Mauled. You went into the lion's den and got ripped apart. Once again you appeal to the missing support. Nobody cares about your spam obsession, nobody comes to your support. You got what you wanted? Spamming the internet one forum at a time, what a very sad existence you have.
There must be a lot of viewers who don't click on links and read the stuff being discussed or you wouldn't be using this tactic. You're trying to mislead those viewers who don't read the thread. Anyone who actually reads that thread will see that they were saying some pretty lame things with a condescending attitude. Some people who don't read threads at the Clavius and Cosmoquest forums and just hear rhetoric about how they're impossible to own probably think it's true. The truth is that they're pretty pathetic. Look at the lame things Jay Windley* says in this discussion. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=251326 In order to maintain his position Jay Windley said it was impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Therefore, the lack of dust clouds in the Apollo footage means that they were in a vacuum. Any seventh-grader could see that he's full-of-it. * http://www.clavius.org/about.html Sometimes I wonder if those links lead to the same discussion in other parts of the world. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Canceling posts. Posts disappear or only propagate in a limited region. This has deniability as just network problems, since sometimes there really are network problems. One technique is to secretly "localize" posts that are not approved by some censor or gatekeeper. Most people will not notice if their post only appears on their local news server, and will assume it has propagated worldwide. They will just think no one has replied (though spoof replies can be posted locally, too). I check to see that my posts show up at DejaNews. Hardly foolproof, but at least then I know people can read them there (at least until more sophisticated spoofing is available, perhaps tailored to domain names or user names). ------------------------------------------------------------------- If those links don't lead to a discussion about dust-free-sand, somebody please advise me.
No such thing as 'dust free sand,besides the moons surface in the moon walks looks like powder,NOT granulated sand.
Try not to take it too badly. You had your butt kicked yet again - that's why you ran away with all those tough questions on the table. You did the same here and it is all documented - see my signature for some examples. There must be a lot of viewers? None of them ever come to your support though, unless you post on nutty conspiracy forums. There is no such thing as dust free sand that also takes a clear footprint. As stated above, it is blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes that the Apollo footage shows very fine powdery regolith over and over again.
If you're going to misrepresent what is said in long threads to mislead those viewers who don't have time to read them, all I can do is ask the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric and withhold judgement until they've had time to read them. Here's the thread in question. http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145609-The-Flag-Anomaly-Proves-the-Hoax-by-Itself Anyone who reads it will see that they're tap dancing around and obfuscating. The only way those posters can have any measure of success is if they just talk to each other to a group of viewers who haven't seen the hoax proof. If they're shown the real hoax proof and asked real questions, they have to say some pretty lame things to maintain their positions and it becomes clear that they don't even believe their own arguments. Here's a video on this subject. MoonFaker - Project Sandbox http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc Tell us whether you agree with Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue that's in my last post.
Now you want to divert yet another butt kicking to a thread hijack and totally different subject that I answered in the post you just quoted. This spammer often quotes a Monty Python video about the black knight, perhaps we should equate his action to Brave Sir Robin, who runs away at the slightest danger:- Mauled.
I dealt with this issue on that thead. Jarrah's slow motion video that showed that it had started moving before he got close enough to touch it got deleted from YouTube but it was there when I was talking on that thead. It probably got deleted from YouTube because it debunked the argument that the astronaut touched it with his elbow. This video shows it though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0 I dealt with this in post #16. http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...oves-the-Hoax-by-Itself&p=2149766#post2149766 Here's what I said. Why did you say I hadn't responded to this? Let's not forget that BetaMax tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked because the official NASA position is that it was real. http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com.es/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html Here's the link to the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=321844&page=9&p=1063204261#post1063204261
the only 'clear proof' was the Chinese had dirty capsules...the fabric of their suits didn't behave as if they were in water. Fail
Liar. Liar again. You have had this argument explained to you in terms a kindergarten student would understand. The two do not cancel each other out. The so called original movement does not mean he didn't brush it. Your inability to understand this dead simple point, speaks volumes about your ability as a truther. None. Liar. Your post is diversion, since you cannot see the base of the flagpole in any shot, you cannot rule it out! Because you haven't. More idiotic references to the Chinese spacewalk - did you get through high school?
If you look at post #16 of this thread... http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145609-The-Flag-Anomaly-Proves-the-Hoax-by-Itself ...you'll see I dealt with this questions that you said I hadn't dealt with. I talked about kicked soil, which is shown in my last post, and I talked about the rod and flag movements' not being consistent with ground vibration. Here's the other quote from post #16. You said I hadn't addressed this when I in fact had. You're trying to mislead the viewers who don't take the time to look at the thread. You also didn't respond to my request that you say whether you agreed with Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue which is in post #27. Here's a link to it. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=337964&page=3&p=1063503834#post1063503834 You've got a condescending attitude but what you're actually saying is pretty lame. Viewers please watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpg6NY13H_Y Some of the hoax proof I wanted to post here got deleted from YouTube. Do a YouTube search on this. "MoonFaker: Flagging the Dead Horses" Jarrah says it'll be back in a week or so.
No, really you didn't. Your reply is just an example of how your comprehension difficulties get in the way. You responded about pebbles actually hitting the flag! The statement asks about kicked regolith, it says nothing about the idiotic assumption that it contacts the flag itself. You really have no idea what you are talking about, left to right movement doesn't rely on up and down suspension arm movement. What viewers? Nobody supports your idiotic claims. You avoided that whole list, that's why you ran away and it's why you avoided almost every single post I ended up making a blog with. You just can't help lying. I suppose you spam so much you don't even know when you've brought up the same crap before. Yet again, the troll avoids the questions. Let's try again shall we? 1. When cables are formed, are they wound on a drum? 2. Does this create shape memory? An example of this being a simple garden hose. 3. In a vacuum with no force acting on a cable, would this very small tendency to assume that shape memory be far greater? 4. What possible reason would China have for using buoyant cables instead of reinforced steel? I actually trawled through a few old posts of yours from years gone by and found this absolute gem (from 4 years ago) to "answer" question 7 above. Made me laugh anyway:- Totally epic fail - it's a wide angled camera. The method is so astonishingly inept it beggars belief. Discharges don't work that way, they are caused by build up, not continuous! Not if it struck the flagpole and made a small impact. They did move. Despite your unproven claims that I doctored my video, the video shows exactly that. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=232.375
Your post is designed to mislead viewers who haven't looked at the material being discussed. I'm going to post the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked here. ------------------------------- http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW__oOciq2c http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/ http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/ In this video the safety cable is obviously buoyant. It has a distinct tendency to to upward. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM Watch it at these time marks. 0:50 2:10 3:00 3:10 6:08 6:44 6:53 It's going upward because it's slightly lighter than water. Watch the first video on the list at the 3:45 time mark to see the astronaut holding the buoyant safety cable down so that its buoyancy won't be so obvious. At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water. The fast flag movement can be explained by sped-up video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g (1:55 time mark) ----------------------------------- People who take the time to look at it will see that you didn't address the issue of the buoyant safety cables that I raised. I pointed out that all of the upward movement was consistent with buoyancy in water. If shape-memory were the explanation, there would be non-upward movement. Simply citing shape-memory as the reason doesn't address the issue. You're trying to mislead the viewers so I have to keep setting the record straight. Now please tell us whether you agree with Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=337964&page=3&p=1063503834#post1063503834
And through the eyes of the truly ignorant we get the least likely conclusion. It shows no billowing from water at all, it is completely unrestricted. Your comment is very ignorant. No, really it can't. It can be explained by being in a vacuum with no restriction on it. Where are these people you keep referencing. Shape memory is a perfect explanation for cable movement in both vertical and horizontal directions. You cannot educate conspiracy theorists with 6 year obsessions. The viewers that never come to your support. Your obsessive need to respam is noted. Again? Why, didn't you read it the first time? Mauled.
Okay. I'll do one more. Here's a question you said I hadn't answered on this thread. http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145609-The-Flag-Anomaly-Proves-the-Hoax-by-Itself This is from post #49. That looks like an answer to me. Anyone who actually reads that thread will see that you're misrepresenting what happened there to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to read it. Now please tell us whether you agree with Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=337964&page=3&p=1063503834#post1063503834
Posts 59 and 60 maul your useless explanations. From post #60 "The whole video sequence for the Apollo 15 flag has numerous footprints clearly being made - your claim is just complete denial. " As is always the case with you, your responses are ignorant bunkum. It is an extremely simple question. Either the sand is dry and takes no footprint or wet and does. If it is wet, there is no chance of fine soil disturbance, but we see this clearly. As I said mauled, that's why you ran away. You seem to think throwing any old response will suffice, then stand by it at all costs. The poster on that thread said you hadn't responded, not me. They will see you getting your butt kicked and running away again. The spammer forgets stuff, you can't blame him. He cuts and pastes his tripe all over the internet in so many places. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714
This is from post #60 of thhis thread. http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145609-The-Flag-Anomaly-Proves-the-Hoax-by-Itself/page2 I said this... ...and this. Clanger responded with this. I say he avoided the point I was making. What do you say?
A couple of years ago the Myth Busters also busted the "The moon walk was faked" myth, demonstrating that every conspiracy theorist objection was wrong from the waving flag to the foot print impression. Then too, the technology simply did not exist at the time to create a convincing fake to the extent demanded by conspiracy theorists. Two final points; not long ago the actual landing sites were found again using modern technology and the junk is still visible complete with moon rover tracks. Finally we have current moon images from the surface which look pretty much the same as from decades ago, allowing for upgrades in video technology. Still . . . the conspiracy theorists are amusing, especially as their myths continue to get kicked out from beneath them and the conspiracy theorists continue picking them up, banging the dings of reality out of them and then presenting them to various forums once more. Great good fun!
One amusing side note to this conspiracy is the lack of explanation from the conspiracy side of the argument for the pirating of the Apollo 11 Moon walk. The signals for the first walk were received in Australia from various ground stations, sent by cable to the US for transmissions over the airwaves. Network 10 spliced the cable in Sydney and stole 2 hours of footage and broadcast them in real time. If the walks had been staged here on Earth there is no way the material could have been in Australia to be stolen
Heh . . . well it's always comforting when one ignores intrusive mathematics and laws of physics in favor of the 'feeeeeeeeling' that things must have been faked because . . . "well, they just must have!" If you start from that as your unshakable cornerstone then everything else falls into place and that pesky mathematics and laws of physics stuff is just smoke and mirrors.
MythBusters has been shown to be a fraud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00 http://aulis.com/mythbusters.htm These two links used to go to Jarrah White's analysis of MythBuster videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ajIVmGiQE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M Jarrah White's videos have disappeared from YouTube. I'm posting those dead links in the hope that they come back soon. I'd like to hear you two answer the question I asked BetaMax in my last post.
No scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c, they have been NOT....All that has been shown is that some of you hoaxers can't face facts and need to spin ludicrous scenarios like 'dust free sand' As for debunking the astronaut photo,no way they could mimic the reflective area of all the lunar surface..
If I remember correctly, you also maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real and agree with Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714 No one who actually clicks on those links and examines this issue closely is going to take anything you say about anything else seriously.
If you remembered CORRECTLY I said I didn't CARE about the chinese spacewalk,even though it's apparent it wasn't shot in water...And there's NO such thing as 'dust free sand',and since the lunar surface was the consistency of talcum powder......you fail again. and half your links are broken,time to update your spam.
Look at this. Start watching this at the 16:40 time mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA "Physics of the Moon Flag" Watch as the swinging gets narrow before it stops. It looks a little faster than the Apollo flag which could be explained by the slow-motion at which the Apollo footage is shown (sixty seven percent according to Jarrah White). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y (2:37 time mark) The Apollo flag is moving much faster than the speed at which the video shows it should be moving at the 18:50 time mark. Let's hear some analyses of this from the pro-Apollo posters.