TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

Rigid plastic. But the most telling thing is that as the poles are turned in opposite directions, the water drags the flag round so it follows the movement of the flagpole. Thank you for finding this. It's basically the last nail in the coffin. The Chinese flag acts mainly independent of the direction of the flagpole and many times swings edge on with it. It rotates on its own, your video has no such action.

The appeal to technology, without evidence. Basically saying "anything can be faked" doesn't actually prove it was. You do realise that don't you. You're claiming it's in a pool. The "bubble" proven to be a piece of ice. The flag folds over and springs back on itself. It clearly isn't rigid like the ones in your video.



Magic "bubbles" firing off in all directions. "Wet" paper rising up?

Speaking of technology, even a very basic Adobe after effects package can totally remove these little transient objects with about 5 minutes effort. If it was damning why would they leave them in? Don't answer, not that you do anyway!

 

That's right - and now we can bury this Chinese spacewalk nonsense.

The flag movement is very similar and you know it.

You sure don't understand the situation. The supposed astronauts are going to be slightly heavier than water and will sink - so to make it appear that they are weightless an upward current is required.

The point I was making is that there is a substantial difference between a video made in 1969 and one in 2008.

Why did China lie about the ages of their Olympic gymnasts and not take the time to make sure that no documents and records existed that could prove otherwise?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-flumenbaum/scandal-of-the-ages-docum_b_118842.html

 

Hey Betamax...

Tell us what you think of the way those pro-official version posters on this thread handled the issue.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy/page2

It looks to me like they couldn't try to obfuscate the anomaly they were asked to explain without looking silly so they had to find an excuse to close the thread and drop the issue. What do you think?

 

I strongly urge you to go and read up about the term strawman. Finding an explanation for something in addition to one claimed does not automatically replace the one claimed. It requires proof.

It was actually one variation of the underwater flag that was needed to close the argument. A more rigid object can certainly move more freely and yes of course there are similarities. Unfortunately there are differences which PROVE it cannot be in a vacuum. And you know it. When the flag is dragged underwater, side to side, the flag itself straightens and follows the line of movement. The water does this. In a vacuum the flag does not do this. Right there is your proof. All this business about speeds etc. is a red herring. You have successfully closed the argument.

Obviously you are afraid to admit it though.

On the contrary, a simple search finds the solution to the problem with buoyancy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Buoyancy_Laboratory#Neutral-buoyancy_training

"During training exercises, neutral-buoyancy diving is used to simulate the weightlessness of space travel. To achieve this effect, suited astronauts or pieces of equipment are lowered into the pool using an overhead crane and then weighted in the water by support divers so that they experience minimal buoyant force and minimal rotational moment about their center of mass."

The idea of using currents to do this is probably one of the more idiotic contentions used in this piece of footage. It is used as a stupid support argument for the debris flying off in all directions.

And the point I was making is that it is irrelevant. Another strawman.

Go ask them. Strawman, google it.

 

What it looks like to you is irrelevant. Your opinion is biased and useless. You have asked this before and it has been answered before. Spam from the serial forum spammer, who'd have thought it.

 

How's this?

 

Useless as always. You cowardly avoid the evidence you yourself presented that refutes your own claim!

 

At about the 0:50 mark in the Philippine flag video posted in the link below, we see a flag do just the opposite of what you just described. If they had shot more video of the flags waving I bet we would have been able to just about duplicate eveything we see in the Chinese spacewalk flag waving.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-24#post-1068167269

 

Sounds feasible. The rigid plastic is pushed in its easiest direction. It still follows the line of least resistance. But whatever Blunderman. What we don't see is the flag moving side on to the pole.

This is why the betting industry is so lucrative. Fools are easily parted from their money. You want to compound your observational failures and claim things that are impossible in water.

What kind of person are you that lacks the intelligence to understand that a flat object will drag in water!

 

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy/page2

Translation. It's so clear that those pro-official version posters know the footage was taken in a water tank that I'll just look silly if I try to defend them so I'd better sidestep the issue with some hand-waving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
(excerpts)
-------------------------------------------------
Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial.[1] It is most often applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the glossing over of details.
-------------------------------------------------
Handwaving is frequently used in low-quality debate, including political campaigning and commentary, issue-based advocacy, advertising and public relations, tabloid journalism, opinion pieces, Internet memes, and informal discussion and writing. If the opponent in a debate or commentator on an argument alleges hand-waving, it suggests the proponent of the argument, position or message has engaged in one or more fallacies of logic,[2] usually informal, and/or glossed over non-trivial details,[2] and is attempting to wave away challenges and deflect questions, as if swatting at flies.
-------------------------------------------------

 

No translation needed. They aren't as patient with idiots as I am. In this thread I have proven beyond any doubt:-

1. Multiple pieces of debris all coming from the hatch at various angles can't be bubbles.
2. The main "bubble" by the helmet is flat, white, rotating and is exiting angled towards the camera.
3. Neutral buoyancy is achieved by weights not idiotic uncited wave blowers.
4. The motion of the flag is completely impossible in water. Thanks to Descartes for the video that finally nailed this.
5. The pair of you are afraid to answer basic points and questions.

The OP seemed hung up on the space debris issue and not the hogwash you claim. Can you read? From that thread!!

"Remember, this is freefall in a vacuum, and what happens in that sort of environment is very different from what we're used to here on Earth.

As I mentioned above, just because it's weird doesn't mean it's suspicious. Because the cable is weightless, the shape it takes is primarily determined by the shape it had when it was stowed. In this case, the shape of the cable is forcing it into a position "above" the bar to which it's tethered. That's why the cable looks like it's floating."

The response from the OP:-

Good explanation. I consider the cable thing properly addressed now.

SHAPE MEMORY!!!

 

So have we figured out whether or not we landed on the moon? I think it's silly to doubt it, but then again I was a kid in the 80's and some of us, being on the moon was all we talked about and it was entirely possible.

 

I doubt that any man has ever landed on the moon - but if any man ever did - they never came back...

 

Your opinion is as irrelevant as you are.

 

Could you please explain what you mean by this - and what exact time mark in your flag video are you talking about?

I have the intelligence to understand that many of the claims that you have made about flag movements have been proven wrong - and this is just the latest in the series...

 

None of the flag movements in water, claimed by me, are wrong. WHAT is the latest in the series? You are a troll, plain and simple. Your goal is to disrupt not debate in good faith. You already made your empty mind up, before you even started this latest exchange.

I ask again, what kind of person cannot understand that a flat object will drag in water? Are you really THAT dumb? The whole Chinese spacewalk is replete with instances of the flag moving face on to the direction of the pole. There are no such instances of this on the rigid plastic flag.

 

The pseudo intellectual group at Cosmoquest should change their name to "Ministry of Space Science" because just like Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" they seem to be responsible for any necessary obfuscation and falsification of NASA's space shenanigans. Anyone who brings up valid evidence that goes against the official line is invariably accused of infracting some this or that rule that can't even be quoted.

Look what they did to this poor guy named "Cosmored" when he asked a few simple questions about the Apollo flag movement - just five days of discussion and then poor Cosmored was banned:

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?148701-Latest-Apollo-Hoax-Proof

​

 

The serial forum spammer. Looks like he got plenty of answers!

Then:-
Cosmored,

This is your second thread on this topic (LINK). After a warning from a moderator to address unanswered questions, you abandoned that thread. Do not do that again. You will actively participate in this thread, and answer all questions put to you. If you abandon this thread, you will be infracted."

Unanswered questions, nothing changes! Only on that forum they don't let useless conspiracy fools get away with doing that.

Nice obfuscation, troll.

 

I think this says it all...

CosmoQuest is supported in part by NASA cooperative agreement number NNX17AD20A. Any opinions, findings, & conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of this project & do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). For a complete listing of sponsors, see our credits page.

 

Your opinion is as irrelevant as you are.

Your off topic ramblings about another forum are just diversion. You become more pathetic, the more you dodge and weave around the obvious.

You don't just lose arguments, you scuttle away like a coward and avoid literally dozens of requests. Requests that even you know tear apart your useless claims.

 

From Cosmoquest's credit page:

CosmoQuest’s creation was/is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Grants NNX09AD34G & NNX12AB92G issued through the ROSES Program.

Support provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.

Additional funding has been provided through a variety of NASA missions.

 

So? Is this another idiotic conspiracy claim that NASA are the devil incarnate and therefore all knowledgeable and very informed members must be paid by them. Boy, you are one pathetic individual. Here, you forgot a few things:-

I notice you failed to address the points raised.

1. Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification.Update Explain how 4 single layers in, plus 1 multi layer outside of it, it even gets to that temperature.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and other vehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered.

1. Cite a reference for wave blowers or explain why there are currents.
2. Explain how a bubble can be white, jagged and rotating.
3. How can something go straight up but move horizontally??
4. How can you categorise odds of an object going straight up, when it doesn't go straight up and it is one of dozens that dart off in different directions?

Cornered again!

 

Anyone who reads the thread in question...
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?145609-The-Flag-Anomaly-Proves-the-Hoax-by-Itself

...can see that the hoax was proven to the satisfaction of thinking people. Those pro-official version posters can obfuscate endlessly as you can. You and they know the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do. What's the point of continuing there once they've been discredited? They'll never recognize they're wrong. They're doing the same thing that you're doing here.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive.
--------------------------------------------------
It's just a job
--------------------------------------------------
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
---------------------------------------------------


They're saying such lame things that their success rate at swaying people's opinions is probably near zero. They do the victory dance the whole time they're losing.

 

No one is losing more than you with your constant spam and pseudo science of definitions to describe personalities ... you're not a psychologist ... you're a young kid in Mom's basement eating Hot Pockets and buying into every CT out there ... get outside more, go to Starbucks, meet a girl ... you have been chewed up and spit out on more forums than I can count on one hand ...

 

Cosmored is Scott ...