The LRV on the lunar surface - proving the authenticity

So, what exactly IS the difference between a troll who ignorantly believes the missions were faked and a person who knows they weren't?

Every time, every thread the garbage gets answered and debunked. Whereas the Apollo proof, every thread, nearly every time it gets ignored or an idiotic "explanation" is spewed out.

 

Here's more LRV footage(video time stamped) that shows it is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be on any suspended platform with a backdrop. The handheld movie camera quite clearly is on a moving vehicle, pointing down at the surface and sideways:



Daylight in every direction with a dark sky, single crisp and dark shadows, travelling significant distances and distant mountains not getting nearer. It is just complete delusion to a) not be able to explain this and b) dismiss it as 100% proof of lunar activity.

 

And again, we have a thread that shows film footage shot on the Moon, we have had conflicting claims about how it was done, but ultimately nobody has a clue how this immaculate, faultless footage could have been faked in 1971. 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.

 

The missions have already been authenticated far, far beyond any reasonable doubt, so what we need to understand is why there are still people furiously posting garbage and ignoring the impossible to fake evidence. Do they have $$$'s invested in some online scam? Some advertising orientated website? Are they paid to do it, to promote some anti-US agenda?

The big question for me is why anyone, who has not one single qualification or any relevant education related to this subject, can still continue posting things that have had the ass kicked out of them continuously for coming close to 2 decades. Is it a mental illness thing? Is it some weird obsessive-compulsive disorder?

Staying on the LRV proof theme, does anyone have an explanation for how they filmed the sequence looking like they were on the Moon?

Answer: they filmed it on the Moon.

 

In the absence of any responses, should the "viewers" conclude that you have no idea how this idiotic hoax was even performed?

I mean, what world of ludicrous do NASA even bother doing this with a DAC camera several times. It wouldn't have even registered if they hadn't bothered. In what mad world of spam do NASA attempt 7 landings and perform 6 of them? It just goes into the world of absurd for them to risk everything by repeating this bullshit "hoax"!

 

When can we expect the spammer to start answering the difficult stuff?

 

Start watching this video at the 2:11:20 time mark.

"SMOKE AND MIRRORS" WITH RESTORED COMMENTARY, COMPLETE VIDEO!


https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...ESTORED+COMMENTARY,+COMPLETE+VIDEO!&FORM=VDRE


There's an analysis the "LRV on the lunar surface" footage. It explains how it was possible to fake it.

 

Either you are just acting the total fool(and doing a perfect job) or you really don't even know what junk from you has already been dumped and debunked! This clueless fool has the same idea as your other idiotic video - a static position with a moving screen. Only two things! One, we can clearly see that the ground is moving beneath the rover as there are instances where it points down at the ground and two the footage is faultless and this idiotic idea is always completely obvious, especially in 1971!

In addition to this latest failed attempt to arm wave away perfect footage taken on the Moon, we then have the fact it contradicts your other bullshit "anomaly, that closes the case", since if the vehicle is now not even moving, how the hell does your wind moving the heat cover up vertical work. And then further, what did NASA actually use as the faultless backdrop footage that looks exactly like Moon footage, with single light source, crisp shadows, dark skies, never getting nearer mountains and the terrain that magically changes in-line with the phase angle of the retro-reflective surface. That would be the actual surface of the Moon, shot on location.

Get a clue!

 

The viewers have seen the video and have heard you. They can decide for themselves.

 

Pathetic. What a totally lame and cowardly response. It's almost as though you are afraid to admit you've had another gallon of coffee, don't have a clue how it was filmed and don't understand that you are contradicting your own useless claims. It is faultless film footage. You know this and an honest, objective truth seeker would look at it and know when the game was up! Since you are none of those, you can continue with your Sisyphus impersonation and carry on pushing your fecal boulder.

 

Look at the 2:22:10 time mark. He says that both the model footage and footage from the real rover on a set were used.

This footage would be from where the real rover on a set was used which would explain the flaps going up in a manner that's consistent with wind (3:13 time mark).

Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue

I couldn't find any of that. Could you link to some of it?

 

Yes all the viewers have see you defeated and proven wrong with every post

 

And we are back to the lame bullshit once again - you are cornered and check-mated and you know it - you resort to claims that don't work in any way shaope or form - and you know this too. The footage of the authentic Moon which is faultless and seamless is supposedly invisibly linked to static footage where we also see the faultless Moon and you haven't got a clue how they filmed it! Who can make this crap up?

Posted in this damn thread!

 

This is a classic example of hand-waving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving
(excerpts)
-------------------------------------------------------
Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial.[1] It is often applied to debating techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the glossing over of details.[2] It is also used academically to indicate unproven claims and skipped steps in proofs (sometimes intentionally, as in lectures and instructional materials), with some specific meanings in particular fields, including literary criticism, speculative fiction, mathematics, logic, science and engineering.
-------------------------------------------------------
Handwaving is frequently used in low-quality debate, including political campaigning and commentary, issue-based advocacy, advertising and public relations, tabloid journalism, opinion pieces, Internet memes, and informal discussion and writing. If the opponent in a debate or a commentator on an argument alleges hand-waving, it suggests that the proponent of the argument, position or message has engaged in one or more fallacies of logic,[2] usually informal, and/or glossed over non-trivial details,[2] and is attempting to wave away challenges and deflect questions, as if swatting at flies.
-------------------------------------------------------

I looked for it in these three videos and didn't see any.

(post #1)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...unar-surface-proving-the-authenticity.603023/


Please post what you're referring to.

 

Pathetic spam response. You claim the impossible. You are simply terrified that your 20 year internet failure is coming to an end.

Proving as always that you fail to read responses and watch videos. There's one on this damn page! The original OP video shows it too with moving shadows on the surface! So you are clearly afraid to watch your pathetic claims fall apart.

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.

• 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 PROPERLY arm wave away evidence that is impossible to explain or refute.

 

More hand-waving. Your responses to this...

(from post #86)

...don't address the actual argument.

 

There is no argument - the cowardly film maker deliberately only uses footage that points level! You are afraid to address my impossible to refute rebuttal! The LRV footage cannot be static as the ground beneath it moves as we see the camera pointing sideways, down and casting crisp black moving rover shadows! It cannot be moving because there is no way to film that on Earth!

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.

• 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 PROPERLY arm wave away evidence that is impossible to explain or refute.

 

You forgot the hyphens in your compound adjective again.

You are afraid to address my impossible-to-refute rebuttal!


https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjectives/compound-adjectives/
(excerpts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A compound adjective is formed when two or more adjectives are joined together to modify the same noun. These terms should be hyphenated to avoid confusion or ambiguity. For example:

1. Diana submitted a 6-page document.
2. She adopted a two-year-old cat.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Using hyphens in compound adjectives: Which sentences are correct?

1. The group was full of rowdy 10 year old schoolboys.
2. The group was full of rowdy 10-year-old schoolboys.

1. The actress is well known.
2. The actress is well-known.

1. They enjoyed a three-year profit streak.
2. They enjoyed a three-year-profit streak.

Answers: 2,1,1
--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Pathetic evasion. You are afraid to admit you are cornered. You are worse than the Black Knight, at least he had the balls to put up an honest fight.

So far:

• We have this whole thread. Irrefutable proof that the LRV was on the Moon. If this situation were reversed, even you would look at your absurd responses and laugh. You simply have no workable explanation for it.
• We have the falling battery lid and only a tiny puff of dust in the corner. EVERYONE knows flat surfaces that move, cause drafts. The air is ALWAYS in the direction of the movement, with lighter spill to the sides. There is no dust disturbance matching the air displacement!
• We have the Jump Salute that has now reached the point where you are totally boxed in and afraid to respond. The dust goes up at the same speed and height as the jumper - you ignorantly admitted this thinking it didn't matter! It absolutely does....he cannot be on wires. But he is moving far too slow for it to be Earth gravity and when his height and speed are corrected to fall correctly, it looks ridiculous.

We haven't even begun to expand on the colossal body of evidence where you fail to provide any counter explanation or offer something an infant would laugh at.

Case closed. You lost and in no world have you got the balls to admit your failure.

 

He's referring to this.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676

He totally destroyed his credibility trying to obfuscate that clear anomaly.

He's referring to this anomaly.

The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute hd
https://www.brighteon.com/a515dc75-83bb-4e02-aad9-b1cdfe0de150

Galileo and the Apollo Moon Jump hd
https://www.brighteon.com/8d21e915-09a2-4e28-83c1-f6f33c9a4199

You can pretend all you want. The hoax proof* is crushing. Once people have seen it, there's really nothing you can do to make them think the moon missions were real. I'd say your success rate at trying to sway the viewers is close to zero.


*
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-22#post-1073703706

 

Instead of actually addressing what I typed, Mr. Spam spams his link and ignores it. Eagle-eyed viewers will note that this is what he does in every single case.

Let's examine this absurdly repetitive spam claim. This serial forum spammer knows zero about science, is useless with photography, has not a clue about geology - basically they have no skillset whatsoever associated with any part of this multi-faceted subject. They have no integrity, they dishonestly evade 90% of posts, they offer pathetic and idiotic counter-claims, they don't even know what the word "objective" means. They don't use any logic, they talk about the scientific method then do everything but invoke it. They have no reasoning ability and they don't debate with any other motive than to spam their debunked crap. All in all a complete absence of any critical thinking.

This person, with as low a credibility as it is possible to have, suggests that a falling lid will not actually disturb copious amounts of dust in the direction of its fall, but should, according to this useless person only send a tiny puff on the corner where it clearly impacts. He disputes the impact because of some absurd observation he makes that is completely irrelevant anyway.

Scott - showing zero credibility - has run away from this post

No pretence needed. You are blowing air out of your butt!

Spam, completely torn apart here:

Debunking A Moron

The people who never arrive and never agree with you. Once anyone with any intelligence and honesty sees the explanations for your batshit, there is no chance they will hang on to this braindead claim.


Try again - this time at least try and show some honesty and integrity - what have you got to lose - you are already the biggest joke on the internet:

There is no argument - the cowardly film maker deliberately only uses footage that points level! You are afraid to address my impossible-to-refute rebuttal! The LRV footage cannot be static as the ground beneath it moves as we see the camera pointing sideways, down and casting crisp black moving rover shadows! It cannot be moving because there is no way to film that on Earth!

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.

• 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 PROPERLY arm wave away evidence that is impossible to explain or refute.

You are afraid to admit you are cornered. You are worse than the Black Knight, at least he had the balls to put up an honest fight.

So far:

• We have this whole thread. Irrefutable proof that the LRV was on the Moon. If this situation were reversed, even you would look at your absurd responses and laugh. You simply have no workable explanation for it.
• We have the falling battery lid and only a tiny puff of dust in the corner. EVERYONE knows flat surfaces that move, cause drafts. The air is ALWAYS in the direction of the movement, with lighter spill to the sides. There is no dust disturbance matching the air displacement!
• We have the Jump Salute that has now reached the point where you are totally boxed in and afraid to respond. The dust goes up at the same speed and height as the jumper - you ignorantly admitted this thinking it didn't matter! It absolutely does....he cannot be on wires. But he is moving far too slow for it to be Earth gravity and when his height and speed are corrected to fall correctly, it looks ridiculous.

 

The post above has been ignored completely!

Now add to this:

• We have this whole thread. Irrefutable proof that the LRV was on the Moon. If this situation were reversed, even you would look at your absurd responses and laugh. You simply have no workable explanation for it.
• We have the falling battery lid and only a tiny puff of dust in the corner. EVERYONE knows flat surfaces that move, cause drafts. The air is ALWAYS in the direction of the movement, with lighter spill to the sides. There is no dust disturbance matching the air displacement!
• We have the Jump Salute that has now reached the point where you are totally boxed in and afraid to respond. The dust goes up at the same speed and height as the jumper - you ignorantly admitted this thinking it didn't matter! It absolutely does....he cannot be on wires. But he is moving far too slow for it to be Earth gravity and when his height and speed are corrected to fall correctly, it looks ridiculous.
• We now have two Gene Cernan jumps showing soil impact and significantly one showing the soil in perfect synchronization with the jump. He cannot be on wires.

 

This thread shows a number of astonishing and faultless videos of the LRV on the surface of the Moon. It is beyond insane to suggest this was formed with a backdrop because provably we can see that cannot be. It is equally insane to suggest it is on some sort of bullshit set with its perfect lit surface from the Sun, its dark faultless shadows, its black faultless skies, its rover shadows cast on the surface and moving, its faultless surface change from course altering the phase angle, its faultless mountain topography that show distant mountains that never get closer over huge travelled distances.

And all this? WHY, why would NASA go to such faultless lengths to produce these in the first place? It is just not logical for them to do it.

 

Scott/cosmored/drifty/david c/rocky et al.

Why are you afraid? You have conceded you don't know how they filmed this, you have no idea about the rocks, you are crapping yourself over the two gravity fails that irrefutably prove the Moon landings, what is the problem? Nobody reading this sub-forum will see anything but you thrashing away drowning in a sea of slam-dunk evidence that you are scared to reply to.

 

The forum is mystified. Surely you can answer all of this? Why are you so afraid to find out that the truth says we landed 6 times?