Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 105 of 105

Thread: Proof that the Apollo footage was filmed in air here on earth

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    You have that exactly reversed, unfortunately. I'm sure if you follow one of the links in your Google search, you'll find entries on "Burden of Proof" and "Occam's Razor". It's your problem to prove your contrived assertions, which otherwise rest only on a shaky chain of assumptions.

    Grant Hutchison
    Great examples of his failure to understand logic!

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    You people are committing a classic fallacy in logic when you present something that's fakable as proof and say the proof stands until it's been proven that said evidence has been faked. You people need to read up on logic.
    https://www.google.com/search?source....0.hck6sJqaMec
    Direct question: Which logical fallacy says evidence cannot be presented it it's possible to fake it?

    Possibly one of the more absurd of your statements. Useless obfuscation.

    Your "Proof" doesn't stand as it's not even proof. Only an insider with a security clearance would be in a position to prove Apollo photos had been faked.
    Circular logic and bare assertion. Ridiculous that you think only insiders could prove pictures were faked, whilst you point us towards the incompetent Jack White and his claims the Apollo pictures were faked!

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    50
    Craig2

    I request that you address and answer my question from post #77 - "do you admit that the flares could not possible be dust (or anything else) on the lens, since the dust should not have moved at all in relation to the screen-frame?"

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    Several things.

    First, this thread is Craig2's to defend. This whole side topic from gunzlepug is a distraction and is going to make a mess of this thread, with two competing debates. I am moving that whole convesation to its own thread (LINK).

    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Be honest and own up. You cannot see any clear definition of Apollo hardware in the photographs. You just believe in them yet can see next to nothing. Blind faith. Shame on you.

    Noted on this forum that I am supposed to answer questions regarding the authenticity of Apollo facets yet the reverse is not so.
    gunzlepug

    Do not accuse other members of dishonesty nor make assumptions of what they may or may not believe. Keep it polite or you will be infracted.
    Last edited by Swift; 2018-Jul-23 at 01:23 AM.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    I request that you address and answer my question from post #77 - "do you admit that the flares could not possible be dust (or anything else) on the lens, since the dust should not have moved at all in relation to the screen-frame?"
    (post #77)
    The spots do NOT stay in the same place. An EASY way to determine this, is to place your mouse pointer directly on one of those "unmoving" flares after your 2:23 reference mark. Do NOT move the pointer - this provides a precise screen-frame location. By the time your other reference mark (the 2:53 time stamp) arrives, the flare has in fact moved slightly to the right, which is to be expected by the slight camera movement. SO, do you admit that the flares could not possible be dust (or anything else) on the lens, since the dust should not have moved at all in relation to the screen-frame?
    Yes. I was wrong about that. They are not specs of dust. When I saw them staying in the same places when the camera was moved, I thought there was just something on the camera lens. I had the idea that lens flares would not say in the same place like that when the camera was moved.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    It can clearly be seen that he is assisting.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOpTv_j6-u4
    (1:28 time mark)

    You seem to be right about that. The astronaut getting up is pushing the other with his left arm. I'd never noticed that before. I think the videos at the bottom of post #31 pretty much prove there were wire supports by themselves though.


    There's also the issue if the difference in body movements between the earlier missions and the later missions. The earlier missions seemed to use a simple fifty percent slow-motion. Check out this footage at the 00:44 time mark.

    MoonFaker: Leapin' Lunatics. PART 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0q9GUDsyTc


    Does anyone know what mission that's from?

    When other footage is doubled, it looks unnaturally fast.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaU
    (00:11 time mark)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E


    It looks like they used a crude fifty percent slow-motion in the earlier missions and, according to Jarrah White, a combination of about sixty seven percent slow-motion combined with wires on the later missions as it looked better.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Answer the question. Prove that the LRO images are fake.
    I can't. Can you prove that they're real?
    And right there is where doing a little reading about "Burden Of Proof" and "Occam's Razor" would have helped you.
    We don't need to prove they're real. There's a vast network of internally consistent information that shows we did go to the moon. This means your "fake" hypothesis is vastly more complex than our "real" theory. Simply coming up with some amateur opinions about some poor quality video does essentially nothing to break the web of data that says we did go to the moon - so as soon as you claim one little bit is faked, the onus is on you to demonstrate how all the other connected stuff was faked too.
    When someone points out that your extraordinary claim is inconsistent with some other data, it's up to you to resolve that issue. That's how science works.

    Grant Hutchison

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    Craig2 has been banned as a sockpuppet
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202

    Full Recap

    This repetitive behaviour always evades difficult to answer things or pretty much ANY point that removes one of his nonsensical claims. For future reference and for anyone who encounters this person again on their travels, I am going to summarise as much as possible the things he has avoided.

    • He put up a video that had the youtube user "hunchbacked" claiming the LROC pictures were photoshopped, because he found some metadata of a tiny cropped section from the large original transmission.The images posted on the internet are edited tiny segments taken from absolutely massive uncompressed images. Of course they use an imaging software to create this. The originals, TIF files, show no such manipulation.

      Your claim is dismissed, do you have any rebuttal to this?
    • Counter claim about the soil getting up to jump height:
      Video 1 shows a gravitational analysis of the Cernan hopping sequence. I would also state that this is part of a massive unbroken sequence where the astronauts travel hundreds of yards from the rover and cross over numerous times. The analysis proves that the jump is perfectly consistent with lunar gravity. It shows the adjustment for Earth gravity.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuvW0FRd-U

      Video 2 shows a piece of soil being kicked up - to jump height just like your volleyball player, that hits the ground at the SAME TIME as Cernan. This proves they are not on wires.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG5FuVxDcPU

      Can you explain how this is possible, because the 245% footage is clearly ridiculous?
    • Numerous points raised here - https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...36#post2455236 and none responded to. In particular, the lens flares move on a still camera.

      How can spots on a camera move(they are lens flares...same question)?
    • Numerous points raised here - https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...40#post2455240 and none properly responded to. In particular, when given a plausible alternative to his "wall of air" claim, concerning soil striking the flagpole, he dismissed it saying the pole needed to move. Notwithstanding such a tiny movement needs just a tiny pole vibration mot necessarily visible, the rod DOES move. I posted a video of it and he said the video was doctored because he couldn't see it with his mouse! I asked him to prove it was doctored. He ignored this.

      Neither of your videos precludes two events. I don't know what causes the initial movement, but it isn't air, because air doesn't behave that way from so far away. I suspect he simply kicked a bit of soil along the ground, something like this at 21 seconds...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyOt6RUs9mE

      The flagpole moving:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y
    • From post#56, he conceded that they were lens flares, he conceded that the Apollo 14 footage looked doctored. He then posted a ludicrous video about the LRV being a model! His claim amounts to 3 things:-

      1. The astronaut is not moving. So what, why should he?
      2. The soil is different colours. Phase angle changes to retro-reflective surface.
      3. It is comparable to front screen projection on 2001. Ridiculous observation. This was a fixed shot, the moon footage is moving constantly. It is this, more than anything that makes me question his credentials or motive.
      Direct questions:

      Can you verify his credentials please?
      How do his alleged credentials allow him the skillset to pose a credible analysis?

    • Concerning his nonsense claim about the flap on the LRV Apollo 15 traverse, he claimed the sky was blackened ON AN IMAGE using modern software! My reply, unanswered:

      So your method involves using modern digital software on a single image, to create a 20fps video in 1971? Forgive me if I ask you to try again!

      It is a continuous video with mountains that don't get any nearer over several miles. The surface is lit for as far as can be seen. The sky is black. When the rover turns across Sun, the phase angle of the Moon changes and the whole surface is less reflective.

      Can you explain in detail how that could possibly be done?
    • Concerning the Apollo 15 flag movement. He claimed the following are ruled out:

      Show me exactly where these are ruled out:

      1. Video artefact blooming.
      2. Flagpole settling in stand.
      3. Static discharge.
      4. Kicked soil striking the bottom of the pole sending small vibration.

      Do NOT post another video, especially when you seem to think Jarrah White rubbing a balloon against his head rules out the enormous static discharges that can occur in a vacuum!

      He then posted a video of that very thing!


    That's most of the major stuff. There are a whole host of smaller responses that are too numerous to list. He avoided almost every one of them.

    Rather than answer any of that list, which is just my stuff, he chose to start another 3 spam threads. I truly believe that he is incapable of recognising his claims are debunked.

    All of them are.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    <snip>The analysis proves that the jump is perfectly consistent with lunar gravity. It shows the adjustment for Earth gravity.

    I don't understand what you mean by this sentence?

    <snip>
    I understand the consistence with Lunar gravity but??

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I don't understand what you mean by this sentence?

    I understand the consistence with Lunar gravity but??
    One would be using a different jumping technique on the moon as opposed to on the earth, as seen in the videos.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I don't understand what you mean by this sentence?

    I understand the consistence with Lunar gravity but??
    You probably know that Earth freefall has an adjustment variant equal to the square root of the difference between the two. That is 2.45.

    The video has been speeded up 245% to show correct Earth freefall.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    You probably know that Earth freefall has an adjustment variant equal to the square root of the difference between the two. That is 2.45.

    The video has been speeded up 245% to show correct Earth freefall.
    I never watched any of his videos, so I didn't know exactly what you were referring, thanks.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I never watched any of his videos, so I didn't know exactly what you were referring, thanks.
    It was one of mine....the two bottom of post 40. Watch them, combined they make a pretty irrefutable case.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    It was one of mine....the two bottom of post 40. Watch them, combined they make a pretty irrefutable case.
    Nice work and glad to meet you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •