Proof of a faked Apollo landing???

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Bob0627, Nov 20, 2017.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are busted spammer. You know it, I know it and everyone who drops in to read your insane blundering comments will see it too.

    No part of this debate has had me in any difficulty. Once again you are just too ignorant to understand that the impact is irrelevant, that it MUST have been caused by the underside and that the only dust disturbed is perpendicular to a pushed downward falling flat surface. The air displaced by this moves in the direction of the fall, with some minor spill to the sides.

    Ergo, if there was sufficient air displaced to cause a sideways disturbance, the masses of dust directly ahead would have been blasted all over the place!

    Troll. You aren't thwarting anything, you are busted and know it.

    It's pretty clear that you are a very dishonest person acting dumb and doing a rather good job of it. It's also very similar to conversing with a small infant. There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and you seem to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-
    • There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.
    • The lid for the sample container box is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.
    • There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!
    • In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.
    • In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.
    • It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!
    • Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.
    Now from the responses being received from this serial forum spammer we can also see a number of things:-
    • Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable.
    • He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking!
    • This dishonest person will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors.
    The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. The forum spammer has shot down in flames his own 15 years spammed claim!

    Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey Scott/cosmored/drifty/fatfreddy/spammer - have you tried the simple experiment? What happened?

    Viewers: A very simple experiment. Hold one hand level and bring the other arm with flat hand down, perpendicular to the first hand. Notice quite obviously that air is moved (do it faster, like the falling box lid - quite a hefty wave of air is displaced). Now do it sideways on - you will barely feel anything.

    The footage on the Moon showed a pushed shut lid descending and making ZERO frontal air displacement. The spammer cannot explain this, nor why a sideways displacement would occur and none to the front.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2020
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There you go again trying to muddy the waters. When you made posts #205 and #212 you seemed to be thinking that the cover actually made contact with the area where the dust was.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...apollo-landing.519410/page-12#post-1072155977

    It seems that you hadn't noticed that the cover came to a stop before it got that far. When I pointed out that it didn't fall far enough to impact the area where the dust was, you realized you'd made a big mistake by saying the impact of the cover on the area where the dust was caused the dust to shoot out. The cover came to a stop because something inside hit the underside of the top of the cover. The outside lip didn't reach the area where the dust was. You were in a pickle because your explanations were based on the idea that the outside lip impacted that area. Then you started to try to muddy the waters to make it look like you knew the outside lip didn't make contact with the area where the dust was all along.

    All the viewers who take the time to look at the debate starting on page #9 can see this. You know it was air as well as the hoax-believers do. You must feel guilty working for the dark side. I couldn't do it no matter how much money they offered me.

    I know you'll never admit defeat but it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is your success rate. I'd say it's pretty low as the viewers are also reading the other threads. My only goal here is to lower you success rate. I don't care whether you admit defeat or not. There's really not much sense in my continuing to talk to you as it's clear that you don't even believe your own arguments.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2020
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is where you posted a quite incredibly dumb claim about the capsule being not hot at splashdown, because of some face-plantingly ignorant assumption that the sea should have boiled around it. You said:

    "That video seems to be one of those disinfo videos that associates real anomalies with silly stuff in order to discredit the real anomalies."

    The identical spam claim. What on Earth is wrong with you? Why do you keep doing this!?

    Just assume you have, because invariably that is the case. In what mad world does a material specifically used to ablate and carry away heat still keep hot, thousands of feet later after gently dropping in a parachute?
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I missed your response to this:

    There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and you seem to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-
    • There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.
    • The lid for the sample container box is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
    • A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.
    • There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!
    • In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.
    • In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.
    • It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!
    • Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.
    Now from the responses being received from this serial forum spammer we can also see a number of things:-
    • Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable.
    • He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking!
    • This dishonest person will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors.
    The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. The forum spammer has shot down in flames his own 15 years spammed claim!

    Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look at this guy and his "hobby". Only 2 places above, the identical moronic claim answered for the 4th time and here he goes again by way of ignoring where he gets his ass kicked again and to just spam the forum.

    Your capacity to be led by simpletons, knows no bounds. An ignorant youtuber makes a claim and simply because it conforms to your very biased and badly informed claims, you suck it up! The heat shield on Apollo was made of ablative materials. They were designed to heat up and erode away from the ship, carrying away the energy build up. Once into atmosphere the remaining temperature was quickly dissipated by the air.

    Apollo craft photographed as it performed re-entry:-

    [​IMG]

    I didn't think even you were daft enough to claim that Apollo astronauts didn't go into space! And you think it "seems legitimate"? By the criteria of a youtube imbecile who claims the space station is also fake, knows nothing about the materials used on the shield, or how they deal with heat? Once again your appalling belief system clouds any semblance of logic or reason. Perhaps you will add this pathetic video to your wall of spam!

    And like the spammer you are, you seem to forget where you said this!

    Cosmored: "The video states that the bottom was designed to erode away. The argument is that there would still be some heat. You might turn out to be right though. I just wanted to post this so it could be discussed. That video seems to be one of those disinfo videos that associates real anomalies with silly stuff in order to discredit the real anomalies. I should have watched the whole video before posting it; it seems to have been created by some public-relations agency to discredit the moon-truth movement."

    Every post - complete fail.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2022
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's where I first mentioned this anomaly. I'd forgotten about it as it was four and a half years ago.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-4#post-1068572326

    That video is off-line now. When I said this...
    ...I wasn't referring to the hot-re-entry-vehicle anomaly. I was referring to other stuff in the video. Now I can't remember what it was. There are videos put out by public-relation agencies that mix real anomalies with wacky stuff in order to associate the real anomalies with the wacky stuff in order to make people think the real anomalies are wacky too.


    I also said this in my next post.
    I still think it's possible that there still would have been enough heat to cause some noticeable steam. I don't consider your response to be a thorough debunking.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know exactly where you "first" mention everything because I dismantle your ridiculous claims each time. Needless to say you ignored it then and above. Indeed, your only response is to backpedal your response distancing yourself from it!

    You have zero qualification to "still think" anything, neither does the imbecile who made the video you keep spamming.

    Somebody answered this quite well at Quora, when faced with another gullible member of the public:

    How did the really hot space capsule not steam at all when it hit the ocean? - Quora

    Now, let’s add a few details:
    • The “capsule” certainly didn’t stay at 5000 degrees F. Nor did it remain at Mach 3 speed. By the time the capsule had reached the lower atmosphere, it had slowed to about 320 Mph, at which point they deployed the first parachute.
    • The first “drogue” chutes were deployed at about 25,000 feet altitude. The main chutes would have been deployed at about 10,000 feet.
    • The capsule had cooled down quite a bit by that time.
    Check out temperature gradients for the upper atmosphere. Above 10,000 feet it is quite cold, depending on which layer of the atmosphere you are passing thru. Metal cools down really quickly after spending several minutes in a moving airstream that might be as cold as -80 degrees F. (Around the Mesopause at 50 to 60 miles up.)

    Most aircraft that fly at altitudes between 20,000 and 40,000 feet are equipped with deicing systems because of the lower atmospheric temperatures in that altitude range.

    So: that’s why the capsule didn’t “steam” when it splashed down.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2022
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your spam "hobby" knows no bounds. The idea behind a "big light" is physically impossible and has been shown to be so! And this latest batshit claim is clearly nearfield and blurred and maybe a video scan artefact from the LRV whilst shaking the TV transmitter, or possibly one of the cables passing in front of the camera. Anyone who thinks that is something that occurs on the actual surface is delusional.

    Apollo Landings Debunking the "Superlight" contention - YouTube
    Apollo Landings Debunking the "Superlight" contention Part 2 - YouTube

    I even created a thread tearing this stupid claim to pieces, which you deliberately sabotaged with off topic batshit whilst running away from the actual topic:

    Apollo and sunlight | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stop the video at the 3:15 time mark. A cable would totally block what's behind it as a cable is solid matter. Nothing is blocked in the video. It's consistent with its being a shadow.

    Nothing in the videos or the thread you posted addresses this anomaly.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2022
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Idiotic. The TV lens is considerably wider than the cable. Is there no limit to your ludicrous spatial failures?

    It's consistent with you having no integrity and believing every piece of batshit.
     
  15. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong and a bald faced ilie.

    It has been addressed and your claim disproven
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's something I've never seen brought up before.

    Marcus Allen seems to be an expert in photography and camera equipment. He says that camera film can't be used in a vacuum and therefore all of the Apollo pictures taken by the astronauts while they were walking around outside the lander had to have been taken in atmosphere. I have no background on photography so I can't opine on this. I'm just posting it so it can be discussed, Start watching this at the 5:25 time mark.

    "Were The Photographs Of The Lunar Landings Taken On Earth?" Full Video Interview
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a damn novelty that would be!

    He is an imbecile.

    A moronic suggestion. This now invalidates every single image ever taken in space prior to digital.

    Then stop posting crap!
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Look at the imbecile the serial forum spammer is sourcing.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look at what Marcus Allen says here at the 35:05 time mark.

    Moon Hoax; "Apollo, How Far Did They Really Go?" With Marcus Allen
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Marcus+Allen+apollo&&view=detail&mid=9E1FEB52EC59774A04859E1FEB52EC59774A0485&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=/videos/search?q=Marcus+Allen+apollo&FORM=HDRSC3



    He shows a technical chart he say was taken from some footage of Apollo 11 that shows it was shot a week before they were actually on the moon. I'm not saying there's no explanation for this. I just want to know what it is if there is one.


    Look what he points out at the 1:13:37 time mark. The aluminum handles on the Apollo re-entry capsule don't show any signs of having been in intense heat. Listen to what he says when he compares it with the Orion re-entry vehicle. He says that the Orion capsule has a heat shield on its entire surface whereas the Apollo capsule doesn't. The entire surface of the Orion capsule is scorched whereas the upper surface of the Apollo capsule isn't scorched.

    I'm no expert but this makes me wonder. Be sure to look at the comment section of the YouTube video.


    That would only be true for the ones taken in an unpressurised environment. Satellites probably had a pressurised environment for the cameras.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's Proof That We Did Actually Land on the Moon (didyouknowfacts.com)

    "6. The Pictures…
    I know, I know…they were faked. It was all shot in a studio. In 1969, they had the technological/photographical/cinematographical capabilities to fake an endless void, with miles of terrain in every direction, with said terrain being of a non-earthly substance that reflects light in every which direction…

    See how ridiculous that sounds?* There are dozens of conspiracy theories (this guy tackles them all): about shadows being cast in multiple directions (light from the sun bouncing off a reflective surface…this couldn’t have been faked by the way. We’ll get there), Neil Armstrong appearing illuminated in a shadow (again…reflective surface), mysterious reflections (though the one above should kill that theory), no stars (go outside on a dark night with stars in the sky, get your camera, and duplicate the aperture and settings the astronauts used and let me know if you see any stars. Also…lunar daytime. The sun is brighter than the stars)…blah blah blah. The list goes on. ALL of these theories have been debunked, explained, with proof, time and again. NEXT."


    * Sadly, nothing sounds ridiculous to gullible, delusional, stubborn and very ignorant people. A supposed 8+ mission hoax with a cast of untold and exponentially growing participants, that spans 50+ years - see how ridiculous that sounds?

    You ignored the video showing his incompetence.

    Neither is he, he is an imbecile. Wonder no more.

    So, despite having the glaring inconsistency pointed out, moronically you make up batshit to defend it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm still looking for where he says all of this in his presentation. I think it's this.

    Watch it from the 55:28 time mark to the 57:18 time mark.

    Moon Hoax; "Apollo, How Far Did They Really Go?" With Marcus Allen
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...deos/search?q=Marcus+Allen+apollo&FORM=HDRSC3

    Yes. He should have anticipated this response. He should have talked about the edge of the fake lunar landscape and the mountains' being mere backdrops.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...set-mod-warning.403884/page-5#post-1073717063

    He's admitted that he's made mistakes. He would admit this one f it were pointed out to him I think.
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's Proof That We Did Actually Land on the Moon (didyouknowfacts.com)
    "7. The video equipment needed to fake this didn’t exist yet.

    "Simply put, if the videos (and photos, for that matter) were faked, it would’ve required the use of technology that did not exist in 1969. Emmy winning forensic motion picture analyst Mark Schubin asserts that faking the moon landing footage and images would have been harder to do than actually going to the moon, adding that it would have been impossible to fake it with 1969’s technology.

    He gives a couple reasons for this. One, shadows. If you look at the shadows, they are the result of parallel sun rays with no diffusion, as the light source is 93 million miles away. When on a flat surface, this creates parallel shadows. If studio lighting had been used, the shadows would diverge, as the light source would be quite close.

    [​IMG]
    Photo Credit: YouTube


    He argues that the only way to recreate this lighting condition on Earth in 1969 would be by using millions of lasers. Alright, cool. Problem…lasers in 1969 were outrageously expensive and came only in red. Had we also developed computer graphics secretly in 1969, it could have been a possibility, but that would have been an entire other program to keep secret.

    And Schubin is not the only one. According to filmmaker S. G. Collins, who has worked in the film/video industry as a writer, as a director, and (mostly) as a camera man since 1978, we simply did not have the video equipment to pull off a pre-recorded, 143-minute, live lunar telecast.

    This alleged faked video would have been shot on Earth, and therefore would need to be shot in slow motion to give the appearance of no/low gravity… however, at the time, the magnetic disk recorders that were used for slow motion could only shoot up to 30 sec total, played back at 90 sec of slow motion video. But, again, the lunar telecast was 143 minutes of continuous video. To slow that down, you’d need 47 minutes of continuous live-action video on disk. Which wasn’t possible with a magnetic disk recorder."

    All you ever do is look for garbage - you are the epitome of confirmation bias. The problem for you is you have zero skills in any relevant discipline. You rely on incompetent liars and snake-oil salesman and gleefully suck it up.

    You have no idea what you are talking about! He was utterly destroyed in a debate at the Planetary Society, he admitted that NASA landed on the Moon and just some photography was suspect. Then when the dust had settled from his humiliation, he "changed his mind" again, something to do with magazine sales for this lying joke of a person.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Betamax

    Please address the above issues from post #319.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2022
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please logoff, go and get some education and find another "hobby". You absolutely suck at this. You are one of the most absurd people I have ever come across. Literally hundreds of my posts never get any response at all, some get partial quotes where you can regurgitate your pathetic spam and most of the replies involve some of the most ignorant and ludicrous gibberish 'explanations' and crazy uninformed speculation.

    You have zero interest in any answer, you just wanted to spam bump this thread.
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Translation: Those two issues are such clear evidence of a hoax that I'll just look silly if I try to obfuscate them so I'd better avoid the issue altogether.
     

Share This Page