No you didn't. You just pasted them in and made no attempt whatsoever to assess the terrain or camera angle. You also have never calculated or agreed on the cog/log presented. That screws up your claim totally, since a simple flex within the suit alters the 3-4 degrees angle quite easily. What in heavens name are you talking about? You didn't do it, or state how you did it in that post! Are you trolling or does the flow of debate really confuse you that much? Yeah, nicely avoided. Try again, assume they aren't on wires and doing gravity defying crap, since they cross over numerous times, there is no jerkiness associated with movement by wires and they fall over hundreds of times! Show why it's baloney/nonsense. Ignoring the backpack(assuming it is empty""), what angle makes the astronaut stable. It's a very simple question and one you cannot answer because it shows you are full of crap. "Just for curiosity, at 56:34 assume his backpack is empty. Now tilt your screen and tell me what angle it makes to stop him falling over period! Then at 56:56 watch the astronaut exit right and tell me what angle you think the terrain is based on his forward stance."
Unlike you, I actually did research this and I came up with the LRV (rover) video camera being close to level for some of these images in question all taken in the exact same spot: View attachment 41695 View attachment 41696 Something is definitely amiss here... I thought you said "20-30 degrees to the left" Why would I do that? The evidence points to them being on wires. I think you are exaggerating a little here - and we don't know the details on how the wire/spring/damper rigs were set up.
Oh you are such a liar. Detail the "research" you carried out to determine this. You won't, because you did nothing to determine this. The pictures are taken from a rover where the TV camera is not level! This has been pointed out to you already. Yep. You are incompetent. My first thought was that you are trolling here, but it seems that you genuinely don't know or are not that bright. Had you bothered looking at the pretty picture I supplied, instead of posting a moronic Ninja Turtle picture, you would have seen the COG/LOG offset for a pack heavier than the PLSS used on the Moon was 4-5 degrees. That one thing blows your entire line of "logic" out of the water. No wonder you ignored it! The evidence does nothing of the sort! Just one of many:- [video=youtube;joEVnTSLDEA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joEVnTSLDEA[/video] Unless they used a highly visible counter balanced rig instead of wire(s), it is impossible to avoid jerkiness as the wires adjust the cog for the moving person. Your failure to understand this is argument from ignorance. You seem good at that.
Beta, since you are an expert on slopes - what do you think about this image of people on a slope? Do you notice anything wrong with this? View attachment 41803
I guess Beta is on vacation... For those of you who have followed this thread - we have been talking about video images taken on Apollo 15 EVA 3 station 9a. Beta has taken the position that the images are tilted due to the rover being non-level - but there are many discrepancies with that argument. First of all, the rover was parked on "The Terrace". The Terrace is a broad shoulder on the edge of the Rille which, as indicated in the pre-flight Apollo 15 EVA [Extra-vehicular activity]-3 traverse map and in the Final Lunar Surface Procedures volume, extended from about the planned location of Station 9 northwest to the planned location of Station 11. Dave and Jim did Stations 9a and 10 near the planned locations 9 and 10 and, hence, A La Terrasse. "SCOTT - We headed on to 9A, which was on the terrace, and made a rather lengthy stop there. We did the photography." terrace - noun 1. a horizontal flat area of ground, often one of a series in a slope 2. (Physical Geography) a flat area bounded by a short steep slope formed by the down-cutting of a river or by erosion 3. a nearly level strip of land with a more or less abrupt descent along the margin of the sea, a lake, or a river. 4. a level shelf of land interrupting a declivity
He won't admit it when he's checkmated. Check out how he handled being checkmated on this issue. http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...d-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir-13.html He just denied the obvious. With you he had to disappear. Sincere truth-seekers don't get checkmated. They modify their opinions when they see they've been wrong. Sophists continue the same argument even when it's clear that they're wrong.
You don't know the meaning of the word. For the 100th time it is shape memory and/or thermal effects. Even if this was demonstrated to you in space whilst you watched you wouldn't get it. You are one of the most appalling examples of that very thing. There's maybe one post in your entire spamming history where you have changed your opinion based on sound argument. Your persistence is only matched by your total ignorance.
You have nothing to say. Your last post was just stupid and seemed a good place to drop this moronic argument. Now it seems you are back with yet another useless claim. Just even more diversion. The "Terrace" referred to is miles long - I suggest you look at your own screenshot. Are you claiming it is flat along its entire surface? Just viewing the video disproves this hogwash. Apollo 11 landed on the Sea of Tranquility - look up the definition of that! Try again, assume they aren't on wires and doing gravity defying crap, since they cross over numerous times, there is no jerkiness associated with movement by wires and they fall over hundreds of times! Show why it's baloney/nonsense. Ignoring the backpack(assuming it is empty), what angle makes the astronaut stable. It's a very simple question and one you cannot answer because it shows you are full of crap. "Just for curiosity, at 56:34 assume his backpack is empty. Now tilt your screen and tell me what angle it makes to stop him falling over period! Then at 56:56 watch the astronaut exit right and tell me what angle you think the terrain is based on his forward stance."
No, this is important. You have presented yourself as an expert on slopes. I have presented a simple photo of people on a slope and have asked you to examine it. 1. Is there anything wrong with this photo? 2. If there is - what is it?
Nowhere have I claimed to be "an expert on slopes" I am however an expert on noticing deliberate diversion. So far in this thread you have :- Failed to identify the correct COG/LOG on the Apollo astronaut. Failed to supply any image that demonstrates a problem that would cause an imbalance. Failed to respond to numerous pictures showing soldiers easily carrying a heavy load whilst vertical. Failed to respond to the above quoted post. You epitomise the saying "flogging a dead horse", only in your case your horse is actually fully decayed and you are armed with a potato-gun! I am not playing your stupid game. If you have a point to make, make it. It looks rather irrelevant as usual. Tell me more about the "terrace" on the Moon, is it dead flat for the many miles it spans?
I will answer all of your questions - but first we have to start with basics. You have implied that you have a greater understanding of slopes than I - so please answer the simple questions that I have asked: 1. Is there anything wrong with this photo? 2. If there is - what is it? View attachment 42135
MEH! You will answer all my points just like you already have? You have nothing to say. Try again, assume they aren't on wires and doing gravity defying crap, since they cross over numerous times, there is no jerkiness associated with movement by wires and they fall over hundreds of times! Show why it's baloney/nonsense. Ignoring the backpack(assuming it is empty), what angle makes the astronaut stable. It's a very simple question and one you cannot answer because it shows you are full of crap. "Just for curiosity, at 56:34 assume his backpack is empty. Now tilt your screen and tell me what angle it makes to stop him falling over period! Then at 56:56 watch the astronaut exit right and tell me what angle you think the terrain is based on his forward stance."
I do not understand how someone who knows how to: 1. identify the correct COG/LOG. 2. identify images that demonstrate a problem that would cause an imbalance. 3. post photos of soldiers easily carrying a heavy load whilst vertical. 4. identify non-flat spots on "terraces" Why is it difficult for that person to answer a few simple questions about this photo? 1. Is there anything wrong with this photo? 2. If there is - what is it? View attachment 42135
You should have stopped right there. I am not playing your stupid game. If you have a point to make, make it. It looks rather irrelevant as usual. Tell me more about the "terrace" on the Moon, is it dead flat for the many miles it spans? You have nothing to say. Try again, assume they aren't on wires and doing gravity defying crap, since they cross over numerous times, there is no jerkiness associated with movement by wires and they fall over hundreds of times! Show why it's baloney/nonsense. Ignoring the backpack(assuming it is empty), what angle makes the astronaut stable. It's a very simple question and one you cannot answer because it shows you are full of crap. "Just for curiosity, at 56:34 assume his backpack is empty. Now tilt your screen and tell me what angle it makes to stop him falling over period! Then at 56:56 watch the astronaut exit right and tell me what angle you think the terrain is based on his forward stance." Does the point I am making register? You are the one failing miserably to answer things and I am done being jerked around by trolls.
I never can get any sensible discourse from you people. Even now, you concern yourself with irrelevant nonsense and ignore truly massive problems to your claims. I don't anticipate an intelligent response to this and it is off topic, but since 90% of what gets discussed goes off into a whole host of side issues:- How is this huge area lit with dark skies? Have you ever seen a baseball stadium floodlight failure? Just one of them goes offline and there is a problem with uneven lighting. In the visible video, we see enormous areas of terrain lit up evenly with single shadows. Are you able to explain this or is it time for another thread to be ignored by the "truthers"?
It's amazing how dramatic the scared little bees get when they realize that what they call 'reality" is a fabricated regime of drama and governmental tales designed for power at the expense of truth. Your question is silly, because a controlled set and edited video isn't going to be difficult to produce.
Beta, one thing that I have noticed about you is that you like to change the subject when things are not going your way. Ever hear of "obfuscation by deviation"? If this is an important topic to you, why don't you start its own thread? OK, I'll bite... maybe they used this 1890 technology? And how about the pro-apollo site Clavius? In an attempt to disprove the conspiracy arguments - they actually proved the opposite! "Don't you realize you've just proven that the anomalous photographs in question could have been -- and probably were -- taken with artificial light?" Clavius: - the truth behind the moon landings: http://www.clavius.org/bibzz1.html Now, there, I have answered your off-topic question - now will you please answer mine - here, I will help you... If you think this photo of people on a slope makes physical sense - answer "No, I don't see any thing wrong with this photo. If you see something wrong - answer "Yes, I see something wrong - and this is what it is ______ View attachment 42135
Done. No, a single light source that intensity will not light an area evenly that covers several acres. I suggest you go and look at any sports stadium and see the lights needed just to make it playable and how many of them there are. You didn't answer the question. Here let me help you again: How is this huge area lit with dark skies? In the visible video, we see enormous areas of terrain lit up evenly with single shadows. http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/450901-apollo-sunlight.html As for you "answering questions". I have dozens tabled well before your trick photography question:- Tell me more about the "terrace" on the Moon, is it dead flat for the many miles it spans? You have nothing to say. Try again, assume they aren't on wires and doing gravity defying crap, since they cross over numerous times, there is no jerkiness associated with movement by wires and they fall over hundreds of times! Show why it's baloney/nonsense. Ignoring the backpack(assuming it is empty), what angle makes the astronaut stable. It's a very simple question and one you cannot answer because it shows you are full of crap. "Just for curiosity, at 56:34 assume his backpack is empty. Now tilt your screen and tell me what angle it makes to stop him falling over period! Then at 56:56 watch the astronaut exit right and tell me what angle you think the terrain is based on his forward stance." Does the point I am making register? You are the one failing miserably to answer things and I am done being jerked around by trolls.
It is off topic hand-waving bull. They didn't answer the question nor will they with any degree of accuracy or intelligence.
This is not important, this is just hogwash. 1. The picture has had a rotation applied to it - right at approximately 15 degrees. 2. The picture shows duplicate areas in the bottom quadrants. 3. The area above the leading girl has been stretched including her hair! 4. The lead girl has an area at her feet that has been added. 5. The left most cloud has visible pixelation. Now what? Is this where you start answering the hundred or so points in this and other threads?
Congratulations! It has taken you almost 3 weeks - but you finally figured out something that someone who gives the impression (as in the above quote) that they know about COG/LOG's etc. should have easily figured out at first glance. I assume you found the original to make the comparison? However, I do credit you with being persistent. Here are a few more photos of people on slopes. There is an important empirical observation to be made here. Let's see if you can make it...
