The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

I see you're still avoiding the issue that invalidates your whole argument. You say the back and forth movement was caused by the astronaut's having brushed it with his elbow. This video shows that the flag started moving before he was close enough to brush it with his elbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

That shows your argument is wrong.

This is how disinfo agents lose debates. When they're checkmated, they tap dance around and play games and try to divert attention away from the issue that has them checkmated until the issue blows over. Then, they go on as if nothing had happened.

You're checkmated. You've been shown to be wrong. A sincere truth-seeker would simply say so right away and modify his opinion. It's clear that you don't even believe what you're saying yourself.

 

Spam cut and paste reply. I've addressed it 20 times or more.

Correct.

Correct. That doesn't invalidate his ability to then subsequently strike it with his elbow - which part of this mind numbingly obvious statement are you unable to grasp? The original movement/apparent movement is very small.

No, it shows you have less understanding than a small child. The two are not mutually exclusive. Even your own claim has the same criteria, two unconnected events. You didn't answer any of my post, you are an extremely deceptive, odd person, with a very sad fixation on this.

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?

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.



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.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=50&p=1063085501#post1063085501

 

He's referring to this.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

BetaMax destroyed his credibility a long time ago by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked. He also destroyed his credibility by agreeing with something lame that Jay Windley* said.

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

You never addressed it. You tap danced around it and then insisted that you'd addressed it.

This video shows that the movement you say was caused by the astronaut's having brushed it with his elbow had already started before he got close enough to brush it with his elbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

Anyone who actually watches it can see that you're just trying to muddy the waters. Thwarting your sophistry doesn't take much brains. What it takes is persistence.

You seem to be saying that the initial movement of the flag was camera bloom and the beginning of the strong back-and-forth movement are two different things and it was possible for them to happen at the same time. That doesn't change the fact that the strong back-and-forth movement had already started before he was close enough to brush it with his elbow. Anyone who looks up "Mutually exclusive" can see that you're just trying to confuse people.

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

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


The fact that the strong back-and-forth movement had already started before he got close enough to make it start moving back and forth invalidates your whole argument so there's no sense in taking the time to try to duplicate your gif.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
(2:35 time mark)

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

The movement of the flag in the vacuum chamber at the 00:50 time mark is very different fro the movement of the Apollo flag at the 1:50 time mark. We can see that air is making the Apollo flag stop moving much more quickly than the flag in the vacuum chamber. By looking at the support rod, we can see what the astronaut is doing to the pole with his wrist. He is not twisting the pole in a way that makes the flag stop moving more quickly as some disinfo agents on other forums have tried to say.

Both of those flag anomalies have you checkmated and your not recognizing it doesn't change anything. Part of winning a debate with a pro-Apollo disinfo agent is keeping him from burying the part of the debate in which he lost by repeating it. That usually takes at least thirty pages.

 

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.

You are extremely dishonest for a so called "truther". I am utterly appalled at your complete ignorance and inability to respond to points and questions. Maybe if we limit the questions to just one at a time, the spammer may even answer!

 

This is from my last post.

Your refusal to recognize the major flaw in your argument doesn't make it go away. You say the strong back-and-forth movement of the flag was caused by the astronaut's having brushed it with his elbow. This video shows that the strong back-and-forth movement had already started before he got close enough to brush it with his elbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

Your argument has been debunked. It's over. You're just trying to draw attention away from this fact.

As long as I'm not blocked from posting, you're not going to succeed in burying this.

 

No one wants to bury your bizarre spam,scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c

It's flipping hilarious to watch you try and pass the same old crap off as the truth.

 

Explain why the lens flares move the same way as the flag.

 

I can't see that they do when I watch the video full screen...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
(2:35 time mark)

...but it's irrelevant. The problem with the camera bloom theory is that the flag keeps moving back and forth afterwards. You don't have a valid explanation for that movement.

 

You are just plain dishonest. You have been shown how to recreate the gif. The lens flares move, and you sticking your head in the sand doesn't alter that fact.

It buries your claim completely.

Yes I do you liar. The astronaut hits it with his elbow. Even Jarrah White concluded this was likely.

Sorry to confuse you with big words, but the two events are no more mutually exclusive than what you claim happens. The "draft of air", followed by the "air wake" of the astronaut.

 

This video shows that the flag had already started moving before he got close enough to hit it with his elbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

This invalidates your whole argument.


You're misrepresenting what Jarrah said again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3fwzPGtUk
(4:20 time mark)

He did not say it was likely that he hit it with his elbow. Viewers please watch the video. Disinfo agents often misquote people to mislead viewers who haven't seen the original quote.

 

Yep. Lens flare.

 

I swear I've had less difficulty conversing with children in kindergarten.

The premise:- It isn't movement, it is a camera anomaly.
Spam reply:- It moved before he reached it.
The premise:- But it isn't movement, it is a camera anomaly.
Spam reply:- It moved before he reached it.
The premise:- But it isn't movement, it is a camera anomaly that is the whole point. The gif shows evidence to back this premise up.
Spam reply:- It moved before he reached it.

And on and on ad nauseum!!

I'll just borrow HLR's response to you on this very same spammed claim:-



In Jarrah White's own words:-

"... his elbow could have brushed the bottom right corner of the flag. But this possibility hardly matters, because as we've seen already, the flag started moving well before he got near that corner." - Jarrah White direct quote.

Like I said, even Jarrah White agrees that the astronaut was close enough to touch the flag. He dismisses that simply because he believes the flag started to move before the astronaut got close enough. Given that we now know the flag didn't move before the astronaut touched it, he can't just dismiss it. Here's a screenshot from his own video, which makes the likelihood of contact pretty clear.

 

You can jump up and down and scream that it's a camera anomaly all you want. This video shows that what you say is a camera anomaly is real movment.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=52

As I've said before, this is so clear that you might as well be insisting that a picture of a chicken is really a picture of a pig.

Here's something important from post #441 that I have to post from time to time so that it doesn't get buried.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

It shows where you destroyed your credibility.

 

Again his credibility is intact,since the only eyes it was 'destroyed' in were yours scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c

 

I am doing none of those things.

I am not insisting it is a camera anomaly. I am strongly suggesting it based on the visible evidence. It is difficult to prove a case for kicked regolith striking the flagpole, since we cannot see the lower area where it would have occurred. Equally, it is not possible to prove a case for ground vibration. None of these options can be discounted however, since they are all easily possible.

What we can do is dismiss air as being the cause, since the movement/apparent movement begins the moment he enters the frame. This is not even close to being a feasible distance an air wake will travel, or how fluid dynamics work. Further evidence to dismiss air is a complete absence of the flag billowing, a totally unfeasible period of back and forth motion for a light nylon flag with no progressive slowing from atmosphere.

Nothing you say carries any weight, value or accuracy.

One very idiotic conspiracy easily disproven, used to support another. Ironically, the evidence for it comes from a pro-Apollo supporter. You can't make up a more perfect scenario.

 

I addressed this before. You're acting as if I'd never addressed this. I have to keep posting the same thing again and again to thwart your sophistry.

Look at post #432.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=44&p=1062821721#post1062821721

Here's the info to which the link leads.

I also dealt with that issue on this other thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=321844

Start reading at post #4.

Here's where I discussed your lame analysis of the buoyant safety cables in the Chinese spacewalk
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062832858#post1062832858
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

Anyone who takes the time to look at your lame analysis of the buoyant safety cables will see that you have no credibility.

 

Wow!

Now let me get this straight.

With the whole world watching, including the then very hostile Soviet Union the United States executive branch conducted a top secret military grade operation of astronomical proportions, fooling the entire world, including Walter Cronkite "the most trusted man in America" [or was he in on it?]..

All this spanning not one, but three presidencies, concluding with the just sworn in Richard Nixon....whose regime could not keep the lid on a third rate burglary..

All this, in secret to the American people all this time.....and you have figured it all out and...

lived.

Yeah, that makes a shirt load of sense.

 

And when the Russians did their sample return mission, they somehow ended up with exactly the same sort of moon rocks the Americans did

 

Here's some stuff about the moon rocks.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Moon+Rocks+Revisited&aq=f

The moon rocks issue doesn't make the mountain of hoax proof go away. On page one of this thread there's a lot of it. Some of those links are dead though and I can't edit the posts so here's a link to an updated version of the summary.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487

 

Sorry no, the uncontaminated samples of Moon rocks could only come from one place. That is a place is the Moon, the samples can not exist under any circumstances in any environment found on Earth. The chemistry is so fundamental it can not be challenged

 

That isn't addressing it, that's talking hogwash. A man who had previously made no reference to Apollo whatsoever, is "got at" for some weird reason to say that Apollo happened. Yet people like YOU! Jarrah White, David Percy, Bart Sibrel and all the other conspiraloons are left alone. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

He wasn't got at, he knows Apollo wasn't faked, he probably has a good inkling also, that his "China did it in a pool" video is also nonsense too.

Mental illness seems a better explanation.

Shape memory. It takes a very special kind of fool to think this was faked in a water tank, particularly where we have yet another flag being twisted unrestricted in a vacuum, with not even a flicker of water billowing on its fabric, no matter what speed you conjure up from your bag of spam responses.

 

Here's all of the info on the Chinese spacewalk.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

Here's the info about the buoyant safety cable.

Here's what I said in post #444.

Tell us why the cable only moves when the movement is one hundred percent consistent with buoyancy. Tell us why the cable doesn't move in ways that are not consistent with buoyancy as would be the case if shape-memory were the explanation.

 

Spam. Typical from you, you claim to be a truth seeker, but just take some random crap as your benchmark, whilst studiously ignoring the thousands of peer reviewed documents from the community of geologists. That website - geschichteinchronologie.ch is just a series of ill informed statements, conjecture and extremely idiotic claims. I can see why you would believe it.

Yes it most certainly does. But this blog I made in response to your wall of spam assists:-

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

Anytime you wish to discuss the rocks and offer proof of their fraudulent nature, I'm waiting. You cannot, since you know nothing about the subject.

Truth seeker? Objective?

Meh!!

 

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

Deja vu. The spammer is asking me the same question again. It's still loaded and wrong.

It isn't 100% consistent with buoyancy.

It does. In addition to shape memory, there is the infrared from the Sun acting on one edge of the casing.


Now spammer:-

Explain how the flag rotates in water, unrestricted, without any water billowing the fabric. At any speed, this will occur. You "trotted past a piece of fabric", now try spinning it opened out in your local pool.

Oh, and film it for all to see.

 

October 2011 - and this spammer is still posting the same crap.

I wish I could multi-quote the text I am responding to and in order, here is the post:-

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=21&p=4595720#post4595720