Killian may be a bit of a blowhard on his videos but his arguments hold water and he's right: we went to the moon. The Hoax believers keep recycling the same arguments without answering the debunkers. You just spent two YouTube videos to argue about the speed of the Apollo 16 footage where as Killian spent less time shredding several other conspiracy theories to mulch. Give it up, Hoaxers: We walked on the Moon.
Is blocking, people he can not handle. Questions are not answered bij shandedk. His way to the truth is censorship, on his own chanel. How can anyone take shanedk serious. Again he shows himself as a clossed minded man.
zakabog ..The Apollo flags were NOT typical in any respect and were designed not to wave, but that obviously didn't stop the Apollo 15 flag from swinging in the breeze of the astronot who bounced past it on the A15 moonset ! LOL
"...The Apollo flags were NOT typical in any respect and were designed not to wave..."
You're kidding? If they're designed not to wave then they're designed not to catch air, so they'd need holes to let air pass through, or the flags are made from a rigid material like aluminum. If they're designed not to catch air then they're not going to be affected by a breeze caused by an astronaut walking by, or even a semi driving by at 60mph.
Show that the flag is waving due to any sort of air hitting it and I'll give you my car (2008 Ford Mustang GT). The flag isn't waving like any flag I've ever seen on earth. It holds it's shape and kind of swings, plus it starts moving BEFORE the astronaut passes by. Maybe the moonset had magic wind?
"Show that the flag is waving due to any sort of air hitting it and I'll give you my car (2008 Ford Mustang GT)."
This coming from the same Apollo defender who believes that the Russians sabatoged the Apollo 1 LM which killed Grisson, Chafee and White.
Take him up on his offer green before he changes his mind and believes that the swinging flag wasn't really in that video at all, but was only an optical illusion ! LOL
"Wow... The Russian theory was sarcasm to show how absurd the hoax believers and there theories are."
There's no need to lie about what you posted and why... Your "the Russians sabatoged it" claim is still right there on the tribute to Gus, along with your pathetic excuse as to why you made that silly comment.
The A15 flag swings back and forth because of the air currents stirred up by the astronot as he trotted past it on the moonset...It wasn't designed to wave .
"There's no need to lie about what you posted and why..."
One last reply on this one, the comment that the Russians used M-80s to scare the Americans was so tongue in cheek (I claimed they used M-80s, those are kids explosives. They have big non nuclear weapons but I wanted to pick the most absurd option)
"It wasn't designed to wave ."
It's a typical American flag it's in their nature to wave. It had a pole holding the top to keep it from drooping down but that won't keep it from waving.
"One last reply on this one, the comment that the Russians used M-80s to scare the Americans was so tongue in cheek."
Read my comment again zakabog.
That wasn't the comment I was referring to and you know it .. I meant the one where you claimed that the Russians sabatoged the Apollo 1 craft that killed the Apollo 1 crew .. Then when I asked you where you got that info from you recanted and said you were only guessing.
You are defending a subject you clearly know nothing about.
Oh, sorry, I thought you meant the other one. I don't believe the Apollo 1 craft was sabotaged at all, Grissom's family does, and the Russians would be the most reasonable saboteurs.
You don't get it, the Grissom's never accused NASA of murdering Gus Grissom, they accused NASA of covering up sabotage.
For some reason you think the pure oxygen environment was the only thing that led to their death. There were also flammable components (most of which were requested by the crew), and the fact that they didn't have an explosive hatch. I think NASA decided to get rid of that after the Liberty Bell 7 sank into the ocean when the hatch opened accidentally.
What flammable components did the crew ask for ? .. I don't know where you dream this stuff up ..Grissom was quite aware that there were exposed wires in the LM and was afraid they might cause a problem in a pure oxygen enviornment .. but what he didn't know was that NASA engineers would pump in so much O2 that it would cause a fire.
The fire extinguishers which had been in the cabin had been removed the day before and the door was blocked from the outside... Sure sounds like murder to me .
"WRONG! the grissoms accused Nasa of covering up the REAL reason A1 caught on fire....
NOT SABOTAGE.. jackass. "
Oh? You should tell the Grissom's that they're wrong about what they're accusing NASA of -
"Grissom's widow, Betty, has long insisted that the "accident" that killed her husband in a launch pad fire in 1967 was not an accident at all, and may have been SABOTAGE, and that NASA has lied about it ever since because it does not want the public to know it."
"Never had anyone die in your family that was REALLY close before,...huh?"
... I don't know what makes you think that, but my mother died 4 years ago.
I fail to see what death in my family has to do with you being wrong about the Grissom's not believing Apollo 1 was sabotaged. I gave you a direct quote from an article although I can find more quotes that backup my claim that the Grissom's believed it was sabotage.
"when your mother died, did you not try and point the finger @ who was to blame?"
... no, why would I?
Also, are you trying to say the Grissom's are unjustifiably pointing their fingers at sabotage because of their loss?
"anyways, the Grissoms, pointed the finger @ N.A.S.A, for their sons death... not @ Russia.. LOL...."
Unfortunately for you reality says otherwise. The Grissom's blame SABOTAGE for killing Gus Grissom, they say NASA is covering up the SABOTAGE, they're NOT BLAMING NASA.
"when your mother died, did you not try and point the finger @ who was to blame?"
... no, why would I?
she more than likely died of a CLEAR cause then ?
grissom did not die of a "clear cause" @ the time, it wasnt until weeks later that N.A.S.A released the information... and im sure by then , his family was wondering wtf was going on/taking so long...
well , when you lose a family member to "unnatural" causes, you have a tendency to ask A LOT of questions, like who, what , when , and y.
"she more than likely died of a CLEAR cause then ?"
Not really, she died from diabetes but we didn't know until after the autopsy and it took about 6 months to find out, so for 6 months we didn't know what killed her but we weren't pointing fingers.
"well , when you lose a family member to "unnatural" causes, you have a tendency to ask A LOT of questions, like who, what , when , and y."
I still don't see your point, the family still accused NASA of covering up sabotage, not murder.
fuck you, i'm not losing my time on a retarded such as yourself with your stupid arguments. What was your argument for the apollo 15 flag waving as the actor passes next to it again?
looking through the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal by Eric Jones, it appears some of the counter-arguments expressed by some here have been rejected.
"Note the slight motion of the lower righthand corner of the flag after Dave passes. Journal Contributors have suggested a number of possible causes: (1) Dave could have brushed against the flag with his left arm as he went by; (2) he could have kicked some dirt with his boot that hit the bottom of the flag;
(3) he could have pushed a mound of soil sideways with his boot that pushed against the flagstaff ;(4) the impact of his boots on the ground as he ran past could have shaken the flagstaff; (5) he might have been carrying a static charge which attracted the flag material; (6) the flag could have been disturbed by emissions from the backpack."
Now Jones states confidently that both static electricity and backpack emissions from the suits being unlikely as the cause for this and he also dismisses the idea that it was caused by Scott's boots hitting the ground.
"Dave problably doesn't get close enough to the flagstaff for his footfalls to have any noticeable effect."
In the case of soil hitting the flag and moving it: Jones is too skeptical of that theory.
"The possibility that Dave kicked some dirt high enough to hit the bottom of the flag is not out of the realm of possibility, although in the many cases were we have goot TV coverage of sprays of dirt flying out ahead of running astronauts, most of the particles have relatively flat trajectories and land after traveling a meter or so. Indeed, Buzz Aldrin did some purposeful test kicks to see what happened and how the sprays looked under various lighting conditions.
This is discussed after 110:18:31. Buzz comments, "Houston, it's very interesting to note that when I kick my foot (garbled) material, with no atmosphere here, and this gravity (garbled) they seem to leave, and most of them have about the same angle of departure and velocity.
From where I stand, a large portion of them will impact at a certain distance out. Several (garbled) percentage is, of course, that will impact (garbled) different regions out (garbled) it's highly dependent upon (garbled) the initial trajectory upwards (garbled) determine where the majority of the particles come down, (garbled) terrain."]
[My impression is that few, if any, particles go above knee height.]"
At the end of the day, Jones has come to the conclusion that the flag waved because Scott brushed it: now both Greenmagoos and myself have come to see the flaws with this idea and it seems Jones himself can see the problems with it.
"The estimated PLSS locations makes it possible that Dave's elbow could have touched the flag; but just barely, if at all."
Because of the unlikelihood of the flag getting bumped, hit by dust, static electricity, etc, etc, there's only one possibility left.
Then how come it acts ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE a flag blowing in wind? A flag in an atmosphere would billow from the middle, not swing from the end. A flag in an atmosphere would be slowed down by air resistance, not swing freely.
Of course, you're so stupid you actually think 150% is double, so there's little hope for you seeing sense here...
How does it wave in the first place? You insisted that the ALSJ thoroughly explains the flag, but Jones himself expressed his own uncertainty for his conclusion.
Simple: he obviously bumped it with his elbow, and there was probably a static attraction as well, and it was all inertia after that. It doesn't wave; it swings.
"If you take to time to examine that video, you'll find he's obviously too far away from the flag."
Bullshit. Look at the angle on the flag; there's a lot of foreshortening going on, meaning that the camera is closer to the flag, and when the astronaut passes in front of it, he LOOKS larger because of the angle, but there's probably just a few feet from the camera to the flag.
"and when the astronaut passes in front of it, he LOOKS larger because of the angle"
No, he looks bigger because he's closer to the camera: the GCTA remains in exactly the same place throughout and does not move except for tilting up slightly just before the astronaut runs past.
WhiteJarrah, the flag doesn't look like it was affected by wind, I've yet to see any videos setup the same way (camera positions and all) showing the flag move in the same way on earth. Mostly because it's impossible (the wind would change the shape of the flag, not cause one part of it to swing.)
'Simple: he obviously bumped it with his elbow, and there was probably a static attraction as well, and it was all inertia after that. It doesn't wave; it swings'
Shane are you sure you don't want to fire a lunar poltergeist into your list?
Lunar poltergeist would still be more reasonable than air. The flag isn't waving, it's swinging, no flag waves like that. My theory is that the Russians dropped a bomb on the far side of the moon and the blast caused the flag to move.
You theory is that the Russians dropped a bomb on the far side on the Moon?
Surely those dosimeter readings would have shot up and been noticed because according to NASA its perfectly ok to prance around the surface of a planetary body that has absolutely no atmospheric/magnetic belt protection from solar/galactic radiation in a Apollo space suit.
I didn't say a nuclear bomb, it was just a bunch of M-80s tied to a Russian lunar rover, they were trying to scare the Americans off the moon. Unfortunately the Russians forgot that the astronauts would hear the sound, and neither one of the astronauts saw the flag move from the shock.
Sounds like a decent idea, then in a couple years there will be videos on youtube of "proof" that the Russians set off a cluster of M-80s on the far side of the moon
Hmmm the likeliness of the ball hitting the flag pole is rather low (for the M-80 theory to work they'd just need a large number of explosives, and the means of getting them to the moon, they had them both.) Although this golf ball theory is still a better explanation than air, since the flag was swinging, not waving.
also I find it interesting that greenmagoo always seems to be just around the corner when jarrah gets into a discussion with someone.
.how would greenmagoo know that jarrahwhite needed backup each and every time? does he monitor jarrahs page 24/7 or are they one and the same/ hmmmmm??
how would greenmagoo know that jarrahwhite needed backup each and every time? does he monitor jarrahs page 24/7 or are they one and the same/ hmmmmm??
"If the Apollo footage was in fact reduced to half speed, then all we would need to do to regain normal speed is increase it's velocity by 50%"
interesting theory but unfortunately fro you it doesnt quite work. i took an original 10 sec piece of footage and imported into my editing software, and went through your steps as outlined. The result? A 13.333 second clip that was originally 10 seconds.
jarrah did you ever take remedial math? just curious bud.
Why on EARTH do you think this Steve Troy guy is the ONLY one capable of figuring out that this is a fiber?
No, you just went and found some nut who said the same thing, just so you could use it to discredit everyone else. ANYONE with a brain can see that it's a fiber and not a part of the original print.
"Why on EARTH do you think this Steve Troy guy is the ONLY one capable of figuring out that this is a fiber?"
Because he IS the only guy who found it out, and has demonstrated a total lack of photo-analysis skills. Plait and the others merely plagerize him, though some give him a footnote! You stated that if someone is frequently wrong you can't trust him on the rest, so how can you trust Troy's analysis given the ridiculous "alien evidence" he props up.
Because LOTS of others HAVE verified it. I mean, all you have to do is LOOK at it! And why isn't it there on ANY of the originals? Why is it ONLY there on descendants of this ONE print?
And why would they label a prop with a big, stupid letter in the first place? Can you find ANY props department in Hollywood that does that?
Yes Steve Troys best friend Richard Hoagland thinks that Ed Mitchell required hypnotic regression to remember 'what it felt like on the moon' because he had been brainwashed by shadey elements to forget the giant glass domes that they find among 'c' shaped hairs in the Apollo 'moon' photos.
He stops himself from accusing Mitchell of being a 'downright liar' about his moon trip because he has his own alien moonbase/face on mars agenda to promote.
Of course, the thing you're not saying is, if even someone as nutty as Steve Troy isn't stupid enough to claim that the "C" is anything but a hair or fiber, what does that say about YOUR level of stupidity???
According to your theories shouldn't there be tons? The hairs might not be noticeable on other photos cause they're over the sky, or not enough people have looked. If the C is from the rock being marked by the props department wouldn't there be more than one photo showing markings? Also, wouldn't everyone on the set have realized there was a big C facing up on the rock right in front of them?
"Also, wouldn't everyone on the set have realized there was a big C facing up on the rock right in front of them"
that's a good question! How about this : How come no one was intelligent enough to realize that the sand wasn't acting like the actornauts when kicked compared to a jump? Or how come they weren't able to see stars? Or how did they manage to have a cooling system working when the engine was off?
So realizing that the crummy story doesn't make sense and that there is evidence that it's a scam is being stupid now?
So we can assume you're the type of guy who makes fun at people who can think and reason... Is it me or the movie "Ideaocracy" was filmed in your skull?
"It makes sense to anyone with more than half a brain"
Sadly, you don't realize that having a brain that doesn't work properly like yours is worth nothing... I guess it's too advanced as a concept for you to understand it.
"who's bothered to read up on the science."
I wasn't aware you needed to be a scientist to understand that a flag moving when someone passes near it is because he moved air.
"read up on the science"
What is the value of reading something you can't even understand weirdo?
Choamsky is a Jew who gets all the attention of medias when he writes a book about "exposing" something when actually he blames United-statesians for everything instead of Jews who are actually manipulating everything.
The only reason soldiers should get out of Iraq and all the Arab countries is because Israel was responsible for 9/11, not the Arabs.
And you are the biggest propagandist of them all, well...not bigger than Sibrel.
How many lies have you told, how many videos must you cherry pick to sell your crap films? I wouldn't even call this junk science, just junk.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
Killian may be a bit of a blowhard on his videos but his arguments hold water and he's right: we went to the moon. The Hoax believers keep recycling the same arguments without answering the debunkers. You just spent two YouTube videos to argue about the speed of the Apollo 16 footage where as Killian spent less time shredding several other conspiracy theories to mulch. Give it up, Hoaxers: We walked on the Moon.
Jacktwo04 1 year ago
Comment removed
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
Shanedk,
Is blocking, people he can not handle. Questions are not answered bij shandedk. His way to the truth is censorship, on his own chanel. How can anyone take shanedk serious. Again he shows himself as a clossed minded man.
Peace to you all
travelstickcouk 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
haha Man your videos are cracking me up..
EOEcrew 3 years ago
1 question...
why "sabotage and kill the 1st astronauts in the Apollo program?"...
?
MrFireAss 3 years ago
"why "sabotage and kill the 1st astronauts in the Apollo program?"..."
I never said Apollo 1 was sabotaged, I said the Grissom's believe that it was, you'll have to ask the Grissom's why they believe it was sabotaged.
zakabog 3 years ago
so... did they fly to the moon or not !?!?!?!
quadcatfly 3 years ago
yes.. lol
MrFireAss 3 years ago
Ah.. the guy who discovered the problem with the C rock is a nutter, ergo it really IS just a moon set prop.
When you produce a video that relys soley on evidence, and not on an unending series of ad homenins and he-said she-said bunk, drop me a message.
SirMildredPierce 4 years ago
zakabog ..The Apollo flags were NOT typical in any respect and were designed not to wave, but that obviously didn't stop the Apollo 15 flag from swinging in the breeze of the astronot who bounced past it on the A15 moonset ! LOL
straydog02 4 years ago
"...The Apollo flags were NOT typical in any respect and were designed not to wave..."
You're kidding? If they're designed not to wave then they're designed not to catch air, so they'd need holes to let air pass through, or the flags are made from a rigid material like aluminum. If they're designed not to catch air then they're not going to be affected by a breeze caused by an astronaut walking by, or even a semi driving by at 60mph.
zakabog 4 years ago
Show that the flag is waving due to any sort of air hitting it and I'll give you my car (2008 Ford Mustang GT). The flag isn't waving like any flag I've ever seen on earth. It holds it's shape and kind of swings, plus it starts moving BEFORE the astronaut passes by. Maybe the moonset had magic wind?
zakabog 4 years ago
"Show that the flag is waving due to any sort of air hitting it and I'll give you my car (2008 Ford Mustang GT)."
This coming from the same Apollo defender who believes that the Russians sabatoged the Apollo 1 LM which killed Grisson, Chafee and White.
Take him up on his offer green before he changes his mind and believes that the swinging flag wasn't really in that video at all, but was only an optical illusion ! LOL
straydog02 4 years ago
"This coming from the same Apollo defender who believes that the Russians sabatoged the Apollo 1 LM which killed Grisson, Chafee and White."
Wow... The Russian theory was sarcasm to show how absurd the hoax believers and there theories are.
"...before he changes his mind and believes that the swinging flag wasn't really in that video at all..."
Yes the flag swings, like a flag in a vacuum. You're supposed to prove it waves, like a flag in an atmosphere.
zakabog 4 years ago
"Wow... The Russian theory was sarcasm to show how absurd the hoax believers and there theories are."
There's no need to lie about what you posted and why... Your "the Russians sabatoged it" claim is still right there on the tribute to Gus, along with your pathetic excuse as to why you made that silly comment.
The A15 flag swings back and forth because of the air currents stirred up by the astronot as he trotted past it on the moonset...It wasn't designed to wave .
straydog02 4 years ago
"There's no need to lie about what you posted and why..."
One last reply on this one, the comment that the Russians used M-80s to scare the Americans was so tongue in cheek (I claimed they used M-80s, those are kids explosives. They have big non nuclear weapons but I wanted to pick the most absurd option)
"It wasn't designed to wave ."
It's a typical American flag it's in their nature to wave. It had a pole holding the top to keep it from drooping down but that won't keep it from waving.
zakabog 4 years ago
"One last reply on this one, the comment that the Russians used M-80s to scare the Americans was so tongue in cheek."
Read my comment again zakabog.
That wasn't the comment I was referring to and you know it .. I meant the one where you claimed that the Russians sabatoged the Apollo 1 craft that killed the Apollo 1 crew .. Then when I asked you where you got that info from you recanted and said you were only guessing.
You are defending a subject you clearly know nothing about.
straydog02 4 years ago
Oh, sorry, I thought you meant the other one. I don't believe the Apollo 1 craft was sabotaged at all, Grissom's family does, and the Russians would be the most reasonable saboteurs.
zakabog 4 years ago
The Grisson's are right.. The A1 LM was sabatoged by NASA's engineers, either deliberately or by their utter incompetence.
There were no "Russians" conducting that plug out test using exposed wires in a pure oxygen environment which killed the A1 crew .
straydog02 4 years ago
You don't get it, the Grissom's never accused NASA of murdering Gus Grissom, they accused NASA of covering up sabotage.
For some reason you think the pure oxygen environment was the only thing that led to their death. There were also flammable components (most of which were requested by the crew), and the fact that they didn't have an explosive hatch. I think NASA decided to get rid of that after the Liberty Bell 7 sank into the ocean when the hatch opened accidentally.
zakabog 4 years ago
What flammable components did the crew ask for ? .. I don't know where you dream this stuff up ..Grissom was quite aware that there were exposed wires in the LM and was afraid they might cause a problem in a pure oxygen enviornment .. but what he didn't know was that NASA engineers would pump in so much O2 that it would cause a fire.
The fire extinguishers which had been in the cabin had been removed the day before and the door was blocked from the outside... Sure sounds like murder to me .
straydog02 4 years ago
WRONG! the grissoms accused Nasa of covering up the REAL reason A1 caught on fire....
NOT SABOTAGE.. jackass.
MrFireAss 3 years ago
"WRONG! the grissoms accused Nasa of covering up the REAL reason A1 caught on fire....
NOT SABOTAGE.. jackass. "
Oh? You should tell the Grissom's that they're wrong about what they're accusing NASA of -
"Grissom's widow, Betty, has long insisted that the "accident" that killed her husband in a launch pad fire in 1967 was not an accident at all, and may have been SABOTAGE, and that NASA has lied about it ever since because it does not want the public to know it."
zakabog 3 years ago
Never had anyone die in your family that was REALLY close before,...huh?
MrFireAss 3 years ago
"Never had anyone die in your family that was REALLY close before,...huh?"
... I don't know what makes you think that, but my mother died 4 years ago.
I fail to see what death in my family has to do with you being wrong about the Grissom's not believing Apollo 1 was sabotaged. I gave you a direct quote from an article although I can find more quotes that backup my claim that the Grissom's believed it was sabotage.
zakabog 3 years ago
when your mother died, did you not try and point the finger @ who was to blame?
anyways, the Grissoms, pointed the finger @ N.A.S.A, for their sons death... not @ Russia.. LOL....
p.s. A1 was burn up on the launch pad due to wires exposed , and arcing in a pure oxygen environment.....
they accused nasa of not doing EVERYTHING they could to protect their son... lol...
get your facts right.
MrFireAss 3 years ago
"when your mother died, did you not try and point the finger @ who was to blame?"
... no, why would I?
Also, are you trying to say the Grissom's are unjustifiably pointing their fingers at sabotage because of their loss?
"anyways, the Grissoms, pointed the finger @ N.A.S.A, for their sons death... not @ Russia.. LOL...."
Unfortunately for you reality says otherwise. The Grissom's blame SABOTAGE for killing Gus Grissom, they say NASA is covering up the SABOTAGE, they're NOT BLAMING NASA.
zakabog 3 years ago
"when your mother died, did you not try and point the finger @ who was to blame?"
... no, why would I?
she more than likely died of a CLEAR cause then ?
grissom did not die of a "clear cause" @ the time, it wasnt until weeks later that N.A.S.A released the information... and im sure by then , his family was wondering wtf was going on/taking so long...
well , when you lose a family member to "unnatural" causes, you have a tendency to ask A LOT of questions, like who, what , when , and y.
MrFireAss 3 years ago
"she more than likely died of a CLEAR cause then ?"
Not really, she died from diabetes but we didn't know until after the autopsy and it took about 6 months to find out, so for 6 months we didn't know what killed her but we weren't pointing fingers.
"well , when you lose a family member to "unnatural" causes, you have a tendency to ask A LOT of questions, like who, what , when , and y."
I still don't see your point, the family still accused NASA of covering up sabotage, not murder.
zakabog 3 years ago
n.a.s.a doenst want the world to know that a simple mistake in the early 60's killed their men...
just like the mars rovers.... well 3 were sent... but 2made it...
MrFireAss 3 years ago
How come no one was intelligent enough to realize that the sand wasn't acting like the actornauts when kicked compared to a jump?
I don't understand what your question is, but jump on the beach, now kick sand on the beach, it should look different.
how come they weren't able to see stars?
The moon was too bright, it's like seeing stars in a football stadium at night.
how did they manage to have a cooling system working when the engine was off?
I thought it ran off the electrical system?
zakabog 4 years ago
Shane wouldn't even be credible wearing a suit in his stupid videos...
Some people are just not meant to exist. You're one of those Shane.
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
i thought it was odd that jarrahwhite thinks 10 x 1.5 = 20 so i made a video about it.
check it out everyone: v=QRw6hwvCp0k
eryan550 4 years ago
Who would trust someone with a retarded face, a retarded voice and retarded arguments just like Shane anyways?
Trying to be funny he just ends up looking like, or actually being a moron.
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
So, do you think that 150% of 5 is 10, too?
shanedk 4 years ago
since when you care about what people think?
And why should I answer you when you never did answer in an intelligent way to any of my questions before banning me?
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
I didn't ban you; I banned your sockpuppets. Pick a name and post under it.
shanedk 4 years ago
fuck you, i'm not losing my time on a retarded such as yourself with your stupid arguments. What was your argument for the apollo 15 flag waving as the actor passes next to it again?
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
Fully documented in the ALSJ. Anyone can read the explanation for themselves.
shanedk 4 years ago
and what was written? He hit with his giant elbow? Or anything as stupid as this?
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
"Fully documented in the ALSJ. Anyone can read the explanation for themselves."
Seeing as you've read the ALSJ, perhaps you would care to address my comments regarding their passage about the flag.
I originally posted this message at the Joe Rogan forum, then again in your comments page for Bogosity 3 pt1. It'll take up some posts, hold on.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
looking through the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal by Eric Jones, it appears some of the counter-arguments expressed by some here have been rejected.
"Note the slight motion of the lower righthand corner of the flag after Dave passes. Journal Contributors have suggested a number of possible causes: (1) Dave could have brushed against the flag with his left arm as he went by; (2) he could have kicked some dirt with his boot that hit the bottom of the flag;
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
(3) he could have pushed a mound of soil sideways with his boot that pushed against the flagstaff ;(4) the impact of his boots on the ground as he ran past could have shaken the flagstaff; (5) he might have been carrying a static charge which attracted the flag material; (6) the flag could have been disturbed by emissions from the backpack."
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Now Jones states confidently that both static electricity and backpack emissions from the suits being unlikely as the cause for this and he also dismisses the idea that it was caused by Scott's boots hitting the ground.
"Dave problably doesn't get close enough to the flagstaff for his footfalls to have any noticeable effect."
In the case of soil hitting the flag and moving it: Jones is too skeptical of that theory.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"The possibility that Dave kicked some dirt high enough to hit the bottom of the flag is not out of the realm of possibility, although in the many cases were we have goot TV coverage of sprays of dirt flying out ahead of running astronauts, most of the particles have relatively flat trajectories and land after traveling a meter or so. Indeed, Buzz Aldrin did some purposeful test kicks to see what happened and how the sprays looked under various lighting conditions.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
This is discussed after 110:18:31. Buzz comments, "Houston, it's very interesting to note that when I kick my foot (garbled) material, with no atmosphere here, and this gravity (garbled) they seem to leave, and most of them have about the same angle of departure and velocity.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
From where I stand, a large portion of them will impact at a certain distance out. Several (garbled) percentage is, of course, that will impact (garbled) different regions out (garbled) it's highly dependent upon (garbled) the initial trajectory upwards (garbled) determine where the majority of the particles come down, (garbled) terrain."]
[My impression is that few, if any, particles go above knee height.]"
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
At the end of the day, Jones has come to the conclusion that the flag waved because Scott brushed it: now both Greenmagoos and myself have come to see the flaws with this idea and it seems Jones himself can see the problems with it.
"The estimated PLSS locations makes it possible that Dave's elbow could have touched the flag; but just barely, if at all."
Because of the unlikelihood of the flag getting bumped, hit by dust, static electricity, etc, etc, there's only one possibility left.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind, the answer is blowin' in the wind." - Bob Dylan
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Then how come it acts ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE a flag blowing in wind? A flag in an atmosphere would billow from the middle, not swing from the end. A flag in an atmosphere would be slowed down by air resistance, not swing freely.
Of course, you're so stupid you actually think 150% is double, so there's little hope for you seeing sense here...
shanedk 4 years ago
How does it wave in the first place? You insisted that the ALSJ thoroughly explains the flag, but Jones himself expressed his own uncertainty for his conclusion.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Simple: he obviously bumped it with his elbow, and there was probably a static attraction as well, and it was all inertia after that. It doesn't wave; it swings.
shanedk 4 years ago
"Simple: he obviously bumped it with his elbow"
'The estimated PLSS locations makes it possible that Dave's elbow could have touched the flag; but just barely, if at all.' - ALSJ
If you take to time to examine that video, you'll find he's obviously too far away from the flag.
"and there was probably a static attraction as well"
Yet your ALSJ refutes that. 'In thinking about these possibilities, numbers 5 and 6 are very unlikely'
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
"If you take to time to examine that video, you'll find he's obviously too far away from the flag."
Bullshit. Look at the angle on the flag; there's a lot of foreshortening going on, meaning that the camera is closer to the flag, and when the astronaut passes in front of it, he LOOKS larger because of the angle, but there's probably just a few feet from the camera to the flag.
shanedk 4 years ago
"and when the astronaut passes in front of it, he LOOKS larger because of the angle"
No, he looks bigger because he's closer to the camera: the GCTA remains in exactly the same place throughout and does not move except for tilting up slightly just before the astronaut runs past.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
WhiteJarrah, the flag doesn't look like it was affected by wind, I've yet to see any videos setup the same way (camera positions and all) showing the flag move in the same way on earth. Mostly because it's impossible (the wind would change the shape of the flag, not cause one part of it to swing.)
zakabog 4 years ago
'Simple: he obviously bumped it with his elbow, and there was probably a static attraction as well, and it was all inertia after that. It doesn't wave; it swings'
Shane are you sure you don't want to fire a lunar poltergeist into your list?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Lunar poltergeist would still be more reasonable than air. The flag isn't waving, it's swinging, no flag waves like that. My theory is that the Russians dropped a bomb on the far side of the moon and the blast caused the flag to move.
zakabog 4 years ago
You theory is that the Russians dropped a bomb on the far side on the Moon?
Surely those dosimeter readings would have shot up and been noticed because according to NASA its perfectly ok to prance around the surface of a planetary body that has absolutely no atmospheric/magnetic belt protection from solar/galactic radiation in a Apollo space suit.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
I didn't say a nuclear bomb, it was just a bunch of M-80s tied to a Russian lunar rover, they were trying to scare the Americans off the moon. Unfortunately the Russians forgot that the astronauts would hear the sound, and neither one of the astronauts saw the flag move from the shock.
zakabog 4 years ago
Write you are.
Try googleing book publishers. You've got a best seller on your hands with that theory.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Sounds like a decent idea, then in a couple years there will be videos on youtube of "proof" that the Russians set off a cluster of M-80s on the far side of the moon
zakabog 4 years ago
I think if you made a story up about Alan Shepards golf ball hitting the flag after doing orbits round the Moon you might have more credibility.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Hmmm the likeliness of the ball hitting the flag pole is rather low (for the M-80 theory to work they'd just need a large number of explosives, and the means of getting them to the moon, they had them both.) Although this golf ball theory is still a better explanation than air, since the flag was swinging, not waving.
zakabog 4 years ago
Why would the Russians try to land a bomb on the Moon?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
This Denis Leary song's getting a lot of play these days!
Djclyve 4 years ago
also I find it interesting that greenmagoo always seems to be just around the corner when jarrah gets into a discussion with someone.
.how would greenmagoo know that jarrahwhite needed backup each and every time? does he monitor jarrahs page 24/7 or are they one and the same/ hmmmmm??
eryan550 4 years ago
how would greenmagoo know that jarrahwhite needed backup each and every time? does he monitor jarrahs page 24/7 or are they one and the same/ hmmmmm??
Nope.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
"If the Apollo footage was in fact reduced to half speed, then all we would need to do to regain normal speed is increase it's velocity by 50%"
interesting theory but unfortunately fro you it doesnt quite work. i took an original 10 sec piece of footage and imported into my editing software, and went through your steps as outlined. The result? A 13.333 second clip that was originally 10 seconds.
jarrah did you ever take remedial math? just curious bud.
eryan550 4 years ago
Why on EARTH do you think this Steve Troy guy is the ONLY one capable of figuring out that this is a fiber?
No, you just went and found some nut who said the same thing, just so you could use it to discredit everyone else. ANYONE with a brain can see that it's a fiber and not a part of the original print.
shanedk 4 years ago
"Why on EARTH do you think this Steve Troy guy is the ONLY one capable of figuring out that this is a fiber?"
Because he IS the only guy who found it out, and has demonstrated a total lack of photo-analysis skills. Plait and the others merely plagerize him, though some give him a footnote! You stated that if someone is frequently wrong you can't trust him on the rest, so how can you trust Troy's analysis given the ridiculous "alien evidence" he props up.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Because LOTS of others HAVE verified it. I mean, all you have to do is LOOK at it! And why isn't it there on ANY of the originals? Why is it ONLY there on descendants of this ONE print?
And why would they label a prop with a big, stupid letter in the first place? Can you find ANY props department in Hollywood that does that?
shanedk 4 years ago
"Because LOTS of others HAVE verified it. I mean, all you have to do is LOOK at it!"
Been there done that: the "shadow" you might about, is nothing more than the texture left by the marker pen.
"And why isn't it there on ANY of the originals?"
You mean like the one from NASA's Washington HQ that was published in the Encyclopedia of Space Technology?
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Yes Steve Troys best friend Richard Hoagland thinks that Ed Mitchell required hypnotic regression to remember 'what it felt like on the moon' because he had been brainwashed by shadey elements to forget the giant glass domes that they find among 'c' shaped hairs in the Apollo 'moon' photos.
He stops himself from accusing Mitchell of being a 'downright liar' about his moon trip because he has his own alien moonbase/face on mars agenda to promote.
And because hes a bearded twat.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Of course, the thing you're not saying is, if even someone as nutty as Steve Troy isn't stupid enough to claim that the "C" is anything but a hair or fiber, what does that say about YOUR level of stupidity???
shanedk 4 years ago
How many other Apollo 'moon' photos have 'c' shaped hairs on them shane? Have they been catalogued?
Just the Apollo 16 image?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
There are LOTS of pictures showing hair, fibers, and other things that have gotten between the plates when they were copied.
shanedk 4 years ago
Is there?
How many? Can you give me some exps?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
According to your theories shouldn't there be tons? The hairs might not be noticeable on other photos cause they're over the sky, or not enough people have looked. If the C is from the rock being marked by the props department wouldn't there be more than one photo showing markings? Also, wouldn't everyone on the set have realized there was a big C facing up on the rock right in front of them?
zakabog 4 years ago
"Also, wouldn't everyone on the set have realized there was a big C facing up on the rock right in front of them"
that's a good question! How about this : How come no one was intelligent enough to realize that the sand wasn't acting like the actornauts when kicked compared to a jump? Or how come they weren't able to see stars? Or how did they manage to have a cooling system working when the engine was off?
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
Maybe they just weren't as pathetically stupid as you.
shanedk 4 years ago
So realizing that the crummy story doesn't make sense and that there is evidence that it's a scam is being stupid now?
So we can assume you're the type of guy who makes fun at people who can think and reason... Is it me or the movie "Ideaocracy" was filmed in your skull?
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
It makes sense to anyone with more than half a brain who's bothered to read up on the science.
But as we've just seen, fourth-grade math is too advanced for moon hoaxers...
shanedk 4 years ago
"It makes sense to anyone with more than half a brain"
Sadly, you don't realize that having a brain that doesn't work properly like yours is worth nothing... I guess it's too advanced as a concept for you to understand it.
"who's bothered to read up on the science."
I wasn't aware you needed to be a scientist to understand that a flag moving when someone passes near it is because he moved air.
"read up on the science"
What is the value of reading something you can't even understand weirdo?
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
This is really just like saying, "Noam Chomsky is for ending the Iraq War, Chomsky is a Communist, therefore we shouldn't end the Iraq War."
The evidence is what it is, and says what it says, regardless of who presents it.
shanedk 4 years ago
Choamsky is a Jew who gets all the attention of medias when he writes a book about "exposing" something when actually he blames United-statesians for everything instead of Jews who are actually manipulating everything.
The only reason soldiers should get out of Iraq and all the Arab countries is because Israel was responsible for 9/11, not the Arabs.
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
Oh, how I've missed our little chats...
shanedk 4 years ago
If it was a c written on the rock, it should have been visible in two photos not one.
AS16-107-17445
AS16-107-17446
It was only ever visible on 17446, unless someone can prove otherwise?
It was most likely a fibre. It certainly wasn't on the rock itself.
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago