The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Yes we sent men to the moon.

You can show no evidence to the contrary and you willfully ignore the evidence proving you wrong.

 

Oh dear.

No soup for me.

 

Just like a flat earth you ignore the evidence and live in denial of truth.

So much for your earlier claim that you care about the truth, you run from it.

 

The earth isn't flat?

I'm not getting any soup, am I ?

 

Do you enjoy trolling?

I see this on countless forums. The HB ignores the evidence presented, and makes the bare assertion that only they can see the "fake".

As I said previously, you stick to your cosy little conspiracy world. God forbid you show the intelligence to understand how it could not posssibly have been faked.

I presented a 3 post summary of how the rocks are unique by any possible means of fakery. Not one word in reply, and that says everything to me.

I expect you didn't even watch that last video I posted, in itself a massive sign of Lunar footage.

We had the whole vast area evenly lit by sunlight the whole time. We had very dark shadows, indicative of one single light source. We had the Lunar rover approaching a huge mountain, that was not getting any bigger, varying in angular approach that proves it could not be a backdrop or a front projection.

We had the surface changing in reflected light, as the rover changed direction perpendicular to the sun, a clear sign that the surface albedo was consistent with the Moon which reflects light back towards the light source. Itself a unique feature of Lunar regolith.

And what did you present? Diddly squat, except for troll comments.

Here's another video for you, completely unfakeable gravity effects:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq6yYQYoX_A"]‪Apollo speeded up theory completely debunked‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

And here again is a small summary of a fraction of what would be involved:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q"]‪If the Moon landings were hoaxed, then all this is necessary.....‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


I don't think you or the OP are the least bit interested in educating yourself to a level of understanding of the sciences involved in Apollo. Sciences that show, to anybody who has bothered to learn them, how the Moon missions could never have been faked.

Edit: One of the reasons I made a blog documenting my replies to the OP, was for this very reason of trolling posters deliberately burying them, without making even a scant attempt at answering them.

 

Just as well, really..

 

I'm a little surprised at your gullibility, and lack of knowledge about film making.

"completely unfakeable" ? Please

 

You have to love the rebuttal by HBs. The "Please" followed by the rolleyes.

Armwaving bluster.

Maybe you could explain, since the figures show it can't be done. Certainly not in the 60's.

 

Ah, the figures never lie!

Hey, if that's what you want to believe, that's fine.

But seriously: "completely unfakeable"?

 

More bluster.

Are you having trouble telling me how to fake this? Seriously?

Let me explain something to you, then you tell me how they fake it.

During the course of a large piece of footage, an astronaut chucks something, or flicks a piece of polymer sheet in the air. The object follows a perfect ballistic path, with no evidence of air resistance.

The speed of the rise to apex and subsequent fall corresponds to Lunar gravity. Now to mimic gravity, the footage has to have been filmed in Earth gravity, so we need to adjust the speed.

Distance = 1/2 * Gravity * Time²

That is the basic equation to work out distance, with derivatives to calculate time and gravity.

For an object falling an equal distance on the Earth(9.81m s²) and Moon(1.62m s²), the differences can be determined thus:-

1/2 * 1.62 * Time-Moon² = 1/2 * 9.81 * Time-Earth²

Cancelling out the 1/2 on both sides:-

1.62 * Time-Moon² = 9.81 * Time-Earth²

Dividing both sides by Time-Earth²:-

1.62 * Time-Moon² / Time-Earth² = 9.81

Dividing both sides by 1.62:-

Time-Moon² / Time-Earth² = 9.81 / 1.62 = 6.055

Rewriting the fraction:-

(Time-Moon / Time-Earth)² = 6.055

Square root both sides:-

Time-Moon / Time-Earth = √6.055 = 2.46



We now have the difference between the Moon and the Earth times, and it equates to 2.46 or 246%


So when something is filmed on Earth, we need to slow it to 40.6% to make it mimic Lunar gravity. Unfortunately, when we do this it will only mimic the vertical component of the force as horizontal motion is not affected by gravity. HBs can get away with this by picking small pieces of an EVA where there is minimal arm and dust movement. As soon as we start looking at longer sections, the whole dumb theory falls apart.

When we have astronauts hundreds of metres away up a hill, the idea that a wire support is being used is ridiculous. Not least because they cross over numerous times.

Now, suppose you tell everybody how they are going to do that. Are the objects on wires too? And the dust as well? Perhaps you can demonstrate how the figures can actually lie.

Dust wave equating to Lunar gravity:-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs"]‪Apollo 16 full dust analysis‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

Before I begin to debunk this film, I would point out some common practices used by film makers of this type. The various techniques used are a combination of bare assertions and flawed examples followed by a generalisation referring back to the examples shown, as a means to imply the assertion as being proven. To anybody who has even a modicum of understanding in the various sections of photography, perspective, parallax, physics and logical fallacies, the arguments presented are quickly seen to be nonsense.

I would ask that anybody who watches this film, is observant of these techniques and takes careful note of how they present their so called evidence. There is simply not enough time to do a statement by statement analysis, so I will concentrate primarily in debunking each claim and pointing out how they use subterfuge to apply it to things not mentioned.

Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 1-7 Primarily makes bare assertions and begs numerous questions. It presents one piece of "evidence" from the "genius" Bill Kaysing, who quotes a study in the 50s of how likely it would be to land on the Moon. As though a study made without any real space program in place would be accurate, given the tremendous advances made with Mercury and Gemini, allied with increasingly popular satellite technology. We also have just Kaysing's word on the figures quoted in the study.


Minutes 7-8 Introduces the moronic contention that the flag movements in a vacuum during the act of placing them in the regolith, was down to wind blowing, yet we fail to see any ground disturbance from this implied wind.

Straightforward explanation video:-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc_mmtAxjMk"]‪Moon Landing Conspiracy: Fluttering Flag Debunked‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Mythbusters debunk:-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU"]‪Mythbusters Moon Hoax Flag Flapping‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Minutes 8-10 David Percy makes more bare assertions about "whistleblowers", fakery and obvious anomalies. He states the inaccurate claim that TV was always filmed off of a screen on Earth, when this was only on Apollo 11 due to the way the signal was sent:-

http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html


Minutes 10-12 He basically starts to lie. He indicates a "continuity error" occuring on the Apollo 16 mission (one that had a delayed landing of 6hrs due to technical difficulties), concerning a missing flap on the TV footage. One technique he uses at this point is to make a throwaway comment that makes the assumption that it is proven. He states "let's ignore the reasons as to why such a small jump in the 1/6th gravity of the Moon". This is wrong for two reasons.

The jump was certainly not made using maximum effort, and he weighs 360lbs on Earth. Try jumping with somebody on your back on Earth, you won't get off the ground probably!

Explained here:-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAz5OIzQsU"]‪Apollo 16 jump - strawman‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Now this supposed continuity error - a blatant lie shown here:-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0OS26q20R0"]‪Apollo 16 jump - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Minutes 12-17 Percy alleges that a transparency was clipped to the window to fake Apollo 11 half way to the Moon, says the blue glare on the window is the Earth, when it is the coating used to protect it. The whole thing is debunked in the most thorough fashion by proving weather patterns matched the view from the CSM in all 3 transmissions and the Earth disappears to the side as the camera pans back (must be a magic transparency!).

Not only would any craft be clearly visible to the Earth whilst in LEO, its radio signal would disappear with it orbiting every 90 minutes. Bart Sibrel, cited in this clip, made a 10 minute segment of his film alleging it was the Earth itself (not a transparency!) which is just totally impossible. He changed his claims later on (in line with Percy), after being barraged with counter argument showing his stupidity.

Here are numerous videos showing both these contentions are just complete bunkum, and the film makers are lying through deliberate omission!

Video 1:-

Demonstrates that during the footage filmed from the CSM, stills taken from the footage (supposedly a transparency) are moving in line with the Earth rotation.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA"]‪Apollo 11 - On the way to the Moon‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Video 2:-

Shows a brief clip from the transmissions that see the Earth disappearing to the side of the window. Very much not like a transparency!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHnGDFowHlY"]‪Apollo 11 half way to the Moon‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Video 3:-

Shows a stunning demonstration of the weather patterns matching the Apollo 11 half way to the Moon video.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y"]‪Apollo 11: Fingerprints in Deep Space‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Video 4:-

A different weather pattern demonstration.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qEoA35cLs"]‪Apollo 11 half way to the Moon part 2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Video 5:-

A thorough debunk of both Sibrel and Percy demonstrating how they lie.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T9ZM50n0z4"]‪Lunar Legacy 2/5‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Minutes 17-20 Introduces David Groves and Bill Wood, makes more bare assertions and casts "suspicion", nothing really said.


Minutes 20-22 Shows a "contradiction" in the Kodak film used, where a NASA spokesman says it was specially made, and a Kodak man who says it was not. The Kodak man was mistaken. The film implies subterfuge as is the normal theme running through it. Simple mistake from the Kodak man. The narrative is building the strawman that the film could not possibly survive in space because it uses standard available film.

"Kodak Film in Space: John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth, Kodak film recorded his reactions to traveling through space at 17,400 miles per hour. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions double-perforated 70mm film, which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black and white. Apollo 8 was one of the first missions to use this film. There were three magazines loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film - which produced 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs from the Apollo 8 mission."

Minutes 22-23 I really don't know what the film is suggesting. Jan Lundberg confirms the camera was specially adapted by Hasselblad on NASA's original specification, which they then improved upon.


Minutes 23-24 More deception. Shows photographs where the cross hairs(reticles) appear to disappear "behind" objects. He deliberately uses low resolution photographs, knowing that the higher resolution ones do indeed show the reticles, but fainter on brighter areas where the light has bled on to the film. He makes the strawman statement about how it would be totally impossible for objects to get in front of the reticles, when no such thing ever occurs!

Demonstration of this on Earth:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/cross.htm

A good debunking of the subterfuge:-

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/photoret.html


Minute 24 Shows Jan Lundberg appearing to disagree with NASA about the use of Reticles to judge distance by suggesting that stereo-pairs were needed to perform this. They then just lie about there not being any stereo-pair photographs from the mission! The link just above has one of many examples used in the Apollo photographc record.

Minutes 24-26 Percy, continues with his "photagrammetric" bull, citing non parallel shadows as indicative of fakery(bunkum first voiced by Kaysing). To say this is just pure stupidity negates the fact that he is just plain lying. In his main example, he actually draws lines to a point where he says extra lighting had to have been used, but misses the stunningly obvious fact that multiple light sources create multiple shadows!! Also, the lines he uses to create an intersection, actually cross each other in the shot! Just mind numbingly wrong.

Numerous shadow debunking videos and photographs:-

Simple 30 second debunk.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrFuCnW6T8"]‪Anomalous Shadow Directions?‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Mythbusters just nails this totally.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0"]‪Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Nailed again.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy9rkc8jq0k"]‪Moon Hoax Theory Lies: Multiple Light Sources‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

More simple demonstrations.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrPaz3xFIg"]‪Fake Moon Landing? Rebuke #4: Shadows‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


These weblinks further explain it, with clear examples showing Percy as a liar:-

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/trrnshdow.html
http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html
http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html


This website completely nails a direct example used by the film:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/shadows.htm
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/shadows2.htm

 

I want to briefly touch on another obvious point that this film creates in the viewer's mind. The old adage "no smoke without fire". By creating such a long padded out film, those who have no skills pertaining to what is suggested, or the inclination to check them out, are left with the overwhelming conclusion that "there must be something to it", because there is so much "evidence".

However, when you dissect each point one by one, it is patently obvious that this is merely a business venture that exploits those who take little convincing.

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 26-28 Percy shows us a modern composite of a Honda commercial and begs the question of the viewer. Nowhere has he demonstrated the same effect in an Apollo picture, yet he leaves the impression that he has. He cites a ludicrous example from Apollo 17, again missing the multiple light sources equals multiple shadows fact. Here is a link to the high resolution picture:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20425HR.jpg

The rocks that he says have different shadow directions are in undulating areas, where the shadow falls down subtle small slopes. Anybody looking at that picture who thinks it is a composite from 1972, is either lying, uninformed about 70s technology or just plain wrong.

Here are some Earth shadows demonstrating his whole contention as just a pack of lies:-




Minutes 28-29 He looks at the famous C rock picture itself clearly on a slope with undulations and draws these same idiotic shadow conclusions.Then he parrots the theory about the letter "C" (a piece of lint on a copy of the original that has no "C"!). He postulates that the "C" is a prop, and stands for either "center" or some rambling about it meaning light, since C is the constant for the speed of light!! Just pure bunkum.

Completely debunked here:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEygpL7r6Pk"]‪Apollo 16 and the C Rock‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DtzBMIKIp8"]‪Moon Hoax Theory Lies: The "C" rock‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxwL4DCzUN4"]‪Letters from the Moon - The "C" Rock Reloaded‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Minute 29 Bizzarely the film starts talking about the speed of light constant varying with local gravity fields!?? I can only assume they are trying to bamboozle those viewers who have no real scientific background.


Minutes 29-31 The film lays the premise that backlighting had to have been used, since objects would show up as black with the light source behind them. This is patently wrong. Percy uses an Earth shot, where the backlight shows up in the visor as an example, yet as expected could find no examples of pictures with any such backlighting reflections in the visor. Further, any backlighting not from the surface, would wash out the shadows. Always in every shot, we have crisp dark shadows, something you simply would not get outdoors with an atmosphere either.

The backlighting is from surface reflection. I already analysed that on Link 2 of this page:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links.html


Minutes 32-33 Percy makes the astonishing comparison of the light capabilities of a modified 10 frames per second TV camera which had a high intensity night lens, to a Hasselblad stills camera which has variable shutter and aperture! He makes the claim that because one had a night lens, so should the other. Bunkum. Actually he is just lying, this man is supposed to be a cameraman and would know this.


Minutes 33-49 This is more about supposed backlighting, again covered in detail on the same Link 2 here:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links.html

As further demonstration of the surface being the backlight source, the picture directly before Percy's example where he cites something that should be in shadow, actually shows the bottom of the PLSS much brighter than other parts of his suit. In addition it is much brighter than the actual area we would expect to be bright, if Groves "analysis" of his phantom light source was correct!

Here is a link to the actual picture:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863HR.jpg

Here is why Groves analysis is contrived hogwash:-




Minutes 50-51 The presenter Ronnie Stronge now offers more conjecture aimed at swaying the audience. He presents a "case proven" on the supposed fake images with vague strawman references saying how even one suspect photograph proves the case. Since I have shown that no such proof has been given, we can assume that it is aimed at promoting the idea in the viewer that it has been.


Minutes 51-55 We now have possibly the most contrived, dishonest and ludicrous of statements in this whole film. A woman nobody has heard of, talking about a coke bottle that nobody else saw, not reported in any publication, and supposedly put there by a Goldstone whistleblower!! Bunkum of the highest order.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14523

"Una Ronald claims to have “stayed up late” to watch the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moonwalk when living in or near Perth, Western Australia. She was amazed to see a “coke bottle” kicked across the lunar surface. This object was only seen during the live broadcast and was removed from replays in the days following. She also claims to have seen, about 7 to 10 days later, several letters mentioning the same thing in her local paper (The West Australian).

This claim has many irregularities, and researchers have discovered what might be an explanation. To begin, it is claimed that she “stayed up” to watch the live broadcast. This might have been the case in the United States, but it was not in Perth. The first step onto the Moon occurred at 2.56am on 21 July 1969 – Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Perth is 8 hours ahead of GMT, so it occurred at 10.56am in Perth. That’s in the morning. The moonwalk video was actually received by ground stations in the eastern states before being transmitted to Perth (see http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html for more details).

The claim regarding the newspaper reports are also incorrect. For at least two weeks following the broadcast, there were no articles or letters regarding sightings of a “coke bottle” in either The West Australian or the Daily News, the only two daily newspapers in Perth at the time. I have personally checked this, and any interested party can examine copies of the various editions of the papers on microfiche at the Batte library (State Reference Library) in Perth.

What Una Ronald probably saw was a reflection of Buzz Aldrin’s visor, reflected inside the television camera lens. This effect is known as catadioptrism, or “ghosting”."

http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html

I should point out the continual references being made to "people in the know" having the opportunity to "whistleblow"! Hoax believers cite that it would take only a handful of people with knowledge of this "hoax" to pull such a thing off, yet here we have all these numerous people supposedly with first hand knowledge of it. None of whom has ever come forward, made a deathbed confession or said anything about it whatsoever to anybody. Bunkum.


Minutes 55-56 Bill Kaysing gives us his opinion with no references or proof as per usual. Kaysing already discussed in Link 1 of this analysis:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links_16.html


Minutes 56-57 Begs the question about what "we know" about Apollo 11 TV transmissions(this is the referback method, meaning his debunked "transparency on the window" nonsense) , and then more back references to Coke bottles and whistleblowers.

At this point we are treated to some mysterious music and a few clips of video from Apollo.


Minutes 57-59 Talks about how easy it was to use the camera and align the subject of each photograph. We are told quite correctly that the astronauts spent quite some time practicing with the camera before their missions. His motive in doing this, is to later present the claim that it shouldn't have been possible with "cumbersome" pressurised gloves.

http://history.nasa.gov/spacesuits.pdf

"There are two protective envelopes employed in the space suit: an Inner pressurizable envelope, and an outer thermal and micrometeoroid protective envelope. The inner pressurizable envelope Is called the Torso and Limb Suit Assembly (TLSA); this assembly Interfaces with a detachable helmet, and a pair of removable gloves.

The outer envelope used for thermal and micrometeoroid protection Includes an Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment (ITMG), a Lunar Extravehicular Visor Assembly (LEVA)..."


Minutes 59-60 Percy cites the example of setting up the TV camera on uneven surface and aligning it, to suggest that it is the same as a chest mounted camera that they had practiced with. He also uses one of his throw away lines to further suggest that all the photography was studio quality and perfectly aligned.

Debunked here:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRvNPyYCvBo"]‪Moon Hoax: Perfect Photos? (remake)‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 60-63 More assertions about how it was impossible to change lenses and magazines because of the bulky gloves, that Percy says don't look pressurised. That is because they weren't! The inner layer of the suit was the area pressurised. It is why Ralph Rene and his quite ludicrous swollen rubber glove experiment is such nonsense. The magazines were made to be easily handled with a simple push fit to change them. The only lens I am actually aware of as being changed outside, was the one on the Apollo 11 exterior TV camera(but I am not 100% sure on that), and conveniently the only one cited by Percy as though such things happened all the time. The lens on the TV camera was push-fit.

We are also treated to David Percy's opinion on how difficult it "must" have been to adjust the camera with pressurised gloves, then tells us they could do it with gardening gloves. Quite how anybody can make a film of this nature without researching this freely available information is amazing. I can't be sure whether Percy is lying here or just badly informed. The astronauts spent a considerable period of time practising shots and adjustments even in their spare time.

Ronnie Strong continues, stating "even if they were able to do this" (which they indeed were!) as though it is in question from the strawman arguments, he then reiterates the point about so many professionally framed pictures. In actuality with a bit of practice it is quite easy to do. Here is a demonstration from an amateur photographer doing this:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/nosee.htm




Minutes 63-64 Percy isolates one picture and tells us how wonderfully framed it is. He insists it has to be a mock up because it is perfect for a publicity picture. The fact that they always pitch the flag next to the LM, and park the Lunar rover close by is, I suppose, irrelevant! Besides, the picture is not perfect, the LM is not central and the rover is cut off at the edge. This is one of those cherry picked observations that ignores the numerous awful pictures.

Percy says it would have taken a photographer several hours to get it right in a studio. The fact that we have already established perfect exposure settings for the Moon in advance, and confirmed by the 3 previously successful missions, is also supposedly not important! He treats us to a mockup to establish in the viewer a definitive of how it was done.

He ignores the sharp black single shadows, only possible in an atmosphereless environment, without extra lighting and a single bright light source. Most notable of all, he ignores the astronaut visor reflection showing his mockup is complete bull!


Minutes 65-66 More shadow nonsense. Percy compares different shadow lengths and concludes that it is impossible on a flat terrain like the Apollo 11 landing site. What rubbish! As can be seen from this picture from Google Moon, the terrain is certainly not flat at all:-



The whole premise is taken from the use of the term "relatively flat", when the relation is to massively uneven terrain. It doesn't mean it was like the Salt Plains of Utah! Percy's conclusions are so painfully wrong, that as a cameraman, he has to be lying. Shadow lengths vary with terrain and perspective, and the demonstration they use has an actor approaching a wall, debunking their argument without even knowing it!



This one photograph debunks their claim completely:-



And a website that perfectly explains this:-

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/shadlen.html


Minutes 67-68 This bit is actually a curious anomaly where the flag has changed direction after they have finished the EVA and entered the LM. Ronnie Stronge treats us to a laughable assessment about how it could be some kind of "whistleblowing semaphore signaller"!! He then gives the throwaway line, implanting a thought in the viewer, concerning astronauts dying or being "seriously irradiated on the Moon"! This is laying the groundwork for the follow up later about supposed lethal radiation.

The flag movement is easy to explain.

122:36:31 Aldrin: Roger. We have four out of eight (garbled) talkbacks indicating red. We still have the circuit breakers out as of right now. I believe this is normal. We have just entered Verb 77 on page Surface-52 and are ready to proceed with the hot fire. Is it normal to have these four red flags? Over. (Pause)

[Verb 77, Enter ("V77E") is at the middle of the page. They are about to test fire the RCS thrusters to make sure those are all working normally. During the 1991 mission review, I asked if the hot fire rocked and/or shook the LM. Did they check the thrusters individually or all together?]
[Aldrin - "We exercised the controller so that it would give a command for each of them to fire. I don't think that we were verifying that they fired. But the ground was getting something. I'm pretty vague on that. Maybe we got the noise but it sure didn't rock any, or physically jolt."]

[Armstrong - "I don't think it moved much."]

The flag was moved by the thrust from the test firing. The RCS thrusters were all fired pre launch to ensure that they worked correctly. There was a big song and dance about a similar observation on the Apollo 14 flag here:-

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3147

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCwkepJyNmg"]‪Robert Godwin talks about Apollo 14 flag pictures‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Minutes 68-69 After telling us about the "continuity error" on Apollo 11, we are then shown "another one" with Apollo 16. An astronaut preparing the flag, and told that the camera immediately pans round to the right where "astonishingly" the flag has already been erected. This excerpt actually shows the two pieces of footages overlaid and speeded up giving the illusion it was done too quickly, although Percy admits it was 69 seconds later on. He over elaborates on the details and effort needed to plant the flag and makes the strawman argument that it could not have been done in such a short space of time. Percy deliberately leaves off the audio from this clip, as it shows what happened.

Here is the Real Player clip:-

[ame]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v.1202255.rm[/ame]

And audio excerpt:-

120:23:35 Young: You really should set the flag up on a hill, Charlie, but there just ain't one (near the LM).
120:23:40 Duke: I know, John.
120:23:43 Young: I'll put it right here. Big rock.
[John plants the flag next to a rock about 1/3 of a meter across. The rock is between Charlie and the flag in AS16-113- 18341.]
120:23:50 Duke: Are you setting it up now?
120:23:51 Young: Yeah.
120:23:52 Duke: Okay, wait a minute; I'll run and come get the camera. Can't pass that up.
120:23:56 Young: That's all right. (Grunts) That's got it. (Pause)
120:24:05 Duke: Wait a minute. You're not getting away from there without me getting your picture.

Young simply walks to a spot and pushes the flagpole into the ground!

 

Here's something I just came across.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00"]‪windyz.wmv‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

youtube (dot) com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(do a YouTube search on "windyz.wmv")

I wish I could add it to the summary of evidence on page one, but I can't.

 

Here's a couple I uploaded:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn41RM-x4wA"]‪Cosmored the spammer‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYLwKqPn-YU"]‪Cosmored the spammer - part 2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


As for that video, the flag is sideways on so what movement we can see is less obvious He also stops the video whilst the flag is still moving. What relevance it has, is supposedly that it is comparing the movement of the Apollo 17 flag to the mythbusters experiment.

Cernan imparts upward inertia to the flagpole as well as lateral, and it clearly rocks up and down. This would counter pendulum force by redirection. Nothing to see really, just more HB cherry picking. Anybody who doubts this dampening effect of lateral motion - get a small weight or object and swing it side to side, then lift it vertically. It slows the swing almost immediately.

Clip from the ALSJ:-
[ame]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17v.1182035.rm[/ame]


Now about the hundreds of counter points I have raised? Or should I just cut and paste your reply to me from youtube:-

"It's clear that you don't even believe your own arguments. Why waste time debating someone like that?"


Yes, you decide I don't believe my own arguments when I most certainly do. You measure this by your China Spacewalk in a swimming pool "credibility test", when you failed almost completely to respond to my rebuttal. Quite pathetic, why indeed should you waste time debating somebody ripping your case to shreds.

Historically, your post hasn't changed much in 4 years, so debate is not your objective.

 

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 69-70 Percy reminds us of the "designer continuity error" on the Apollo 16 jump salute with the PLSS flap, where I showed him to be lying! He then points out a photograph taken with the Earth and flag in shot on Apollo 17 and indicates how difficult it would be without a viewfinder. Difficult is not impossible, nevertheless We are left with the implied suggestion.

Perhaps this charlatan could have looked at the previous image in that roll of film where Schmitt also tried to do the same shot? Here it is badly framed sideways on, with the tiniest bit of the Earth visible on the edge of the flag.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20383HR.jpg


Minutes 70-72 Percy now shows us his assessment of the Apollo 17 flag billowing "positive" ie. bulging towards the stills camera, and to his "trained eye" also billowing positive in the opposite direction to the TV camera.

It is an optical illusion, perfectly explained here:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/2flags3.htm

With a demonstration pictorially on this page:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/2flags4.htm

And visually here:-




He continues with just a bizarre summary of what his optical illusion actually means! Whistleblowing flag movers, and the Schmitt "Earth photgraph" interpreted by him as "No departure from Earth by the named astronaut in this photograph". I kid you not, he actually does say that hogwash!

Always we have the reinforcing of the "evidence" with repetition and referbacks, instilling in the viewer a sense of wonder at this "mass of hoax proof".


Minutes 72-74 Moving on to the question of why there is only one Hasselblad image of Armstrong on the Moon, Ronnie Stronge then speculates that it was because he was a reclusive man and maybe felt "guilt"! He says "was he even on the Moon"? The idea that they had one surface camera, and that Armstrong was doing most of the photography probably never occurred to them(though given the previous demonstrations of subterfuge, I suspect they did)! This is a laboured, irrelevant, contrived piece of nonsense.


Minutes 75-77 The next contention presented is "sound and light". Here we are shown footage of a bob sleigh powering down the run, vibrating as it moves along the surface. The adrenalin and excitement are highlighted as the film tells us how dangerous this is. Then on to the Apollo 11 descent where professional astronauts are cool, calm and collected as they call out descent readings. The film explains about the engine thrust and how it should have produced massive vibrations, yet clearly ignores the fact that there is no sound in a vacuum! The idea that the engine would shake the craft, the way a ground contacting bob sleigh in an atmosphere would do, is quite ludicrous.

Ronnie Stronge tells us that it is hard to believe we would not have heard any vibration or noise from the engine, yet anybody who has flown in an aircraft knows that the only noise we hear comes from external sound waves. This point is quite laboured and steeped in ignorance. The comparison is made to the Space Shuttle in LEO where supposedly astronauts can feel the thrusters firing, yet fails to point out that feeling motion is not the same as feeling engine vibration, that would at most have had only a gentle effect on the hull. A throwaway reference is made to the "flimsy" Lunar Module, where no evidence is presented as to how this conclusion is made. The external mylar and kapton is often cited by conspiracy theorists as proof of the LM as bing a "tin-can", yet this machine was built to a very high specification by a dedicated team. The idea that they would create a "flimsy" craft, knowingly, yet the hundreds of personnel involved in its design and build would stay quiet about it is another piece of hogwash.


Minutes 77-79 David Percy now gives us the benefit of his "research" where he cites a mock-up pan of what the Surveyor III craft would look like to Apollo 12 (taken from the film "Conquest of Space"), and he then concludes it is the actual Apollo 12 descent footage!! Unbelievable subterfuge. The mock-up bears no resemblance to any of the Apollo 12 Surveyor III photographs. I'm surprised he didn't point this out as one of his dumb "inconsistencies"!

Here is the Apollo 12 full descent footage:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbj8Zo053Lc"]‪Apollo 12 Lunar Landing‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Minutes 80-82 The Apollo 12 TV camera fail, is highlighted as "suspicious" by David Percy. He determines that the camera couldn't have failed, because a later mission did the same thing with no problems. Now, gee Percy, maybe they learned from their mistakes d'ya think?

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.tvtrbls.html

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat5.pdf



He carries on rambling about continuing lens flares indicating that the camera must have been still working! Lens flares are internal reflections from THE LENS, so any direct flared light would be reflected onto the vidicon screen. Direct light itself was not registered for the burnt out part of the tube. He continues by saying the blacked out portion of the tube was varied over time, which to him suggests it is still functional, when in reality, as is likely, the areas that were not burnt completely would restore some functionality over time.

Continuing, he now claims that Apollo 16 should have known not to point the camera into the Sun. So when being directed by Houston, why would they ask such a thing? Simple, the camera had safeguards built in (as a result of Apollo 12), so why would they know that it was now completely inadvisable. They were guidelines only, and since Houston was directing them, it was a logical question. A trivial and meaningless point by Percy.

Minutes 82-86 This piece of the film is one gigantic rambling chunk of nonsense, Ronnie Stronge starts talking about 2001 a space ODYSSEY(the name of the CSM) and thinks it significant that they played the theme tune moments before the accident with the oxygen stirring tanks, He then suggests the song "The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius" (the name of the LM) being played is also symbolic of the need to use the LM after the accident. Just pure bunkum! He even alludes to the term "Houston we have a problem" as being from the film 2001 and being the work of a secret "whistleblower"!


Minutes 86-87 Mary Bennett makes her entrance and advises us that the blue Sunlight and Earthlight refracted and over exposed through the LM windows is evidence of the craft being in Low Earth Orbit, when it is the coatings used on the windows. Once again we have a referback to the supposedly "already proven" Apollo 11 in LEO (when weather patterns and numerous other things prove it wasn't!) as another example of this.

Debunked here again:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDo9Gyy_W6Q"]‪Lunar Legacy 3/5‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Here is a section from that video showing how the bright Earth light appears blue, even at distance:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDo9Gyy_W6Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=116s


Minute 87-89 Percy suggests that the photograph of the damaged Apollo 13 CSM is identical to one where the cover is removed on another photograph. Irrelevant really what he thinks, the Odyssey photograph shows damage. Another daft contention. Ronnie Stronge makes an assertion that "many experts" claim, such an explosion would throw the craft "way off course". Hogwash. Who are these "many experts" and where are their computations?

We now have Mary Bennett and her "dance through space" speech, where she tells us that the Apollo 13 craft was scheduled to land in darkness, because it was just barely emerging from the terminator when the craft was over 19,000 miles on its way back to Earth. She says that Apollo 13 had just left Lunar orbit whilst it was still dark.

Let's examine this. Firstly, Apollo 13 never went into orbit!! She has the audacity to tell us how anybody with "rudimentary knowledge of astronomy or an ephemeris" could check this, but makes such a basic, bad error. The craft went around the Moon on a free-return-trajectory. This means it did not fire retro to slow its speed to acquire orbit, but was on a speed and course that took it around the Moon far quicker than normal. It also fired its engine to achieve escape velocity.

This means it hit 19,000 miles away from the Moon barely before it would have even performed one orbital rotation!

Apollo 13 was scheduled to be in lunar orbit for 26 hours prior to landing. The actual sunrise terminator moves some 13 degrees in longitude between lunar orbital insertion and the landing. Mary Bennett - epic fail.

 

Anyone who actually watches the flag movement can see that this is not the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(1:50 time mark)

The movement that causes the tip of the flag to stop moving is not caused by the end of the flag that's attached to the pole. It's not caused by the support rod either. When the flag starts moving, it's clearly because the support rod is pulling it. When it stops moving, the support rod is hardly moving at all. It's not moving in a way that would cause the tip of the flag to stop moving. The way the tip of the flag stops moving is consistent with its being in air. There's no pulling or pushing from above that's consistent with making the tip move.

This is one of those very clear anomalies that can't be obfuscated such as the ones I talked about earlier in the thread. This anomaly closes the whose case by itself. Apollo was a hoax. Mythbusters ended up proving that the flag was in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMr8H1vmOo

 

That is because the vertical motion cancels out the lateral motion. Try it with a key on a chain(swing it back and forth, then bounce it gently up and down a few times - stops very quickly). Cernan lets go at 1.52, you can see the top rod bouncing gently. The film stops whilst the flag is still moving, and the first time he lets go of the flag, he grabs it whilst it is also still moving. You just don't understand basic physics.

You have hundreds of points to answer, yet all you can do is find another white elephant to hang your ignorance on!

Now, about your China bubble you keep spamming about on my videos:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gvtOKw32o"]‪Cosmored and his spam "bubble"‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

OK, I've had a really long look at this now.

1. In the complete footage on the ALSJ, during the sequence of raising the flag, the astronauts cross over several times. Getting their "wires" crossed according to HBs.

2. When sped up 150% the motion of the flag looks quite ludicrous. It does not compare at all to the speed of the non vacuum Mythbusters footage, noticeably much quicker.

3. Also, when sped up 150%, there are little hops and steps where the astronaut is not rising or falling quick enough to now reflect Earth gravity.

4. Since the astronauts cannot be on wires (they crossover a few times), the correct speed to put back terrestrial ballistic motion is 246% (see here).

5. It could be argued that 200% speed is close enough, as determining fall speeds is very difficult. However, when the footage is doubled in speed, it really does look comical, and is even worse in comparison to the Mythbusters footage.

6. Concerning the flag supposedly stopping quick. Cernan is making the flag move by twisting the upper pole. There is nothing to suggest or eliminate the possibility that he simply twisted against the motion to dampen it.

7. From the moment we can clearly see him let go of the flagpole, as well as slight up and down movement, the most clear of all dampening motions is from the flag rotating away from the camera (ie. the upper flagpole twists on its own in the base part).

8. It is patently obvious that the slight inertial motion left in the flag has been imparted into this rotation around the base, where the whole flagpole and horizontal support would quickly dampen any movement.


I think I will make a video demonstrating these points.


I am still waiting for Scott/Cosmored to reply to my non-bubble video, where he alleges I am discredited, despite offering no counter "evidence" except his opinion. This is a counter credibility test (and a legitimate one!), since even the most ardent of conspiracy theorists can see it is clearly not a bubble.


The ALSJ excerpt showing the astronauts crossing over:-

[ame]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17v.1182035.rm[/ame]

 

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minute 89-91 More from Ronnie Stronge telling us about all the Apollo 13 anomalies found(already debunked), and concluding that "something is very wrong with this mission and the Apollo space program in general". This is just bare assertion aimed at influencing the viewer, and uses the reinforcing technique of all the "evidence" presented. He says "we certainly have to conclude that the official data concerning this mission is unreliable"! Unbelievable bunkum. They have not presented one single tenable fact to conclude this.

Stronge just spouts more bare assertions about it being designed as a "rescue mission" and that Apollo 13 never left LEO. Ignoring the fact that the craft would be clearly visible to the world, radio signals would now disappear with each 90 minute orbit and every single ground station tracking the craft would see this.


Minute 91-93 Mary "epic fail" Bennett now comes up with top grade bunkum. She highlights inconsistencies with Apollo 13. No, not the NASA mission, the Hollywood movie! Yes, she really does think that a dramatised account should be 100% accurate and proves that Apollo 13 the mission would have done the same thing. I really cannot emphasize enough, quite how stupid this is.

There are quite a few more errors on the Apollo 13 movie, that could have padded out this joke of a film even more:-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/goofs


Minute 93-94 Continuing with more Bennett nonsense. She now theorises whether the reason the landing site "that never was", took its name from the 16th century Venetian monk Fra Mauro, was because he was the instigator of a "map that never was".

Well firstly, we have already shown the landing site in darkness contention was complete bunkum, and the program presents no evidence to this non-sequitur link about fake maps. Secondly it was the 15th century, a minor point, but indicative of the level of research made. She represents herself as an academic, yet makes so many glaring mistakes and unsupported statements.

Direct quote from her "yet no trace of his map has ever been found":-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Mauro_map

I simply have to do a full quote on what this daft woman says next:-

"This adventure in mind mapping raises important questions concerning the links, between representation and imagination and even the nature of reality itself......we wonder what the Fra Mauro site symbolised for those in the know at NASA"

Stink it up, and you call that evidence?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/landing_site/

The landing site selected for Apollo 14 was in the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater, with the primary objective of sampling material excavated by the Imbrium impact.


Minute 94-95 Stronge announces that we are returning to more shadow inconsistencies. By "more" he reaffirms in the casual viewer that they have already shown some already, when they haven't. Percy continues with a TV shot of an astronaut exiting on Apollo 14 and offers the speculation "is this real or has it been simulated on a film set"? It's real. He uses his filled in light bunkum to "explain" it. Surface reflection.

Percy continues with his "ahaaa" whistleblowing theme, with some comments from the clip below:-

[ame]http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14v.1141931.rm[/ame]

114:19:16 Mitchell: Okay, set her up.
114:19:17 Shepard: Okay. All kinds of freebies in today's simulation.

114:19:27 McCandless: Roger. We've got the boys in the Backroom working overtime.

Perhaps he should list to other parts of the transcript?

114:20:34 Mitchell: Okay! There's Earth, way up there.
114:21:57 Mitchell: Back up just a bit. Right there. Okay, I have the Earth centered.

Obviously jokes aren't allowed on Apollo. Shepard was referring to the various glitches inserted into simulations back on Earth, as he encountered problems with the radio antenna on the Moon. To the deceptive Percy however, this represents "whistleblowing"! Edgar Mitchell has made numerous claims about UFOs, as he freely blows his large whistle in public, yet strangely we never hear a peeop from the even bigger Apollo whistle.

http://www.examiner.com/us-intellig...t-edgar-mitchell-on-abc-news-why-the-cover-up


Minute 95-96 Refers to "flat terrain" on an Apollo 15 clip where the shadow is "similar in length" to the astronauts height (it is longer), and the quote "shadows make a real difference up here". We then get the smarmy Percy saying "yes they certainly do", implying once again that his completely inept shadow analysis previously presented carries some weight. He then proceeds with shadows in a later part of the EVA where they appear longer.

The clue in this piece of subterfuge is with the angle of both the Lunar rover camera and the astronaut leaning to his right.The shadow falls on a downslope!



It is this very cherry picking mentality, that perfectly demonstrates the way Percy presents his claims. Blatant lying.


Minute 96-97 Here we begin the "irrefutable" proof of "superlights" by Percy. Refuted on this previous analysis:-

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

This is the video I made showing it in detail:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWyjuCGEODU"]‪Apollo Landings Debunking the "Superlight" contention‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Minute 97-99 More summation from Stronge who reaffirms the "superlight" to the viewer. He begs the question "how could NASA hope to get away with it?" "could it be a very large whistleblower?", then offers the answer to his dumb strawman questions!

His answer is "as Hitler said, the bigger the lie the more easier it is for people to believe it". Facepalm.

Continuing, Stronge then postulates a "seemingly ridiculous" hypothesis, the "outrageous" idea that all the footage was filmed in studios - indoor and outdoor. Short answer to this, yes it is. On Apollo footage we always have dark shadows, no dust clouds, lunar gravity motion, dust motion consistent with that gravity, vast open areas that have no features recognisable on Earth, always evenly lit with always one shadow. Hundreds of hours with no continuity errors, with photography matching the video and always fully consistent with it.


Minute 99-100 Cue images of Area 51 and dramatic music!


Minute 100 Now we leap to the bizarre. Stronge identifies the sinking of the Lusitania. Percy takes over and indicates that the media mocked up a rendition of this, and "presented it as real events" - when it obviously isn't. We move on to the Hindenburg disaster cause being withheld, because supposedly it wasn't the hydrogen at fault, but the outer covering as being the cause. Bunkum, and irrelevant in the extreme!

http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/myths


Minute 101-102 Cynically this film presents the Challenger disaster, but fails to make any point concerning it!

Percy summarises a woefully short list of what would be involved in faking the entire film and video record, including all the personnel, then astonishingly claims that nobody involved would have noticed, because it was performed over "such a long period of time"! Nobody allegedly involved in simulation that would need to look real, has ever come forward or made any deathbed confession. Mind numbing, simplistic, ignorant hogwash.

 

As the flag is coming to a stop, I see almost no up-and-down motion of the support rod.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

This is simply one of those anomalies that's too clear to obfuscate. I doubt anybody is buying your explanations.

Your attempts to make people think the bubble in this clip from the Chinese spacewalk is a piece of solid material are laughable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdmldA
(2:05)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gvtOKw32o

A solid object would follow its original trajectory. It would not follow the same path a bubble would follow.

People can read you attempts to obfuscate the rest of the Chinese spacewalk anomalies here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-5.html#post4105095

I'm sure people will consider your stands on these two obvious anomalies when they read your explanations for the rest of the anomalies.

 

Well that is exactly the point! I have some uploads almost ready to bury this nonsense. Though you, as usual, will either ignore it or stick your tin-foil hat on and deny everything.

Seriously, this is delusion of the highest order.

Here is another video showing the section that demonstrates this:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1LRSF62cc"]‪Cosmored and his spam "bubble" addendum‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

It is a flat object fluttering, and it is easily seen that it is rotating from flatter to more open. Gee, now show me how a bubble does that!

You have zero credibility.



This next bit is irrelevant, but what the heck.

Bubbles rise vertically. They don't expand more than 10% in 1 metre at shallow depths. Expansion is proportional to atmospheric pressure.

Trajectories in space are NEVER straight. Gravitational forces will always be in effect, particularly the Earth at 9m per second per second, at that altitude.

No, that was your original assertion!

They can read my rebuttal here and here (one that you have ignored and have no answer to!):-

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

 

Astronauts training underwater, for real.notice the way bubbles really act,not just 'one at a time' even when there's not a lot of them:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqBKbxsPLoM"]‪Training astronauts for space - under water‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

Since you wish to include this as part of your wall of spam, I shall debunk it properly.

Video 1:-

Here is my first video showing the whole clip from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. In this video, the astronauts crossover a few times, so the idea they are using "wires" that we never see, can be quickly debunked.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQxQSzj3Khw"]‪Apollo 17 flag deployment‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Video 2:-

Now, we have discounted the use of wires, since it would be impossible to stop them tangling! Here is the next video with the film firstly sped up 150%. The dust and flag motion is excessive, and several movements by the astronauts look very odd. There are short glimpses of vertical motion showing that it still is too slow for Earth gravity. I then speed the film up 200%, and now it all looks patently absurd.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPLoqxacpFI"]‪Apollo 17 flag deployment - at 150% and 200% speeds‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Video 3:-

The final video is a debunk of the motion, showing also that the flagpole is rotating, causing a massive dampening effect to any pendulum swing.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio"]‪Apollo 17 flag rebuttal‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

From the maker of the films you base your "credibility test" on:-

"I created those videos not because I believe that the Apollo landings were false or any other such nonsense, but because I saw something obviously faked when I watched China's spacelaunch and I thought it would be fun to make a quick video about it."

Gave me a good laugh, the guy you base your nonsense on, actually fails the premise of your credibility test!!