking about? The supposed moon water has the same isotopes as earth water: protium and deuterium.

From your quoted article:
Heterogeneous distribution of water in the Moon : Nature Geoscience
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n6/full/ngeo2173.html

"The hydrogen isotopic composition of lunar samples is relatively similar to that of the Earth's interior, but the deuterium to hydrogen ratios obtained from lunar samples seem to have a larger range than found in Earth's mantle."

Interestingly, the average deuterium/protium ratio for supposed moon water is about the same as earth water. The statement "seem to have a larger range" needs to be clarified since ratios can vary depending on location and other variables.

The moon was initially thought to be without water:

"Beginning with the first glimpses of lunar basalts returned by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969, the conventional wisdom was that the Moon was essentially anhydrous. Although this view was based on sound reasoning (Box 1), it turned out to be incorrect, as shown by discoveries of water in volcanic glass beads1 and in apatite in lunar basalts2."

"Another driver of the dry-Moon hypothesis was the surprisingly weak attenuation of seismic waves as measured by seismometers left by the Apollo missions."

Now, we think that water exists on the moon - Why? - some probes now say so? What about the Apollo samples? The whole thing just seems to be a chaotic mess of conflicting data and unproven theories.

Not true! The supposed moon water has the same isotopes as earth water: protium and deuterium, and in the same average concentrations.

No, in fact, the prevailing theory is now that the moon was once part of the earth - because the isotopes are so similar and a giant impact ejected the moon. However, there are problems with this theory such as:

"However, if such a giant collision occurred, it should also melt everything within the planet, turning its interior into a homogenous slurry. Given the diversity of noble gases like helium-3 deep inside the Earth today, the researchers concluded that it is unlikely that such a giant, core-melting impact occurred."

As I said: a chaotic mess of conflicting data and unproven theories.

 

You seem to be spending a lot of wasted effort on your strawman. I tried in vain to find the two articles I had on this subject - so withdraw that claim. The ispotopes I referred to were not the make up of the water or the isotopic ratios, they were trace elements found IN the water affected by solar irradiation. If I manage to find this data I will post it but it is largely irrelevant.

The point that you keep ignoring is that the rocks have been blasted by solar radiation for billions of years. There are stronger concentrations on the exterior, together with zap pits and redistributed helium-3 along these small impacts. Earth rocks do not have these properties, nor could they.

In addition to this, your strawman about water is laughable, since the water almost exclusively is found in the volcanic spherules. These show signs of formation in lower gravity. So, as I said, the rocks cannot be from Earth.

Conflicting theories about their formation do not deny the analyses and the major conclusions for their lunar origin. Your attempt at muddying the waters is dismissed.

 

Descartes, if you wish to continue this debate, do something the serial forum spammer hasn't done. Read these 4 pages and watch carefully the videos that are highlighted.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/apollo-moon-rocks-part-1.html

I find it really annoying having to restate things already brought up, especially when you and Cosmored show no sign of taking in data correctly. Cherry picking small piec es and dismissing items that disprove your argument are deceptive. It isn't just the film makers!