Great? For me this is great: an archive of all Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo photos is now online:
http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/
http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
We Never Went to the Moon
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Werbung:
Wow, just wow. This thread started in 2007? And the person who started it is still posting the same identical posts on forums all over the internet in 2021?
That's dedication, delusion or complete madness:
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-*****.blogspot.com)
That's dedication, delusion or complete madness:
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-*****.blogspot.com)
I think this wakes people up to the idea that the US government tells big lies. They'll be more open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, etc if the know about this.
They certainly are. The soviets placed two on the Moon. They lost one and the other became degraded by dust. The one they lost was found by LROC which also found all the Apollo landing sites. Since all American launches were visible, placing an unmanned one on the Moon requires a massive program and an equally massive developmental paper trail. I await your evidence to show any of that, and please don't spam your usual link that says it is an unreasonable request! You are the one making the absurd claim, back it up.
I see it moving towards the approaching air as per Bernoulli principle. Also, it starts moving when the object is really close. With Apollo, it begins when he is about six feet away. I suspect the vibrations from his feet caused the pole to settle into the holder.
Neither are true, I'm not sure which is the dumbest claim.
I agree with both statements, though the second one is the impossible one.
This is childishly simple to explain. The flap is going upwards as a result of the wheels colliding with troughs in the terrain and causing it to bounce. It goes back down again every time except the one highlighted. This is where it hits a trough at the point it starts to fall. Totally obvious.
There are a number of key issues here. Firstly, if there is air strong enough to hold it up it should do all the time. If it is a one off gust, it is going to be more than powerful enough to spray up dust from the surface. Doesn't happen.
Meanwhile, the sky is pitch black and the whole journey is lit up in broad daylight. Shadows are all in the same direction. The most wonderful piece of evidence for this being on the Moon is the way the light reflection changes dramatically. For many minutes the rover is travelling up sun and the surface having retro reflective properties the light is straight back to the rover and the sun behind it. However, as it changes direction 90 degrees across sun as they round a crater the light drops off considerably.
Your hopeless video fails to explain any of that, or how those far away mountains stay the same size.
Steve the bleeding Chemist does physics? Didn't you like the original debunks made - any excuse to spray them around a few forums I guess.
Just a quickie. A flag supported across the top by a bar has a fulcrum that runs through the diagonal and has varying lengths. Steve the chemist uses a single drop from the top corner - straight out the gate he fails miserably. But of course you aren't going to address that are you.
Oh and another one. He says the ISS is faked too, do you agree with this buffoon on that one?
Last edited:
Unmanned craft can have adjustable mirrors attached ti their sides. If the Surveyor* program was real, they had that technology.
Pictures are fakable. Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might have been faked.
The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped
MoonFaker: LRO at 50km. PART 1
MoonFaker: LRO at 25km, Dead Ends & No Fly Zones. PART 1
*
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programa_Surveyor
I repeat: Since all American launches were visible, placing an unmanned one on the Moon requires a massive program and an equally massive developmental paper trail. I await your evidence to show any of that, and please don't spam your usual link that says it is an unreasonable request! You are the one making the absurd claim, back it up. Some witness testimony, death bed confessions etc.?
One of the most moronic of moronic statements one can make. Prove the thousands of images sent from the Moon are faked.
Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-*****.blogspot.com)
"1. For images or video: "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake."
He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own images and videos. He will never actually prove it is faked or offer the number of people involved in such."
I often wonder what people like you do for proper research. The LROC deconvolved images have astonishing size and complexity and are transmitted in constant real time. The TIFF images are absolutely massive. If you go to the main LROC browser - LROC WMS Image Map (asu.edu) - click any part of the Moon and it brings up the best usable images for each part. As you zoom in, you can see quite how large each TIFF image is, many gigabytes if you want a full resolution download.
Now for the general masses and for quick loading, the team sliced up the images into small sections, enhanced them and in some cases added a few lines. To edit the TIFF to what they used - a JPEG - they used editing software. Photoshop.
Your stupid video points out that the cropped images released show evidence of this. Well duh!
What we have here are the opinions of the buffoon Jarrah White, a man devoted to denying Apollo at the expense of all sense and logic. Here he shows his apples and oranges comparison of the brightly reflective Earth with its myriad of colours then suggests that the far less reflective and totally grey Moon should offer the same clear imagery!
Basically he is suggesting they are faking the images but is also suggesting they are incompetent at doing it. That is so dumb it deserves an award!
How about you answer all the other posts I made?
Have you seen this?
Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement
There is a force keeping the flap from falling back down. It's entirely consistent with wind hitting it.
Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue
This is a little unclear. Could you link to the video to which you're referring and show the time mark?
Give me some time to go back and watch that video again.
Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da
I haven't paid much attention to this issue.
I said "With Apollo, it begins when he is about six feet away." Your video quite clearly demonstrates this. QED. So from my post on this you extract one line and prove my point for me. What about the rest of my post!
Perhaps you struggle with reading what you just quote?
This is childishly simple to explain. The flap is going upwards as a result of the wheels colliding with troughs in the terrain and causing it to bounce. It goes back down again every time except the one highlighted. This is where it hits a trough at the point it starts to fall. Totally obvious.
The force keeping it from falling is the reactive force from the wheels colliding with a trough. Would you like me to draw you some simple diagrams? Google Newton.
It really must be very hard for you to lose so many debates that you just ignore and re-assert.
There are a number of key issues here. Firstly, if there is air strong enough to hold it up it should do all the time. If it is a one off gust, it is going to be more than powerful enough to spray up dust from the surface. Doesn't happen.
You ignored the rest of my post.
Meanwhile, the sky is pitch black and the whole journey is lit up in broad daylight. Shadows are all in the same direction. The most wonderful piece of evidence for this being on the Moon is the way the light reflection changes dramatically. For many minutes the rover is travelling up sun and the surface having retro reflective properties the light is straight back to the rover and the sun behind it. However, as it changes direction 90 degrees across sun as they round a crater the light drops off considerably. Your hopeless video fails to explain any of that, or how those far away mountains stay the same size.
Surely you've reviewed them all enough to have seen and understood this? Brighteon - 1m 39 seconds.
Now repeat after me, "stevedachemist" doesn't know what he is doing.
Sure you haven't. The rather daft chemist has suggested the ISS is fake. He has no credibility, do you not agree?
I don't have time to address everything now. I'll do part of it and come back later.
There are two movements of the flag. The first one is at the 8:56 time mark of this video.
The second one can be seen at the 00:47 time mark of this video.
The second one is so clearly caused by air that the the first one is moot. The first one could have been caused by air too.
There are two movements of the flag. The first one is at the 8:56 time mark of this video.
The second one can be seen at the 00:47 time mark of this video.
The second one is so clearly caused by air that the the first one is moot. The first one could have been caused by air too.
If that were the case, there would be some noticeable movement of the pole and support rod. The movement doesn't originate from where the flag connects with the support rod. The movement of the flag is consistent with its having been hit by a wall of air. Anyone can duplicate the movement at home by trotting by a piece of cloth hanging from a ceiling light at forty five degrees. It will move exactly like the Apollo flag. It will first move away, and then back.
I think you're saying that the end of his bath towel doesn't connect with a pole as the Apollo flag does. I wouldn't say he fails miserably but comparisons should be exact to leave no room for doubt. I still think he's right about the Apollo flag moving too fast to be consistent with moon gravity. He didn't consider that the Apollo footage was shown in slow-motion (sixty seven percent according to Jarrah White) but even in slow-motion, it's faster than it would be on the moon.
Last edited:
Werbung:
Nah, you're just concentrating on the only one that offers scant subjective opinion. You always ignore clear contradictory evidence and you have already ignored most of the posts you are replying to. Once again you totally ignore the distance he is away from it when it moves. If you are suggesting some magical wall of air is doing it, you clearly have no understanding of simple wave dynamics. He is six feet minimum from the corner and it is preposterous to suggest that he is pushing air that far ahead of him. You can observe how this operates by wetting the palm of your hand and bringing the other hand towards it quickly - quite provably obvious is the close proximity at which the air is felt.
Nonsense, that is the same movement before he reaches the flag - the first video shows when it starts. The first one could be any number of things. Static discharge which is considerable in a vacuum, the flag settling after deployment (my personal favourite), soil kicked by his approaching feet which is also very probable. There are some who claim a video anomaly backed up by the lens blooming and the ground showing various odd artifacts - there are some lens flares on the video (seen enlarged in the footage that precedes this). They actually shift in position during the sequence and on a camera lens that is not possible, so something weird is happening with the camera.
Since this is the same movement that is a fairly daft thing to say. Air is the one thing that can be dismissed simply by its action. You ignored the video performing the suggested "trot by the cloth". The cloth moved towards the approaching item, not away from it and it occurred when it was right on top of it.
A whole host of observations making a mockery of your claim. The Earth flag billows and slows quickly, the Apollo flag does not. He is right next to it when it barely moves, not six feet away.
Nonsense. This is just your bare assertion. A tiny movement of the fabric requires no discernible pole vibration. A couple of millimetres would do it and that simply would not show up. But we can clearly see the flag next to the pole shift right, so the pole must have moved!
Nor is there any reason why it should. The farthest point from the fulcrum centre would be where any motion would be distributed to. Exactly as seen.
What the hell is a wall of air? This is some magical conspiracy gibberish that blasts in front of a person 6 feet away?
The video already posted did that. it had to be real close before it started to move!
The posted video shows it moving towards the approaching object, the Bernoulli effect. You ignored it.
It has a fulcrum at the vertical support, nothing like a flag. No credibility there.
Based on what? He is incompetent. The Earth flag has a massive movement that incorporates spill to the upper part of the diagonal. The Apollo flag barely reaches the diagonal at all.
It was shown at normal speed. The apparent slower motion is due to increased horizontal and vertical movements that trick the eye. Lunar gravity is quite unmistakable.
Please don't cite references from that buffoon. Just to rub it home quite how dumb he is, here is a video where he destroys your claim. You will ignore it or offer some lame excuse:
Based on what? The video just above shows quite clearly that an earth flag billows and stops completely unlike the airless flag on Apollo 15.