The LRV on the lunar surface - proving the authenticity

Ok. we'll call it an answer. Do you agree with his answer?


https://www.wallstreetenglish.com/exercises/irregular-plural-nouns
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Words ending in -is

Words that end in -is usually change to -es. For example,

• A hypothesis / Some hypotheses
• A crisis / Some crises
• An analysis / Some analyses
• A thesis / Some theses

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

What the hell is wrong with you!? Are you insane? What the hell has anyone else's opinion got to do with this ludicrous side issue?

Anyone with a braincell knows it isn't being kept up by air. It takes cluelessness and profound stupidity not to know this. You come into this thread, dump your decades old spam and avoid every single piece of rebuttal and still haven't offered a legitimate explanation for the OP. Your idiotic video uses Apollo sourced footage as its damn background for a video you claim is faked. That is not just circular and moronic, it is deliberately deceptive and just the kind of thing you would believe.

 

I figured it was so obvious that it didn't need to be pointed out.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ving-the-authenticity.603023/#post-1073671931
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ving-the-authenticity.603023/#post-1073671951

In a studio with no wind the forward motion of the rover would cause the wind which blows on the flaps and makes them go up. There would be no wind which would blow the dust around.

 

I think your explanation was so lame that it discredits you so anyone who agrees with you will be discredited too.

Hey soupnazi...

Do you agree with his explanation?

 

It is YOUR expplanation which is lame.

This goes back years you always come up with the most incredulous claims and expllanations for crap. You discredit yourself and EVERYONE knows it.

 

That's not a very clear answer. Tell us whether you agree with Betamax. Just say yes, or no.

 

The moronic discredit claim. When someone like you is the judge of my credibility, I am safe knowing that it is just fine. You have zero online credibility to judge a single person on the internet. You have been banned for spamming from over 100 message boards. Who gets banned from spurs forum where they don't have moderators. The likes of you! Suddenly over a thousand links to your spurs forum thread spammed over a decade all useless, when they deleted that idiotic thread.

That, right there, if spoken during a 5th grade physics class, would have the rest of the class laughing their heads off. In that sentence you demonstrate two things. Number 1, no matter what you will defend every crackpot claim you make. Number 2, you have to be delusional.

Thinking 5mph forward motion is going to induce air resistance in a windless environment is moronic. To further suggest that said minuscule resistance would be enough to suddenly suspend a flap weighing around 1/4lb is stupid beyond words. I have such contempt for the way you act online, but that just sums up your total 20 year failure.

 

The footage might be in slow-motion. It's possible that the original footage shows a faster speed.

 

Maximum factoring in gravity difference is 12.5mph. Are you seriously going to suggest that is sufficient in a windless environment?

Just withdraw the stupid claim. Or are you incapable of seeing reason in the face of a colossally stupid argument?

 

Why the hell have you failed to respond to this post!?

So the theory is a moving back projector, somehow balanced on a support system, that faultlessly shows a multiple mile traverse, also showing a faultless lunar surface and background? Is that correct?

And your "proof" that this was how they did it is a video where the damn clown has lifted the ACTUAL LUNAR FOOTAGE! Google Moon is nowhere as detailed enough. This footage has small rocks in their thousands, all unique with shadows. On top of this, the actual techniques of following a moving terrain, such as you can do within Google Moon are digital effects involving massive computer memory and advanced video card technology. Basically your video clown has cobbled together modern techniques and actual footage taken on the Moon by Apollo!

What a total fail.

I'm guessing you will fail to respond to this, divert, arm wave it away or insist it isn't what I just said. The video says they used projected video that shows they are travelling on the lunar surface! Impossible. Plus the idea they used ridiculously unfeasible models is itself disproven as we see the astronaut getting on the LRV.

And why!!? Why the hell bother anyway. Nobody would care if there was no movie footage of these multiple events. They weren't televised, it is impossible to do accurately, fraught with the danger of exposure and special effects will look obvious. What bunch of idiots takes needless risks when they are supposed to be faking this for 5th, 6th and 7th time! in itself a stupid thing to do.

 

I don't see any reason why it couldn't go faster than that.

 

How fast do you think it can go before it looks absolutely ridiculous and what speed does air resistance counter the weight of the flap.

What an absurd person you are. On the one hand you claim air resistance is doing something to a flap because of some ridiculous LRV speed that you pluck out of your backside. You are so adamant about this that here you are going way, way into the land of stupid in your defence of it. At the same time you present the "solution" to the filming of the LRV on the Moon as being a model, stationary on a damn pedestal as a magic projector creates artificial scenery.

Add to this that suddenly you suggest that the LRV is now actually moving somehow in some scenario that could not possibly work in any way because now you have the issue of the terrain including mountains that never get nearer, lighting for miles and miles consistent with Solar illumination, the dark sky consistent with lunar daylight and the phase angle of the Sun as they turn across Sun.

I write paragraphs of rebuttal and like the troll you are, you respond with one liners.

Why the hell have you failed to respond to this post!?

So the theory is a moving back projector, somehow balanced on a support system, that faultlessly shows a multiple mile traverse, also showing a faultless lunar surface and background? Is that correct?

And your "proof" that this was how they did it is a video where the damn clown has lifted the ACTUAL LUNAR FOOTAGE! Google Moon is nowhere as detailed enough. This footage has small rocks in their thousands, all unique with shadows. On top of this, the actual techniques of following a moving terrain, such as you can do within Google Moon are digital effects involving massive computer memory and advanced video card technology. Basically your video clown has cobbled together modern techniques and actual footage taken on the Moon by Apollo!

What a total fail.

I'm guessing you will fail to respond to this, divert, arm wave it away or insist it isn't what I just said. The video says they used projected video that shows they are travelling on the lunar surface! Impossible. Plus the idea they used ridiculously unfeasible models is itself disproven as we see the astronaut getting on the LRV.

And why!!? Why the hell bother anyway. Nobody would care if there was no movie footage of these multiple events. They weren't televised, it is impossible to do accurately, fraught with the danger of exposure and special effects will look obvious. What bunch of idiots takes needless risks when they are supposed to be faking this for 5th, 6th and 7th time! in itself a stupid thing to do.

 

I don't see any reason why it couldn't go fast enough for there to be enough wind to blow the flaps up. They're going up in a manner that's consistent with the wind scenario.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ving-the-authenticity.603023/#post-1073671931

 

How fast do you think it can go before it looks absolutely ridiculous and what speed does air resistance counter the weight of the flap. There is no "wind scenario", that is the claim of simpletons who don't understand how wind resistance works.

What an absurd person you are. On the one hand you claim air resistance is doing something to a flap because of some ridiculous LRV speed that you pluck out of your backside. You are so adamant about this that here you are going way, way into the land of stupid in your defence of it. At the same time you present the "solution" to the filming of the LRV on the Moon as being a model, stationary on a damn pedestal as a magic projector creates artificial scenery.

Add to this that suddenly you suggest that the LRV is now actually moving somehow in some scenario that could not possibly work in any way because now you have the issue of the terrain including mountains that never get nearer, lighting for miles and miles consistent with Solar illumination, the dark sky consistent with lunar daylight and the phase angle of the Sun as they turn across Sun.

I write paragraphs of rebuttal and like the troll you are, you respond with one liners.

Why the hell have you failed to respond to this post!?

So the theory is a moving back projector, somehow balanced on a support system, that faultlessly shows a multiple mile traverse, also showing a faultless lunar surface and background? Is that correct?

And your "proof" that this was how they did it is a video where the damn clown has lifted the ACTUAL LUNAR FOOTAGE! Google Moon is nowhere as detailed enough. This footage has small rocks in their thousands, all unique with shadows. On top of this, the actual techniques of following a moving terrain, such as you can do within Google Moon are digital effects involving massive computer memory and advanced video card technology. Basically your video clown has cobbled together modern techniques and actual footage taken on the Moon by Apollo!

What a total fail.

I'm guessing you will fail to respond to this, divert, arm wave it away or insist it isn't what I just said. The video says they used projected video that shows they are travelling on the lunar surface! Impossible. Plus the idea they used ridiculously unfeasible models is itself disproven as we see the astronaut getting on the LRV.

And why!!? Why the hell bother anyway. Nobody would care if there was no movie footage of these multiple events. They weren't televised, it is impossible to do accurately, fraught with the danger of exposure and special effects will look obvious. What bunch of idiots takes needless risks when they are supposed to be faking this for 5th, 6th and 7th time! in itself a stupid thing to do.

 

No those videos were shot in a studio. And the photos were faked.

 

deleted

 

Delete

 

Any kid knows how wind resistance works. It wouldn't take very much wind to lift those flaps. It could have been done and the footage we see might be slowed down. I don't see why it would look ridiculous.

 

Then why don't you!?

Bullshit!

Once again you troll this thread and avoid an enormous rebuttal post by me. Your integrity bypass knows no bounds.

Either the LRV is moving in which case you need to damn well explain how it was filmed, which "any kid" knows is impossible, or it was stationary in your idiotic "solution" video that uses Apollo footage. You contradict yourself and seem too clueless to even see it.

 

I'm not exactly sure how they faked that traverse footage. There are a lot of other anomalies that have already proven the hoax so we know they faked it somehow.

 

Then take your spam and useless comments elsewhere, because if you don't know and don't attempt to respond, you are trolling!

Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
11. Never mind that - look over here: When this hopeless individual has exhausted his inept repertoire of responses comes his most used spam. He resorts to spamming his wall of crap and ignoring the main issue!

"Anyway, there's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and zero proof that they were real."

"Anyway, the hoax has already been proven by the anomalies I pointed out in post #xx so the "insert evidence" issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about how they faked it."

 

In post #21 I posted the wrong link at the top by mistake.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ving-the-authenticity.603023/#post-1073672157

This is the link I wanted to post.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-16#post-1072816044

 

Nope. You made no mistake. You deliberately trolled this thread with off-topic spam posted half a dozen times and every answer ignored. You posted the same crap in the other thread and I responded - copied below. You completely ignored my reply once again.

What kind of person gets their kicks from trolling like that!?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-18#post-1073676488

You are repeating crap already posted and addressed. It would be entirely idiotic for NASA to have live microphones if they were faking this! Most of the instances where hammers are being used, there are no sounds. I am wondering whether Al Bean was not pulling his hammer away as he struck each hit, thus increasing sound conductivity through his glove into his suit. Whilst the microphones are small and localised, there is no reason why it couldn't pick up low level noise within the suit.

It is so very painfully simple. The page was for children. NASA had a whole series of pages within their network, one of them discussed the sounds of things in a vacuum. Quite rightly they inform children that in a vacuum sound does not travel. Many times NASA moves pages around or discontinues educational packages.
The fact that sound(under the right circumstances) can be picked up through vibrations into a suit microphone, does not supersede the general information given to children!
The ALSJ has copious detail about Al Bean and his hammer noises, but here's one for you to run away from! Apollo 12 blew out their TV camera in the first few minutes. Basically all they had were audio signals. What moronic world would they do this with live microphones and actually enact him doing it in the first place. It is comedy logic and plain stupid. I can see why you consider it "plausible".

 

On top of the film taken on the Moon that remains unexplained, we have some videos where sequential images have been put together to create a video:-
rovertaketwob - YouTube

A tracked Apollo 17 EVA taken from the photography (slower) - YouTube

This, best played at 1/4 speed, notice the distant mountains that never get nearer - completely debunking the idiotic backdrop claims:-
rover4 - YouTube

Questions:
1. Why would they go to that level of trouble to supposedly create that many different "sets"!? It makes no sense.
2. How many extra people involved as a result?

 

Still awaiting numerous things in this thread!

1. How was this done - without ridiculous trolling about static screen projections!
2. What possible reason would they even do this on 3 different occasions?
3. How many people to do this astonishingly accurate film with zero inconsistencies and proving they were on the Moon.