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 blotted out of a visor reflection from a narrow rod passing in front of its path to the visor. Are you going to respond to this!! How either of you clowns can fail to see that video as overwhelming is proof of your dishonesty. 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.
No, you didn't. You "responded" to the first gif with utter hogwash and have not responded to the second one. A narrow rod blocks out the bullshit superlight? This proves beyond any doubt that the image on the visor is as narrow as the rod blocking it COMPLETELY! This means further that the size of the image is being caused by blooming, which like the troll you are you evaded and made your troll post about it. The aperture closed slightly and the blooming went down. Even now you lack any integrity or honor to concede this.
Your pictures show terrain that's much more hilly than the moon footage. It's not a good comparison. I'm just a layman when it comes to photography but considering your past record of willful deceit*, I'm not going to just take your word for it. I said... A distinct line can be seen but I see that it's at a different angle from the light source so I was mistaken about that. I watched it starting at the 52:10 time mark. You seem to be right about that. I'm still not convinced by your explanation for these three anomalies though. The Mystery of the Apollo Sun https://www.brighteon.com/bed55bd6-d0da-420b-87e6-36f5020bf13b (1:11 time mark) Physics of the Moon Reflection https://www.brighteon.com/cdc4dea2-442f-4bf3-946a-6736fe6d555b http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-10#post-1072197374 Start reading here to see what Betamax is referring to. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676 He got careless and got checkmated and now he's trying to wiggle out of it by using rhetoric and invective. * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-11#post-1072198980
It's good enough considering the low quality of the camera, bandwidth and its clear and obvious tendency to highlight the central portion of any scene. Besides, when explaining things to fools one must always offer examples that even they can understand. You're worse than a layman at this and practically every associated subject. You don't make any attempt to educate yourself on basics and you disregard people who are not laymen! Your only goal is to protect your own idiotic claims. Constantly you refer to each debunked item as a "moot" point, yet still refer to your bullshit wall of spam as though it is intact. You leave dead links up, outright lies, debunked a thousand times items and you have made no attempt to rectify any of this deceptive and shameful bullshit. When one of the most dishonest trolls on the entire internet makes such a bullshit claim it has no meaning. You are the worst of the worst. For well over 15 years now you have been getting your "layman" ass handed to you. You disappear or get banned then come back and repost the same spammed crap again or elsewhere and once again ignore the detailed responses you receive. You don't need to take my word for it you jackass, you just need to play the video at 52 minutes onwards and see it quite clearly as he moves the camera! It appears the spammer has resorted to reposting his pathetic debunked videos yet again. It's absurd how he uses an imbecile "chemist" to analyse physics and then ignores where they are taken apart. Notable points: It has been proven that the light on the visor is narrow and the size of it is caused by the camera. Ergo it cannot be the bullshit superlight - which would not work anyway to light such vast areas. It would also not work in terms of its required size since it would wash out shadows on opposite sides to its beam width. There is never more than one light. The sky is dark. The entire surface for many miles is lit. A falling surface will expel air just like a closing door - this does not occur on the Apollo footage. There is not a single grain of suspended dust or wind moved dust in any video. In two highlighted sequences the falling dust matches the jumping and falls in unison. Ergo the astronaut cannot be on wires. Gravitational analyses make these jumps comport with lunar freefall! Adjustment to terrestrial freefall looks absurd. During the trench digging sequence, clear prints and very fine dust is kicked from the same area. The spammer is despicably dishonest and acknowledges none of these irrefutable points. Are you going to respond to this!! How either of you clowns can fail to see that video as overwhelming is proof of your dishonesty.
I assume the second video is an attempt to control the damage done by this video. Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue I can't see how it debunks anything. Please explain.
Your assumptions are pathetic. There is no damage from the observations of imbeciles. Low gravity and inertia explain everything. Stupid people / laymen! who understand neither have the problem. I like this comment from your layman video:- "You are asking the wrong question here. Everything you see in this footage is exactly what driving a lunar roving vehicle on the moon in the seventies looks like. And if you see something in this footage that you don't understand, then you should not say "this is not possible", but you should say "I don't understand it". And if you truly want to understand it, then you should say: "I will think hard. I will think so long and deep until I do understand it." These are not questions about the nature of nature, or consciousness, or the fabric of reality. You have a question about a golden flap flapping up and down on the front end of a bouncing car on the surface of the moon." Impossible. One cannot explain simplicity to the terminally and wilfully ignorant. It should be blatantly obvious to any honest person - therefore you won't ever get it. It is a pitch black sky. They cover and view many square miles of perfectly lit lunar terrain. Distant mountains never get nearer. These are mountains that match perfectly with lunar topography. There is only one single light source - the sun. There is always only a single shadow to any object. When they change direction to cross sun the reflective nature of the surface changes and it becomes less bright. You have no explanation for this apart from the surface of the Moon. There is not a light in existence that can illuminate miles and miles of terrain - except the Sun.
It looks like it's consistent with the air explanation to me. The viewers can decide for themselves. edit -------------- Start watching at the 3:22 time mark.
You are an ignorant layman and so is the idiot who made the video - what you think is as irrelevant as it's possible to get. The mythical "air explanation yet again. The world of stupid where air can hold large flaps up, but low gravity and inertia can't. You walking faceplant. The viewers decided you are a delusional spammer who has no honesty, logic or critical thinking.
The movement of the flaps is not consistent with low gravity and inertia. Anybody who takes the time to watch the footage can see this. Air is pushing on the flaps so they don't fall back down. The movement is entirely consistent with the air explanation.
Yes it is. You are an ignorant layman who has no interest in educating yourself or listening to people who have already done so. You are not the spokesperson for normal people who understand this, only fools have a problem with this. Hogwash. It is so brainless it beggars belief. The only consistency here is that you are the master of spouting and believing bullshit No it isn't ignorant layman. Once again - from the 2 comments on that video from "anybody":- "You are asking the wrong question here. Everything you see in this footage is exactly what driving a lunar roving vehicle on the moon in the seventies looks like. And if you see something in this footage that you don't understand, then you should not say "this is not possible", but you should say "I don't understand it". And if you truly want to understand it, then you should say: "I will think hard. I will think so long and deep until I do understand it." These are not questions about the nature of nature, or consciousness, or the fabric of reality. You have a question about a golden flap flapping up and down on the front end of a bouncing car on the surface of the moon." Hey spammer - are you afraid to answer the rest of my large post? One cannot explain simplicity to the terminally and wilfully ignorant. It should be blatantly obvious to any honest person - therefore you won't ever get it. It is a pitch black sky. They cover and view many square miles of perfectly lit lunar terrain. Distant mountains never get nearer. These are mountains that match perfectly with lunar topography. There is only one single light source - the sun. There is always only a single shadow to any object. When they change direction to cross sun the reflective nature of the surface changes and it becomes less bright. You have no explanation for this apart from the surface of the Moon. There is not a light in existence that can illuminate miles and miles of terrain - except the Sun.
The only way the flaps would stay up like that at the 3:22 time mark is if there were continuous acceleration. There is obviously no acceleration so air pressure is the only other force that would keep them from falling back down. If you disagree, explain in detail. Don't just use empty rhetoric and invective. If you can't debunk this, the rest is moot.
Boy, you are so dumb it is painful. Low gravity and inertia. To what end, to educate the un-educatable? Your responses are not even as smart as that, they largely consist of total horseshit. Translation: You cannot answer how this was filmed on Earth so you make up horseshit and refuse to believe simple physics. It would never be air doing this, just the motion of the rover bouncing and causing the flap to be kept up simply by a series of bounces timed with the point it begins to fall down. Simple inertia. How was it filmed spammer?
You didn't address my explanation. The above is a classic example of hand-waving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving (excerpts) ------------------------------------------------------- Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial.[1] It is most often applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the glossing over of details ------------------------------------------------------- Handwaving is frequently used in low-quality debate, including political campaigning and commentary, issue-based advocacy, advertising and public relations, tabloid journalism, opinion pieces, Internet memes, and informal discussion and writing. If the opponent in a debate or a commentator on an argument alleges hand-waving, it suggests that the proponent of the argument, position or message has engaged in one or more fallacies of logic,[2] usually informal, and/or glossed over non-trivial details,[2] and is attempting to wave away challenges and deflect questions, as if swatting at flies. ------------------------------------------------------- Please actually address my argument.
You didn't give one, you made an idiotic statement and backed it up with nothing. Start with the required wind speed to keep the flap from falling, show some math! No, it is a classic example of me responding to a dishonest spammer who has no integrity or the required level of intelligence to understand basic things. Please address mine you dishonest clown. Translation: You cannot answer how this was filmed on Earth so you make up horseshit and refuse to believe simple physics. It would never be air doing this, just the motion of the rover bouncing and causing the flap to be kept up simply by a series of bounces timed with the point it begins to fall down. Simple inertia. How was it filmed spammer? It is a pitch black sky. They cover and view many square miles of perfectly lit lunar terrain. Distant mountains never get nearer. These are mountains that match perfectly with lunar topography. There is only one single light source - the sun. There is always only a single shadow to any object. When they change direction to cross sun the reflective nature of the surface changes and it becomes less bright. You have no explanation for this apart from the surface of the Moon. There is not a light in existence that can illuminate miles and miles of terrain - except the Sun. Notable points: It has been proven that the light on the visor is narrow and the size of it is caused by the camera. Ergo it cannot be the bullshit superlight - which would not work anyway to light such vast areas. It would also not work in terms of its required size since it would wash out shadows on opposite sides to its beam width. There is never more than one light. The sky is dark. The entire surface for many miles is lit. A falling surface will expel air just like a closing door - this does not occur on the Apollo footage. There is not a single grain of suspended dust or wind moved dust in any video. In two highlighted sequences the falling dust matches the jumping and falls in unison. Ergo the astronaut cannot be on wires. Gravitational analyses make these jumps comport with lunar freefall! Adjustment to terrestrial freefall looks absurd. During the trench digging sequence, clear prints and very fine dust is kicked from the same area. The spammer is despicably dishonest and acknowledges none of these irrefutable points. Are you going to respond to this!!
I don't know if they used "barn doors" or not - but these images do look very similar - and I wouldn't think a "smudge" would have such sharp angled edges and cylindrical features.
Let me stop you right there - because that was all you needed to say! You have had your idiotic query addressed numerous times and examples provided showing the "duckbill" part of this on other images. You are trolling. I don't quite know what makes people do what you are doing and to some large extent I think it is both sad and pathetic. You are that afraid of being wrong you resort to idiotic games to avoid large posts. Just above yours including this:- Are you going to respond to this!! How either of you clowns can fail to see that video as overwhelming is proof of your dishonesty.
This example of your evasion of something that has you checkmated would get you laughed out of the debating hall. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-12#post-1072215450 There's a point at which the speed of the rover is fast enough to keep light flaps from falling. We don't know the actual speed of the rover. Slow-motion could have been used to make it look slower. That point could have easily been reached. The only other force that could keep the flaps from falling would be continuous acceleration. The video shows that there was no continuous acceleration so the only other force that could keep the flaps from falling is air. You seem to be checkmated by this anomaly.
What a nothing troll you are. In that tedious mind of yours, there must be such a narrow limit of phrases at your disposal, that you have to repeat copy paste the same ones over and over. If there was ever a debate hall where they allowed an ignorant layman like you in, I would wipe the floor with you on every single point you spew out. You cannot answer how this was filmed on Earth so you make up horseshit and refuse to believe simple physics. It would never be air doing this, just the motion of the rover bouncing and causing the flap to be kept up simply by a series of bounces timed with the point it begins to fall down. Simple inertia. I await your computation for it and also where you factor in that the surface is extremely uneven. Your continued evasion on this and about 100 other things seems to have you checkmated. No spammer, YOU may not know it, but the rest of humanity does. A whole company of engineers built this and tested it. It is 8mph. You really are so very low in intelligence aren't you. The circular reasoning of an ignorant layman. It is very clearly, simply a bounce on the terrain. How you or the youtube imbecile who made this, can fail to observe this is staggering. There is zero change in speed, so the question is why doesn't it do this continually? On the contrary you dishonest spammer, you cannot explain any situation where this could have been filmed! You are a pigeon on a chess board. You knock over all the pieces and defecate everywhere. "You are asking the wrong question here. Everything you see in this footage is exactly what driving a lunar roving vehicle on the moon in the seventies looks like. And if you see something in this footage that you don't understand, then you should not say "this is not possible", but you should say "I don't understand it". And if you truly want to understand it, then you should say: "I will think hard. I will think so long and deep until I do understand it." These are not questions about the nature of nature, or consciousness, or the fabric of reality. You have a question about a golden flap flapping up and down on the front end of a bouncing car on the surface of the moon." Hey spammer - are you afraid to answer the rest of my large post? It is a pitch black sky. They cover and view many square miles of perfectly lit lunar terrain. Distant mountains never get nearer. These are mountains that match perfectly with lunar topography. There is only one single light source - the sun. There is always only a single shadow to any object. When they change direction to cross sun the reflective nature of the surface changes and it becomes less bright. You have no explanation for this apart from the surface of the Moon. There is not a light in existence that can illuminate miles and miles of terrain - except the Sun. Are you going to respond to this!!
Beta, in the first gif you made of the rod in front of the sun image, you said that it blocked the image COMPLETELY! - and now in the second gif you state that: So, you said the first gif it disappeared COMPLETELY! - and now in the second gif you say it is better and it disappears COMPLETELY! I'm confused, if the first one is COMPLETELY! - does that mean the 2nd one is MORE COMPLETELY???
That is correct. It disappeared completely. There was however some very faint trace light burned into the vidicon tube - the astronaut was close to the camera. The actual image of the Sun can be seen on the rod. You know this, nobody can be that dumb not to. I say it's better because this time the rod is much narrower and further away. Also this time the caveat - no residual light remains - so your inept diversionary argument no longer applies. No, you aren't "confused", you are doing everything you can to avoid addressing what this means. I believe the word you are looking for is checkmated! Are you going to respond to this!!
I will get to your #2 gif after I get done talking about your #1 gif. You obviously think that this unpredictable anomaly somehow proves the studio light theory is wrong. I will grant that it is somewhat of an interesting anomaly. Let's look at your #1 gif that only contains 2 frames: and now let's look at my gif of the same scene that contains 48 frames: In neither one of these is there convincing evidence that the sunlight is COMPLETELY blocked by the rod. And let's take a close look at the sun's image: We can see a 3 dimensional object with a 4 pointed star that resembles a studio light with possible "barn doors" causing the 4 point star pattern. And I am not saying there is "proof" here of anything - but the real issue to be addressed is why the sun's reflection does not look anything like it should - and your ideas about that are blooming wrong!
It isn't unpredictable and it isn't an anomaly. It is an object with sufficient width blocking the path of the Sun to the visor. Pure deception on your part. You only need 2 images. One in front and one not. Here is my gif with both images 30% less brightness and contrast by way of filtering most superfluous tube light. The sun size remains the same on the unblocked image. What a crock. Why are all hoaxnuts serial liars? You are either deliberately acting the fool here or are genuinely too dumb to research this. A barn door set up is used to concentrate a spotlight into a narrower beam. The idea that such a thing would even be considered is so stupid it beggars belief. Once again, an absolutely enormous light would be needed to illuminate areas we see so evenly - by this token the opposite sides of the light would wash out the reverse sides of any shadow (I used an Umbra/penumbra as an analogy). I don't care what you are or aren't saying. This proves the rod is blocking the path of the sun to the visor, as does the second gif. The sun looks exactly as it should through the camera they used in broad daylight on the Moon. Trolling again. This gif here proves that less light in to the camera decreases the size of the reflection in the visor. If you are too dumb to see this please explain why the Sun reflection gets smaller, with your customary bullshit dishonest alternative.
Well the number one gif shows the sun disappearing, number 3 gif shows the blooming and of course the video that you will never honestly address:- Please forgive me for not waiting with baited breath for your inevitable dishonesty responding to the second gif.
