Added: 7 months ago
From: Astrobrant2
Views: 704
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (85)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • A moon hoaxer is like a man imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; only it does not occur to him to pull rather than push. (Wittgenstein - slightly amended).

  • @gardenchair And where hoax nuts are concerned, you can tell them for years that they have to PULL the door, but they will keep trying to push it.

  • It appears that the only good thing that Hunch managed to do correctly was speed up the footage so that Cernan's feet were synchronized with the music. It kind of looks like Cernan's dancing to it. :)

  • I saw a report that they are going to lower the LRO orbit from 50 km to 20 km to take better images of the Apollo landing sites. There should be a 4x times increase of magnification. The orbit will be back to 50 km after 4 days. I think the first images might be around 14 August.

  • @obaeyens WOW! That's great news. We'll watch the hoax nuts twist themselves into even tighter little knots.

  • @obaeyens

    Super! I can't wait!

    Negative effect of taking high resolution pictures from such low orbit is motion blur. Those images may display a little bit of that depending on lighting and resulting exposure, but I'm sure they will be fascinating.

    Thanks for the news!

  • yes speeding up the video is Percy's old trick, nice try Hunchy! NO cigar.

  • Brant, you forgot the part when he says it was a random person who built a suit and wandered onto set to be filmed! He ACTUALLY said that! It was really awesome. KrisDeValle was the first to notice it.

  • I'm getting bored with the likes of Hunch, Awe and others struggling with the most basic of mental faculties. Where did the mentally-deft hoax CTs go?

  • Of course, there is nothing wrong or suspicious about that scene, especially at original frame rate.

    Our hunchbacked hoax fanatic is no longer satisfied with wandering about his delusions and finally resorts to pure cheating. We'll see what he cooks in the future.

    Your comment at the end of the video is so true. He's sinking intellectually and now morally too.

  • But Hunch' is an aerospace engineer!! LOLOL Oh crap I just pooped my pants, hey Hunchy be a good au pair come over here and clean this up.

  • But, but, but, he had to speed it up because everyone knows that NASA slowed down the video from the moon to make it look like it was on the moon because it was really filmed on a sound stage at Area 51 by Stanley Kubrick under orders from the Grey aliens and hidden by the Bavarian Illuminati and kept secret using the Orbital Mind Control Lasers! You kooky skeptics never think of these things!

  • Hold on a minute. Did we just witness an ANOMALY in Hunchback his video?

  • @obaeyens Perhaps Hunchbacked is a whistleblower in the hoax community. It would certainly explain why there are so many incoherences in his videos.

  • He also avoided the audio to prevent the obvious that the astronauts talked like Donald ducks because the clip speeded up twice.

  • @obaeyens I thought of that and it might be true, but I can't even hear the audio when I watch Real or Quick Time videos from ALSJ. On the possibility that he might not be able to download the audio, I chose not to bring that up.

    He has been making some decent and honest decisions since this video, like unblocking AWR and backing off of Vincent somewhat. Because of this, I decided not to treat him too harshly in the video.

    I'd like to see him address this here, though.

  • what are they saying about this "mark" I think that's HOLLYWOOD speak, ergo, Kubrick did it.

  • What you don't grab, Astrobrand, it's that Cernan is not close at the beginning of the video.

    He looks close because the camera is zooming in on him; but after the camera zooms out as it turns; and it changes everything.

    You made your demonstration like the camera always had the same zoom.

  • @hunchbacked I'm surprised this demonstration didn't make it clear to you. He went out of the field of view, he remained outside of it until the camera could see the ALSEP. This makes sense because he was walking from the rover TO the ALSEP. He went on a straight line.

    Before we could see the ALSEP during the pan, why should we see Cernan? No matter how far away from the camera he was, he went OUT of the view and stayed out until the camera got to his line of travel.

  • Facepalm again, hunchbacked has the same integrity and cognitive bypass that cosmored has. These HBs are just unbelievable on youtube, a plethora of ignorance.

  • One thing more: The camera is turning regularly; we could have the feeling that its rotation is slowing down, but it is not the case; it is because it is zooming out that we have this feeling, but it fact its rotation is regular.

    There are many things you haven't seen.

  • @hunchbacked When the camera finally gets to the ALSEP, we are looking along the line that Cernan traveled. For the entire time the camera was panning, its right limit of field never reached that line until we see the location where Cernan was at the end of the clip. So we would not have seen him anywhere along the way.

    Regardless of zoom or panning speed, it didn't reach that angle before we see both astronauts at the ALSEP.

  • Our modem died.. Now I know how it's possible for my land lord to suddenly borrow one from a friend. AB2 had uploaded a new video :)

    On-topic. I wasn't paying too much attention so I didn't really understood what Hunchbacked's complaint was. All I read was "He should have been in the field of view of the camera when he moved to the ALSEP!" and I facepalmed... 'He' as in the astronaut that exited the FoV in the first second? *ahead* of the camera?

  • 2) The way the objects move is irregular; at one moment, your camera does not turn enough; after Cernan has passed before it, it tends to turn quite regularly; it only stops just before the ALSEP, but meanwhile it should have caught the astronaut.

    3) The path which is followed by Cernan is far from a straight line, it is not optimal.

  • @hunchbacked In a hoax-nutshell: no you're wrong and I don't even see how you or anyone could ever think this showed anything "wrong" with the lunar landings.

  • @hunchbacked 2) NO. The right edge of the frame never reached the line of travel from the rover to the ALSEP until Cernan got there, so you would NOT see anything on that line. Even if this WAS faked, you could not claim that Cernan should have been seen as he was walking to the ALSEP.

    3) You have no idea what path he traveled, but if it was a straight line, we would NOT be able to see him until the camera reached that angle.

  • @Astrobrant2

    What you don't get is that:

    1) the astronaut is not close to the camera at the beginning of the video

    2) The rotation of the camera does not slow down.

    Why?

    Because the camera is zooming in on the astronaut at the beginning, and progressively zooming out as it turns; this is what gives the impression it is slowing down, when in fact its rotation is constant.

    This makes your demonstration invalid.

  • I have never said the speed of my video was the original one, have I; it is not a demonstration about speed.

    Now, your demonstration is flawed:

    1) Your rover is oversized relatively to the distance to the ALSEP.

  • This not a demonstration about speed; I sped up the video in order to make it shorter; I skipped one picture in two after the sampling; but it changes nothing to the demonstration.

    The camera should still have had the astronaut in its field of view if he had gone straight to the ALSEP.

  • There's just a little problem with what you show: The camera sweeps more than what you show.

    By changing the conditions, you change the conclusion.

  • @hunchbacked The speed of the demonstration makes no difference. It is the relative positions which count. The right edge of the field of view never go to the line from the rover to the ALSEP until Cernan got there. How I do know that? Because we don't SEE the ALSEP until then.

    I am having real trouble fathoming how you can possibly believe what you are saying.

  • @hunchbacked

    You should seriously consider paying attention to observation made by Brant at 5:50 regarding your mental state.

    How many more people will have to tell you the same thing before you finally register and admit your problem?

    Do you think people tell you this because they want to insult you? No, they tell you what they see. The sooner your realize that, the better for you.

  • @BlisterHiker

    I have paid attention to his observation.

    I have so much paid attention to it that I have posted a counter-video shawing the flaws of this demonstration.

    I have no problem, and I am perfectly sane.

    Do you really think I would admit to be despised and insulted if I was not knowing deep inside I am right, and in full reason.

    One day you'll know I was right.

  • @hunchbacked "Knowing deep inside" is why you are wrong. You ignore all the evidence against you and you stretch your mind to the point of insanity in your attempts to defend your views. It is necessary for you to lose all touch with reality in order to protect your hoax myth and your ego.

    Knowing something deep inside which flies in the face of ALL evidence, ALL qualified opinion, ALL historical documentation, and ALL reason, has a specific name. It's called "delusion."

  • @Astrobrant2

    It's you who ignore all the massive evidence against the moon landings.

    I ignore nothing, I take everything into account.

  • @hunchbacked

    Again, how many more times will you need to hear the same criticism of your deluded views before you realize you're wrong?

    There are no flaws in Brant's demonstration. There is major flaw in yours, caused either by your ignorance or dishonesty.

    Don't try to convince others about your "superiority", if even a child can do simple experiment with a camera to learn who is right. Even most hoaxers keep their distance from you, didn't you notice?

    If you have any self respect, step away.

  • @BlisterHiker

    "Even most hoaxers keep their distance from you, didn't you notice?"

    No, I didn't notice.

  • @BlisterHiker

    And I have enough self respect not to be concerned by your delusion.

  • @BlisterHiker

    If I was really so irrelevant, you wouldn't ask me to step away.

    You would just ignore me like someone who isn't worth being considered, and that it is useless to ask to step away since nobody will take his videos seriously.

  • "nobody will take his videos seriously"

    @hunchbacked

    You really seem hopeless case :-[

    Putting your delusion and errors aside, Brant's videos receive positive feedback you could only dream about. If not for un4 and stalkervision, you would hardly get any positive feedback at all! You really did not notice that yet?!

    Grab a camera or a cell phone with built in camera, watch the time and check for yourself there was nothing wrong with that TV shot from the Moon. Do it and you will see!

  • @BlisterHiker

    Of course they do: The PANs are for the moment more numerous than the doubters.

    And the doubters also don't care about ratings: many doubters appreciate my videos without rating them because they find the ratings irrelevant and dumb.

    The monks who sentenced Galileo were many and Galileo was alone, but that didn't prevent him from being right.

    Go on believing you are right and I am wrong, you amuse me.

    The doubt is gaining ground, and there is nothing you can do about it.

  • @hunchbacked

    Comparing yourself, even remotely, to Galileo, is another sign of your illusion of grandeur.

    I'm not talking about ratings only (and yes, conspiraholics care about them). I'm talking about overall feedback, and yours is really sad, especially when we compare it to countless hours of useless work you put in that junk of yours.

    Again, I'm merely observing facts. If you choose to ignore them, it's your choice.

    Adieu monsieur, unless you present any valid argument.

  • @BlisterHiker

    I don't directly compare myself with Galileo.

    It was only to say that the fact that I reap more negative ratings than positive ones proves absolutely nothing.

    I would make less good videos, but praising Apollo instead, I would get more positive ratings than negative ones.

  • @BlisterHiker

    Take Iamawizardjonny, for instance.

    When he was a moon hoaxer, he was reaping more negative ratings than positive ones.

    Now that he has turned to a Apollo defender, he reaps more positive ratings than negative ones.

    Do you think that it is because he has suddenly become more intelligent?

    Not at all, it's only because he is now blowing in the "good" direction, "good "meaning of course the side containing the most believers.

  • @hunchbacked He's getting more positive ratings now because he's right. Despite the large number of people who think we didn't go to the moon, that majority know we did.

    He didn't become more intelligent after he switched. He was intelligent all along. That's WHY he switched. And also because he is honest and values truth more than his ego.

  • @Astrobrant2 (the majority)

  • @hunchbacked The monks were guided by religious belief not science, they had to take action against Galileo to defend thei r belief in god and the bible, Hitler did the same except his bible was nazism, ( not sure there is a difference between nazism and the church) its a tactic used to impose someones will on others.

  • @musicbruv

    Some can also use science like a sort of religion.

    Science is not a religion for me, it is something I like, but it is not a religion.

    I am able to distinguish BS science from real science.

    And, as much as I have seen by reading the documentation of Apollo, Apollo is BS science.

  • @hunchbacked

    Apollo Was Real.

    999,998 to go.

    

  • @hunchbacked I don't know about others, but the reason *I* don't ignore you is because you are spreading nonsense through a medium where a lot of people, especially young people, can be influenced by you. You spread a kind of mental illness and I'm volunteering to try to help stop the infection by providing others with the anti-psychotic. TRUTH.

  • @Astrobrant2

    I am not spreading nonsense.

    What I am saying is extremely sensical.

    You just don't know it is sensical, that's all.

  • Maybe we should call him dehunchbunked?

  • I figure that the 256 K RAM is fairly accurate for hunchy's computer since he doesn't seem to be able to view the high res images which are available on the ALSJ web site. Or perhaps it takes too long to download them, suggesting a dial-up Internet connection. Hunchy might even be running Windows 98 rather than XP, Vista or Windows 7!

  • @GoneToPlaid I'd say Windows 3.11, 95 or Millennium ;p

  • I'm sure that hunchy will claim that it was the Ulead software he used to convert the video to an animated GIF. Hunchy has never produced a video which includes raw video from another source. Obviously because his computer is so deficient in processing power, RAM and disk space that he simply can not do that. Apparently the best he can do is to use Ulead to turn part of a video into an animated GIF sequence. His computer probably is a Pentium with 256 K of RAM and an 80 MB hard drive.

  • @GoneToPlaid Hey, what's wrong with that? I'm using a Commodore 64!

  • @Astrobrant2 HAHA a commodore 64! The monitor looks like a TV on those things.

  • B U S T E D !

  • This is a disgrace! As a member of the international hunchback bell ringers consortium, I can assure you that Quasimodo only achieved low earth orbit in 1831.

    His hump produced to much friction, and thus heat. Putting a stop to any further adventures in space. quasi now resides in holland, where he helps with the countrys flat landscape. ;o)

  • Nice way to ripe hunchbacked a newone

  • Woow.. this was fun. This was Funbacked. What sore loser he is.

    The only nice thing on HB's video (is that HoaxBeliever or HunchBacked?) is the use of Walter Carlos on synth (is it Invention #4 in D minor?), on his album Switched on Bach. I prefer a real piano however. Or a nice pad on the Juno-D ofcourse.

  • @Rob260259 I don't care for the synth. Ensemble with harpsichord is the way. But in either case, it is a marvelous piece of music. Bach's da bomb.

    Actually, I thought this might have been from before Bach. Maybe Purcell or Corelli, along those lines.

  • @Rob260259 It is Brandenburger Concerto # 6

  • @BjornPalmen Gee, it's been a long time since I've heard the Brandenburg Concertos. I'll have to give them another listen.

  • In research we call this cooking the data. Well, if anyone believes hunchback after this, then I feel sorry for them.

  • How disingenuous. Faking evidence to indicate that the official evidence was faked.

  • The fact that he cheated means nobody should ever deal with him again. Just ignore him entirely and make sure nobody watches his videos ever again.

  • @yesiamawizardjonny I disagree Vincent, I believe debunking ludicrous claims gives any casual viewer a correct explanation to counter his nonsensical ideas.

    People should remember to also put all relevant keywords in their videos for easy find. "hunchbacked" being one of them.

  • @Betamax101 I'm a casual viewer and I agree. People like Astrobrant2 who scientifically and logically explain and debunk claims helps the casual viewer see how hoax nuts are clutching a straws. Repeatedly.

  • I wonder if he speed it up to match it with the claim that NASA slowed down the video. Remember, a lot of these conspiracy theorist will build on each others claims, even when those claims have been debunked. In fact, they pretty much toss out anything from any source that doesn't go along with their idea of what happened.

  • @stbays That's called confirmation bias. The use of logical fallacies alone to argue your point shows that your argument rests on tenuous grounds. Thus, calling them on their fallacies alone is enough to debunk their claims.Though calling them, then refuting their claims in one fell swoop usually does 50x damage and usually incurs a stat down on their part.

  • @stbays Yes, I thought of that. And he knows he should have indicated that if he did.

    One problem with that, though, that he didn't figure. If his speeded up version was correct, (made to duplicate what he believes is the actual speed), then he just went to pains to show that it was impossible for Cernan to go that far in that amount of time. Like Jarrah has done sometimes, he debunked his own claim.

    Actually, it wasn't an unreasonable amount of time, even at that speed.

  • @Astrobrant2

    I do enjoy self debunking videos and I agree, he should've stated that he sped up his video, not to mention tell us the exact reason for the speed increase (cause while we can guess, only he really knows).

  • @stbays This and other possible explanations did cause me to back off of the integrity issue quite a bit. What you see here is very watered down and edited from its original form.

  • @Astrobrant2 He denied speeding it up in the comments on this video:-

    watch?v=KR6yl2-8qyI

    "but the speed itself is not changed."

    When I pushed him about it he said:-

    "About the video being sped up, it is true"

    He didn't respond to my comment on this contradiction.

  • @Betamax101 From what I understand, hunchbacked converts videos like this EVA footage to an animated GIF before using them in his own videos (which also explains why he never has mission audio). My guess would be he's dropping frames, but keeping the framerate constant. I don't think this is dishonesty, per se, but because part of his argument in this case is based on Cernan being unable to walk to the LM in 15 seconds (an odd claim, mind you), he really should have mentioned it to begin with.

  • @roamingcroat Fair enough, but he made those comments, and the first one insists he did nothing to speed it up. Yet then freely admits he dropped frames! Maybe his space engineer schooling didn't cover that this action actually speeds up the film:)

  • @Betamax101 I'd really like to hear from Hunchbacked why the clip is sped up. I believe the clip of the object being thrown is also sped up. The one of Cernan leaning in the last segment does not appear to be sped up, though. If this is true, then he is deliberately speeding up clips to give a false impression of motion or time.

  • So, the Moon landings were never faked but the Hunchback video was faked!

    A stupid thing to do and Hunchback got caught this time.

  • @BjornPalmen

    This video's got Hunch backed into a corner ^_^

  • @BjornPalmen I welcome his explanation for this. It can't be that he was concerned about timing in his video. He showed the clip four times. He could have shown it twice at correct speed in the same amount of time.

    I have had disagreements with him before and I think he has gone off the deep end, but I don't remember seeing dishonesty from him in the past.

    If he has gone so far as to deliberately alter evidence, it shows just how untenable his position is and it should tell him something.

  • @Astrobrant2 At least we can note that Moon gravity makes it possible to move faster. :)

  • @BjornPalmen Another valid point that I considered and would have used if it had been needed. But the time is adequate at either speed. Well certainly if astronauts are able to move at the speed we see him moving at the end of the clip! lol

  • WARNING! These "gentlemen" are making outrageous comments and then BLOCKING the channel so nothing can be corrected: potrasas, un4g1v3n1 and pt1gard. Do not believe anything they say. They are cowards.

  • @BjornPalmen Yeah, I'm working on un4giv3n1 right now. The video should be up within the next couple of days.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more