Kudos BertL. That is a very thorough & logical debunking. I applaud your dedication.
The problem of course is that the fools who say this stuff was faked will simply quietly abandon this specific claim & take up another one. It's near impossible to nail them down &, if you do manage to trap them into making a testable claim & counter it, they either wilfully ignore it or don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand it. The dearth of scientific knowledge among this crowd is legendary.
Bert that is a good explanation. I would love to see the original film/video played on the original equipment but I guess that is sitting in some archive in America somewhere. Everything we see these days is some kind of digital conversion. Much of what we see on YT has been round the block many times and the quality deteriorates each time. Well done, that was a good video.
I know, I know. It hurts to be shown wrong time after time. Even your obvious attempt at smearing me isn't working, and that's pretty sad considering how easy it is to make someone else look bad.
So please explain to us again how I am the only one who posts videos as a response to other videos on my channel, and people like nigahiga, sxephil, shaytards and WHATTHEBUCK to name a few don't do this?
So please explain to us again how I am the only one who posts videos as a response to other videos on my channel, and people like nigahiga, sxephil, shaytards and WHATTHEBUCK to name a few don't do this at all?
"Leave this moronic video bro. The only thing more idiotic then the people it the video itself..."
I agree with you completely .. but it's not easy walking away from such blatant propaganda.. Proving these Apollogist parrots wrong is part of the fun buddy.
"I agree with you completely .. but it's not easy walking away from such blatant propaganda.. Proving these Apollogist parrots wrong is part of the fun buddy."
It's their fun stray. It's a stupid video that has become a breeding ground for propaganda-spewing morons. There are much better videos out there to spend your time correcting apollogists about. They keep you tied up here to up the hit counter on idiocy. Seriously...Radioactive anomoly...Exhibit D, etc. Better digs, you dig?
Guys, try to keep the swearing out of it, mm'kay? I might start logging in on bertlapollo and hand out temporary user bans. Stick it to the subject and arguments at hand and don't bring up things like aliens, paranormal stuff and dinosaurs (even though dinosaurs are awesome). Also, no insults. If you want to prove your "case" right, do so by explaining why the other side is wrong, not flinging monkey crap at him/her.
"Stick it to the subject and arguments at hand and don't bring up things like aliens, paranormal stuff and dinosaurs .."
I'm not the one bringing up any of that NON-COMPARE rubbish. I'm trying to discuss why I believe the Apollo photography is fake and thirdclass keeps bashing Christian fundamentalists and their beliefs about Creationism etc... If he wants to believe in Darwinsim and not believe in the paranormal, I couldn't care less. He does this because he can't refute my Apollo evidence.
"I get carried away with issues that I think are important, especially if they deal with the quality of education. "
The only problem with that is that your idea of a quality education is what YOU think is important ... Like certain scientific THEORIES.. Unfortunately, what you can't seem to understand is that .."There are more things in heaven and earth, * thirdclass* , than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely.
"Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely."
Generally speaking, what's a scientific "certainty" today, can turn into science fiction tomorrow... Your tendency to over rate science is what has led you to be completely closed minded to the possibilities of everything that can't be "proven" in a test tube.
Then there's Pluto.. It was a real planet for a very long time but now it's shaped like a potato, has a weird orbit that sometimes crosses into Neptunes and it has debris orbiting around it. So scientists reclassified Pluto as a dwarf planet, along with Ceres and Eris.
Pluto was reclassified because it was found that Eris is larger than it.
It was decided to provide a clear definition of a planet that wound up discounting Pluto, Eris, and others, for similar reasons that Ceres and others were discounted when the asteroid belt was discovered.
This is an example of how science is flexible, NOT an example of fact becoming fiction.
"This is an example of how science is flexible, NOT an example of fact becoming fiction."
Okay, maybe that wasn't the best example to use, but it's subjective whether you think it's "flexible" or a scientific fact turned to fiction, that Pluto was the 9th planet in our solar system and now it's not.
"In any case, let's either get back to Apollo, or take this to a difference video that's more relevent."
Sounds good to me.. I never liked going off on unrelated subjects while discussing Apollo.
So how about we get back to why the Clementine lunar orbit photos show Venus, stars and earthshine reflectiing off the Moon, while the Apollo photos show none of those?.. and also why there are NO Apollo pics of the solar corona, except for one allegedly taken by A15 .. Where are the A11 pics?
"Same applies for the pro-Apollo side when it comes to Jarrah."
The difference being, that Jay Windley is a PROVEN LIAR and Jarrah White is not.
.. When it comes to proving that the official Apollo record is bogus, Jarrah's research is top notch... So imo, that's why all of the Apollogists continue to ridicule his work and insult him the way they do... If you really thought he was a joke, you would all just ignore him instead of devoting entire threads in his "honor" at apollohoaxdotnet.
Jarrah lies about reasons he was banned from Yahoo groups. The conversation it still there; he was asked by other members to quit with his profanity, and ignored them.
Jarrah has not shown himself to do proper research into space science. He has shown himself to lack basic knowledge of orbital mechanics, thermal transfer, and physics.
We just have fun at Apollohoax, just as you guys do. Like looking into a mirror.
"Jarrah lies about reasons he was banned from Yahoo groups. The conversation it still there; he was asked by other members to quit with his profanity, and ignored them."
I've never known Jarrah to lie about anything .. So please send me the link to that profanity conversation in a PM, and also Jarrah's claim as to the reason why he says he was banned from Yahoo groups... Thanks.
"Jarrah's claim was addressed to Windley on the Loose Change forums."
Jarrah PMed me with the real story and guess what?.. It doesn't match your version of why he was banned.
"You're a member there, last I knew."
Wrong again.. I've never been a member of Loose Change.
"Just look for the few posts Windley made."
Not being a member, I wouldn't know where to look.. So how about posting the link so I can prove you wrong?.. Or I can post the real story.. Whichever you prefer.
Maybe his story doesn't match your's because you're talking about two different forums.. Though if he were banned from both, I have no doubt the REAL reason was because he's a CT, and has nothing to do with his alleged use of profanity... If you want to see some real profanity, check out the filth the Apollogists/propagandists spew on Joe Rogan's sewer of forum.
In other words, you'd like to move on now because you've been caught lying about the real reason why Jarrah was banned from the Loose Change forum .. But since you're the one who's accused Jarrah of being a liar, I would think you would be happy to prove it...but since you can't, I guess you would like to just drop it... Figures.
In any case, NASA shill Jay Windley is the PROVEN LIAR, not Jarrah.
"I said Jarrah was banned from Yahoo, NOT Loose Change. Though I did see a moderator provide criticism for an idea of his."
Yet you still haven't provided a link to prove that claim.. Plus, a moderator providing criticism for an idea of his is not the same thing as him being banned for using profanity, which is the reason you gave for his banishment.. So which is it and more importantly, where is it?
hey ive been banned from 2 sites for arguing we never went to the moon and get called names, cursed and never curse back ... the chumps cant debate anything, they have no answers other than ad hominem ... being banned proves you are too much for the mods if you keep calm :)... why be afraid of the truth? last resort is to burn books, isnt it?
Ironic that you claim ad hominiem, while engaging in it yourself. I do not deny that many resort to it, much to my dismay. Here's some proof for you. You claim moon rocks are actually lunar meteorites. But entry through Earths atmosphere heats the outer layers to melting, creating obvious differances. So why not just remove it? Well, the outer layers are rich in helium 3 from exposure to cosmic rays, stronger then can be reproduced on Earth as yet. Remove the layer and you remove that feature.
"The only reasons I've seen people banned were for lack of civil conduct, or failure to follow up on questions."
I was banned from the Unexplained Mysteries forum because I was critical of one of their hateful anti CT moderators.. I posted my complaint on the Education Forum, where a few of the game playing Apollogists, who were members of both forums, ratted me out to that UM moderator.. So you're just a wrong about why CT's get banned form certain forums as you are about everything else.
There is no other side of the story.. I posted a comment on the EF about how hateful and unfair one of the UM moderators was towards all of the CT's, and the next day I was banned without any warning or even an explanation as to why I could no longer be a member there.
"YouTube user Cosmored is a classic example during his time on BAUT and Apollohoax. He never bothered to provide and actual responses to questions."
I doubt that it's mandatory for any member to respond to another member on any forum.. but if that was the excuse used to ban Cosmo from those forums, then it's obvious that was not the real reason the forum owners or moderators wanted him gone.
Sorry, Hubble's discovery of cosmic expansion did not lead directly to the Big Bang Theory. It was the cosmic background radiation discovered by scientists at Bell Labs that gave credence to the BB Theory.
As I recall, it was Hubble's discovery that lead Einstien to discard his idea of the cosmological constant, which he felt was needed to keep a steady state universe from collapsing.
Ironically, he may have been right in the first place, with the finding of Dark Energy.
"The article talks mainly about the public relations of scientists in regards to an issue with growing crops in the UK."
I don't care what the rest of the article talked about because the relevent issue was about how scientists have now discovered human footprints next to and even overlapping dinosaur footprints, which means that the scientific "FACT" of humans and dinosaurs not co-existing together at the same time has now become science FICTION.
"The truth of the matter is that the humans that came later happened to make their prints over the same areas that the dinosaurs did."
The truth of the matter is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and will believe any silly "explanation" or disinformation that supports your pre-conceived world view...If I remember correctly, the human prints and the dinosour prints were carbon dated and proved to be from the same time period.
"Carbon dating only works back to a certain time period, limited to tens of thousands of years."
You just refuted your own argument then by claiming that the human prints came much later than the dinosaur prints.. How would you know that if they can't be tested? .. Or do you think maybe humans have only walked the Earth for 6000 years? .. LOL
"But this is off topic here; like I keep asking, let's take this to a relevent video."
"Comparing your methods are not the same as talking about creationism itself."
Would you please drop the Creationism bashing for crying out loud.. It's just your way of insulting everyone you disiagree with, by pretending their opinions are in the dark ages.
Try not to be so transparent in your flame baiting distraction tactics.
Here's one example where you insulted me and bashed everything that's outside the comprehension of your highly skeptical mind.
"Straydog here thinks humans and dinosaurs walked together at the same time, and you call ME slow?
Ever consider the fact that YOU'RE the ones being misled, just as people are misled into believing they were abducted by aliens, being haunted, and fall for homeopathic "medication"? "
"Where do you stand on the argument between evolution versus creation?"
thirdclass is an athiest, so he refuses to believe that anything was created by a superior intelligence, even though everything, besides Darwin's flawed theory of evolution, points in that direction.
There's a big difference between Creationisn and Intelligent Design though, which I can't seem to get him to understand..The former being religious dogma and the latter being science.
The metality that AngeAzrael shows is similar to the mentality of Creationists that was explained in a video by another user; he makes a conclusion, and simply asserts it, regardless of evidence.
straydog02 you say that he should get a life, look at yourself. You believe in fairy tails like apollo was a hoax. You clearly have no life because you can't listen to simple fact and reason. Guess what, we went to the moon, yes the USA/mankind went to the moon. Stop wasting your life trying to disprove what is real because you can't.
"THAT is what the fairy tale is, spun by your fellow hoax believers."
Unless you're one of the men who claimed to have walked on the Moon, you would have no way of knowing what aspects of Apollo were real and what weren't.
"The claims have been debunked many times over."
Only a few of the early hoax claims have been properly debunked.. Clowns like the 'Mythbusters" and the clavius web master are at least smart enough to stay away from the hoax evidence they can't even pretend to debunk.
I haven't walked on the top of Mount Everest, went on the Challenger Deep dive, went to the ISS, or accompanied the Cassini space probe. By YOUR logic, I wouldn't know what aspects of those feats were real or not either.
So what is a "proper" debunking supposed to be? And just who are YOU to claim what's proper or not? You have no authority.
"And why not? Just because one is done on a regular basis doesn't mean it's beyond speculation from conspiracy theorists like yourself."
As far as I know, there are no conspiracies about people not really reaching the summit of Mt. Everest.
"Doesn't stop them when it comes to Mars missions and contrails from planes either."
As for Mars, there is evidence that NASA is covering up the truth about that as well.. and It comes as no surprise that you're in denial about chemtrails also.
If people started saying that there is evidence that you are an arsonist, I'd bet you'd want to see such evidence. And that if such evidence turned out to be false, but people kept making the claim anyway, you'd make any effort to show that you weren't an arsonist, yes?
"And that if such evidence turned out to be false, but people kept making the claim anyway, you'd make any effort to show that you weren't an arsonist, yes?
Same goes for your claims about hoaxes. "
What a load of nonsense .. That "argument" is about as meaningless as your typical NON-COMPARES.
"In other words, it describes the situation so well, that your only defense is to label it as nonsense.
How about a REAL defense, Stray?"
How about you stop replying to my comments with your typical nonsense then, and try reading them with more of an open mind to the possibility that you're defending a US government/military/NASA fraud.
Speaking of open minds, why don't you open your mind to the possibility that the people that promote the hoax don't have a clue what they're talking about, are unqualified, and are either deluded, or just seeking attention?
You make it seem that your side is the only correct answer, in spite of all the evidence that contradicts it.
As I've told you in the past, the logic you give is no better than the logic of creationists.
"Speaking of open minds, why don't you open your mind to the possibility that the people that promote the hoax don't have a clue what they're talking about, are unqualified, and are either deluded, or just seeking attention?"
I have opened my mind to that possibility and agree with you.. Not everyone can be trusted, and not everyone (including some of the well known conspiracy researchers) are immune to making mistakes in their perception of what they assume to be hoax evidence.
"You make it seem that your side is the only correct answer, in spite of all the evidence that contradicts it."
That's not true.. When I am proven wrong, I admit it.. Unlike your "side" who refuses to admit being wrong about anything, ever, but prefers to lie instead, if that's what it takes to keep the Apollo Myth alive.
"As I've told you in the past, the logic you give is no better than the logic of creationists."
Please keep your athiestic beliefs out of this discussion.
First off, evolution isn't just Darwin's theory. A number of other scientists also made hypothesis on it around his time.
Creationists are illogical. They ignore the fact that Earth isn't 6000 years old.
They try to use other means, such as the idea of Intelligent Design, to wedge their way into science. Basically, they want to revert science to a level of the Dark Ages.
"First off, evolution isn't just Darwin's theory. A number of other scientists also made hypothesis on it around his time."
I didn't know that. Who were the scientists who also promoted the theory of evolution?
"Creationists are illogical. They ignore the fact that Earth isn't 6000 years old."
That's because you're describing fundamentalists..They are all illogical, since they take every word of the Bible literally and actually believe it was written by God.
"They try to use other means, such as the idea of Intelligent Design, to wedge their way into science."
This is where you have the two different ideas confused.. I believe in God but I'm not a fundamentalist.. I also believe in Intelligent Design but not Creationism, which dictates that the world and every thing in it was created about 6000 years ago... ID only means that the human race was created by a higher intelligence.. It has nothing to do with any religious dogma.
"Stray, you use poor logic, have next to no knowledge about the relevent sciences, and trust the word of unqualified people."
Give me an example of where I have used "poor logic"... You don't seem to get it , thirdclass.. I don't believe Apollo was a fraud because of what other people have proposed.. I have researched this subject myself, and it's obvious that something is very wrong with the Apollo picture. Too many things just don't add up and too much evidence has been convienantly "lost".
You use poor logic in deciding what makes some photos fake and other not fake, for instance. You consider the UV photos fake, but think that images of the corona that would show stars and Venus wouldn't be fake.
For someone that does his own research, you repeat a lot of what is said by previous hoaxers.
Things probably don't add up for up because of your lack of knowledge about space. You don't bother to ask the right people the right questions.
"You use poor logic in deciding what makes some photos fake and other not fake, for instance. You consider the UV photos fake, but think that images of the corona that would show stars and Venus wouldn't be fake."
I never claimed that the UV stars photos were fake.. I said that the ones allegedly taken from the Moon look exactly like the UV photos taken from low earth orbit... I also said that the Clementine photos show the Sun, Venus and the stars in the solar corona, while Apollo's don't.
"You haven't shown what knowledge or evidence you have to make the claim that the UV photos look like those take from LEO."
I had this discussion with shill Burton on the Education Forum and even admitted that the UV star photos look the same.. I posted low earth orbit UV star photos and he thought they were taken from the Moon .. The distance from the Earth to the Moon is not enough to change the appearence of distant stars in UV photos.
"For someone that does his own research, you repeat a lot of what is said by previous hoaxers."
I don't remember any other "hoaxer" comparing the Clementine solar corona photos to the Apollo "solar corona" photos like I have. .So I'm not repeating anyone, to my knowledge... Can you please show me where a "hoaxer" has discussed the differences between the two? .. Thanks.
"Things probably don't add up for up because of your lack of knowledge about space. "
What lack of knowledge would that be speciffically?
"You don't bother to ask the right people the right questions."
And just who would these "right" people be? .. Please don't tell me you think that PROVEN LIARS like Phil Plait and Jay Windley are the "right" people! .. LOL
You shown you know little or nothing about radiaiton, planetary formation (and thus why moon rocks are shown to be older than most Earth rocks), aerospace engineering, and the history of space flight.
The right people would be those that have experience, or at least sound knowledge, of the relevent fields of study.
"You shown you know little or nothing about radiaiton, planetary formation (and thus why moon rocks are shown to be older than most Earth rocks), aerospace engineering, and the history of space flight."
I know a lot about radiation.. especially since I never bought into NASA"s fairy tale of it being as safe as they have led you to believe.. I also know a lot about the history of space flight, manned , unmanned and faked... As for the rest, you're right, I'm no scientist or rocket scientist.
"The right people would be those that have experience, or at least sound knowledge, of the relevent fields of study."
Anyone can be fooled by disinformation if it's done well .. Even those who have experience and knowledge in certain fields of study.. You act like because somebody studies science or physics or geology in college that they can't be fooled by government deception.. You really are naive'.
Contrary to your very closed minded beliefs, science does not have all of the answers.. Neither has it proven that the official Apollo record is true.
"It's not a matter of proof. It's a matter of evidence. And evidence doesn't support the hoax theory."
There is plenty of evidence to not only support the hoax but to prove the hoax.. You and the rest of the clavius parrots just refuse to acknowledge it.
"You and the rest of the clavius parrots just refuse to acknowledge it. "
And why should people acknowledge people that have no education, or have done any real research? Why should we acknowledge people that aren't aerospace engineers or astronomers? Maybe instead of listening to doctors, people ought to come to Jarrah or Sibrel for medical advise.
If that sounds crazy to you, then you have discovered why the so-called evidence by hoaxers is dismissed.
Real research would be looking up peer reviewed information, or getting it from people that are qualified in the relevent fields of study. Such people do NOT include TV producers, retired millwrights, or those whose degrees are only in English literature.
"Real research would be looking up peer reviewed information, or getting it from people that are qualified in the relevent fields of study."
What part of mainstream scientists will never speak out against US government/military lies, do you not understand? .. NASA, and their hard working shills, character assassinate, ridicule, and destroy the lives of everyone who dare to speak out about the Apollo Hoax... Please stop wasting my time with your blatant stupidity.
"If that sounds crazy to you, then you have discovered why the so-called evidence by hoaxers is dismissed."
The evidence of the Apollo Hoax is only dismissed by professional shills, clueless sheep and clavius parrots .. and something tells me that you fall into the latter two catagories.
The so-called evidence is dismissed for the same reason medical advice would be dismissed by hoax proponants; they aren't qualified to give an assesment.
Nothing you've ever said has flown over my head.. You're not that intelligent.
"The so-called evidence is dismissed for the same reason medical advice would be dismissed by hoax proponants; they aren't qualified to give an assesment."
You couldn't be more full of shit if you tried!..Sorry, but professional film makers and photographers are completely qualiifed to analyze the bogus Apollo photography and explain why it is so obviously fake.
These so-called professionals make many basic mistakes regarding perspective, the effects that terrain have on the appearence of shadows, and lack knowledge of secondary reflection.
When David Percy was shown how non-parrallel shadows can be made by just terrain alone, he shut down comments on his site. Such much for being a professional.
"These so-called professionals make many basic mistakes regarding perspective, the effects that terrain have on the appearence of shadows, and lack knowledge of secondary reflection."
As most Apollogists, you parrot what can be debunked and steer clear of what can't be, like a certain Apollo 17 visor reflection that shows "Jack Schmitt" without his PLSS, while not even standing in the correct position to have taken "Cernan's" picture.
As usual, you don't seem to understand the difference between real debunking and PRETEND debunking.. If you're referring to the silly pixel size explaination offered up by satweavers on his PB page, he actually helped to prove that Schmitt's PLSS was missing. If you're referring to the stupid LIES posted by the shill Lamson/Burton team on the Education Forum, their sad pixel size excuses were just as rediculous as satweavers were.
"Well said stray. Whatever comes out of this we ain't the dafties that have been defending fake and altered photos."
Right you are magoos... Where the Apollogists have lost credibility and harm their lost cause the most, is not being able to admit that even one Apollo photo was faked or altered in any respect ... I doubt they really believe that, but for whatever reason, have decided to lie for NASA to protect the Apollo Myth.
Let me ask you this; how would YOU feel if I gave cute, insulting names to say, Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Sibrel, Percy, and the various hoax believing YouTubers?
Okay, so immature names don't matter to you. Fine. It just doesn't help the cause that you're trying to push. Show intelligence, and you might get more viewers.
"Of course photos are retouched. It's done in many photos, to improve the looks."
Only in the case of Apollo, the retouches were done to obscure what was really in that solid black "lunar" sky.
"Or do you have no knowledge of photography either? "
If you can't see that the Apollo photography was staged, then you're the one who has no knowledge of photography.. Or maybe no knowlege of what the Moon really looks like.
It was 'MRphotogod" that claimed it would only take a 30 second exposure to photograh stars above the lunar surface, not me.. So why don't you ask Lamson why the Apollo astronots didn't know about that ?
As for Casini, if it wasn't a manned mission, then it doesn't apply... Funny how you Apollogists ALWAYS use NON-COMPARE arguments to prop up your Apollo fantasy.
"Doesn't matter that Cassini isn't a manned mission."
I always knew you weren't the sharpest knife in the Apollogist's drawer, but I didn't realize that you didn't know the difference between manned and unmanned missions! .. LOL
"Tell me Stray, what does the difference between a manned mission and unmanned mission have to do with being able to get an image of stars?"
A manned mission to the Moon should have captured the same images of the stars, Venus and the Sun in the solar corona from lunar orbit, that later unmanned missions did... but at no time can the Sun or Venus or any stars be seen the solar corona Apollo photos... All we see is a solid black "lunar" sky and and a faked image of Earth.
"What expertise do YOU have to say that the images should've met YOUR expectations?"
I have eyes that haven't been blinded by NASA propaganda and can clearly see what's MISSING in the phony solar corona Apollo photos.. The Sun, Venus and the stars!
"The Galileo probe took images of both Earth and moon together, and also showed a solid black background.
Explain THAT."
The Clementine mission took photos in lunar orbit that showed Venus, the Sun and many stars.
"Clementine had a camera meant to track the stars."
So why would the Apollo astronots even bother to photograph the solar corona, if they didn't plan on photographing what is really there?
You don't seem to get it , thirdclass.. IF they had photographed the solar corona and IF the photos had been real, the stars, Venus and the Sun would have all shown up in the Apollo "lunar" orbit photography.
"YOU don't seem to get that the two cameras are designed differently."
Now where have I heard that lame excuse before? .. Do you guys have cheat sheets on this stuff, or are you all really parrots? .. The "camera design" would not effect the ability to photograph the freaking SUN in the solar corona from lunar orbit !! .. Who do you think you're fooling, besides yourself ?
Obviously the subject is just too advanced for you to comprehend. "
How about you explain it to me then, thirdclass? .. Explain why the Apollo astronots would take a camera to the Moon and use it to photograph the solar corona, knowing that it can't even photograph what's in the solar corona???
Your replies are even more absurd than most of the apollohoaxdotnet parrots.
"The only thing IN the solar corona is hot glowing plasma. That's what was photographed."
Aside from ONE alleged Apollo 15 photo, showing the solar corona, where are these alleged Apollo solar corona photos?
During that debacle of a post flight press conference, the Apollo 11 crew were asked WHAT STARS could be seen while photographing the solar corona "?.. Mike Collins couldn't remember seeing any, yet he was the one allegedly photographing the solar corona.. So where are Mike's photos?
Okay, aside from the rather ellusive Apollo solar corona photos, here's another complaint.... Why do the cheesy looking "manned" Apollo photos keep "borrowing" the same boring looking image of cloud cover "earth", allegedly taken from lunar orbit, while the unmanned Clementine lunar orbit photos show beautiful STARS, VENUS, and even EARTHSHINE on the lunar surface?
They were dancing around on wires, you can make all the videos you want, their movements suggest it. FAKE...
GUARDIANtrooper 9 months ago
Kudos BertL. That is a very thorough & logical debunking. I applaud your dedication.
The problem of course is that the fools who say this stuff was faked will simply quietly abandon this specific claim & take up another one. It's near impossible to nail them down &, if you do manage to trap them into making a testable claim & counter it, they either wilfully ignore it or don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand it. The dearth of scientific knowledge among this crowd is legendary.
tvsinesperanto 1 year ago
Bert that is a good explanation. I would love to see the original film/video played on the original equipment but I guess that is sitting in some archive in America somewhere. Everything we see these days is some kind of digital conversion. Much of what we see on YT has been round the block many times and the quality deteriorates each time. Well done, that was a good video.
tpsossff 1 year ago
LMAO bertapollo responds to his own propaganda video. what a retarded little kid
nasafakedit 2 years ago
Haha, what? I made this video a response to my other video, and that makes me a retarded little kid?
In case you didn't notice (you probably didn't), it's something a lot of YouTubers do, like, oh I don't know, nigahiga, smosh and sxephil.
bertlapollo 2 years ago
Lol no one responds to their own video fuckup
nasafakedit 2 years ago
Didn't you check out the channel names I just gave? They respond to their own video. You're getting more sad by the day.
Fuckup.
bertlapollo 2 years ago
U are the only retard on youtube that responds to his own channel fuckup
nasafakedit 2 years ago
majhost. com / cgi-bin / gallery. cgi? f=220987
Sorry, what did you say again?
bertlapollo 2 years ago
Whoops, sorry, wrong link. Here's the direct link.
majhost. com / gallery / BertL / stuff2 / 10-03 / nigahigavidresp. png
bertlapollo 2 years ago
Ouch. Looks like someone shot himself in the foot there... what was that you liked to say again? Oh yeah.
You. Fuckup. Liar.
bertlapollo 2 years ago
i said bertapolo that you are a fucking retard
take your ritalin fuckhead
nasafakedit 2 years ago
I know, I know. It hurts to be shown wrong time after time. Even your obvious attempt at smearing me isn't working, and that's pretty sad considering how easy it is to make someone else look bad.
bertlapollo 2 years ago
LMAO bert the retard, you smear yourself you moron
nasafakedit 2 years ago
So please explain to us again how I am the only one who posts videos as a response to other videos on my channel, and people like nigahiga, sxephil, shaytards and WHATTHEBUCK to name a few don't do this?
bertlapollo 2 years ago
Or are you going to deny saying that I am "the only retard on youtube that responds to his own channel"?
bertlapollo 2 years ago
bert the moron
you are a 10 year old retard
everyone knows that
nasafakedit 2 years ago
So please explain to us again how I am the only one who posts videos as a response to other videos on my channel, and people like nigahiga, sxephil, shaytards and WHATTHEBUCK to name a few don't do this at all?
bertlapollo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nasafakedit 'bert the moron
you are a 10 year old retard
everyone knows that '
LOL is that an educated arguement ? If Bert has got anything wrong it is trying to reason with idiots. At least he has something to say.
tpsossff 1 year ago
Stray....
Leave this moronic video bro. The only thing more idiotic then the people it the video itself...
Your energy would be better spent on the toilet bro. It's got less shit in it than this video!
un4g1v3n1 2 years ago
"Leave this moronic video bro. The only thing more idiotic then the people it the video itself..."
I agree with you completely .. but it's not easy walking away from such blatant propaganda.. Proving these Apollogist parrots wrong is part of the fun buddy.
straydog02 2 years ago
My fun is reviewing analysis by CT's. Hilarious stuff!
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago
Since when have you proved anything?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"I agree with you completely .. but it's not easy walking away from such blatant propaganda.. Proving these Apollogist parrots wrong is part of the fun buddy."
It's their fun stray. It's a stupid video that has become a breeding ground for propaganda-spewing morons. There are much better videos out there to spend your time correcting apollogists about. They keep you tied up here to up the hit counter on idiocy. Seriously...Radioactive anomoly...Exhibit D, etc. Better digs, you dig?
un4g1v3n1 2 years ago
You call us morons, yet it's often your side that shows no actual knowledge of radiation, aerospace engineering, or any sort of science.
You think politics, speculation without evidence, and accusations can solve it all.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"They keep you tied up here to up the hit counter on idiocy. Seriously...Radioactive anomoly...Exhibit D, etc. Better digs, you dig?"
I dig buddy .. No problem .. I was bored with their stupid BS propaganda anyway.
straydog02 2 years ago
You have TV producers, a technical librarian, and a college dropout.
We have engineers and scientists.
You dig?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
Guys, try to keep the swearing out of it, mm'kay? I might start logging in on bertlapollo and hand out temporary user bans. Stick it to the subject and arguments at hand and don't bring up things like aliens, paranormal stuff and dinosaurs (even though dinosaurs are awesome). Also, no insults. If you want to prove your "case" right, do so by explaining why the other side is wrong, not flinging monkey crap at him/her.
tehbertl 2 years ago
"Stick it to the subject and arguments at hand and don't bring up things like aliens, paranormal stuff and dinosaurs .."
I'm not the one bringing up any of that NON-COMPARE rubbish. I'm trying to discuss why I believe the Apollo photography is fake and thirdclass keeps bashing Christian fundamentalists and their beliefs about Creationism etc... If he wants to believe in Darwinsim and not believe in the paranormal, I couldn't care less. He does this because he can't refute my Apollo evidence.
straydog02 2 years ago
I never said you were the guilty one here, straydog. :)
tehbertl 2 years ago
I admit my guilt in the matter, Bert.
I get carried away with issues that I think are important, especially if they deal with the quality of education.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"I get carried away with issues that I think are important, especially if they deal with the quality of education. "
The only problem with that is that your idea of a quality education is what YOU think is important ... Like certain scientific THEORIES.. Unfortunately, what you can't seem to understand is that .."There are more things in heaven and earth, * thirdclass* , than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
straydog02 2 years ago
A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely."
Generally speaking, what's a scientific "certainty" today, can turn into science fiction tomorrow... Your tendency to over rate science is what has led you to be completely closed minded to the possibilities of everything that can't be "proven" in a test tube.
straydog02 2 years ago
"Generally speaking, what's a scientific "certainty" today, can turn into science fiction tomorrow... "
This should be rich.
Please, an example.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"This should be rich.
Please, an example."
Here's a few.
'When science facts become science fiction'
independent(dot)co(dot)uk/arts-entertainment/comment-when-science-facts-become-science-fiction-1095035(dot)html
Then there's Pluto.. It was a real planet for a very long time but now it's shaped like a potato, has a weird orbit that sometimes crosses into Neptunes and it has debris orbiting around it. So scientists reclassified Pluto as a dwarf planet, along with Ceres and Eris.
straydog02 2 years ago
Pluto was reclassified because it was found that Eris is larger than it.
It was decided to provide a clear definition of a planet that wound up discounting Pluto, Eris, and others, for similar reasons that Ceres and others were discounted when the asteroid belt was discovered.
This is an example of how science is flexible, NOT an example of fact becoming fiction.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"This is an example of how science is flexible, NOT an example of fact becoming fiction."
Okay, maybe that wasn't the best example to use, but it's subjective whether you think it's "flexible" or a scientific fact turned to fiction, that Pluto was the 9th planet in our solar system and now it's not.
straydog02 2 years ago
The closest event of what was accepted fact becoming fiction delt with the origin of the universe.
The Steady State theory was the perferred model of the universe. Not until Edwin Hubble made his observations did the Big Bang find acceptence.
In any case, let's either get back to Apollo, or take this to a difference video that's more relevent.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"In any case, let's either get back to Apollo, or take this to a difference video that's more relevent."
Sounds good to me.. I never liked going off on unrelated subjects while discussing Apollo.
So how about we get back to why the Clementine lunar orbit photos show Venus, stars and earthshine reflectiing off the Moon, while the Apollo photos show none of those?.. and also why there are NO Apollo pics of the solar corona, except for one allegedly taken by A15 .. Where are the A11 pics?
straydog02 2 years ago
I don't know where the Apollo 11 pics are.
There's the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
Might take a while to find something, of course.
The image you refer to was taken by the star tracker camera. It was designed to give a view of the stars.
You assume it's settings were similar to the exposure and times that Apollo's camera was set at.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"I don't know where the Apollo 11 pics are."
I bet NASA doesn't either.. Maybe they got as "lost" as the Apollo 11 telemetry?
"Might take a while to find something, of course."
Maybe you should as your mentor Jay.. I bet he will find a way to find them.
"You assume it's settings were similar to the exposure and times that Apollo's camera was set at. "
And you assume that I've never heard that lame excuse before.. "Camera settings" would not eliminate the earthshine off the Moon.
straydog02 2 years ago
Stray, Jay isn't my mentor or anyone elses mentor, anymore than Jarrah would be your mentor. Don't confuse popularity with leadership.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Stray, Jay isn't my mentor or anyone elses mentor, anymore than Jarrah would be your mentor."
If you say so.
"Don't confuse popularity with leadership."
He's only popular among his followers and fellow Apollogists on forums where he preaches to the gullible .. To the rest of us, he's a joke.
straydog02 2 years ago
"He's only popular among his followers and fellow Apollogists on forums where he preaches to the gullible .. To the rest of us, he's a joke. "
Same applies for the pro-Apollo side when it comes to Jarrah.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Same applies for the pro-Apollo side when it comes to Jarrah."
The difference being, that Jay Windley is a PROVEN LIAR and Jarrah White is not.
.. When it comes to proving that the official Apollo record is bogus, Jarrah's research is top notch... So imo, that's why all of the Apollogists continue to ridicule his work and insult him the way they do... If you really thought he was a joke, you would all just ignore him instead of devoting entire threads in his "honor" at apollohoaxdotnet.
straydog02 2 years ago
Jarrah lies about reasons he was banned from Yahoo groups. The conversation it still there; he was asked by other members to quit with his profanity, and ignored them.
Jarrah has not shown himself to do proper research into space science. He has shown himself to lack basic knowledge of orbital mechanics, thermal transfer, and physics.
We just have fun at Apollohoax, just as you guys do. Like looking into a mirror.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Jarrah lies about reasons he was banned from Yahoo groups. The conversation it still there; he was asked by other members to quit with his profanity, and ignored them."
I've never known Jarrah to lie about anything .. So please send me the link to that profanity conversation in a PM, and also Jarrah's claim as to the reason why he says he was banned from Yahoo groups... Thanks.
straydog02 2 years ago
Jarrah's claim was addressed to Windley on the Loose Change forums. You're a member there, last I knew. Just look for the few posts Windley made.
In any case, this is irrelevent. Let's move on.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Jarrah's claim was addressed to Windley on the Loose Change forums."
Jarrah PMed me with the real story and guess what?.. It doesn't match your version of why he was banned.
"You're a member there, last I knew."
Wrong again.. I've never been a member of Loose Change.
"Just look for the few posts Windley made."
Not being a member, I wouldn't know where to look.. So how about posting the link so I can prove you wrong?.. Or I can post the real story.. Whichever you prefer.
straydog02 2 years ago
I'm not surprised Jarrah's story doesn't match.
It's how he is.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"I'm not surprised Jarrah's story doesn't match.
It's how he is."
Maybe his story doesn't match your's because you're talking about two different forums.. Though if he were banned from both, I have no doubt the REAL reason was because he's a CT, and has nothing to do with his alleged use of profanity... If you want to see some real profanity, check out the filth the Apollogists/propagandists spew on Joe Rogan's sewer of forum.
That's how they are.
straydog02 2 years ago
"In any case, this is irrelevent. Let's move on."
In other words, you'd like to move on now because you've been caught lying about the real reason why Jarrah was banned from the Loose Change forum .. But since you're the one who's accused Jarrah of being a liar, I would think you would be happy to prove it...but since you can't, I guess you would like to just drop it... Figures.
In any case, NASA shill Jay Windley is the PROVEN LIAR, not Jarrah.
straydog02 2 years ago
I said Jarrah was banned from Yahoo, NOT Loose Change. Though I did see a moderator provide criticism for an idea of his.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"I said Jarrah was banned from Yahoo, NOT Loose Change. Though I did see a moderator provide criticism for an idea of his."
Yet you still haven't provided a link to prove that claim.. Plus, a moderator providing criticism for an idea of his is not the same thing as him being banned for using profanity, which is the reason you gave for his banishment.. So which is it and more importantly, where is it?
straydog02 2 years ago
hey ive been banned from 2 sites for arguing we never went to the moon and get called names, cursed and never curse back ... the chumps cant debate anything, they have no answers other than ad hominem ... being banned proves you are too much for the mods if you keep calm :)... why be afraid of the truth? last resort is to burn books, isnt it?
pt1gard 2 years ago
Ironic that you claim ad hominiem, while engaging in it yourself. I do not deny that many resort to it, much to my dismay. Here's some proof for you. You claim moon rocks are actually lunar meteorites. But entry through Earths atmosphere heats the outer layers to melting, creating obvious differances. So why not just remove it? Well, the outer layers are rich in helium 3 from exposure to cosmic rays, stronger then can be reproduced on Earth as yet. Remove the layer and you remove that feature.
loperspest 2 years ago
The only reasons I've seen people banned were for lack of civil conduct, or failure to follow up on questions.
You want answers? Fine.
Start asking questions.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"The only reasons I've seen people banned were for lack of civil conduct, or failure to follow up on questions."
I was banned from the Unexplained Mysteries forum because I was critical of one of their hateful anti CT moderators.. I posted my complaint on the Education Forum, where a few of the game playing Apollogists, who were members of both forums, ratted me out to that UM moderator.. So you're just a wrong about why CT's get banned form certain forums as you are about everything else.
straydog02 2 years ago
You're only giving your side of the story.
Often your side doesn't bother to see if you follow board rules.
YouTube user Cosmored is a classic example during his time on BAUT and Apollohoax. He never bothered to provide and actual responses to questions.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"You're only giving your side of the story."
There is no other side of the story.. I posted a comment on the EF about how hateful and unfair one of the UM moderators was towards all of the CT's, and the next day I was banned without any warning or even an explanation as to why I could no longer be a member there.
straydog02 2 years ago
"YouTube user Cosmored is a classic example during his time on BAUT and Apollohoax. He never bothered to provide and actual responses to questions."
I doubt that it's mandatory for any member to respond to another member on any forum.. but if that was the excuse used to ban Cosmo from those forums, then it's obvious that was not the real reason the forum owners or moderators wanted him gone.
straydog02 2 years ago
On BAUT, one is required to back up arguements and answer questions.
Incidently, Cosmo was given three warninges and temporary bannings, each intended to give him time to come up with answers. He failed that.
I, on the other hand, was permenantly banned from Loose Change with NO warnings just for called the video a work of fiction.
And people claim the latter site is more open minded.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
I could show how Jarrah get his facts wrong when it comes to space.
But you'll just make circular arguements to try and prove him right.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
Sorry, Hubble's discovery of cosmic expansion did not lead directly to the Big Bang Theory. It was the cosmic background radiation discovered by scientists at Bell Labs that gave credence to the BB Theory.
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago
As I recall, it was Hubble's discovery that lead Einstien to discard his idea of the cosmological constant, which he felt was needed to keep a steady state universe from collapsing.
Ironically, he may have been right in the first place, with the finding of Dark Energy.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
The article talks mainly about the public relations of scientists in regards to an issue with growing crops in the UK.
Did you bother to read the article yourself, or did you just point this out because of the title?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"The article talks mainly about the public relations of scientists in regards to an issue with growing crops in the UK."
I don't care what the rest of the article talked about because the relevent issue was about how scientists have now discovered human footprints next to and even overlapping dinosaur footprints, which means that the scientific "FACT" of humans and dinosaurs not co-existing together at the same time has now become science FICTION.
straydog02 2 years ago
I've read of the article you describe.
The person is making an erronous assumption that the prints were made at the same time.
The truth of the matter is that the humans that came later happened to make their prints over the same areas that the dinosaurs did.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"The truth of the matter is that the humans that came later happened to make their prints over the same areas that the dinosaurs did."
The truth of the matter is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and will believe any silly "explanation" or disinformation that supports your pre-conceived world view...If I remember correctly, the human prints and the dinosour prints were carbon dated and proved to be from the same time period.
straydog02 2 years ago
Carbon dating only works back to a certain time period, limited to tens of thousands of years.
But this is off topic here; like I keep asking, let's take this to a relevent video.
Videos by AronRa or Thunderfoot are good choices.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Carbon dating only works back to a certain time period, limited to tens of thousands of years."
You just refuted your own argument then by claiming that the human prints came much later than the dinosaur prints.. How would you know that if they can't be tested? .. Or do you think maybe humans have only walked the Earth for 6000 years? .. LOL
"But this is off topic here; like I keep asking, let's take this to a relevent video."
Lets just drop it instead and stick with Apollo.
straydog02 2 years ago
YOU started the off topic subjects when I compared your methods to creatonists. YOU then went off about my beliefs and your beliefs.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"YOU started the off topic subjects when I compared your methods to creatonists."
Do you not even realize that you just admitted that YOU were the first one to go off topic by comparing me with Creationists? ... That is too funny!
straydog02 2 years ago
Comparing your methods are not the same as talking about creationism itself.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Comparing your methods are not the same as talking about creationism itself."
Would you please drop the Creationism bashing for crying out loud.. It's just your way of insulting everyone you disiagree with, by pretending their opinions are in the dark ages.
Try not to be so transparent in your flame baiting distraction tactics.
straydog02 2 years ago
Where in my statement did I bash anything?
Give user Thunderfoot a look. You'll love those videos.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Where in my statement did I bash anything?"
Here's one example where you insulted me and bashed everything that's outside the comprehension of your highly skeptical mind.
"Straydog here thinks humans and dinosaurs walked together at the same time, and you call ME slow?
Ever consider the fact that YOU'RE the ones being misled, just as people are misled into believing they were abducted by aliens, being haunted, and fall for homeopathic "medication"? "
straydog02 2 years ago
I referred to my statement where I told you that I compared your methods to creationists.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
Where do you stand on the argument between evolution versus creation?
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
I'd rather not discuss it here, as per the request of this video's owner.
I'll response via PM.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Where do you stand on the argument between evolution versus creation?"
thirdclass is an athiest, so he refuses to believe that anything was created by a superior intelligence, even though everything, besides Darwin's flawed theory of evolution, points in that direction.
There's a big difference between Creationisn and Intelligent Design though, which I can't seem to get him to understand..The former being religious dogma and the latter being science.
straydog02 2 years ago
The metality that AngeAzrael shows is similar to the mentality of Creationists that was explained in a video by another user; he makes a conclusion, and simply asserts it, regardless of evidence.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
straydog02 you say that he should get a life, look at yourself. You believe in fairy tails like apollo was a hoax. You clearly have no life because you can't listen to simple fact and reason. Guess what, we went to the moon, yes the USA/mankind went to the moon. Stop wasting your life trying to disprove what is real because you can't.
antone164 3 years ago
"You believe in fairy tails like apollo was a hoax."
That should be fairy "tales", antone... And yes, Apollo was a hoax and a fairy tale.
"Guess what, we went to the moon, yes the USA/mankind went to the moon."
If "we" really went to the Moon, there would be no reason for "us" to fake the Apollo photography.
"Stop wasting your life trying to disprove what is real because you can't."
The hoax was real, and has been proven many times over.. So the one wasting their time is you.
straydog02 2 years ago
"The hoax was real, and has been proven many times over.."
THAT is what the fairy tale is, spun by your fellow hoax believers.
The claims have been debunked many times over.
You can pat yourselves on the back all you want. But you pale against the relm of science.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"THAT is what the fairy tale is, spun by your fellow hoax believers."
Unless you're one of the men who claimed to have walked on the Moon, you would have no way of knowing what aspects of Apollo were real and what weren't.
"The claims have been debunked many times over."
Only a few of the early hoax claims have been properly debunked.. Clowns like the 'Mythbusters" and the clavius web master are at least smart enough to stay away from the hoax evidence they can't even pretend to debunk.
straydog02 2 years ago
I haven't walked on the top of Mount Everest, went on the Challenger Deep dive, went to the ISS, or accompanied the Cassini space probe. By YOUR logic, I wouldn't know what aspects of those feats were real or not either.
So what is a "proper" debunking supposed to be? And just who are YOU to claim what's proper or not? You have no authority.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"I haven't walked on the top of Mount Everest, went on the Challenger Deep dive, went to the ISS, or accompanied the Cassini space probe."
Well maybe if you spent less time defending the Apollo Fraud on U-T you could get out more often and have some fun !...LOL
"You have no authority."
Neither do you if you equate walking on the top of Mt. Everest, to walking on the Moon.
straydog02 2 years ago
"Neither do you if you equate walking on the top of Mt. Everest, to walking on the Moon. "
And why not? Just because one is done on a regular basis doesn't mean it's beyond speculation from conspiracy theorists like yourself.
Doesn't stop them when it comes to Mars missions and contrails from planes either.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"And why not? Just because one is done on a regular basis doesn't mean it's beyond speculation from conspiracy theorists like yourself."
As far as I know, there are no conspiracies about people not really reaching the summit of Mt. Everest.
"Doesn't stop them when it comes to Mars missions and contrails from planes either."
As for Mars, there is evidence that NASA is covering up the truth about that as well.. and It comes as no surprise that you're in denial about chemtrails also.
straydog02 2 years ago
Let's play along with your game, Stray.
If people started saying that there is evidence that you are an arsonist, I'd bet you'd want to see such evidence. And that if such evidence turned out to be false, but people kept making the claim anyway, you'd make any effort to show that you weren't an arsonist, yes?
Same goes for your claims about hoaxes.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"And that if such evidence turned out to be false, but people kept making the claim anyway, you'd make any effort to show that you weren't an arsonist, yes?
Same goes for your claims about hoaxes. "
What a load of nonsense .. That "argument" is about as meaningless as your typical NON-COMPARES.
straydog02 2 years ago
In other words, it describes the situation so well, that your only defense is to label it as nonsense.
How about a REAL defense, Stray?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"In other words, it describes the situation so well, that your only defense is to label it as nonsense.
How about a REAL defense, Stray?"
How about you stop replying to my comments with your typical nonsense then, and try reading them with more of an open mind to the possibility that you're defending a US government/military/NASA fraud.
straydog02 2 years ago
Stray, you use poor logic, have next to no knowledge about the relevent sciences, and trust the word of unqualified people.
You forget that in addition to having an open mind, you also must have a filter to keep out the garbage,
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
Speaking of open minds, why don't you open your mind to the possibility that the people that promote the hoax don't have a clue what they're talking about, are unqualified, and are either deluded, or just seeking attention?
You make it seem that your side is the only correct answer, in spite of all the evidence that contradicts it.
As I've told you in the past, the logic you give is no better than the logic of creationists.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Speaking of open minds, why don't you open your mind to the possibility that the people that promote the hoax don't have a clue what they're talking about, are unqualified, and are either deluded, or just seeking attention?"
I have opened my mind to that possibility and agree with you.. Not everyone can be trusted, and not everyone (including some of the well known conspiracy researchers) are immune to making mistakes in their perception of what they assume to be hoax evidence.
straydog02 2 years ago
"You make it seem that your side is the only correct answer, in spite of all the evidence that contradicts it."
That's not true.. When I am proven wrong, I admit it.. Unlike your "side" who refuses to admit being wrong about anything, ever, but prefers to lie instead, if that's what it takes to keep the Apollo Myth alive.
"As I've told you in the past, the logic you give is no better than the logic of creationists."
Please keep your athiestic beliefs out of this discussion.
straydog02 2 years ago
"Please keep your athiestic beliefs out of this discussion. "
Just because I compare your logic to that of creationists doesn't mean I'm discussing my beliefs.
Debunking creationism isn't just in the relm of athiesism, by the way. A Christian also told of the way creationists make his faith look bad.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Just because I compare your logic to that of creationists doesn't mean I'm discussing my beliefs."
Of course it does.. If you believed in Intelligent Design, instead of Darwin's nonsense, you wouldn't even suggest that Creationists are illogical.
"Debunking creationism isn't just in the relm of athiesism, by the way. A Christian also told of the way creationists make his faith look bad."
Fundamentalists can make any religion look bad.. but that doesn't disprove Creationism.
straydog02 2 years ago
First off, evolution isn't just Darwin's theory. A number of other scientists also made hypothesis on it around his time.
Creationists are illogical. They ignore the fact that Earth isn't 6000 years old.
They try to use other means, such as the idea of Intelligent Design, to wedge their way into science. Basically, they want to revert science to a level of the Dark Ages.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"First off, evolution isn't just Darwin's theory. A number of other scientists also made hypothesis on it around his time."
I didn't know that. Who were the scientists who also promoted the theory of evolution?
"Creationists are illogical. They ignore the fact that Earth isn't 6000 years old."
That's because you're describing fundamentalists..They are all illogical, since they take every word of the Bible literally and actually believe it was written by God.
straydog02 2 years ago
"They try to use other means, such as the idea of Intelligent Design, to wedge their way into science."
This is where you have the two different ideas confused.. I believe in God but I'm not a fundamentalist.. I also believe in Intelligent Design but not Creationism, which dictates that the world and every thing in it was created about 6000 years ago... ID only means that the human race was created by a higher intelligence.. It has nothing to do with any religious dogma.
straydog02 2 years ago
"Basically, they want to revert science to a level of the Dark Ages. "
Science is not all it's cracked up to be.. but as an athiest, I guess you wouldn't really understand that.
straydog02 2 years ago
"Stray, you use poor logic, have next to no knowledge about the relevent sciences, and trust the word of unqualified people."
Give me an example of where I have used "poor logic"... You don't seem to get it , thirdclass.. I don't believe Apollo was a fraud because of what other people have proposed.. I have researched this subject myself, and it's obvious that something is very wrong with the Apollo picture. Too many things just don't add up and too much evidence has been convienantly "lost".
straydog02 2 years ago
You use poor logic in deciding what makes some photos fake and other not fake, for instance. You consider the UV photos fake, but think that images of the corona that would show stars and Venus wouldn't be fake.
For someone that does his own research, you repeat a lot of what is said by previous hoaxers.
Things probably don't add up for up because of your lack of knowledge about space. You don't bother to ask the right people the right questions.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"You use poor logic in deciding what makes some photos fake and other not fake, for instance. You consider the UV photos fake, but think that images of the corona that would show stars and Venus wouldn't be fake."
I never claimed that the UV stars photos were fake.. I said that the ones allegedly taken from the Moon look exactly like the UV photos taken from low earth orbit... I also said that the Clementine photos show the Sun, Venus and the stars in the solar corona, while Apollo's don't.
straydog02 2 years ago
You haven't shown what knowledge or evidence you have to make the claim that the UV photos look like those take from LEO.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"You haven't shown what knowledge or evidence you have to make the claim that the UV photos look like those take from LEO."
I had this discussion with shill Burton on the Education Forum and even admitted that the UV star photos look the same.. I posted low earth orbit UV star photos and he thought they were taken from the Moon .. The distance from the Earth to the Moon is not enough to change the appearence of distant stars in UV photos.
straydog02 2 years ago
Correction:.. I had this discussion with shill Burton on the Education Forum and even he admitted that the UV star photos look the same.
straydog02 2 years ago
The operative word is "Looks like."
You equate that with "Must be".
Again, poor logic on your part.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"For someone that does his own research, you repeat a lot of what is said by previous hoaxers."
I don't remember any other "hoaxer" comparing the Clementine solar corona photos to the Apollo "solar corona" photos like I have. .So I'm not repeating anyone, to my knowledge... Can you please show me where a "hoaxer" has discussed the differences between the two? .. Thanks.
straydog02 2 years ago
"Things probably don't add up for up because of your lack of knowledge about space. "
What lack of knowledge would that be speciffically?
"You don't bother to ask the right people the right questions."
And just who would these "right" people be? .. Please don't tell me you think that PROVEN LIARS like Phil Plait and Jay Windley are the "right" people! .. LOL
straydog02 2 years ago
You shown you know little or nothing about radiaiton, planetary formation (and thus why moon rocks are shown to be older than most Earth rocks), aerospace engineering, and the history of space flight.
The right people would be those that have experience, or at least sound knowledge, of the relevent fields of study.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"You shown you know little or nothing about radiaiton, planetary formation (and thus why moon rocks are shown to be older than most Earth rocks), aerospace engineering, and the history of space flight."
I know a lot about radiation.. especially since I never bought into NASA"s fairy tale of it being as safe as they have led you to believe.. I also know a lot about the history of space flight, manned , unmanned and faked... As for the rest, you're right, I'm no scientist or rocket scientist.
straydog02 2 years ago
Given the fact that you think NASA was around for Operation Paperclip, you obviously don't know much about the history of space flight.
My knowledge of radiation comes from experience on my time on a nuclear aircraft carrier, not NASA.
At least your honest about what else you don't know. About the only thing you're honest about.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"The right people would be those that have experience, or at least sound knowledge, of the relevent fields of study."
Anyone can be fooled by disinformation if it's done well .. Even those who have experience and knowledge in certain fields of study.. You act like because somebody studies science or physics or geology in college that they can't be fooled by government deception.. You really are naive'.
straydog02 2 years ago
" You act like because somebody studies science or physics or geology in college that they can't be fooled by government deception.."
That's why there's something in science called "peer review".
It makes sure that the studies made are consistent.
Peer review also goes beyond the bounds of govt. It's an international effort.
Also, the fact that scientists went against govt wishes during Bush's reign of science supression is inconsistent with your logic here.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"But you pale against the relm of science."
Contrary to your very closed minded beliefs, science does not have all of the answers.. Neither has it proven that the official Apollo record is true.
straydog02 2 years ago
And no one has said science has all the answers. That's why we keep learning, studying, examining, and testing, to seek out more answers.
It's not a matter of proof. It's a matter of evidence. And evidence doesn't support the hoax theory.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
I am fine. How are you?
I like Stanley Kubricks movies especially the clues he leaves in them.
watch?v=jfTTghmkUhY
greenmagoos 2 years ago
"It's not a matter of proof. It's a matter of evidence. And evidence doesn't support the hoax theory."
There is plenty of evidence to not only support the hoax but to prove the hoax.. You and the rest of the clavius parrots just refuse to acknowledge it.
straydog02 2 years ago
"You and the rest of the clavius parrots just refuse to acknowledge it. "
And why should people acknowledge people that have no education, or have done any real research? Why should we acknowledge people that aren't aerospace engineers or astronomers? Maybe instead of listening to doctors, people ought to come to Jarrah or Sibrel for medical advise.
If that sounds crazy to you, then you have discovered why the so-called evidence by hoaxers is dismissed.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"And why should people acknowledge people that have no education, or have done any real research?"
I can only imagine what you consider to be "real research".
"Maybe instead of listening to doctors, people ought to come to Jarrah or Sibrel for medical advise."
And yet another silly NON-COMPARE, non-argument... You really are a silly Windley parrot, aren't you?
straydog02 2 years ago
Real research would be looking up peer reviewed information, or getting it from people that are qualified in the relevent fields of study. Such people do NOT include TV producers, retired millwrights, or those whose degrees are only in English literature.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Real research would be looking up peer reviewed information, or getting it from people that are qualified in the relevent fields of study."
What part of mainstream scientists will never speak out against US government/military lies, do you not understand? .. NASA, and their hard working shills, character assassinate, ridicule, and destroy the lives of everyone who dare to speak out about the Apollo Hoax... Please stop wasting my time with your blatant stupidity.
straydog02 2 years ago
"What part of mainstream scientists will never speak out against US government/military lies, do you not understand?"
Then how do you explain when scientists spoke out against the supression of data by the Bush admins regarding climate change?
Calling me stupid does not help your cause.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"If that sounds crazy to you, then you have discovered why the so-called evidence by hoaxers is dismissed."
The evidence of the Apollo Hoax is only dismissed by professional shills, clueless sheep and clavius parrots .. and something tells me that you fall into the latter two catagories.
straydog02 2 years ago
Appearently, what I said flew over your head.
The so-called evidence is dismissed for the same reason medical advice would be dismissed by hoax proponants; they aren't qualified to give an assesment.
Do you understand?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Appearently, what I said flew over your head."
Nothing you've ever said has flown over my head.. You're not that intelligent.
"The so-called evidence is dismissed for the same reason medical advice would be dismissed by hoax proponants; they aren't qualified to give an assesment."
You couldn't be more full of shit if you tried!..Sorry, but professional film makers and photographers are completely qualiifed to analyze the bogus Apollo photography and explain why it is so obviously fake.
straydog02 2 years ago
These so-called professionals make many basic mistakes regarding perspective, the effects that terrain have on the appearence of shadows, and lack knowledge of secondary reflection.
When David Percy was shown how non-parrallel shadows can be made by just terrain alone, he shut down comments on his site. Such much for being a professional.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"These so-called professionals make many basic mistakes regarding perspective, the effects that terrain have on the appearence of shadows, and lack knowledge of secondary reflection."
As most Apollogists, you parrot what can be debunked and steer clear of what can't be, like a certain Apollo 17 visor reflection that shows "Jack Schmitt" without his PLSS, while not even standing in the correct position to have taken "Cernan's" picture.
straydog02 2 years ago
Nope, those claims were debunked too.
You just haven't gotten the memo.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Nope, those claims were debunked too."
As usual, you don't seem to understand the difference between real debunking and PRETEND debunking.. If you're referring to the silly pixel size explaination offered up by satweavers on his PB page, he actually helped to prove that Schmitt's PLSS was missing. If you're referring to the stupid LIES posted by the shill Lamson/Burton team on the Education Forum, their sad pixel size excuses were just as rediculous as satweavers were.
Got anything else?
straydog02 2 years ago
Well said stray. Whatever comes out of this we ain't the dafties that have been defending fake and altered photos.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
"Well said stray. Whatever comes out of this we ain't the dafties that have been defending fake and altered photos."
Right you are magoos... Where the Apollogists have lost credibility and harm their lost cause the most, is not being able to admit that even one Apollo photo was faked or altered in any respect ... I doubt they really believe that, but for whatever reason, have decided to lie for NASA to protect the Apollo Myth.
straydog02 2 years ago
I think you'll find practically every photo was either faked or re-touched at some point stray.
They have been led astray probably just as much as we have.
Thats what I suspect anyway largely part to cowardly cheats like vector worshipping Gollum Windley.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
"Thats what I suspect anyway largely part to cowardly cheats like vector worshipping Gollum Windley."
There's a good possibility that they are one and the same.
straydog02 2 years ago
Of course photos are retouched. It's done in many photos, to improve the looks. Happens with many other photos as well, outside the relm of Apollo.
Or do you have no knowledge of photography either?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
Image Transform bad vectors.
Ask Gollum Windlet.
I dare you to.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Let me ask you this; how would YOU feel if I gave cute, insulting names to say, Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Sibrel, Percy, and the various hoax believing YouTubers?
Maybe I should refer to you as Gollum Magoos?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
I really don't care how you refer to me and I especially don't care how you refer to one of those names on that list.
IMAGE TRANSFORM BAD VECTORS!
Ask Windlet. I dare you to.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Okay, so immature names don't matter to you. Fine. It just doesn't help the cause that you're trying to push. Show intelligence, and you might get more viewers.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
Well I'm afraid to tell you I'll be maintaining my cheeky snides towards Gollum indefinitely so I'll speak to you later!
Enjoy debating.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Hardly a debate at all.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Of course photos are retouched. It's done in many photos, to improve the looks."
Only in the case of Apollo, the retouches were done to obscure what was really in that solid black "lunar" sky.
"Or do you have no knowledge of photography either? "
If you can't see that the Apollo photography was staged, then you're the one who has no knowledge of photography.. Or maybe no knowlege of what the Moon really looks like.
straydog02 2 years ago
Ah, the old excuse for a lack of stars.
Ever look at photos from Cassini, Stray? Do that, and see if your excuse is also applicable there.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Ah, the old excuse for a lack of stars."
It was 'MRphotogod" that claimed it would only take a 30 second exposure to photograh stars above the lunar surface, not me.. So why don't you ask Lamson why the Apollo astronots didn't know about that ?
As for Casini, if it wasn't a manned mission, then it doesn't apply... Funny how you Apollogists ALWAYS use NON-COMPARE arguments to prop up your Apollo fantasy.
straydog02 2 years ago
Doesn't matter that Cassini isn't a manned mission. Stars do not show up in its images for the same reason they don't show up in Apollo images.
Now, what about that don't you understand?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Doesn't matter that Cassini isn't a manned mission."
I always knew you weren't the sharpest knife in the Apollogist's drawer, but I didn't realize that you didn't know the difference between manned and unmanned missions! .. LOL
straydog02 2 years ago
Tell me Stray, what does the difference between a manned mission and unmanned mission have to do with being able to get an image of stars?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Tell me Stray, what does the difference between a manned mission and unmanned mission have to do with being able to get an image of stars?"
A manned mission to the Moon should have captured the same images of the stars, Venus and the Sun in the solar corona from lunar orbit, that later unmanned missions did... but at no time can the Sun or Venus or any stars be seen the solar corona Apollo photos... All we see is a solid black "lunar" sky and and a faked image of Earth.
straydog02 2 years ago
What expertise do YOU have to say that the images should've met YOUR expectations?
The Galileo probe took images of both Earth and moon together, and also showed a solid black background.
Explain THAT.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"What expertise do YOU have to say that the images should've met YOUR expectations?"
I have eyes that haven't been blinded by NASA propaganda and can clearly see what's MISSING in the phony solar corona Apollo photos.. The Sun, Venus and the stars!
"The Galileo probe took images of both Earth and moon together, and also showed a solid black background.
Explain THAT."
The Clementine mission took photos in lunar orbit that showed Venus, the Sun and many stars.
Explain THAT.
straydog02 2 years ago
Clementine had a camera meant to track the stars.
You evaded my question by posing your own, by the way.
Why is Apollo's photo of Earth fake, but not Galileo's?
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"Clementine had a camera meant to track the stars."
So why would the Apollo astronots even bother to photograph the solar corona, if they didn't plan on photographing what is really there?
You don't seem to get it , thirdclass.. IF they had photographed the solar corona and IF the photos had been real, the stars, Venus and the Sun would have all shown up in the Apollo "lunar" orbit photography.
straydog02 2 years ago
YOU don't seem to get that the two cameras are designed differently.
But what can I expect from someone like you, whose mentality is practically in the dark ages.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"YOU don't seem to get that the two cameras are designed differently."
Now where have I heard that lame excuse before? .. Do you guys have cheat sheets on this stuff, or are you all really parrots? .. The "camera design" would not effect the ability to photograph the freaking SUN in the solar corona from lunar orbit !! .. Who do you think you're fooling, besides yourself ?
straydog02 2 years ago
You're only fooling yourself, Stray.
Obviously the subject is just too advanced for you to comprehend.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"You're only fooling yourself, Stray.
Obviously the subject is just too advanced for you to comprehend. "
How about you explain it to me then, thirdclass? .. Explain why the Apollo astronots would take a camera to the Moon and use it to photograph the solar corona, knowing that it can't even photograph what's in the solar corona???
Your replies are even more absurd than most of the apollohoaxdotnet parrots.
straydog02 2 years ago
The only thing IN the solar corona is hot glowing plasma. That's what was photographed.
The intended target wasn't stars. It was the corona itself.
Your complain has no merit.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
"The only thing IN the solar corona is hot glowing plasma. That's what was photographed."
Aside from ONE alleged Apollo 15 photo, showing the solar corona, where are these alleged Apollo solar corona photos?
During that debacle of a post flight press conference, the Apollo 11 crew were asked WHAT STARS could be seen while photographing the solar corona "?.. Mike Collins couldn't remember seeing any, yet he was the one allegedly photographing the solar corona.. So where are Mike's photos?
straydog02 2 years ago
"Your complain has no merit. "
Okay, aside from the rather ellusive Apollo solar corona photos, here's another complaint.... Why do the cheesy looking "manned" Apollo photos keep "borrowing" the same boring looking image of cloud cover "earth", allegedly taken from lunar orbit, while the unmanned Clementine lunar orbit photos show beautiful STARS, VENUS, and even EARTHSHINE on the lunar surface?
cmf(dot)nrl(dot)navy(dot)mil/clementine/clem_collect/venus(dot)html
See the difference?
straydog02 2 years ago
"Why is Apollo's photo of Earth fake, but n