Apollo Moon "Hoax" Film makers are corrupt!

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Betamax101, Jan 22, 2016.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It has been suggested that an alternate opinion against some conspiracy theories and claims means a person has no credibility. At best that is a profoundly circular argument, at worst downright stupid. It disposes of debate in favour of outright claims, even though those claims are not only NOT proven, but have alternative explanations and ones that fit available evidence.

    So, to put this claim of credibility into perspective, how come these outright lies and clearly obvious deception NOT classed in a much more serious manner!! Here are some clear examples of this:-

    [video=youtube;d0OS26q20R0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0OS26q20R0[/video]

    [video=youtube;vawJhSnFcQ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vawJhSnFcQ0[/video]

    [video=youtube;jrU5qp9lmJg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrU5qp9lmJg[/video]

    [video=youtube;79UAhuN6VPA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA[/video]

    So "truther", how about HIS credibility! I guarantee the serial forum spammer will not answer this properly. Maybe it's a "moot" point that his main film maker is a deceptiove S.O.B.
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Speaking of deceptive S---B.'s
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819


    I'll deal with this one for now.

    The Apollo Lunar Rover and dust arcs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA


    You say there would have been dust clouds. This has been talked about various times.

    Sand can be sifted and washed to make it large-grained and dust-free which will not form a dust cloud.

    MoonFaker: Project Sandbox.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl2S8w-ucmc


    The hoax-believers maintain the footage is shown in slow-motion. This looks pretty similar to the off-road vehicles in your video.

    Moon rover sped up
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5KMqKovRD0


    Here's something else about the lunar rover.

    Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8


    Hoax-believers have made a few mistakes but the correction of those mistakes doesn't make the other crushing hoax proof go away.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You deliberately avoided the point I made. You are the deceptive one. Did Percy use deceptive techniques, yes or no?


    No you won't, you will respam videos and tired old debunked hogwash and say nothing direct.

    No it can't.

    Except it isn't bouncing fast enough and the rooster tails are going ridiculously high. There is also no dust suspension in the whole footage over a considerable area.

    No. Just stop right there. It takes a moron of extreme delusion to say that the Apollo rover footage is a model.

    There is no crushing proof!

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

    Your hypocrisy on mistakes is staggering. You highlight one I made with the cable size whilst ignoring truly epic ones you make and outright lies and deception by your hoax film maker! We can look at some Jarrah White lies if you wish?
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That's a lot of material to assimilate in a short time. I only did the one on the rover and I'd say he wasn't deceptive on that one. I'd say you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.


    You just destroyed your credibility (again).
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819


    Of course there isn't. It's washed large-grained sand that won't produce a dust cloud.

    MoonFaker: Project Sandbox.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl2S8w-ucmc
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'd say you are cowardly avoiding the lies he told in that film. Now assimilate the other videos and reply properly. I guarantee you won't do so properly. Neither will your new buddy.

    No I didn't. When a useless spammer is the judge of my credibility, somebody who has no power of critical thinking, no objective reasoning and who bases his credibility test on his own useless opinion, I rest easy!

    Large grey sand? From where? Transported how? By whom? What sort of volume to cover that vast area? How many people? Where are they now? None came forward? Got even one scrap of proof for your crazy non-backed up claim? How is a geologist better qualified to give an opinion than an engineer?

    Idiot makes an idiot video.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This rebuttal is alll attitude and no substance; something lame said in an authoritative patronizing way is still lame. If this were a debating hall, the audience would be laughing their a---s off at this. You aren't a serious poster.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The serial forum spammer has nothing. He feels compelled to spray his spam in every thread but is unable to offer anything substantial. I said he wouldn't or couldn't answer and just look at the ridiculous spam post above. More hogwash about debating halls.

    If I got this turkey in a debating hall there would be laughter indeed as he fumbled in his pocket for his spam files!
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did Percy use deceptive techniques, yes or no?

    This thread is about corrupt practices in these money making "hoax" films. Notice the serial forum spammer does not answer that simple question. The stench of hypocrisy is truly staggering.Anyone, even the people who claim a hoax can see that deceptive practices have been deliberately used in these films. All throughout the main film, loads of techniques are used with verbal referbacks to unproven points, brief picture flashbacks that give the viewer no time to see how wrong the claim is(see video 3 above).
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well "viewers" we can see the serial forum spammer is absolutely cornered. He can't come out and be honest here, admitting that his film maker is a deceptive jerk, nor can he reasonably deny it without looking even more foolish(if indeed that is possible).

    Elaborating on the list I made above, here are major points that he will never properly answer:-

    1/ Where does this large grey sand come from?
    2/ How was it transported? Rail, road, airplane?
    3/ How many vehicles would it take to transport enough material to cover the massive area we see on that footage?
    4/ How many drivers would that take and how long?
    5/ The source of the material was paid for how and by whom? Any evidence for this?
    6/ How many people to lay this down and create a Moon terrain?
    7/ Where are any of these people now? Nobody has ever come forward, shared an anecdote, told a relative, or made a deathbed confession. Nobody has entered anything on any social media site, blog or ANYWHERE on the internet in any country or any media. EVER.
    8/ Do you have even one single scrap of evidence for any of the above? Paper trails, personal accounts, pictures etc.?
    9/ Both the links you use in your referback are DEAD! How come you still keep using them? Why don't you go to a geology forum and get some better ones!
    10/ How is a geologist better qualified to give an opinion than an engineer?

    The viewers await your obfuscatory spammed response and avoidance.

    Dead links used by the serial forum spammer:-

    http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand
    http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-geology&tid=628
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is hardly worth responding to but I will anyway.
    Are you saying that my not knowing these details proves that the fake lunar soil we saw in the faked Apollo footage was not washed large-grained dust-free sand? It doesn't matter how many drivers it took or how may dump trucks were used; NASA had the means to do all of that. You are really desperate if you're asking irrelevant questions such as those.


    You're deliberately trying to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to click on all of my links. Those links are on this page.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

    They go to two geology forums where geologists were asked whether Jay Windley's* assertion that just transporting dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. They weren't told it was about Jay Windley and Apollo; they were just asked whether Jay Windley's scenario was true and they all said no. I'd copied and pasted their responses before the links went dead so they can still be read. What's the point of pointing out that the links are dead? The info is there.


    You're being simplistic. The issue is whether the said engineer (Jay Windley) is working as a paid sophist. The issue is whether he's telling the truth. The dust-free sand issue is so basic that any seventh grader could tell you that Jay Windley is wrong. I asked a couple of people with backgrounds in geology and they laughed. If you're still defending Jay Windey's position, you have no credibility.


    Viewers: Be sure to watch this video.

    MoonFaker: Project Sandbox.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl2S8w-ucmc


    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You haven't responded to any of it. You sidestepped the whole post!

    I'm saying the number of people just do this basic un-necessary thing increases the number of people by a considerate amount and for 30 seconds of video? You have some simplistic notion about this whole process, but the numbers imnvolved would need to be truly massive.


    Liar, I am deliberately pointing out that your links are dead!

    The point is that you keep reposting it as spam without checking your links, just like everything you do.

    You avoided the question like the dishonest person you are. Our credibilities are fine, the judge is inept and biased and his test is moronic. You also have no evidence for Windley being a "paid sophist". Meh!

    10/ How is a geologist better qualified to give an opinion than an engineer?
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Only a paid sophist would say that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over and only a paid sophist would agree with him.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819


    Those are irrelevant questions. You're not taking in any viewers with any brains. Of course I'm not going to know the names of the drivers of the dump trucks who brought the sand to the movie set, etc. Those are the silliest questions I've ever seen you ask.


    What does it matter if the links are dead if the info had been copied and pasted before the links went dead? The relevant info is there. You seem to be trying to divert attention away from the actual info.


    You agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue and asked some very silly question when you were cornered. You can pretend all you want. You're pretty much washed up here although you'll never admit it.

    Monty Python-The Black Knight
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4


    Your not admitting anything really doesn't mean anything. The only thing that matters is your success rate at convincing the viewers that the moon missions were real; I'd say your success rate is close to zero now.
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are a truly pathetic truther with circular arguments based on your own ineptness.

    10/ How is a geologist better qualified to give an opinion than an engineer?

    Cornered or checkmated are the spam terms you come up with.

    Translation: The enormous numbers of people involved are obviously ridiculous so I will wave my arms around and come out with more of my spam terms.

    Do I seem to be doing that? Your claim is inept. The engineer is better qualified and you keep posting dead links all over your wall of spam.

    Spam removed. Yes I agreed with it.

    Spam. That is you.

    Spam. My success rate is irrelevant and your means to gauge it is your inept useless opinion. Where are these supporters of yours apart from your new buddy?
     
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We are on page two, this thread is 9 days old and none of the "truthers" have commented on the lies and deception from the chief hoax film. We haven't even touched on the other one and that phoney Bart Sibrel.

    C'mon truthers, show some honesty for once!
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

    Jay Windley: "Indeed, I struggle to see where any of these geologists have any experience transporting a milled and graded aggregate.

    This is the classic conspiracist tactic of misplaced expertise. Gravel, rocks, and finely-powdered dust are all made from rocks, right? And who knows more about rocks than geologists, right? So here's a geologist offering his untried opinion that you can haul rocks in trucks or conveyors without generating dust. And since he's an expert in rocks, his opinion should be respected, right?

    Unfortunately we're not talking about the use of aggregate particulates for some specific practical purpose, something that engineers are far better at than geologists. It's also something we've been doing since, oh, Roman times. If we start from the macadam roads the Romans built and trace everything forward to modern high-strength concrete, the need to prepare a precisely proportioned mix of precisely graded aggregates is a well-worn problem (pun intended). Specifically, we need particles of a particular shape and mix of sizes, so that they sift together in the mix and create a matrix that offers the best of both worlds -- the strength of the aggregate plus the ability to assume the formed shape.

    The problem is that when we attempt to transport the coarser aggregate elements from the grading mill to the site, we end up with too much fine aggregate because what started in the truck or conveyor as particulates of a proper shape and of a given size, +/- 0.X%, arrives with a whole bunch of smaller particles produced as the aggregate rubs against itself during transport. That's the reason precisely proportioned aggregate mixes can only be prepared onsite in very small quantites: they simply cannot be subsequently handled very much without destroying the proportions.

    Geologists aren't typically experts in this -- the practical handling of particulates. This isn't a matter of "Well, geologists speculate this might happen." It's a matter of, "Engineers know this happens because they experience it." "


    The useless serial spammer cannot answer this OP because he is between a rock and a hard place. He relies on a dishonest film maker for his main evidence, so cannot admit that that film maker is a dishonest charlatan.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    On an issue as basic as that an engineer and a geologist would be in agreement. The engineer (Jay Windley) is a paid sophist so he said something he knew to be false.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=438617&page=17&p=1065799247#post1065799247

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bullscrap. You're not qualified as either and your strawpoll included 3 people? One of whom said the Apollo missions weren't faked, thus failing your moronic credibility test! One said the word "unlikely" thus qualifiying theior opinion, one other was specific about driving over the aggregate. Your naive and dishonest reliant on their testimony is laughabale.
     
  19. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Beta, assuming that you are right about the dust created during transport - wouldn't it be easy to just vacuum the sand on site to remove the dust particles? :)
     
  20. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    36,241
    Likes Received:
    9,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dry sand would not hold a boot print or wheel track, or hold its shape while a trench is dug into it, the way the lunar regolith clearly does.

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12419.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12420.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12422.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12424.jpg
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12426.jpg

    Wet sand would, in addition to failing to hold its shape so well (though better than dry sand would), clump up a lot, which the lunar regolith clearly does not do. You can see the fine regolith that the digging astronaut's shovel has sent flying in the pictures I have linked above (12424 and 12426), where it appears like a mist at a spot behind him, it is so fine and even. The video of this digging that was taken from the rover camera is even better for seeing this as it happened:

    [video=youtube;sk5GiF_mX5w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk5GiF_mX5w[/video]

    I personally am always fascinated by all of the records of these missions we have available to peruse. I like that there's video taken of the trench digging even while the other guy was taking a bunch of photos, including a full 360 degree panorama (they took a lot of those on these missions). It's fun to be able to compare the high-res photos to the video, especially when debunking hoax claims.
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We can add a team of vacuum cleaners to the preperation team. Also we can add a new team to the list to build and create the magically and wonderfully efficient dust collecting device! See the excellent post above which will automatically trigger the spam response about how we "never see these prints being made" whilst the serial forum spammer then refuses blindly to see them being made during the major spam video about Apollo 15 flag.

    This strawman from Cosmored has been spewed up for many years and in addition to not proving that that was what was done, it doesn't represent the visual record in any way. We clearly see prints being made that stay in place, whilst obviously fine particles are sprayed many metres along the surface.

    Descartes, I have a flight to catch, how come you haven't answered the premise of this OP? The videos I put up clearly show deception on a big scale. That is what I meant by "your kind". The kind that believed the least likely crock of rubbish going at the same time as point blank refusing to acknowledge where this is shown and to answer very significant examples.

    I am trying to enable my computer for remote access for a number of reasons, so may be able to continue replying. However there is no longer any real enjoyment in this, it seems an exercise in total futility. I look at a thread going at apollohoax.net and shake my head with bewilderment at the way people are so poorly educated today.
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The footprints in this video aren't clear enough to see if they're in fine dust, or not.

    Apollo 15 flag waving
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y


    You're seeing what you want to see. That could very well be large-grained dust free sand.

    Apollo 15 Digging a trench
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk5GiF_mX5w


    Viewers: Make sure you watch this video.

    MoonFaker: Project Sandbox.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl2S8w-ucmc
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I agree with that statement about the clarity - in theory they could be not as defined as the ones photographed. However, what we do know is that dry sand will not take any sort of print that holds its shape like that. Unless of course it is wet. We then see a consequence of that as naturally clumped pieces of sand if you attempt to kick it. It also tends to flatten out significantly when wet and is not easy to disturb because of that and the way it subsequently bonds together.

    In view of the above it is a riduculoius claim to make that we are seeing dry dust free sand. You have your head firmly in the Apollo sand if you claim that!

    You are lost. There is simply no reaching you, or you are just lying. I cannot believe anybody can watch that piece of footage or many of the Apollo sequences and not see clearly, very fine sprays being kicked low and in some cases several metres with little effort.
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Did I guarantee this? Has any of the hoax claimants ever addressed this glaring problem? The simple answer is no. I will extend this claim to include the hoax claimants themselves. They all seem to have a dishonest streak that necessitates avoiding things entirely and going strangely silent.
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think you're just seeing what you want to see.

    Apollo 15 flag waving
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y


    The viewers can decide for themselves.


    Viewers: Start watching this video at the 4:30 time mark.

    MoonFaker - Project Sandbox
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc


    I addressed one of them.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=441261&p=1065774140#post1065774140


    I just haven't gotten around to the others because the hoax has already been proven by the waving flag and the way Collins' jacket bounces around the way it would in strong gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon so they're really moot points.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1


    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
    Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement

    Moonfaker: LRO, Flag or no Flag?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXretl0amQ

    Physics of the Moon Flag - part 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EscIMIkiER8
     

Share This Page