Response from your spam, that of course you ignored!
Any excuse to repost your spam and bypass all the hundreds of already given responses. I have notified moderators. My responses below use previous responses from all over the internet.
Nonsense. Making a really poor sky black on a single image where the person doing it has failed to include anything encroaching into the sky with black background, has no bearing on a multi framed continuous 15 minute video where we numerous times things doing just that. Plus he has used modern editing software and failed - where no such software was available in 1971
So your method involves using modern digital software on a single image, to create a 20fps video in 1971? It is a continuous video with mountains that don't get any nearer over several miles. The surface is lit for as far as can be seen. The sky is black. When the rover turns across Sun, the phase angle of the Moon changes and the whole surface is less reflective.
Can you explain in detail how that could possibly be done?
Regarding your bullshit about Apollo 15 flag:
Comedy spam time, posted probably about 500 times all over the internet.
Show me exactly where these are ruled out:
1. Video artefact blooming.
2. Flagpole settling in stand.
3. Static discharge.
4. Kicked soil striking the bottom of the pole sending small vibration.
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo 15 flag (debunking-a-*****.blogspot.com)
"I have uploaded 7 videos on youtube analysing this subject. There are two main issues to deal with, namely the initial movement, and the subsequent movement after Dave Scott has passed by the flag.
Video 1
This video simply highlights the initial movement.
Video 2
In this video, I demonstrate that Jarrah White is self debunking his own claims. He runs past his own badly hung flag, yet fails to move it until he is level with it. He is considerably closer than Dave Scott was to the Apollo 15 flag. There is the barest of movements as he draws level.
Video 3
In this video I show the original Apollo 15 flag moving for 30 seconds. Using Jarrah's 66% slowed down footage theory, that equates to 20 seconds.
White then proceeds to run past his own flag several times, yet is only able to move his flag for 4-5 seconds. That equates to 6-7.5 seconds adjusted up 150%.
With White's flag, there is a totally different billowing movement, a rapid stop, and indeed a much more aggresive motion. No gentle back and forth prolonged swaying as per Apollo 15 flag.
Video 4
This video shows a wide book being dropped from 1 metre and failing to move a plastic bag until it is a few inches away from it.
Video 5
In this video, I isolate several frames and show the flag with movement and Dave Scott at least four feet away. I show several color filtered shots that highlight the actual flagpole itself moving, that is clearly impossible. This one video debunks the "wall of air" contention completely, since air will only be pushed a few inches in front of a body in motion. The plastic bag demonstrated this.
Video 6
In this video I take it a step further. Using frame grabs, I show Dave Scott about 6 feet away from the flag, with clear movement.
Video 7
This final video is my personal favorite. If you watch no other video, watch this one.
I show White debunking himself in the most totally conclusive way. Simpler if you just watch it.
Update
From apollohoax.net, user Headlikearock has made a very significant observation concerning the lens flares on the flag. They actually move alongside the flag itself, the flagpole and parts of the ground. Here is the direct link, and the picture below:-
NOW! Explain how lens flares move within a static camera - of course you will ignore this.
Any excuse to repost your spam and bypass all the hundreds of already given responses. I have notified moderators. My responses below use previous responses from all over the internet.
Nonsense. Making a really poor sky black on a single image where the person doing it has failed to include anything encroaching into the sky with black background, has no bearing on a multi framed continuous 15 minute video where we numerous times things doing just that. Plus he has used modern editing software and failed - where no such software was available in 1971
So your method involves using modern digital software on a single image, to create a 20fps video in 1971? It is a continuous video with mountains that don't get any nearer over several miles. The surface is lit for as far as can be seen. The sky is black. When the rover turns across Sun, the phase angle of the Moon changes and the whole surface is less reflective.
Can you explain in detail how that could possibly be done?
Regarding your bullshit about Apollo 15 flag:
Comedy spam time, posted probably about 500 times all over the internet.
Show me exactly where these are ruled out:
1. Video artefact blooming.
2. Flagpole settling in stand.
3. Static discharge.
4. Kicked soil striking the bottom of the pole sending small vibration.
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Apollo 15 flag (debunking-a-*****.blogspot.com)
"I have uploaded 7 videos on youtube analysing this subject. There are two main issues to deal with, namely the initial movement, and the subsequent movement after Dave Scott has passed by the flag.
Video 1
This video simply highlights the initial movement.
Video 2
In this video, I demonstrate that Jarrah White is self debunking his own claims. He runs past his own badly hung flag, yet fails to move it until he is level with it. He is considerably closer than Dave Scott was to the Apollo 15 flag. There is the barest of movements as he draws level.
Video 3
In this video I show the original Apollo 15 flag moving for 30 seconds. Using Jarrah's 66% slowed down footage theory, that equates to 20 seconds.
White then proceeds to run past his own flag several times, yet is only able to move his flag for 4-5 seconds. That equates to 6-7.5 seconds adjusted up 150%.
With White's flag, there is a totally different billowing movement, a rapid stop, and indeed a much more aggresive motion. No gentle back and forth prolonged swaying as per Apollo 15 flag.
Video 4
This video shows a wide book being dropped from 1 metre and failing to move a plastic bag until it is a few inches away from it.
Video 5
In this video, I isolate several frames and show the flag with movement and Dave Scott at least four feet away. I show several color filtered shots that highlight the actual flagpole itself moving, that is clearly impossible. This one video debunks the "wall of air" contention completely, since air will only be pushed a few inches in front of a body in motion. The plastic bag demonstrated this.
Video 6
In this video I take it a step further. Using frame grabs, I show Dave Scott about 6 feet away from the flag, with clear movement.
Video 7
This final video is my personal favorite. If you watch no other video, watch this one.
I show White debunking himself in the most totally conclusive way. Simpler if you just watch it.
Update
From apollohoax.net, user Headlikearock has made a very significant observation concerning the lens flares on the flag. They actually move alongside the flag itself, the flagpole and parts of the ground. Here is the direct link, and the picture below:-
NOW! Explain how lens flares move within a static camera - of course you will ignore this.
Last edited: