You comedian! You ran away from every major point raised. Your link shows how you kept asserting the same bullshit that doesn't explain at all the small paragraph you just quoted! There was nauseum though, evasion and very ignorant claims I don't accuse others, just the serial forum spammer and anything I post has had no honest, accurate or intelligent response. You didn't even reply to the last big post I made!
As noted - a sequence where the reflection from the Sun is blocked out completely by a very narrow rod. This 100% refutes the stupid claim that it was some sort of massive light. How can anybody deny that the visor reflection is diffused sunlight, when a narrow rod makes it disappear!?
Right from page 1 of this thread, we have had one ludicrous response after another. On Apollo surface video, (some 50 hours of it) we see large areas lit up for considerable distances. There is simply no way, even now, to light such vast areas with single well defined shadows, dark skies, no visor reflection for multiple lighting and total consistency with the area and the photography. A logical person would look at the animated gif just above and see that the "large white blob" MUST be the Sun because the narrow rod blocks it out and it is beyond absurd to light such a massive area with a narrow light, let alone impossible and unworkable with the bullshit "superlight". An honest person would weigh this up, add it to the vast battery of evidence supplied and conclude this was filmed on the Moon. An objective hoax claimant would consider that their profound lack of knowledge was the problem and that their reliance on proven liars was not accurate.
An objective person would take this anomaly seriously. The Mystery of the Apollo Sun https://www.brighteon.com/bed55bd6-d0da-420b-87e6-36f5020bf13b (1:13 time mark) Someone turned up the power and all the reflection in the visor got bigger.
It isn't an anomaly and you are not informed enough about basic photography to label it so. And laughably you imply that YOU are objective? I doubt you even know what the word means. You have no objectivity whatsoever and alongside ignorance about photography that is a recipe for failure. There is no mystery only profound ignorance. Moronic. As absolutely anyone with even scant photographic experience can tell the aperture is closed more on the camera. It is quite frightening how your ignorance can't even see this unbelievably basic thing! Every single thing in the lunar surface video dulls in brightness, including the sun reflection on the visor. Notice also that this clown chemist doesn't show the footage all around this, vast evenly lit areas. And do tell, why the hell would they dim the damn thing in the first place!?
I remembered it wrong. Somebody turns the power down and the reflection gets smaller. Everything gets a little dimmer.
Spam is spam. Repeating what a moron says is not impressive. You know nothing about photography, yet even a child can look at the sequence and understand that it is the camera aperture closing. How stupid does somebody have to be to not see this? You are afraid to actually address this gif: Did they switch the "superlight" off for a split second! You lose again, you always lose, you never concede.
For Scott/Cosmored - ANSWER THIS HONESTLY - particularly the bit in red! 1. We see a shadow to the left tracking forwards and dispersing. 2. We see faint darkening middle far right as the soil hits the ground at the same time. 3. But most of all which you pretend not to see, is the damn parabolic arc WE CAN SEE between his boots in perfect motion with him.
I addressed this in post #53. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nlight-addendum.584604/page-3#post-1072504892 The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd https://www.brighteon.com/a515dc75-83bb-4e02-aad9-b1cdfe0de150
I missed this gem of a reply! Now that explains everything. You really haven't got the slightest understanding of even basic gravity. Gravity doesn't work like that and you've just been owned. Now on record, we have you admitting that the soil rises to the same height as his boot. Right there, you are done. With one ignorant error you have inadvertently admitted it must be on the Moon. Unfortunately for you this is actually impossible. With gravity, things rise and fall at the same speed. It takes the same time for an object to go up to zenith as it does to fall back to the surface. Once again, your ignorance is your failure. The astronaut goes up in exactly the same number of frames as he then goes back down! And we're done. The time and speed up is the same as the time and speed down (absent of air - as indeed the scene is claimed and proven to be).
To put this into perspective for people just joining: There is a parabolic arc of dust between his boots. It travels up to the same height as his boots and at the same time. This is indisputable. It is visible on the original video and on my gif. The astronaut's motion is 100% consistent with lunar gravity. Since the soil and astronaut rise together, they must fall at the same speed together. This means he cannot possibly be on any wire support! If you speed up the jump it starts looking very odd. To make the astronaut and ergo the soil rise the same as Earth gravity, the video must be increased by 245% - this looks totally absurd. There is no counter explanation for this - it must be on the Moon.
Show the big picture. The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd https://www.brighteon.com/a515dc75-83bb-4e02-aad9-b1cdfe0de150 Galileo and the Apollo Moon Jump hd https://www.brighteon.com/8d21e915-09a2-4e28-83c1-f6f33c9a4199
The disgraceful actions of this troll. He is pitifully afraid to admit this. The big picture includes all of the above. Case closed.
You didn't show the whole context. Here it is. You don't seem to be descibing what I said. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...nlight-addendum.584604/page-4#post-1073764374
You are afraid to actually address this gif: Did they switch the "superlight" off for a split second! You lose again, you always lose, you never concede.
What would it look like if the reflective surface were flat? Maybe the surface's being convex makes it disappear.
An idiotic rhetorical question that YOU need to answer and YOU need to establish as being significant! Of course it isn't! The light blooms for 2 reasons, one within the visor itself and the layer below as light is bent internally and two through the old technology vidicon camera - proven by aperture changes altering its actual size. Maybe you should disappear! Yet another ludicrous response that deserves ridicule rather than a direct rebuttal. The POINT is that that huge sun reflection on his visor cannot be occluded by a narrow pole unless it only occupies the same width as the pole! How can your brain not get that? How can you not suddenly show a modicum of honesty and admit it!
That's obviously true if the reflection of the light source is on a flat surface. We'd have to do an actual experiment with duplicated conditions to really see what happens when the reflection of the light source is on a convex surface. The result might be something we don't expect.
They are the same. So another thread done. The narrow rod disproves the superlight batshit! Your dishonesty knows no bounds. So now, where the narrow pole blocks out the entire Sun, proving that the whole white blob is visor and vidicon blooming we must arm wave that away as some sort of effect on a convex surface? The truth of the matter is that the Sun occupies an area on the visor that is no more than 1.5cm across. The visor has very little overall curvature in that short distance, not withstanding that on a curved surface it occupies the same face on area anyway!
The light path is the same. If something gets in the way it blocks the light path - another nail in the coffin. Now we have no idiotic, ludicrous "superlight" to light the massive mile wide vistas we see in the videos.
