In your link you cited the Clavius site. The webmaster of that site, Jay Windley*, destroyed his credibility by saying that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over**. You also destroyed your credibility by agreeing with him so why would a layman like me take your word over that of David Groves? * http://clavius.org/about.html ** https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
A site that tears your pathetic claims to pieces. You pathetic, pathetic spamming oaf. Your whole useless "method" relies on this ad-hominem argument based on your own inept and ignorant opinion. Like some kind of vacuous moron you keep insisting that you know more than an engineer. You aren't fit to wipe his boots, he has forgotten more about Apollo than you will ever stumble upon and not understand! Prove Groves isn't a layman! My credibility is fine when it is judged by such an ignorant person. I read your comment on your basketball forum where you actually lauded the incompetent Descartes as knowing about science based on his idiotic spotlight post. Your credibility has never risen above zero.
Look at this discussion Jay Windley had with a truth-seeker. https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy The link to the video they're discussing is dead. Here's the video. Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk (Part 2) He was looking so silly trying to defend the official position that the moderator had to ride to his rescue and close the thread. You can pretend all you want. You've destroyed your credibility several times by trying to obfuscate anomalies that were simply too clear to obfuscate. You tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/#post-1072065420 You said that the dust that was bouncing back up after having fallen here... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665 ...was falling for the first time. You said that the movement of the Apollo 15 flag was impossible to duplicate on Earth when anybody who wants to try it can do so and prove you wrong. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-move-so-it-was-obviously-in-a-studio.362999/ You got careless and got checkmated when you tried to obfuscate this anomaly... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676 ...and then you tried to muddy the waters to confuse everybody and hide your mistake. You can rant and insult all you want. Anyone who takes the time to actually look at these issues will see that you don't even believe your own arguments. You fit the profile of a paid sophist*. * https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html
I'm not in a position to know which one is the original. Maybe the one you say is the original has been retouched by NASA to control the damage. You may turn out to be right but considering your record at obfuscation, I'm not going to simply take your word for it. That might turn out to be true but it might turn out to be more of your obfuscation. That may turn out to be true but, did they have the technology back then to impose a false reflection on a helmet? I think they did. Something that's fakable can't be used as proof.
The one scanned from the original copy film from 1969 is the original. That would be my version. You are a known forum spammer who has no integrity and tells lies. It is quite correct and you are as always scared to admit it. You like that word probably because it is something you excel at. Everything you type is a testament to your stunning delusion and dishonesty. So now, on a moving 1972 video recording NASA is able to fake a sun reflection but instead of doing a nice neat one they do a big blob - you obviously don't believe your own horseshit.
I looked. No he wasn't. He wasn't trying to defend any official position he was asking the idiot truther to prove his argument - needless to say they failed. CQ constantly closes threads created by imbecile conspiracy theorists and it is always because they fail to answer to their argument. It's why people like you get banned. You cannot do it without lying or repeating. No need to pretend with somebody of your low calibre. Oh look the serial forum spammer has made the same post again. When the person making the credibility test bases it on his moronic opinion and he himself is the least credible person on the entire internet, my own credibility is quite fine. No I totally debunked the claim. Only a single digit IQ simpleton would think that was filmed in water. A "bubble" that is jagged, rotates, doesn't go vertically and quadruples in size after moving a couple of metres. Only a lying forum troll would hang on to that bubble claim! http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html Only the most delusional and ignorant of simpletons would claim that dust bounces when it hits the surface. Any person who has honesty will see the parabolic arc moving in perfect time and can easily see that it lands in unison. Go on then jackass. I have performed this experiment on a couple of occasions and there was no movement until it was level - just like Jarrah White's example! One notable thing was that it is 100% impossible to run past and see the thing moving as you go by. A claim you made that is just pure deceptive bullshit. Here is one experiment I made and it shows exactly what I claim - in addition the first movement is towards the object! Hey look at the spammer repeating his bullshit claim and diversion yet again! You spent pages ignoring the salient detail and concentrating on obfuscating the impact vibration. You are done spammer, the air expelled from a falling flat surface could not possibly fail to move the obvious and extensive visible dust. Anyone who closes a door can feel this draft. There is not so much spill to the sides. For TROLLS: A very simple experiment. Hold one hand level and bring the other arm with flat hand down, perpendicular to the first hand. Notice quite obviously that air is moved (do it faster, like the falling box lid - quite a hefty wave of air is displaced). Now do it sideways on - you will barely feel anything. The footage on the Moon showed a pushed shut lid descending and making ZERO frontal air displacement. The spammer cannot explain this, nor why a sideways displacement would occur and none to the front. Or just keep kicking your sorry butt. I am always correct in discussions with you the serial forum spammer. FTFY. No I don't. I fit the profile of someone who has now retired and wants to kick the sorry butt of a serial forum spammer who pollutes the internet with his dishonest and ignorant horseshit. You fit the profile of Dunning Kruger.
You being the pinnacle of virtue and honesty. What things sure look like to you are invariably wrong and come from a dishonest viewpoint. http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/apollo-12-smudge-on-visor.html They appear in the same place on the visor, over multiple different angles, and the mark is the same shape on all pictures. Clearly, it is a smudge on the visor. Here are the ALSJ links to examine the numerous pictures with the smudge:- http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6919HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7074HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7133HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7134HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7307HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7308HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7309HR.jpg Hey you conveniently forgot to address this one troll:- Now what more diversion and dishonesty?
Owned troll is owned troll. You've got nothing - run along and get educated. Different angles and it's always in the same place - even someone like you is able to work out what that means.
Your examples are poor - and in a movie studio they could do what they wanted for each scene - but I am open to the idea that it is just a smudge. Here, let's take a closer look at it:
It's a smudge and the idea it is in a "studio" with obviously miles of open area is moronic. The entire area in the gif below is lit evenly and covers a massive area - don't bother addressing it, because you can't. It cannot be anything wider than that narrow upright on the LRV so once again the stupidly absurd superlight debunked. As pointed out and neither of you two smart enough to understand, something so wide and bright would wash out the shadows that are cast by light from the opposite side of any big light! Now what - more diversion and dishonesty?
When I said "barn doors" would provide a more diffuse effect, it was regarding the edge of the beam of light. It is a softer effect than the internal shutter in an ellipsoidal and would have been preferable for shaping the beam. It is true that barn doors would provide a more directional beam; but that would help to prevent multiple angled shadows as Scott pointed out.
Forgive me for pointing out - I don't actually give a rat's ass what you think or say. Now you seem to think yourself some sort of studio lighting expert and you are obviously not. Multiple lights would show up on the visors, they never do. Multiple fill lights would soften shadows, they do not. And these flimsy barn door lights are very small, even the largest of them would not show up in complete darkness as a reflection on a visor! The marks are on the same spot on multiple images - even you can work that one out. Single light on every piece of video and it disappears when a narrower rod on the LRV passes in front of it. Keep evading this or come up with a bullshit troll response.
I don't see the smudge in these images of Pete Conrad https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7318HR.jpg https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7319HR.jpg
That's photography for you. It's a slightly darker visor exposure, most of the ones that show it are sideways on or down sun. Are you arguing that the smudge on the other photographs don't appear in the same spot? Clearly they are the same thing with the "barn doors" on all of them, variable angles and position so it cannot be a reflection. You keep making claims and avoiding major points I am making. Any chance you can stop being a moon hoax troll and start being an honest debater? Do fill lights wash out shadows? Is there any image or video where there is a light apart from the sun? How would any light be illuminated against a black background!? Does the second animated gif show the "superlight" disappearing with a very narrow rod in front? Explain it!
Betamax* has the attitude that the issue of light fall-off is about whether they faked the moon landings. The evidence that the footage was taken in air** has already proven that the footage was taken in a studio so we already know that the "sun" was a studio light. Now we just have to figure out exactly how they illuminated the studio. This discussion is about how they faked it. * http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-11#post-1072198980 ** American Moon (English Version) http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-11#post-1072210756 (2:06:28 time mark) http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-move-so-it-was-obviously-in-a-studio.362999/
I'm just a layman when it comes to lighting but it seems to me that they could have made some lights with some specially designed barn doors that wouldn't send light far enough to wash out shadows if they were far enough away from the camera and the lights were high enough and far enough apart. It's also plausible that the fall-off we see is real and the pictures that don't show the fall-off are the doctored ones. Not that I have seen but maybe there is only one light and the fall-off is real (see above). Do you mean the alleged studio light against the visor? If that's what you mean, it looks possible to me. https://crberryauthor.files.wordpre....files.wordpress.com/2015/01/reflection-2.jpg I'd like to see an experiment that duplicated the conditions to see how it would turn out. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-10#post-1072195785
Horseshit. You are worse than a layman, you are a biased spammer who can't even go searching on the internet to get this explained for you. Barn doors concentrate a scattered beam into an even narrower one to create a spotlight effect! The idea that anyone would use such a light is absolutely ridiculous, usually the light is already a spotlight in the first place:- It's impossible that you aren't a dishonest troll since the examples you gave were clearly explained with original images. Your pathetic acknowledgement suggested the crap multi-generational low resolution copies could be the originals! These images were handed out to multiple news and educational sources shortly after the missions! What a moronic statement. There is something like 40-50 hours of on the surface video and your claim about fall off is simply a lie. Or maybe you are too dumb to have ever watched any long EVA videos. You didn't answer the question and posted the absolute worst example to try to explain it. Your silly link didn't work(double link) but it uses once again a crap version of the picture and suggests that the shaded part of Al Bean's torso is the shadow of the "fresnel". That on its own deserves a large faceplant! If there is a light behind this damn thing casting a shadow, there is not a chance in a million it would be visible, let alone show up in a visor reflection. I have already categorically stated that what is "possible" to you has no interest to me. You are a dishonest spammer who has no logic, critical thinking or relevant education. The only things that seem possible to you are bullshit things that you think support your mad claims. You'll need a daylit scene with the entire area lit up for many miles with one light - the Sun is the only thing capable of doing that. You will need the sky black. Good luck finding that on Earth!
No you jackass. I have the attitude that nothing you present stands up to even scant scrutiny. You are so dishonest you will never admit anything. Wow, just look at the spammer unable to grasp how a flat surface falling expels air. No, it was the Sun and has been proven to be. Only a very massive light source could illuminate miles of terrain with single shadows. Only the Sun could be bloted out of s visor reflection from a narrow rod passing in front of its path to the visor. No, you need to figure out how to acquire some integrity and to stop ignoring and obfuscating clear evidence. There is not a studio in the world, miles wide that is illuminated with one single light source. How either of you clowns can fail to see that video as overwhelming is proof of your dishonesty. No, the discussion is about lying spammers who ignore clear evidence:- Regarding the falling flat battery cover lid and the dishonesty from "scott":- It's pretty clear that you are a very dishonest person acting dumb and doing a rather good job of it. It's also very similar to conversing with a small infant. There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and you seem to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:- There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it. The lid for the battery is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible. It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible. A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious. There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever! In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed. In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed. It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops! Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside. Now from the responses being received from this serial forum spammer we can also see a number of things:- Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable. He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking! This dishonest person will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors. The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. The forum spammer has shot down in flames his own 15 years spammed claim! Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.
Look at the 30:40 time mark of this video. Historic Apollo 11 Moonwalk Footage The center is bright and the left side is darker. edit --------------------- Look at the 18:58 time mark. At the 52:48 time mark you can even see the ray of light which I think could only be seen in air. I had the idea that a ray of light can only be seen from the side in air and couldn't be seen in a vacuum. I remember reading that years ago but it might be wrong. more edits --------------------- Check out the 57:46 time mark. Check out the 58:29 time mark. -------------------- Check this out at the 7:30 time mark. 1971: Apollo 14 (NASA)
You disgraceful troll. You fail to offer anything for a video that you know must be on the Moon. Nobody can be that much of an imbecile not to see it. Instead you do more of your stupid gish gallup observations! So what! The sun is at low elevation and the terrain is not flat. The camera also has a better light capture in the center. Is there any subject, absolutely any subject at all that you are not completely inept at? The same clip - idiot. What utter hogwash. This is a fairly poor video camera operating on low bandwidth - you deliberately scrape the bottom of the barrel for your inept "examples". There is not a hint of any ray of light on any Apollo video on any EVA. I'm surprised your miniscule mind can recall such astounding facts. Quite clearly the area in the center of the camera is brighter than the edges no matter where it points and changes as it moves. This is a camera limitation. Low altitude Sun and variable terrain. Check out 7:18 you cherry picking spammer.
