Page 158 of 207 FirstFirst ... 58108148154155156157158159160161162168 ... LastLast
Results 3,926 to 3,950 of 5162
  1. #3926
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Cosmoron, how about "addressing" this one you toothless cornered -





    LYING ARSEHOLE

    He may have been close enough to touch it as he went by but the flag started to move before he went by. I thought that part was clear. Sorry.
    He hasn't gotten close enough to it to be able to touch it with his elbow though.



    Get this a taxi

  2. #3927
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    There might be some young teenagers reading this thread so this is for them. I am a complete c unt, just ignore me


    The pro-Apollo posters on this thread are just normal people who know that I am the biggest wanker on the internet.
    As I said in my last post, that can be explained by Jarrah's flag being made of lighter material.
    It billows and your answer is lame. It clearly is heavier cloth and not nylon.

    That's not certain.
    Yes it is.

    Anyway, it's the fact that it moved before the astronaut got close enough to touch it. That's the issue.
    It moved before he got close enough to affect it with air. You have no answer to the gif showing him 4 feet away. OWNED.

    The flag movement after he p es is totally relevant, it is nothing like the movement shown on white's flag. No billowing and progressively slowing oscillations. A vacuum and 1/6th gravity.

    This video blows you out of the water.
    Does it .



    Any of your pathetic claims about slowed down footage, blown apart.




    Another post this moronic turd cannot answer.

  3. #3928
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    I see that FatFreddy ignored post #3941.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6312679

    I suppose he's trying to bury it because it looks difficult to obfuscate.

    Here's something else that's fairly new on the internet.
    http://www.aulis.com/edgar_mitc .htm
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------
    Dr Mitc explained that the stars were 'magnificent', and described them as being 'ten times brighter' than when observed from Earth.
    --------------------------------------

    I looked for a video of him saying that but I couldn't find one. It's probably true though.

    Now listen to Collins at the 00:20 time mark of this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0

    He said he couldn't remember seeing any stars.

    Mitc saw lots of stars and Collins didn't see any stars. Let's see how the disinfo agents try to obfuscate this one.


    edit-2/9/13
    ---------------------------------
    Listen to what Armstrong says at the 2:13 time mark of this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT3i0RwLHZw
    Last edited by Cosmored; 02-09-2013 at 04:18 PM.

  4. #3929
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Here's something else.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

    This guy makes sense. The astronaut looks like a doll in the video.

    He's got some credentials so what he says is not to be sneezed at.
    http://www.aulis.com/rc_model.htm


    There's a lot of new stuff here that wasn't there the last time I looked more than a year ago.
    http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm

    Check it out and ignore the shills.

  5. #3930
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I see that FatFreddy ignored post
    You see that string of 4-5 posts I keep putting up ferbrains? Don't talk to me about ignoring your moronic e, and don't tell me you have "addressed" them when you use ad hominems and diversion. They blow your whole theory down the crapper.

    Dr Mitc explained that the stars were 'magnificent', and described them as being 'ten times brighter' than when observed from Earth.
    Nothing like a bit of exaggeration for you. They are 15-20% brighter due to atmospheric diffusion on Earth.

    I looked for a video of him saying that but I couldn't find one. It's probably true though.
    WTF????????????? It's true is it? You , he saw them whilst on the far side of the Moon and during a short period during his moon walk when he stood in the shade and adjusted his eyes. You are correct though - it is true. He also said this -

    "Suddenly, from behind the rim of the Moon, in long, slow-motion moments of immense majesty, there emerges a sparkling blue and white jewel, a light, delicate sky-blue sphere laced with slowly swirling veils of white, rising gradually like a small pearl in a thick sea of black mystery. It takes more than a moment to fully realize this is Earth . . . home."

    Now listen to Collins at the 00:20 time mark of this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0

    He said he couldn't remember seeing any stars.

    Mitc saw lots of stars and Collins didn't see any stars. Let's see how the disinfo agents try to obfuscate this one.
    You ing moron, as if this hasn't been addressed 1000's of times across the web. The question aimed at Collins was whether they saw stars in the Solar Corona. There's a huge p age in the Apollo lunar surface journal where they talk about stars for minutes on end when they p into the shadow side of the Moon.



    He's got some credentials so what he says is not to be sneezed at.
    Has he now, then go and find something to corroborate the corrupt Aulis money making, gullible convincing, crapsite. You won't, he's just another internet nobody, like that idiot who did the boot reflection bull .
    Last edited by Fatfreddy88; 01-23-2013 at 04:23 PM.

  6. #3931
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I've never tried to make a film and post it on YouTube. I'd have to learn how to download the video and I'd need someone to film the experiment. It's really just too much trouble.
    Only for useless wankers.

    Anyone who actually watches it can see that the flag is moving back and forth very slightly.
    Moron.



    As I said, one steady motion. No back and forth, and the worst thing is that you are such a tosser that you cannot duplicate it, because you are too stupid to work out how to do it.




    You are the saddest I have ever come across. You have no brain. Bubbles that are pieces of junk, flags that show no back and forth - only a complete cu nt states the opposite.


  7. #3932
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Yes it does. Anyone can try it at home. Hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at a forty five degree angle. The exact movement of the Apollo 15 flag can be duplicated.
    You are not only a lying sack of , you have been requested to show the evidence on a filmed example. Can't do it can you, ya useless spamming moron.

    Here is rock solid proof that movement occurs only when very close, and in this case because the floor underneath the object stops normal airflow -



    The movement you cite when he's four feet away is the tiny back and forth movement caused by slight drafts in the studio which can be seen in the above video.
    Bull you blind imbecile. The movement is one steady shift to the right, beginning at the moment he enters the frame.

    Here's something I never noticed before, I have no ing brain -



    As is said in the above video, the flag also moves because of air when the astronaut is approaching the site where the lower part of the pole is already in the ground. Start watching it at the 00:08 time mark.
    You are just the worst kind of hoax , pure stupidity and blinkered. It's moving because he is carrying the damn thing


    ...only in this doctored gif of yours.
    It's not doctored you head. Do it yourself. Oh, I forgot, you are too stupid to work out how to do it



    These are actual frame grabs from cosmoron's video. Being the complete tosser he is, he will a) never try this himself b) never accept it is genuine c) maintain it must be doctored because he has no argument.

    So far, we have a video showing that there is movement as soon the astronaut enters the frame. We have a video showing that air only causes something to move when it is very close. We have a video that this toothless cu nt won't respond to, showing Jarrah e shooting himself in the foot by being unable to move the bedsheet when he walks past it, or jumping near it.

    What does cosmoron have?


  8. #3933
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Cosmoron, how about "addressing" this one you toothless cornered -





    LYING ARSEHOLE

    He may have been close enough to touch it as he went by but the flag started to move before he went by. I thought that part was clear. Sorry.
    He hasn't gotten close enough to it to be able to touch it with his elbow though.



    Get this a taxi

  9. #3934
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    There might be some young teenagers reading this thread so this is for them. I am a complete c unt, just ignore me


    The pro-Apollo posters on this thread are just normal people who know that I am the biggest wanker on the internet.
    As I said in my last post, that can be explained by Jarrah's flag being made of lighter material.
    It billows and your answer is lame. It clearly is heavier cloth and not nylon.

    That's not certain.
    Yes it is.

    Anyway, it's the fact that it moved before the astronaut got close enough to touch it. That's the issue.
    It moved before he got close enough to affect it with air. You have no answer to the gif showing him 4 feet away. OWNED.

    The flag movement after he p es is totally relevant, it is nothing like the movement shown on white's flag. No billowing and progressively slowing oscillations. A vacuum and 1/6th gravity.

    This video blows you out of the water.
    Does it .



    Any of your pathetic claims about slowed down footage, blown apart.




    Another post this moronic turd cannot answer.

  10. #3935
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Post Count
    43,110
    NBA Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    College
    Oregon Ducks
    No....

    We can't we the upcoming meltdown.
    _____________________________
    If you like building things, like this Parts Changer does:

    https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/


  11. #3936
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    I just wanted to say Good Job Fatfreddy! You OWNED this Mother er!
    Hey Charlie Sheen-

    This calls for an objectivity test. FatFreddy maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?

    Here's a partial summary of the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.

    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW__oOciq2c
    http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/

    In this video the safety cable is obviously buoyant. It has a distinct tendency to to upward.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM

    Watch it at these time marks.
    0:50
    2:10
    3:00
    3:10
    6:08
    6:44
    6:53

    It's going upward because it's slightly lighter than water.

    Watch the first video on the list at the 3:45 time mark to see the astronaut holding the buoyant safety cable down so that its buoyancy won't be so obvious.

    At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM

    The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water.

    The fast flag movement can be explained by sped-up video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
    (1:55 time mark)

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------


    You can read Betamax's lame attempt to obfuscate the anomaly of the buoyant safety cables here.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-l...ml#post4767755

    All of the pro-Apollo posters on this thread agree with him.


    If the above link doesn't work, you can also see BetaMax's position on the Buoyant safety cables here.
    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co...ks-part-2.html
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------
    Item 16 - The floating cables

    He says the astronauts air is provided in the tether cables!! He then says the astronaut is holding it down to stop it floating up!

    The tethers have shape memory caused by them being wound on drums during manufacture. The only tendency the cable has in an unrestricted vacuum is to ume that curled position from being wound around a large drum. There are numerous examples where it makes this same movement in a horizontal vector in relation to the camera. Bunkum.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the pro-Apollo posters at the JREF forum where my posts get deleted agree with Betamax too as you can see in this thread...
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...16531&page=213

    ...so they are obviously a bunch of shills.

    The pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums also showed themselves to be a bunch of shills by trying to obfuscate the anomalies.
    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...alk-conspiracy
    http://apollohoax.proboards.com/inde...ay&thread=2206

    They have to do so because NASA's official position on the Chinese spacewalk is that it was real.

  12. #3937
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    I'd like to hear some analyses of this from the pro-Apollo posters.
    http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

  13. #3938
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    BetaMax (who did the above) is a government shill who knows that the moon missions were faked in a studio and that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank.
    You are a spamming cu nt who has no answer to his points. Prove he's a government shill, instead of an old physics expert who kicked your pathetic arse.

    You have no answer to shape memory in a vacuum, it is so ing obvious that it would occur. You have no option but to spam your crap.

    Why does your moronic unsubstantiated, ridiculously implausible, provably impossible e about wave blowers explain the visible evidence better than his?


    Everybody keep in mind that I am such a stupid cu nt that I think the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
    Tosser, FTFY.

    The most perfectly named blog in history:

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

    The Chinese Spacewalks - Part 1



    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
    http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/

    Here is part of the Chinese Spacewalk Footage:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM

    Before I begin debunking this, the user who made this, freely admits he has been given a "good run for his money" and concedes in this video that many of his points have been debunked.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U54siu8cEe0

    I will pay particular attention to those that he insists have not.

    Underwater Footage

    During underwater footage in weightless training, the surface will reflect the light and cause shimmering lights on all surfaces.
    A good example of this is the cylindrical object in this video, shimmering as light is refracted all around it:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...8U7y0CUI#t=25s

    There is no evidence of this in the entire Chinese spacewalk. They would have had to have used a sealed chamber painted black to avoid all light reflection and surface wave refraction.


    Item 1 - The "Bubbles"



    These are not bubbles. It is a combination of small loose orted items, pieces of paper and frozen condensation. Many times in space, the introduction of a vacuum causes parts of the various coatings on the interior to freeze and break away.
    Here is a video showing them exiting the hatch and always at different angles:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE

    The statement about there being zero gravity is just plain wrong. Zero-g means zero g-forces not zero gravity. This whole idea about accelerating objects is so easy to explain. The gravitational force at that al ude is circa 9 metres per second squared. Any object expelled towards the Earth, will still have orbital velocity, but as it now has slight downward velocity, it will accelerate very slightly as a result.The object that has caused most of a flap amongst hoax claimants, is merely a piece of debris that has moved diagonally towards the camera, in itself adding to what looks like even more acceleration. We can deduce this quite easily from it's apparent change in size which does not comport with a small depth change for a so called bubble.
    The idea that objects should not exit the hatch after 10 minutes is invalid. He implies that it is due only to the very slight pressure release(usually residual air pressure) that the objects are expelled in the first place, when it is also that in moving about inside the craft, they have impacted the inside and deflected through the hatch. As seen in the video above, even the paper accelerates - wet sodden paper does not float!
    It must also be pointed out that due to the way a wide angled lens shows movement at its edge, it naturally appears to move slightly quicker.

    Adding this video to show the "bubble" that is a flat piece of tape:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gvt...layer_embedded

    And this one to isolate the salient clip:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1LR...layer_embedded

    Item 2 - Wave Blowers


    Complete hogwash! Neutral buoyancy is established using weights.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral...ncy_Laboratory

    "The principle of neutral buoyancy is used to simulate the weightless environment of space. First the suited astronauts or equipment is lowered into the pool using an overhead crane. Once this is done the suited astronauts weighted in the water by support divers so that they experience no buoyant force and no rotational moment about their center of m ."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_buoyancy

    "Neutral buoyancy is a condition in which a physical body's m equals the m it displaces in a surrounding medium. This offsets the force of gravity that would otherwise cause the object to sink. An object that has neutral buoyancy will neither sink nor rise."

    This video demonstrates that very principle:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDSFi5y_nk

    This video shows tether cables with no tendency to rise and also demonstrates always in every example, the bubbles rise vertically:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvQEbP1s4pc

    Further, a waveblower would set up a continuous current and would not magically disappear once it hits an object. if there were 2, one either side as suggested, there would now be cross currents. These in turn would cause significant instability of anything caught in its wake. There are no signs of turbulence you would expect from water movement, or no additional light refraction.

    Wave blowers are introduced by the film maker to explain why the "bubbles" don't rise vertically, a logical fallacy and bunkum.


    Item 3 - The Mission Commander "slip-up"



    Is the film maker saying there is no water inside the hatch then?! The communication is actually pretty garbled. The Mandarin word for water is pronounced "shuway" I can't hear that said.
    But some comments on the video disagree with the film maker:-



    Item 4 - Odd row of lights



    They are located here:-






    Here is a short excerpt referring to them:-

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_10130548.htm

    "Zhang Tao, a technician with the Shanghai Ins ute of Technical Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said the Shenzhou-7 mission's success marks China's space program has "entered a new stage." Zhang was in charge of developing the illumination lamp on the exterior of the Shenzhou-7 vessel."


    Item 5 - The Markings on the Craft at take-off

    He compares Shenzhou 1 launch with wider thruster displacement to Shenzhou 7. Shenzhou 1 has a noticeably more split triple exhaust, Shenzhou 7 is more combined - it has a bigger payload and more thrust. There is also a much bigger surface smoke cloud on the Shenzhou 1 launch. Here they are side by side with completely different plumes evident:-




    He says the photograph used by China Weekly shows different markings. It's just a low resolution version of the original. The markings are the same!




    Item 6 - What is lighting the craft?




    Of course it's Earthlight! The Earth has an albedo of 35%, meaning it reflects that percentage of light cast upon it. We can clearly see it is daylight.


    Item 7 - The flag moves like it does in water!




    This is complete nonsense. A flat fabric will not move that way in a viscous medium. The drag co-efficient of water would simply not allow it to rotate unrestricted. The fabric would simply wrap around the small pole. The references to there being no noticeable movement of the astronauts hand, ignore any movement made by simply moving the finger and thumb. He indicates that the flag is moved by water movement which is simply bunkum, water doesn't rotate a flag like that, it is simply impossible. The movement was supposedly down to the mysterious wave blowers!


    Item 8 - Astronauts always keep hold of the rails




    Whenever astronauts let go in other space walks, they are either tethered, or have at ude control thrusters on their suits. Inexperienced astronauts could be forgiven for taking care. The narrator suggests they don't let go, because the water will sweep them upwards, yet it has no such effect on their position. If there was a mystery wave blower current, their legs would be swept upwards!


    Item 9 - Supposedly static Earth position


    For hours he says? How about 20 minutes maximum, as is the duration of this spacewalk.
    The craft thrusters initiate a rotation about its horizontal axis that matches its orb-rate around the Earth. It is used on most satellites, as opposed to something like the Hubble which has a stellar inertial orbit.
    Explained here:-

    http://www.ehartwell.com/afj/Orb-rate_explanation


    Item 10 - The fast moving clouds


    I slapped my forehead at this statement! The clouds aren't moving!! The craft is orbiting at circa 17,000 mph on a 42 degree inclined orbit.

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co...ks-part-2.html


    The Chinese Spacewalks - Part 2
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
    http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/


    Item 11 - Transmission quality


    The video is very good, as one would expect from the technology that comes out of the Far East, however only the audio recorded on the surface appears to be pretty good quality. Astronaut comms aren't that good, but they have a very good background noise supression system. A rather labored point, perhaps trying to demonstrate the clarity was because it was on Earth, when they could simply have added some video distortion to the picture, had they deemed it necessary. Bunkum.


    Item 12 - Pre launch do ent released early

    Somebody put out the press release early. The actual dialogue quoted appears to be fairly standard, and obviously something rehearsed in their genuine underwater facilites. Embarr ing for China, but hardly a unique event to have a pre-prepared press release in news reporting of big events.


    Item 13 - China faked the Chang'e photographs


    It was actually just one picture that sent tongues wagging. Completely wrong, the Chinese picture is taken at a different angle, and actually has a newly formed crater on its picture that can easily be verified. If this find had any credence, it would have had all the mad conspiracy theorists scrambling for more evidence. None was found, just this one picture. A leap of faith logical fallacy argument based on a single photograph.

    Here is the picture against the NASA one:-



    Item 14 - The arc of the Earth

    He compares the relative Earth arcs of the Shenzhou spacewalk with other footage, and says Earth's arc is different!

    The Chinese spacewalk is closer footage than the example given and has a wider angled lens.


    Item 15 - The clouds are speeding up


    This is more bunkum to explain both the motion of the flag and the space debris. He uses a short p age where the cloud cover appears to brighten up very quickly. This is light striking the solid cloud and diffusing it. The camera is set for near field operation so sees it over exposed. The craft as stated is orbiting at 17,000mph.


    Item 16 - The floating cables

    He says the astronauts air is provided in the tether cables!! He then says the astronaut is holding it down to stop it floating up!

    The tethers have shape memory caused by them being wound on drums during manufacture. The only tendency the cable has in an unrestricted vacuum is to ume that curled position from being wound around a large drum. There are numerous examples where it makes this same movement in a horizontal vector in relation to the camera. Bunkum.


    Item 17 - The "missing" outer atmosphere halo

    He talks about the blue halo missing from the footage showing the outer part of the Earth's atmosphere that scatters blue light.

    The halo is visible under most, but not all conditions, as shown by the examples below. The camera for Shenzhou 7 was set to expose for sharp nearfield and in digital quality, the Earth in the background is consequently over exposed and a little out of focus.



    Watch 10 seconds of this video from the time marker 13:21. The first view has no halo, the second has a huge halo:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72OLN...ailpage#t=802s


    Item 18 - The Earth moves

    Says the earth moves up and down a tiny bit, and questions how does that happen in space.
    The craft follows an elliptical orbit, it has very small corrections made at intervals to its forward orb-rate rotation. Perhaps he should have asked this basic question before adding it into his video?


    Item 19 - The change in degrees towards the Sun

    He talks of a 120 degree sun angle change in the 15 minutes we see the craft!!

    A standard 90 minute orbit makes a 60 degree orbital change in 15 minutes not 120 degrees. However, the craft is following a 42 degree orbit so that equates to nearer 40 degrees. Just really bad math and ignorance of the orbital path.


    Item 20 - The supposedly lit piece of the craft

    He says the Sun angle never changes on both cameras, then indicates that it lights up part of the craft and then back off again. He says it is impossible, especially at 90 minutes per orbit.

    If we ume that the area he highlights as being lit is done so by the Sun, when the light recedes, one would expect the top part to be still illuminated last of all. But it isn't as this screenshot indicates:-



    The screenshots show the light is coming from the opposite direction, the Earth, as the bottom part is lit last of all! Simple at ude control would account for this, as previously explained. In addition, 10 minutes later on during the space walk, we see the Sun angle has changed accordingly, representing what we would expect to see:-




    Item 21 - The extra astronaut

    He says there are 4 distinct voices and only 3 astronauts.

    This is just speculation. He begs the question, then plays some different clips, all labelled up for the viewer. Basically he is just clutching at straws. The voices are all varied volume inflection and clarity. To me, voice 2 is the same as voice 4, just closer to the mike(ie. face not turned to the side maybe), or speaking softer on some of the clips he plays.


    So this is your idea of a credibility test is it!?

    Only those with the same ignorance and gullibility as yourself, ie. no reasoning ability, nor any motivation at all to verify that what is said is actually complete Bull ........actually p the test.

    Meh!!!

  14. #3939
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Hey Charlie Sheen-

    This calls for a wanker test. FatFreddy and anybody with a ing brain, maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?
    Speaking of credibility tests, try this one. The main bulk of cosmoron's evidunce is the video of this youtube user -

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Bbenbb

    All debunked by betamax101 in above post. So what does this user say about Apollo?



    "I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think 911 or the Moon landing were faked."


    How about that Chazzer, the cu nt's own credibility test bites him in the arse

    His response? He says the bloke has been "got at". What a wanker.


  15. #3940
    Believe.
    Post Count
    396
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I'd like to hear some analyses of this from the pro-Apollo posters.
    http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm
    So you can ignore it here like you did on JREF?

  16. #3941
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    I'd like to hear some analyses of this from the pro-Apollo posters.
    http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm
    ----------------------------------------------
    So you can ignore it here like you did on JREF?
    I'm not an expert in photography. If there are any experts viewing, they will know that those proven shills are full-of-it.

    Here's the thread at internationalskeptics.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=251326

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:
    My username at internationalskeptics is FatFreddy88. The shill who uses that name here chose it to cause confusion.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jay Windley responded to my post and he's a proven shill. What do you think of Jay Windley's position on this issue?
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7907

    Here's his response in which he explains his position.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7990

    Here's who Jay Windley is.
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html
    Last edited by Cosmored; 06-26-2016 at 06:11 AM.

  17. #3942
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Look at what Jay Windley said in post #21 of this thread.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=251660

    He said that space radiation is a red herring. I responded in post #31.

    What do you pro-Apollo posters think? Is space radiation a red herring in that issue?

    Here's post #31 in case it gets deleted (which frequently happens to my posts on that forum).
    Quote:
    Radiation is not covered in the video in the OP. This is all, therefore, a red herring, as Jay pointed out. Please take your radiation claims to the other thread, and let us stay on-topic in this one. Or else it will become a useless, noisy mor .
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    I disagree. Radiation is relevant to this topic because the guy in the video in post #1 umes that radiation isn't a factor in space. The whole hoax argument is that they had the technology to go to the moon in radiation-free space in a craft without heavy shielding but, since space radiation made necessary a craft with heavy shielding, it was impossible to build the craft. The hoax-believers also maintain that, if the levels of space radiation are what the alternative source say, it would be impossible to walk on the moon with a mere space suit.
    Last edited by Cosmored; 06-26-2016 at 06:12 AM.

  18. #3943
    Long, Dark Blues redzero's Avatar
    Post Count
    14,311
    NBA Team
    New Orleans Hornets
    College
    LSU Tigers
    What do you pro-Apollo posters think? Is space radiation a red herring in that issue?
    Absolutely. It has nothing to do with whether the technology needed to fake the moon landing existed or not.
    _____________________________

  19. #3944
    Believe.
    Post Count
    396
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I'm not an expert in photography. If there are any experts viewing, they will know that those proven shills are full-of-it.
    so you're not an expert in photography by your own admission but yet you somehow know that they are full of it. Thanks for showing your bias.

    Look at what Jay Windley said in post #21 of this thread.
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=251660

    He said that space radiation is a red herring. I responded in post #31.

    What do you pro-Apollo posters think? Is space radiation a red herring in that issue?
    In the issue of a guy who has all his experience in film and what it takes to make a movie saying they didn't have the tech to fake the movie, yes, radiation is a red herring. Why should he say anything about radiation when it is not his field? That is like YOU spouting off about radiation. He is talking about what he knows unlike you.

    Here's post #31 in case it gets deleted (which frequently happens to my posts on that forum).
    How SHOCKING that your posts get deleted (which isn't even true) on a private forum when you break the rules! Really I am just shocked!

    (for those not aware, his posts are NOT deleted, SOME and only some of them get moved to a section called "Abandon All Hope" which can only be viewed by those logged in. The forum's own description for that section is
    The dumping ground for bickering and irrelevance! Generally these threads contain posts that are at best borderline inappropriate. Moved here they can at least serve some purpose: to help illustrate what is not appropriate for the JREF Forum.
    emphasis mine
    IMO that location is extremely appropriate for the majority of cosmo's posts.)
    Last edited by MLewis; 01-25-2013 at 06:00 PM.

  20. #3945
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Here's something else that's fairly new on the internet.
    http://www.aulis.com/edgar_mitc .htm
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------
    Dr Mitc explained that the stars were 'magnificent', and described them as being 'ten times brighter' than when observed from Earth.
    --------------------------------------

    I looked for a video of him saying that but I couldn't find one. It's probably true though.

    Now listen to Collins at the 00:20 time mark of this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0

    He said he couldn't remember seeing any stars.

    Mitc saw lots of stars and Collins didn't see any stars. Let's see how the disinfo agents try to obfuscate this one.
    How about this utter cu nt of a person. Not only does he ignore any response, he spams the same ing on another forum.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-l...post1062200458
    "Here's some fairly new stuff I just found.
    http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm


    http://www.aulis.com/edgar_mitc .htm
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------
    Dr Mitc explained that the stars were 'magnificent', and described them as being 'ten times brighter' than when observed from Earth.
    --------------------------------------

    I looked for a video of him saying that but I couldn't find one. It's probably true though.

    Now listen to Collins at the 00:20 time mark of this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0

    He said he couldn't remember seeing any stars. Mitc saw lots of stars and Collins didn't see any stars."



    WHAT A WANKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this head wonders why some of his posts get moved to the dip section on JREF

    I see that FatFreddy ignored post
    You see that string of 4-5 posts I keep putting up ferbrains? Don't talk to me about ignoring your moronic e, and don't tell me you have "addressed" them when you use ad hominems and diversion. They blow your whole theory down the crapper.

    Dr Mitc explained that the stars were 'magnificent', and described them as being 'ten times brighter' than when observed from Earth.
    Nothing like a bit of exaggeration for you. They are 15-20% brighter due to atmospheric diffusion on Earth.

    I looked for a video of him saying that but I couldn't find one. It's probably true though.
    WTF????????????? It's true is it? You , he saw them whilst on the far side of the Moon and during a short period during his moon walk when he stood in the shade and adjusted his eyes. You are correct though - it is true. He also said this -

    "Suddenly, from behind the rim of the Moon, in long, slow-motion moments of immense majesty, there emerges a sparkling blue and white jewel, a light, delicate sky-blue sphere laced with slowly swirling veils of white, rising gradually like a small pearl in a thick sea of black mystery. It takes more than a moment to fully realize this is Earth . . . home."

    Now listen to Collins at the 00:20 time mark of this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0

    He said he couldn't remember seeing any stars.

    Mitc saw lots of stars and Collins didn't see any stars. Let's see how the disinfo agents try to obfuscate this one.
    You ing moron, as if this hasn't been addressed 1000's of times across the web. The question aimed at Collins was whether they saw stars in the Solar Corona. There's a huge p age in the Apollo lunar surface journal where they talk about stars for minutes on end when they p into the shadow side of the Moon.



    He's got some credentials so what he says is not to be sneezed at.
    Has he now, then go and find something to corroborate the corrupt Aulis money making, gullible convincing, crapsite. You won't, he's just another internet nobody, like that idiot who did the boot reflection bull .

  21. #3946
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I've never tried to make a film and post it on YouTube. I'd have to learn how to download the video and I'd need someone to film the experiment. It's really just too much trouble.
    Only for useless wankers.

    Anyone who actually watches it can see that the flag is moving back and forth very slightly.
    Moron.



    As I said, one steady motion. No back and forth, and the worst thing is that you are such a tosser that you cannot duplicate it, because you are too stupid to work out how to do it.




    You are the saddest I have ever come across. You have no brain. Bubbles that are pieces of junk, flags that show no back and forth, flags underwater that should wrap around the pole!, cables with perfectly normal shape memory from manufacture - only a complete cu nt states the opposite.

    Last edited by Fatfreddy88; 01-26-2013 at 10:58 AM.

  22. #3947
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Jay Windley and his team of shills are looking pretty silly on this thread.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=251326

    We're talking about the dust that's thrown up by the rover's wheels in this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

    They say that the fact that there's no dust cloud proves that the footage was taken in a vacuum. I say that the rover may be driving on large-grained dust-free sand.

    They say 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. Therefore, it's impossible for there to be dust-free sand where the rover is driving.

    Any twelve-year-old has the common sense to know that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will not create any dust. Jay Windley and his team of shills look like horses' a---s on that thread.

    Why don't you pro-Apollo people tell us what you think. Are they right, or wrong?

    This is who Jay Windley is.
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html


    edit
    ---------------------

    My username at JREF is FatFreddy88. The shill who uses that name here chose that name to cause confusion.
    Last edited by Cosmored; 06-26-2016 at 06:13 AM.

  23. #3948
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Jay Windley and his team of shills are looking pretty silly on this thread.
    No they ain't you ing moron. What kind of imbecile thinks everybody who argues against his insanity are actually all recruited by the evil overlords of NASA

    We're talking about the dust that's thrown up by the rover's wheels in this video.
    A slow moving vehicle that kicks up 3 metre high arcs and not the slightest hint of suspended dust. A vehicle with the same power and speed as a golfcart that makes bigger arcs than a dune buggy. Explain that, head.

    They say that the fact that there's no dust cloud proves that the footage was taken in a vacuum.
    They are correct.

    I say that the rover may be driving on large-grained dust-free sand.
    Yes, but you are a useless , so your opinion doesn't count

    They say 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. Therefore, it's impossible for there to be dust-free sand where the rover is driving.
    Bull ter. They say that is one factor. Another factor is the sifting of hundreds of tons of the damn stuff with no dust whatsoever as being impossible. Another is the height of the dust arcs.

    Any twelve-year-old has the common sense to know that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will not create any dust.
    Shutup you moronic prat. Anybody with a braincell can see that the regolith thrown up consists of visibly fine particles that fall straight down.

    Jay Windley and the other forum members make me look like a horse's arse on that thread.
    Wanker.

    Why don't you pro-Apollo people tell us what you think. Are they right, or wrong?
    Why don't you tell everybody why a geologist would know better about aggregate transportation than a civil engineer? Tell us what the geologists think about the rocks being faked? Tell us what they think about Apollo being faked.

    Wanker.

    edit
    ---------------------

    I am a cu nt. If you don't know this by now, I have a mental disease and need to go back in the padded cell.

  24. #3949
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    All you pro-Apollo posters maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real so nothing you say really matters as everybody knows you're all shills.

    Here's the link to the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked that the shills keep trying to bury.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6317012

    If the link doesn't work, go to post #3957 on page 132.

    I've been wondering about this.
    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------
    Canceling posts. Posts disappear or only propagate in a limited region. This has deniability as just network problems, since sometimes there really are network problems. One technique is to secretly "localize" posts that are not approved by some censor or gatekeeper. Most people will not notice if their post only appears on their local news server, and will ume it has propagated worldwide. They will just think no one has replied (though spoof replies can be posted locally, too).
    -----------------------------

    This might or might not be happening with this thread at internationalskeptics but I'll post a few of the posts just in case.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=251326

    (post #5)
    To the viewers-

    When reading Jay Windley's posts, take into consideration this response of his...
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7990

    ...to this.
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7907
    (excerpt from post #15)
    Originally Posted by X
    Again: would you care to explain exactly what you are referring to, and why Jay is, in your view, wrong?
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    This goes back to 2007 when he was banned from Apollohoax.com under a different nickname on the subject of whether a simulacrum for lunar regolith could be produced that would mimic all the observable behavior of the regolith in lunar film, video, and photography. He insisted that vast amounts of sand could be washed, sifted, and handled such that it would never raise a dust cloud. I and a number of other engineers who have experience handling aggregates said this was a practical impossibility. FatFreddy has cherry-picked a response or two from a geology forum that he believes refutes this opinion. He has misrepresented them, of course.

    That's the on-topic issue.
    (post #24)
    Originally Posted by FatFreddy88
    What he did was try to control the damage. This issue is too basic. Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.

    I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    I read this thread from time to time and am never swayed by the rhetoric you present.

    May I also say that the Magic Sand episode was great entertainment. I thank you FF88. It couldn't be easy to come up with such brilliant sources of comedy.

    They have authoritative patronizing at udes but what they're actually saying would get them laughed out of the debating hall. They haven't deleted my post they way they usually do when I post stuff they can't try to obfuscate without looking like horses' a---s; that's why I suspected they were blocking the discussion in certain parts of the world.
    Last edited by Cosmored; 06-26-2016 at 06:17 AM.

  25. #3950
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    BetaMax (who did the above) is a government shill who knows that the moon missions were faked in a studio and that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank.
    You are a spamming cu nt who has no answer to his points. Prove he's a government shill, instead of an old physics expert who kicked your pathetic arse.

    You have no answer to shape memory in a vacuum, it is so ing obvious that it would occur. You have no option but to spam your crap.

    Why does your moronic unsubstantiated, ridiculously implausible, provably impossible e about wave blowers explain the visible evidence better than his?


    Everybody keep in mind that I am such a stupid cu nt that I think the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
    Tosser, FTFY.

    The most perfectly named blog in history:

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

    The Chinese Spacewalks - Part 1



    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
    http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/

    Here is part of the Chinese Spacewalk Footage:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM

    Before I begin debunking this, the user who made this, freely admits he has been given a "good run for his money" and concedes in this video that many of his points have been debunked.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U54siu8cEe0

    I will pay particular attention to those that he insists have not.

    Underwater Footage

    During underwater footage in weightless training, the surface will reflect the light and cause shimmering lights on all surfaces.
    A good example of this is the cylindrical object in this video, shimmering as light is refracted all around it:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...8U7y0CUI#t=25s

    There is no evidence of this in the entire Chinese spacewalk. They would have had to have used a sealed chamber painted black to avoid all light reflection and surface wave refraction.


    Item 1 - The "Bubbles"



    These are not bubbles. It is a combination of small loose orted items, pieces of paper and frozen condensation. Many times in space, the introduction of a vacuum causes parts of the various coatings on the interior to freeze and break away.
    Here is a video showing them exiting the hatch and always at different angles:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE

    The statement about there being zero gravity is just plain wrong. Zero-g means zero g-forces not zero gravity. This whole idea about accelerating objects is so easy to explain. The gravitational force at that al ude is circa 9 metres per second squared. Any object expelled towards the Earth, will still have orbital velocity, but as it now has slight downward velocity, it will accelerate very slightly as a result.The object that has caused most of a flap amongst hoax claimants, is merely a piece of debris that has moved diagonally towards the camera, in itself adding to what looks like even more acceleration. We can deduce this quite easily from it's apparent change in size which does not comport with a small depth change for a so called bubble.
    The idea that objects should not exit the hatch after 10 minutes is invalid. He implies that it is due only to the very slight pressure release(usually residual air pressure) that the objects are expelled in the first place, when it is also that in moving about inside the craft, they have impacted the inside and deflected through the hatch. As seen in the video above, even the paper accelerates - wet sodden paper does not float!
    It must also be pointed out that due to the way a wide angled lens shows movement at its edge, it naturally appears to move slightly quicker.

    Adding this video to show the "bubble" that is a flat piece of tape:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gvt...layer_embedded

    And this one to isolate the salient clip:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1LR...layer_embedded

    Item 2 - Wave Blowers


    Complete hogwash! Neutral buoyancy is established using weights.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral...ncy_Laboratory

    "The principle of neutral buoyancy is used to simulate the weightless environment of space. First the suited astronauts or equipment is lowered into the pool using an overhead crane. Once this is done the suited astronauts weighted in the water by support divers so that they experience no buoyant force and no rotational moment about their center of m ."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_buoyancy

    "Neutral buoyancy is a condition in which a physical body's m equals the m it displaces in a surrounding medium. This offsets the force of gravity that would otherwise cause the object to sink. An object that has neutral buoyancy will neither sink nor rise."

    This video demonstrates that very principle:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDSFi5y_nk

    This video shows tether cables with no tendency to rise and also demonstrates always in every example, the bubbles rise vertically:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvQEbP1s4pc

    Further, a waveblower would set up a continuous current and would not magically disappear once it hits an object. if there were 2, one either side as suggested, there would now be cross currents. These in turn would cause significant instability of anything caught in its wake. There are no signs of turbulence you would expect from water movement, or no additional light refraction.

    Wave blowers are introduced by the film maker to explain why the "bubbles" don't rise vertically, a logical fallacy and bunkum.


    Item 3 - The Mission Commander "slip-up"



    Is the film maker saying there is no water inside the hatch then?! The communication is actually pretty garbled. The Mandarin word for water is pronounced "shuway" I can't hear that said.
    But some comments on the video disagree with the film maker:-



    Item 4 - Odd row of lights



    They are located here:-






    Here is a short excerpt referring to them:-

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_10130548.htm

    "Zhang Tao, a technician with the Shanghai Ins ute of Technical Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said the Shenzhou-7 mission's success marks China's space program has "entered a new stage." Zhang was in charge of developing the illumination lamp on the exterior of the Shenzhou-7 vessel."


    Item 5 - The Markings on the Craft at take-off

    He compares Shenzhou 1 launch with wider thruster displacement to Shenzhou 7. Shenzhou 1 has a noticeably more split triple exhaust, Shenzhou 7 is more combined - it has a bigger payload and more thrust. There is also a much bigger surface smoke cloud on the Shenzhou 1 launch. Here they are side by side with completely different plumes evident:-




    He says the photograph used by China Weekly shows different markings. It's just a low resolution version of the original. The markings are the same!




    Item 6 - What is lighting the craft?




    Of course it's Earthlight! The Earth has an albedo of 35%, meaning it reflects that percentage of light cast upon it. We can clearly see it is daylight.


    Item 7 - The flag moves like it does in water!




    This is complete nonsense. A flat fabric will not move that way in a viscous medium. The drag co-efficient of water would simply not allow it to rotate unrestricted. The fabric would simply wrap around the small pole. The references to there being no noticeable movement of the astronauts hand, ignore any movement made by simply moving the finger and thumb. He indicates that the flag is moved by water movement which is simply bunkum, water doesn't rotate a flag like that, it is simply impossible. The movement was supposedly down to the mysterious wave blowers!


    Item 8 - Astronauts always keep hold of the rails




    Whenever astronauts let go in other space walks, they are either tethered, or have at ude control thrusters on their suits. Inexperienced astronauts could be forgiven for taking care. The narrator suggests they don't let go, because the water will sweep them upwards, yet it has no such effect on their position. If there was a mystery wave blower current, their legs would be swept upwards!


    Item 9 - Supposedly static Earth position


    For hours he says? How about 20 minutes maximum, as is the duration of this spacewalk.
    The craft thrusters initiate a rotation about its horizontal axis that matches its orb-rate around the Earth. It is used on most satellites, as opposed to something like the Hubble which has a stellar inertial orbit.
    Explained here:-

    http://www.ehartwell.com/afj/Orb-rate_explanation


    Item 10 - The fast moving clouds


    I slapped my forehead at this statement! The clouds aren't moving!! The craft is orbiting at circa 17,000 mph on a 42 degree inclined orbit.

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co...ks-part-2.html


    The Chinese Spacewalks - Part 2
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
    http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/


    Item 11 - Transmission quality


    The video is very good, as one would expect from the technology that comes out of the Far East, however only the audio recorded on the surface appears to be pretty good quality. Astronaut comms aren't that good, but they have a very good background noise supression system. A rather labored point, perhaps trying to demonstrate the clarity was because it was on Earth, when they could simply have added some video distortion to the picture, had they deemed it necessary. Bunkum.


    Item 12 - Pre launch do ent released early

    Somebody put out the press release early. The actual dialogue quoted appears to be fairly standard, and obviously something rehearsed in their genuine underwater facilites. Embarr ing for China, but hardly a unique event to have a pre-prepared press release in news reporting of big events.


    Item 13 - China faked the Chang'e photographs


    It was actually just one picture that sent tongues wagging. Completely wrong, the Chinese picture is taken at a different angle, and actually has a newly formed crater on its picture that can easily be verified. If this find had any credence, it would have had all the mad conspiracy theorists scrambling for more evidence. None was found, just this one picture. A leap of faith logical fallacy argument based on a single photograph.

    Here is the picture against the NASA one:-



    Item 14 - The arc of the Earth

    He compares the relative Earth arcs of the Shenzhou spacewalk with other footage, and says Earth's arc is different!

    The Chinese spacewalk is closer footage than the example given and has a wider angled lens.


    Item 15 - The clouds are speeding up


    This is more bunkum to explain both the motion of the flag and the space debris. He uses a short p age where the cloud cover appears to brighten up very quickly. This is light striking the solid cloud and diffusing it. The camera is set for near field operation so sees it over exposed. The craft as stated is orbiting at 17,000mph.


    Item 16 - The floating cables

    He says the astronauts air is provided in the tether cables!! He then says the astronaut is holding it down to stop it floating up!

    The tethers have shape memory caused by them being wound on drums during manufacture. The only tendency the cable has in an unrestricted vacuum is to ume that curled position from being wound around a large drum. There are numerous examples where it makes this same movement in a horizontal vector in relation to the camera. Bunkum.


    Item 17 - The "missing" outer atmosphere halo

    He talks about the blue halo missing from the footage showing the outer part of the Earth's atmosphere that scatters blue light.

    The halo is visible under most, but not all conditions, as shown by the examples below. The camera for Shenzhou 7 was set to expose for sharp nearfield and in digital quality, the Earth in the background is consequently over exposed and a little out of focus.



    Watch 10 seconds of this video from the time marker 13:21. The first view has no halo, the second has a huge halo:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72OLN...ailpage#t=802s


    Item 18 - The Earth moves

    Says the earth moves up and down a tiny bit, and questions how does that happen in space.
    The craft follows an elliptical orbit, it has very small corrections made at intervals to its forward orb-rate rotation. Perhaps he should have asked this basic question before adding it into his video?


    Item 19 - The change in degrees towards the Sun

    He talks of a 120 degree sun angle change in the 15 minutes we see the craft!!

    A standard 90 minute orbit makes a 60 degree orbital change in 15 minutes not 120 degrees. However, the craft is following a 42 degree orbit so that equates to nearer 40 degrees. Just really bad math and ignorance of the orbital path.


    Item 20 - The supposedly lit piece of the craft

    He says the Sun angle never changes on both cameras, then indicates that it lights up part of the craft and then back off again. He says it is impossible, especially at 90 minutes per orbit.

    If we ume that the area he highlights as being lit is done so by the Sun, when the light recedes, one would expect the top part to be still illuminated last of all. But it isn't as this screenshot indicates:-



    The screenshots show the light is coming from the opposite direction, the Earth, as the bottom part is lit last of all! Simple at ude control would account for this, as previously explained. In addition, 10 minutes later on during the space walk, we see the Sun angle has changed accordingly, representing what we would expect to see:-




    Item 21 - The extra astronaut

    He says there are 4 distinct voices and only 3 astronauts.

    This is just speculation. He begs the question, then plays some different clips, all labelled up for the viewer. Basically he is just clutching at straws. The voices are all varied volume inflection and clarity. To me, voice 2 is the same as voice 4, just closer to the mike(ie. face not turned to the side maybe), or speaking softer on some of the clips he plays.


    So this is your idea of a credibility test is it!?

    Only those with the same ignorance and gullibility as yourself, ie. no reasoning ability, nor any motivation at all to verify that what is said is actually complete Bull ........actually p the test.

    Meh!!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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