The Moon Hoax-A Discussion of a Photo

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by KChrisC, Jan 31, 2016.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Spammed and addressed already:-

    As always with information and expertise from this gentleman, who is an actual expert, it will be ignored due to some ad hominem about dust that has also been shown to be total nonsense. The person on that Aulis site has no credentials, is fictitious anyway and makes so many errors in his laughable excuse for analysis that we can easily dismiss his claim.

    Besides it's from the same people who made the hoax film showing totally corrupt practises.

    The person who supplies this link above makes no judgement on the credibility of the source when it is 10 times worse than the ad hominem he uses to dismiss the rebuttal!
     
  2. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Scott

    That is a good study.

    I am using it now to study some interesting anomalies in the backgrounds in some of the Apollo 15 photos.
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The study was inept, you are demonstrating the same level, yeah that's going to work!

    Maybe you might like to align the images correctly and explain why there should be any differences. When I say explain, not some fudged, vague claim.

    Can you do that?
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    He's referring to Jay Windley who is the webmaster of the Clavius forum.
    http://www.clavius.org/ (click on web forum)


    Jay Windley is a paid sophist who knows the moon missions were faked. Here's some info on Jay Windley and the Clavius site that I've posted before.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819
    http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=125628

    Look at Jay Windley's lame behavior on page #2 of this thread.
    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy/page2&


    Watch this video. Jay Windley won't debate on neutral ground. He'll only debate on a forum where the moderator will ride to his rescue and delete the truthers' posts when he's checkmated.

    MoonFaker: The Punch Heard All Around The World. PART 3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9TXFQLjg4


    Our friend Betamax also destroyed his credibility a long time ago by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979


    Nothing either one of them says is to be taken seriously.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are a liar! Jay Windley is NOT the webmaster of the forum. There is no actual "clavius" forum. It is and always has been called apollohoax.net

    You are a liar! You have no evidence for anything in that statement. In fact the opposite is true. Anyone with treble digits IQ knows that faking all those missions with the level of documentation and evidence available is impossible and that only brainless conspiracy nuts believe it was so.

    Moronic opinion does not count as evidence.

    Off topic spam and already addressed here:-

    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/443515-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.html

    A moronic claim. Never in the history of conspiracy claims have any of you gullible people "checkmated" anybody. I suspect Mr Windley will never engage people like you because you continue to defame him without evidence or apology.

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

    When the person assessing my credibility has no honor, no clue or understanding, wilfully avoids counter claims including huge websites and bases his claim about a spacewalk faked on his inept cable observations, I can rest easy.

    100% accurate translation:- I cannot answer any of this rebuttal because it destroys my case completely and makes me look extremely dishonest.

    Cosmored, have you watched the videos showing your film maker is corrupt?

    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/441261-apollo-moon-hoax-film-makers-corrupt.html

    You are the one who has no credibility. A truther would give an honest appraisal not avoidance and lies.
     
  6. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Okay! Who Moved My Background?

    From Apollo 15. The photo on the left is AS15-90-12243 (12243), and shows a boulder pair on the edge of Dune crater. The pointed boulder is the one with the shadow that falls upon the screen depicting the background, as discussed in an earlier post. Dune Crater itself is .5 km wide. Notice the rock groups in the red and blue circles, and the orientation line from the middle of the blue group to the middle of the pointed boulder in the middle ground.

    The photo on the right is AS15-87-11778 (11778 ), and is a close up of the same boulder pair in 12243. Notice the rock groups again in the red and blue circles. The problem is, based on what is seen in 12243, the rock groups should be either behind the pointed boulder, or to the left of it, in 11778. Yet, not only are the rock groups inexplicably on the right, but the orientation line form the blue circle rock group now goes through the smaller boulder. Oops!

    They goofed with 11778 when they did not, or could not, shift the projected terrain properly to the left. And so the same rock groups appear behind the boulder pair.

    AS15-90-12243Marked.jpg AS15-87-11779Marked.jpg

    An American citizen, not US subject.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nobody did. You are absolutely useless at this.

    Yes, as is pointed out they are 500 metres beyond. The rock is also pretty small around about 1.5 metres high.

    Inexplicably? The extremely simple explanation is that the direction of viewing the rocks is different.

    Every single thing you've done in this thread is the complete opposite of scientific process and conclusion. Here for you to ignore once again, is your claim taken to pieces. The rock picture on the right is taken from a counter-clockwise position. The effect for those needing this explained is for the background to shift around to the right on the second picture.

    [​IMG]

    View attachment 41288 View attachment 41289

    An American citizen, not US subject.[/QUOTE]
     
  8. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Apollo 15 strikes again.

    This is AS15-85-11423 taken at elapsed time 122:38:47.

    AS15-85-11423HR.jpg

    Note in the marked version below the rover's wheel, and the astronauts' footprints. Note their positions relative to the rocks in the blue and yellow circles. Of special note are the rocks in the yellow circle and their distance above the foreground's "horizon line."

    AS15-85-11423Marked.jpg

    About 39 minutes later, at 123:17:15, AS15-85-11448, below, was taken. Based on the rocks in the middle-ground, and the background, this photo was taken near the same spot as 11423.

    AS15-85-11448HR.jpg

    Below is 11448 marked up. The rock groups in the blue and yellow circles are in the same locations relative to the camera and background as seen in 11423. However, the rocks in the yellow circle are closer to the foreground's "horizon line" indicating that the camera was moved some to the rear, up the down slope of the terrain. Therefore the rover's tracks, and the astronauts' footprints and disturbances of the soil, seen in 1423 should be visible. They are not. Instead a boulder has been inserted into the scene. Oops!

    AS15-85-11448Marked.jpg
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The few people who frequent this sub forum can see quite clearly that I have completely debunked every one of your claims, yet you shamelessly avoid any of my replies and carry on stinking the place up with your trash. This latest one has used nothing more than your personal and totally biased observation. There is no photogrammetry being used and your conclusions are woeful in the extreme.
     
    usda_select likes this.
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Please note the emphasis as "near the same spot". This person's definition of "near" being in question since no distance calculations have been made for the items in circles.

    What we have here is incompetence at the most extreme level. Just by looking at the pictures we can see from the distant mountains that the camera angle has changed. The rocks circled are also different in relation to the ridge just below. Here are the two pictures reasonably aligned showing quite clearly that the camera has shifted direction and distance:-

    [​IMG]

    Yet another epic fail from this guy and he won't acknowledge it. That tells the people viewing all they need to know about his objectivity and credibility.
     
  11. jmotivator

    jmotivator Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    8
    He is standing on a small hill and his shadow is cast down it.

    Also, it isn't that one pole isn't vertical, it is that neither of the poles are vertical. The rear pole is tilting away from the camera, and the front pole is tilting to the side.

    Judging from pole shadows is dicey at best and would require some knowledge of the actual angle of the poles in the picture, which you don't have.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
  12. GrumpyCatFace

    GrumpyCatFace Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Looks fairly obvious to me that the foreground pole is leaning left, and the light source is offset slightly to the left behind the camera.
    What a ridiculous thread...
     
  13. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    36,479
    Likes Received:
    9,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean the terrain differences aren't that obvious in the picture, outside of the shadow effects. They tend not to show up well in those "down-sun" photos.

    Also, you do understand that multiple light sources would cast multiple shadows, right?
     
  14. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    36,479
    Likes Received:
    9,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What moon hoax thread isn't ridiculous? All end up being an exercise on the part of one or a few in stubbornly treating ignorance and incredulity as valid arguments.
     
  15. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    36,479
    Likes Received:
    9,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, I see I addressed this already.

    I don't know why I bother. Pravda taught me years ago already that it's a waste of time to try and educate a kook.
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There are some anomalies that are so clear that once the viewers have seen them, there's nothing anyone can do to convince them that the Apollo footage wasn't taken in a studio. Let's talk about the waving flag issue.

    Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.


    Check out the posts after reply #21 here.
    http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.15

    Those posters obviously don't even believe their own arguments.
     
  17. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    36,479
    Likes Received:
    9,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It moves when the guy brushes past it. People speculate as to exactly why it was. It sure wasn't "air resistance," though.

    But you will ignore all other evidence against there being any atmosphere present where lunar surface videos were shot and insist that the flag was moving due to air. You fixate on this one thing and reject any alternative possibility for how the flag moved, ever so slightly, and in a way that is entirely consistent with being in a vacuum (it simply swings after the guy goes by - there is no fluttering, none of the distortion in form that happens when a fabric moves through a heavy medium such as earth's atmosphere). You have one video shot from a bad angle and zoomed in too much to permit you to see exactly how far the astronaut was from the flag at the time he passed it. In fact, the way it swings is actually proof that it is in a vacuum, because it would not swing like that for as long in air. Air resistance would stop it sooner. I've seen a comparison done as an experiment, probably in response to this very claim you're making.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2017
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Are you saying he touched it? These two slow-motion videos show that it had started moving before he got close enough to touch it.

    Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement


    The flag that moved



    The footage was shown in slow-motion.


    Wrong. Watch the two above videos. It starts to move before the guy goes by.
     
  19. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    36,479
    Likes Received:
    9,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not saying he touched it, but I think that is one possibility. Whatever the cause, it's not in slow-motion. That flag swings, without any distortion consistent with an atmosphere, for longer than it could in our atmosphere, perfectly consistent with motion within a vacuum.

    There's no way it's in our atmosphere. The only question is how exactly it was caused to move. We can rule atmosphere out as a possibility.
     
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Watch this video.

    windyz.wmv



    Pay special attention at the 00:50 and 01:50 time marks.
     
  21. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    36,479
    Likes Received:
    9,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for providing the evidence against your claim. As you can see, it swings more in the vacuum, as we see in the first video you posted, and stops very quickly in atmosphere.
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're misrepresenting what the video says in order to mislead the viewers who don't take the time to watch it. The movement of the flag in the Apollo footage at the 01:50 time mark is consistent with the movement of the flag in atmosphere shown in the experiment.
     
  23. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    36,479
    Likes Received:
    9,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am comparing it to your video of the astronaut passing the flag. Again, as you can see, the flag in the vacuum in the experiment moves as your flag in that video moves, i.e. it swings without distortion and for an extended length of time, because there is no air to resist it.
     
  24. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you take a heavy cloth and make it swing at that small angle, air resistence is negligible. Slow-motion explains the length of time the flag swings.

    Also, the video I posted shows the flag in the other Apollo footage comes to a stop the way it would in atmosphere.
     
  25. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    36,479
    Likes Received:
    9,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Slow-motion does not account for what we see in your first flag video. Also, the Mythbusters video already disproves your new claim about heavy cloth and air resistance, as does plain old common sense. A flag has a very large surface area without a lot of weight, no matter how heavy the cloth used.

    The other video you posted is from very far away and not from as good an angle, making it hard to see just how the flag is moving.
     

Share This Page