We never went to the moon.

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Ryndanangnysen, Mar 4, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    I might as well just post stuff for the viewers to see. I just came across this.

    Jet Wintzer, MOON HOAX NOW

    It's got some anomalies I'd never seen before.

    This one looks pretty good too.

    The Great US Space Secret
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RADII Registered Senior Member

    Think how much more productive your life might have been, Freddy, if you didn't wallow about in FoolToob conspiracy crap all day long.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    You appalling liar. Your dishonesty is nauseating.


    "A quick summary:-
    1. Step 3 of the proposed process mentions applying transformations in image space, such as perspective distortions, independent x- and y-axis scaling, and rotations. First, some of these would not be projection-preserving, and thus are invalid in rectification. Second, there is no mention made of how the parameters for these transformations are derived. Hence they amount to manual processing and therefore cannot be scientifically reproducible.
    2. The proposed antiprojection, La = Lb b/a, is linear. Most lenses do not implement a linear projection model, and the Zeiss Biogon explicitly does not. Hence the mathematical framework is simplistic and incorrect.
    3. Fig. 7 purports to show a parallax difference between two Apollo photos that include a distant background. The author believes that because a geometric change is apparent in the blink-comparator, this should be attributed to parallax. In fact the method fails.
    4. No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.
    5. A simple contrast expansion of the "difference" image shows misalignment in the ridge lines consistent with a rotation between raster images roughly coincident with the original line of sight. The author has misapplied his broken method and thus interprets the difference in rotation (and possibly subsequent distortive attempts to correct it) as parallax.
    6. Figs. 10 and 11 are similar. The author applies uncontrolled, arbitrary image-space manipulations that are not projection-preserving, then proceeds to attribute resulting misalignment of the raster to parallax. And again, no method is shown for deterministically deriving the distortion parameters; it is purely subjective and therefore irreproducible.
    7. The author then imagines that the effects he introduces through non projective-preserving manipulations are explicable in affine space by a sort of concave screen. This is pure fantasy: a much simpler explanation exists, that of the ineptitude of the author's image-space manipulation and his fundamental misunderstanding of the actual projective geometry at work here. He has proven absolutely nothing other than his ability to produce in one instance a distortion map that corrects for the distortion he previously applied in another instance. There is absolutely nothing here that is valid or proven to be a method for determining the authenticity of photographs.
    8. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography).
    9. Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.
    10. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Conspicuously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.
    11. He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.
    12. He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.
    13. In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and assume that he got all the rest of it right.
    I await your standard avoidance, obfuscation, diversion or other spammed response.
    I attribute all 13 items to the expertise of Mr Windley."

    This is where you point me to your concise rebuttal on this. But we both know you never offered any, so the debunk stands.

    You are ignorant of everything related to space travel, photogrammetry and basic physics. What you "stand by" is irrelevant. You run away like a whimpering coward and then go somewhere else to tell blatant lies.

    Translation: Now you are getting your backside kicked you'll run away for a few months. To reiterate, NOBODY agrees with you, there are no viewers who need "swaying". You however, need some psychiatric assistance.

    List your best 10 pieces of direct evidence that show these so called anomalies. I'll start the list for you:

    1/ The mega spammed Apollo 15 flag movement.
    2/ Michael Collins jacket.
    3/ Aulis and their "expert" on stereoparallax.

    Debunk for your list:
    1/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

    2/ http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html
    3/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...sion-of-a-photo.442528/page-3#post-1065891326
    4/ Awaiting the list that will never arrive!

    Well, we've made it to 3 now, hurrah! Seven more please coward.

    It comes as no surprise to me that this mad spammer avoids this post. His gish gallup avoidance tactics? Chuck up more rehashed crap that has been torn apart by experts already:


    How on Earth do you get this lying troll to debate properly? He won't. He's cornered, checkmated and owned. Nowhere to go except sideways.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    He won't debate in any sense of the word - just profess that we are all stupid and he alone sees the light. Just block him David, it's less stressful.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Did Alice ever go to the moon? I remember Ralph threatening to send her there. Perhaps they didn't have the money for a ticket..
  10. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    The flag moving without being touched closes the whole case by itself so there's no sense in going over every other anomaly. I dealt with this in post #442.

    I explained how Betamax destroyed his credibility during the discussion we had on this. Your playing dumb about it doesn't change anything.

    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

    Your not recognizing the fact that you pro-Apollo posters destroyed your credibility by agreeing with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue doesn't matter either if all the viewers know about it.

    I know you shills will never admit to anything. I've found that the only way to deal with shills is to post the clearest anomalies that are impossible to obfuscate successfully and ask them to address them. They either have to say lame things to maintain their positions and destroy their credibility such as what Jay Windley did with the dust-free sand issue, or try to avoid the issue like Betamax did (explained here).

    You people have attitudes but you're about as impressive as the Black Knight in this video who also has an attitude.

    The only thing that matters is what the viewers end up thinking and you people have said such lame things that I'd say your success rate at swaying them is pretty close to zero.
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Not sure when you began your decent into moon hoax stupidity but the moon landing was nearly 50 years ago and only NOW you are finding this (Jet Wintzer, MOON HOAX NOW)

    Way to go with your research

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    No Mr. Spam, it does not. Let's for the minute take a monumental leap of stupidity and say you are correct. You are not, because there are other simpler explanations for this teeny weeny movement, The presence of air would prove that this 5 minute sequence of video was faked. It would not prove anything else. It would not prove other footage that is impossible to fake was taken on Earth, it would not prove the 842lbs of peer reviewed lunar samples were fake, or the thousands of other verifiable and consistent facts surrounding the entire Apollo program.

    It closes no case, but you are a big coward and afraid to put up other "anomalies" because you know with this single one, it is impossible to conclusively prove what the cause of the movement is.

    No, you did not. You gave your ignorant and useless opinion on something and did the victory dance on your manure pile. Your arguments are rubbish, it is YOUR credibility that is in question!

    That quote is you 100%

    NOBODY agrees with you. Your ignorant and useless opinion on anybody's credibility is worthless. You keep going on about this as though you have made some significant point. You haven't.

    Shills? I find it laughably absurd that you resort to labelling Apollo enthusiasts this way. I see no avoidance from anybody except you, you appalling coward. You have a very sad lack of integrity and a delusional view of reality. I pity you, you've been labouring this and other insanity for 10 years and failing miserably.

    What you say and claim is moronic and wrong. The viewers NEVER agree with you. They think you are probably insane as well as being hopelessly wrong.

    As for the "Black Knight" video, your insanity knows no bounds:

    41 results, there's more, but many have dropped off over the years

    31 results

    His other spam handles aren't so easy to search on.

    And for real insanity? He documents his spamming antics and claims he is winning and being censored! This on a basketball forum, where he is regarded as something very rude and unprintable and as popular as piles.

    "I think the moderator is about to take some action here as the pro-Apollo posters are looking like horses' a---s.

    Here's a post I just made that might get deleted or edited.

    As of now it's post #467 on page #24. Let's see what the moderator does."
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2017
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Nostalgia for the good old days where we could hide under desks I case of nuclear war.
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    You had atom bombproof desk you could carve your name in as well???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    Futile requiting this post, because the spammer plays dumb and fails to respond. It highlights his failure to do so.
  16. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    As I said before, once there is one clear anomaly such as the flag moving without being touched, the case is closed.

    That analysis you posted was done by Jay Windley who maintains 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 flag is driven over.

    (from post #467)
    It would take an engineer to deal with Jay's analysis of this...

    ...so it's probably just technobabble as it was written by a known sophist.

    The moving flag has proven the hoax and you all have no credibility as you agree with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue and all of the viewers have seen that so they know none of you are serious posters so your success rate is going to be close to zero in spite of your attitudes. There's really not much else for me to do here except keep you from burying the part of the debate in which you've discredited yourselves.
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    One thing you think looked weird, in an environment never before captured on video, beats the life experience of millions of people who devoted their lives to the space program? You are an idiot.
  18. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    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.
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    In other words, you fail at understanding physics in a spectacular fashion, and then turn around and call everyone else idiots...

    What the actual flying fuck is wrong with you...
  20. David C The print that nails this troofer Registered Senior Member

    YES you did spam that before a thousand times. This is because you are a coward and a liar.

    This 30 second clip doesn't explain 842lbs of peer reviewed lunar samples. You are a hopeless case.

    He being an engineer, you being an ignorant spammer, he's right, you're wrong. You keep making claims based on your uneducated, uninformed opinion. Whatever made you think it was correct? You seem to be deluded and think that when you say something it supersedes 20 years of experience. Your reason for dismissing an entire website that absolutely buries your pathetic spam, is quite frankly ridiculous and dishonest.

    No it wouldn't you stupid fool. It would take reasonable skills to understand it and a photogrammetrist to confirm it. Windley is a photogrammetrist, you are nothing and the idiot who you believe without question is NOT skilled in that field and is a fake "expert".

    I asked you to verify his qualifications. Like the known coward you are you avoided it.

    You are an idiot spammer who avoids rebuttal, tough questions and simple explanations. You stand there like a clueless halfwit claiming everyone else has no credibility, when it is you stumbling around who lacks it. You keep referring to "viewers", yet as pointed out to you, NOBODY ever agrees with you.

    Top 10 anomalies please, you pitiful coward.
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Anybody up for a Crowd Funding to send as many Moon landing deniers to the Moon with a large powerful Internet link?

    They could then post back their proofs the Moon landings never took place from the Moon

    What? You didn't think putting them ON the Moon would stop them did you?

    PS The Crowd Funding only has to be for a automated one way trip

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes, that was the most expensive, but dullest sci-fi B movie I have ever seen. No drama, or plot, or script (if you discount all the fake calculations).

    Oh I forgot that unforgettable scripted phrase; "one step for man". They should have ended the movie right there! Or was that live tv? Naaaaah, humans could never do anything as complicated as sending a spacecraft to the moon. In fact all those tall tales of Voyager I and II were just studio productions.

    Damn, for all that money that was spent we actually could have send people to the moon and to do flybys of the other planets. But you know, that's show biz for you.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    You... do realize that post is from several years ago, by a member that has since been banned... right? Just curious.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page