The moon landing is fake.

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

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Spammed across multiple forums and multiple times here. Already addressed.

    These two videos show what happens to light when it strikes a curved surface and also when the camera capturing it is overloaded.





    I made this gif for the troll many years ago and like the hopeless fake you are, you ignored it!

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2020
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You also said that the Chinese spacewalk was real.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/#post-1072065420

    You also agreed with Jay Windley's* lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue.
    https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

    In those two cases you obviously don't even believe your own arguments so nobody's going to take you seriously. You fit the profile of a paid sophist**.


    It seems pretty strange that none of the Apollo reflections look anything like the space shuttle reflections.

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/74309462572638316/
    https://www.brighteon.com/cdc4dea2-442f-4bf3-946a-6736fe6d555b


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

    **
    https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In your bottom gif the stick blocking the sun is not flat. The reflection of the sun is going to be different on a curved surface. I can't find anything that shows what happens when light from a source is reflected on a round tube. A tube is different from a convex surface.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=ref...USyYUKHfWcAI0Q_AUoAnoECBgQBA&biw=1366&bih=657

    You're good at obfuscating when something takes a high education in science to be able to analyse. When there's a simple easy-to-understand anomaly such as those in the Chinese spacewalk, your obfuscation is clear to laymen.

    You are a known obfuscator so you are not to be taken seriously.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Spam. Only a moron thinks that is filmed in water.

    Spam. I agree with the engineer for extremely obvious reasons and disagree with the forum troll who isn't smart enough to lace Windley's boots.

    Spam. I believe and back up both my arguments, you do neither. You are not the spokesperson for others, especially people with logic and critical thinking!

    Spam. You fit the profile of a serial forum troll who is paid to create conflict.

    It's only strange to morons who don't know how different cameras behave.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nor does it need to be, it's shape is irrelevant!

    Yes and also again irrelevant!

    Your research skills are pathetic and it is irrelevant.

    Irrelevant.

    I have a high education in science and you are useless at understanding anything. The problem is not my explanation, you are just too ignorant.

    Spam. Only a moron thinks that was filmed in water.

    You are a known and proven serial forum spammer who trolls and ignores debate. Your "assessment" of me is a lie - there is no known anything just your bullshit opinion. Once again your evasion and lack of understanding is profound and pathetic.

    Once more for the extremely hard of understanding:-

    [​IMG]

    It appears the very simple needs to be explained to the very simple. The shape of the sample collection rod is irrelevant. What IS relevant is it's width. We can clearly see a wide sun on the visor, caused by the curvature and also from the camera exposure.

    The narrow rod however, blocks the Sun almost completely when passed in front of the visor! The conclusion from this negates any crap about the sun being too big, since it is clearly caused by the two things identified - curvature, camera. I suspect you are too dumb to even understand this even with a basic and in your face demonstration. You are a known liar and I await your next confirmation of this.
     
    bigfella likes this.
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your attempts to cover up these clear examples proving they are on the Moon is really quite pathetic. The "viewers" will not be influenced by your lies and evasion.


    [​IMG]

    We can see that the wave from this jump travels forward and disperses - there is a shadow cast of the wave. In addition, quite clearly and irrefutably can be seen a nice little clump of soil between his feet rising and falling with him. This proves beyond any doubt that he is not on wires, unless you claim the soil is also on wire!

    This is the cue for more lies and evasion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
    bigfella likes this.
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No one is going to take your word for it after your having said that the Chinese spacewalk was real and your agreeing with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue.

    To settle this we'd have to do an experiment with the same conditions with a light, a reflective tube, and a convex reflective surface as the helmet. Until then, this is up in the air. It's really a moot point anyway as there is lots of other proof of Apollo fakery.

    You just destroyed your credibility (again).
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That is the Sun and it has already been pointed out that any light big and bright enough to light that massive area would need to be so big that either side would wash out the shadow from the opposite side. I assume you are too stupid to understand this. A simple to understand example is the Umbra and Penumbra from an eclipse.

    The camera uses a vidicon tube which is prone to blooming with even minimal light. The idiot proof example where the large sun light on the visor disappears when the narrow rod gets in the way shows that the glare MUST be caused by the visor and the camera.

    Once again I shall assume that you are too stupid to get this, because if as you imply that is a large spotlight, then it would still be visible either side of the rod!

    No it isn't troll.

    Modern camera not subject to the same issues as a vidicon. The disappearing sun on the Apollo gif, when the rod passes in front of it proves this. But, as we all can see, you are simply not smart enough to even understand this.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Obvious troll is pathetic.

    Once again for this disgraceful spamming fool:-
    Windley is an engineer, you are clueless. Friction and mass above cause dust to be created during transport, a seventh grader would laugh at you for being so dumb. Anyone who thinks the spacewalk was in water is an imbecile. You aren't the voice of others, nobody with any intelligence has agreed with you.

    Bullshit. There is nothing to settle. The sun is reflected on the visor in a similar way to the ISS example you posted. The problem is the vidicon camera causes the image to bloom. This is 100% proven when a narrow object moves in front of the path of the Sun to the visor and the whole Sun image disappears!

    How can anyone be too clueless to understand this?

    [​IMG]

    It is proof the area is lit by the Sun and most certainly not moot. There is no proof of fakery. Everything you present has been debunked. You are a cowardly troll with no honestly or integrity. You are getting your butt kicked and are doing everything in your feeble power to cover it up!

    Spam. When the judge of my credibility is an imbecile who makes ridiculous claims and spends his whole life being a laughing stock on the internet, I think I can safely dismiss it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  11. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    54,091
    Likes Received:
    8,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You education history is from where?
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nobody is going to take your word for it. Tell us the difference between what would happen with something flat blocking the light and a reflective tube blocking the light and a non-reflective tube blocking the light.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-9#post-1072159467
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You really are so very clueless about this aren't you! It doesn't matter what is blocking the path of the Sun to the visor!

    Ok, let's put this into terms that even a simpleton can understand:-

    • The reflection on the visor is estimated at 10cm wide.
    • You claim it is a spotlight.
    • It is the Sun and blooming from the vidicon camera.
    • For something to block off the spotlight reflection10cm wide, it must be an object at least having the same width.

    The rod is about 2cm wide and makes a 10 cm reflection disappear! Now - Do You Understand!?
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You really are quite low intelligence aren't you. The reflection on the rod is irrelevant you fool! If this is the full genuine reflection from something, on the visor it should NOT disappear when a narrow rod gets in the way. It must be something equally as big as the reflection.
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ...said the guy who shamelessly said that the Chinese spacewalk was real and agreed with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-9#post-1072159467

    No one is going to take your word for it after those lame stands you took on those issues.. My position is I don't know until an experiment is done or a page on the internet which shows this is found.

    When you make a pronouncement, a thinking person will consider it to be a lie until it's proven true.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  17. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,825
    Likes Received:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Chinese space walk wss real as was the lunar landing
     
    bigfella likes this.
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Spam.

    You really are quite low intelligence aren't you. The reflection on the rod is irrelevant you fool! If this is the full genuine reflection from something, on the visor it should NOT disappear when a narrow rod gets in the way. It must be something equally as big as the reflection.

    A thinking person will understand this. After all this time I an now positive I know what your problem is. You are actually genuinely stupid.

    To block off a 10cm white area on the visor, you must have something at least that wide to do it. If something much smaller does it then the 10cm image must be being made by the over exposure of the camera.

    You fail on everything, but are too stupid to see why. Dunning Kruger.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  19. Yant0s

    Yant0s Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Certainly not the moon!
     
  20. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    54,091
    Likes Received:
    8,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, your expertise on the topic is not good then.
     
  21. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    There are several times in this video when the reflected image is almost completely obscured by the helmet but remains intact. This is good evidence that the light source is indeed much larger than the sun:

    a17_01_edit.gif
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did cosmored call for reinforcements?

    So let me understand your argument here, because it sounds quite dumb! The Sun is "obscured" by the helmet because he turns his head sideways and the Sun is only partially cast on the visor? Is that it?

    Now instead of posting horseshit, suppose you do something amazing and explain the gif I posted. Clearly when something gets in the way of the path, the Sun disappears. In your stupid example the Sun is still being reflected on the visor and the camera still over exposes it.
     
  23. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    My example is the same as yours, but instead of a rod in the way of the path we have the helmet getting in the way. Surely, you can understand that.
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Boy, that is one dumbass statement. Explain my example or just go back in your hole!

    The visor reflects the sun when it is in line and doesn't when he moves his head around. It takes some serious stupidity not to realise this. Head shaking stuff.
     
  25. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Well, first of all, how exactly do you define the "path"? It seems that you mean the center of the image - is that right? In the example I give the image is able to remain intact even if the center is blocked by the helmet.

    The too large sun does NOT disappear in your example - however, it does noticeably decrease in brightness.


    Hmmmm... could it be that the supposed "sun" is brighter in the center than at the edges?

    And why don't you do something amazing and explain why your gif has two images of different resolutions? Is this by accident or design?

    rod_block1.jpg

    rod_block2.jpg
     

Share This Page