Listen spammer, either answer the post like an honest truth seeker or get lost. You are without doubt suffering from some mental condition that stops your brain from even contemplating your ridiculous errors. Try again troll.
This video which disappeared is back online. The Mystery of the Apollo Sun https://www.brighteon.com/bed55bd6-d0da-420b-87e6-36f5020bf13b
Since the spammer has taken to cluster bombing the forum with his repeated video that was answered and ignored on the previous page!! Here again is the ignored answer:- Firstly, this is a gish gallup and nothing whatsoever to do with the OP. Yet again you cowardly avoid the substantial and significant evidence it represents! Secondly, these two videos are nothing to do with sunlight on the Moon. They are evidence that your "chemist" is another in a long line of ignorant fools who know nothing about the subject they comment on. They purport to deal with the reflection of the Sun on the helmet. They do not. They show how stupid a hoax believer can be in dealing with reality. His one point labored in the extreme over 25 minutes of quack opinion, suggests that the sun reflection must be smaller because of the convex visor. What it fails miserably to take into account is the nature of the material, how it diffused the light and more importantly, the way the vidicon camera itself overloads with excessive light. I made two videos that completely, without question debunk this stupid observation. Behind this idiotic claim lies the even more ludicrous one that we are seeing a vast super light that illuminates the entire scene evenly. As noted and indisputably so, something that big would illuminate areas in shadow on the opposite side, simply by virtue of its size. This is inescapable. Video 1 shows quite clearly the bullcrap about the size of the sun's reflection on a convex surface:- Video 2 irrefutable shows the large reflection completely disappear when a 2cm rod passes in front of it. To anyone with a braincell, that conclusively shows that the object casting the reflection is indeed as small as expected! Now perhaps this coward can answer the OP, "the viewers" can see he has no answer to it. Just like the digging a trench video. No meaningful response. Just evasion.
It's just that you never recognize it when you're shown to be wrong. Descartes debunked your arguments on pages #1 and #2. In the upper video in post #54 you show reflections of the sun in car windows that have a lot of glare. There's a difference between the glare and the actual reflection. You're saying that the glare is the oversized reflection and dishonestly claiming that the reflection of the sun in the car windshields is as big as the reflection of the sun in the Apollo astronauts' visors which have a reflection and no glare. This is so basic that no viewers need to have it pointed out. This is such clear dishonesty on your part that there's really no sense in continuing to talk to you as everyone can see that you're dishonest. I might as well just post stuff for the viewers to check out. Physics of the Moon Reflection https://www.brighteon.com/cdc4dea2-442f-4bf3-946a-6736fe6d555b
I've often wondered why the Soviets were in on the moon landings hoax. Of all the people most likely to benefit from exposing NASA's lies the Soviets would appear to have the strongest motive. Were they paid off in blue jeans and Coca-Cola?
You're basing your opinion on what the US media were saying. What was really happening behind the scenes might have been very different. Check out Chomsky's analysis of the cold war. http://libcom.org/history/articles/cold-war-1940-1989 (excerpt) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are plausible scenarios that would explain it. https://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html (excerpt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this? Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm (excerpt) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We can't form our opinions based on what we see in the American media. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-the-lies-furiously.583345/#post-1072353798 https://www.bing.com/search?q=moonf...s=n&sk=&cvid=58D146017FCE4A59B77DC1915F4205A5
He most certainly did not. You are so dishonest it must be your automatic position to believe horseshit. I bellow with laughter at you. So the reflections in windows are "glare" and the ones in the visor are different somehow? They are both reflections of the Sun on clear surfaces. It proves two things. Sunlight scatters in windows on Earth as well without the moronic superlight and that you are so desperate that you resort to such stupidity.You fail in every claim you make, it is like arguing with a child. Yes but nothing to do with your stupid assessment. Glare is the difficulty in seeing something from too much light. No jackass. I'm saying the reflection is scattering in the visor and scattering in the light collection mechanism on the video camera. Nothing to do with glare. Bigger actually, but that is more a property of the glass thickness. I see you and reality have no connection. As dumb as they come. The appeal to imaginary support. The viewers do not agree with you and never have done. 1. It's not dishonest to point out reflections bloom on Earth - it's obvious, even to fools. 2. You already threatened to not talk to me about a dozen times. Please make good your threat. Your responses are nothing more than lies, evasion and horseshit. 3. You are not the spokesperson for everyone. 4. Since you are lying, you aren't actually the spokesperson for yourself.* 5. * If you are not lying here, you really are far more dumber than you come across. The serial forum spammer. A viewer. Another viewer. Another one. And another. The viewers think you are a crazy lunatic. That's being polite.
How do you know they weren't paid sophists*? * https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html (excerpts) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know they are? Oh, of course, the viewers that call you a crazy lunatic are all paid and the ones who never respond or support you are not. And all because of your say so. Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) Cosmored/Fatfreddy88/Drifty/Scott/Rocky has a whole series of evasion tactics :- 1. For images or video: "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake." He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own images and videos. He will never actually prove it is faked or offer the number of people involved in such. 2. For websites: "It's possible that your sites are genuine and it's possible that some public-relations agency created them to help fool the public. Something that may or may not be bogus can't be used as proof." Source. or "That's a disinfo site." He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own appallingly inept websites. He will never address any website that solidly refutes his claims. He never offers any proof that any website is "disinfo" or "public-relations". 3. For Expert Testimony: "Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it " For "photography" insert anything. He is a layman on everything associated with space travel so uses this evasion tactic frequently. Basically if he doesn't understand it, it is ignored and of course the person providing the information must automatically be in on the moronic hoax. 4. For Rebuttal: "...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. " or "I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure he's a paid disinfo agent but his behavior fits the profile perfectly." This enables him to completely ignore any response, which he routinely does anyway, but throws this in for effect. Needless to say, he will never offer anything to backup his ad hominem statement. 5. Miscellaneous: ".anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist." This is probably the worst one of all. For this enormous diversionary statement, he gets to ignore every single thing written by an expert in almost every aspect of the Apollo Missions. He gets to ignore a concise website detailing debunks for almost all his total crap. He gets to ignore every post made where he always get his ass handed to him. The basis for this is his "credibility test". 6. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him? This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored. 7. When all else fails: "I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage ...." So when he routinely gets his claim debunked, it is "moot" because of "all the others". It never occurs to him that all the other evidence has been debunked and was also "moot" when it was addressed. When pushed to provide a list of items to address, at all costs he will not do this because it can be seen where they have all been debunked. 8. Just deny everything: "I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked." He's never seen ANYTHING debunked? An utterly ludicrous statement that he uses based on his own inept layman understanding. His ignorance apart, he seeks to pigeon hole every single debunk into responses that he says are diversion, because he says so. 9. Idiotic Closes: "You'd get laughed out of the debating hall ..." or "you're about as impressive as the Black Knight in this video" The sheer irony of this is always lost on him. If ever there was somebody who behaved like the Black Knight - as his arm gets chopped off it's a "moot point" it would be this serial forum spammer. There is not a debating environment on this planet where this person would show up to. He knows more than anyone that he would get the floor wiped with his drivel. 10. Divert/Obfuscate/Re-spam: This is where he avoids the item completely and gish-gallops away with repeated spam. Almost certainly he will keep avoiding the original claim. This person has been doing all of the above across 100's of forums for (best guess) coming up to 17 years. He cuts and pastes duplicate posts, responses, key phrases and dismissal videos. He determines any one or more of the above and posts them out, then slams a huge post with repeated and debunked bullshit. There is simply no level of response that can get through to somebody who has terminal Dunning and Kruger syndrome.
Bump for the cowardly tactics of the serial forum spammer who pretends not to see this totally obvious debunk. What would an honest person, with even basic intelligence do when seeing this gif? They would know for a fact that the white light on the visor is blooming across it and from additional over exposure from the vidicon tube on the video camera. They would know for an absolute fact that the light source MUST be narrower than the thin rod as it blocks it. They would know for an absolute fact that such a reflection of light could only come from the sun.
Now you see it, now you don't. This large bloomed reflection is a result of the scatter across the visor and the over exposure on the vidicon tube. Proven irrefutably here: Hey Scott/cosmored/rocky etc. What level of dishonesty suggests that the big white blob is a bullshit "superlight" when a narrow rod provably blocks the entire thing? You can clearly see the light reflection on the rod. You are busted in every thread, every post and know it. You are afraid to answer: Where has the big white blob disappeared to? Explain this honestly! For the intellectually challenged:
Already has been discussed ad nauseum here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-10#post-1072172451
That isn't a discussion, it is moronic distraction and evasion. Your cited example was a clear example of total failure. Did Cosmo send for reinforcements because his own failures weren't enough? I find it hilarious that these conspiracy jokers have still been unable to come up with any method to illuminate miles of surface evenly, decades after Apollo was filmed on the lunar surface.
Oh, look a large meaningless picture and a troll comment. What is it with these people? Have they no lives to be had that they need to do this kind of ignorant crap?
It's obviously the moon with "Moonbase Alpha" constructed on it. We should have a moonbase by now after 50 years, don't ya think? And notice the miles of evenly lit surface. They couldn't fake this, now could they Beta?
When engaging with these types of people, it is important to be aware of their limitations. So when this joker posts a picture of a model used in a TV series, that even monkeys would recognize as a model, one has to wonder what his motive is. It could be ignorant trolling, probably is, but it could also be that he is that clueless to think that these were real and very large walkable sets. This is the nature of conspiracy theorists. They are predominantly poorly educated, never quantify their garbage claims properly and usually end up making themselves look like clowns. For what purpose? Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to shield the astronauts from significant solar events? When you use the phrase " don't ya think", you should apply it to your own stupid comments. Perhaps just before writing, do some proper in-depth research from sources that have genuine insight. No. It is a few feet of evenly lit surface. I do wonder if you really are that dumb to genuinely think this a large set. Nope. Not even now with lights. The only way to do it would be with long painstakingly slow CGI, such as the scenes in Ad Astra. Even then it is so obviously flawed with its failure to correctly show lunar gravity. Why are you so clueless? It isn't a human strength to be so ignorant of everything you post about.
