Page 171 of 207 FirstFirst ... 71121161167168169170171172173174175181 ... LastLast
Results 4,251 to 4,275 of 5162
  1. #4251
    I cannot grok its fullnes leemajors's Avatar
    Post Count
    22,461
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    _____________________________
    So it goes.

  2. #4252
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    This video doesn't address any of the clearest proof.

    JRE #310 With Neil Degr e Tyson Talking About Fake Moon Landing Theory
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8BlN72r_Xk

    The flag anomaly closes the whole case by itself. That's why they didn't discuss it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA

    That's a fairly new video. One tactic that disinfo agents use is to talk about stuff that's a little vague and easy to obfuscate and ignore the clearest hoax proof. People who haven't seen the clear hoax proof can be swayed by this tactic. Once people see the clearest hoax proof, there's really nothing any sophist can do to make them think they went to the moon.

  3. #4253
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    The guy who did this is a PH.D so it's nothing to sneeze at.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

    There were a lot of little unfakable details that NASA missed that are slowly coming to light.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA


    Some of these articles are fairly new.
    http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm

  4. #4254
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,364
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Cosmored with the goods.
    _____________________________

    https://www.mixcloud.com/Jazzmo/guid...ains-20150403/
    https://www.mixcloud.com/?preview=1





    RackTheTRolls!

    Suck on these Darwin



    According to this video only 5 solders died, its all bullshit I was there.

    Original TRoll
    circa 1979






  5. #4255
    Banned
    Post Count
    2,679
    NBA Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    So sad that such an accomplishment is denounced by conspiracy theorists and loons who have been kicked out of conspiracy theorist forums for not being able to argue their beliefs.

  6. #4256
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    The guy who did this is a PH.D so it's nothing to sneeze at.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
    You stupid , why don't you apply that sneezing to the thousands of doctorates that say we went. Besides, since when does a doctorate "specializing in experimental nuclear physics and the physics of charged particle beams" qualify some random Russian bloke to make essments of photogrammetry?

    I don't just sneeze at your expert, I fart in his general direction

  7. #4257
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    You stupid , why don't you apply that sneezing to the thousands of doctorates that say we went. Besides, since when does a doctorate "specializing in experimental nuclear physics and the physics of charged particle beams" qualify some random Russian bloke to make essments of photogrammetry?

    I don't just sneeze at your expert, I fart in his general direction
    ...said the guy who maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6317012

    Why don't you explain why his analysis is wrong?

    We read that thousands of docorates say we went but does that reflect reality?

    http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
    (excerpts)
    ---------------------------------------------
    Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

    A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
    ---------------------------------------------

    Here there's a list of people who think Apollo was a hoax.http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax

    One of them did this study.
    http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/Pokrovsky1.pdf

    I keep posting the same link to the info that shows Americans are lied to on a regular basis.
    (post #1087)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post4731597

    You keep on talking as if you'd never seen the info so I have to keep posting it.

  8. #4258
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Why don't you explain why his analysis is wrong?
    Why don't you explain why it's right? He has no qualifications in photogrammetry, why should we accept his analysis as anything but e

    We read that thousands of docorates say we went but does that reflect reality?
    You pathetic wanker. You dismiss thousands with an armwave, but your ing expert is ok is he?

    Jay Windley takes apart just some of his stupid here -

    http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=79.5

    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). 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.

    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. Con uously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.

    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.

    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.

    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 ume that he got all the rest of it right.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    1.No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.
    2.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.

    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.

    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 inep ude 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.
    Now what ferbrains, is this where you raise your moronic strawman e about impossible dust free soil, or are you going to respond to any of that counter analysis from an actual proper expert? Oh, let me guess

  9. #4259
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Jay Windley* is a proven shill.

    ----------------
    I asked him this.
    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=7907

    Here's his response.
    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=7990

    You'll see some more of his lameness here.
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=251326

    Look at posts #5 and #8 of this thread to see more on the Clavius forum and Jay Windley.
    http://www.davi e.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628
    ----------------

    If you still trust Jay Windley after what he said about the dust-free sand issue, you're either a fool, or a patriotic American in denial, or a shill. What he said was so wrong that he wasn't just mistaken. He was lying.

    You keep forgetting that you destroyed your credibility when you said the Chinese spacewalk was real.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6317012

    There are some things that are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective. You lamely said the Chinese spacewalk was real and Jay Windley lamely said that it was impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Neither one of you is to be taken seriously.

    http://www.ttownsendbrown.com/forum/...hp?f=48&t=1086
    http://cultureofawareness.com/2012/0...mation-poster/
    http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm


    *http://www.clavius.org/about.html
    Last edited by Cosmored; 01-03-2015 at 01:31 PM.

  10. #4260
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Let's hear FatFreddy try to obfuscate this.

    Physics of the Moon Flag
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA

  11. #4261
    Believe. AntiChrist's Avatar
    Post Count
    1,368
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Best way to deal with these moonbats



  12. #4262
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Jay Windley is a proven shill.
    No he isn't you complete cun t. You cannot respond to his analysis, it tears your schtoopid ing expert to pieces.

    Done. Debunked. .

  13. #4263
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Let's hear FatFreddy try to obfuscate this.

    Physics of the Moon Flag
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
    How many forums have you spammed this on? Six, seven or more?

    A fabric comprising of half a flag diagonally, will produce a pendulum type oscillation just below the average length of that whole area - this is the maximum length and the average of two sides of an equilateral triangle. That equates to just over 3 seconds. A rod pendulum with its m evenly distributed, results in an oscillation exactly 2/3 of a full oscillation of a simple pendulum. This results in a 2 second period. Apollo 15 flag has a 2 second oscillation. On Earth, the oscillation is much slower than you would expect because of air resistance, the usual variation between 1g and 1/6th g does not apply due to atmosphere.

    . Whooooooooooosh, straight over that spamming moronic head of yours, and probably over the head of the idiot youtuber you blindly spam

    Now what, ferbrains?

  14. #4264
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    the usual variation between 1g and 1/6th g does not apply due to atmosphere.
    At that small angle at which the flag is swaying atmospheric dampening is negligible.

    This is pretty basic. I don't think your rhetoric is misleading many viewers.

    The Apollo flag is moving just a little more slowly than it would on earth because the footage is being shown in slow-motion. It's still moving faster than it would be moving on the moon though.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
    (18:50 time mark)

    The fact that it moves without having been touched proves it was in air anyway.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
    (2:36 time mark)

    This video shows it started moving before he got close enough to touch it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

    This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
    (00:50 and 1:50 time marks)

    Here's another flag anomaly.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzk6H4voUGo


    Let's see what the guy who says the Chinese spacewalk was real says about this.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6317012

    Something lame said in a condescending manner is still lame.

  15. #4265
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    I think the most obvious proof of fakery on this page is figure 27.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

    Those mountains in the background are supposed to be more than 20 kms away. Give us a break. At that distance there wouldn't be anywhere near that much change in position. There's no obfuscating this.

  16. #4266
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    At that small angle at which the flag is swaying atmospheric dampening is negligible.

    This is pretty basic. I don't think your rhetoric is misleading many viewers.
    The angle is irrelevant, the whole of the movable section on Earth is subject to atmospheric dampening. Nobody apart from the witt mouse is backing your stupidity

    The Apollo flag is moving just a little more slowly than it would on earth because the footage is being shown in slow-motion. It's still moving faster than it would be moving on the moon though.
    ferbrains, I explained how the oscillation period is nothing like the claim in your schtoopid ing video. You missed responding to it as always and just reposted your .

  17. #4267
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I think the most obvious proof of fakery on this page is figure 27.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

    Those mountains in the background are supposed to be more than 20 kms away. Give us a break. At that distance there wouldn't be anywhere near that much change in position. There's no obfuscating this.

    Two pictures taken hundreds of meters apart and the ing idiot tries to align them by distorting the edges? Wtf? He's just made one of them closer on the crop - easily seen by the disappearance on the right of the shadowed area and the boulders to the right getting nearer to the edge!!

    Here's a reasonably closely aligned one I just knocked up. Taken from different angles further down the hill:



    Your idiot ing non expert suckers you in like the dip you are

  18. #4268
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    The angle is irrelevant, the whole of the movable section on Earth is subject to atmospheric dampening
    Imagine a heavy weight swinging back and forth at a wide angle in atmosphere. Atmospheric dampening would be negligible. It wouldn't look much different than it would in a vacuum. The same is true for a cloth moving at a very narrow angle. This statement of yours destroys your credibility (again).

    Jay Windley is a proven shill.
    No he isn't you complete cun t.
    You're ignoring the proof that he's a shill that I posted in post #4269.
    ----------------
    I asked him this.
    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=7907

    Here's his response.
    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=7990

    You'll see some more of his lameness here.
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=251326

    Look at posts #5 and #8 of this thread to see more on the Clavius forum and Jay Windley.
    http://www.davi e.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628
    ----------------
    You're trying to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to click on the links and look at the issue. I guess I'll have to give a quick summary to thwart you.

    We were discussing the dust kicked up by the lunar rover on the Clavius forum.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

    Jay Windley* and the rest of the Clavius shill team said that the fact that no dust billowed proved they were in a vacuum. I pointed out that large-grained sand could be sifted and rinsed to remove all dust and the sand would just fall back to the surface with no dust cloud.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

    Jay and the rest of the shills said that it was impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

    When they were deciding how to obfuscate that one they got careless and said something lame. Any seventh-grader knows that's BS. I asked a couple of people with backgrounds in geology and they both said that Jay was clearly wrong. The first link in the above box shows some geologists on a couple of geology forums saying that was wrong. They destroyed their credibility when they came up with that and FatFreddy destroyed his credibility when he agreed with Jay Windley.


    Jay Windley is a shill who knows that Apollo was a hoax and so is FatFreddy88.

    (I use the username FatFreddy on a couple of other forums. This guy chose that name to cause confusion.)


    * http://www.clavius.org/about.html

  19. #4269
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Two pictures taken hundreds of meters apart and the ing idiot tries to align them by distorting the edges? Wtf? He's just made one of them closer on the crop - easily seen by the disappearance on the right of the shadowed area and the boulders to the right getting nearer to the edge!!

    Here's a reasonably closely aligned one I just knocked up. Taken from different angles further down the hill:
    The picture you posted is from figure 25. I was talking about figure 27.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

  20. #4270
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    The picture you posted is from figure 25. I was talking about figure 27.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
    What a moron. Figures 25/26/27 all use the same pictures. Clearly there is no problem when we look at figure 25, but when we crop one of the pictures and misalign it, the wonders of bull come to light.

    Fig. 25. A stereoscopic pair of AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449;
    Fig. 26. A stereopair of images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449
    Fig. 27. A stereopair of images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449

  21. #4271
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    OK. Now tell us about figure 10.

    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

  22. #4272
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Listen you wanker, I've just shown 25-27 to be total bull . Do you agree? If not, why not ferbrains


    #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.

    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 inep ude 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.

  23. #4273
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    First of all, there's already a ton of proof that the moon missions were faked...
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7114858

    ...so this discussions isn't about whether they faked it. It's about how they faked it.

    You have quite an at ude for someone who maintains the Chinese spacewalk was real...
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6317012

    ...and agrees with Jay Windley's lame analysis of the dust-free sand issue.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7113716


    I've just shown 25-27 to be total bull .
    You also "showed" that this flag was moving on the moon...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU

    ...and that Collins' jacket corner was in zero-G.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
    (00:52 time mark)

    Jay Windly "Showed" that it was impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-cloud when the sand is driven over.
    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=7907
    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=7990

    What you two "Showed" proves you both to be shills.


    when we crop one of the pictures and misalign it
    I suppose parallax could be simulated by misaligning pictures. How can you show that's the reason for the difference in position of the distant hills and not parallax? Just putting forth an alterantive explanation is not debunking.

    After looking at figure 9, figure 10 looks awfully su ious after looking at figure 4.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

    We need an objective third party to do this one I suppose because you and Jay have no credibility. Anyway, the hoax has already been proven by the other anomalies (see post #1)

  24. #4274
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,626
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    First of all, there's already a ton of proof that the moon missions were faked...
    No there isn't you wanker.

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

    I suppose parallax could be simulated by misaligning pictures. How can you show that's the reason for the difference in position of the distant hills and not parallax? Just putting forth an alterantive explanation is not debunking.
    Well moron, when we overlay the two pictures as a stereo pair, there is almost zero parallax. You are the dip relying on an unqualified arsehole, you explain why he is right. Ooops, you can't because you know even less than he does. But like the tosser you are, you believe it regardless of whether it is accurate.

    After looking at figure 9, figure 10 looks awfully su ious after looking at figure 4.
    I don't give a what your ignorant biased opinion says.

    We need an objective third party to do this one I suppose because you and Jay have no credibility. Anyway, the hoax has already been proven by the other anomalies (see post #1)
    Windley is objective and an expert. Your credibility test is moronic and you've proven nothing apart from being an obsessive spamming wanker

  25. #4275
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,592
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Windley is objective and an expert. Your credibility test is moronic and you've proven nothing apart from being an obsessive spamming wanker
    Windley* is a shill who knows the Apollo moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do. What he said here is so lame that he wasn't even mistaken.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7113716

    He was lying.

    Play dumb all you want.
    http://www.ttownsendbrown.com/forum/...hp?f=48&t=1086
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------------
    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial 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.
    ----------------------------------------------------

    You're only going to sway a few viewers who don't take the time to click on the links and look at the actual issue.

    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html
    Last edited by Cosmored; 05-19-2014 at 02:45 PM.

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
  •