TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

Why would his wrist need to rotate to flap the flag from side to side?

Are you crazy? What are you claiming here? That water is doing this? It's pointless arguing with such a stupid claim. You clearly don't believe this, nobody can be that deluded.

When I get time I will put them up side by side at similar times.

No you unobservant joker, the Turkish one billows considerably and actually looks like it is in water. The Chinese one - neither.


If there were currents, the astronauts would be affected considerably. They aren't. It is a vacuum and you never had any credibility in the first place!

 

You said the flag is moving because of his hand movement. I see zero movement of his hand. I was explaining the kind of hand movement that would be necessary to make the flag move in a vacuum. Please explain how his hand is making the flag move.

 

Are you a complete idiot? His hand is holding the flag pole! He is moving it up, down, left and right. If you deny he is doing this, you are a liar. Nobody is stupid enough not to see this.

I also put together the first part of a video comparing the two flags. They are not similar in any way. I slowed the Chinese one down to 30%. The flag is going slow with very fast bits occasionally. However, the two astronauts are now moving a ludicrously slow speed.

Youtube now has a simple function allowing playback at different speeds. Your claim is provably horsecrap.

 

You have no qualifications to assess motion in a vacuum. For one the flag is clearly not rigid. In gravity it would not stay open and flat. In water it could not possibly move that way. There is no billowing whatsoever. In a vacuum there is only one force that is in play. That is the arm and hand waving the flag around. There is nothing untoward or unexpected about any of the movements. However there are very obvious movements that show it is in a totally unrestricted state. At 41-43 seconds, the flag curls over itself and flexes back. Just that on its own proves it isn't in water. But the lack of billowing, faster jerky movements even at 25% speed, that seals the case. It cannot be in water. As always, your multi-year spamming quest fails dismally. As always you will fail to admit you are wrong.

 

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. At the 00:30 time mark of this video...


...he moves the flag from right to left. The fluttering movement at the right of the flag isn't caused by the movement of the rod. The rod is not moving in a way that would cause the end of the flag to flutter in that way. We can see that the part of the flag that is attached to the rod is not moving up and down. Any child can see this.

 

Hey Descartes.

I wonder what would happen if you tried to register at this forum.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=3.0

I'd bet that you wouldn't succeed in registering and posting there. Would you be interested in trying it just to see what happens?

 

It is totally pointless exchanging with this absurd person. The astronaut is flapping his arm around, the flag moves accordingly. This serial forum spammer has invested 10 years of his life in abject humiliation, and now claims that the flag connected to the rod is not moving up and down. Pathetic, unobservant, ignorant and ridiculous.

It really does take only a small child to look at that and know that it cannot possibly be in water. He knows it isn't in water. Notice that he avoids entire posts:-

You have no qualifications to assess motion in a vacuum. For one the flag is clearly not rigid. In gravity it would not stay open and flat. In water it could not possibly move that way. There is no billowing whatsoever. In a vacuum there is only one force that is in play. That is the arm and hand waving the flag around. There is nothing untoward or unexpected about any of the movements. However there are very obvious movements that show it is in a totally unrestricted state. At 41-43 seconds, the flag curls over itself and flexes back. Just that on its own proves it isn't in water. But the lack of billowing, faster jerky movements even at 25% speed, that seals the case. It cannot be in water. As always, your multi-year spamming quest fails dismally. As always you will fail to admit you are wrong.

 

This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.

As I've said a few times before, there's a point at which an anomaly is so clear that sophistry simply becomes ineffective. I know you pro-Apollo posters have to agree with the official NASA version of everything hell or high water so my strategy in exposing you as paid sophists is to post anomalies that are simply too clear to obfuscate. You then have to say silly things to maintain your positions and end up making it obvious that you don't even believe your own arguments. I assure you that you look very silly right now; anyone who looks at the footage in question can see that his hand is not making the flag flutter. You have no credibility.

 

Yes for 10 years.You poor delusional person.

Fabric does not behave like that underwater. Period. Anyone who thinks it does is a liar or a moron. Anyone who puts up a video of a flag non stop billowing underwater and compares it to one doing none whatsoever, is a liar or a moron.

Which one are you?

 

Scott is right about the chinese spacewalk - there are bubbles for goodness sake!

 

I don't do this moon stuff full time since I have plenty of other interests to keep me busy - but I know there are forums out there that will censore anything they don't like to hear - but sometime I might give it a try. I have seen plenty of people banned for simply asking good questions. Orwell was so right - the "Ministry of Truth" is present reality!

 

Space debris, particles of ice, sublimating in a vacuum:-

 

The pair of dishonest "truthers" who think fabric flaps unrestricted in water and bubbles are white, jagged and rotate. Liars or morons.

 

At least I know that bubbles move upwards and accelerate as they do, and "follow" around a curved surface like the astronauts visor - and fabric DOES act the same in water as in air since they are both fluids; it just depends on the physical factors in both mediums (and the speed of playback)

 

Are you that afraid to watch the Video, especially the second one? Do you also at least know that they aren't white and jagged? Do you at least know the expansion rate of gas in water as it rises? The "bubble" gets at least 4 times bigger in less than a meter, a physical impossibility.

Well, that is really dumb. We are comparing water to a vacuum, not to air! The flag billows in water - every time! Water creates massive drag and there is no way a flag could move without billowing and certainly not move quickly with no billowing whatsoever. Even slowed down to 25% there are REALLY quick movements, whilst the astronauts move ludicrously too slow! Notice also, that the serial forum spammer's other claim about cables is now also negated. The cables at 25% speed are barely moving!

Cornered before and cornered again.

Instruction for the "unobservant":-



1. Click play and then the YOUTUBE icon to watch on youtube.
2. Click the wheel Icon "Settings".
3. Select "Speed"
4. Select 25%

Now watch as the flag still has fast movements and everything else is now ridiculously slow.

 

Beta, I watched your video and I really think you did a good job on it. The video was short and to the point and you made a good case - it is just too bad that you are wrong.

Since we only have a few frames of blurred video of the object, I grant you that the "bubble" could be some piece of a solid object; but it does not matter because whatever the object is, it is obviously bouyant, accelerates and travels straight upwards. The object does not get 4 times bigger, it just appears that way since it is getting closer to the camera on the way up.

Your theory fails because of simple probability. What are the odds that an object in space would travel upwards in the same orientation as the astronauts? I would say less than 1 in 20. I use the image of this 18 sided geodesic sphere to illustrate:


Imagine a particle in space in the center of this sphere; what are the odds of it moving through any one side? It would be 1 in 18 - so you get the idea...

 

Based on your hopeless observations, it is clearly a white jagged object rotating.

It is nothing to do with buoyancy. Ice sublimates in space. These particles are expelled from the hatch, formed during decompression and from the air conditioning system, The energy they emit, though slight, during sublimation is what gives them impetus. As for the object coming towards the camera, that is exactly the damn point! Bubbles go up, they don't fly off horizontally, which is where the camera is.

I have to laugh at you contradicting yourself in the same post. The object is going upwards, but travelling towards the camera, how does that work exactly? This isn't the only obvect seen in the video, the clown who made the original claim shows quite a few of them all flying off in random directions!





Go back to sleep, you are really clueless. You can't get anything right at all.

 

The particle I am talking about is the one you directly addressed in YOUR VIDEO - and it is going straight up.

It is called geometry. I said it is getting CLOSER to the camera. Figure it out.

There would not be enough energy expelled to show the movement we see and why would that energy be directed in a certain direction? The object in YOUR VIDEO is clearly moving up.

Water currents would explain that. Your sublimation powered particles theory is nonsense and anyone with half a brain who takes the time to examine this supposed chinese spacewalk would conclude it is a fake!

 

Straight up, but coming towards a camera orthogonal towards it, what a load of hogwash, listen to yourself! The other objects are all blasting off in different directions.

I already did, it is coming angled towards the camera, not straight up. Your seriously stupid observation is self contradicting itself!

Coming out of the hatch as the majority of particles of ice are doing. Your opinion on what energy is required is as useless as all your other inept observations.

But towards the camera. The object is coming out of the hatch, since the exit point is upwards on the video, there wouldn't appear to be any alternative!

This is where you explain what possible reason there would be for water currents in a sealed container. Astronauts in freefall training use weights for buoyancy. Setting up currents is the most stupid idea possible. Cite a reference for this so called "wave blower" hogwash.

The problem here is that those with half a brain don't understand the triple point of water and how ice converts straight to gas in a vacuum. Anyone who thinks these ice particles and objects of space debris are bubbles is a moron. My blog debunks the stupid notion that this spacewalk was in a swimming pool!

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

I notice you failed to address the points raised about the flag. Running the video at 25% leaves everything moving ridiculously slow, whilst occasional movements of the flag, open and unrestricted move still quickly.

1. Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification. Update Explain how 4 single layers in, plus 1 multi layer outside of it, it even gets to that temperature.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and other vehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered.

1. Cite a reference for wave blowers or explain why there are currents.
2. Explain how a bubble can be white, jagged and rotating.
3. Explain how a 25% video still leaves the flag moving very quick at points.
4. Explain how they could do this ludicrously slow motion for the astronauts and cables!
5. How can something go straight up but move horizontally??
6. How can you categorise odds of an object going straight up, when it doesn't go straight up and it is one of dozens that dart off in different directions?

If the footage runs at this speed the whole time, the cables and astronauts barely move, if it is a partial section, why suddenly do the cables start moving much quicker?

Cornered again!

 

Your sublimation rocket powered particles theory is nonsense! Lets take a look at what ice really does in a vacuum:

 

Blunderman. The ice is not in freefall and not in direct sunlight.

 

How about we hang a small piece of ice from a string and suspend it in this vacuum jar - and then let's shine a light on it. Would it spin around like a model plane? I THINK NOT!

 

Blunderman. The ice is still under gravity! The light needs to match the intensity of the Sun per unit area. What you think is mainly inept.

1. Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification.Update Explain how 4 single layers in, plus 1 multi layer outside of it, it even gets to that temperature.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant.
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures
5. How do unmanned satellites and other vehicles keep cool in space for years

Cornered

1. Cite a reference for wave blowers or explain why there are currents.
2. Explain how a bubble can be white, jagged and rotating.
3.Explain how a 25% video still leaves the flag moving very quick at points
4. Explain how they could do this ludicrously slow motion for the astronauts and cables!
5.How can something go straight up but move horizontally??
6. How can you categorise odds of an object going straight up, when it doesn't go straight up and it is one of dozens that dart off in different directions.

If the footage runs at this speed the whole time, the cables and astronauts barely move, if it is a partial section, why suddenly do the cables start moving much quicker? I can see why you avoid this!

Cornered again.

 

But it should be possible to demonstrate your sublimation rocket propulsion force with the above setup or similar - we can match the space sunlight intensity of 1360 watts/m^2 easily enough. Such a demonstration has never been done - because there is no such thing as what you describe.

 

People can move more slowly than normal if they're faking something.