TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

Spam. Addressed and ignored here:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html?m=1

This mad spammer freely admits that he ignores things. Like floating puffed up sleeves and backs of jackets!

Guess what, more spam. This insane person has been posting his "too clear to obfuscate" horse crap so many times it's impossible to count. Even on this forum it's probably in the hundreds.

He lies, he avoids, he runs away but never does he contemplate more simple explanations for his 2 second clip. Addressed here:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html?m=1

 

Has anyone ever done a spacewalk?

 

You have a real way with words, Beta

 

Yes, there are quite a few of these people around. Kooks. Cranks. They cling to these silly "theories" out of some pathological reason. It's like religious belief sans religion. I first encountered moon landing hoaxers on the Pravda forum, and I do believe Scott posted there at one time as well (he's been all over). These people will never listen to reason, never consider evidence contrary to their beliefs, never accept debunking of their own claims, never look at just how absurd their position on the matter is. They seem to derive a sort of pride from maintaining these silly beliefs, as if those "theories" make them smarter than the rest of us sheople.

Scott, what do you get out of posting these lies of yours year after year? What do you hope to accomplish? What would it even matter if the Apollo missions had been "faked in a studio," as you claim? At this point they're history and have no bearing on current policies. We still explore space, but do so with robotics at a much lower cost. It was cool to put people on the moon and it accomplished some scientific objectives, but as I've said, it's history.

 

So your postion is it does not matter if they lie to us or not? If they were faking tv videos in 1968 what is stopping them from doing it now? I guess that is ok with you...

 

They weren' faking them in 1968. What you are effectively doing is propagating lies. You have been totally butt kicked on every single thing you have claimed. I guess that is ok with you!

Let me ask you just one question. Maybe you can be a man and answer it!

I proved through a series of videos, observations on my blog and statements on this forum, without any doubt, that the people who make hoax films tell lies, deceive and are plain wrong in numerous things.

Is your postion it does not matter if they lie to us or not? Shall I point you to the thread that you two cowards avoid!

 

Not every proposed theory is going to turn out to be right. There are many things wrong with the official Apollo story and people propose theories to try to explain the observed phenomenon. For example, you proposed that the reason supposed ice particles fly around in space is because of your theory of sublimation rocket propulsion - but you were wrong about that...

 

Answer the damn question!! Double standards are not appealing. You make noise about supposedly fake Apollo video, but wave away the appalling deception, that makes up 99% of the so called hoax evidence!

My "theory" about ice in space is a cold hard fact. I missed the bit where you disproved it. Ice sublimates in a vacuum when it receives sufficient IR. There is nothing unusual about the outgassing causing a propellant force. In addition to this force there is also an orbital change to the particle that creates other acceleration. The fact that this IS a piece of ice and amongst other particles is moving in random directions. Your crazy and inept explanation is dead in the water.

 

I'm coming from the position that the missions were indeed faked as the proof is crushing.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...andings-ever-happened.512081/#post-1067871432

When I see people who are unwilling to even look at the proof that 9/11 was an inside job* because they just can't believe that the government would do such a thing, I figure that the proof that the Apollo missions were faked might wake them up and make them open-minded enough to at least look at the proof that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm just doing my part to make things better.

"He makes the greatest mistake who decides to do nothing because he can do so little."

Sir Francis Bacon

I showed that Jay Windley** and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were a bunch of sophists who obviously didn't even believe their own arguments. Read this.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters maintain that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Any seventh grader could tell you that's not true. They destroyed their credibility when they said that and you destroyed your credibility when you agreed with them. The best sophist in the world couldn't control the damage on this one as it's simply too basic and clear. Go ahead and try to save this. All of the viewers are watching.


*
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...orted-9-11-terrorists.456423/#post-1066183060

**
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

 

Enough already with your "crushing" hogwash. You rely on liars and dishonest people for evidence and ignore 10 years of rebuttal. You have no logic center! Your brain is locked in to some confusing reality which stops it seeing alternatives to your stupid claims.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
http://www.clavius.org/

Apollo was not faked and your reliance on it to prove another idiotic conspiracy is truly pathetic.

You showed that wherever you go, you behave like a coward and avoid rebuttal. You got your butt kicked yet again. As delusionary diversion, you label all responses as sophism to avoid responding. Coward.

A strawman of epic stupidity. Where did the dust free sand come from and where was it placed? Some of the visible areas are miles wide and there are literally hundreds of them!

Wrong. Seventh graders, like you, lack the engineering qualification to make such a judgement.

Nobody who agrees with experts have a credibility issue. Conspiracy fools who have no education are the ones with no credibility.

There is no damage to save. You seem to have an elevated view of your impact and the effect it has on those interested enough to read this. Every time you post, you demonstrate that you are nothing more than a noisy spammer who knows nothing. You haven't an original thought in your brain. Nothing you type is new, it's from some spam by numbers data stick or bookmark list where you've typed it all before.

The viewers can see you getting your "dust free" bullcrap taken apart:-

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.443515/

They can also see you deny visually obvious cues. You are the one with no integrity, credibility, education, logic and a whole host of vital attributes for a truth seeker. You are just incapable of debate:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

And clearly lit by the sun. They absolutely could not nave lit a studio or any surface so evenly using anything artificial, especially back then, but probably even today. The only "hot spot" effect we ever see is that Heiligenschein around the shadow of the astronaut taking the photo in down-sun images. The shear size of the areas we see in the Apollo mission footage would necessitate outdoor hoaxing, but this of course presents all manner of problems, which I expect is why Scott remains latched on the "in a studio" version of events.

The regolith makes hoax claims look stupid in more ways than one, of course, given not only that quality, but how moves when it is disturbed and how very fine it is. Looking at any image of a boot print, for instance, it's clear the stuff was practically as fine as "dust," so there is no way that Scott's nonsense about dust-free sand stands up anyway. The particles of regolith we see in every photo and video are way too fine not to billow and blow around in an atmosphere. There is the motion of the regolith when it is scooped or kicked up also - it not only never bellows, but flies too far and straight to be on earth, in an atmosphere, and yet be dry and fine and disturbed by the things we see it disturbed by. It is so clearly in microgravity and a vacuum. Also, of course, in any outdoor setting, there would be wind enough to blow the "sand" and the flags around. And no, Scott, not make the flags swing slightly when people manipulate the poles or pass right next to them and possibly touch them or cause vibration in the surface that is then transferred up the flag pole, but really blow the flags around.

And all of this is on top of the simple problems of faking all of this to a world of experts and amateurs alike with radio receivers, who were, as we know, able to pick up Apollo transmissions coming from the moon, and who involved people from all over the world. There was not one Scott out there who noticed a problem and "blew the whistle." The Soviets would have known and would have had a field day with us, of course. It basically all adds up to one technically impossible, way too perfect hoax ever to have occurred; the preponderance of evidence supports authenticity.

Why don't you accept it and move on, Scott? Do something more positive and meaningful with your life than sit around and insist that these real and awesome space missions were faked, when they clearly were on.

 

So you think there is something wrong with people who question flags waving on the moon without anyone touching them?

Psychologists Say: ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ SANE, and
Government Dupes CRAZY and Hostile.

Laurie Manwell, Univ of Guelph; anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing beliefs.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0002764209353279

Univ of Buffalo Prof Steven Hoffman; anti-conspiracy people prone to using irrational mechanisms (such as the “Conspiracy Theory” Label) to avoid personal conflict.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_nwo86.htm

Extreme irrationality of those who attack “CT's” exposed by Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State Univ. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article

http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/sociology_facpubs/14/

Now pro-conspiracy voices are more numerous and rational than anti-conspiracy ones and anti-conspiracy people are like hostile, paranoid cranks.

Popular acclaim will attend on the man
who tells the people what they want to hear
rather than what truly benefits them - Plato​

 

Absolutely when they repeat the same claim for 10 years and avoid every response. When someone does this thousands of times on hundreds of different forums, they are insane. It's one flag and a one second duration occurrence. It's not "flags" plural and not "them" plural. He brushes it with his elbow after passing it.

What steps have you taken to rule out:-

Kicked regolith striking the pole. Static electricity discharge, magnified by a vacuum. Camera bloom, which includes movement of lens flares during the split second it occurs. Local vibration of the pole from footsteps. The settling of the upright into the floor stay, as the flag had only just been erected and possibly not fully locked in place. I will answer that for you. NONE!

Just for the record, we'll take it as read that you will ignore all that.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conspiracy-theorists-may-really-just-be-lonely/

https://www.geek.com/science/new-study-links-conspiracy-theorists-with-a-mental-disorder-1720483/

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/43an3m/conspiracy-theorists-just-want-to-feel-special

 

That's all you got? How about this in a peer reviewed journal:

Dangerous Machinery: "Conspiracy Theorist" as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion
Ginna Husting,
Martin Orr, Boise State University

In a culture of fear, we should expect the rise of new mechanisms of social control to deflect distrust, anxiety, and threat. Relying on the analysis of popular and academic texts, we examine one such mechanism, the label conspiracy theory, and explore how it works in public discourse to "go meta" by sidestepping the examination of evidence. Our findings suggest that authors use the conspiracy theorist label as (1) a routinized strategy of exclusion; (2) a reframing mechanism that deflects questions or concerns about power, corruption, and motive; and (3) an attack upon the personhood and competence of the questioner. This label becomes dangerous machinery at the transpersonal levels of media and academic discourse, symbolically stripping the claimant of the status of reasonable interlocutor—often to avoid the need to account for one's own action or speech. We argue that this and similar mechanisms simultaneously control the flow of information and symbolically demobilize certain voices and issues in public discourse.

 

Nice strawman deflection. You want to quantify your group's contributions into a valid series of arguments, because opponents routinely label your group in derogatory fashion. The fact that the content and behaviour of your group is the major contributory factor to this, is somehow missed. The author seeks to inspire rational debate before out and out dismissal. I concur with her. That's what you have had here, so kindly desist from your poor me moaning!

Incidentally, how dare you cite a "peer reviewed" article as some sort of pinnacle of correctness whilst you and your type routinely ignore thousands of peer reviewed documents that tear your base argument apart! The lunar samples have been copiously peer reviewed, yet you put forth stupid and ignorant arguments that ignored them all!

 

And this is exactly why conspiracy theorists are regarded so poorly - indeed you did ignore it all. You and your type, do this pretty much the entire time. You fail at every point to correctly quantify your claims with full explanations, you fail to respond to major points that pull your claim apart and you never or very rarely admit any of your claims are wrong. That is not debate, that is the way of the conspiracy theorist!

 

Of course we are talking about the Apollo 15 flag movement and this has been much talked about previously - of these five issues, items 1. 4. and 5. have to do with the pole moving. If the pole moved the flag would "ripple" in an "out of sync" movement - we don't see that however - what we see is movement consistent with the Bernoulli effect in air.

Item 2. Static electricity has been talked about before but why don't we see other instances of static effect if it is that strong? How about the feather hammer drop? Wouldn't static effect that? Also, the flag moved slightly away from the astronaut before moving toward him which rules out static electricity.

Item 3. Camera bloom, like you say, could occur for a split second - but we see the flag oscillating for 15 seconds. Nope, it has nothing to do with camera bloom.

The evidence is strong here that the flag is in air...

But real proof that it is in air is provided by the laws of physics - because the flag moves in such a way that it can only be on earth as discussed here:

 

A fairly bland and inaccurate observation just for starters. The pole DOES move, the spammer claimed I doctored my video(by way of admitting it is visibly doing so but, as a pathetic attempt to scuttle away from alternative explanations!). I did not make any changes to any frames used. The movement we see is very, very small and very brief. You don't get to disregard 3 legitimate reasons because of some nonsense about "rippling"! Try again, the flagpole moves, what steps have you taken to rule out explanations for this very quick and tiny movement. It's less than a second from when it begins to when he blocks the view.

No. Your actual initial claim quite clearly showed that such an effect pulls the object towards the pressure variation. MY video shows this quite clearly.



Quite clearly a passing object draws the fabric towards it. I do not expect you to admit this. Be brave, go for truth! The mad spammer says it is all about orientation, but if you tilt the light 90 degrees, it is the same.

How come the flag straight ahead did not move like the balloon straight ahead. It's perfectly straightforward.

It builds up pending something that will take a discharge. The astronaut is standing still during the feather drop and has not been running around.

Is there anything you can get right? Static electricity can provide an attractive or repellent force. I don't adhere to this explanation, but it is certainly feasible in a vacuum. Try again, what steps have you taken to disregard this.

A truly pathetic observation. The motion prior to passing by is the one in question. There are numerous videos proving that the camera angle, wide as it was, is misleading. The astronaut is certainly close enough for his elbow to strike the flag after passing by. The main video claimant, Jarrah White came to this conclusion. This is also where the mad spammer accuses me of misleading "the viewers" because White disregards this proven fact(by him!) to say it is irrelevant, given that the flag moves beforehand. The two are not mutually exclusive though, so your reason to disregard camera bloom is nonsense. Try again, the lens flares move, so does the right of the frame. On a wide angled lens, the edge is more exaggerated.

The evidence points to it being in vacuum. He is some 2 metres away when there is the first noticeable movement.

Try not to confuse an idiot on youtube as proof of anything. The maker of that video makes so many basic mistakes his data is flawed before he even starts. The flag is a multi pivoted, multi energy transferring system, with it's main focal point spread along the variable distance diagonal, NOT the top rod!

The motion of the flag on the Moon is perfectly in line with lunar gravity. From 40 seconds on, we see what a flag does on Earth and it is NOT the same as the Apollo flag:-



Just to tie things up, we normally get from the spammer, "Mythbusters-discredited-yada yada yada", only his evidence for this is bullcrap and it doesn't mean you can dismiss visual evidence anyway, which completely counters your claim.

 

You're tap dancing around the issue. The issue is whether it's possible to transport and place large-grained dust-free sand without creating enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. How should I know where NASA gets it's dust-free sand. The beaches are full of it. It doesn't matter how much of it they may have used. The issue is whether it's possible to do the above.

Viewers...

Please read this to see what's going on here clearly.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

Yes, I'd better post the info again as you seem to be trying to sway those viewers who haven't seen it.




http://aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

 

To clarify. You are not qualified to declare that this is possible, then ignorantly boast that you are correct. The straw man issue may be whether it is possible, which it could be for very small areas. And even if you were correct, which you are not, it simply proves that small facet is possible. But overall, and the far bigger issue, is where did hundreds of acres of GREY sand come from, by whom and to where. We are talking about literally hundreds of thousands of tons of this stuff with vehicles driving over already deposited loads.

Notwithstanding this appallingly repeated straw man, the visual record itself disproves your premise. Covered and cowardly avoided in this thread below. It shows CLEAR prints being made all over the area, whilst CLEAR dust is kicked on numerous occasions:-

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.443515/

Further to this claim destroying footage is the perfect ballistic trajectory of the ejected dug up regolith, that when speeded up to Earth freefall, shows the astronauts motion as excessively and obviously too fast.

Cornered and cowardly afraid to admit it!

You don't tap dance over this you run away like a coward! There must have been hundreds of lorry drivers involved, company invoices, witnesses, organisation, paper trails and what do you have? Nothing! Not one tiny fragment of evidence to support your ignorant claim.

Spam and it proves absolutely nothing. Mythbusters are a TV program. The visual evidence showing a flag swaying on Earth doesn't suddenly become inadmissible, just because the likes of you decides it. The point stands regardless of whether they were "discredited"! Quite clearly a flag moving at normal speed is NOTHING like the Apollo flag on the Moon.

 

We've gone over all of this before.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-strawman-claim.443515/page-3#post-1067229992

The bottom line is that Jay Windley and his fellow pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum maintain that just transporting and placing large-grained dust free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That totally destroyed their credibility. You don't simply say they are wrong as an objective poster would so you have no credibility. Talking about how much sand might have been used, etc is just to muddy the waters. It's not relevant to the issue I'm raising.

I'll address it anyway.

It wouldn't be impossible to transport and place hundreds of tons of large-grained dust-free sand. It would just be a question of budget. Anyway, they would only have had to place it in certain areas. The rest of it could have been normal dirt.

The most likely explanation is that the footage was taken in a studio and that much sand wasn't necessary.

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
(Do a search on "The Hills Are Alive")


You can pretend all you want. You destroyed your credibility long ago.

 

No we have not! You have avoided it all before. Once again you do this. You have not one scrap of evidence to support this claim. You have no evidence that it occurred.

Wrong again spammer. You have a ludicrously over inflated belief in your opinion. You are not qualified to make a judgement on this, you are not qualified to assess the credibility of engineers who ARE qualified. You are quite delusional in your pursuit of this irrelevant straw man. Even if you managed to prove this pitifully meaningless issue, you still have not a solitary scrap of evidence to support it.

And personnel, vehicles, paper trails, payments and not one solitary witness to say they did this and why it would be suspicious. Not one piece of evidence. You addressed nothing, just tap dancing!

Stupid and ignorant statement. The Apollo footage is replete with massive and numerous areas that could not possibly be indoors. The areas we see are acres wide and would require massive amounts of grey sand.

Show me where it could have come from, all neatly washed and by whom. Then fail to provide any evidence for it, or any witnesses to it.

You appalling and odious spammer. You have not one ounce of credibility or integrity. Not only have I given you a full and damning rebuttal to this, you were too ignorant to understand it and arm waved it away!

AGAIN FOR THE SPAMMER:-

A quick summary:-

1. Step 3 of the proposed process mentions applying transformations in image space, such as perspective distortions, independent x- and y-axis scaling, and rotations. First, some of these would not be projection-preserving, and thus are invalid in rectification. Second, there is no mention made of how the parameters for these transformations are derived. Hence they amount to manual processing and therefore cannot be scientifically reproducible.

2. The proposed antiprojection, La = Lb b/a, is linear. Most lenses do not implement a linear projection model, and the Zeiss Biogon explicitly does not. Hence the mathematical framework is simplistic and incorrect.

3. Fig. 7 purports to show a parallax difference between two Apollo photos that include a distant background. The author believes that because a geometric change is apparent in the blink-comparator, this should be attributed to parallax. In fact the method fails.

4. No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.

5. A simple contrast expansion of the "difference" image shows misalignment in the ridge lines consistent with a rotation between raster images roughly coincident with the original line of sight. The author has misapplied his broken method and thus interprets the difference in rotation (and possibly subsequent distortive attempts to correct it) as parallax.

6. Figs. 10 and 11 are similar. The author applies uncontrolled, arbitrary image-space manipulations that are not projection-preserving, then proceeds to attribute resulting misalignment of the raster to parallax. And again, no method is shown for deterministically deriving the distortion parameters; it is purely subjective and therefore irreproducible.

7. The author then imagines that the effects he introduces through non projective-preserving manipulations are explicable in affine space by a sort of concave screen. This is pure fantasy: a much simpler explanation exists, that of the ineptitude of the author's image-space manipulation and his fundamental misunderstanding of the actual projective geometry at work here. He has proven absolutely nothing other than his ability to produce in one instance a distortion map that corrects for the distortion he previously applied in another instance. There is absolutely nothing here that is valid or proven to be a method for determining the authenticity of photographs.

8. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography).

9. Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.

10. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Conspicuously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.

11. He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.

12. He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.

13. In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and assume that he got all the rest of it right.


I await your standard avoidance, obfuscation, diversion or other spammed response.

I attribute all 13 items to the expertise of Mr Windley.

Item 14: Provide evidence to verify the expertise of the Aulis bullcrap claims. You seem to think that it means something, so prove their credibility.

I don't need to pretend anything you dishonest spammer. You are the least credible human being on the internet. Being assessed by you carries no weight whatsoever. You don' have a single original thought, nothing you type is new. How sad a person you must be to think of this as your "hobby".

 

This bit of hand-waving* would get you laughed out of the debating hall. You didn't address the issue directly. I assume you agree with Jay Windley's** position. If you agree with him, tell us why just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.


*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
(excerpts)
-------------------------------------
Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial. It is most often applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the glossing over of details.
-------------------------------------
Handwaving is frequently used in low-quality debate, including political campaigning and commentary, issue-based advocacy, advertising and public relations, tabloid journalism, opinion pieces, Internet memes, and informal discussion and writing. If the opponent in a debate or commentator on an argument alleges hand-waving, it suggests the proponent of the argument, position or message has engaged in one or more fallacies of logic,[2] usually informal, and/or glossed over non-trivial details,[2] and is attempting to wave away challenges and deflect questions, as if swatting at flies.
-------------------------------------

**
http://www.clavius.org/about.html