I thought you would avoid making your position clear. Watch the video at the 2:07:26 time mark. That's when the lid falls. Tell us whether you think the lip actually hits the metal, or stops falling slightly above the metal. Please give a clear unambiguous answer that makes your position clear. AMERICAN MOON, 2017 https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/
The bolded sections identify my position as do the quotes below. I've never come across anyone quite as inadequate with comprehension as you. There are a number of further examples where I make my position totally clear. Anyone who understands the most basic of all physics, or who has dropped a flat object will know that it sends a big draft of air in all directions. From the video, clearly two things are obvious. Number 1, there is dust everywhere on the rover. The video maker goes to great pains to show this, erroneously thinking it helps his case. It does the opposite. Number 2, the descending flat lid has no air being expelled as it comes down. There is no massive ejection of air in all directions, let alone the most obvious one, in the direction of the falling lid. Conclusion: The spammer has identified a piece of footage by his ignorance, that subsequently proves it was in a vacuum. Busted and he knows it. But we all know he has no honour and will never concede his failures. .
You also seemed to agree with me when I pointed out that the lid didn't impact the spot where the dust is so your position is still a little unclear. That's why I want you to clarify it with a simple yes, or no. Please say it simply so that it's clear. All it takes is one sentence. Don't post more than one sentence.
Maybe I should try a different approach. Here's a link to a post with the video. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072100262 Go to the 2:07:26 time mark. That's when the cover falls and comes to a stop. When I look at the point at which it comes to a stop, I see it stop slightly above the surface where the dust is. I see that it doesn't touch that surface. There's no impact. When you see the point at which the cover comes to a stop after falling, do you see it touch the surface where the dust is, or do you see it stop before it gets close enough to touch the surface?
I never agree with you, you are as ignorant on this subject as you are on nearly every one you participate in. The problem is your comprehension. Are you serious! I just clarified it unequivocally. When a flat surface descends, it expels air outwards. When the surface is big and it is pushed shut and not just dropped, it will expel more air. Now with a very simple sentence, explain why your experience of life is so inadequate as for you never to have seen this! Or, explain why you are so dishonest to deny the most basic and very obvious of actions.
Maybe you should just be quiet and admit your hopeless mistakes. You are done spammer. You have proven it was in a vacuum, this is just obfuscation that would get you "laughed out of the debating hall" that you would never dare to enter. A falling pushed, large flat surface expels lots of air and would have blown dust everywhere - ergo it was a vacuum. You have no idea about the inside of the lid. It must be padded, hence the gentle way it compresses back. In 1/6th gravity a small impact makes the dust go further. But, as I have stated and will state again, that is irrelevant. A falling pushed, large flat surface expels lots of air and would have blown dust everywhere - ergo it was a vacuum.
You didn't answer the question An objective truth-seeker wouldn't tap dance around a question. He'd simply answer it. If it turns out that he's wrong, he simply modifies his opinion. He doesn't play the kind of games that you're playing here.
MEH!!! The most dishonest truth seeker on the internet, a person who makes an art form out of running away from evidence and literally hundreds of questions, says the above! A falling pushed, large flat surface expels lots of air and would have blown dust everywhere - ergo it was a vacuum. Now with a very simple sentence, explain why your experience of life is so inadequate as for you never to have seen this! Or, explain why you are so dishonest to deny the most basic and very obvious of actions.
The issue I'm raising seems to have you checkmated. All the viewers can see that you're refusing to answer a simple question. I ask you again. Please address post #229. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...apollo-landing.519410/page-10#post-1072107885
Says the spammer whilst he refuses to answer hundreds of questions! All the viewers can see the obvious:- A falling pushed, large flat surface expels lots of air and would have blown dust everywhere - ergo it was a vacuum. Now with a very simple sentence, explain why your experience of life is so inadequate as for you never to have seen this! Or, explain why you are so dishonest to deny the most basic and very obvious of actions. The inside of the box is padded, if this confuses you please explain why. We can see he gives the lid quite a shove to shut it. The inner padding strikes the inside slats at the near corner first and creates a small vibration. In a vacuum and low gravity there is no resistance, full conductivity of the vibration and a far more noticeable movement from lower gravity. Your turn spammer, the bolded above. Please excuse me if I dismiss your ignorant response in advance.
That is not the answer to my question. Please answer the actual question that I asked. Here's a link to a post with the video. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676
It most certainly is an answer and your obfuscating irrelevant crap won't make the real issue go away. You are cornered and checkmated and are like the Black Knight. You would get laughed out of the debating hall. None of the viewers agree with you. They can all see that you are avoiding the obvious. It's impossible to see line of sight underneath the falling flap, we do know that the boxes have padding. Clearly there is compression from this padding as the top lid visible is not doing the striking. A falling pushed, large flat surface expels lots of air and would have blown dust everywhere - ergo it was a vacuum. Now with a very simple sentence, explain why your experience of life is so inadequate as for you never to have seen this! Or, explain why you are so dishonest to deny the most basic and very obvious of actions.
Finally something that resembles an answer. You seem to be saying that the lip of the cover comes to a stop before it gets close enough to touch the surface. If that's what you're saying, it contradicts what you said before. (from post #214) http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072095322 Please comment on this.
No it doesn't. You are supposed to be a teacher of English, so it helps to be able to read and comprehend properly! From my posts:- "The nearest corner strikes first - there is the impact and the force." "You cannot see the lip of the cover" Anyone who understands the most basic of all physics, or who has dropped a flat object will know that it sends a big draft of air in all directions. From the video, clearly two things are obvious. Number 1, there is dust everywhere on the rover. The video maker goes to great pains to show this, erroneously thinking it helps his case. It does the opposite. Number 2, the descending flat lid has no air being expelled as it comes down. There is no massive ejection of air in all directions, let alone the most obvious one, in the direction of the falling lid. Conclusion: The spammer has identified a piece of footage by his ignorance, that subsequently proves it was in a vacuum. Busted and he knows it. But we all know he has no honour and will never concede his failures.
I can see it. It's perfectly clear. When it comes to a stop, it's slightly above the surface where the dust is. Watch the video at the 2:07:26 time mark. Tell us what you see. I'm not asking you about this. This just confuses the issue. For now let's just talk about where the cover comes to a stop when it falls.
It's like debating with a child. The underside of the lid is hidden from view - above the lip. The padded area is striking the edge. Bullcrap. It is the only issue and you are done. Proven footage in a vacuum by your own inept claim. Anyone who understands the most basic of all physics, or who has dropped a flat object will know that it sends a big draft of air in all directions. From the video, clearly two things are obvious. Number 1, there is dust everywhere on the rover. The video maker goes to great pains to show this, erroneously thinking it helps his case. It does the opposite. Number 2, the descending flat lid has no air being expelled as it comes down. There is no massive ejection of air in all directions, let alone the most obvious one, in the direction of the falling lid. Conclusion: The spammer has identified a piece of footage by his ignorance, that subsequently proves it was in a vacuum. Busted and he knows it. But we all know he has no honour and will never concede his failures.
I'm not talking about the underside. I'm talking about the outside which can be seen. Please answer this question. When the cover comes to a stop, does the lip of the cover touch the surface where the dust is, or does it come to a stop slightly above the surface where the dust is?
"Clearly there is compression from this padding as the top lid visible is not doing the striking." "The inner padding strikes the inside slats at the near corner first and creates a small vibration." "The padded area is striking the edge." I seriously think you need to go back and take some English comprehension remedials. Quite clearly I have indicated that it is the softer padding on the lining of the box that is impacting the inner edge. The outer edge doesn't need to make contact for there to be sufficient impact vibration to disturb dust in low gravity vacuum. Which part of the following confuses you - quit acting the clown and answer:- Anyone who understands the most basic of all physics, or who has dropped a flat object will know that it sends a big draft of air in all directions. The similar action can be seen when a door is closed. From the video, clearly two things are obvious. Number 1, there is dust everywhere on the rover. The video maker goes to great pains to show this, erroneously thinking it helps his case. It does the opposite. Number 2, the descending flat lid - clearly pushed with force - has no air being expelled as it comes down. There is no massive ejection of air in all directions, let alone the most obvious one, in the direction of the falling lid. Conclusion: The spammer has identified a piece of footage by his ignorance, that subsequently proves it was in a vacuum. Busted and he knows it. But we all know he has no honour and will never concede his failures.
This contradicts what you said in post #214. It looks like didn't notice that there was no impact outside until you'd already explained that outside impact caused the dust to move.
You're grabbing at straws spammer. My statement says the nearest corner strikes first - even first time of watching I could see it bounce gently. The padding on the nearest corner. There is no relevance to it being exactly at that point or 1/2 an inch inside. A flat surface, just like a door closing sends air in all directions. Which part of the following confuses you - quit acting the clown and answer:- Anyone who understands the most basic of all physics, or who has dropped a flat object will know that it sends a big draft of air in all directions. The similar action can be seen when a door is closed. From the video, clearly two things are obvious. Number 1, there is dust everywhere on the rover. The video maker goes to great pains to show this, erroneously thinking it helps his case. It does the opposite. Number 2, the descending flat lid - clearly pushed with force - has no air being expelled as it comes down. There is no massive ejection of air in all directions, let alone the most obvious one, in the direction of the falling lid. Conclusion: The spammer has identified a piece of footage by his ignorance, that subsequently proves it was in a vacuum. Busted and he knows it. But we all know he has no honour and will never concede his failures.
The cover falls and comes to a stop above the surface where the dust is. It then bounces a little and falls a little farther but in never makes contact with the surface where the dust is. It stops a good half inch above the surface where the dust is. Anyone who takes the time to watch that segment can easily see that. It's very obvious. This contradicts what you said in post #214. You said that the impact of the corner of the cover on the surface where the dust was caused the dust to shoot away. Please make your position clear. When the cover falls, does the outside corner of the cover nearest to the camera make physical contact with the surface where the dust is, or does it come to a stop slightly above the surface where the dust is?
Oh really and why do you think that is? That's the beauty of vibration. I'm not sure it is understood by the wilfully ignorant. The edge stops, the inner padding strikes just beneath. Don't talk to me about obvious you dishonest clown. The downward falling flat surface would send dust in all directions, not some ridiculous tiny segment on the corner. Yes that is correct, the underside of the cover you jackass. It contradicts nothing. You have to be a complete moron not to understand this already. You are deliberately avoiding the obvious and diverting with this incessant bullcrap about which bit strikes. It is low gravity and in vacuum. Even a gentle vibration will disturb dust. However, on the Earth, in air a downward pushed flat surface will send dust in all directions! Answer this:- Anyone who understands the most basic of all physics, or who has dropped a flat object will know that it sends a big draft of air in all directions. The similar action can be seen when a door is closed. From the video, clearly two things are obvious. Number 1, there is dust everywhere on the rover. The video maker goes to great pains to show this, erroneously thinking it helps his case. It does the opposite. Number 2, the descending flat lid - clearly pushed with force - has no air being expelled as it comes down. There is no massive ejection of air in all directions, let alone the most obvious one, in the direction of the falling lid. Conclusion: The spammer has identified a piece of footage by his ignorance, that subsequently proves it was in a vacuum. Busted and he knows it. But we all know he has no honour and will never concede his failures.
Your other posts seem to be saying that it was the corner of the cover that can be seen. You didn't say it was the underside of the cover. (from post #222) (from post #205) (from post #207) (from post #212) (from post #214) Why didn't you make it clear that you were talking about the underside? It's pretty clear that you didn't notice that the outside lip didn't quite make contact with the surface where the dust was and explained that the impact of the bottom of the lip on the surface cause the dust to shoot out. You noticed it later so you're trying to muddy the waters to make it look like you were talking about the underside all along.
You never made your position clear on this. I'm asking you what you see on the outside. Please don't say anything about the inside.
The issue is not if we landed on the moon. The issue is did we land a man on the moon. As you point out the Russians landed unmanned craft on the moon. It seems odd to me that we cannot do now what we did over 50 years ago. At least one President has said we would "return" to the moon. I notice it never happened. NASA is like any other Federal agency. Their goal is to get funding, nothing more. BTW, I noticed about 7 years ago NASA had issued an RFI for someone to come up with a way to shield a space craft from radiation so the occupants would not get fried. Guess those dudes that went to the moon got lucky. Anyone ever notice how when the hoax theories surface the video of the moon landing (proprietary magnetic format tapes) was recalled from the national archives by NASA and then lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
