New light on the nature of Apollo's light

[Ernie S.]

MythBusters was discredited a long time ago.

/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
/watch?v=r5ajIVmGiQE
/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
aulis (dot) com/mythbusters (dot) htm

Your links aren't accessible

I won't be able to post hotlinks until I've made fifteen posts. Until then, you'll have to copy and paste them. Sorry, but that's all I can do for now.

Your links, like your intellect, are incomplete. /watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00 is not a valid URL.

 

[daveman]

Your links, like your intellect, are incomplete. /watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00 is not a valid URL.

I should have pointed out that it was YouTube. Paste it on the end of any YouTube URL.

Do a YouTube search on "windyz.wmv". That video debunks the MythBusters flag video.

Look at the dust kicked up by the astronauts' boots. It doesn't billow, as it would in atmosphere.

Do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker - Project Sandbox". There not being any billowing can be explained by the use of large-grained sand.

It gets kicked, travels in a ballistic arc, and without losing speed (as it would in atmosphere), falls back down to the surface

You're seeing what you want to see. Start watching at the 4:30 time mark of the above video. The sand he kicks up is traveling at an arc that's pretty indistinguishable from the sand kicked up in the Apollo footage. If the sand is not launched at a high speed like it is by the tires of a dune buggy and does not travel a great distance, large-grained sand will travel at an arc that's almost the same as it would be in a vacuum. The difference is very slight. Watch the Apollo rover footage and compare it to some dune buggy footage.

Here's an expert on video special effects who thinks the Apollo rover is a model with a doll on it.

/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8
(do a YouTube search on "Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)".

Really not interested in self-appointed "experts" looking for a little attention on an issue as dead as the lunar soil they claim is faked.

 

[Days]

wow and yet you posted replies all through the thread. So, you know nothing and you aren't interested in learning anything... well, okay, thanks for your input.

 

[Days]

Where do you hail from? Down south, I'll bet.

What could be comical about a brand new poster like me calling you a non-intellectual? That insinuates that you know me already. How could a brain dead guy like you already know me so well? What's my real name? age? education? marital status? faith? IQ? vocation? favorite hobbies? If you barely knew me at all, you could answer those questions. fact is, ernie, you don't know me. You just like to shoot your mouth off about 09/11 and probably followed me from that thread over here. You didn't understand anything about structural integrity, failure, chemical reactions, or atomic sized grains over there, and you really don't understand energetic sub-atomic particles over here. So you aren't capable of judging my knowledge of those subjects, because you don't understand them to begin with. But one thing you seem to be good at; you excel at cussing out total strangers on the internet.

 

[westwall]

Your links, like your intellect, are incomplete. /watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00 is not a valid URL.

I should have pointed out that it was YouTube. Paste it on the end of any YouTube URL.

Do a YouTube search on "windyz.wmv". That video debunks the MythBusters flag video.

Look at the dust kicked up by the astronauts' boots. It doesn't billow, as it would in atmosphere.

Do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker - Project Sandbox". There not being any billowing can be explained by the use of large-grained sand.

It gets kicked, travels in a ballistic arc, and without losing speed (as it would in atmosphere), falls back down to the surface

You're seeing what you want to see. Start watching at the 4:30 time mark of the above video. The sand he kicks up is traveling at an arc that's pretty indistinguishable from the sand kicked up in the Apollo footage. If the sand is not launched at a high speed like it is by the tires of a dune buggy and does not travel a great distance, large-grained sand will travel at an arc that's almost the same as it would be in a vacuum. The difference is very slight. Watch the Apollo rover footage and compare it to some dune buggy footage.

Here's an expert on video special effects who thinks the Apollo rover is a model with a doll on it.

/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8
(do a YouTube search on "Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)".

OK, I watched that lame video. They complained about weird edits and then they pointed to the fact that the flag stopped moving on the moon quickly in one instance, ignoring the fact that the astronaut was halting its motion. When he left it free it bounced for quite a period of time.....which the video producers ignored.

In other words FAIL....

 

[Ernie S.]

Where do you hail from? Down south, I'll bet.

What could be comical about a brand new poster like me calling you a non-intellectual? That insinuates that you know me already. How could a brain dead guy like you already know me so well? What's my real name? age? education? marital status? faith? IQ? vocation? favorite hobbies? If you barely knew me at all, you could answer those questions. fact is, ernie, you don't know me. You just like to shoot your mouth off about 09/11 and probably followed me from that thread over here. You didn't understand anything about structural integrity, failure, chemical reactions, or atomic sized grains over there, and you really don't understand energetic sub-atomic particles over here. So you aren't capable of judging my knowledge of those subjects, because you don't understand them to begin with. But one thing you seem to be good at; you excel at cussing out total strangers on the internet.

I'll take a shot based on your posts here so far. Tell me how close I come, OK?
Your real name: Ima Idjut
Age: 17
Education: HS Freshman
Marital status: single and a virgin.
Faith: atheist
IQ: 78
Vocation: Unemployed burger flipper.
Favorite hobbies: Mental masturbation.

 

[daveman]

wow and yet you posted replies all through the thread. So, you know nothing and you aren't interested in learning anything... well, okay, thanks for your input.

You make the mistake of believing that since I don't believe in the silly conspiracies, I "know nothing".

I've always that it amusing that when someone tells me to think for myself, that's the last thing he wants. He really wants me to immediately and unquestioningly agree with what he says.

 

[daveman]

Where do you hail from? Down south, I'll bet.

What could be comical about a brand new poster like me calling you a non-intellectual? That insinuates that you know me already. How could a brain dead guy like you already know me so well? What's my real name? age? education? marital status? faith? IQ? vocation? favorite hobbies? If you barely knew me at all, you could answer those questions. fact is, ernie, you don't know me. You just like to shoot your mouth off about 09/11 and probably followed me from that thread over here. You didn't understand anything about structural integrity, failure, chemical reactions, or atomic sized grains over there, and you really don't understand energetic sub-atomic particles over here. So you aren't capable of judging my knowledge of those subjects, because you don't understand them to begin with. But one thing you seem to be good at; you excel at cussing out total strangers on the internet.

Who are you complaining about leveling charges at you based on no information while you do the exact same thing to him?

 

[westwall]

Do a YouTube search on "windyz.wmv".

They complained about weird edits and then they pointed to the fact that the flag stopped moving on the moon quickly in one instance, ignoring the fact that the astronaut was halting its motion. When he left it free it bounced for quite a period of time.....which the video producers ignored.

You're misrepresenting what happened in the video to mislead the viewers. Start watching the video at the 2:00 time mark. What he does with his wrist isn't easy to see but how the rod swings tells us exactly what he's doing with his wrist. It's clear that the rod is not making the flag stop moving. Air is making it stop moving.

Watch at the 00:50 time mark at which the flag is swinging in a vacuum. It continues swinging for a long time. Now watch at the 2:00 time mark. The flag comes to a quick stop and the rod is not making it stop. The two environments are obviously very different.

Please show us the time mark at which you allege that the astronaut left it free and it bounced for quite a period of time. I don't see it anywhere.

No, I didn't. That is EXACTLY what they were talking about. Your powers of observation are severely lacking but what else would one expect from a person who accuses someone of lying.

You're an idiot.

 

[westwall]

Where do you hail from? Down south, I'll bet.

What could be comical about a brand new poster like me calling you a non-intellectual? That insinuates that you know me already. How could a brain dead guy like you already know me so well? What's my real name? age? education? marital status? faith? IQ? vocation? favorite hobbies? If you barely knew me at all, you could answer those questions. fact is, ernie, you don't know me. You just like to shoot your mouth off about 09/11 and probably followed me from that thread over here. You didn't understand anything about structural integrity, failure, chemical reactions, or atomic sized grains over there, and you really don't understand energetic sub-atomic particles over here. So you aren't capable of judging my knowledge of those subjects, because you don't understand them to begin with. But one thing you seem to be good at; you excel at cussing out total strangers on the internet.

I'll take a shot based on your posts here so far. Tell me how close I come, OK?
Your real name: Ima Idjut
Age: 17
Education: HS Freshman
Marital status: single and a virgin.
Faith: atheist
IQ: 78
Vocation: Unemployed burger flipper.
Favorite hobbies: Mental masturbation.

I would say that sums both of them up pretty well!

 

[daveman]

No, I didn't. That is EXACTLY what they were talking about. Your powers of observation are severely lacking but what else would one expect from a person who accuses someone of lying.

You're an idiot.

You didn't address the question I'd asked you. Here it is again.

Please show us the time mark at which you allege that the astronaut left it free and it bounced for quite a period of time. I don't see it anywhere.

Would you please learn how the Quote button works?

 

[westwall]

No, I didn't. That is EXACTLY what they were talking about. Your powers of observation are severely lacking but what else would one expect from a person who accuses someone of lying.

You're an idiot.

You didn't address the question I'd asked you. Here it is again.

Please show us the time mark at which you allege that the astronaut left it free and it bounced for quite a period of time. I don't see it anywhere.

2:07 you can see the astronaut holding the flag pole to stop the flag waving. The video producer keeps showing the "flag was stationary in no time at all" sequence ignoring that the astronaut IS MAKING IT STOP. Now to your original point your videographer does EXACTLY what he accuses the Mythbusters of doing and doesn't show the whole NASA video.... Uh oh...why is that? Because it shows the flag behaving quite naturally in a vacuum..

Now go away...

 

[konradv]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA]Mythbusters Moon Hoax Retroreflectors - YouTube[/ame]

 

[DaveB]

The Apollo missions didn't have radiation cooling. This was the 1960's. You know what they called cabin cooling? Compressed air... and while that makes for a nice environment in low earth orbit, it isn't enough to cool down a 250 degree space craft; which is what you get when you take a 3 inch thick aluminum can into 24 hour sunlight. But they had "shake and bake"; rolling the craft 180 degrees, which supposedly cooled off the underside. and you have sheep who still believe that works. In reality, it doesn't matter how much you roll the craft, it produces no cooling, there's no heat exchange with space, there's no molecules to produce heat exchange. If they had really left low earth orbit, the crafts would have heated to 250 degrees in a matter of 1-3 hours, and since water boils at 220 degrees, they would have died in 1-3 hours from heat strokes... and their carcasses would have cooked while their craft flew outward in a space odyssey.

Heck, there's a whole lot of bad science in that post.

Heat has numerous ways to be exchanged. They include, conduction, convection and radiation. Now obviously in a vacuum there's no convection, but there is radiation and conduction. The exterior of the C/SM stack was aluminium, 90% reflective of infrared, when in Sunlight it absorbs 10% of the infrared, conducts it around its hull and radiates it away as the craft rolls about its axis.

Heating to 250 degrees is some arbitrary figure you have plucked out of nowhere. A body will heat up until it reaches equilibrium with its environment.

Regarding your statement about "compressed air" as a coolant system - from the biomedical write ups of the mission:

"The coolant (water/ethylene glycol) subsystem supplied cooling for the pressure suit circuit, potable water chiller, and electrical and electronic equipment mounted on coldplates in the Command and Service Modules. It also supplied heating or cooling for the cabin atmosphere. Independent primary and secondary (backup) coolant loops were provided, with each loop utilizing space radiators as the basic heat rejection mechanisms and water boiling from the glycol evaporator for supplementary heat rejection."

Answer this - from you - "there's no heat exchange with space, there's no molecules to produce heat exchange". So how does infrared energy from the Sun reach us?

 

[daveman]

Reflectors can be attached to unmanned remote-control craft so reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

Really? That's the best you can come up with?



It'd be ever so much simpler to have the computer reading the laser light supposedly being reflected from the moon generate false returns, building a spike that doesn't actually exist.

Sheesh, all the firey hoops you guys have to jump through. It'd be easier to actually GO TO THE MOON than fake it like you say they did.

 

[DaveB]

The anomalies in the footage show that they faked the missions. The reason they had to fake them was probably space radiation. There's some info on that in this link.

spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487

What anomalies? All you present is the curious movement of the Apollo 15 flag, which could be any number of things except air. The Apollo 17 flag moves way too much for a simple Earth twist and there's no reason to suggest he didn't twist it back the other way to stop it.


All of it kicked to death on your very own debunk blog

http :// debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

Your task

Guess how many returns from google, the two main parts of cosmored's spammed link above show? Make a mental estimate, then search on these two phrases in quotes:

"spurstalk" "t=144487"

Were you close? Frightening dedication to spamming!

 

[daveman]

It'd be easier to actually GO TO THE MOON than fake it like you say they did.

The anomalies in the footage show that they faked the missions. The reason they had to fake them was probably space radiation. There's some info on that in this link.

spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487

A sports forum?

Really?

 

[DaveB]

He attempted to obfuscate the anomalies. That guy knows the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers. He's a professional sophist. He also tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.

Wow, did any of that ad hominem tripe contain any evidence to support it. It's like, the guy kicked your ass, but rather than respond to him, you go on about another loony conspiracy theory.

Here's some of the proof.

That ain't proof, that is debunked, mega spammed tripe.

Tell us whether you agree with him on that.

The Chinese are clearly in a swimming pool, it is so obvious. No way would they simply open the hatch and do a spacewalk. They would fake it with floating cables and flags that spin around in a tank without resistance to water. The face palm was invented for claims like yours.

This is an information war. Try to post some Apollo hoax proof in the comment section of a Yahoo article which milliions of people will see. It will never appear. If there were no censorship on the internet, Half of the US would know about the Apollo fakery. If they get to censor, I get to do mass posting.

You aren't posting information though. You are spamming the living crap out of the internet, whilst like a plank ignoring every single thing being debunked. I think you are very sad. The last page of that basketball forum has a perfect example of how you just flee from every argument - the lens flares move on the flag. Oh yes, really they do.

Your response? You say it's doctored, but make no effort to prove it. Just like above where the guy who gives you the most humiliating of butt kickings is dismissed because he disagrees with one of your other barmy claims.

 

[DaveB]

You're misrepresenting what happened on that thread to mislead the viewers who don't take the time to look at it.

Get out of it! The lens flares move in line with the flag - we're done, you're wrong.

It's on this page.

Post 4212 - you've been framed

I showed him to be wrong. He just refuses to recognize it. That's what disinfo agents do when they're checkmated.

You never showed him to be wrong, you claimed he doctored it and said it doesn't move. That's what spammers do when they are caught with their pants down.

This video shows that there's actual movement at the point where he says there's video blooming.

Your problem is that in linking to that page you expose the arguments that you run away from. The lens flares move the same way as the flag expands. It's a pretty solid argument to suggest that it is blooming causing this.

The flaw in the video blooming argument is that the flag keeps moving after the initial movement that they claim is video bloom. Something has to hit it to make it move. They claim the astronaut touched it. The above video also shows that the astronaut was too far from the flag to touch it when it started moving.

No flaw, the astronaut brushed it with his arm as he ran by it. The above video shows nothing of the sort, it merely focuses on the bottom right hand corner. It doesn't even address whether he subsequently struck it.

What am I supposed to do when they deny the obvious and declare victrory?

That isn't what happened. The statement should be what are you supposed to do when your argument is repeated spam and dismantled. The answer is you deny it and run away.

 

[DaveB]

The flag anomalies proves the hoax by themselves.

I see the same claim on BAUT where you had your backside kicked and ran away when forced to respond to direct questions. They prove nothing. To anyone with any physics education, they know it cannot be air making this movement.

No one who actually watches the video will agree with you.

Once again your annoying habit of making claims that a) you cannot support b) are on other people's behalf.

It does address it. That's the point of the video. Look at the 1:27 time mark.

The guy who made that video is pro-Apollo.

I really think you have comprehension issues here. The video doesn't even cover whether he touches it or not, all it does is show that the flag moved before he ran past it, probably ground vibration or this claim about blooming(supported by lens flares moving in the same way). What you are doing is dismissing the coincidence of it moving before he got there and then striking it, then accepting an even more bizzare coincidence that air moved it from an impossible distance away(studio drafts is the claim you make!) then at no other point do we see any more movement.

You are the classic "truther", you only use what supports your claim and dismiss anything that doesn't. There is so much about that footage that demonstrates low gravity and vacuum, but your fixation on this prevents you from admitting it.

This video also shows that the flags were in air.The movement at the 2:00 time mark is very different from the flag movement in the vacuum chamber at the 00:50 time mark. By looking at the support rod we can see that it's not making the flag stop moving. It's obviously air.

Air that strangely causes NO BILLOWING WHATSOEVER that can stop a flag that quickly? Your claim is total B/S.

You said this in post #29.
When he left it free it bounced for quite a period of time.....which the video producers ignored. I asked you to point out the time mark at which it bounced for a long time. When are you going to answer.

Nope, nothing to do with me. There is a video that debunks this total rubbish made by betamax101 - watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio

You have no answer to it - your only reply is to fire ad hominems at the maker. It takes your claim to pieces, the flag speeded up 150% looks way too fast, but the astronauts are still moving too slow. You claim to be some hero of the counter information, yet at all costs ignore where you get taken apart.