Spam and obfuscation. We are talking about live video and zooms and this joker puts up photography of a panorama. He has admitted he has no clue how they filmed the rover footage - it was on the Moon. Twenty years of failure and still this troll persists. The Black Knight was at least honest! There is not a light in existence that could illuminate that massive area. Anyone who claims it is possible has no idea about how light travels. To illuminate such a wide area would need something so wide that light from one side of the beam would wash out any shadow from the opposite side. 1. He still has not explained the dust parabola on the jump salute. There is no explanation that can work because we see very clearly that the parabola rises at the same time as John Young. To make the parabola rise at Earth speed requires speeding up the video by 245% Busted. 2. He still has not explained the dust parabola on the Cernan hopping sequence. There is no explanation that can work because we see very clearly that the parabola rises at the same time as Gene Cernan. To make the parabola rise at Earth speed requires speeding up the video by 245% Busted. 3. The LRV footage on a few videos shows unfakeable lunar terrain. The sky is black, there are single shadows, mountains that never get closer. The whole sequence is perfect, even down to the light reflection changing as the phase angle alters from a direction change! Busted. 4. The superlight crap is dead in the water, two gifs prove it is junk conspiracy garbage and as stated there is no light on Earth capable of illuminating so much area. Busted. APOLLO 15 View of Hadley Rille - YouTubeAPOLLO 15 View of Hadley Rille - YouTube
So apparently they didn’t ‘paint’ any stars on the background of the ‘studio’ (see below) because astronomers would be able to figure out the constellations were wrong?
(post #150) http://politicalforum.com/index.php...nlight-addendum.584604/page-6#post-1073851960 I was responding to what you said in post #149. Please respond to what I posted. This is your responsee to post #146. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...nlight-addendum.584604/page-6#post-1073850710 (from post #147) You seem to be saying that you maintain that what we see in the video in post #115 is not shadows, but a cable swinging in front of the camera and your explanation for our being able to see what's behind your alleged cable is the same phenomenon which let's us see what's behind beating hummingbird wings. What you say is a little unclear though. Are you saying it's the same phenomenon, or not? It's not a massive area. It's a studio. I'll post this for the viewers to check out. It explains the studio scenario. AMERICAN MOON (2017): A FASCINATING DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE MOAN HOAX FROM START TO FINISH https://www.bitchute.com/video/CoP5WywgvPHs/ (45:58 time mark) I've reposted this several times. This time I'll copy and paste what I said. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nlight-addendum.584604/page-3#post-1072504892 http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/reflector.575434/page-2#post-1072472797 (excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I put the Apollo video on full screen and .25 speed. I can see the arc you're referring to and the soil goes up as high as the foot but it falls immediately. The astronaut hangs there after the soil starts to fall which would not happen without the wire. The speed at which the soil falls is also faster than the speed at which the astronaut later falls. With no wire, the two speeds would be the same. He's obviously on a wire. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone who takes the time to look at the discussion will see hat you're the one who's busted. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665 Viewers, he's referring to this. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...unar-surface-proving-the-authenticity.603023/ Go to the 49:36 time mark of the above video to see an explanation for this. Start watching this video at the 24:30 time mark. Moon Hoax; "Apollo; Hoax Of The 20th Century" Part 2 of 2 Here's some more info on Hadley. https://www.aulis.com/PDF/hadley_study.pdf
One has to remember the low intellect of people like this. When talking about zooming and 360 panning on a subject concerning video and lighting, it's natural to assume that they are at least smart enough to stay on topic, but no. This clueless spammer ignores what I said, posts an image panorama which has NEVER been raised in this thread, then demands that I respond to his idiotic opinion about that panorama as though it has any merit! I'm saying you are as ignorant a person as I have ever encountered. If you pause my short video, showing the cable moving quickly across the lens, you just see a shaded area. It isn't a damn phenomenon and I asked you nicely to stop with your pathetic hummingbird crap. The camera simply has insufficient time to pick up the object. You are the very worst troll imaginable. You claim to be an objective truth seeker who uses the scientific method, you are the complete opposite and never once do you even remotely use any scientific methodology. Batshit. The LRV footage is miles and miles of visible terrain. The Hadley Rille video that you cowardly ignored shows exactly how big with an enormous camera zoom. Noise. You are lost in batshit. Pathetic spamming. Only a complete fool will fail to see the point I am making and how you are completely evading it. You will evade these questions because you have no integrity: 1. Does an object rise to zenith at the same time as it falls back to the surface - yes or no? 2. Assuming you aren't idiotic enough to answer "no" to the above -how the hell can he rise in unison with the dust, that then falls back to the surface faster than him! 3. He rises with almost perfect lunar motion, very consistent with lunar gravity - are you afraid to understand what this means? 4. To make the soil mimic Earth gravity, the footage MUST, 100% irrefutably be increased 245% - do you understand this? I'm guessing you are afraid to respond honestly. As usual! The soil clearly and irrefutably rises at the same time as Cernan, right there, your moronic "bouncing soil" theory is untenable. The wave rises at the same speed as it falls. Physics. You are busted. It explains nothing. It is one of the most stupid things I've heard. Front screen projection on a moving object? Are you crazy? Notwithstanding that the background is completely stationary, constantly evolves its orientation, the surface is completely evenly lit, sky is black, crisp dark shadows - it beggars belief that you even think such stupidity is feasible. Draw a diagram to the thing lighting the background! The whole distance covered is irrefutable, so right there goes your idiotic small studio crap. Look at this pathetic spammer, instead of responding to the actual point, the zooming in of a distant rille, he diverts with off topic crap about another debunked claim. So how the hell did NASA assemble a "Moon set" that matches identically with orbital photography. It is ridiculous to suggest they had a team creating this to such detail and size! They match because they were both taken on the Moon or from orbit. Ignored: That video above demonstrates astonishing clarity between what is seen and expected. Your video is a bumbling mass of appeals to incredulity and ignorance of the lack of visual cues available. What world of crazy ignorance does somebody look at a reasonably straightish section of Rille, then determine that a spot at one end would be able to see straight down to the end! Neither of the orbital pictures are detailed enough to capture the numerous ridges along its route as they are shaded the same as their surroundings and locally this thing twists and turns in the same general direction.
You said this in post #149. I responded with this. I gave you a direct answer to your argument. Your saying I was off-topic was pretty lame. If you consider my response to be so bad, you should be able to address it directly and debunk it. The viewers are watching and judging.
No you did not! This is a thread concerning lighting in video - your cluelessness is the issue. Oh shut up. Your pathetic reference to an image is totally irrelevant. You are a very ignorant poster who has no idea what they are talking about. So when you say something, your opinion is useless. There is nothing to debunk. No scientific analysis, no photogrammetry, just your spamming statement. Meanwhile, the huge post above, cowardly ignored.
If you pause my short video, showing the cable moving quickly across the lens, you just see a shaded area. It isn't a damn phenomenon and I asked you nicely to stop with your pathetic hummingbird crap. The camera simply has insufficient time to pick up the object. You are the very worst troll imaginable. You claim to be an objective truth seeker who uses the scientific method, you are the complete opposite and never once do you even remotely use any scientific methodology. Only a complete fool will fail to see the point I am making and how you are completely evading it. You will evade these questions because you have no integrity: 1. Does an object rise to zenith at the same time as it falls back to the surface - yes or no? 2. Assuming you aren't idiotic enough to answer "no" to the above -how the hell can he rise in unison with the dust, that then falls back to the surface faster than him! 3. He rises with almost perfect lunar motion, very consistent with lunar gravity - are you afraid to understand what this means? 4. To make the soil mimic Earth gravity, the footage MUST, 100% irrefutably be increased 245% - do you understand this? I'm guessing you are afraid to respond honestly. As usual! 1.The LRV footage is miles and miles of visible terrain. The Hadley Rille video that you cowardly ignored shows exactly how big with an enormous camera zoom. 2. The soil clearly and irrefutably rises at the same time as Cernan, right there, your moronic "bouncing soil" theory is untenable. The wave rises at the same speed as it falls. Physics. You are busted.
You brought the subject up. (from post #149) You seemed to consider the 360 degree pans that were taken to somehow be proof that the missions were real. If you bring a subject up, don't I get to opine on it? This 360 degree pan has some serious hoax proof* in it and it seems to have you checkmated. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1174743.jpg That's why you're trying to avoid talking about it. * https://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm https://www.aulis.com/images/raq12.jpg
Actually he doesn't. The dust slows down and starts to fall before he reaches his zenith. The dust has a lower zenith. That closes the whole case right there. With no wire support both he and the dust would have the same zenith. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/apollo-and-sunlight-addendum.584604/#post-1072416887
Of all the traits human beings exhibit, lying is right up there with the most nauseating of them. This serial forum spammer is just incapable of honesty. It's more important (at least to his perception)that he doesn't appear to lose face by conceding (way too late for that!). He knows that virtually every single thing I argue about and offer rebuttal to, cannot be conceded by him, because each item is a slam dunk proving they are on the Moon. It takes some cowardice to act like this - but he has been doing this for 20 years. Here is the animated gif showing the jump: You can clearly see the arc between his boots rising in perfect sync, yet this lying spammer, afraid to be wrong stands there and denies the in-your-face obvious!
No, you fool, you assumed incorrectly. In a thread about lighting on video, discussion around it, it was blatantly obvious to all but the very dumb that it was about video footage! An idiotic comment. I assume they show large areas of terrain that prove they cannot be in a studio. I didn't bring it up, and to be honest your opinion is the lowest most ignorant one of all, so probably best you just logoff and find something honest and worthwhile to do! Look at this troll, making blanket statements, based on his idiotic opinion. There is no "hoax proof" anywhere, let alone in your link to a panorama of images. The sheer foolishness of this person. The very thing his idiotic links suggest, is disproven in this thread. THAT is why he cowardly avoids every single thing. Let's try again and show exactly what he is doing - he will avoid all of this:
Please talk about this particular 360 degree pan. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1174743.jpg It seems to support the backdrop scenario. https://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm https://www.aulis.com/images/raq12.jpg
Well, if you refuse to address post #162, all I can say is checkmate, If you say it doesn't have you checkmated, address it and say why.
There is something wrong with you. Why do you think your uninformed moronic opinion needs addressing? You have a dozen posts totally check mating you, but you are too cowardly to answer honestly. Why won't the serial forum spammer debate honestly? He keeps evading entire posts. Of all the traits human beings exhibit, lying is right up there with the most nauseating of them. This serial forum spammer is just incapable of honesty. It's more important (at least to his perception)that he doesn't appear to lose face by conceding (way too late for that!). He knows that virtually every single thing I argue about and offer rebuttal to, cannot be conceded by him, because each item is a slam dunk proving they are on the Moon. It takes some cowardice to act like this - but he has been doing this for 20 years. Here is the animated gif showing the jump: You can clearly see the arc between his boots rising in perfect sync, yet this lying spammer, afraid to be wrong stands there and denies the in-your-face obvious!
I think it needs addressing because the 360 degree pan shows a line that seems to be consistent with the backdrop scenario and therefore proves the missions were faked in a studio. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nlight-addendum.584604/page-7#post-1073855193 I say this closes the whole case by itself. Apollo was a hoax. If you say I'm wrong, say why. Don't just rant and insult.
@Scott I am still waiting for you to address — http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nlight-addendum.584604/page-6#post-1073847619
Moronic. So the fact that distant mountains have a line at their base is somehow significant? Your opinion carries no weight. You have shown yourself to be very dishonest and invariably run away from real proof. https://www.shutterstock.com/search/desert-mountains What kind of person makes such a pathetic argument that is disproven within the content they cowardly avoid!? This whole thread proves there can be no workable man-made illumination. It proves with the LRV footage that they cannot possibly be backdrops. Yet you basically ignore this, provide truly mind numbingly inept diversions and then insist your crappy little claim is significant.
It seems to be pretty consistent in the Apollo footage. It looks exactly the same everywhere. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...set-mod-warning.403884/page-5#post-1073717063 Here's you lamely trying to obfuscate clear hoax proof. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-24#post-1073764275 There is no proof that Apollo was real. However, there's a ton of proof that Apollo was faked. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-22#post-1073703706 You've destroyed your credibility multiple times. Here's an example. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ewalk-was-faked.578673/page-2#post-1073729591 Yet, you go on with the attitude that you've got the upper hand. https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html (excerpt) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) 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 non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're not swaying people of normal intelligence. Sometimes I wonder if you're just trying to keep me here so that I don't go to other forums and post hoax proof. You were all washed up a long time ago here.
Unfortunately for you, there exists better footage of this event. This one shows four occurrences of his jump and each time you can see the dust striking the surface as his feet hit the ground. You're done spammer, you've nowhere to go except repeat denial. Here it is. Astronaut Eugene Cernan runs and jumps on the Moon - Daily Mail - YouTube Quite clearly there are two splashes that start when his feet hit the surface. The larger one to the left (just beginning in this screen shot) is the one you claim is the bouncing dust! Now, Mr Scientific method, explain the exact point where YOU claim the dust is hitting, because you can quite clearly see the wave moving towards the ground in a steady and predictable manner - then you can tell me how long in hundredths of Earth seconds you think it is before he hits the ground. From there it should be obvious to even the most profoundly ignorant that any difference you claim does not compensate for substantial wire support and the time duration it entails! You always ignore that there is zero center of gravity jerkiness. You lose. As always. Reposting this as this joker has never answered it. Notwithstanding that the wave of dust MUST by the laws of physics come down at the same time as he does, since urrefutably we see it rise at the same time!
The noise of a troll. Multiple spam cut and paste garbage. This is what the serial forum spammer does on the routine occasions he gets his useless butt kicked. You aren't even in that category. I've never come across such stupidity and wilful ignorance. Unbelievable. Banned from a hundred forums and this despicably dishonest person wants to move on to another forum and pretend that he hasn't been completely humiliated. Dozens and dozens of posts proving that you are a complete failure and you are so deluded and clueless you can't even see them.
I see the same thing. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665 You keep forgetting to put hyphens in compound adjectives*. You always ignore that there is zero center-of-gravity jerkiness. What exactly is center-of-gravity jerkiness and how would it be a factor here? * https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar...djective?,are examples of compound adjectives.
You are the biggest joke on the internet and you want to add to that by being the biggest jerk? It was quoted from months back when you failed to address it.
