Apollo Moon "Hoax" Film makers are corrupt!

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

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

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

    The anomaly in the video in post #27 is too clear for me to try to obfuscate without looking silly so I'd better avoid dealing with it with a lame excuse.

    I consider that video to be an example of an honest hoax-film-maker which is what this discussion is about. If you don't analyze it, you're going to look very silly.


    I dealt with the first one and I can't say I see any dishonesty. I've seen dishonesty on your part though. You said that Jay Windley was correct when he said that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

    I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage was taken in air on Earth but I'll finally get around to the others. Give me some time. I've got to work tomorrow.
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt

    .
    I can't do any fancy math but the contention that footage doubled equals Earth gravity was only for Apollo 11.

    Historic Apollo 11 Moonwalk Footage


    Double the speed of the above footage and the movements look just like they would on Earth.
    The hoax-believers say they tried to simulate movements in lunar gravity by simply using fifty percent slow-motion in Apollo 11. In the rest of the missions they used a combination of a faster slow-motion and wire supports.

    I don't have time today to find the footage where David Percy talks about this.

    What Happened On The Moon
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...earch?q=what+happened+on+the+moon&FORM=HDRSC3


    I'll get back to you when I've found the time mark so that I can see what he says in its entirety.
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Start watching "What Happened on the Moon" at the 1:59:56 time mark to see the scene with Percy.


    Here's Jarrah White's analysis.

    MoonFaker: The Penny Drops. PART 1


    He arrived at the figure of sixty seven percent slow-motion for the missions after Apollo 11.


    When the footage at the beginning of this video...

    Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage


    ... is played at 2, the movement looks unnaturally fast. When it's played at 1.5, it looks pretty much like normal movement on Earth. It seems that Percy was wrong and Jarrah was right. Being wrong doesn't automatically mean he was lying. Maybe he was mistaken.

    Hoax-believers have made a few mistakes but I've never seen a mistake that turned into proof that the missions were real upon being corrected.


    I'm still waiting for Betamax to analyze this anomaly.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072216276
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

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

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You can't do ANY math!! The contention was for all missions and the liar Percy stated this categorically in the damn video!

    Bullshit! When Aldrin retrieves the Solar wind experiment he looks like a 1920s character.

    Bullshit. Two significant jumps have been analysed to show perfect lunar motion and both have visible dust doing the same thing. All liars like you can do is deny the "in your face" obvious!

    Try watching my video jackass.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

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

    You left out this part.
    Changing the context when quoting others' posts is a pretty low tactic.


    I'm still waiting for your analysis of this.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072216276

    I contend that it shows honesty in hoax-believer film-making. You seem to be checkmated by it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2020
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, this pile of lies and deceit nauseates me.


    [​IMG]

    We can see that the wave from this jump travels forward and disperses - there is a shadow cast of the wave. In addition, quite clearly and irrefutably can be seen a nice little clump of soil between his feet rising and falling with him. This proves beyond any doubt that he is not on wires, unless you claim the soil is also on wire!

    The problem with Jarrah White is that ha has failed to find better quality video that disproves his own horseshit!


    Why do you persist in your pathetic inaccurate cherry picking. These sequences lasted sometimes up to an hour and lying hoax nuts pick a 20 second section and point their fingers like simpletons. I analysed this for another reason but it contains some speed observations that show your hogwash.

     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No I didn't spammer. If you had actually watched the video it wouldn't have needed you to go find it!

    I deal with your stinking dishonesty every post, that is far worse.

    It's off topic spam. The flag has almost certainly degraded. Probably just strips of fabric now.

    You are a pigeon on a chess board. Honest hoax claims do not make them accurate - an honest idiot is no different to a lying idiot. You frequently quite dishonest sources and never remove them from your wall of spam.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2020
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

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

    You are beneath contempt. You routinely and deliberately avoid hundreds of posts and videos and your responses are frequently evasive or ridiculous. You have the audacity to spam your crap on a thread where you have for nearly 5 years failed to respond to the damn OP!

    Liar.

    Liar.

    That's my opinion. Your uninformed ignorant layman, biased opinion was discarded and I chose the very well educated engineer's.

    That way you can carry on using dishonest footage in you wall of spam.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're getting way ahead of me. I have to work every day and this seems to be your full-time job. For now I'm going to post these videos for the viewers to check out.

    Prepare to be Busted - Mythbusters Debunked addendum
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...d+-+Mythbusters+Debunked+addendum&FORM=HDRSC3

    Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...-33&sk=&cvid=E75D735CC783406D93B6A2E6216A47EE
    (1:03 time mark)

    The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute
    https://www.brighteon.com/612d782a-9223-4698-99ac-3eb337ceedf5
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are way behind everyone.

    Dealing with your lies and dishonesty is not a job. Your "hobby" is being an internet jackass.

    Every one of your stupid videos has been debunked and totally so within the last few weeks.

    Answer the OP. You rely on liars and fools, so I can see why you would do that.
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So Jarrah White is being honest, is that right?

    (post #47 - not #27)
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072216276


    What do you think of this picture?
    https://phys.org/news/2012-07-flags-apollo-sites-moon.html

    I already know it's bogus because of all the other hoax proof* but I think Jarrah's video proves it's bogus by itself.



    *
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, manipulative, cherry picking and deliberately deceptive. Sometimes he blunders on the truth, but certainly not when he attempts to find fault with the Apollo Moon landings.

    The flag - what's the problem. As I said spammer, probably just strips of fabric. Certainly able to cast a shadow.

    You know nothing - you are a self confessed ignorant layman. There is no "other hoax proof" - it's all been debunked. Only the very stupid deny this.

    What the internet's worst troll thinks is irrelevant. It places an enormous number and a whole new generation in on the thousands of massive LROC pictures being transmitted in real time. Amateurs receive these transmissions and deconvolve the huge images. If there were anomalies in such large pictures they would be completely obvious. It's very easy for an ignorant layman to label LROC as faked, but as has already been shown, you are a very dishonest person and your opinion is so worthless it can be discarded with the trash.
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those pictures are fakable. Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake. Are you saying those pictures aren't fakable?

    The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped


    MoonFaker: LRO at 50km. PART 1


    MoonFaker: LRO at 25km, Dead Ends & No Fly Zones. PART 1



    I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then declare it debunked but I've never seen it actually debunked.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2020
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You off topic spamming troll. You still haven't addressed the OP, now you want to gish gallup into your bullshit about the LROC mission!

    The first video you put up is from an idiot who claims he is an engineer. He uses photoshopped crops from the gigantic "tiff" image - of course they are damn well "photoshopped"! Some of his videos are pure comedic failures and a source of much amusement amongst people who routinely debunk him. One video I believe he took down, alleged that Aldrin was in water inside the Command Module during an extended period of weightlessness!

    Honesty test: https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/?exte...NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEBmZcAsjYIHYFcAbAyAbwF8BdC0yioA
    Press the "+" until the bottom right hand corner shows 5km. Move the screen around holding it with the Mouse and double click one section. It will now indicate the mosaic used to build the full Moon(you may have to wait a short while whilst the browser reloads the mosaic). Each one of those sections is all or part of a SINGLE image! Now zoom into it as deep as you can get. If you think that it is possible to invisibly photoshop it, you are an imbecile.

    Incorrect. You have seen everything debunked. You are just a lying troll who is afraid to be wrong. You use videos from dishonest people whilst complaining about something supposedly fake. You are a gigantic fraud of a human being if you cannot see the flaw in that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2020
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You brought it up so I responded.

    I pressed it and nothing happened.
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What a sick liar you are. You spammed it on page 1 - off topic. You spammed it on page 2 - off topic. You spammed it on page 3 - off topic.

    Why am I not surprised that this buffoon can't get a simple Image zoom to work. Honesty test failed.

    Try pressing the actual PLUS sign top right control button!
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2020
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It works now. I just hadn't waited long enough for it to download.

    I have no background in photography. I can't see why this can't be photoshopped.

    I'm just a layman so you have to explain what "invisibly photoshop" means.
     
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You have no background in anything. It doesn't stop you believing horseshit from cheats and liars though.

    This was taken from a forum post many years ago, referencing an expert:-
    This is some of his work - http://www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD.html

    "There are several reasons why it would be impossible to doctor the LROC images. I will list the various reasons, in no particular order, as I think of them:

    1. The LRO Team, not NASA, controls the LRO. The LRO mission control center is on the campus at Arizona State University. Thus it is the LRO Team who schedules what targets the LRO shoots, and when. Not sure, but I believe that these target commands are uploaded to the LRO on a daily basis.

    2. There is no way to upload images to the LRO.

    3. Jarrah believes that the LRO images of the landing sites are doctored after they are transmitted to earth. The problem with that theory is that the LRO transmits around 280 GB of data back to earth every day. This data is transmitted as analog data by the LRO's Ka band antenna, is received at White Sands and converted from analog to digital data on-the-fly, and then the data is piped directly to the LRO mission control center at ASU. If NASA or any other entity were to take the time to doctor LRO images of the landing sites, then the LRO team would certainly notice the delay when receiving LRO images of the landing sites.

    4. Let's imagine the impossible -- toss out 1 through 3 -- and assume that the LRO images of the landing sites somehow are doctored before they arrive at ASU. Here are the technical hurdles which would have to be overcome. They could be overcome, but only if you took a lot of time, as in a couple of days:

    4a. All fake Apollo hardware must be positioned with sub-pixel accuracy. It would be very easy to tell if this wasn't done, simply by 2x or 4x bicubic resampling LRO images of the landing sites and then overlaying the images.

    4b. The LRO almost always has to be slewed towards the east or west in order to look at the landing sites. This is because the LRO rarely passes directly over a landing site. This now imposes the need to make sure that viewing perspective of the fake Apollo hardware overlaid on the LRO images is correct.

    4c. And now one would have to fake the shadows cast by the fake Apollo hardware. That would be very difficult to accurately accomplish since of course the lunar terrain is far from level at the half meter scale.

    4d. Even after all of the above, faking the Apollo hardware -- especially the shadows of said hardware, becomes very difficult. Why? Because each NAC CCD is read out by first reading out all of the even numbered pixels (called the A channel) and then reading out all of the odd numbered pixels (the B channel). The problem is that this readout method (which is slightly faster than reading out the entire row of pixels) introduces the pattern of dark 1 pixel wide bands seen in the LRO images. This banding pattern is non-linear in terms of brightness for a variety of reasons, but my point is that trying to overlay a "correct" banding pattern on top of the fake hardware now becomes virtually impossible due to issues which I will describe further below.

    5. Each of the LRO's Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) optical systems consists of an 8" aperture 700 mm focal length Ritchie-Chretien telescope with a group of field corrector lenses placed ahead of the focal plane. The field corrector lenses are mounted in a metal assembly in similar fashion to the way that lenses are mounted in older camera lenses which featured all metal mechanical construction. Temperature changes which occur when the LRO passes from the sunlit side to the dark side of the moon cause these lens elements to creep around very slightly, on the order of a few ten thousandths of an inch. This results in very slight random optical decentering.which in turn produces a very slightly different PSF function for LRO images taken each time the LRO's orbit shifts back to the sunlit side of the moon.

    5a. It would be impossible for me to get the results which I do when deconvolving and enhancing the LRO images of the landing sites if the PSF function for the "fake" overlaid Apollo hardware didn't match the PSF function for the rest of the image. There is no getting around this issue. If a somewhat incorrect PSF function was applied to the "fake" image data to be overlaid, then the fake image data would stand out like a sore thumb as showing either an obviously incorrect deconvolution result or showing slight trailing in a random direction compared to the rest of the image.

    5b. Image deconvolution involves the use of a PSF which is either calculated from the image (takes a while to do), or which is present in the image itself. For PSFs, I select and use one of the small pieces of highly reflective Kapton film which was blown off the LM descent stage when the ascent stage lifted off. The PSF of one of these pieces of Kapton film usually involves at least 10 to 20 pixels of PSF data. That is a lot of PSF data which one would need to generate not only for each pixel of the fake image to be overlaid, but which also must be fully merged into the actual PSF data of the original image. This would have to be pulled off with 64-bit depth precision since I perform image deconvolution at 32-bit depth precision. In other words, some serious number crunching would be involved in order to make sure that the fake overlaid image is not detectable.

    5c. Assuming that, somehow, issues 5a and 5b are tackled, and after taking the time to test the results, then one would have to tackle the repeating electronic noise patterns which are present in every LRO image. The placement of these repeating electronic noise patterns are random since the noise patterns come from all of the electronics on-board the LRO itself. Want to see the noise patterns? Simply use Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis. The upshot is that the repeating electronic noise patterns, present in the rest of the original image, would have to be incorporated into the fake image of the Apollo hardware which was to be overlaid onto the original LRO image. But wait...one would have to do this, while at the same time factoring in the issues mentioned in 5a and 5b! And each LRO image contains a few hundred repeating electronic noise patterns from transistors, diodes, capacitors, various circuits, other instruments, and the LRO's Ka band antenna. Lots of stuff, all very faint, but readily visible using FFT analysis.

    6. Okay, now let's assume that somebody takes the time to address all of issues described in 4 through 5. The best way to actually fake the Apollo hardware would be to, and if you had plenty of time...

    -- decompand the original LRO image,
    -- then fully calibrate the original LRO image,
    -- then to use FFT to identify and remove all of the original electronic noise patterns in the original image,
    -- then to simulate the perspective of the fake Apollo hardware which one wishes to overlay,
    -- then to simulate the shadows of the fake hardware in the fake image which one wishes to overlay while at the same time taking into account the terrain of the original image and making the shadow patterns correctly match to at least at or better than the image scale which generally is around 0.5 meters,
    -- then properly simulate the effects of the A and B channel vertical nonlinear CCD readout patterns in the fake image,
    -- then overlay the fake image of the Apollo hardware onto the original LRO image,
    -- then reapply the original image's electronic noise pattern,
    -- then de-calibrate the image,
    -- then re-compand the image,
    -- then insert all of the original LRO spacecraft data which was sent along with the original image's data stream,
    -- then calculate and apply new but fake checksums for both the image and the data stream,
    -- and finally, then send the fake image to the LRO Team's mission control center at Arizona State University,
    -- and then come up with a reasonable explanation for the LRO Team as to why, each time the LRO images one of the Apollo landing sites, that the resulting image is mysteriously delayed for several hours or days in order to accomplish all of the above, to simply to keep alive some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax which other countries would be able to prove within a decade, if not much sooner.

    7. Obviously the dozens of scientists and researchers involved with the LRO, if one is to believe conspiracy theorists, would have to be "in" on the conspiracy -- more than 40 years later. That is beyond being patently absurd.

    8. On average, every year roughly a half dozen research papers are published which reveal new and completely unique findings related to studies of the moon rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts. Findings which are impossible to duplicate, unless one is willing to believe that to this day research scientists are part of some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax conspiracy.

    9. You can't bounce data off of the LRO. You would have to bounce data off of the moon itself since LRO's reflectivity in radio wavelengths is several orders of magnitude less than the moon. Any Ka band (since that is what the LRO uses) transmitter strong enough to bounce a fake signal off of the moon in order to simulate the LRO's Ka band transmission to earth would be picked up by radio astronomers around the world, and they would be very pissed off due to the interference with their work.

    Every LRO image of an Apollo landing site is unique. By this, I mean that the solar altitude above the terrain, the direction of solar incidence onto the terrain and direction of solar emission off of the terrain, and the LRO's viewing perspective when looking at an Apollo landing site and surrounding terrain always is unique for each image. Thus, I just realized that absolutely everything in the LRO image would have to be faked if the fake image were to somehow be uploaded to the LRO prior to the LRO team commanding the LRO to actually image one of the Apollo landing sites. In order to do this, one would have to have a DTM of the terrain with better than 1/2 meter accuracy in terms of both the position and altitude for every single object in the image. That is one hell of a huge swath of terrain to model down to 1/2 meter accuracy in both position and elevation in a DTM. To do so would require at least several dozen LRO images of each landing site over a several year period, combined with supercomputer crunching of all of the image data. So far the best LRO DTMs produced from NAC images have accuracies in the neighborhood of around 5 meters -- far short of what would be needed to properly simulate the height of every object plus the shadow direction and shadow length cast by every object in the image. The altitude component of a NAC DTM is what has by far the least resolution and thus the most amount of error. And this is just to fake one single LRO image. In a nutshell, I realize now that it is utterly impossible to fake a LRO image and upload it to the LRO beforehand."


    Now of course NONE of that will break through the curtain of ignorance you put up, but nevertheless your bullshit beliefs are completely baseless.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2020
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First of all you're a known sophist. You tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked and a few other things.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-11#post-1072198980

    Second of all the info you posted doesn't make the other hoax proof go away...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068

    ...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it but I can point out one obvious flaw.

    Are you saying that NASA couldn't have de facto control? Are you saying that LRO team could not be colluding with NASA? You can't possibly believe that yourself.
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are a known liar who has no integrity. This is your only tactic because you are an ignorant layman.

    Off topic spam. Only a complete imbecile would call a clear piece of rotating jagged ice a bubble.

    All the "other hoax proof" has been debunked in similar fashion. So much so that every time you get checkmated you say the same thing, meanwhile all your pieces are gone and you are still crapping on the board!

    You aren't a "we" and your pathetic ad hominem opinion is just more of your nauseating dishonesty.

    That is mainly correct. Certainly not the dipshits you refer to on youtube! To be more specific, only an expert in transmission and data deconvolution would be able to 100% recognise this, however it doesn't take too much research to confirm the items are all valid.

    No, you cannot - proving you did not even read the account properly.

    Define "NASA" - how many people to do all that and invisibly!

    Wow, how many more people on this ludicrous hoax! Point 3 explains the problem with ASU being involved.

    You can't possibly believe 99% of the responses you give to debunks.

    4. Let's imagine the impossible -- toss out 1 through 3 -- and assume that the LRO images of the landing sites somehow are doctored before they arrive at ASU.

    The spammer is checkmated once again. All he can do as always is lie, evade and divert.
     
  22. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    13,352
    Likes Received:
    3,525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wouldn't that include all of the images and videos those claiming a hoax present as evidence for their position?
     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

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

    Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.


    ...which proves the hoax by itself is an exact copy of the footage released by NASA.

    This link used to lead to it but now it leads to a Yahoo page.
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1485317.rm

    I looked for it here but I couldn't find it.
    https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?utf8=✓&affiliate=nasa&sort_by=&query=Apollo+15+EVA&commit=Search

    It might be there somewhere. Click on the second link in post #70 to see more on the flag.
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You see what you did? You gave the serial forum spammer of 15 years plus a diversion to spam his 1000 times posted bullshit about the Apollo 15 flag.

    As I said checkmate, All he can do as always is lie, evade and divert.

    He chose divert.
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can pretend all you want. This anomaly of air making the flag move totally blows you out of the water.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068


    This pretty much renders the LRO issue moot but I'll ask you about it anyway.

    Start watching this video at the 8:09 time mark.

    MoonFaker: LRO at 50km. PART 1



    Why isn't the resolution in the LRO picture as good as it is in the picture of the Earth?
     

Share This Page