The viewers want to know when you are going to be a man and admit your failures. The above image is pretty much how light hits a curved surface compared to a flat one. Since you conceded that the rod blocks the Sun, this is where you stop with your deception and start telling the truth.
Do one then and stop being a coward. It is obvious to "anyone with average intelligence" that the light path is the same, just that the surface area now curves very slightly in the 1.5 cm - it takes a colossal fool not to see or acknowledge this. The rod blocks the Sun completely (there is a tiny bit of residual blooming left from the vidicon camera) but it is 100% irrefutable proof that there is no batshit "super light". Right there the batshit lighting claim goes down the crapper.
@Scott Tell the forum why you are afraid to concede this completely proven response. The rod blocks the light, it cannot be wider than the rod!
Yes we can. What an incredibly clueless statement. Every person with a braincell can see that light hitting a curved surface will cast the same image spread slightly according to the curve, More to the point though and indicative of your deceitful tendency, is that the rod blocks the path of the source of illumination! It gets in the way of the Sun and the big blob disappears. You lose yet again. An honest person would just admit this. An objective person would see the case proven. A truth seeker would know that the superlight is proven bullshit and all of a sudden 50 hours of video with dark skies is very obviously on the Moon. It was always so, even the bullshit superlight couldn't do what we see! A dishonest person would avoid it completely.
As I said before, what happens on a flat surface isn't necessarily what happens on a convex surface. Anyway there are other anomalies that prove the light source in the footage wasn't the sun. This is really just for the viewers as Betamax isn't moved by evidence. Start watching this at the 3:15 time mark. Jet Wintzer, MOON HOAX NOW And don't forget about this. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/apollo-and-sunlight-addendum.584604/#post-1072416937
You are a layman on everything! As you said before is equivalent to nothing. Somebody has to be brain dead not to comprehend this simple thing. With you though it's just your usual dishonesty! You really are a quite pathetic troll. The crap below is nothing to do with illumination. The sheer moronic hypocrisy. A clown video showing a cable in front of the camera. You are as cowardly evasive now as you have always been.
The question is what motivates anyone to troll like this. Even a very stupid person would get this. It has to be complete dishonesty or delusion. Maybe both.
Whenever this guy is proven wrong, he denies the obvious, shouts a few insults and proceeds to try to bury the part of the thread where he's been proven wrong to reduce the number of people who see it. Then, he goes on as if nothing had happened. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/apollo-and-sunlight-addendum.584604/#post-1072473095
Something you've never done with your cut and paste spam you don't even understand! The colossal irony in that statement. Here we have a dozen items that this dishonest serial forum spammer is systematically ignoring and deliberately burying. shouts a few insults and proceeds to try to bury the part of the thread where he's been proven a complete failure. The rod passes in front of the single light source brightly illuminating acres of terrain. It must be as wide or narrower than the rod for it to be blocked. Just above a picture of a reflection on a motorcycle visor. Notice this dishonest person ignored it completely. A truth seeker / honest person/ critical thinker / objective person would see the evidence and know it must be on the Moon. You are none of those. You are a serial forum spammer with no idea and no normal human integrity.
When will the serial forum spammer address this? He is afraid to be wrong. Too late, by about 20 years.
Perhaps Scott could explain something. He clearly states the astronauts were filmed in a studio while being suspended on wires. Software like PTM and BAS could easily reveal the wires in the footage. Has any person come forward showing the wires? Even now when very advanced software is used to hide wires in films, you can still prove the wires are there. I also should ask what technology did they use to remove the wires back then?
The bottom line is that these anomalies prove that the "Sun" was really a big light. Jet Wintzer, MOON HOAX NOW (3:10 time mark) The Mystery of the Apollo Sun hd https://www.brighteon.com/f354f140-0e68-469c-bc0a-bdb2a04238f6 Physics of the Moon Reflection https://www.brighteon.com/cdc4dea2-442f-4bf3-946a-6736fe6d555b Here's what I posted about the wires. The jump salute pretty much closes the whole case. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nd-absurd-hoax-coffin.604367/#post-1073766164 https://www.reddit.com/r/moonhoax/comments/fszf20/when_the_video_doesnt_match_the_photos_taken_by/
The dishonesty of this serial forum spammer is really quite nauseating now. Not only has all the below garbage been utterly destroyed, he has failed to address any of it and yet again repeat posts his spam . A lie. The first video is nothing whatsoever to do with it, it is merely a near field cable passing across the tv camera. Quite clearly to any honest person, this freezed frame shows the color wheels on the camera, proving 100% that the object MUST be close to the viewfinder! That would be the scientific method, isolate this bullshit anomaly and identify it with known variables. Hey scott/cosmored/rocky, why do you believe imbeciles who don't use any method at all? Do you need to educate yourself how the camera works? You going to pretend not to see this? More deception from both the video maker and the serial forum spammer. Totally debunked on this thread: Apollo and sunlight | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics Needless to say the cowardly actions on show have failed every time to address the irrefutable debunks. The "chemist" and his strawman garbage. All disproven on the thread above and totally irrelevant. It actually makes me laugh being given "physics lessons" from a clown. It certainly does. It proves with simple, irrefutable physics that he cannot possibly be on wires. Your dishonest evasion on this matter is obvious to all. The soil does go up as high as his boot, quite correct. We see it. Unfortunately for you THAT, and just THAT is the nail in your coffin of ignorance. Absent of an atmosphere and over short distances on Earth, an object will rise to its zenith at the same time as it falls from the zenith to the surface. I suggest you read and digest that. See if you can use your best English comprehension skills to fully understand it. Because I know what you must do now. You must obfuscate, divert, distract and try and make this go away. But it won't because you have inadvertently closed your own case. Your ignorance is the problem here. The two cannot suddenly divert from their motion. They went up at the same speed and height, we see this clearly. As you have admitted. They must come down at the same speed. The soil is merely occluded by background. We have two other pieces of visual data.
You have not answered my questions at all. Again: Perhaps Scott could explain something. He clearly states the astronauts were filmed in a studio while being suspended on wires. Software like PTM and BAS could easily reveal the wires in the footage. Has any person come forward showing the wires? Even now when very advanced software is used to hide wires in films, you can still prove the wires are there. I also should ask what technology did they use to remove the wires back then? Why has nobody been able to reveal the existence of what would be wires attached to the astronaut as well as a harness? Again, there is sophisticated technology that could show the removal of such things easily and clearly. You would have your proof of wires/no wires. Linking to a conversation on Reddit is meaningless. Linking to your own oft-regurgitated spam is meaningless. You have been at this for 17 years and have yet to post any images of the wires/harnesses actually existing. Why is that? Perhaps because there aren't any wires or harnesses.
Nor will he. If you have this software, the only way it will get proven is if you do it, as he doesn't disprove his own garbage - the scientific method of which he has no understanding.
(from post #16) If it's a cable, why is it possible to see through it? Wouldn't a cable block everything that's behind it? Look at #11 here. https://www.lifehack.org/378230/tag-your-friend-who-always-makes-these-30-photography-mistakes https://pixelphant.com/blog/jewelry-photography-mistakes https://freewildsouls.com/photography-blog/natural-editing-tips Do you agree with him MuchAdo?
I looked for some video footage on which we could freeze some frames to make a better comparison. Start watching this at the 1:12 time mark. Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue There's a cable attached to the device in the center. If you freeze a frame, you cannot see what's behind the cable. Freeze frames of hummingbirds flying aren't applicable here as their wing speed is way too fast to be a good comparison. I'll look for something that's closer to the camera lens.
Here's something that looks similar but it's not the same. APOLLO 11 - Inflight Crew Footage (HD source, Correct Speed, Stabilized) - 1969 Set the speed at .25 and go to the 2:40 time mark and watch the black cable on the left. That's what it looks like when there's a cable in front of the lens. The video in post #115 shows something quite different. It's filming the shadow of something that's in front of a studio light.
Which part? There is a lot to unpick there. You haven't answered my question regarding why they have never found wires using present day advanced software and exactly how did they erase the wire from the footage back when there wasn't any sophisticated method of digital removal. Like I have been trying to point out to, software can detect when objects have been removed quite easily, yet nobody has been to show the removal of wires. Some moron tried to say 'pings' of light were proof of wires. That's just idiocy.
I really don't know whether you are trolling or are this dumb. It's so very basic it's almost absurd that you think a thin cable passing in front of a video camera lens would "block" it! Faceplant time. The cable connected to the TV camera is several feet in front of the hand-held DAC camera which is an entirely different image capturing system anyway. There's something wrong with you if you think a cable several feet from the DAC film camera is "similar" to a few inches from a TV video camera. Utter stupidity. Your posting hallmark. I'm really starting to doubt you have any intelligence at all now. Yet is clearly has the colors from the wheel on the video visible. Your ignorance, obfuscation and constant failures are quite pathetic. As for this moronic studio light, what kind of person trolls a claim that has been soundly disproven? The rod passes in front of the single light source brightly illuminating acres of terrain. It must be as wide or narrower than the rod for it to be blocked. Just above a picture of a reflection on a motorcycle visor. Notice this dishonest person ignored it completely. A truth seeker / honest person/ critical thinker / objective person would see the evidence and know it must be on the Moon. You are none of those. You are a serial forum spammer with no idea and no normal human integrity.
Take a pen and put it close to a light bulb and look at its shadow on the wall or floor. The closer it is to the light bulb, the bigger and fuzzier the shadow is. The further it is from the light bulb, the smaller and sharper the shadow is. This is consistent with the alleged shadow in the video. If you say it isn't, tell us what the shadow of a cable close to a big light would look like.
The jump salute* proves he was hanging on a wire. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nlight-addendum.584604/page-3#post-1072504892 That's all the proof that's needed. * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nd-absurd-hoax-coffin.604367/#post-1073766164
