Apollo and sunlight

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Betamax101, Apr 2, 2016.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

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

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no proof it was faked
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

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

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It seems the spammer is checkmated. he simply cannot honestly address this issue.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

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

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    7,841
    Likes Received:
    6,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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?
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2021
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

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

    Scott Well-Known Member

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

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

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

Share This Page