Air caused the flag to move so it was obviously in a studio.

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Jun 28, 2014.

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You destroyed your credibility a long time ago by continuously avoiding my clear direct question...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...obviously-in-a-studio.362999/#post-1064032430

    ...because it had you checkmated. Do you think the viewers can't see that?

    You can pretend all you want. You're all washed up.


    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...sly-in-a-studio.362999/page-8#post-1072415041
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2021
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    When the judge of my credibility is someone like you, a serial forum spammer with no integrity whatsoever, a layman in every subject discussed and has some sort of repeat cut and paste insanity - I shall ignore it.

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    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.

    You just completely ignored my post because it shows your video is flawed in the extreme and made by an idiot.

    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.

    You are a pigeon playing chess, you crap on the board and knock over all the pieces. Instead of concentrating on the clearly obvious and outstandingly significant issue, you chose to be a jackass about some irrelevant contact point. Your question was answered in the first instance, you are just too dumb to see that and too dishonest not to make a bullshit fuss in the hope of diverting from the actual herd of elephants in the room!

    The viewers that never agree with you? Anybody with eyes, is honest and has experienced life knows that when you close a door it creates a draft. When you push down a lid on a box it will also do the same thing. The entire area is plastered with dust and the video maker makes this point strongly. Only he, like you, is that dumb he fails to realise that the lid would have sent it scattering everywhere as it dropped shut.

    It's you checkmated spammer and you know it. That's Cernan's jump to which you offered your customary bullshit, Young's jump showing the dust parabola between his boots which you ignored and the falling lid which you deny. All 3 irrefutably show they are on the Moon. All 3 of your spam subjects and all shoot you in the foot with a Howitzer.
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ignoring your willful evasion of the issue that had you checkmated doesn't make it go away. Your behavior was that of someone who didn't even believe his own arguments. It doesn't matter whether you recognize it or not. All the viewers who look at this thread closely have seen it. You aren't a truth-seeker.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068

    What's the point of talking to you now?
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You really are so very pathetic. Not only was your ignorant claim addressed in my first response, did not "checkmate" me but the actual major issue, you cowardly refuse to address even now, many times more than the irrelevant crap you use as diversion. You are a busted 7 high - fold your hand and crawl back to your hole.

    You have such little ability in any subject, you aren't even qualified to assess anything or anyone. My behavior is exactly that of somebody kicking your puny claim. You really have no problem ignoring the major problem with it, whilst obviously demonstrating colossal ignorance.

    What viewers? It's just you, the crazy forum spammer who denies the crushingly obvious.

    A falling lid, pushed down would spray dust everywhere, not just in one tiny corner and in the least likely of directions. Only liars and the very stupid fail to recognise this.

    And YOU are? My god, you are the most dishonest person I've ever conversed with. You are a natural liar, evasive, a denier of anything that contradicts your spam. Confirmation bias is your main attribute, followed by profound ignorance.

    And that is a threat is it? You don't ever respond with any honesty, it would make no difference to me, you ignore every single thing like the coward you are. Besides, you've said that hogwash numerous times. I'll just carry on humiliating you whether you respond or not.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Moved:
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2021
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You asked a stupid question, it got answered. Meanwhile like the dishonest jerk you are, a million things get unanswered and swept aside. I shall now resuurect as amny as I can until you start answering them like an honest truth seeker instead of a lying serial forum spammer.

    And the cut and paste spam.

    1. I always believe my arguments.
    2. You routinely avoid them.
    3. You aren't the spokesperson for "anyone" and your own claims are as dumb as they come.


    Unanswered from a while back:-

    I guess I'm way too optimistic. Each time this guy goes quiet, I fervently hope that some sort of sense has come over him, or that he at least has found other things to occupy what must be a very sad existence. Ah well, doesn't look like any of that will happen.

    That whole post is regurgitated spam answered literally hundreds of times. His wall of spam addressed point by point:-

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com

    In keeping with his rather cowardly tendencies, he went back recently to the cosmoquest forum, as a sockpuppet after already being banned twice. Since I wouldn't wish to reinvent the wheel, I am simply going to copy a post made by somebody there(who has even used some of my videos!), where he appears once again to have had his ass kicked:-


    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...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.
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is absoolute overwhelming proof that the landings were real. You know this and it has been shown to you but being immature you willfully deny it.

    There is no proof that they were faked even school children would paugh at your claims

    The chinese space walk was real and you have failed to prove otherwise.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The viewers can decide for themselves.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-chinese-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/
     
  11. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Here is a simple logic flow for this crazy forum spammer.

    Claim: Hey, look at this bubble.
    Response: Video and animated gif provided to verify that it is a rotating misshapen chunk of what appears to be ice. Ice is consistent with water in vacuum.
    His follow up: Denial
    Response 2: The object actually gains something like 400% size increase with no more than 1-2 metres of height gain. This is impossible for a bubble.
    His follow up: Ignored this completely.
    Response 3: All the objects flying out of the hatch go in different directions. Bubbles go upwards in one direction.
    His follow up: Ignored this completely.

    Claim: Hey, look at this flutter.
    Response: The flag could never do this underwater at that speed or any speed, resistance in the water would be obvious.
    His follow up: The footage is slowed down.
    Response 2: He admits by this that it is odd. However when slowed to speeds that show mainly slow and possible gentle movement, the astronaut is barely moving!
    His follow up: Ignored this completely.
    Response 3: Now there is no "flutter" because the footage is too slow!
    His follow up: Ignored this completely.

    Claim: Hey, look at the cables going "up".
    Response: Shape memory, dead simple, tendency to assume manyfactured position. Also, there are small pieces of footage where it does this sideways.
    His follow up: Denial.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot educate an ignorant forum spammer who is totally fixated with Dunning Kruger.
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The ridiculous serial forum spammer bumping his spam thread -
    the cut and paste crazy.

    1. I always believe my arguments.
    2. You routinely avoid them.
    3. You aren't the spokesperson for "anyone" and your own claims are as dumb as they come.


    Unanswered from a while back:-

    I guess I'm way too optimistic. Each time this guy goes quiet, I fervently hope that some sort of sense has come over him, or that he at least has found other things to occupy what must be a very sad existence. Ah well, doesn't look like any of that will happen.

    That whole post is regurgitated spam answered literally hundreds of times. His wall of spam addressed point by point:-

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com

    In keeping with his rather cowardly tendencies, he went back recently to the cosmoquest forum, as a sockpuppet after already being banned twice. Since I wouldn't wish to reinvent the wheel, I am simply going to copy a post made by somebody there(who has even used some of my videos!), where he appears once again to have had his ass kicked:-


    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...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.
     

Share This Page