The moon landing is fake.

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Yant0s, Mar 28, 2019.

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    They've been explained by the posters at Clavius who were shown to be sophists years ago.

    As I don't have the math background to do the mathematical proof, I'll have to say it's up in the air. All you did in post #170 was to outline some of the factors that need to be used in the proof. Now we need the proof. Considering it to be proven after merely outlining the factors needed to do the proof would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

    I don't have the math background to do the proof but I have enough of a background to know a proof is necessary.
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are lying again and the members there are experts in their fields. You have shown nothing at all about sophistry - your sole debate tactic when cornered is ad hominem.

    You don't have background in anything relative to this discussion. It is not up in the air because you have done nothing to question it. I have shown quite clearly the major difference is a very hot surface radiating accumulated heat at 1kw per square meter.

    That's right and all you did was a big fat zero!

    Then supply it. Otherwise you are blowing air out of your butt.

    Considering it "up in the air" when you have supplied nothing whatsoever wouldn't get you an invite. If I had you one on one in a debate situation I would tear your claims to pieces - you just repeat and deny and are lost without your useless spam links.

    I don't need to prove your claim for you! You have been given enough of a difference to understand why one craft would be having considerably more heat coming in. For a sane person that would be enough.
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Experts can be paid to work as sophists.

    You didn't address the actual issue of this post.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-7#post-1072069453


    Your reply to that particular issue was 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.[2] It is also used academically to indicate unproven claims and skipped steps in proofs (sometimes intentionally, as in lectures and instructional materials), with some specific meanings in particular fields, including literary criticism, speculative fiction, mathematics, logic, science and engineering.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    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. The distraction inherent in the sense of the term has become a key part of the meaning.[2] The fallacies in question vary, but often include one of the many variants of argument to emotion, and in political discourse frequently involve unjustified assignment or transference of blame. Hand-waving is not itself a fallacy; the proponent's argument may incidentally be correct despite their failure to properly support it.[2] A tertiary meaning refers to use of poorly-reasoned arguments specifically to impress[7] or to persuade.[1][7]
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    You can pretend all you want. Jay Windley and the other pro-Apollo posters totally destroyed their credibility by saying that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over and you destroyed your credibility by agreeing with them.

    You're all washed up.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2020
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Spam addressed 3 or 4 times on this website and you unbelievably are spamming the same claim on the other thread I have replied to!. You are despicable - I created a thread years ago (in my signature) for this specific nonsensical claim and you have blatantly run away from addressing significant points within it. Your modus operandi is just blanket denial and ad hominem. Your "acid-test" is a moronic claim about another flag spinning wildly supposedly underwater and a bubble that is clearly a jagged piece of ice rotating.


    To summarise yet again:-
    [​IMG]
    Apollo footage shows very fine dust being kicked along the floor, distances that are unrealistic on Earth.
    It shows this pretty much in every piece of video where we can see their feet.
    Very often we see prints being made that are well defined and are flat enough to reflect sunshine.
    When close enough, their definition can be clearly seen to show the tread from boots. Below top right.
    [​IMG]

    Now to what is obvious:-
    Wet sand cannot behave this way, nor can wet dust or any fine particle. It simply will not scatter un-clumped and at the distances we see.
    Dry sand will not even come close to taking a print.
    Jarrah White used a very fine simulant and was unable to make anything close to the print we see being made!
    His video at 2:49 minutes shows quite clearly the way this dust suspends in air!
    On the one hand it is claimed unwashed sand was used, then when shown to be impossible, it now becomes unwashed very fine dust!


    As can be seen, even fine dust on Earth doesn't take the same prints as Apollo and obviously is now small enough to be able to be suspended in air. The serial forum spammer cannot respond honestly to any of this, whichever way you look at this the visible evidence is not possible to duplicate on Earth.

    Wet sand = clear prints no possibility of fine dust. Dry sand = no prints and visible dust(but not the same distance). There is no middle ground.
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Three videos that disappeared from YouTube are back.
    https://www.brighteon.com/channels/stevedachemist

    Here are the titles of the other ones that disappeared. I did searches on them but nothing came up.
    Physics of the Apollo Moon Reflection
    The Mystery of the Apollo Sun
    Galileo and the Apollo Moon Jump
    Apollo Astronaut in Impossible Position
    The Apollo Moon Paradox
    Physics of the Moon Flag - part 2

    I hope they come back too.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
  7. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,721
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
  8. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,721
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes they have all been !massively debunked.

    The lunar landings were real and no one has ever proven otherwose
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This public nuisance of a spammer; a coward beyond words. He drops his pathetic posts and avoids answering at all costs.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You didn't address the anomaly that the video in post #181 dealt with.


    Here's the other video.

    MoonFaker Project Sandbox
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Listen up you piece of work troll, you didn't address anything back at you!! As for your gish gallup evasion routine, that is spam as usual and already addressed about 3 years ago!.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2020 at 5:08 AM
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Please link to where it's addressed. What you said in post #184 doesn't address it.

    Anyway, you've already shown that you're not fit to talk about sand as you agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-7#post-1072069453

    Please clarify your position on that. Do you agree with Jay Windley?
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No troll. You have a large unaddressed post above.

    Shut up troll. Asked a dozen times already and answered just as many. You are so lost in your world of spam that you forget previously where I have rubbed your nose in your own mess. The small gif above shows quite clearly some soil rising between his feet and some as a wave in front of him - visibly coming down at the same time.

    nb. When I say visibly coming down, liars and cheats will deny such a thing. Quite clearly the soil is thick enough to cast a visible shadow that follows a forwards path in line with the wave.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2020 at 9:05 AM
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In all of that footage it would be very consistent with earth gravity if it were sped up a little.

    (post #185)
    MoonFaker - Project Sandbox
    (4:09 time mark)

    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-strawman-claim.443515/page-2#post-1065855578

    MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2

    (5:08 time mark)

    Which of his videos are you referring to?
    MoonFaker - Project Sandbox
    MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 1
    MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2

    Here's the thread where this was all dealt with before.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.443515/


    Let's hear your analysis of the video in post #181.


    The great Jay Windley* from the Clavius forum and all of those other posters there made complete fools of themselves by saying that just transporting 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 totally destroyed your credibility as an analyst by agreeing with them. You can pretend all you want.


    *
    http://clavius.org/about.html


    **
    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
    (post #26)


     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Look at this jackass. Quoting points and not answering them! His response is to dump his spam videos.

    As for this troll assessing people's credibility based on his own ignorance, well safe to say it can be dismissed

    No amount of evidence will be sufficient for a troll with Dunning Kruger.

    The small gif above shows quite clearly some soil rising between his feet and some as a wave in front of him - visibly coming down at the same time.

    nb. When I say visibly coming down, liars and cheats will deny such a thing. Quite clearly the soil is thick enough to cast a visible shadow that follows a forwards path in line with the wave.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2020 at 1:14 PM
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Try again troll. This time when you quote a section address the damn thing!

    We see prints and fine dust kicked. None of your stupid videos duplicate this. As for your idiotic claim about it being speeded up, the digging a trench video only shows terrestrial freefall at 245%. At that speed only a moron thinks it looks normal.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It doesn't look normal. It looks like slowed down movements that were filmed on Earth. I put the speed of the video on 1.5 and it looks exactly like it would look on Earth.

    Apollo 15 Digging a trench



    The whole thing looks like it was filmed on Earth.

    Physics of the Apollo Moon Walk
    https://www.brighteon.com/7588098f-0e70-454c-851d-ae80d7e5254a

    And then there's the video in post #181.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-8#post-1072147429


    Also, as I said in post #189...

    The great Jay Windley from the Clavius forum and all of those other posters there made complete fools of themselves by saying that just transporting 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 totally destroyed your credibility as an analyst by agreeing with them. It's so clear to the viewers that you have no credibility that it's really a waste of time to continue talking to you. You can pretend all you want.
     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Come on spammer, enough of your sad little games. You are like a broken record afraid to admit your stupidity. Spare me your moronic credibility assessments.

    Answer the above, clear prints and fine dust. In addition clumps of soil moving with perfect lunar motion. Something that can only be corrected with a 245% speed increase if it is to be filmed on Earth.

    You're busted and you know it.
     
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The soil might be a little moist in that particular scene.
    I wouldn't say the clumps are moving in perfect lunar motion if the motion looks pretty much like Earth motion when the speed is increased to 1.5. I would say that its looking like Earth motion when the speed is increased to 1.5 pretty much proves the footage was taken on Earth and shown in slow-motion.

    Let's hear your analysis of the video in post #193.

    Don't forget that you destroyed your credibility by agreeing with Jay Windley.
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Dishonesty is your forte. Prints being made on areas where clearly fine dust is kicked.

    Yet at 1.5 speed the soil isn't falling at 9.8m s^s. Again your opinion is dishonest conjecture. You are busted again spammer.

    Windley the engineer is correct and you the serial forum spammer who lies every day of their life are not. It's also a gigantic strawman because we see clear prints and dust from the same areas.

    Don't forget you are a lying serial forum spammer who has no qualifications. How you have the audacity to assess the credibility of others is beyond me. You get humiliated daily and are not smart enough to notice. Dunning Kruger.
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How do you know it's fine? I might be large-grained dust-free sand that's slightly moist. The movement would be consistent with that scenario.

    1.5 probably isn't the exact speed to exactly duplicate Earth movements but it seems to be pretty close just by observing it.

    Engineers can work as sophists*. This situation is too clear to obfuscate. Any seventh-grader could tell you that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand wouldn't cause enough erosion to create enough dust for a dust cloud to form when the sand is driven over. The fact that you agree with him shows everyone with an IQ of ninety and over that you don't even believe your own arguments. You fit the profile of a paid sophist.

    Let's hear your analysis of the video in post #193.



    *
    https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I use my eyes to see wispy dust being kicked ridiculous distances from minimal contact. The movement is consistent with fine dust being kicked on the lunar surface. Your moronic claim is just that.

    Your ignorance on gravity is staggering. What steps have you taken to do frame and distance analysis to confirm your dishonest assertion? I have taken numerous sections and performed a gravitational assessment. The normal footage is exactly what it should be on the Moon and only a 245% increase makes the soil drop at Earth freefall.

    You are busted and know it. Every blundering turn you make uncovers more of your ignorance on every single associated subject.

    So can trolls like you.

    A seventh grader would know more than you and they would still understand friction in transit and how the mass above can accentuate it considerably. You are the dumbest conspiracy theorist on the internet - so dumb that even when it is pointed out that your whole claim is an uninformed straw man you still persist.

    Quite clearly to any honest person we see dust being kicked long distances in the same areas as detailed prints with obvious tread patterns. Your hero Jarrah was unable to duplicate this with possibly the most idiotic experiment possible.

    That rules you out completely. I 100% believe my arguments and make quite a special effort to destroy all of yours completely.

    You fit the profile of a dishonest lying troll who doesn't understand how limited they are in intelligence and reasoned thinking.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2020 at 8:44 AM
  24. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's also consistent with large-grained dust-free sand being kicked in Earth gravity shown in slow-motion.
    All that's needed is a comparison with Jarrah White's video at the 4:10 time mark.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-8#post-1072154472

    I only goes up about seven inches so it looks like it would be kind of hard to calculate.

    This guy shows the extreme differences between the flag movement in the Apollo footage and how it would really have looked.
    Physics of the Moon Flag
    https://www.brighteon.com/e347e5dc-061f-49d9-8516-0795dfeb33bfJ

    If there's that much difference in the flag movement, there must be a similar difference in the movement of the kicked dust. Just speeding up moon footage wouldn't make it look exactly like earth movement..

    After some of the lame things you've said on this forum no one with an IQ of ninety or over is going to trust your calculations. You agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue and you tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-chinese-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/

    You ignored my request that you analyze the video in post #193.

    Whether you recognize it or not, you're all washed up.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, you ignorant troll, it is not.

    No, much more than the observation of an imbecile is required.

    Clearly and provably you have not watched this video.



    You seem to believe the ignorant rather than the informed. His whole premise relies on the false claim that the pendulum motion is the full fall of the flag. You have spammed this crap before and I have answered it before. You ignored my response because you are a lying troll.

    The pendulum of the flag is a diagonal from the top corner to the bottom. In addition, it is a fabric and transfers energy between itself. It is basically a multi-pivoted complex pendulum and your "chemist" should stick to something he knows! You are too dumb to understand.

    I'm sure when you typed that it looked good, but it reads like you admitting that you cannot replicate Earth motion from the Apollo footage and for once in your sad useless history, you are correct!

    A spam comment you made already. That disqualifies you. My calculations are just fine.

    That is correct, I agreed with the engineer rather than the ******* troll.

    Only a complete moron thinks that is in water.

    Troll. You have ignored quite literally every single debunk aimed at you.

    Your use as a chewtoy is becoming less and less enjoyable. You are the most irritating troll on the internet.
     

Share This Page