The Dust Free Sand Strawman Claim

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Betamax101, Feb 8, 2016.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Debate with this cosmored/scott person is the epitome of playing chess with a pigeon. Not only has this person asked his idiotic "credibility" question already, he ignores evidence that buries his case.

    Every person viewing this thread sees a picture showing clear tread on a visible print. Even the spammer sees this but cannot admit it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I dealt with this on page #1. Now please answer my question.
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No you did not. I already answered your idiotic question.
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

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

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are checkmated.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...lm-makers-are-corrupt.441261/#post-1065774191

    Any seventh grader could tell you that it would take a team of guys with sledge hammers beating on the dust-free sand for several hours or probably several days before there would be enough erosion to create enough dust for a dust cloud to form when the sand is driven over*.
    Your position is very lame and it would get you laughed out of the debating hall. You, Jay Windely and all of those other posters at the Clavius forum** have no credibility because all of you have taken that silly position on this issue.

    In spite of your having been exposed, you keep posting as if that weren't the case. You finally bury the part of the debate where you destroy your credibility so I have to keep posting it to thwart you. You're like the Black Knight in this video.

    Black Knight Scene - Monty Python and the Holy Grail



    Right now you're all washed up. Later, if this issue gets buried, I'll be bringing it up again.


    *
    http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15


    **
    Click on "Web Forum" here...
    http://www.clavius.org/

    ...and this comes up.
    http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php

    I've seen Apollo.Hoax.net referred to as the Clavius forum in a lot of places. I refer to it as the Clavius forum so that everyone will know which forum I'm talking about.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You don't even know how to play chess, you are the pigeon crapping on the board, knocking over the pieces and crowing how smart you are.
    You are a troll with no integrity, no education on any of this and a repulsive inability to see logic or reason.

    The appeal to seventh graders! You are not qualified, Windley is. Notwithstanding that your whole argument is a strawman of total insignificance. This thread shows prints being made and fine soil being kicked. There are no circumstances where this is possible with dry sand. All your limited brain is doing is clumsily and ineptly trying to show that a dust free environment could be created. It doesn't have the capability to see how that is not relevant whatsoever.

    Then I shall refer the moderators to this post by way of reference to your insane spamming.

    Another website that owns your inept wall of spam.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Show where you answered this question:-

    CAN YOU SEE THE PRINTS? Because everybody else can. Your argument(if you can laughably call it one) suggests that because they aren't as perfectly defined as the ones made for the camera picture, that means they are possible in dry sand. Idiotic.
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is this where you got that photo?
    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1482841.mpg

    It looked like you doctored yours a little if you got it from there. You can jump up and down and scream that those are clear prints all you want but anyone who looks at the clip can see that they're not.

    After having seen your lame position on the dust-free sand issue, nobody with any brains is going to take you seriously no matter how much rhetoric you use or how authoritative and patronizing your attitude is. You're all washed up.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The post above from the serial forum spammer highlights once again why he is inept. He doesn't even read post properly. The video I obtained the still from, is in the first post of this thread. The still as shown was slightly sharpened and contrast boosted since the original video is clearly not high definition.
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are a liar. You know there are clear prints, everybody who looks at that picture will see a clear print. Everybody!

    You are the lowest common denominator. You simply run away from admitting your mistakes. The 3 geologists you claim supported your argument which no longer exists btw, are not qualified to assess how aggregate reacts under transport. And once again you are just too dumb to realise that it is an irrelevant strawman.
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was looking at the wrong clip and I couldn't find the exact frame. Now I see that this is it.


    (2:45 time mark)

    I'd like to see an overhead view of that. Also, the soil might have been a little moist at that particular spot. We don't see dust flying away from that spot so we can't see whether it would clump the way moist soil would.

    And let's not forget that you agreed with Jay Windley on the dust-free sand issue...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-strawman-claim.443515/page-3#post-1067222174

    ...so we see that you're not objective about Apollo.
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    How pathetic are you! The very clip in the OP, together with excerpts that make up over 30 minutes of continuous footage! And now you come up with the tacit admission that these are prints after all and the ludicrous claim that the ground there is wet! All through the 3 clips in the OP, we see prints being made all over that area, whilst clearly fine soil is kicked along the ground.

    I don't care what you want to see to avoid answering the basic question. There are prints being made all over this area all the time, and every area has clear easily seen fine dust being kicked and not suspended. They are on the Moon, it's proven by this sequence. We then have the scooped soil rising very high and at speeds that match close enough to 1.62m per second squared. This means that to make the soil fall at lunar freefall speed, the astronauts look like this:-



    You have 3 choices, honesty and admit they look ridiculous, obfuscation and suggest the soil looks too quick now, denial and cowardice. Never in your lifetime will you select the first choice. The second choice can be compared against this Earth video:-



    To honest people, they are the same soil speed.

    This from the idiot who DID forget this and asked me about it yet again, when the OP details quite specifically the reason for the thread. Yes, I agreed with the engineer. You quoted 3 geologists who also laughed at the suggestion the Apollo moon rocks are faked. Your selective
    belief in what they say, albeit unqualified, is really very dishonest. But then again, you've been doing this same now troll activity for 10 years now.

    You're kidding me right? You are so stuck up your own backside with your inept opinions, there is no room at all for honesty and integrity. You really are the worst kind of hypocrite.

    Windley:
    Yes, and that's my point. if you want to say that the stuff in the Grand Prix video was washed and sifted sand, such as on a beach, then you have to explain why the surface in the video clearly doesn't look like sand. We're back to the same nonsense you were arguing when you were banned. You're borrowing properties from various kinds of aggregate and pretending there's some single "magic sand" version that has only the properties you need and none of the properties that dispute your claim. Yes, we're back to you making Magic Sand claims.

    I don't have to prove the footage in question is real. You're telling me the footage in question was produced by a certain method. I'm pointing out that the footage in question doesn't exhibit behavior consistent with the method you say was used. It has nothing to do with authenticity.

    How would you know if it were plausible? You don't have the wherewithal to determine that.

    That's not what I asked. The question is about what method we should use to test your hypothesis regarding radiation or other engineering factors. You admit you are not conversant with the proper mathematics to do this. I'm asking whether that presumes the premise that a mathematical proof is necessary. You are filp-flopping. On the one hand you refer constantly to "common sense" in place of specialized knowledge, and here you seem to admit that these specialized techniques are proper.

    Are you qualified to know whether your sources accurately represented Dr. Van Allen? Are you aware that Dr. Van Allen explicitly repudiated the hoax theories?

    You got owned in that thread. So many questions you ran away from and so many points that destroy your pitiful claims. Get a life.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017
  13. Private Citizen

    Private Citizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,080
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Also I will be watching this little conversation you are having looking for anything to report.... I've already found some things. See how you like your posts being deleted as if they never existed.
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're sidestepping the issue.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-strawman-claim.443515/page-3#post-1067229992

    Jay Windley and the posters at the Clavius forum said that this footage...

    Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)



    ...had to have been taken in a vacuum because dust billows in atmosphere. I said the soil might be large-grained dust-free sand. Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters said that that was an impossibility because it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That lame attempt at sophistry was a bad move on his part because any seventh-grader could tell you that's false. That destroyed his credibility. You agreed with him. That destroyed your credibility.
     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What a boring tedious person you are. You assume that you know better than a qualified engineer whilst claiming kids understand this issue. Your opinion is useless and for the umpteenth time your claim is irrelevant. Do you hear me? It is Irrelevant!

    We are not seeing dust free. We clearly see very fine soil flashing across the surface with clear prints being made.

    You don't sidestep this you deny it like the non truther you are. You are the cornered Black Knight excluded from the Debating Hall because you have your jocks on your head!
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This whole post has been ignored by the serial forum spammer. He claims wet sand yet ignores the obvious dust being kicked at that exact spot.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said this...

    ...and he answers with this...
    ...as if the issue I was asking him to address was the bootprint issue.

    Hey Betamax...

    I'm talking about the rover footage in the video I posted.

    I'll say this again.

    I said the soil might be large-grained dust-free sand. Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters said that that was an impossibility because it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That lame attempt at sophistry was a bad move on his part because any seventh-grader could tell you that's false. That destroyed his credibility. You agreed with him. That destroyed your credibility.

    You are all washed up. No one who takes the time to look at that issue is going to take you seriously. This is so clear that your not recognizing it isn't going to confuse anybody. All you can do now is try to bury the issue deep in the thread to reduce the number of people who see it.
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    How very uneducated you must be. You seem unable to grasp a number of very basic issues. Notably this is MY thread and it is about what I say it is. That would be visible prints and kicked fine dust. Something only tediously, obsessive liars deny as being visible. If you wish to discuss your off topic strawman whereby once again you get your inept sorry butt kicked, by all means, open another line of spam!

    And, addressed in the OP.

    NOBODY agrees with you. You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. You have no education on the matter, you are not qualified to assess what a seventh grader knows about it, you are a joke. Once again you offer your moronic credibility test.

    You are the internet equivalent of flatulence. You wish to argue against an engineer with qualifications on the relevant subject simply because you are a serial forum spammer who thinks they know better.

    ETA: The OP shows fine soil being kicked on the exact spot where the print was made. You cannot answer this honestly, because even you are bright enough to realise this proves they were on the Moon. Ten years later and you know Apollo happened as recorded, yet here you are spamming away, making the same idiotic claims. How very sad a life you must lead.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I have a few threads going that prove on their own that the lunar missions were not faked. It is a waste of time expecting the serial forum spammer to admit any of it. Yet conversely, ridiculous claims, idiotic supposition and useless research - these he has no problem with and holds on to them with a degree of fixation and obsession that beggars belief.
     
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Go back and look at this again.

    (from post #61)

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-strawman-claim.443515/page-4#post-1067237969
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are a ridiculous and hopeless person. I answered that in the post following it and disproved that claim in the actual OP! I show two gifs on the same spot, one with footprints, one with obvious very fine dust being kicked. You are owned again. Nothing you say has any merit or novelty. There is simply nothing you can or will accept since you have an insane obsession that has driven your serial spamming antics for a decade.

    Your posts are like a comedy joke book of cut and paste duplicates. I could list about a dozen phrases and within a couple of posts you will be spamming them. Black Knights, debating halls, obfuscating this, sophist that. I would appeal to your logic and reasoning, but you really don't have a solitary scrap of either. Get a life.
     

Share This Page