Even if it "appears" to be an effort wasted on the likes of Freddy, I, (for one) appreciate your (and others) effort.
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Even if it "appears" to be an effort wasted on the likes of Freddy, I, (for one) appreciate your (and others) effort.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Here is my serious answer. The Moon landings happened. You have a delusion and a fixation. Are you going to go to your grave with this fixation? You are your ilk will never prove that the Moon landings were a hoax. They happened. This will be a part of history for a long time, you and your kind will be forgotten.
Erock
Muse
I say that the reason the Apollo flag didn't billow is because it was in a vacuum on the Moon. The contact from the astronauts's arm was only slight. The air that made Jarrah's flag billow was on Earth, so there would always be a difference. The movement on approach was simple ground vibration.
[FF88]Now, stop tapdancing, because you are cornered. You are like the voice recording left over from the Black Knight in Monty Python after he has had all his limbs, torso and head removed. They would laugh you out of the debating hall. You hoax believers have the attitude that you are winning when you have been so badly annihilated that all you can do is obfuscate and use sophistry to try and hide the replies. All I need do to thwart you is to keep asking you the questions you keep avoiding, and making the same points that you have no plausible reply to, until you answer them. The viewers will not be fooled by your actions[/FF88]
Three separate people have used photo analysis/video analysis and determined the same thing. This includes Jarrah White. They all agree that the astronaut could have touched the flag as he passed it. Your reply that "you think" they are all wrong doesn't cut it. Demonstrate why they are all wrong.
Seismic data suggests that the Moon is a very good conductor of sound, the astronaut could very easily have moved the flagpole with his footsteps.
That's it. You only have abject denial to these, but nevertheless they are not just plausible, but by your standards for using that word, they are positively proven. The flagpole moved in my animated gif, and you accused me of doctoring the photos
Yes, the flagpole moved - definitely. That says ground vibration.Why did Jarrah's flag, square on and more likely to move from magically pushed air, NOT MOVE until he was practically level with it, whilst the Apollo flag shows movement at 4-6 feet away.
Jarrah's flag - he is moving no quicker than Dave Scott, in fact if you speed him up to your "theory", he is moving slower!, yet the Apollo flag does NOT BILLOW. Jarrah's does.
Jarrah's flag comes to a stop after 5 seconds, the Apollo flag sped up 150% takes 20 seconds. Now explain, properly this time, it billows much more than Apollo yet stops way quicker.
Please explain why the video showing a wide book and a plastic bag. The bag only moved when the book came into frame, about six inches. This is the complete opposite to your "atmosphere explanation".
People don't push "breezes" in front of them, the air filters out to the sides predominantly. Show me some physics that explains this ficticious movement of air, 6 feet in front of a man moving.
I await your obfuscation and tap dancing eagerly
Erock
Muse
I think there is something profoundly disturbing about this behaviour. I took some screenshots yesterday from Cosmored(one of FF88's 4 or more youtube accounts).
And This. This. This. This. This. Finally This.
There were a total 21 duplicate comments on 21 different videos in the space of about 10 minutes.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
They will have to get a Spielberg in to fake a long running hoax like a Moon base.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I think there is something profoundly disturbing about this behaviour. I took some screenshots yesterday from Cosmored(one of FF88's 4 or more youtube accounts).
[qimg]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4020/spam121.jpg[/qimg]
And This. This. This. This. This. Finally This.
There were a total 21 duplicate comments on 21 different videos in the space of about 10 minutes.
Freddy The Delusional Spambot. Great title for a cartoon series.
There were a total 21 duplicate comments on 21 different videos in the space of about 10 minutes.
Talk about obsessive....sheesh.
<snip>
Edited by Loss Leader:
Edited for Rule 12
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 60,759
No, Jerry Anderson will fake the Moon Base. He's done it twice already.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
I think there is something profoundly disturbing about this behaviour. I took some screenshots yesterday from Cosmored(one of FF88's 4 or more youtube accounts).
And This. This. This. This. This. Finally This.
There were a total 21 duplicate comments on 21 different videos in the space of about 10 minutes.
Wow. I think I can now see where Buckaroo was coming from with this post:
Erock
Muse
That is actually nothing. Watch the two vids on this blog.
The same arguments, the same meta responses, same links, same phrases, same dismissing of all responses - for 4-5 years.
And here we are again, the same old stuff and no real objective to redoing it, because he certainly isn't even interested in debate.
I agree...and I guess that's all I'm allowed to say.
Sure there's an "objective"...to promote the hoax.
Freddy has no worries...it's not like he's going to get banned for continually lying about Apollo*...
*on topic and the truth...
Gorgonian
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2007
- Messages
- 205
This is what gets me about all of this. It's so sad. We have on this forum, such a terrific wealth of knowledgeable people. Those people are very willing to help out, educate, you name it, whatever you want with you on a subject that is very interesting to all of us. Instead of jumping on the opportunity to listen to these people and learn from them, you are so blinded by this...whatever it is...that you are wasting a wonderful opportunity.
There are people all over the world that are paying through the nose for the privilege being offered to you for free, right now. You turn your nose up at it and cling to nonsense just to feel better about yourself.
Please, come to your sense and STOP THIS. You are fooling yourself and nobody else. It really does sadden me to see this happening. Nobody here is being paid to lie to you. Everyone here is completely sane and rational and sees your delusions as clearly as they can see the sun on a clear day. You really, really need to step back and examine reality with a clear head. I hope that you will.
Rincewind
Philosopher
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed, I don't mean to suggest that Buckaroo had no evidence for his suspicion. There is a clearly obsessive and fixated overtone to FatFreddy88's offerings. I only quibble with the speculation of cause.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
(from post #8203)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
(post #8194)
(post #8195)
If vibration had been the cause of the movement, the top of the flag would have moved and there would have been some up and down movement of the bottom of the flag. We can rule out vibration because of the nature of movement of the flag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:30 time mark)
I've made this point before and you people just ignored it.
Once after having posted that Spurstalk-moon hoax link on about twenty YouTube videos, the viewcount of that thread went up by more than four thousand in a little over a week. A lot of those people probably hadn't ever seen that hoax evidence before. Some people have sent me notes thanking me. I feel like I'm doing a good thing.
When I went back as a sock puppet, I was unable to post the info. They seemed to have changed their way of doing things just for you so you could make your point. Could you link to anything similar posted by a real hoax-believer? I'll bet you couldn't get that posted at ApolloHoaxNet.
So far nobody has been able to explain satisfactorily why the Apollo flag didn't billow simply because the breeze wasn't strong enough to make it billow. Anyone can test this at home. You can pretend all you want but you are checkmated by this issue.
It's already been determined that the flag started moving before he got close enough to it to touch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
You're misrepresenting Jarrah White's position to sway those who don't take the time to watch the videos. I urge all viewers to watch the first video above.
The nature of the movement is consistent with the atmosphere expanation. You haven't been able to show this to be false. These responses were pretty lame too.
(post #8194)
(post #8195)
You can't give a rebuttal to this because you know it was in atmosphere.
If vibration had been the cause of the movement, the top of the flag would have moved and there would have been some up and down movement of the bottom of the flag. We can rule out vibration because of the nature of movement of the flag.
It's not at all clear how fast Jarrah's flag comes to a stop as the camera is not looking at the flag straight on as would be necessary to see when it comes to a stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:30 time mark)
I've made this point before and you people just ignored it.
Anyone can hang a piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at a forty five degree angle and watch it behave exactly like the Apollo flag. The time it keeps moving and the speed at which it moves will be a little different as the Apollo footage was shown in slow-motion.
Once after having posted that Spurstalk-moon hoax link on about twenty YouTube videos, the viewcount of that thread went up by more than four thousand in a little over a week. A lot of those people probably hadn't ever seen that hoax evidence before. Some people have sent me notes thanking me. I feel like I'm doing a good thing.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/130467-Miscellaneous-Apollo-hoax-discussion
When I went back as a sock puppet, I was unable to post the info. They seemed to have changed their way of doing things just for you so you could make your point. Could you link to anything similar posted by a real hoax-believer? I'll bet you couldn't get that posted at ApolloHoaxNet.
So far nobody has been able to explain satisfactorily why the Apollo flag didn't billow simply because the breeze wasn't strong enough to make it billow. Anyone can test this at home. You can pretend all you want but you are checkmated by this issue.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
So a fluttering piece of cloth proves the whole moon landing was a hoax. Small details for small minds.
mercatormac
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 136
Youtube vids do not qualify as evidence...so sorry...
If that is so, then LET HIM COME HERE to defend himself.
Otherwise, he is just a coward.
No, it is not...please stop lying.
You demonstrate your incapability of discussing this topic "in good faith"...you continue to ignore the Burden of proof....your errors are evident for all to see.
Since when is a demand for evidence classified as "lame"??
So EVERYONE who posted differently in the poll is lying? are you really calling all those posters liars?
Just who is this "we" kimosabe? NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU.
Please retract that "we", and do it NOW.
Jarrah's not here....you need to start thinking for yourself and allow Jarrah to "rest in peace"
No one here agrees with you. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THAT, THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND??
A "good thing"?...you are calling ALL THE ASTRONAUTS liars...and are doing so from extreme ignorance. These are american heroes who you have chosen to denigrate, and you think you are doing a "good thing"?
You really can't be that stupid...there was no rule change....posters who attempt to re-enter the board under another name after being banned ARE OF COURSE RE-BANNED.
Why don't you"sock" this board....they won't mind.
Sure seems to be no problem for the scientists of the world, or the posters on this board, or ANYONE who has actually looked at the evidence....they ALL agree that Apollo happened...
What YOU expect is irrelevant...no amount of evidence will convince you, so why do you think anyone should care what you say??
Yet NO ONE agrees with you except for that jackass Jarrah, and assorted "nuts".
"Pretend" your way out of that one...
Last edited:
Rincewind
Philosopher
I'm having great difficulty in believing this.
If these people have been convinced by you, then why haven't they voted?
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
Yes, we know all about your intracranial cohorts. The poll here generated a lot of traffic too; in less than a week over 260 people have chimed in, and all but one of them said you were wrong - after you insisted that the "viewers" would agree with you. Why do you claim credit for thread traffic, but run away from the results when the results unambiguously show you you're wrong?
Here's what you've done:
1. Claim increased traffic on a thread - which says nothing about the views of those who looked at the thread - as implied support for your position.
2. Claimed direct support for your position by anonymous supporters, presupposing we should take you at your word. Maybe they do exist; there are other people who claim Apollo was a hoax, just as there are people who think the Sun revolves around the Earth.
3. Rejected, automatically and without any evidence, the explicit and public results of a poll which soundly disproved your claim of support.
The funny thing is you presume to lecture others about "seeking truth".
That's because, as you are well-aware, sock-puppetry is against the rules at that forum, just like this one. When you click "Agree" to register, you agree not to create sock-puppets; if you did re-register there, then you lied when you did so.
Wrong. Again. I simply posted the information; any member in good standing can do so. I don't create sock-puppets.
Sure. Here's you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and...
Wrong again.
(ETA: The forum administrator also helpfully posted a search link for all your posts on the old board. So much for the moderators running away from your posts.)
You really are sure of a lot of things that are manifestly not true, aren't you? What does that tell you about your beliefs?
For example, what does it tell you that an experienced space engineer like me does not agree with you, a layman with no expertise relevant to spaceflight, about Apollo? I've asked this many times, most recently in post 8196. Why don't you put down your knee-jerk denialism for a minute and actually think? What are you afraid of?
Last edited:
ETA - As a non-participant in these discussions, I too would urge Fab Five Freddy to take sts60's advice and actually think. For what logical reason could space engineers, and heck, just about everybody, think that Freddy is wrong? Why would that be?
Last edited:
threadworm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,832
Blah blah blah so anyway let's actually have a look at that first video and examine some of the contentions.
Your contention is that it is movement of the flag caused by movement of air.
The contention of people who believe you to be a laughable fool is that it is not air, because it was filmed on the moon, and that some other explanation is the actual cause of the apparent movement in that poor quality video.
Jarrah's suggestion in that video is that there is flag movement at 21:05. This is, by an utterly amazing coincidence, exactly the point at which the astronaut (who as we know is on the moon) appears in shot. So, as soon as there is significant change in the image composition, there is flag movement.
Now, if you are arguing that the movement of the astronaut is causing that flag to move, then what would happen next? Would there be increasing movement of the flag as the astronaut reaches it? Why of course there would, it stands to reason that if there is a 'bow wave' from the astronaut approach then this wave will have more influence the nearer he gets.
Unfortunately, there is no more movement until 21:16, the point at which Jarrah stops the video again and goes "A-HAAA!". There is no increase in movement, there is no rippling or billowing, there is no difference in movement between the top and bottom of the flag - the whole thing shifts as one. I challenge you to find any flag anywhere on Earth that behaves like that.
That said, there are several locations on the flag that don't move at all. Hmm, that's another one that defies the laws of physics right there. How can that possibly be?
It should also be the case that only the astronaut and the flag show evidence of movement. Unfortunately again there are substantial chunks of the crater to the bottom right of the flag, and the ground behind, that clearly show alterations in colour and location as video image changes in response to the movement of the astronaut in the frame.
It is a video artefact. That's it.
Now here's another important part that you need to take on board: I completely believe what I have just written to be the truth, just as I believe that the astronaut and flag in the video are on the moon.
mercatormac
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 136
I'm starting to suspect that FatFreddy just wants other people to spam his messages onto boards where he is banned.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
The thing is, his messages are already there. They didn't get erased just because he was banned for not following the forum rules. As I pointed out to him above.
I just hope his head doesn't explode, once the realization "hits" him.
BazBear
Possible Suspect
I believe he was talking about a thread on another forum, Spurstalk.
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
This forum is not neutral ground. Almost forty of my posts have been deleted since I started posting here. Usually they were the ones where I'd made my most important points. Here's a video I should have posted earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9TXFQLjg4
(2:10 time mark)
http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?
A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.
A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
---------------------------------------------
This video show that to be wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
You people have put forth three reasons for the movement: a video artifact, ground vibration, and its having been touched by the astronaut. Why can't you people agree?
Your contention that the fact that the flag doesn't billow shows that it was in a vacuum is simply wrong as it's plausible that the breeze created by the astronaut's passing was only strong enough to make it move slightly without causing any billowing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
Your failure to recognize this totally discredits all of you. The movement of the flag is totally consistent with the atmosphere explation and this alone proves that Apollo was a hoax as it wouldn't have moved at all in a vacuum.
Last edited:
Of course it isn't...you are free to lie like a rug about anything you want to without having to prove it in any way.
Ya got a free ride, fella...quit "bitching" and enjoy it.
Nope...ya can keep sayin it, but YOU KNOW that no one here agrees with you...
Go ahead...."spin your wheels". So how it doesn't change a thing.
Humanzee
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 530
Can you explain how you would expect a flag in a vacuum to behave then?
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
It would behave the way it shows in this video at the 00:50 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
It wouldn't come to a quick stop as the Apollo flags do at the 1:55 time mark.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
FatFreddy88, you have been repeatedly reminded that your posts have not been deleted, but moved to AAH. You even acknowledged that once. Are you trying to go back and claim again that they have been deleted? I just saw 31 of your moon hoax claims at AAH. Anyone of the 29,474 (last time I checked) forum members can read them, and so can anyone else who cares to register.
You keep saying things which are manifestly not so. Not a matter of interpretation, not "I think something should have moved this way", but things that are explicitly shown to be wrong by actually pointing to words on a screen that everybody can agree exist.
Meanwhile, bump. What are you afraid of? Can you drop you rote programming for a minute and think for yourself, instead of being controlled by conspiracists who know just as little about space flight as you do? 'Cuz they are playing you like a banjo.
Last edited:
This is the kind of laughable nonsense put about by those who've never heard of any other space telescope than Hubble and don't understand the relationship between NASA, ESA, JAXA and the Russian space agency. It rests on the notion of NASA as super dominant power that the others have to run to whenever they need 'space stuff'.
---------------------------------------------
More waffle. The vehicles were designed, the parts were made and no one involved at at the time nor any qualified individual since has claimed they were anything other than a viable system for sending men to the moon. Nothing you or any other hoax believer has offered changes that.
Because all you've offered is a poor quality piece of video for which there are a number of explanations considerably more plausible than faking the moon landings. If you want to get people to believe your theory you need to offer valid evidence, which you have singularly failed to do.
No FatFreddy88, even it were consistent with movement in atmosphere you haven't demonstrated it couldn't move that way in a vacuum, and have in fact been given several mechanisms by which such movement is possible. The failure to understand that distinction added to all the other footage clearly shot in a vacuum is one of the reasons why you have failed so spectacularly in this thread.
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,862
Lets just forget this flag for a moment.
Ff88. I'm going on a limb here and assume you're a US citizen, or at least very familiar with their political system.
Now, that is a country where the two ruling parties deeply and intensely dislike each other. To the degree that both would happily torpedoe an idea from the other side even if they would want it themselves. Just because the others proposed it.
Now I don't know, nor care who was at the helm of the apollo missions, but do you really believe that the moment the other side won the elections and discovered a hoax that massive that they would keep quiet? When they have info that could utterly and totally ruin the other side's credibility for the next 20-40 years?
Or a junior member that sees a chance for massive political credit and money?
Not the mention the number of soviet spies that would have surely infiltrated any project of that side which could be used in a similar matter in international politics?
Ff88. I'm going on a limb here and assume you're a US citizen, or at least very familiar with their political system.
Now, that is a country where the two ruling parties deeply and intensely dislike each other. To the degree that both would happily torpedoe an idea from the other side even if they would want it themselves. Just because the others proposed it.
Now I don't know, nor care who was at the helm of the apollo missions, but do you really believe that the moment the other side won the elections and discovered a hoax that massive that they would keep quiet? When they have info that could utterly and totally ruin the other side's credibility for the next 20-40 years?
Or a junior member that sees a chance for massive political credit and money?
Not the mention the number of soviet spies that would have surely infiltrated any project of that side which could be used in a similar matter in international politics?
realpaladin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,585
FatFreddy88 said:
Dude! Hands off SIR Patrick Moore. Besides being the only person I love not to be able to understand because of severe mumblage, he has done more for science in his younger years than you could do in ten lifetimes.
realpaladin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,585
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Or Wikileaks...
mercatormac
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 136
Freddy you do realise that it's possible to create a URL that goes straight to a specified time code in a YouTube video?
If you're going to spam this rubbish across the internet could you at least do it properly.
Erock
Muse
That is irrelevant. There are two issues that YOU alone are connecting.
The first slight movement and the after passing movement.
You are totally cornered, and all the rhetoric or sophistry won't sway the viewers. You can obfuscate all you like, but I will thwart your efforts to avoid these points by reposting them until you give an answer that isn't biased and lame.
Why didn't Jarrah White's flag move with "the atmosphere explanation"TM? It barely flickered when he was level with it.
Now stop tapdancing and explain this. The viewers are watching. I would say your success rate is below zero here. You have no answer because no such physics explanation exists.
Urging viewers to do something, when they have already concluded you are hopelessly wrong, is an act of desparation and diversion.
Jarrah White concluded the astronaut was close enough. Is it possible that the astronaut moved the flag with his elbow, just like Jarrah White showed he could have?
You appear to be simply repeating the same line. The viewers are anxious to hear your elaboration of how a man moves air 4-6 feet in front of him.
You have ignored all possibilities in favour of the LEAST likely one, because you have invested 5 years of your life spamming this same thing repeatedly. It must really bug you all these hard questions, I suspect that you know you are wrong so have to avoid them at all costs.
Catchphrase noted. They weren't lame, your continual use of the same cut and pasted answers is pathetic.
I did give an answer, it was ground vibration or indeed a camera/video blooming effect, both are possible. I am stating categorically that I believe all my answers given, if you make that claim again, that "I Know" I am stating a flasehood, I will report your post. It is calling me a liar, and that I am not.
I actually really, really love this video below, it is just so well observed. We have the "maestro" Jarrah White, attempting to disprove ground vibration as the cause, by jumping up and down next to his bed - a wide area, supported by four legs with a low centre of gravity(teehee) - but whilst doing so, he completely debunks his own "atmosphere explanation"!! The sheet he is trying to shake doesn't move a jot when he walks past it, jumps next to it. Nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JixGapxKURc
Now had he done this on the Moon, with a flagpole seated in the regolith there would be a perfectly good chance he would see a little movement, just like they did when Apollo 15 landed there.
It stops in 5 seconds flat - once again you are cornered on this matter.
That's rich coming from you, since you have ignored all the questions and points I keep making. I need to keep asking them to "thwart you"TM.
The cloth wouldn't move until the person trotting by was actually level or passing. It is called an air wake.
Apollo was shown at its proper speed.
I feel you should speak to somebody about it.
You don't appear to know what billowing means. There is nothing to explain, there is no air on the Moon, so no breeze. The movement was as stated and your continual tapdancing won't make this go away. There is a vast mountain range of information proving Apollo happened, you have nothing but denial.
Last edited:
threadworm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,832
Diddums
Utter and complete garbage. Seriously, can I use that post to put on my roses? It's not even worth responding to.
Are the French people loyal to the USA? Only Americans need have any obligation to do that. Once again you are assuming that the only possible reason for their silence is because they have been bought off in some way, and not because there is nothing, absolutely nothing to say. You have no evidence whatsoever that anyone has been bought off. None.
No, it doesn't. Putting a red dot on the screen and showing a small section of the screen proves nothing - the rest of that picture is also moving, not just the flag.
Because all of them are possible. I happen to believe that it is simply a video artefact, and there are plenty of videos around that demonstrate that to be the case. Ground vibration is possible, the astronaut touching it is also possible, but less likely. The one thing that video is not showing is evidence that it was moved by air.
It is not plausible at all - the behaviour of the flag is in no way consistent with being moved by a passing breeze. A passing breeze would move the part that is the furthest from any fixings the most, not a completely uniform movement across an entire non-uniform surface.
Emporer's new clothes. You have proved nothing.
- Status