without echoing NASA's statement, how would you defend this landing on the moon.

This is who Jay Windley is.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html


Jay Windley is a paid sophist. I debated with him at JREF and on the Clavius forum. Here are some instances in which he tried to obuscate anomalies that were too clear to obfuscate and just looked silly.

I asked him this.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

Here's his response.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

You'll see some more of his lameness here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=251326

Tell us BetaMax whether you agree with Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue.


Look at posts #5 and #8 of this thread to see more on the Clavius forum and Jay Windley.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628


Look at Jay Windley and his friends destroying their credibility by engaging in damage-control in the Chinese spacewalk issue.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/2206

BetaMax also destroyed his credibility by trying to obfuscate the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979


Hey BetaMax-

There's a point at which things are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective. The Apollo flag's moving without having been touched and the anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk are classic examples of this. You can pretend all you want; your success rate in convincing people that Apollo happened is probably pretty close to zero here.

 

Here's another one for them to try to obfuscate.
http://www.aulis.com/further_findings.htm
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------
It could be argued that the astronauts moving around the vehicle may have partly disturbed any rover tracks – but there are none visible whatsoever – not even under the LRV. (See previous picture AS17-140-21354, and photo AS17-140-21358 above.)

Together with other examples of trackless rovers this finding suggests that the LRV may have been lowered into place for the photography.
--------------------------------------

 

Check out how different astronauts give different descriptions of how the sky looked from space.

http://www.aulis.com/brian_cox.htm
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain the contradictory testimony given by the named astronauts regarding the ‘naked eye’ visibility of stars and planets in cislunar space.

John Young (Gemini 10) "Standing there in the black void of space was truly amazing. Everywhere we looked there were stars, even below us. They were a little brighter than what we saw from Earth, but what impressed us was that they didn't twinkle. That was because there was no intervening atmosphere to cause what the astronomers call scintillation.”

The planet Venus was so incredibly bright it appeared like it was a UFO. Mike Collins later commented that “it looked like a 50-watt bulb in the sky".3

Michael Collins (Gemini 10) "My God the stars are everywhere; above me on all sides even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. This is the best view of the Universe that a human has ever had. Venus appears so bright that I have to convince myself that it really is Venus, not by its appearance, but by its position in the sky at the spot where Venus should be."4

Bill Anders (Apollo "The sky was a sort of grey, you couldn't see stars very well..." describing cislunar space in An Evening with the Apollo 8 Astronauts (Annual John H. Glenn Lecture Series).

Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11) “The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might ...er ...be visible." Armstrong speaking to Patrick Moore on the BBC astronomy program The Sky at Night in 1970.

Michael Collins (Apollo 11) How telling is it, that during the morose and lugubrious post-Apollo 11 press conference, that Michael Collins could only reply with comatose timidity to Patrick Moore's query concerning the visibility of the stars. "I don't recall..." Not a hint of surprise, no incentive to expound upon Apollo's dull vistas comparative to his awesome visions from the beguiling Gemini 10 (see above).*

Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14) “The Stars were ten times brighter than when viewed from the Earth" [in cislunar space].**

Charles Duke (Apollo 16) "You couldn't see stars, it was too bright" [in cislunar space]. Speaking to me at Autographica in 2012, and reiterated at various public speaking engagements such as this event with Charles Duke.

Mike Melvill, SpaceShipOne "Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing."5 So the first civilian to reach space in a privately-financed spacecraft nullifies assertions from Apollo 8, Apollo 11 and Apollo 16 astronauts.

Extra content
*Apollo 11 Before a large audience at Autographica in 2012, Edgar Mitchell (in response to my reference concerning Armstrong's affirmation that he couldn't see stars in cislunar space) shot down my assertion that Neil Armstrong was entitled to be credited with great expertise in astronomy with the retort: "He didn't know what he was talking about!"

This emphatic statement, resounding with such certainty, reduced the audience to a jaw-dropping silence. Neil Armstrong was in fact, by far the most qualified astronomer in the astronaut corps. The YouTube clip Neil Armstrong Misleads Patrick Moore sensationally contrasts the incompatible viewpoints of the two NASA operatives.

**Apollo 14 Following his euphoric sermon at Autographica citing no less than a metaphysical rebirth as a result of the effects of observing stars in cislunar space, Mitchell was asked by a audience member to describe his thoughts whilst observing the Earth from the Moon. "We didn't have time for that many things," he replied vacuously.

Edgar's sudden volte-face of passion, his inability to equate the spiritual component of the lunar surface vista with his cislunar epiphany were laid bare. From the front of the audience, I was able to focus on Ed's eyes which, to my thinking, unequivocally betrayed his inability to step from truth-based oratory to opaque illusion.

The man from MIT seemed unwilling to leave the pulpit with a conflicted conscience. His only other option was to dissociate himself from the question and the questioner. This he did. However, unable to convey one iota of the emotional conviction that had accentuated his cislunar soliloquies, Mitchell's virtually instantaneous Jekyll and Hyde behaviour soured even his most fervent acolytes, who now winced with incredulity.

 

This is called ad hominem posting. Ignoring his response in favour of a pathetic attempt to smear him. You are useless.

Hot air. You are convincing nobody, you are nothing but an obsessive spammer who is incapable of being educated. You have no relevant education pertaining to anything in this discussion.

It has been proven that air is the only thing that could not have moved the flag. You have invested 6 years of your life in spamming this, so it is easy to see why it is stuck to you like glue. As for the Chinese spacewalk, once again, only very clueless people dismiss the motion of the flag spinning in a vacuum and think that water would allow even a close proximity of that. A viscous medium would not allow any such thing at any speed.

 

Pathetic. The "stars" argument the last bastion of HB foolishness!

There is no contradiction. There is however useless cherry picked research and people like you to be suckered in by it.

Cabin lights off, dark side of the Earth.

Cabin lights off.

Cabin lights off, night side of Earth.

Cabin lights on. Most of the journey.

Cabin lights on. Most of the journey. On the lunar surface, it was daylight and they wore gold visors nearly the entire time.

The most dishonest of all the references. Collins' refers to viewing stars in the solar corona, as the question refers to and as Armstrong has just repeated back.

Cabin lights off. No direct sunlight, or direct Moon or Earhlight.

Cabin lights on. Direct sun, Earth and Moon light at regular intervals.

Oh enough!!

Cabin lights on or off, shaded by the Moon or Earth. In short, a variety of different circumstances, just like we would expect on a lunar coast and orbit.

 

Different men giving different perspectives on how the lunar sky looked?.....I'm astonished!<sarcasm>

 

The word "Smear" is a misnomer. I posted his posts from the Clavius and JREF forums. Tell us whether you agree with his stand on the dust-free sand issue, or that of the geologists who disagreed with him.

(post #101)
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=347184&page=11&p=1064226662#post1064226662

 

And more spam.....tell us,how granulated sand,even 'washed and sifted' can act like the talcum powder-like lunar regolith?

 

There is no such video of the flag waving without being touched.

In every video you have posted the flag waves only immediately after an astronaut touches it or the pole. That is fact and no one attempted to obfuscate they only stated fact.

Any school child can see it is inertia transferred from the astronaut to the flag which makes it wave.

Anamolies always exist and do not prove anything there are no real anamolies however in your videos.

- - - Updated - - -

No one ever gives the same descrition of anything.

This is evidence only of individual expression and perspective.

 

Obfuscation is not necessary for anything you present. Especially this particular nugget of Aulis stupidity.

Even a blind person can see the entire area behind and around the rover is littered with boot prints. The LRV is unloaded after each EVA.

A truly moronic claim. Rather than drive the vehicle into position, they elected to employ a crane driver, rent a crane and somebody presumably to connect and disconnect the LRV. Then a hitman to silence them both?

And you have the audacity to question the credibility of other people, after you spout bilge like this?

 

Hey BetaMax. Please respond to post #107.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=347184&page=11&p=1064227122#post1064227122

 

Not a response.

 

You spam that identical crap so often you forget who responds to it. You are truly pathetic. You are so useless, you haven't even noticed that the first geology link is dead. Geologists think moon hoaxers are idiots, you never requote that part of their analysis, I wonder why!

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=337964&page=4&p=1063520587#post1063520587

From that post:-

You are so wrapped up in trying to actually win a single point in a debate, that your blinkered nature avoids the truly obvious elephant in the room. There are hours and hours of lunar footage showing fine dust being kicked about, never once forming a dust cloud and in numerous cases, footprints being made. Not least in your favorite spammed Apollo 15 flag sequence! But this piece of footage, all on its own shows perfect 1/6th g, but when we speed it up to show the regolith rising and falling at Earth gravity, we get predictably absurd movements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk5GiF_mX5w

You cannot explain this video, because it was taken on the Moon.

 

Hilarious,,scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c can't be botherd to answer our questions,yet demands an answer to his..

 

The bottom line is that the flag movement has already proven the hoax...
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html

...and all of you pro-Apollo posters destroyed your credibility by saying the Chinese spacewalk was real and agreeing with Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=347184&page=11&p=1064226662#post1064226662

The case is pretty much closed in the eyes of people who take the time to look at that info. If any viewers don't have the time to look at it, please withhold judgement until you do and don't be swayed by rhetoric.

 

And once again he runs away from answering to replies, in favour of his claim of victory. Never once does he show that he has the intelligence to understand why it's hogwash. For the spammer once again. It has been proven beyond all shadow of doubt that air is the only thing it could not have been.

You are afraid to respond to the lens flares moving analysis from Headlikearock, you lack the extremely basic skillset needed to do a simple replication of his action. Instead you cry fake like a coward.

A truly moronic claim, with rotating bubbles and flags moving completely unrestricted in water? Meh!

A strawman claim in the first place. You are cornered by my video. You lack any idea how to explain it, so exhibit your usual tactic of resorting to dismissing other people because of a moronic credibility test that you yourself fail.

Nobody agrees with you. Not here, not on the basketball forum, or any other forum you spam your cut and paste nonsense on.

Here - answer this!

But this piece of footage, all on its own shows perfect 1/6th g, but when we speed it up to show the regolith rising and falling at Earth gravity, we get predictably absurd movements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk5GiF_mX5w

You cannot explain this video, because it was taken on the Moon.

 

No it is not closed and never has been.

The bottom line is all of your claims have been debunked and proven false.

The moving flag is always and consistently the result of the flag or staff being touched by an astronaut and you can only willfully ignore that fact.

No evidence of any kind syggests that the chinese space walk was faked and Windley's analysis ruined your other claims

 

People should read BetaMax's analysis of the Chinese spacewalk and decide for themselves whether he has any creditility.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-11.html#post4764783


Regarding this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk5GiF_mX5w

The speed of videos can be manipulated to make it match any scenario. This is something vague and difficult to verify whereas the flag's movement not being consistent with moon gravity has been verified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
(18:50 time mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(00:50 and 1:50 time marks)

Viewers please don't be swayed by statements or rhetoric if you haven't had time to actually look at the info in this thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html

The pro-Apollo people maintain that lens flare made the flag look like it was moving but that doesn't explain why it keeps moving. They lamely said the astronaut touched it with his elbow but the info in that thread shows it started moving before he got close enought to touch it. They know this but they're misrepresenting what happened in that thread to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to look at the info. I really don't see much point in continuing posting here as the Black Knights will never recognize defeat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

When they're clearly checkmated, they simply deny the obvious with authoritative patronizing attitudes until the issue blows over and then go on as if nothing had happened. They try to bury the part of the thread in which they're checkmated to at least reduce the number of people who see it.

 

No one bury's anything and nothing has been verified as you claim the video's simply all prove you wrong

 

Have to remember, first there is the belief....then you have to cherry-pick your "evidence" and ignore all other data. So naturally there are numerous gaps and errors in your "information".

As noted, Scott believes in the lethality of "space radiation" and the "impossibility" of shielding against it......but he admits to orbital manned spaceflight and thus the concept of "heat shields" (from Vostok to The Shuttle) and the ability of spacecraft to withstand 1000s of degrees of temperature and the astronauts survive.

Why one...and not the other? Because if he accepts both, his "religion" falls apart. Given he's also admitted he believes in Earth orbital flight....a little more delta-V and you can go to the Moon and back. A manned lunar orbital mission is perfectly feasible.

And since he also admits he accepts robotic landings on the Moon.....there would be NO REASON for why a manned landing couldn't take place as easy or even easier than the Surveyor Program 3 years earlier.

As far as the manufacturer of the reflector, I'm sure it's not his only mistake.

 

It should be noted yet again for the spammer, that his so called credibility test fails by virtue of the fact that the man who produced the video, he totally relies on, actually says Apollo was not hoaxed. Further, he then claims that for no reason whatsoever, this man was threatened to make that statement.

Such moronic claims are testament to a complete lack of any virtue or credibility. Not least ignoring where the "bubble" is actually a piece of debris or ice, clearly rotating, with a massive increase in size, completely out of proportion to the expansion expected in such a supposed change in depth! On top of this, this person claims a flag can rotate around a small stick in water without a single restrictive movement from the viscous fluid.

The spammer is cornered, so makes some vague bovine excrement comment. The footage shows perfect lunar gravity, When it is speeded up 245% it becomes absurd, yet the regolith is now falling at Earth gravitational speed. There is no explanation, just pathetic hotair. It was filmed on the Moon.

We await your specific rebuttal as to how this was done!

I despise liars. Not only did I give you a succinct explanation for this, you ignored it totally.

Debunked and ignored!

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html

Meh! That entire statement sums you up perfectly.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

Liar. Some pro-Apollo people propose this. Alongside kicked regolith, ground vibration or static. It keeps "moving" because he subsequently strilkes it with his elbow. It is so painful that you are unable to understand this so breathtakingly simple point.

You have had this explained to you, just by me, over a dozen times, yet here you are repeating your stupid comment again.

The movement before he reached the flag, does not preclude the fact that he then went on to subsequently strike it with his elbow.

Is this another one of your forum flounces after you have had your useless claims destroyed?

The viewers, who never support you, will notice once again where you avoid responding to the substance of my post. Go and stick your head back in the sand, we landed on the Moon, get over it and get a life.

 

Viewers-

Make sure you look at the info here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio-2.html

 

Yes both of them know no evidence exists on that link to support your view

 

I could have sworn I'd linked to post #12 of that thread in my last post.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979

The anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk are too clear to obfuscate and BetaMax tried to obfuscate them because the official NASA position is that it was real. That was his undoing.

 

You linked to the same old debunked claims.

The anomalies are just anomalies and not evidence of anything.

You have been badly beaten by the evidence which proves you wrong which you why you never address facts or answer questions