You shouldn't have tried to obfuscate this. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/gene-cernan-jump-proves-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/ Go ahead and rant all you want. Anyone who puts the video on .25 speed can see that what you say is soil landing is really soil bouncing back up after having landed. There's a point at which an anomaly is so clear that sophistry simply becomes ineffective. It's obvious that you consciously lied. All the viewers can see that. You are really irrelevant now.
Here's some more stuff for the viewers to check out. https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm There some stuff about the lighting issue there. There are some photos of alleged reflections of studio lights in visors.
The comedy spamming jackass and his list of dishonest tricks:- 4. 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. The comedy spamming jackass and his list of dishonest tricks:- 3. For Rebuttal: "...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. " or "I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure he's a paid disinfo agent but his behavior fits the profile perfectly." This enables him to completely ignore any response, which he routinely does anyway, but throws this in for effect. Needless to say, he will never offer anything to backup his ad hominem statement. You are spamming crap to avoid the points raised. Crap that has already been debunked hundreds of times and ignored by you every time. The comedy spamming jackass and his list of dishonest tricks:- 4. 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. The comedy spamming jackass and his list of relentless dishonest tricks:- 6. When all else fails: "I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage ...." So when he routinely gets his claim debunked, it is "moot" because of "all the others". It never occurs to him that all the other evidence has been debunked and was also "moot" when it was addressed. When pushed to provide a list of items to address, at all costs he will not do this because it can be seen where they have all been debunked. 9. 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. Wow, you really are a sucker for bullshit aren't you! You made no attempt to verify the claims and just took it in like the gullible clown you are. From the document:- "Is it plausible that three views of the same mountain from different places should have exactly the same outline (differing only in scale)? No: real mountains always look different from different viewpoints." Aligning the 3 images into an animated gif shows their deception! A casual ignorant layman would just take it as read. Owned yet again!
The spammer resorts to simple denial. It takes a colossal moron to think that soil "bounces". It's the same kind of moron who thinks bubbles rotate and grow 4 times bigger in one metre of motion, jagged and white. Seventeen years and you are still getting your ignorant layman arse kicked.
All I said was let's check it out. We need an objective expert to look at this and that rules you out considering your record of sophistry. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-13#post-1072246090 The other anomalies* have already proven the hoax so we know they were backdrops. We just have to figure out exactly what they did. I might be missing something but I can't see a difference in contour in your gif. https://www.aulis.com/PDF/hadley_study.pdf (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------- Look carefully at the skylines. THEY MATCH EXACTLY. You can check this by copying this figure onto a piece of paper, cutting round one outline and laying it onto the other two. ------------------------------------------------------------- I'll get around to doing this eventually. Let's hear you analyze this now. https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm (excerpt) --------------------------------------------- As seen in figure 13, the photos show the reflection of a row of lights in a visor. --------------------------------------------- https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-49-7309 * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068
The comedy spamming jackass and his list of dishonest tricks:- 3. For Rebuttal: "...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. " or "I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure he's a paid disinfo agent but his behavior fits the profile perfectly." This enables him to completely ignore any response, which he routinely does anyway, but throws this in for effect. Needless to say, he will never offer anything to backup his ad hominem statement. The comedy spamming jackass and his list of relentless dishonest tricks:- 6. When all else fails: "I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage ...." So when he routinely gets his claim debunked, it is "moot" because of "all the others". It never occurs to him that all the other evidence has been debunked and was also "moot" when it was addressed. When pushed to provide a list of items to address, at all costs he will not do this because it can be seen where they have all been debunked. They got real sneaky and filmed it all on the Moon. You dishonest jerk. Boy, there is something seriously wrong with you. Either you have chronic vision problems or you are the worst troll in history. I favour both. The Mountain is viewed from 3 different angles, it rotates gently for each of the 3. It is many miles away, just like Kilimanjaro that you ignored, like the dishonest jerk you are. Hey jackass, the 3 are completely different angles. No, ignorant layman, you will not. You probably never made a gif in your whole irrelevant life. https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm As seen in figure 13, the photos show the reflection of a row of lights in a visor.[/QUOTE] The comedy spamming jackass and his diversionary tricks. 9. 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. The distant mountains never get nearer, the sky is jet black as are the shadows. One single light source lights tens of square miles evenly. When the rover turns across sun, we see the unique properties of the lunar soil and its retro-reflective nature lessened. It must be so difficult for you knowing that you are such a failure. MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED!: 5.13 Why do the visors show reflections of studio lights? "The explanation of this apparent anomaly is now quite obvious: these are reflections of sunlight on some of the scratches and smudges of the visor. These blemishes were produced mainly by the astronaut’s dusty gloves when they bumped against the reflective visor to lift or lower it or to move their sliding lateral eyeshades, which can be seen pulled down in AS12-49-7281 to the sides of the visor. Lunar dust is highly abrasive because it is not smoothed by wind or water as occurs on Earth: it acts like a sort of natural sandpaper. Apollo mission reports often mention scratches and clogging caused by moondust." The major clue is that once again they are in multiple pictures, multiple angles and always in the same damn place. Owned again - you hopeless waste of space.
A two-dimensional cardboard mountain can be at seen from three different angles. https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------ In all but the last one (AS12-49-7281) there is a peculiar reflection of another piece of equipment at the right of the light series hanging together at the same relative position ------------------------------------------------------------ That looks suspiciously like this alleged studio light. https://crberryauthor.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/reflection-2.jpg
If you ever come across anyone who thinks the Earth is flat, have him or her watch one of these videos. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rocketcam
Well no, once I saw that the reflections were smudges and not lights I relied on an independent account. I withdraw the "same place" statement. But the pictures are all taken from different angles and directions and it is pretty much roughly in the same place - upper left / upper middle. The first 3 are close enough to each other accounting for visor movement and all 3 taken at roughly 45 degrees to the camera, the second 3 all straight on and again more or less the same accounting for visor movement. On certain angles light is hitting only some of the marks, this can clearly be seen on AS12-49-7281. It can also be clearly seen that not one of these images is a row of lights. One at a time(unless you start acting the fool):- AS-12-48-7134 The red arrow points to the reflection of the solar panel array - the smudges are in front of this! The yellow arrow points to one of the smudges being on the upright. Also, in the same place, the "barn door" light much clearer on this image (I suspect this may be a light smudge on the inner visor). AS12-48-7134HR.jpg (2340×2370) (nasa.gov) Straight questions: 1. Does the following image show what look like smudges or lights? 2. Does it show what appear to be less illuminated smudges in the center area?
I invited some posters in the science section to come over to this thread to continue the discussion in the proper section. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...geo-engineering.301836/page-2#post-1072478591
The "crushing" evidence just doesn't stand up to scrutiny and the serial forum spammer just ignores the rebuttal.
Knee-jerk dismissal is not the scientific method*. * https://www.google.com/search?q=sci...0l5j46j0l3.5840j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 If they want to actually impress thinking people, they'll have to analyze the alleged anomalies and explain why they think they're not anomalies.
Wait, what!!? You are claiming that YOU don't automatically deny things and the YOU use the "scientific method"? The irony, the crazy batshit twisted irony. YOU are not "thinking people". If YOU want to actually impress thinking people, YOU will have to analyze the alleged anomalies and explain why they think they ARE anomalies. Just a note, your inept and complete layman opinion doesn't qualify!
I never invoked the scintific method you did. Childish insistence on lies is not the scientific method either and that is all you do. EVERYONE dismisses your stupid claims because they are stupid and proven wrong.
When I said that I was referring to this post. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...geo-engineering.301836/page-2#post-1072478575
Nobody cares. You are not invoking science - you are invoking the observations of morons. You are ignoring science - you always do if it contradicts your dumb conspiracy theories.
The person you responded to is correct. No one dismisses your claims in knee jerk fashion. EVERYONE dismisses your stupid assertions because they are PROVEN stupid and devoid of any evidence, logic , or science.
For someone who never uses the scientific method* and just rants, you sure do have an attitude. * https://www.google.com/search?q=sci...0l5j46j0l3.5840j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Only an insider would know for sure I suppose. I wouldn't trust any official narrative of what was going on between the US and Russia as the American government and media lie so much*. The political climate might have been very different behind the scenes. Check out Chomsky's analysis of the cold war. http://libcom.org/history/articles/cold-war-1940-1989 I've seen several theories. Start watching this at the 30:50 time mark. American Moon (English Version) http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html (excerpt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this? Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This link is dead but I saved part of the article. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm (excerpt) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.aulis.com/apollo-soyuz.htm https://www.aulis.com/apollo-soyuz_contents.htm https://www.aulis.com/apollo-soyuz1.htm * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-the-lies-furiously.583345/#post-1072353798