The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

This destroys the camera bloom theory. That's why you keep tap dancing around it instead of addressing it. He couldn't have brushed the flag with his elbow because it started moving before he got close enough to touch it. Something made it start moving before he got close enough to brush it. Camera bloom wouldn't make it start moving.

You ignored what I said here.

If I remember correctly, you're supposed to be an expert in physics (although you're working as a sophist now). Your demo shows what the reflection would look like on a flat surface. Show us what it would look like on a convex surface.

Viewers please look at the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked before you pass judgement.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

Don't be swayed by mere rhetoric if you don't have time to look at it as BetaMax seems to be trying to sway those of you who haven't seen it with rhetoric.

 

I have met small children with a better understanding than you demonstrate. You seem to be unable to grasp that two events need not be mutually exclusive, painfully dismissing simple coincidence because it doesn't fit your ignorant conclusion. For future inevitable spammed replies from you, here is a definitive reply and list of questions. I shall post it every time you spam your repeat crap.

Sequence of events:-

Astronaut enters the frame, flag moves/appears to move.

1. There are possible causes for the movement. a) Kicked regolith with numerous instances demonstrating this in many EVAs b) Simple ground vibration c) static electricity buildup in a vacuum.

2. There is an explanation that fits the apparent movement, namely camera blooming, where we see the entire flag, flagpole, pieces of the ground and notably the lens flares all shift towards the right. This occurs as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, and is uniform across the frame.

3. There are many reasons why this initial movement/apparent movement cannot be air. Firstly it begins as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, some two meters away from the flag. Fluid dynamics is very specific about airflow under such circumstances, it simply does not occur like this - movement from an air wake occurs when the body is level or just passing - very little air is pushed ahead and at barely a few inches at most. There is no billowing at all of the flag.

Astronaut passes by the flag and brushes it with his elbow.

1. There are 3 videos with different techniques employed showing the path of the astronaut past the flag was easily close enough for this to occur
.
2. There are notable reasons why this is most obviously a vacuum. The nylon flag shows pendulum motion totally inconsistent with progressive dampening in atmosphere and a speed that correlates with lunar gravity.

3. The whole scene was filmed by Ed Fendell who actually zooms in on the flag as it moves. Quite where the directorial "cut" and "reshoot" is, nobody knows!

I hope that clarifies my position. I do what any scientist does. I observe and form theories from available data. What a conspiracy nut does, is make up ridiculous crap to enforce a pre-conceived opinion.

Now some questions:-

1. Why don't you follow the instructions given to you, create your own animated gif and demonstrate that the HLR gif was doctored? It was not. The lens flares move exactly as shown in that video, that is why you don't do it, because you are simply afraid that your personal spambaby has been thrown out for good.

2. Why don't you take similar screen grabs of the astronaut entering the frame and a split second later, confirming that my video was also not doctored? The movement/apparent movement occurs as he enters the frame. Again, you won't do it, because you are afraid it will show you how foolish you are.

3. Why are the two bolded events above mutually exclusive? Do you understand that simple coincidences like this occur all the time?

You really are so tiresome, so unable to grasp a simple fundamental point! The view is the same and totally irrelevant.

The whole of the "superlight" is "blocked out" by a narrow rod. This means what we see on the visor is not a reflection of the superlight, but something that is a) small enough to be blocked out by a narrow rod - the Sun and b) bright enough to cause diffusion of that size on a plastic or glass surface - the Sun.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/superlight-contention.html

 

Scott proves he (and aulis) know nothing about how reflections might change based on focal length of the camera and/or the cleanliness of the surface.

 

This thread is very interesting.

 

This is where you keep failing. Whether he was close enough or not is a moot point because this video shows that the flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

This destroys your scenario that he brushed it with his elbow. The fact that you keep playing dumb about this is very telling.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see how this statement makes any sense at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive_events
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two events are 'mutually exclusive' if they cannot occur at the same time. An example is tossing a coin once, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.
----------------------------------------------------------------

If you're not using this sophist tactic,...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing
----------------------------------------------------------------

...could you explain what you mean by this?

Hey freenat...

Do you maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real as BetaMax does?
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

 

More spam

 

I have met small children with a better understanding than you demonstrate. You seem to be unable to grasp that two events need not be mutually exclusive, painfully dismissing simple coincidence because it doesn't fit your ignorant conclusion. For future inevitable spammed replies from you, here is a definitive reply and list of questions. I shall post it every time you spam your repeat crap.

Sequence of events:-

Astronaut enters the frame, flag moves/appears to move.

1. There are possible causes for the movement. a) Kicked regolith with numerous instances demonstrating this in many EVAs b) Simple ground vibration c) static electricity buildup in a vacuum.

2. There is an explanation that fits the apparent movement, namely camera blooming, where we see the entire flag, flagpole, pieces of the ground and notably the lens flares all shift towards the right. This occurs as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, and is uniform across the frame.

3. There are many reasons why this initial movement/apparent movement cannot be air. Firstly it begins as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, some two meters away from the flag. Fluid dynamics is very specific about airflow under such circumstances, it simply does not occur like this - movement from an air wake occurs when the body is level or just passing - very little air is pushed ahead and at barely a few inches at most. There is no billowing at all of the flag.

Astronaut passes by the flag and brushes it with his elbow.

1. There are 3 videos with different techniques employed showing the path of the astronaut past the flag was easily close enough for this to occur
.
2. There are notable reasons why this is most obviously a vacuum. The nylon flag shows pendulum motion totally inconsistent with progressive dampening in atmosphere and a speed that correlates with lunar gravity.

3. The whole scene was filmed by Ed Fendell who actually zooms in on the flag as it moves. Quite where the directorial "cut" and "reshoot" is, nobody knows!

I hope that clarifies my position. I do what any scientist does. I observe and form theories from available data. What a conspiracy nut does, is make up ridiculous crap to enforce a pre-conceived opinion.

Now some questions:-

1. Why don't you follow the instructions given to you, create your own animated gif and demonstrate that the HLR gif was doctored? It was not. The lens flares move exactly as shown in that video, that is why you don't do it, because you are simply afraid that your personal spambaby has been thrown out for good.

2. Why don't you take similar screen grabs of the astronaut entering the frame and a split second later, confirming that my video was also not doctored? The movement/apparent movement occurs as he enters the frame. Again, you won't do it, because you are afraid it will show you how foolish you are.

3. Why are the two bolded events above mutually exclusive? Do you understand that simple coincidences like this occur all the time?





You really are so tiresome, so unable to grasp a simple fundamental point! The view is the same and totally irrelevant.

The whole of the "superlight" is "blocked out" by a narrow rod. This means what we see on the visor is not a reflection of the superlight, but something that is a) small enough to be blocked out by a narrow rod - the Sun and b) bright enough to cause diffusion of that size on a plastic or glass surface - the Sun.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/superlight-contention.html


Viewers to this thread will notice once again, the spam from this tedious person, the way he simply ignores large posts and makes no attempt at counter rebuttal. Watch him do it again.

That's easy for you.

You went for an explanation of the phrase but couldn't understand it? This is you playing dumb is it?

One event doesn't automatically discount the other. You keep suggesting that because the flag moves when he passes by, that this means the flag could not possibly have moved/appeared to move before this. It could and did. Playing dumb again - you're good at it.

 

You seem to be trying to bury the video that invalidates your whole argument so I guess I'll just have to keep posting it to make sure all of the viewers see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

It doesn't matter if he was close enough or not if the flag started moving before he got close enough to brush it with his elbow.

For someone who destroyed his credibility by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked...
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

...you're pretty uppity.

 

Spam and it invalidates nothing.

Sure it does, if he was too far away for it to be air, you have no argument. The lens flares move whether your stubborn brain can deal with it or not, that supports the fact it is camera bloom. Nothing in the whole scene supports air as the cause.

I have met small children with a better understanding than you demonstrate. You seem to be unable to grasp that two events need not be mutually exclusive, painfully dismissing simple coincidence because it doesn't fit your ignorant conclusion. For future inevitable spammed replies from you, here is a definitive reply and list of questions. I shall post it every time you spam your repeat crap.

Sequence of events:-

Astronaut enters the frame, flag moves/appears to move.

1. There are possible causes for the movement. a) Kicked regolith with numerous instances demonstrating this in many EVAs b) Simple ground vibration c) static electricity buildup in a vacuum.

2. There is an explanation that fits the apparent movement, namely camera blooming, where we see the entire flag, flagpole, pieces of the ground and notably the lens flares all shift towards the right. This occurs as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, and is uniform across the frame.

3. There are many reasons why this initial movement/apparent movement cannot be air. Firstly it begins as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, some two meters away from the flag. Fluid dynamics is very specific about airflow under such circumstances, it simply does not occur like this - movement from an air wake occurs when the body is level or just passing - very little air is pushed ahead and at barely a few inches at most. There is no billowing at all of the flag.

Astronaut passes by the flag and brushes it with his elbow.

1. There are 3 videos with different techniques employed showing the path of the astronaut past the flag was easily close enough for this to occur
.
2. There are notable reasons why this is most obviously a vacuum. The nylon flag shows pendulum motion totally inconsistent with progressive dampening in atmosphere and a speed that correlates with lunar gravity.

3. The whole scene was filmed by Ed Fendell who actually zooms in on the flag as it moves. Quite where the directorial "cut" and "reshoot" is, nobody knows!

I hope that clarifies my position. I do what any scientist does. I observe and form theories from available data. What a conspiracy nut does, is make up ridiculous crap to enforce a pre-conceived opinion.

Now some questions:-

1. Why don't you follow the instructions given to you, create your own animated gif and demonstrate that the HLR gif was doctored? It was not. The lens flares move exactly as shown in that video, that is why you don't do it, because you are simply afraid that your personal spambaby has been thrown out for good.

2. Why don't you take similar screen grabs of the astronaut entering the frame and a split second later, confirming that my video was also not doctored? The movement/apparent movement occurs as he enters the frame. Again, you won't do it, because you are afraid it will show you how foolish you are.

3. Why are the two bolded events above mutually exclusive? Do you understand that simple coincidences like this occur all the time?

Viewers to this thread will notice once again, the spam from this tedious person, the way he simply ignores large posts and makes no attempt at counter rebuttal. Watch him do it again.

 

I corrected him several months ago about who made the lunar reflector arrays,and he saw it,because he commented on it....Yet he's STILL claiming they were made in 'france'
sounds like someone is lazy.

 

You're trying to confuse the viewers who haven't looked at all of the info. There are two movements of the flag. There's the movement of the corner of the flag which this video shows...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

...and the movement of the middle of the flag which this video shows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QrvGmfUxRA
(8:44 time mark)

In the first video in which the corner of the flag moves he was obviously not too far away to be in air. That alone invalidates your theory that camera bloom caused an initial appearance of movement and the real movement was caused by the astronaut's having brushed it with his elbow. The corner of the flag started moving before he got close enough to brush it with his elbow.

This is so clear that you might as well try to convince the viewers that a picture of a chicken is really a picture of a pig. You can rant all you want and your success rate will always be zero.

 

YOU'RE the only one 'ranting' here scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c

Time to face the fact you have NO proof,just evidence of your faulty perception..

 

Sounds like someone is a cut/paste troll/bot that doesn't bother (physically unable if bot?) to update the list they paste from. It is far more likely that it is this behavior that gets him/it banned from various forums than the material he/it posts. Of course this subject has been bought up before and summarily ignored (no cut and paste reply fits).

 

These mystery viewers who never post, never agree with you, but somehow you think are inept at looking at all the info.

It must just fail to compute with you. There is one movement that is under dispute, already discussed beyond a reasonable amount.

Explain the lens flares, without claiming the gif is doctored. Since you are incapable, or unwilling to provide proof it has been doctored, and since it can easily be shown not to have been doctored, this very significant evidence stands:-

You are a liar. That video only focuses on the corner. The whole of the flag, the flagpole, parts of the surface and the lens flares all move in unison.

I am exchanging posts with a bot? Are you really this dense? The first movement/apparent movement could have been independent of the astronaut brushing it with his arm. Either you are too stupid to understand this, or you are deliberately acting the goat to obfuscate it. I suspect, 6 years of peddling the same crap has finally got to you, when suddenly you realise all this time you've been wrong.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

We've already covered just a few hundred times, but here is my response this useless spammer keeps avoiding:-

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=49&p=1063076127#post1063076127

 

You're still ignoring the fact that the flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

You say the the flag keeps swinging back and forth because the astronaut brushed it with his elbow. The above video shows that he was too far away from it to be able to touch it when it started moving. This invalidates your whole argument.

You can tap dance around this issue all you want but you're not fooling the viewers. The ones with an IQ of ninety or over can see that this issue has you cornered.

Objective truth-seekers don't avoid issues that invalidate their arguments. They modify their opinions when they get some new information. Your behaviour is that of a sophist who doesn't even believe his own arguments.

 

You just shot yourself in the foot,scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c

 

You missed replying to this "truthseeker".

 

Are you an idiot? The whole premise of the argument put to you with verifiable evidence, suggests that the movement is actually a camera bloom. For you to suggest I am ignoring that is just moronic, since the last half dozen posts I have made previously, directly addressed it.

I am truly wondering what kind of person I am exchanging with. I really can see myself typing the words, I read them back and they say what I want them to say, but for some reason your brain is stuck in neutral, unable to read or decipher what I am typing.

They say that the first movement/apparent movement does not need to be linked to the second. They can be caused by two distinct things, they are not mutually exclusive to each other. One does not discount the other.

Plainly, this discounts you from the process.

Meh!

Now some questions:-

1. Why don't you follow the instructions given to you, create your own animated gif and demonstrate that the HLR gif was doctored? It was not. The lens flares move exactly as shown in that video, that is why you don't do it, because you are simply afraid that your personal spambaby has been thrown out for good.

2. Why don't you take similar screen grabs of the astronaut entering the frame and a split second later, confirming that my video was also not doctored? The movement/apparent movement occurs as he enters the frame. Again, you won't do it, because you are afraid it will show you how foolish you are.

3. Why are the two bolded events above mutually exclusive? Do you understand that simple coincidences like this occur all the time?

4. The lens flares move, explain why this occurs. Even placing the cursor on the top lens flare, on Jarrah White's video at 8.40, shows this less than 1 minute later.

 

Here's the anomaly in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
(2:35 time mark)

This does not address the fact that the flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it.

You are a slick smooth-talking sophist but this is simply too clear to obfuscate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

You say the initial movement is not really movement, but camera bloom. The problem with that is that the flag keeps swinging after the astronaut passes by the flag. Your explanation for that is that the astronaut brushed it with his elbow. If it was already moving before he got close enough to brush it with his elbow as the above video proves, he obviously did not brush it with his elbow. Saying that the initial movement and the continued swinging are two disctinct things does not address the fact that the flag was already moving before he got close enough to touch it.

You know you're cornered by this so you're trying to muddy the waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing
----------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that the flag was already moving before he got close enough to touch it invalidates your argument so there's really no need to try to duplicate your gif. You're just using that to try to divert attention from the flaw in your theory.

There's also this anomaly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

The flag in the vacuum at the 00:50 time mark moves differently from the Apollo flag at the 1:50 time mark. We can see from the rod that the astronaut is not moving his wrist in a way that would make the flag come to a quick stop. Air is making the flag come to a quick stop.

In case any new people haven't seen this...
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

...BetaMax tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked. He is therefore not a serious poster.

 

Once again for the spammer:-

Sure it does, if he was too far away for it to be air, you have no argument. The lens flares move whether your stubborn brain can deal with it or not, that supports the fact it is camera bloom. Nothing in the whole scene supports air as the cause.



I have met small children with a better understanding than you demonstrate. You seem to be unable to grasp that two events need not be mutually exclusive, painfully dismissing simple coincidence because it doesn't fit your ignorant conclusion. For future inevitable spammed replies from you, here is a definitive reply and list of questions. I shall post it every time you spam your repeat crap.

Sequence of events:-

Astronaut enters the frame, flag moves/appears to move.

1. There are possible causes for the movement. a) Kicked regolith with numerous instances demonstrating this in many EVAs b) Simple ground vibration c) static electricity buildup in a vacuum.

2. There is an explanation that fits the apparent movement, namely camera blooming, where we see the entire flag, flagpole, pieces of the ground and notably the lens flares all shift towards the right. This occurs as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, and is uniform across the frame.

3. There are many reasons why this initial movement/apparent movement cannot be air. Firstly it begins as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, some two meters away from the flag. Fluid dynamics is very specific about airflow under such circumstances, it simply does not occur like this - movement from an air wake occurs when the body is level or just passing - very little air is pushed ahead and at barely a few inches at most. There is no billowing at all of the flag.

Astronaut passes by the flag and brushes it with his elbow.

1. There are 3 videos with different techniques employed showing the path of the astronaut past the flag was easily close enough for this to occur
.
2. There are notable reasons why this is most obviously a vacuum. The nylon flag shows pendulum motion totally inconsistent with progressive dampening in atmosphere and a speed that correlates with lunar gravity.

3. The whole scene was filmed by Ed Fendell who actually zooms in on the flag as it moves. Quite where the directorial "cut" and "reshoot" is, nobody knows!

I hope that clarifies my position. I do what any scientist does. I observe and form theories from available data. What a conspiracy nut does, is make up ridiculous crap to enforce a pre-conceived opinion.

Now some questions:-

1. Why don't you follow the instructions given to you, create your own animated gif and demonstrate that the HLR gif was doctored? It was not. The lens flares move exactly as shown in that video, that is why you don't do it, because you are simply afraid that your personal spambaby has been thrown out for good.

2. Why don't you take similar screen grabs of the astronaut entering the frame and a split second later, confirming that my video was also not doctored? The movement/apparent movement occurs as he enters the frame. Again, you won't do it, because you are afraid it will show you how foolish you are.

3. Why are the two bolded events above mutually exclusive? Do you understand that simple coincidences like this occur all the time?

Viewers to this thread will notice once again, the incessant spamming of this individual, his inability to respond to questions and large rebuttal, his inability to read and comprehend simple explanations, his stubborn refusal to accept new evidence, his fixation on Jay Windley, his fixation on the Apollo 15 flag and the Chinese Spacewalk - this is not normal behaviour. Watch him do it again.

 

Nothing you posted addresses the issue of the flag's already having started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it which this video proves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

The fact that the flag had started moving before he got close enough to touch it invalidates your whole argument because your argument is that that flag's swinging back and forth was caused by the astronaut's having brushed it with his elbow. The swinging back and forth was not caused by the astronaut's having brushed it with his elbow. Therefore, something else caused it.

It's clear that you don't even believe your own arguments. An objective truth-seeker would have addrressed this the first time it was brought up. You've been tap dancing around this issue instead of addressing it for about six pages now. That's what sophists do.

When disinfo agents are cornered, they go into a bury-it mode. They maintain their lame arguments until the truther gets tired. Then, they bury the issue with a lot of posting to reduce the number of viewers who see it. Then, they go on as if nothing had happened. If the truther doesn't get tired, they just keep posting their lame arguments. This can go on for thirty pages.

I'd better post this in case there are any young teenagers viewing this thread who are confused.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
http://aquariusparadigm.com/2012/09...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sophism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e. raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques. An
Ad Hominem argument is an example of Sophistry.
A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.
----------------------------------------------------------------

sophism - Wiktionary
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A flawed argument superficially correct in its reasoning, usually designed to deceive. An intentional fallacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------

sophism - definition of sophism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
In ancient Greece, one of a group of 5th-century BC itinerant lecturers on culture, rhetoric, and politics. Sceptical about the possibility of achieving genuine knowledge, they applied bogus reasoning and were concerned with winning arguments rather than establishing the truth. Plato regarded them as dishonest and sophistry came to mean fallacious reasoning. In the 2nd century AD the term was linked to the art of public speaking.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Specious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
having a false look of truth or genuineness
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sophism - Debatepedia
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determine whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

sophism, sophisms- WordWeb dictionary definition
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
----------------------------------------------------------------

sophism - definition and examples of sophism
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Because of their developed ability to argue either side of a case, the Sophists' students were powerful contestants in the popular debating contests of their day, and also were highly successful advocates in court. The dialectical method was employed in part because the Sophists accepted the notion of dissoi logoi, or contradictory arguments. That is, Sophists believed that strong arguments could be produced for or against any claim. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------

sophism - definition and meaning
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A false argumentation devised for the exercise of one's ingenuity or for the purpose of deceit; sometimes, a logically false argumentation; a fallacy. The word is especially applied to certain ancient tricks of reasoning, which before the systematization of logic and grammar had a real value, and were treated as important secrets.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of sophism, carcass, vista, impertinence
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
a false argument understood to be such by the reasoner himself and intentionally used to deceive
------------------------------------------------------------------

Sophistry - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Crazy or blind, take your pick. I must be in double figures of trying to explain this to the internet spam-king, yet here he comes back, pretending not to see it or understand it.

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

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html


Now some questions:-

1. Why don't you follow the instructions given to you, create your own animated gif and demonstrate that the HLR gif was doctored? It was not. The lens flares move exactly as shown in that video, that is why you don't do it, because you are simply afraid that your personal spambaby has been thrown out for good.

2. Why don't you take similar screen grabs of the astronaut entering the frame and a split second later, confirming that my video was also not doctored? The movement/apparent movement occurs as he enters the frame. Again, you won't do it, because you are afraid it will show you how foolish you are.

3. Why are the two bolded events above mutually exclusive? Do you understand that simple coincidences like this occur all the time?

Viewers to this thread will notice once again, the incessant spamming of this individual, his inability to respond to questions and large rebuttal, his inability to read and comprehend simple explanations, his stubborn refusal to accept new evidence, his fixation on Jay Windley, his fixation on the Apollo 15 flag and the Chinese Spacewalk - this is not normal behaviour. Watch him do it again.

 

That seems correct to me. The apparent motion in those frames involves the entire flag image, including those two spots, and the brightness of the image changes with it in an effect that is clearly caused by the camera itself.

I'll wager that Cosmored Scott here is not too aware of how cameras work and what sorts of artefacts they can produce.

 

I watched all seven of your videos and those two at the bottom and nothing in any of those videos addresses the fact that the flag started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it which this video proves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

You seem to be trying to mislead those viewers who don't have time to watch nine videos by misrepresenting what's in the videos.

If you say something in one of those videos proves the flag did not start moving before he got close enough to touch it, please show us where it is.

 

Then you now understand that air doesn't move the way you keep erroneously claiming!

I want to summarise what you are actually claiming, based on previous replies I have seen from you, here and elsewhere. Please correct me if I am wrong. You say:- The initial movement is down to some ambient airflow in the "studio", the main movement is caused by the air wake generated by the astronaut running past the flag.

Just to be clear, that is two separate events!

Deliberate obfuscation and strawman. Nowhere do I deny an initial movement/apparent movement! Quite clearly, I am showing that there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the movement is simply a camera anomaly. I have listed previously my analysis of this event, you are either too stupid to understand it, too ignorant to believe any of it, too lazy to respond to it or just the spamming troll that everybody knows you are.

Be a truthseeker and respond to it! Once again for the spammer:-

Sure it does, if he was too far away for it to be air, you have no argument. The lens flares move whether your stubborn brain can deal with it or not, that supports the fact it is camera bloom. Nothing in the whole scene supports air as the cause.



I have met small children with a better understanding than you demonstrate. You seem to be unable to grasp that two events need not be mutually exclusive, painfully dismissing simple coincidence because it doesn't fit your ignorant conclusion. For future inevitable spammed replies from you, here is a definitive reply and list of questions. I shall post it every time you spam your repeat crap.

Sequence of events:-

Astronaut enters the frame, flag moves/appears to move.

1. There are possible causes for the movement. a) Kicked regolith with numerous instances demonstrating this in many EVAs b) Simple ground vibration c) static electricity buildup in a vacuum.

2. There is an explanation that fits the apparent movement, namely camera blooming, where we see the entire flag, flagpole, pieces of the ground and notably the lens flares all shift towards the right. This occurs as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, and is uniform across the frame.

3. There are many reasons why this initial movement/apparent movement cannot be air. Firstly it begins as soon as the astronaut enters the frame, some two meters away from the flag. Fluid dynamics is very specific about airflow under such circumstances, it simply does not occur like this - movement from an air wake occurs when the body is level or just passing - very little air is pushed ahead and at barely a few inches at most. There is no billowing at all of the flag.

Astronaut passes by the flag and brushes it with his elbow.

1. There are 3 videos with different techniques employed showing the path of the astronaut past the flag was easily close enough for this to occur
.
2. There are notable reasons why this is most obviously a vacuum. The nylon flag shows pendulum motion totally inconsistent with progressive dampening in atmosphere and a speed that correlates with lunar gravity.

3. The whole scene was filmed by Ed Fendell who actually zooms in on the flag as it moves. Quite where the directorial "cut" and "reshoot" is, nobody knows!

I hope that clarifies my position. I do what any scientist does. I observe and form theories from available data. What a conspiracy nut does, is make up ridiculous crap to enforce a pre-conceived opinion.

Now some questions:-

1. Why don't you follow the instructions given to you, create your own animated gif and demonstrate that the HLR gif was doctored? It was not. The lens flares move exactly as shown in that video, that is why you don't do it, because you are simply afraid that your personal spambaby has been thrown out for good.

2. Why don't you take similar screen grabs of the astronaut entering the frame and a split second later, confirming that my video was also not doctored? The movement/apparent movement occurs as he enters the frame. Again, you won't do it, because you are afraid it will show you how foolish you are.

3. Why are the two bolded events above mutually exclusive? Do you understand that simple coincidences like this occur all the time?

Viewers to this thread will notice once again, the incessant spamming of this individual, his inability to respond to questions and large rebuttal, his inability to read and comprehend simple explanations, his stubborn refusal to accept new evidence, his fixation on Jay Windley, his fixation on the Apollo 15 flag and the Chinese Spacewalk - this is not normal behaviour. Watch him do it again.