Apollo authentication - the final nail in the untenable and absurd "hoax" coffin

The following deserves its own thread as it is a massively significant moment. Finally, we have a full admission that completely closes the case as to where the Apollo 16 Jump Salute took place. The following post explains why it had always been irrefutably proven but now inadvertently admitted:

Once again you embarrass yourself without even knowing why. The problem is nothing to do with your clueless and telling admission it is to do with you not actually understanding how gravity fully works.

Right there is the only part of your statement that we need. The soil does go up as high as his boot, quite correct. We see it. Unfortunately for you THAT, and just THAT is the nail in your coffin of ignorance. Absent of an atmosphere and over short distances on Earth, an object will rise to its zenith at the same time as it falls from the zenith to the surface. I suggest you read and digest that. See if you can use your best English comprehension skills to fully understand it. Because I know what you must do now. You must obfuscate, divert, distract and try and make this go away. But it won't because you have inadvertently closed your own case.

No, that is impossible, it just dissipates against a grey background. It went up as high as his boot at the same time and must by the laws of physics come down the same way.

Bullshit, no he doesn't, nor can he. He went up with the soil so must come down with it. It is not up for debate, not open to your ignorant supposition, it is an indisputable fact.

Just expanding on the ignorant claim above. Same answer - No, that is impossible, it just dissipates against a grey background. It went up as high as his boot at the same time and must by the laws of physics come down the same way.

Your ignorance is the problem here. The two cannot suddenly divert from their motion. They went up at the same speed and height, we see this clearly. As you have admitted. They must come down at the same speed. The soil is merely occluded by background. We have two other pieces of visual data.


To the left of his left boot a small shadow tracks forward, indicating that soil is kicked forwards in front of him, we see a small rotation that is consistent with that. To his right and admittedly very faint, a similar "shadow" which terminates as he comes down - I speculate this is the actual soil itself spreading out as it returns to the surface.

You are done. This was always conclusive evidence for them being on the Moon, but unfortunately for you, you just admitted this, thinking that you could arm wave it away with your disappearing dust claim and not realizing that gravity works in the way I have said.

You have closed the entire case yourself. Congratulations. The sad part is you have no moral fibre / integrity and will never admit this. As I said you must obfuscate, divert, distract and try and make this go away. I will make sure it doesn't. Check mate!

Nb. See this post - CLICK HERE - for why this is so significant.

 

Here's the main evidence for wire supports.

The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd
https://www.brighteon.com/a515dc75-83bb-4e02-aad9-b1cdfe0de150

Galileo and the Apollo Moon Jump hd
https://www.brighteon.com/8d21e915-09a2-4e28-83c1-f6f33c9a4199

Prepare to be Busted - Mythbusters Debunked addendum



Start watching this video at the 54:58 time mark.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...he-authenticity.603023/page-4#post-1073762189

There's more on the "Support wire" issue at the 1:14:30 time mark.

 

The theory is that the Apollo 11 astronauts didn't use wire supports. The footage was shown at fifty percent slow-motion.

Set the speed on this video at 2 by clicking on the round icon at the lower right of the screen.

Historic Apollo 11 Moonwalk Footage


The movement look just like they would on earth.

According to Jarrah White the lunar gravity was faked in Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 with a combination of wire supports and a 67% slow-motion. If the speed is doubled in footage from the later missions, the movements look too fast. They also look a little strange because of the wire supports.

 

Hey Scott/Cosmored/Rocky/Drifty - explain to the viewers why you keep avoiding this. Time up = time down. You can't have dust on wires!

 

You know that I addressed that in the other thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nlight-addendum.584604/page-4#post-1073765534

The viewers can decide for themselves.
http://www.moonfaker.com/videos.php

 

As they are going down they are not in perfect synchronization. Here's what I said in the other thread.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...nlight-addendum.584604/page-3#post-1072504892

Go to the 2:30 time mark of the video.

The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd
https://www.brighteon.com/a515dc75-83bb-4e02-aad9-b1cdfe0de150

Set the speed at .25. I always figured that since they were not in perfect synchronization on the way down, that settled the issue, which it does. That's why I never paid much attention to the arc's going up. It's consistent with there being some soil on top of the astronaut's boot and its being pushed off by the force of the upward jump. That would explain its being in the shape of a parabolic arc. Notice that it falls at the same speed as the other soil that doesn't go as high. At the 2:37 time mark the astronaut is still at the zenith of his jump and all the soil, including the arc, has fallen back to ground level. This is consistent with the "support wire" scenario.


(edit)
-----------------------------------------
Also, notice that the high point of the arc is at the same level as the top of the boot.

 

In that gif, you can actually see the arc between his legs go up in sync and start its fall in sync then it dissipates.

 

It doesn't look to me like it's ascending. It looks to me like it's falling off of the top of his boot. How do you explain the top of the arc's being at the same level as the top of his boot? And how do you explain its falling sooner and faster than the astronaut falls?

 

When I said ascend, I did mean go up. I took a closer look at the footage and I can see that it doesn't go up. It appears at a high level and falls.

Finding something I said in the past before I'd taken a closer look at it doesn't change what can be seen. Anybody who takes a close look at the footage in slow-motion can see that the top of the arc is at the same level as the top of his boot and that it falls sooner and faster than the astronaut falls.

The shadow doesn't show the arc rising. It appears and then falls. It seems to be in a stream which is consistent with there being some soil on top of the astronaut's boot and its being pushed off by the force of the upward jump. That explains its being in the shape of a parabolic arc. How would you explain its being in the shape of a parabolic arc?

The shadow shows that it's falling in a stream.

 

This is how I knew this issue would end. When you're checkmated, you deny the obvious come hell or high water. That's what you've done several times in this section.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796

Some things are simply too clear to obfuscate. You can't make the viewers think that the obvious isn't the obvious by ranting.

 

The fear he must be feeling at having nowhere to go. All he can do is make noise and obfuscate.

The astronaut goes up the same as the dust parabola, the same time. Physics 101 - time up = time down. It's one uniform motion and it closes the case. We now know that to make the dust fall at Earth speed, the astronaut needs to be 245% faster and subsequently looks absurd. The issue of wires is also disproven bullshit - unless the dust is also on wires!

 

I forgot to put this in post #4.

MoonFaker: The Penny Drops. PART 1

 

Well then, why didn't you do so? Do you really think that people don't see your lies and mistakes I pointed out in post #16?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nd-absurd-hoax-coffin.604367/#post-1073768445

 

What am I supposed to do when you try to bury them to reduce the number of people who see them?

 

Well, no need to do your bullshit link to where you said you "slowed it down" and the "soil bounced" (moronic claim). It now falls into the same category as the OP - explained below.

Here is a gif of Gene Cernan hopping along on the Moon. There are clowns on the internet who claim this is on wires - clearly it can't be. We don't need the bullshit "when I slowed it down to 25%" response either:



Here is the subsequent jump with a clear view of the soil:

• This forms part of a long continuous 30 minute EVA sequence.
• Beyond any doubt we can prove this jump is 100% consistent with it being lunar gravity.
  
• There is no jerkiness in his motion that would indicate any center of gravity changes from wires.
• As he rises he kicks soil ahead which clearly reaches the same height and without any doubt at the same time.
• Physics 101, an object takes the same time to rise to zenith as it takes to fall (absent of air resistance).
  
• The soil clearly strikes the surface at the same time as he lands - proving physics 101.
• Unless the soil is on wires, neither can he be!.

All we got before was the bullshit bouncing soil claim! I am a bit annoyed with myself for not noticing this before, but the same irrefutable argument exists for this piece of footage as for the jump salute. We see the whole arc of the soil in perfect synchronization with the jump.

 

Anybody who takes the time to look at all of that (post #16) will see that you were saying some very lame things. Saying something lame in an authoritative and patronizing way doesn't make it any less lame.

 

No it isn't. It lands before his feet hit the surface. The arrow in your gif shows it after it has bounced back up.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072161900

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------
What you say is the dust landing is really the dust bouncing back up after having landed.
-------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm addressing this issue on another thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-27#post-1073907537

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072161900

Here's my response from the thread where this was first discussed.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665

Apollo 17 - analysis of another jump sequence

 

We can go back and forth like this forever.

What you say is the dust hitting the surface is actually the dust bouncing back up after having hit the surface. Any viewer who puts the video on full screen and sets the speed at .25 can see that. To change the speed click in the round icon with six teeth that's at the bottom of the video. Start watching at the 00:14 second time mark.

 

I meant to quote this. That's what I was responding to.

That's the whole point. They don't come down in unison. Anyone who puts the video on full screen and sets the speed at .25 can see that. If Cernan hadn't been on a wire, he would have come down in unison with the soil.

This video explains it.

The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute
https://www.brighteon.com/612d782a-9223-4698-99ac-3eb337ceedf5

 

The video makes it clearer than the gif.

Apollo 17 - analysis of another jump sequence


Start watching at the 00.14 time mark. The soil doesn't go up as high as the astronaut does and it starts to fall before he does and it hits the surface before he does. This is very clear proof that the astronaut is on a wire as they would have gone up and gone down in unison if he hadn't been on a wire. This is simply too clear to obfuscate.


Watch the first video in this post to see the physics explained.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072160823

 

I know you'll never admit you're wrong no matter how clear it is and I know you'll always make the last post and declare victory. The viewers have seen my analysis and your analysis so there's no sense in continuous reiteration. No one of normal intelligence will simply agree with the person who makes the last post. The viewers can decide for themselves.

 

@Descartes - kindly tell the viewers what physics understanding you have and answer the OP. This proves without question that the footage was shot on the lunar surface, yet you dishonestly avoid it and concentrate on idiotic crap about blast craters, what next, no stars?

 

@Descartes Are you interested in the actual evidence or not? Why did you fail to answer this whilst concentrating on debunked to death crap about blast craters!?

 

Already talked about here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072165944

It's a guy jumping down a hill in slow motion. So what?