Apollo Moon "Hoax" Film makers are corrupt!

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

  1. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    13,352
    Likes Received:
    3,525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You missed the point. Your statement wasn't conditional, you simply asserted that "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake."(my emphasis). Literally any image or video might be fake, however unlikely, so if you're going to use that principle to unconditionally dismiss any imagery that is presented to challenge your position, it could also be used to unconditionally dismiss any imagery that is presented to support your position.
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The video (see post #73) was an exact copy of the one released by NASA. I saw the same anomaly years ago here. The link doesn't work any more.
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1485317.rm

    I don't know if the footage is available now.

    When I say "fake", I mean manipulated by photoshop or something. I wasn't able to identify any manipulation of the original video from the NASA site. It looked exactly the same. I can safely say that the hoax-believers haven't doctored the NASA video to create an anomaly that wasn't in the original NASA video. That anomaly was in the original video released by NASA.
     
  3. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    13,352
    Likes Received:
    3,525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your initial comment I picked you up on didn't say fake, it said fakable. You didn't present any reason to suspect the images being discussed are actually faked in any way, you dismissed them all out of hand on the basis that "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof". Give that literally any imagery is "fakeable" by definition, your principle has to be an all or nothing - if you're going to dismiss one set of imagery out of hand, you must dismiss all imagery out of hand, regardless of whether it is being used to support or challenge your position (or indeed anyone else's).

    Or you could recognise that your over generalised principle is fundamentally flawed and if you want to dismiss any given material as unreliable or fake, you need to actually present some evidence to support that individual accusation. :cool:
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree. The video of the flag moving was obviously not manipulated by the hoax-believers. There's no way to tell if the the LRO pictures were manipulated because we weren't watching the whole process. We can't be sure what happened. They're asking us to take their word for it.

    Have you watched these videos?
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-3#post-1072224329
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Unbelievable diversionary spam - posted and answered maybe 20 times with you routinely evading follow up questions.

    And like the coward you are, once again you evade my large post and follow up. I just said they cannot be faked and showed why.

    The Earth images are a multitude of different colors and the Sunlight is scattered through the atmosphere illuminating everything in all directions. Scattered light everywhere from all surfaces also enhances every object.

    The Moon is grey, has no light scattered and the equipment on the Moon is basically covered in some dust and is metallic grey to a camera.

    Prove it was faked - I showed the major difficulties and why it would not be possible. Your videos prove nothing and use ridiculous irrelevant comparisons.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
  6. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    13,352
    Likes Received:
    3,525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then that isn't the principle you stated, which is the only point I'm making. Your actual principle is that nothing you personally consider likely to have been manipulated can be used as evidence. You're perfectly entitled to make that argument but it's very different to what you claimed your base principle to be.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you think that it's possible that the video in post #73 was manipulated by hoax-believers?

    Start watching it at the 2:35 time mark.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
  8. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    13,352
    Likes Received:
    3,525
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anything is possible but probably not. This isn't about what I think though, it's about what you said. I've made my point, you know what it is but you're clearly not going to acknowledge it so we're done here.
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone who take the time to read these discussions can see that you're misrepresenting what happened.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...sly-in-a-studio.362999/page-8#post-1069503350

    Considering your record of sophistry nobody is going to just take your word for anything.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-3#post-1072226882

    See above.

    No one who takes the time to watch them will agree with you.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-3#post-1072224329
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

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

    You are a serial forum spammer who lies, deceives, evades and uses every single tactic available to avoid conceding every single time where you get your ass handed to you. You seem to think the "viewers" and anyone/everybody are going to agree with you when nobody ever does.

    In the OP I presented 4 totally obvious and irrefutable videos, showing film makers lying and deceiving and you have reached page 4, still unable to largely address this issue. Instead you spam your horseshit about the LROC mission, ignore an expert who gives a detailed response about it and ignore completely obvious things in comparing to Earth observational satellites.
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not only will he fail to acknowledge it, he has a whole series of evasion tactics of a similar nature.

    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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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".

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.



    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.

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Dunning Kruger effect (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: A very troubled individual. (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2020
  12. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Scott is just logically saying that the original 1968-72 NASA images and videos should contain clear proof of men on the moon and should not contain any proof that they are not. There are documented numerous problems with the original story. Any recent data is automatically suspect for obvious reasons. NASA has even "doctored" some original images that have glaring anomalies and this doesn't give us much confidence in anything they tell us.
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The serial forum spammer never says anything that can be described as logically!

    This is exactly what they do. Recently it has been shown that video shows synchronised dust and jumps, we have hours of consistent lunar motion that looks odd at any other speed, particularly dust movement distances. Dishonest people simply deny these.

    There is no proof that disputes the landings. Idiotic claims and lies are believed by the gullible.

    Bullshit. There is not a single inconsistency in any part of the official account.

    A moronic claim, this now places multiple generations of people in on a secret when human beings are incapable of maintaining even small secrets.Again, no proof for any claims for "recent data", just idiotic speculation.

    Total bullshit!

    By us, you mean the pair of you hopeless individuals. You have both had your sorry asses handed to you - you're just too dumb to see it.

    What kind of person are you that can ignore clear and irrefutable proof? You see the post above yours detailing the behaviour of this lunatic forum spammer? How can you support such dishonesty? Are you a sock puppet?
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2020
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

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






    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 deceptive S.O.B.


    To further clarify, the serial forum spammer will make up bullshit based purely on his opinion, even when his arguments surrounding such opinion are soundly beaten. This takes the form of a "credibility test":-

    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.



    Astonishingly, he makes no such argument against any single person who clearly and provably lies quite consistently - examples in the OP, with corrected embedding for the videos. He has failed to admit any one of the single videos is proof of the lies put forth and even worse has failed to look at the underlying proof made that shows claims he makes are bullshit.

    To summarise his point, when somebody tells clear and obvious lies it doesn't disprove everything they say. I totally agree with this, yet he dishonestly does not apply it to a single thing or person that kicks his sorry ass! That would be everybody.

    Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2020
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

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

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Jackass!

    The following forum post describes the craziness of this individual and his blatant and ongoing dishonesty.

    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: Dec 4, 2020
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Look at these videos. A completely damning exposure of the lies told by charlatan hoax claimers. No wonder the gullible suck it up!







     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So, either "Jet Wintzer" is as dumb as they come (he claims to be the incarnation of the holy spirit) or he is a charlatan. His stupid claim was taken to pieces many years ago, but that won't stop spammers from using it to bump dead threads and as always, ignoring replies!

    Oh goodie, we have a new player... (apollohoax.net)
    "He claims that the astronauts report cleaning the reseau plate, and that the mission report says that the smearing occurred between EVA-2 and EVA-3.

    The wording in the mission report is ambiguous - a simple reading of it that it implies that it occurred at some point during 2 & 3. He is being specific and pedantic in his interpretation of it being between 2 & 3 - mainly because this fits his narrative better.

    The wording in the debrief is not ambiguous. At no point do either Duke or Young say they cleaned the reseau plate between EVAs, yet this is precisely what he claims they say, even though the words are in front of him.

    My interpretation of events is that the magazine has some sticky residue on it, that gets lunar dust stuck to it, and when it is transferred to the camera the mechanism of opening the magazine for use smears it on the reseau.

    He suggests that it may be on the lens and identifies when this might have happened, but offers no explanation as to how orange juice soaking through the chest of the suit gets on a lens that is nowhere near it. His invention of the orange juice theory then gets extrapolated into more ludicrous notions of dead astronauts by conflation of two totally imaginary scenarios."

    Oh goodie, we have a new player... (apollohoax.net)

    "His claim is that 114 was swapped in at station 9 on EVA 2 and that the smears first appear at that time and that all of the shots taken with cam 39 between the LM and station 9 were clear, thus proving that the smear was introduced at station 9.

    In reality, the smear was introduced in the LM between EVA 1 and EVA 2. 114 was in camera during EVA 1 frames 18383-18443. On EVA 2 frames 18444-18470 exhibit the smear, so clearly it was introduced during the sojourn in the LM between EVA 1 and EVA 2. While in the LM, as well as the cleaning attempt, cam 39 had mag 114 removed and replaced with mag 107. 114 was never used on EVA 3 so the whole house of cards falls.
    116, however was entirely shot on EVA 3 and has the smear in every shot. No other mags were used on cam 39, so the sequence of events with cam 39 seems to be:

    1. Mag 114 was used on cam 39 from the outset of EVA 1.
    2. In the LM, between EVA 1 and EVA 2 some cleaning was performed and mag 114 was replaced with mag 107. In the process, mag 114 was contaminated.
    3. EVA 2 proceeded as normal with cam 39 loaded with mag 107.
    4. When mag 107 was expended on cam 39 it was replaced with the contaminated mag 114.
    5. The contamination was transferred to the reseau plate of cam 39.
    6. The remainder of mag 114 was then expended on EVA 2 using cam 39.
    7. For EVA 3, cam 39 was loaded with mag 116. Every shot exhibits the smear. 114, having been exhausted, was not used on any camera for EVA 3.
    8. Only mag 116 was used in cam 39 on EVA 3, no others were used."


    So, really, there is no anomaly.

    Oh goodie, we have a new player... (apollohoax.net)

    "Neil Armstrong "truths protective layers" quote

    Colour banding on fast moving objects, guess nobody told him about the colour wheel

    Light source reflected on visor. True. It's the Sun, moron.

    Video signal loss interpreted as "shadows all the way out to the horizon". Nope, that'll be signal loss.

    ETB bag keeps swinging indicating an atmosphere. Nope, the exact opposite is the case. It keeps swinging because there is no atmosphere to damp down the oscillation. There follows a hatload of baloney about the EBT.

    Next up, Mag AS16-116 smudges. Again. He intentionally confuses the order in which mag 114 and 116 were used claiming 114 was swapped in at station 9 when it was 116.

    Next, only a few people had to be in on it, everyone else performed their assigned tasks remaining blissfully unaware of the hoax. Consequence, they built working spaceships capable of going to the moon, moron.

    Astronauts on wires.

    Reflection of the sun=Artificial light.

    Now, in a trip into bizarro land he berates other hoaxies for denigrating the brave astronauts who put their lives on the line to create the hoax and beat the russians. WTF?

    Hammering sounds heard in a vacuum on the moon but not on the ISS therefore Apollo was in an atmosphere. Sound conduction and vox/ptt/open and static are beyond his ken I guess"
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  19. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In all of the videos the flag does not move unless caused by human action. That is fact clear in all of the videos which even a four year old can discern.

    Collins jacket moves as it would in a zerpo G environment and that is also simple fact.

    You have nothing and your claims are disproven
     

Share This Page