Apollo authentication - the final nail in the untenable and absurd "hoax" coffin

And the wait goes on. Instead of addressing these Siam dunk issues, with honesty, we get absurd crap about stars. 30 years of facepalming later.

 

Nowhere is the following answered honestly:

CERNAN



In your face, a wave of dust clearly rising in front of him at the same speed as his jump and you have run away from this slam dunk point every time.

• This forms part of a long continuous 30 minute EVA sequence.
• Beyond any doubt we can prove this jump is 100% consistent with it being lunar gravity.
  
• There is no jerkiness in his motion that would indicate any center of gravity changes from wires.
• As he rises he kicks soil ahead which clearly reaches the same height and without any doubt at the same time.
• Physics 101, an object takes the same time to rise to zenith as it takes to fall (absent of air resistance).
  
• The soil clearly strikes the surface at the same time as he lands - proving physics 101(previous jump).
• Unless the soil is on wires, neither can he be!.

YOUNG





Right there(emphasis mine) is the only part of your statement that we need. 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 argument about the soil falling immediately is disproven by physics and it does not do this anyway - it disperses and tracks forwards - see moving dust shadows on the ground!

LRV
Faultless. Dark shadows, dark skies, fully lit for miles, impossible to be a backdrop screen, impossible to be a static model, impossible to be fabricated to that complexity on some bullshit, fully lit 10,000 acre set with dark skies and mountains that never get any nearer. Thread found here.

• An honest person would look and start to think it is clear evidence of a lunar landing.
• A logical person would look at the quality, the date, the scenery, the dark sky etc. and conclude that it cannot have been filmed on Earth.
• An objective person would look at this as irrefutable proof of a lunar landing.
• The scientific method shows this was filmed on the surface of the Moon. There is no workable counter explanation.
• A person with none of the above would arm wave away evidence that is impossible to explain or refute.

BATTERY LID

There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and he seems to have a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-Now from the responses being received from this serial forum spammer we can also see a number of things:-

• There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.

• The lid for the battery is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.

• It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.

• A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.

• There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!

• In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.

• In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.

• It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.

CLICK HERE to watch the clip. Pause the video at 17 seconds to see how this youtube video maker shoots himself in both feet. The whole area is covered in dust, I agree,
yet the pushed falling lid only puffs in one tiny corner and look at how ridiculously high the dust goes up from the impact of the corner - low gravity! NOTHING is disturbed in front, none of that mass of dust is disturbed!

The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.

 

In addition to the above, we have 842lbs of verified rocks, examined by geologists all around the world.

 

Bump. still waiting for an honest answer to all the above.

 

You just did

Each of your posts has been systematically and irrefutably disproven.

You have failed to maintain a conherent or logical or accurate argument. TThe evidence massively proves you wrong.

This goes back years. You keep repeating the same disproven crap probably because you think defending a lost argument will somehow allow you to save face, It does not.

 

It's already been torn apart:

BATTERY LID

There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and it seems there is a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-

• There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.

• The lid for the battery is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.

• It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.

• A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.

• There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!

• In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.

• In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.

• It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.

CLICK HERE to watch the clip. Pause the video at 17 seconds to see how this youtube video maker shoots himself in both feet. The whole area is covered in dust, I agree, yet the pushed falling lid only puffs in one tiny corner and look at how ridiculously high the dust goes up from the impact of the corner - low gravity! NOTHING is disturbed in front, none of that mass of dust is disturbed!

The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.


@Scott Answer this question!

If you close a door does it or does it not send the vast buik of the air current in the direction of it being closed?

 

Here's another video that seems to show that the astronauts are being supported by wires to simulate lunar gravity.

Apollo - More Proof Of Use Of Wires To Fake Low Gravity #9
https://www.brighteon.com/eeea7fc2-b648-4bbd-b805-e62c2a7084e7

 

Kindly take your irrelevant and very ignorant spam somewhere else - the camera is NOT level in that footage - end of claim!

You have been given specific physics proof. This is not even open to question.

The time to apex is the same to surface. Once the former has been proven and it has, there is no question about the latter. If you want me to explain the physics to you, for the hundredth time, please say so. Your inability to understand this is not an impediment to it being proven. There is an enormous post just above your idiotic video and you have totally ignored it.

 

God knows how many times this has been ignored. A genuine "truth-seeker" would be open to being wrong and entertain evidence that tears their crap apart.

 

Here's the discussion we've already had on that.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676

The viewers can read it and decide who tore whom apart for themselves.

 

Yet again, another meaningless response. The "discussion" "we've" had is exclusively me pointing out issues that prove this footage MIUST be in a vacuum and must be on the Moon. NOWHERE is any of the following addressed:-

BATTERY LID
There is such a thing as deductive reasoning and it seems there is a complete absence of this basic and easily acquired skill. From the video we can see a number of things:-

• There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.

• The lid for the battery is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.

• It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.

• A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.

• There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!

• In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.

• In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.

• It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops! Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.

CLICK HERE to watch the clip. Pause the video at 17 seconds to see how this youtube video maker shoots himself in both feet. The whole area is covered in dust, I agree, yet the pushed falling lid only puffs in one tiny corner and look at how ridiculously high the dust goes up from the impact of the corner - low gravity! NOTHING is disturbed in front, none of that mass of dust is disturbed!

The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.


@Scott Answer these questions!
1. If you close a door does it or does it not send the vast bulk of the air current in the direction of it being closed?
2. What crazy world of physics does the entire volume of air puff out only in one tiny corner?
3. The whole area is replete with dust, yet nothing disturbs - how do you explain this?

 

@Navy Corpsman The massive problem with moon hoax claimants is they lack any relevant education on space travel. The post above concerns a 2 second clip in your crappy movie. It proves beyond any doubt it was in a low gravity vacuum. You talk about "smoking guns", this is a heat seeking missile.

 

@Navy Corpsman
Here's the discussion that Betamax and I had on the clip he refers to.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676

 

Spam ignored, as is of course this post! Three simple questions, a genuine seeker of the truth would be able to honestly answer all questions, especially dead easy ones like the quoted below!

 

A genuine seeker of truth would admit that he was shown to be wrong in the discussion to which I linked in my last post. Your three questions were dealt with in that discussion. What's the point of my reiterating?

 

Not once have you answered those 3 simple questions. The "point" is to get you to answer and by doing so demonstrating your failure to understand basic physics.

@Scott Answer these questions!
1. If you close a door does it or does it not send the vast bulk of the air current in the direction of it being closed?
2. What crazy world of physics does the entire volume of air puff out only in one tiny corner?
3. The whole area is replete with dust, yet nothing disturbs - how do you explain this?

 

Further to the above a totally ridiculous claim has been made that @Scott is using the "scientific method"!

Here's the method:

• Ask a Question: Why does the dust puff up?
• Background Research: NONE!
• Hypothesis: It's done on Earth.
• Experiment: NONE!
• Analyze Data and Make Conclusions: NONE!
• Communicate: NONE!

So basically your "scientific method" ignores science. When a lid is pushed down it will create a significant draft in the direction of fall. Background research would involve wafting your hand across your face, shutting a door and any number of experiments that show the ridiculous nature of ZERO dust disturbance. The whole area is replete with copious amounts of dust (as pointed out by the fool who made the video - shooting himself in the foot!).

You say you can't see any other explanation when the stunningly obvious one is a simple impact disturbance! The other significant fact involves the height of the puff of dust. It is a crazy height for it to occur in terrestrial gravity.

So what experiments could you have done? A comparison to the gif above showing NO dust disturbance and recreating the ridiculously impossible puff height that only occurs in the corner! You failed to do this. Your method is non-existent. The piece of footage provides conclusive proof that it occurred in a vacuum with low gravity.

That is science!

 

Interested viewers will be wondering why @Scott is avoiding this post above! He made his patronizing post about "using the scientific method" (spammed dozens of times) when not one single post of his, ever uses the method he cites. Just above I have listed the steps on a post he said "used" this method and clearly it does not.

It ignores science. EVERYONE knows what a closing door does, it creates a big draft in the direction of it being shut. There is NO WAY to avoid this.

Unless you remove the air!

 

@Scott How come you aren't defending your "scientific method" nonsensical reasoning "method"?

All you keep doing is linking to a link where you haven't done what you said you've done. That's kinda pathetic.

 

@Scott - Are you afraid to show your cited "scientific method"? YOU linked to it, here it is:

Here's the method:

• Ask a Question:
• Background Research:
• Hypothesis:
• Experiment:
• Analyze Data and Make Conclusions:
• Communicate:

Now detail where you have followed all six of those for even one single thing you have ever posted!


@Scott Answer these questions!
1. If you close a door does it or does it not send the vast bulk of the air current in the direction of it being closed?
2. What crazy world of physics does the entire volume of air puff out only in one tiny corner?
3. The whole area is replete with dust, yet nothing disturbs - how do you explain this?

 

Why are you running away from inconvenient, proven facts?

 

@Scott Explain your "scientific method"!