We Never Went to the Moon

[Scott]

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.?

This is defective thinking. There's nothing in that post that shows that those fakeable pictures weren't faked. If you sincerely think those pictures are proof that they went to the moon, you simply aren't mentally equipped to deal with this issue.

One of the most moronic of moronic statements one can make. Prove the thousands of images sent from the Moon are faked.

They're full of anomalies. Here are some examples.

Go down about half way on this page to where it says, "The Hills Are Alive".
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

More on the backdrops here.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm


Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)

Start watching this at the 1:15 time mark.

The Mystery of the Apollo Sun
https://www.brighteon.com/bed55bd6-d0da-420b-87e6-36f5020bf13b

Somebody adjusts the brightness of the artificial sun.


This shows that the astronauts were supported by wires.

The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd
https://www.brighteon.com/a515dc75-83bb-4e02-aad9-b1cdfe0de150


There are some reflections of what look like studio lights in these astronauts' visors.
https://crberryauthor.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/reflection-2.jpg
https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm


Go to about the 58:00 time mark of this video and set the speed at double. Click on the circular icon on the lower right of the video. At double speed the movements look just like earth movements. This looks suspiciously like simple fifty percent slow-motion.

Historic Apollo 11 Moonwalk Footage

 

[Scott]

Here's some more info on the flag issue.
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.781/page-6#post-239019
(post #86)

 

[buster12]

This is defective thinking. There's nothing in that post that shows that those fakeable pictures weren't faked. If you sincerely think those pictures are proof that they went to the moon, you simply aren't mentally equipped to deal with this issue.

What post? You haven't done what was asked of you. PROVE the LROC pictures are faked. Your pathetic spammed opinion is meaningless. Provide evidence - your moronic videos failed to do this and you ignored my analysis of them.

Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-*****.blogspot.com)

"Cosmored/Fatfreddy88/Drifty/Scott/Rocky has a whole series of evasion tactics :-

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."

They're full of anomalies. Here are some examples.

What the hell are you talking about!! You seem to be responding to an imaginary post. You made a bullshit claim that LROC were fakeable then failed to show how or offer evidence for this.

A whole series of posts by me completely ignored and this crazy spammer does what he always does, the gish gallup!!

"10. Divert/Obfuscate/Re-spam: This is where he avoids the item completely and gish-gallops away with repeated spam. Almost certainly he will keep avoiding the original claim.

This person has been doing all of the above across 100's of forums for (best guess) coming up to 17 years. He cuts and pastes duplicate posts, responses, key phrases and dismissal videos. He determines any one or more of the above and posts them out, then slams a huge post with repeated and debunked bullshit. There is simply no level of response that can get through to somebody who has terminal Dunning and Kruger syndrome."

Go down about half way on this page to where it says, "The Hills Are Alive".

The mountains are several miles away in both pictures taken in the same direction from different view points. Surely you are not so stupid as to be unable to understand this?

 

[buster12]

Part 2 responding to your gish gallup mega spam:

More on the backdrops here.

God knows how many times you've posted this and had it answered!!

"A quick summary:-

1. Step 3 of the proposed process mentions applying transformations in image space, such as perspective distortions, independent x- and y-axis scaling, and rotations. First, some of these would not be projection-preserving, and thus are invalid in rectification. Second, there is no mention made of how the parameters for these transformations are derived. Hence they amount to manual processing and therefore cannot be scientifically reproducible.

2. The proposed antiprojection, La = Lb b/a, is linear. Most lenses do not implement a linear projection model, and the Zeiss Biogon explicitly does not. Hence the mathematical framework is simplistic and incorrect.

3. Fig. 7 purports to show a parallax difference between two Apollo photos that include a distant background. The author believes that because a geometric change is apparent in the blink-comparator, this should be attributed to parallax. In fact the method fails.

4. No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.

5. A simple contrast expansion of the "difference" image shows misalignment in the ridge lines consistent with a rotation between raster images roughly coincident with the original line of sight. The author has misapplied his broken method and thus interprets the difference in rotation (and possibly subsequent distortive attempts to correct it) as parallax.

6. Figs. 10 and 11 are similar. The author applies uncontrolled, arbitrary image-space manipulations that are not projection-preserving, then proceeds to attribute resulting misalignment of the raster to parallax. And again, no method is shown for deterministically deriving the distortion parameters; it is purely subjective and therefore irreproducible.

7. The author then imagines that the effects he introduces through non projective-preserving manipulations are explicable in affine space by a sort of concave screen. This is pure fantasy: a much simpler explanation exists, that of the ineptitude of the author's image-space manipulation and his fundamental misunderstanding of the actual projective geometry at work here. He has proven absolutely nothing other than his ability to produce in one instance a distortion map that corrects for the distortion he previously applied in another instance. There is absolutely nothing here that is valid or proven to be a method for determining the authenticity of photographs.

8. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography).

9. Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.

10. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Conspicuously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.

11. He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.

12. He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.

13. In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and assume that he got all the rest of it right.


I await your standard avoidance, obfuscation, diversion or other spammed response.


I attribute all 13 items to the expertise of Mr Windley."

Your response to this was your customary spam by numbers bullshit.

6. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?

This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored.


Then when pushed on the matter - spammed response from you:- "You know that only someone with a high science degree could address those points. All laymen can do in a case such as this is look at the record of the person who made those points."

"3. For Expert Testimony: "Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it "

For "photography" insert anything. He is a layman on everything associated with space travel so uses this evasion tactic frequently. Basically if he doesn't understand it, it is ignored and of course the person providing the information must automatically be in on the moronic hoax."

Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)

Utterly ridiculous, just the kind of total shite you would "be on the fence about". Perhaps your Ukranian non expert is a made up buffoon.

The Mystery of the Apollo Sun

https://www.brighteon.com/bed55bd6-d0da-420b-87e6-36f5020bf13b

Somebody adjusts the brightness of the artificial sun.

Spam once again!

Completely debunked in one 3 second clip:

This shows that the astronauts were supported by wires.

No it shows you are a dishonest spamming joke. Covered on the politicalforum - link is blocked by this forum software.

There are some reflections of what look like studio lights in these astronauts' visors.

I got fed up here. You are seriously quite mad. There comes a point in anyone's life where they must realise that they are a ridiculous online joke. You seem unable to get this. EVERY single thing you just posted has been done so numerous times and with numerous answers. You are like some comedy act with a cut and paste bullshit by numbers routine.

Now you chicken, go back to the previous page and start answering all my rebuttal - or I'll just repost it until you do.

 

[Scott]

Oh and another one. He says the ISS is faked too, do you agree with this buffoon on that one?

I'd never looked into this issue until he posted that video. Knee-jerk dismissal isn't the scientific method*. This situation calls for research.

I did a search on it and there seem to be some real anomalies.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=fake+...s=n&sk=&cvid=CD82DCB73EED494897CE906ECE144D64


I'm still too new to this issue to form a firm opinion. How do you explain the anomalies?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weir...fake-anti-gravity-International-Space-Station

Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da


This video seems to show continuous zero-gravity

Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station

The woman's jacket corners seem to be in zero gravity for more than forty five seconds.

Can you find some footage that shows obvious zero-gravity for more than forty five seconds?




*
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...hUKEwiyhLOilqzuAhXCyIUKHZ15AWMQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

 

[Scott]

This video seems to show zero-gravity for more than forty five seconds which I suppose proves they weren't in a diving plane.

Does water squezee out of a cloth at Zero Gravity? (Chris Hadfield)
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fake+space+station&ru=/videos/search?q=fake+space+station&FORM=HDRSC3&view=detail&mid=9A7153D3E14721527F229A7153D3E14721527F22&rvsmid=BA9B8C6C52357F9D8D1DBA9B8C6C52357F9D8D1D&FORM=VDRVRV


There seem to be some real anomalies and also some real proof that they were in real zero-gravity. If it turns out that those anomalies were real, one plausible scenario is that the government did in fact fake some scenes of zero-gravity in order to cause confusion. People are seeing that Apollo was a hoax and this will muddy the waters. People will see the anomalies and declare the space station a hoax and then someone else will show them the continuous footage which will prove they were in real zero-gravity.


I think it's possible this whole thing about Edgar Mitchel's seeing UFOs during his supposed moon mission is part of that program to muddy the waters.

alien moon-E.T object pictured following Edgar Mitchell apollo 14 ?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Edgar+Mitchell+aliens+apollo+14&go=Buscar&qs=ds&form=QBVRMH


I'm just speculating about the space station. I'm not coming to any conclusions.

 

[buster12]

I'd never looked into this issue until he posted that video. Knee-jerk dismissal isn't the scientific method*. This situation calls for research.

So let me get this straight. Your idiot video maker who is useless with science makes a video on a subject new to you, you then assume it is new to me and that I automatically dismissed it. And dude, don't ever preach to me about the bloody "scientific method" - you are the epitome of the failure to use it!

I did a search on it and there seem to be some real anomalies. I'm still too new to this issue to form a firm opinion. How do you explain the anomalies?

Idiotic and ignorant observations.

This video seems to show continuous zero-gravity. Can you find some footage that shows obvious zero-gravity for more than forty five seconds?

Yes.

25-30 seconds is maximum on a plane - and ALWAYS there is double gravity - so no idea what the crap your problem is.

This video seems to show zero-gravity for more than forty five seconds which I suppose proves they weren't in a diving plane.

Well duh! 45 seconds is massively impossible on the plane(vomit comet) - it is nothing to do with altitude but is the short parabola achieved at the top of a climb prior to a dive. Free Falling: the science of weightlessness - Science in the News (harvard.edu)

There seem to be some real anomalies and also some real proof that they were in real zero-gravity. If it turns out that those anomalies were real, one plausible scenario is that the government did in fact fake some scenes of zero-gravity in order to cause confusion. People are seeing that Apollo was a hoax and this will muddy the waters. People will see the anomalies and declare the space station a hoax and then someone else will show them the continuous footage which will prove they were in real zero-gravity.

What a moronic piece of circular reasoning. Here's the better explanation. People who think the ISS is faked are morons who think satellites, space and rockets are faked and usually believe the Earth is flat. I'm genuinely surprised you didn't go all-in with the nutters and soak it all up.

I think it's possible this whole thing about Edgar Mitchel's seeing UFOs during his supposed moon mission is part of that program to muddy the waters.

Did you use the "scientific method" to "research" this? He made no such claim and this whole bullshit diversion of yours is seriously pathetic.

I'm just speculating about the space station. I'm not coming to any conclusions.

You're getting your arse kicked dude, answer all the points raised and stop taking this thread off topic!

 

[Scott]

don't ever preach to me about the bloody "scientific method"

Anyone who reads your posts can see that you simply conclude what you want to be true. You obviously don't use the scientific method. If you don't use the scientific method, you can come to an erroneous coclusion. If you really believe the arguments you've been putting forward, you simply aren't mentally equipped to deal with this issue.

 

[buster12]

Anyone who reads your posts can see that you simply conclude what you want to be true.

First off, you are not the spokesperson for the masses. Your opinion is biased and based on profound ignorance. I have never come across anyone so completely immersed in confirmation bias.

You obviously don't use the scientific method.

I obviously do. Your ignorant opinion is meaningless - it amounts to a bare assertion with nothing to back it up.

If you don't use the scientific method, you can come to an erroneous coclusion.

That's your strong point. You don't use it, you always make errors and you ignore people who correct you.

If you really believe the arguments you've been putting forward

Listen up you comedic spammer, I believe everything I type and back it up with clear and easy to understand explanations. You have ignored probably a whole A4 page of points and responses. You must really enjoy getting humiliated everywhere you go.

, you simply aren't mentally equipped to deal with this issue.

Which issue? The moronic fake ISS? I've debunked all this shite for years and have seen every single claim. Just because you blundered upon it with your usual gullible ignorance doesn't mean others haven't seen it years before.

In terms of being mentally equipped, you have been posting the same identical ill informed crap for over 17 years, on hundreds of forums, all over people's blogs, youtube and probably social media. That is a sign of some serious mental illness. Your idiotic Mars thread was closed (as should your idiotic spammed to crap 911 one) - you actually made a more or less identical thread in 2008!! And like some clueless nobody, you stated there that you were on the same fence you are now!

Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-*****.blogspot.com)

 

[Scott]

Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-*****.blogspot.com)

If you're going to quote Betamax, I should be able to respond by linking to some of his work even though it's from another forum.

I say this thread of his shows that he doesn't even believe his own arguments.
politicalforum (dot) com/index (dot) php?threads/gene-cernan-jump-proves-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/

What do you say? Post #9 is mine.

 

[buster12]

I say this thread of his shows that he doesn't even believe his own arguments.
politicalforum (dot) com/index (dot) php?threads/gene-cernan-jump-proves-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/

What do you say? Post #9 is mine.

I say you are an unbelievable liar. It is obvious to anyone who has eyes that the wave of dust is striking the surface at the same time. You can actually look at it as a sequence and predict it based on how it moves. Exactly as claimed.

Your claim is moronic in the extreme, you actually make the claim that slowing it down shows something, when the actual animation was slowed down already showing the opposite of your blatant denial!

"The following gif was found on the internet and is part of a sequence famous for Gene Cernan hopping along on the Moon. There are clowns on the internet who claim this is on wires.

• This forms part of a long continuous 30 minute EVA sequence.
• There is no jerkiness on his motion that would indicate any center of gravity changes from wires.
• As he rises he kicks soil ahead which clearly reaches the same height.
• The soil clearly strikes the surface at the same time as he lands.
• Unless the soil is on wires, neither can he be!
• He moves with perfect lunar motion.

This video was an analysis I performed showing the motion consistent with lunar freefall:-

Quite clearly, the figures do not work when the speed is altered. The only speed that matches the height is lunar freefall, as proven by the dust.

Only a dishonest person can deny any of this."


That would be you. You got your arse kicked, that is 100% irrefutable proof he is on the Moon!

You ignored that entire list of points, you ignored the gravity analyses which are spot on, you ignored the fact that the gif runs at slow motion. Ignorant.

 

[Scott]

Start watching at the 00:14 time mark.

At .25 speed it's clear that the dust is bouncing back up after having fallen. What he says is the dust landing is really the dust bouncing back up after having landed. When the dust is kicked up, it reaches the ground before the astronaut's feet hit the ground. This is consistent with his being on a wire.

The speed can be adjusted by clicking on the round icon on the lower right of the video.

Apollo 17 - analysis of another jump sequence

Once people have actually seen the anomaly in question, no amount of rhetoric or ranting is going to make them think that the soil isn't bouncing back up after having landed. That's what's obviously happening. You might as well try to convince the viewers that a picture of a chicken is really a picture of a horse.

 

[Scott]

I should have mentioned that Betamax made that video in response to this video.

The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd
https://www.brighteon.com/a515dc75-83bb-4e02-aad9-b1cdfe0de150

 

[buster12]

At .25 speed it's clear that the dust is bouncing back up after having fallen.

Had to laugh at that. That is insane. Bouncing dust now?

What he says is the dust landing is really the dust bouncing back up after having landed.

You're done . Over and out. Game over and you know it. At the moment you are like the Monty Python Black Knight without limbs still trying to cling to the idea that you are a player.

When the dust is kicked up, it reaches the ground before the astronaut's feet hit the ground.

Clearly you don't believe your own idiotic statement. You have no choice because you have been "crusading" this insanity for 17+ years now, you don't have the balls to ever concede a single thing, let alone one that closes the case.

This is consistent with his being on a wire.

A "wire"? Another one of those really dumb generic conspiracy claims. To mimic lunar motion with no jerkiness from centre of gravity changes, a person needs multiple support points. The idea this can be achieved from a single invisible wire is just the kind of ignorant guff you would say.

Once people have actually seen the anomaly in question

Always this proclamation of you announcing what "anyone" / "everybody" "the viewers" / "the people" are going to believe or say!! Breaking news: it's just you and your phoney claims who believe this!

, no amount of rhetoric or ranting is going to make them think that the soil is bouncing back up after having landed

FTFY.

That's what's obviously happening.

What is obviously happening here is that a serial forum spammer has had the coup de grâce.

You might as well try to convince ......... that a picture of a chicken is really a picture of a horse.

This phrase only applies to you. You have no honour, you are simply not capable of honest debate. The dust wave can be projected when it is at apex, you can actually visualise it from its motion and see it follows a correct trajectory and speed. You can actually see the clump that causes the end splash as it falls.

 

[buster12]

I should have mentioned that Betamax made that video in response to this video.

The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd

Why should you have said that? Do you think it not totally obvious that you just wanted to spam and divert?

This was another one of those "failure to see" problems you suffer from. You can actually clearly see the dust dispersing on more clearer video from this EVA. There is also a shadow on the ground from it!