Bullshit. You just wanted to act the goat and bump a dead thread! It was already proven by svector - so annoying that he took down his video. I don't give a crap what you believe, even if the overlay mask was still online you'd still not budge on your belief!
I have no belief on this particular issue - it is just another anomaly among many others that require more analysis.
At Scott/cosmored! In your own time, answer the following For future reference and for anyone who encounters this person again on their travels, I am going to summarise as much as possible the things he has avoided. He put up a video that had the youtube user "hunchbacked" claiming the LROC pictures were photoshopped, because he found some metadata of a tiny cropped section from the large original transmission. The images posted on the internet are edited tiny segments taken from absolutely massive uncompressed images. Of course they use an imaging software to create this. The originals, TIF files, show no such manipulation. Your claim is dismissed, do you have any rebuttal to this? Counter claim about the soil getting up to jump height: Video 1 shows a gravitational analysis of the Cernan hopping sequence. I would also state that this is part of a massive unbroken sequence where the astronauts travel hundreds of yards from the rover and cross over numerous times. The analysis proves that the jump is perfectly consistent with lunar gravity. It shows the adjustment for Earth gravity. THIS is MY VIDEO!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuvW0FRd-U Video 2 shows a piece of soil being kicked up - to jump height just like your volleyball player, that hits the ground at the SAME TIME as Cernan. This proves they are not on wires. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG5FuVxDcPU Can you explain how this is possible, because the 245% footage is clearly ridiculous? Numerous points raised here - https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...36#post2455236 and none responded to. In particular, the lens flares move on a still camera. How can spots on a camera move(they are lens flares...same question)? Numerous points raised here - https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...40#post2455240 and none properly responded to. In particular, when given a plausible alternative to his "wall of air" claim, concerning soil striking the flagpole, he dismissed it saying the pole needed to move. Notwithstanding such a tiny movement needs just a tiny pole vibration mot necessarily visible, the rod DOES move. I posted a video of it and he said the video was doctored because he couldn't see it with his mouse! I asked him to prove it was doctored. He ignored this. Neither of your videos precludes two events. I don't know what causes the initial movement, but it isn't air, because air doesn't behave that way from so far away. I suspect he simply kicked a bit of soil along the ground, something like this at 21 seconds... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyOt6RUs9mE The flagpole moving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y From post#56, he conceded that they were lens flares, he conceded that the Apollo 14 footage looked doctored. He then posted a ludicrous video about the LRV being a model! His claim amounts to 3 things:- 1. The astronaut is not moving. So what, why should he? 2. The soil is different colours. Phase angle changes to retro-reflective surface. 3. It is comparable to front screen projection on 2001. Ridiculous observation. This was a fixed shot, the moon footage is moving constantly. It is this, more than anything that makes me question his credentials or motive. Direct questions: Can you verify his credentials please? How do his alleged credentials allow him the skillset to pose a credible analysis? Concerning his nonsense claim about the flap on the LRV Apollo 15 traverse, he claimed the sky was blackened ON AN IMAGE using modern software! My reply, unanswered: So your method involves using modern digital software on a single image, to create a 20fps video in 1971? Forgive me if I ask you to try again! It is a continuous video with mountains that don't get any nearer over several miles. The surface is lit for as far as can be seen. The sky is black. When the rover turns across Sun, the phase angle of the Moon changes and the whole surface is less reflective. Can you explain in detail how that could possibly be done? Concerning the Apollo 15 flag movement. He claimed the following are ruled out: Show me exactly where these are ruled out: 1. Video artefact blooming. 2. Flagpole settling in stand. 3. Static discharge. 4. Kicked soil striking the bottom of the pole sending small vibration. Do NOT post another video, especially when you seem to think Jarrah White rubbing a balloon against his head rules out the enormous static discharges that can occur in a vacuum! He then posted a video of that very thing! Quite breath taking how he can have the audacity to roll up yet again and post the same stuff he has already posted here about 50 times, whilst avoiding so much aimed at him from another forum, from the same spam.
Betamax obviously lost this debate. He just won't recognize it. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...t-claim-of-air-and-the-apollo-15-flag.438617/ He really looked silly when he tried to obfuscate this anomaly. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665 The proof that the moon missions were faked in a studio is crushing. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068 https://www.brighteon.com/channels/stevedachemist This case is closed Betamax. You lost.
Spam Nope. No anomaly, just 100% proof that it was on the Moon. You fail, you always fail. The wall of spam covered here and of course every single tiny detail 100% ignored: Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) That is correct. You were never even part of it. You failed the moment you started spamming your crap on hundreds of forums. At Scott/cosmored! In your own time, answer the following For future reference and for anyone who encounters this person again on their travels, I am going to summarise as much as possible the things he has avoided. He put up a video that had the youtube user "hunchbacked" claiming the LROC pictures were photoshopped, because he found some metadata of a tiny cropped section from the large original transmission. The images posted on the internet are edited tiny segments taken from absolutely massive uncompressed images. Of course they use an imaging software to create this. The originals, TIF files, show no such manipulation. Your claim is dismissed, do you have any rebuttal to this? Counter claim about the soil getting up to jump height: Video 1 shows a gravitational analysis of the Cernan hopping sequence. I would also state that this is part of a massive unbroken sequence where the astronauts travel hundreds of yards from the rover and cross over numerous times. The analysis proves that the jump is perfectly consistent with lunar gravity. It shows the adjustment for Earth gravity. THIS is MY VIDEO!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuvW0FRd-U Video 2 shows a piece of soil being kicked up - to jump height just like your volleyball player, that hits the ground at the SAME TIME as Cernan. This proves they are not on wires. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG5FuVxDcPU Can you explain how this is possible, because the 245% footage is clearly ridiculous? Numerous points raised here - https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...36#post2455236 and none responded to. In particular, the lens flares move on a still camera. How can spots on a camera move(they are lens flares...same question)? Numerous points raised here - https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...40#post2455240 and none properly responded to. In particular, when given a plausible alternative to his "wall of air" claim, concerning soil striking the flagpole, he dismissed it saying the pole needed to move. Notwithstanding such a tiny movement needs just a tiny pole vibration mot necessarily visible, the rod DOES move. I posted a video of it and he said the video was doctored because he couldn't see it with his mouse! I asked him to prove it was doctored. He ignored this. Neither of your videos precludes two events. I don't know what causes the initial movement, but it isn't air, because air doesn't behave that way from so far away. I suspect he simply kicked a bit of soil along the ground, something like this at 21 seconds... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyOt6RUs9mE The flagpole moving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y From post#56, he conceded that they were lens flares, he conceded that the Apollo 14 footage looked doctored. He then posted a ludicrous video about the LRV being a model! His claim amounts to 3 things:- 1. The astronaut is not moving. So what, why should he? 2. The soil is different colours. Phase angle changes to retro-reflective surface. 3. It is comparable to front screen projection on 2001. Ridiculous observation. This was a fixed shot, the moon footage is moving constantly. It is this, more than anything that makes me question his credentials or motive. Direct questions: Can you verify his credentials please? How do his alleged credentials allow him the skillset to pose a credible analysis? Concerning his nonsense claim about the flap on the LRV Apollo 15 traverse, he claimed the sky was blackened ON AN IMAGE using modern software! My reply, unanswered: So your method involves using modern digital software on a single image, to create a 20fps video in 1971? Forgive me if I ask you to try again! It is a continuous video with mountains that don't get any nearer over several miles. The surface is lit for as far as can be seen. The sky is black. When the rover turns across Sun, the phase angle of the Moon changes and the whole surface is less reflective. Can you explain in detail how that could possibly be done? Concerning the Apollo 15 flag movement. He claimed the following are ruled out: Show me exactly where these are ruled out: 1. Video artefact blooming. 2. Flagpole settling in stand. 3. Static discharge. 4. Kicked soil striking the bottom of the pole sending small vibration. Do NOT post another video, especially when you seem to think Jarrah White rubbing a balloon against his head rules out the enormous static discharges that can occur in a vacuum! He then posted a video of that very thing! Quite breath taking how he can have the audacity to roll up yet again and post the same stuff he has already posted here about 50 times, whilst avoiding so much aimed at him from another forum, from the same spam.
At what point in your life do you wake up and say to yourself, "what the hell am I actually doing". This moronic game of cut and paste spam, already addressed and for what reason? - just to be the forum-clown who wants to rile other members by avoiding debate, deliberately bumping old threads with total garbage. The idiotic jump salute claim of wires refuted with an animated gif that you are petrified to acknowledge. This single tiny segment of video, all on its own, proves the footage MUST have been shot in low gravity: This shows a clear parabolic arc of dust between John Young's boots that is 100% irrefutably rising and falling at the same time as he is. PROVING that he must be on the Moon. The second video is just mind numbing stupidity, it speeds up thrown and falling objects and ignores the ridiculous motion of the astronauts that ensues, either side of the tiny clip. This is demonstrated here: Not once has this totally dishonest spammer addressed either of these, except to deny the undeniable! The third video is the spammed batshit from post #377 about noises! Live mics to enact a hoax is the behaviour of morons, no wonder you consider this. These microphones were set in the cap they wore and were only able to pick up close proximity sound waves. Anything and everything no matter how batshit sucks you in. In any world of crazy, nobody with a braincell would record vacuum footage with hot mics and actually USE the damn sound! This video below was made TEN YEARS ago and has never once been addressed by the serial forum spammer: A complete debunk of the slowed down 66.66% theory. Here I show the ballistic motion of the dust is astonishingly consistent with Lunar gravity. To make the dust fall as per Earth gravity makes the rest of the footage look truly bizarre. Not least the camera sweeps! I welcome any comment discussing it, disputing and refuting it. I do not welcome abuse or armwaving. This webpage suggested by Cosmored, shows the equation and verifies my math for the initial velocity:- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/... Apollo 16 EVA 3 Station 10 - duration 3mins 21.6seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kibAjb... Apollo 16 EVA 3 Station 10 - 245% faster - duration 1min 22.24seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U29xEX...
I found some analyses of some anomalies that I'd never seen before so I posted them so that they could be discussed. Isn't that what this thread is about? There have been lots of analyses of what appear to be anomalies that show the moon missions were faked in a studio. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL87BD99395C7513BC https://www.brighteon.com/channels/stevedachemist https://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/01_sputnik-shock-ENGL.html AMERICAN MOON, 2017 https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/ Moon Hoax; "Apollo; Hoax Of The 20th Century" Part 1 of 2 Moon Hoax; "Apollo; Hoax Of The 20th Century" Part 2 of 2 There are scientists and professionals who believe in the hoax. http://www.moonfaker.com/documents/Metapedia-Moon-Hoax/ This is a serious issue that's censored on ninety percent of the internet. I want to discuss these anomalies with objective truth-seeking people. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
You are being dishonest as always. The videos you posted were all about things previously discussed and once again you completely ignored every response. At what point in your failed internet life does the reality sink in? What exactly are you trying to do? Not one forum you have ever posted on has warmly entertained your hogwash. You never get any support unless it is from other clueless people who have already formed their useless opinion! Irrelevant - there are 99.9999999% of them that don't! It is not serious at all, the record proved we landed on the Moon. The problem is your blatant evasion and ignorance! You are not objective and you are not a truth-seeker. You do not wish to discuss anything, you are a serial forum spammer who has no control over this crazy behaviour. Everything has been discussed over the last 20 years and you ignored the whole lot of it! I don't like it, so I will participate. Know this, every time you post any of your batshit, I will be there to show why it is so. You are the equivalent of a small kitten messing all over the back yard and I have got tons of free time. I don't like people like you, you have no integrity or credibility and the two don't combine well! This latest post with 5hrs of regurgitated spam is totally pathetic. I picked one of your favorite sections and proved to any and every objective truth-seeker that it could not have been in air! You cowardly failed to acknowledge this! I watched you fail on another forum(I bookmarked a response video): Regarding the falling flat battery cover lid and the dishonesty from "scott":- 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 battery 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. We already had this that only YOU fail to see! This shows a clear parabolic arc of dust between John Young's boots that is 100% irrefutably rising and falling at the same time as he is. PROVING that he must be on the Moon. Tell the "viewers" why you didn't "discuss" the entire post above I just made and explain to them why you are not going to "discuss" this one either!
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-16#post-1072817823 You lost a long time ago but you'll never recognize it. Debating with you is like fighting the Black Knight in this video. Monty Python - The Black Knight - Tis But A Scratch
Look at this pathetic spammer! He keeps going on about "objective truth-seekers" and ignores every single post where he gets his sorry ass handed to him. He links to "where he addressed it on other threads" but also said this above "I found some analyses of some anomalies that I'd never seen before"! Notwithstanding he is lying anyway! None of the points constantly raised have been addressed, he just ignores them every single time. And directly above, this 100s of times spammed "Black Knight" video! Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) "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."
Most people didn't know that NASA waited until there was a full moon before the Apollo missions.They were afraid they would miss the moon if only that little piece of the moon was visible.
Sorry, no dome. The atmosphere is held against the planet by gravity, the same thing that keeps you from floating off into space.
You are the one who lost Scott. You have been massively crushed and proven wrong with evideence while you hasve none to suppot your childish premises \ Everyone knows this including you
This is interesting. BOMBSHELL MILITARY EYEWITNESS DEATHBED CONFESSION: "THEY FAKED IT" https://www.brighteon.com/5137da3b-75ae-49b3-88a4-65134f1cbb32 Bart Sibrel talks about why it's still important to expose the Apollo hoax.
Good work Scott. This high quality content you and others have posted in this thread from the highly credible experts in debunking the NASA FAKED moon landings with hardcore FACTS and ill refutable evidence blows away all the garbage and lies by the Nazi guy and the one who has the the loser Sony video recording format Betamax for his forum name.
Sick refutable evidence - sounds right. No it isn't. You just wanted to bump a useless dead thread. Nothing this fool says is interesting. He has been exposed as a liar everywhere his stupid videos appear. Still trying to carve out a living by making up bullshit. Let's put this into a realistic scenario. Some random "military eyewitness" is dying. He can make a video detailing his expertise and providing a full account, a full account that must include information that can be verified. He can make a written transcript, an audio transcript or speak with somebody direct. So he has choices: go through a lawyer, go to a newspaper outlet, go to a targeted "woooo" magazine, contact a reporter who specializes in this sort of thing, publish direct online via a blog, social media etc etc. Who does he go to? A moron who has been discredited for lying! What does he provide to him, not a single thing!
He should have chosen VHS as his username. No matter how clear an anomaly is, these people will try to obfuscate it. They will never admit anything so I've found that the most effective way to thwart them is post the clearest anomalies such as air causing the flag to move or sound in a vacuum. They then have to say some pretty lame things in their explanations for the anomalies which makes it clear to most viewers that the footage was taken on Earth and their authoritative patronizing attitudes won't have much effect and their success rate at swaying the viewers will be low.
You have never posted a video of air moving the flag or sounf in a vacuum. When this fact is pointed out you obfuscate Most viewers know that it was not faced and that ALL trhose claiming it wads faked are childish fools There are no viewers to be swayed. The population knows you are wrong
Why? You should have chose SerialForumSpammer as yours. Troll-noise. There are no clear anomalies. You just posted a video of a proven liar, lying. You are afraid to debate, ignoring my reply in favour of your stock spam response. The stunning irony in that. You run away, you wriggle, you divert, you spam but never once have you conceded a single item in your pathetic wall of spam. If you itemised your crazy list, nearly every item has been 100% refuted. Yet you are afraid to admit it. No thwarting occurring here, you cowardly avoid every reply and post some of the most absurd "explanations" possible! Your impossible wall-of-air has had dozens and dozens of responses. The sound bullshit dies on its backside by the ridiculous need to have live mics in the first place if it was being faked. They just wouldn't need to record anything! Of course you are afraid to answer that as well. Troll-noise. Most viewers know we landed on the Moon six times. What does it take for this? Simple logic, critical thinking at a basic level, a modicum of intelligence and most important the honesty to look at all the evidence objectively. You don't qualify in any of those categories. You have no objectivity whatsoever, zero. You pretty much ignore every response and just spam and divert instead. Explain why you believe this total loser and dishonest Sibrel! Lay out the facts of his "witness". The viewers who never support you are waiting, because your video is a pile of garbage and you only posted it to bump this pathetic thread. Then explain to the 'viewers' why you didn't give an honest response to this: Let's put this into a realistic scenario. Some random "military eyewitness" is dying. He can make a video detailing his expertise and providing a full account, a full account that must include information that can be verified. He can make a written transcript, an audio transcript or speak with somebody direct. So he has choices: go through a lawyer, go to a newspaper outlet, go to a targeted "woooo" magazine, contact a reporter who specializes in this sort of thing, publish direct online via a blog, social media etc etc. Who does he go to? A moron who has been discredited for lying! What does he provide to him, not a single thing!
If that had been the only thing he talked about in the video, I wouldn't have posted it. I only mentioned his saying that it's still important to expose the hoax. Here's some stuff I posted about air moving the flag. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068 Here's where I posted stuff about sound in a vacuum. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-16#post-1072816044 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-16#post-1072816871 Read the discussion. Since you brought up the subject, go to the 46:04 time mark of this video. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-15#post-1072797829 Tell us why you think they would delete info such as that and why the page would say there was no sound when sound could be heard when the footage in question was viewed. You too Betamax.
Not true. You had zero need to put anything in this old thread, you just wanted to bump it. Don't even attempt to deny this, we both know that is exactly why you did it. Sibrel is a known liar. He deliberately falsified his movie with the idiotic Earth through the round window. He deliberately left out footage showing it zoomed out and disappearing to the side of the rectangular window. He deceptively claimed a freely available video package of Apollo 11 was some leaked film! He deliberately conflated the "deadly" VAB. He claimed Armstrong had never given any interviews when he had given many at that point. He claimed nobody swore on the Bible when two astronauts did. He deceptively claimed that he was struck by Aldrin because of a lie he told. And of course, this deceptive film maker is one of many who you have failed to defend in my thread solely about that subject, where you deliberately spammed off topic crap to derail it. Posted literally hundreds of times on this forum and throughly addressed. It is of no matter whether it is to your "satisfaction" since you deny every single thing, every single time and offer ridiculous explanations or uninformed bare assertion. http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html Ditto. You are repeating crap already posted and addressed. It would be entirely idiotic for NASA to have live microphones if they were faking this! Most of the instances where hammers are being used, there are no sounds. I am wondering whether Al Bean was not pulling his hammer away as he struck each hit, thus increasing sound conductivity through his glove into his suit. Whilst the microphones are small and localised, there is no reason why it couldn't pick up low level noise within the suit. YOU brought this crap up. It is so very painfully simple. The page was for children. NASA had a whole series of pages within their network, one of them discussed the sounds of things in a vacuum. Quite rightly they inform children that in a vacuum sound does not travel. Many times NASA moves pages around or discontinues educational packages. The fact that sound(under the right circumstances) can be picked up through vibrations into a suit microphone, does not supersede the general information given to children! The ALSJ has copious detail about Al Bean and his hammer noises, but here's one for you to run away from! Apollo 12 blew out their TV camera in the first few minutes. Basically all they had were audio signals. What moronic world would they do this with live microphones and actually enact him doing it in the first place. It is comedy logic and plain stupid. I can see why you consider it "plausible".
Those two "PROVEN" and "FACTUAL" events alone "show beyond a doubt" (and which could never, ever, happen on the Moon) that NASA completely FAKED the moon landings. CASE CLOSED!
