@NASAsPETE I wouldn't use the word "disgusting". I can think of many things that merit that word far more than hunchbacked's videos.
I would use the word 'sad'. Sad that he has wasted so much time and effort on producing 200+ videos - that hardly anybody watches - denying one of the best documented engineering projects in history. Sad that he can't appreciate the human achievement of Apollo. And sad that he has learned so little from all his work.
Can anybody explain how Jarrah White can get away with copyright infringement complaints? It seems to me short outtakes from a video when used for scholarly refutation is legal, at least in the U.S. Does he have some Australian loophole YouTube is bound to uphold? He must be a lefty, or something. Enlightened people don't attack free speech. What about his own quotes from other videos? Not to mention the flagrant theft from the 007 movie intros.
@Planetar17, I haven't followed the war he declared on Astrobrant2, but I think it's pathetic. He's a sissy. Everything said about him that he doesn't favor is labeled as slander and libel. In the end, I think he loses the war, because he doesn't understand the definitions of those words. He's eager to put his face on everything, but unwilling to hear any voice challenging him or using his own words or video to demonstrate his error. He's a baby. His own bent on censorship is his own downfall..
Absolutely. Jarrah White has shown he can dish it, but he can't handle it. He entered the Apollo hoax scene dealing in accusations, but can't handle the heat now that his name is known a little more. We have a word for him the UK... Twat.
@Planetar17 In order to avoid immediate lawsuit from CR infringement claims, YT takes advantage of the "safe harbor" provision which protects them from such lawsuit if they immediately take down any video that is filed against. Then the person who lost those videos can file counter-notices, which YT is ALSO required to forward to the claimant immediately.
If the claimant doesn't file in court within 14 days, the videos are restored. That's what happened with me, but it took YT (cont.)
@AstroSock1 (2) over 4 months to do it. They were extremely negligent in the matter. (Oh, BTW, I'm AB2).
Within a couple days of my videos being restored, JW filed again. Then again a couple days later, causing my account to be terminated, (3 strikes).
Yes, what IW is doing is illegal as hell and I'm going to make a video on it when my account is reinstated. He has falsely DMCAd 59 videos from several accounts, causing two of his critics to lose their accounts. (cont.)
@AstroSock1 In ALL these videos, fair use applies. The use of that content is also granted by section 6-C of the YT ToS. In my video I will make the case that Jarrah knew full well that his DMCAs were bogus, and that he repeatedly stated that his reason for attacking these videos is because he didn't like what people had to say and how they used his material.
I can even show, (from 4 years ago), where he understands that that is NOT valid grounds for CR infringement claims.
@Planetar17 It's very simple, actually: YT is only interested in protecting themselves against lawsuits by the well-heeled media companies, so they react quickly to any and every DMCA request regardless of its validity. There's nothing in it for them to actually evaluate these requests because no law requires them to carry anybody's video.
@LunarTuner Hunchbacked doesn't accept anything which proves that he is an idiot. Doing so would cause serious damage his delusional belief system. Thus hunchbacked only admits to "minor" mistakes.
@GoneToPlaid Once in a blue moon he'll even admit to a major mistake, like thinking the CM's VHF recovery beacon (which was used to help the Navy locate it in the ocean) was used to rendezvous with the LM in lunar orbit. As no competent engineer would ever make such a mistake you'd think this would give him pause, to make him question his own judgment, but no -- he just keeps cranking out more of his delusional garbage.
I have accepted your video response, but let me be clear on this: It does not mean I agree with this video response, and that I acknowledge that it beats down my arguments.
You don't need to explain you don't agree with LT's arguments. We've all learned very well already what to expect from you. I agree 100% with comments on your behavior. You are delusional and becoming psychotic.
Exposing even the most obvious errors you make does not have any apparent effect on your behavior, which clearly confirms your mental state. Seriously, I mean no offense. I simply comment on what I see.
Of course, you couldn't answer to this video; when you were a moon hoaxer, your videos were rather bad, you were making blatant errors in perspective; I said nothing at the time, because you were on our side, and I attributed it to your youth, but I can now say it.
I'll answer to this video, and it will be an easy debunk.
You really disappointed me jonnyboy; I thought you might have some sense, but you turned out to have none.
@hunchbacked You're so sure of yourself and your position, yet I'm not the only one you've blocked from responding so you wouldn't have to deal with so many inconvenient facts from people who actually know this stuff. Like your current claim that a lowpass filter would have kept the VHF recovery beacon from working (in which you repeat an earlier misconception that a lowpass filter alone will demodulate a signal). Where did you find the cutoff frequency of that lowpass filter?
@hunchbacked Thank you. I give you credit for this even though I know you will still probably summarily reject the facts that I present. And I will refrain from personal attacks provided you do the same. It *is* still very difficult for me to accept that you actually believe all the things you say, but I will make that assumption for the sake of civil debate.
@hunchbacked LOL I was making perspective errors. Every single one of your videos is a complete joke. I think you're blind. Everyone makes fun of your perspective. I wonder why??
Why is this proof of an hoax anyway? At the end of ther day, if the footage was shot on Earth or moon you cannot deny that the video is real. It's an authentic video. I really don't understand your argument. You're just coming up with any old shit and saying 'hoax.'
@hunchbacked What are you talking about? The LRV is fully documented. The camera is shown in the proper location -- note this is the 16mm FILM camera, *NOT* the TV camera mounted farther forward.
I think you're beginning to lose it. You've bet your life on Apollo being bogus and I think you're beginning to suspect that it actually happened. So you're getting increasingly desperate, coming up with increasingly sillier claims that are all easy to refute.
@hunchbacked Of course you do. But the fact remains; it's really pretty much cut-and-dried: There is nothing ambiguous, or open to dispute. The plan illustration of the rover gives the location of the camera and driver, the dimensions of an EVA suit aren't too tough to come up with. The field of view of the lens is known. Everything fits perfectly.The result is clearly incompatible with your claim. Deny all you want, I think you'll find yourself the head of a VERY small following - again.
@hunchbacked I notice you have made no response to this video in 2 months despite your promises to do so, and your unsubstantiated claims of cheating, etc. You refuse to accept even something as cut and dried as the geometry of this movie camera.
I think BlisterHiker et al are right: you are moving beyond delusional to the psychotic. You have invested far too much in your now 200+ videos to stop now, no matter what the facts say. Just keep pumping 'em out.
This comment shows how delusional and misinformed you are, for I have made a debunk of this video (watch?v=pqOBijBT30E) just after I made a debunk of Astrobrand's video about the disappearing astronaut in Apollo 17 (watch?v=TLzTBhWPwTw).
@hunchbacked Okay, so I missed your response to LT's video among your 214 (!) videos. But I've watched it now; it's just more of your inaccurate, biased nonsense. LT based his analysis on actual documents; your response is handwaving. The film doesn't show the entire astronaut so it's entirely consistent with a 65 deg FOV - and why question that number? You don't think NASA was capable of buying a short lens? What's your point anyway???
@hunchbacked Your comment about the objective lens of the astronaut's Hasselblad is also wrong, since it projects well in front of the astronaut and would be EXPECTED to show a different perspective. The film camera has a wide angle lens and would be EXPECTED to show a lot of geometric distortion of nearby objects.
Instead of handwaving, why don't you do a detailed geometrical analysis? Because you can't. And if you did, you'd prove yourself wrong.
It does not project in front of the astronaut but on his side; and the camera did not have a wide angle like you try to make believe; any professional could see it has a normal view angle, not a wide one.
@hunchbacked What?! It is obvious to anyone with functional eyes that the Hasselblad projects IN FRONT of the astronaut so the front of its lens is much closer to the center of the movie camera's FOV than the astronaut himself. And the perspective is entirely consistent with that fact.
As for the film camera's FOV the documentation says it's 65 degrees and it is obviously quite wide. So you simply deny that without any evidence whatsoever because it demolishes your case.
I doubt the camera which is filming this scene really has an angle of 65°, but, even if has, it still is not filming in front and can't be the rover's camera.
But I am not surprised you can't see it, so much you are cut from reality.
@hunchbacked Why do you have such a hard time accepting the camera's FOV when it is trivially confirmed with an analysis of readily available documentation? Do cameras and lenses work differently on the moon than on the earth?
I think I know: the moment you accept even the simplest facts is the moment you start doubting your own position. You can't afford that because the cognitive dissonance would cause you to implode. So you're like Harold Camping's followers; you just keep going.
@hunchbacked Since you bring up your response to AB2's video, I notice you spend much time explaining why you sped up the A17 video. Far from being unimportant, that gave Cernan twice as much time to move behind the camera to his second location, thus resolving your supposed "mystery". I can't believe you don't realize this, but your delusion seems to have moved into a new and more serious phase.
BTW, it's funny that you go into so much detail on the zoom because it's irrelevant.
nice Lunar. man those pesky little facts sure do screw up a good scandal huh ? LMAO !
1MtnBoy 3 months ago
@NASAsPETE I wouldn't use the word "disgusting". I can think of many things that merit that word far more than hunchbacked's videos.
I would use the word 'sad'. Sad that he has wasted so much time and effort on producing 200+ videos - that hardly anybody watches - denying one of the best documented engineering projects in history. Sad that he can't appreciate the human achievement of Apollo. And sad that he has learned so little from all his work.
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
Can anybody explain how Jarrah White can get away with copyright infringement complaints? It seems to me short outtakes from a video when used for scholarly refutation is legal, at least in the U.S. Does he have some Australian loophole YouTube is bound to uphold? He must be a lefty, or something. Enlightened people don't attack free speech. What about his own quotes from other videos? Not to mention the flagrant theft from the 007 movie intros.
Planetar17 6 months ago
@Planetar17, I haven't followed the war he declared on Astrobrant2, but I think it's pathetic. He's a sissy. Everything said about him that he doesn't favor is labeled as slander and libel. In the end, I think he loses the war, because he doesn't understand the definitions of those words. He's eager to put his face on everything, but unwilling to hear any voice challenging him or using his own words or video to demonstrate his error. He's a baby. His own bent on censorship is his own downfall..
LunarTuner 6 months ago
@LunarTuner
Absolutely. Jarrah White has shown he can dish it, but he can't handle it. He entered the Apollo hoax scene dealing in accusations, but can't handle the heat now that his name is known a little more. We have a word for him the UK... Twat.
HiggsBosonNova 6 months ago
@Planetar17 In order to avoid immediate lawsuit from CR infringement claims, YT takes advantage of the "safe harbor" provision which protects them from such lawsuit if they immediately take down any video that is filed against. Then the person who lost those videos can file counter-notices, which YT is ALSO required to forward to the claimant immediately.
If the claimant doesn't file in court within 14 days, the videos are restored. That's what happened with me, but it took YT (cont.)
AstroSock1 6 months ago
@AstroSock1 (2) over 4 months to do it. They were extremely negligent in the matter. (Oh, BTW, I'm AB2).
Within a couple days of my videos being restored, JW filed again. Then again a couple days later, causing my account to be terminated, (3 strikes).
Yes, what IW is doing is illegal as hell and I'm going to make a video on it when my account is reinstated. He has falsely DMCAd 59 videos from several accounts, causing two of his critics to lose their accounts. (cont.)
AstroSock1 6 months ago
@AstroSock1 In ALL these videos, fair use applies. The use of that content is also granted by section 6-C of the YT ToS. In my video I will make the case that Jarrah knew full well that his DMCAs were bogus, and that he repeatedly stated that his reason for attacking these videos is because he didn't like what people had to say and how they used his material.
I can even show, (from 4 years ago), where he understands that that is NOT valid grounds for CR infringement claims.
AstroSock1 6 months ago
@Planetar17 It's very simple, actually: YT is only interested in protecting themselves against lawsuits by the well-heeled media companies, so they react quickly to any and every DMCA request regardless of its validity. There's nothing in it for them to actually evaluate these requests because no law requires them to carry anybody's video.
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
Every time I see a video like this, I think, "Well, that should pretty much settle it."
But they always seem to come back with something, don't they? No matter how absurd, they just HAVE to throw something back at you.
Let's see what HB says about this.
Good video.
Astrobrant2 6 months ago
@Astrobrant2 ...because the moon hoax theory is not just a failure of the mind--it's also a failure of the will.
LunarTuner 6 months ago
@LunarTuner Hunchbacked doesn't accept anything which proves that he is an idiot. Doing so would cause serious damage his delusional belief system. Thus hunchbacked only admits to "minor" mistakes.
GoneToPlaid 7 months ago
@GoneToPlaid Once in a blue moon he'll even admit to a major mistake, like thinking the CM's VHF recovery beacon (which was used to help the Navy locate it in the ocean) was used to rendezvous with the LM in lunar orbit. As no competent engineer would ever make such a mistake you'd think this would give him pause, to make him question his own judgment, but no -- he just keeps cranking out more of his delusional garbage.
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
@LunarTuner
I have accepted your video response, but let me be clear on this: It does not mean I agree with this video response, and that I acknowledge that it beats down my arguments.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked
You don't need to explain you don't agree with LT's arguments. We've all learned very well already what to expect from you. I agree 100% with comments on your behavior. You are delusional and becoming psychotic.
Exposing even the most obvious errors you make does not have any apparent effect on your behavior, which clearly confirms your mental state. Seriously, I mean no offense. I simply comment on what I see.
BlisterHiker 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlisterHiker
I know what you are thinking about me.
I don't think much better about you.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@LunarTuner
OK, if you want, I can make you this favor.
I can accept it as a video response.
It does not mean I agree with this response.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked, that's what honest, open debate is about. Thank you.
LunarTuner 7 months ago
I'll post a response to this video, but not tonight; it's too late.
But tomorrow, expect a response.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked There's no response you can possibly do to this. Give it up, you're becoming psychotic.
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny
Of course, you couldn't answer to this video; when you were a moon hoaxer, your videos were rather bad, you were making blatant errors in perspective; I said nothing at the time, because you were on our side, and I attributed it to your youth, but I can now say it.
I'll answer to this video, and it will be an easy debunk.
You really disappointed me jonnyboy; I thought you might have some sense, but you turned out to have none.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked You're so sure of yourself and your position, yet I'm not the only one you've blocked from responding so you wouldn't have to deal with so many inconvenient facts from people who actually know this stuff. Like your current claim that a lowpass filter would have kept the VHF recovery beacon from working (in which you repeat an earlier misconception that a lowpass filter alone will demodulate a signal). Where did you find the cutoff frequency of that lowpass filter?
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
You came back under another account anyway.
And I have unblocked you.
You can post your delusional comments in my videos under your original account.
I am not afraid of your comments that you always accompany with arrogance.
Your pals swallow your lies, so be happy.
I know I am right and you are delusional.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked Thank you. I give you credit for this even though I know you will still probably summarily reject the facts that I present. And I will refrain from personal attacks provided you do the same. It *is* still very difficult for me to accept that you actually believe all the things you say, but I will make that assumption for the sake of civil debate.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@hunchbacked LOL I was making perspective errors. Every single one of your videos is a complete joke. I think you're blind. Everyone makes fun of your perspective. I wonder why??
So you gonna post your stupid response or not?
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
@hunchbacked You are going to have a hard time of it, especially since the video camera itself is visible as a reflection in the astronaut's visor.
GoneToPlaid 7 months ago
To me, Hunchbacked is one of the worst of the Apollo Deniers on youTube. He often presents his own ignorance as proof of his viewpoint.
edmfw 7 months ago
Can you explain me why the intersection of your two lines is not centered on the camera and on the left of it?
Can you also explain me why the camera is so big relatively to the astronaut?
If you change the conditions, no wonder you can obtain the result you want!
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked
Why is this proof of an hoax anyway? At the end of ther day, if the footage was shot on Earth or moon you cannot deny that the video is real. It's an authentic video. I really don't understand your argument. You're just coming up with any old shit and saying 'hoax.'
lukequixotesanjose 7 months ago
Yoiu have cheated on the cinditions.
The camera is not shooting from where you made it shoot.
This way you can reduce the angle.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked What are you talking about? The LRV is fully documented. The camera is shown in the proper location -- note this is the 16mm FILM camera, *NOT* the TV camera mounted farther forward.
I think you're beginning to lose it. You've bet your life on Apollo being bogus and I think you're beginning to suspect that it actually happened. So you're getting increasingly desperate, coming up with increasingly sillier claims that are all easy to refute.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
Just like old times. A little research, and the "mystery" evaporates. But this simple yet conclusive demonstration will have no effect on HB.
le plus de choses change, le plus ils restent le même
occhamite 7 months ago
@occhamite
You call that research?
I call that cheating on conditions!
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked Of course you do. But the fact remains; it's really pretty much cut-and-dried: There is nothing ambiguous, or open to dispute. The plan illustration of the rover gives the location of the camera and driver, the dimensions of an EVA suit aren't too tough to come up with. The field of view of the lens is known. Everything fits perfectly.The result is clearly incompatible with your claim. Deny all you want, I think you'll find yourself the head of a VERY small following - again.
occhamite 7 months ago
@hunchbacked I notice you have made no response to this video in 2 months despite your promises to do so, and your unsubstantiated claims of cheating, etc. You refuse to accept even something as cut and dried as the geometry of this movie camera.
I think BlisterHiker et al are right: you are moving beyond delusional to the psychotic. You have invested far too much in your now 200+ videos to stop now, no matter what the facts say. Just keep pumping 'em out.
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
This comment shows how delusional and misinformed you are, for I have made a debunk of this video (watch?v=pqOBijBT30E) just after I made a debunk of Astrobrand's video about the disappearing astronaut in Apollo 17 (watch?v=TLzTBhWPwTw).
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked Okay, so I missed your response to LT's video among your 214 (!) videos. But I've watched it now; it's just more of your inaccurate, biased nonsense. LT based his analysis on actual documents; your response is handwaving. The film doesn't show the entire astronaut so it's entirely consistent with a 65 deg FOV - and why question that number? You don't think NASA was capable of buying a short lens? What's your point anyway???
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
@hunchbacked Your comment about the objective lens of the astronaut's Hasselblad is also wrong, since it projects well in front of the astronaut and would be EXPECTED to show a different perspective. The film camera has a wide angle lens and would be EXPECTED to show a lot of geometric distortion of nearby objects.
Instead of handwaving, why don't you do a detailed geometrical analysis? Because you can't. And if you did, you'd prove yourself wrong.
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
It does not project in front of the astronaut but on his side; and the camera did not have a wide angle like you try to make believe; any professional could see it has a normal view angle, not a wide one.
You are completely cut from reality.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked What?! It is obvious to anyone with functional eyes that the Hasselblad projects IN FRONT of the astronaut so the front of its lens is much closer to the center of the movie camera's FOV than the astronaut himself. And the perspective is entirely consistent with that fact.
As for the film camera's FOV the documentation says it's 65 degrees and it is obviously quite wide. So you simply deny that without any evidence whatsoever because it demolishes your case.
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
I doubt the camera which is filming this scene really has an angle of 65°, but, even if has, it still is not filming in front and can't be the rover's camera.
But I am not surprised you can't see it, so much you are cut from reality.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked Why do you have such a hard time accepting the camera's FOV when it is trivially confirmed with an analysis of readily available documentation? Do cameras and lenses work differently on the moon than on the earth?
I think I know: the moment you accept even the simplest facts is the moment you start doubting your own position. You can't afford that because the cognitive dissonance would cause you to implode. So you're like Harold Camping's followers; you just keep going.
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
Damn, can't you made the difference between "In front" and "on the side".
Are you so much cut from reality that you can't make the difference?
I can't believe that you are so blind, so delusional.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
If the astronaut was really taken in front, we could not see the pole of the high gain antenna on the image!
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked And indeed we don't see the high gain antenna pole -- that's the LOW gain antenna. You lose again.
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
@hunchbacked
ApolloWasReal: "You lose again."
- It's called habit.
Rob260259 1 month ago
@hunchbacked Since you bring up your response to AB2's video, I notice you spend much time explaining why you sped up the A17 video. Far from being unimportant, that gave Cernan twice as much time to move behind the camera to his second location, thus resolving your supposed "mystery". I can't believe you don't realize this, but your delusion seems to have moved into a new and more serious phase.
BTW, it's funny that you go into so much detail on the zoom because it's irrelevant.
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago
I like the "voila".
Even Hunch will understand that.
Rob260259 7 months ago
Too easy... Apollo belivers 3045 - Hoaxnuts 0
lukequixotesanjose 7 months ago
@lukequixotesanjose Not to hear the hoaxnuts tell it!
ApolloWasReal 4 months ago