TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

Your response is nothing more than your opinion and ad-hominem. Your assessment of anybody's credibility is dismissed, you are the least credible person on the internet. The two links you just put up show where once again you get your badly educated butt kicked. It even has somebody posting a link where your spam argument was fully rebutted here:-

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ee-sand-strawman-claim.443515/#post1065831407

 

Not if you check his track record. He's the quintessential loose cannon. Works for WSJ and the Weekly standard both neocon mouth pieces. Then there is the source for this bit of malarkey worldnetdaily. The only worse source for scientific news I know of is natural news.

 

You can pretend all you want. Jay Windley* destroyed his credibility when he said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Any seventh-grader could tell you this isn't true.

(see post #26)
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

You destroyed your credibility by agreeing with him. You're not to be taken seriously.


The flag moving without being touched in this video closes the whole case by itself.

Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.


(see post #21)
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.15


*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

 

No pretense needed. Windley took apart your arguments as did others. You have no integrity or credibility so you are not in any position to judge anything. A seventh grader pales in significance against a fully qualified engineer. Your reliance on this argument is repetitious spam.

What am I looking at here?

"Yes, and that's my point. if you want to say that the stuff in the Grand Prix video was washed and sifted sand, such as on a beach, then you have to explain why the surface in the video clearly doesn't look like sand. We're back to the same nonsense you were arguing when you were banned. You're borrowing properties from various kinds of aggregate and pretending there's some single "magic sand" version that has only the properties you need and none of the properties that dispute your claim.

Yes, we're back to you making Magic Sand claims."

Point me to where you responded to this.

A quite idiotic thing to say, but said for a reason. You use this spam response as a means to avoid responding to rebuttal.

Spam.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

 

He's a fully qualified engineer who is working as a government sophist*; his saying that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over was pretty lame. His credibility is shot. This point is too clear to obfuscate and you just look silly when you defend him.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907


Jay Windley's attempts at sophistry really made him look silly here.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...racy/page2&s=85c61f74fb2e9be20a8b669ba5175866
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1149.0

There's a point at which an anomaly is so clear that sophistry simply becomes ineffective. The info in your link is sophistry. You know the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do.

You said that the movement of the Apollo flag was not consistent with the atmosphere explanation even though anyone who tests it can see that it is.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796

Go ahead and deny the obvious with an authoritative patronizing attitude. The important thing is your actual success rate at swaying the viewers and I'd say it's pretty low.

*
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/

 

C'mon guys, I'm begging: Please move your off-topic discussion to the conspiracy section. This thread is about some guy who is NOT Trump's science advisor, NOT actually ever denying the moon landing happened.

He's NOT the science advisor, and he DIDN'T deny the moon landing.

Whether the moon landing happened or not is IRRELEVANT to the thread, and is therefore, off-topic.

 

It's not just off topic, it's 10 year old spam.

 

Your bare assertion is nothing more than uninformed opinion. Prove he is a government sophist, prove Clavius is a disinfo site. You make claims that you cannot back up.

No they don't.

There is no such point and in this case it has not been reached. More spam responses.

I know they were not faked, as do you.

I find it amazing that you just keep hammering away at your own personal mad project.

I never deny the obvious. The obvious is we landed on the Moon. Nobody reading this, who possesses any intelligence, will agree with you.

You must have a flow chart of spam responses, it is really quite pitiful how you can repeat yourself. It is indicative of very odd obsessive behaviour.

 

Who else but a sophist would say that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over? Any seventh-grader could tell you that it would take a team of men hitting the sand with sledgehammers for several days or more to create a significant amount of dust. He really blundered big time when he said that and the best sophist in the world couldn't save it.

He looks pretty silly to me.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...racy/page2&s=85c61f74fb2e9be20a8b669ba5175866
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1149.0

The viewers can decide for themselves.

This post is just hand-waving. The viewers can decide for themselves.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796

You pro-Apollo posters will never admit anything...

http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
(excerpts)
------------------------------------------
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive.
------------------------------------------
It's just a job...
------------------------------------------
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
-------------------------------------------

...so getting you to admit something is not my goal. I've found the best way to deal with you is to talk about the clearest anomalies such as the way the flag waves without being touched when the astronaut trots by it.


You then have to say some pretty lame things to maintain your positions...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796

...which discredits you in the eyes of thinking people. You maintain your authoratitive patronizing attitude the whole time you say lame things but something lame said in an authoritative patronizing way is still lame so your success rate at swaying the viewers is going to be pretty low.

 

More hot air and bluster. You seem to be under the illusion that your opinion is somehow proving your claim. Where is your evidence that Clavius is a known disinfo site. All who read this know exactly why you say this. As a means to avoid responding to devastating rebuttal.

Where is your evidence that he is a paid sophist.

Once again you seem to think your opinion from sheer ignorance, is significant. What viewers do you mean?

Spam, off topic, addressed in my link and dozens of times before where you have spammed it in every thread you post in. I am somewhat amused that somebody like you, incapable of admitting or conceding anything, has the cheek to call out others for that same thing!

Your opinion means nothing to me. You have some mental illness to keep this idiocy going for 10 years.

 

Beta, in post #101 in this "Trump Science Advisor" thread you made this statement:

I think that you got trounced pretty good in that "dust free sand" thread - but like Monty Python's Black Knight, you always say you win.

Let's take a look at something you said in post #13 in response to my post in that thread:
I said:

And here was your response:

I would like to point out that your response reveals a lack of understanding of basic physics but you are right that "anyone with eyes can see the regolith doesn't go up as high as he does" - and that is just the point - because THE REGOLITH SHOULD GO AS HIGH AS HE DOES! - and the fact that the sand doesn't go as high and falls quicker than the astronaut is strong evidence that this is a fake video and that the astronauts are hooked to wires!

I could try to explain why but I think that this video clearly proves that the Apollo Moon Jump is fake:

 

Yes but, that does not change the fact that you are committing logical fallacy. Appeal to Authority.

 

Wow, where did you come from? Did the spammer send you an appeal for assistance? Let me be quite clear. Your opinion to me is irrelevant. What you think or claim is from a position of ignorance and weakness, so means absolutely nothing.

Anyone can see that the regolith doesn't go up as high as he does, but please explain exactly what the difference is with wires on this process. This would be the exact mechanics that would produce a different result. Showing me one example of static attraction doesn't prove this occurs on every such jump.

Go back in your hole:-



Try not to confuse sand displaced by the toes with sand dragged up by static!

 

The sand is obviously damp in your video - and bare feet on damp sand is not going to get the same effect that we see in the many examples in the video "The Moon Jump Salute Refute".

Take a look at this indoor training video and notice that the sand is dry and does not look anything like your poor example of damp sand - and notice how the sand comes up with the jumping volleyball player - and I think we can agree that a large quantity of regolith initially came up with the jumping astronaut and it probably wasn't damp.

 

Forget Trump Science Adviser

He's actually a Professor at Yale?

Scary...

 

Why is that, because you say so and it doesn't do what you say it does! Prove the sand is damp. Then you can respond to my post.

Explain specifically why somebody jumping with wires would not drag soil vertically from static, compared to somebody without them.

There are no standing jumps in that video and my video had dry sand, as can be seen by the way it powders when she jumps and no clumping associated with wet sand.

As I said, go back in your hole, you have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. You just lost the argument, failed to respond to the major point I made and make false and easily disproven claims about the wetness of the sand.

 

. . . Because something about it being real would have maaaaagically prevented him from thinking about what he would say?

 

Get a telescope, you can see the ****ing flag ffs. Quit being salty ruskies

 

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.cat=topten&id=77
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------
Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?
No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

Here is a picture that Hubble took of the Moon:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1999/14/

 

Of course it was scripted, that doesn't make the landing fake...

 

There is a mirror array left behind that can be detected from the ground.

 

I think this is a case of two similar minds being attracted to each other. Both whacko.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19050795


http://nowiknow.com/mirror-mirror-on-the-moon/

 

Please link to your source. Also, check this out.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-ever-happened.512081/page-2#post-1067872449

The anomalies in the footage and picures are what show that the missions were faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...andings-ever-happened.512081/#post-1067871432

 

Those pictures were fakable and they don't make the anomalies that prove the hoax go away. Check out this video.

Moonfaker: LRO, Flag or no Flag?

Are you saying that picture of the astronaut carrying the reflectors couldn't have been taken in a studio? Also, check out post #26 where I've already addressed this issue.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-ever-happened.512081/page-2#post-1067872449