The latest moon hoax documentary

And just to highlight the extraordinary lengths Fat Freddy will go to to perpetrate absolute lies and conspiracies, he is also a holocaust denier!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, why not? And flat-Earther fits into that category neatly as well. Can't orbit an Earth that's flat!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

I don't need to show anything is "conclusive"; all I need do is show that it is consistent with known physics.

You, on the other hand, need to show that there is no other possible explanation than a hoax. And you have not done so.

I have met my burden; you have not. Thus another pillar of your hoax argument evaporates.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do the insufferable insist on randomly grabbing videos from uboob and then demanding others debumk them?

Threads like this should be reported, closed immediately and their author issued a warning.

 

With all due respect Dave, I believe you are being far too kind.
What pillars are we talking about? the waving flag crap has been done to death and debunked many moons ago, as per the Van-Allen radiation belts supposed dangers, not to mention the absence of stars in the photographs. Pillars? more like a foundation of children's building blocks!

 

I posted this on another forum - it's instructive to see just how many of these categories Fat Freddy falls into. So far I see #2, #6, #7, #8, #13, #14, #15 (Youtube links) and #16. He tried #11 just a few posts ago, linking to comments on a Youtube video. I think he's done #17 at least once.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top Signs you are Reading Woo

Cranks often enjoy posting on science forums. Once they feel the thrill of making up some pseudoscientific woo, telling it to a friend and having the friend think they are clever - they come on line, find a science forum and post away, hoping for kudos and compliments on their imagination and intelligence. We see them here all the time.

But how can you tell a true crank from someone who is just confused, or someone who has a reasonable idea that is just not developed? How can you tell plain old errors from woo? Below is a guide to help with that decision. It lists several characteristics of cranks. If you see one of these characteristics, be wary. If you see several, well - either ignore the fellow or have some fun with him.

============================

1) The Einstein gambit. This gambit is perhaps the most popular attempt that cranks use to justify their woo. "Sure, they're laughing at me, but they laughed at Einstein too, you know!" By equating his situation to that of Einstein, the crank hopes to make it seem that his intelligence is akin to Einstein's - thus granting more validity to his woo.

2) The sheeple claim. Once a crank uses the word "sheeple" for the first time - to distinguish his own brilliance from the dull conformity of all the other "sheep" on a given forum - you know he's all woo. Use of this word is nearly inevitable for some types of cranks, especially 9/11 truthers and UFO believers.

3) The mathematical obfuscation. Often, cranks attempt to "prove their point" by throwing a bunch of math on the forum. This can be done several ways. Most commonly it's just unrelated math - constants with improbably large numbers of significant digits is a good clue here. More clever cranks will often use unrelated but accurate math to support their woo. For example, someone claiming zero point energy might post a few derivations of Maxwell's Equations to attempt to prove his point, then claim "if I'm wrong, show me where the math error is!" Support for tools like LaTex increases the odds he will try this, by making it easier to post equations.

4) Webster Rescue. Often when a crank is losing an argument he will resort to redefining words to try to ameliorate a previous error. For example: "The results you have presented show greater than 100% efficiency, which is thermodynamically impossible." "Well, really, what's the definition of efficiency? Can't it mean that . . . " He will then search out various online dictionaries until he finds a definition that is at least not entirely clear, at which point he will claim that that's the definition that is in common use.

5) The retcon. In comic books and science fiction, the "retroactive continuity" trick is often used to clear up previous continuity problems.. It is in effect saying "what REALLY happened is . . . ." Perhaps the most famous retcon is in episode V of Star Wars, where Obi-Wan tells Luke "well, yes, I told you your father was dead, but in fact turns out he's Darth Vader due to this complex explanation." On-line, people often use this angle to claim "Yes, I may have said this, but what I really meant was . . ." For example, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist might claim that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire. When examples are presented, he might change his story to "what I REALLY meant was that no TALL steel building has ever collapsed; that was obvious from my post."

6) The secret government conspiracy. Sometimes when a crank is challenged, and he feels he is unable to defend his point further, he will pull out the government conspiracy. He WOULD have more proof for his claim, you see, but the government is trying to suppress the information because blah blah blah. In general you will get no more useful information after this point, since if you try, he will accuse YOU of being part of the conspiracy.

7) Occam's Glue. In general, Occam's Razor describes the general rule that the simplest explanation that explains something is usually the correct one. Cranks use a version of that I call Occam's Glue - if something CAN be the explanation, it must be the explanation, even if simpler explanations suffice. UFO believers use this one a lot. "Yes, it could have been aircraft lights, or a meteor, or a planet, or low clouds - but how can all those explanations always be true? Some MUST be space aliens."

8) Woo prejudice. Oddly, most cranks will reject other people's woo quite strongly even when it is closely related. "There's no possible way those objects could be space aliens. They were clearly angels." This, while common, unfortunately does not help distinguish a crank from anyone else, since most people reject woo once it's clear that that's what it is.

9) Magical thinking. If part of someone's proof for their woo is the list of wondrous boons that this technology will grant mankind, the odds are high that he or she is engaging in magical thinking - the belief that a fervent desire for something will make it valid. Cold fusion believers, for example, often will list all the beneficial changes in society that cold fusion will bring about - and therefore declare that it is a real power source.

10) The Googleblast. Some cranks, facing skepticism, will make a somewhat late attempt to justify woo by searching the Internet for support. They cannot, of course, do any serious research, since that would tend to disprove their woo. However since anything is available on the Internet, they can always find something to at least marginally support them. Their cycle goes like this: Read (forum) Search (google) Pick (something that says something close to what they are claiming) Post (link to related information.) This read-search-pick-post cycle can go on for dozens of posts. They feel that by posting enough marginally related links they have found independent proof of their claim.

11) Cyberturfing. This is related to the point above. In politics the term "astroturfing" is used to describe the false "grass-roots" support that politicians can fabricate. By funding political media efforts and making it look like the support is coming from many independent voters, they can claim much wider support than they otherwise could. Likewise, cyberturfing attempts to generate so many emails, websites, links, studies and articles that the crank can point to the mass of material and say "see? EVERYONE agrees!" They will often use tactics like submitting papers to vanity journals so they can claim their woo is "peer reviewed." 9/11 truthers are especially good at this.

12) The Patriotism Ploy. Often a crank will attempt to confabulate his woo with some other laudable ideal like patriotism, family values, freedom, prosperity etc. Thus, rather than arguing the validity of his woo, he can argue the desirability of prosperity - which is a much easier argument to make. For example, a climate change denier might say "you can't believe in climate change! If you do it will bankrupt the US and make Al Gore rich. Do you really want that?"

13) Quote-mining. Often cranks will search out quotes from well-respected people to support their position (the classic "appeal to authority") - and often will not be able to find the support they want. However, a carefully extracted quote might make it appear that they have such authoritative support. The most popular is a quote from Charles Darwin, ofen used by creationists: "To suppose that the eye . . .could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." The next lines then go on to explain how it is NOT absurd, but since cranks often gather most of their information via the above-mentioned read-search-pick-post method, they will generally miss that.

14) Prove Me Wrong. Cranks who propose an unusual theory (say, that UFO's are space aliens) will often not listen to alternative explanations that better explain the data. Instead they will propose their woo and ask "can you prove that that's NOT what's happening? Can you prove that that sighting was just a weather balloon?" This lets them sit back and wait for someone to provide an impossible level of proof for the more-reasonable explanation.

15) As seen on TV! Links to Youtube videos are one of the hallmarks of cranks. Whether this is due to cranks getting most of their information from videos, or whether it is due to the fondness of conspiracy theorists for Youtube, masses of Youtube links are one of the most common signs of the crank.

16) The argument from incredulity (i.e. "if I can't understand it, it is incorrect - and thus the explanation that I DO understand must be the correct one") is very common among cranks. Since they invariably have a very high impression of their own intelligence, any theory/explanation/process they do not understand must be incorrect.

And last but not least:

17) The Grand Trampling Exit. Often cranks, once they have realized that they are not going to get kudos and attaboys for their unconventional thinking, will make a "final post" that is usually along the lines of "you're all a bunch of idiots! I'm going to leave this once and for all, and deny you all the pleasure of my company. Instead I am going to post on a board where intelligent people have open minds!"

 

Yeah, But at least he can't say I didn't give this "best video yet" a chance. And he did acknowledge its weaknesses, so that's a milestone.

 

Probably the best thing to do with FF is that we all agree that he is right and see if that makes him happy and ends his need to inform us.
Alex

 

There has to be a force holding them up. Your explanation of their being misaligned is very unclear. What is the actual force that is keeping them from falling?

I've been warned that I can't discuss that on this forum. If you want to debate that with me, come over to this site.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/evidence-that-the-holocaust-didnt-happen.336026/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-holocaust.212418/page-4#post-1071722400

My username there is Scott.

Here's the footage in question.

Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)


Hoax-believers have made mistakes before and this seems to be one of them. A parabolic rooster tail appears when a tire is just rolling along in sand. If the tire hits the sand spinning because the driver gives it the gas or it goes over a bump, it will eject a clump of soil. Evidently the person who analyzed that anomaly didn't make that distinction. This however doesn't make the rest of the hoax-proof disappear. You found one flaw in the hoax-believers' argument and now you have the attitude that you've debunked the whole hoax theory. That's a classic disinfo tactic.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
----------------------------------------------

In order to know if that footage shows evidence of atmosphere, we'd have to follow the trajectory of one of those clumps from the time it gets kicked up until it hits the surface again. You haven't done that so there's no victory for you here.

 

Is that because they are dishonest? Or simply ignorant?

No. I've shown that this 3 hour video - which you claim is "one of the best yet" - is made by people who don't know science. It can be dismissed as unreliable.

Yes, you would. Your burden is to show that there is no other possible explanation than a hoax. If you want to do your own analysis to see if the particles don't follow ballistic trajectories that's on you.

All I need do is show that what we see is consistent with known physics, and what one would expect if one knows one's science. And it is.

I need no victory. The footage is consistent with physics.

Again, you have the burden of making your case. You have not. This video does not change that. In fact, it highlights the endemic ignorance and/or dishonesty of the hoaxer movement.

 

Thanks Pad. This is telling.

This gives context to FF's incendiary trolling habits. I have better things to do than indulge such dark patterns of behavior.

Going on my Iggy List.

 

Yup, a case for applying DNFTT, definitely.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was a bit puzzled by the flag moving whilst both astronauts are in the lunar model.
This page from Metabunk was interesting:

Interesting talk there about how the particles of gas from cabin depressurization would travel in a vacuum and hit the flag.
Metabunk org

 

Try this experiment. Balance a pole on its end as best you can. Let it go. Does it fall instantly, at 9.8 meters per second squared?

Fallacy #14.

 

I'd bet he just made an honest mistake.

The viewers can decide for themselves. You haven't debunked the other claims. You just have the attitude that you have.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
----------------------------------------------

I didn't bring up that anomaly. You people did and you only went half way with your explanation. You pointed out that when tires spin on a sandy surface they kick up clumps of sand. If you want to actually make the hoax-believers think the footage was taken in a vacuum, you have to follow through and show the whole trajectory of a clump. You haven't proven it was in a vacuum and you have the burden of proof as you brought up the issue.

This anomaly is a little complicated to research. Check out this comment from this video.


(excerpt)
-----------------------------------
You can even see how aerodynamics work on moon rover, although they claimed it was in moon vacuum. Any usual car or vehicle is very similar to the wing, the air flow below the vehicles has a higher pressure, the airflow above the vehicle has less pressure, the zone behind the vehicle has even less pressure, what causes the lifting power. The big dust waves behind the rover are created by that aerodynamic power. The rover cross section is square - the cross section which creates less pressure behind the vehicles and maximum lifting power. Watch the trailer trucks driving at rain - water dust waves behind the vehicle reache the top of the trailer. At travelling speed of 11-13.7 km/hr, surface of 3.1 m (length) x 2.6 m (wheel base), lifting power coefficient take the smallest one, the lifting power created by the rover is equal to 40 Newtons. It is enough to create dusty waves.
-----------------------------------

I'm a little out of my depth on this one so I'm not going to try to address it. Let's see you people prove that the trajectory of one of those clumps is consistent with its being in a vacuum.

The Apollo-believers destroyed their credibility long ago.

They maintain that the Chinese spacewalk was real.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169361-The-Chinese-spacewalk-was-faked-in-a-water-tank


They all maintain that water did not cause the flag to flutter in this clip.
Chinese Space Walk - 2008

(00:30 time mark)

They all really looked silly here.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy/page2

Jay Windley* maintained that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would create enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

He's smarter than that so he couldn't have been mistaken. He was lying.


I want to hear the opinions of all of the Apollo-believers on these two issues. If you tap dance around them instead of addressing them directly you will look very silly in the eyes of the viewers.



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

 

Truer words were never spoken.

You don't have the physics chops to solve these yourself, so you are trusting authors of a video.

If the truth is in fact what you seek - and not mere incendiary trolling - then you are putting your faith in the wrong people.

But, based on your chronic denialism, I'm going with the incendiary trolling. And that is not to be dignified with more attention than already given.

 

It would take someone with quite a background in math do deal with this. Go back and look at the comment from the YouTube comment section. I'm not ashamed to say something above my head if it's highly technical.

I would think that the whole trajectory would have to be plotted and then it would have to be compared with a perfect parabola but there seem to be more factors than that.

Back in the eighties I took algebra, trig, and the first semester of calculus. I don't remember that much of it. My background in math isn't deep enough to deal with those other factors. You people brought this up so your not doing a complete analysis of it and making fun of me for not doing a complete analysis isn't going to impress the viewers.


By the way, here's another thread on which the Apollo-believers and the moderator looked silly.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169366-gunzlepug-s-LRO-thread

That hoax-believer totally checkmated them and they still had the attitude that they'd won. The moderator accused him of not declaring his position when he clearly had. Those Apollo-believers on those two forums are a joke. Most people don't see the cases where they get checkmated as they quickly bury those threads under other discussions.


edit
----------------

I asked you to address the issue of the fluttering flag in the Chinese spacewalk and Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue. If you don't address these issues, you will look silly in the eyes of the viewers. I want to hear all of you address these two issues.

 

You added this in an edit. I would have dealt with it in my last post.

I never said I had faith that the rover roostertail issue was proven. I didn't address it at all. I dealt with the other evidence of air put forth which was a lot simpler and clearer. You're misrepresenting my position.

That documentary puts a lot of evidence forward. Some of it is too complicated for me to deal with. I just deal with the simple clear stuff such as this evidence of wire supports.

John Young's Lunar Salute on Apollo 16


The soil kicked up when he jumps starts to fall before the astronaut starts to fall. Set YouTube to 0.25 speed and watch how the sand behaves in some beach vollyball matches.


(16:40 time mark)

It follows the motion of the players' feet exactly. This is proof that the Apollo astronaut is being pulled up be a wire.

 

Coarse wet sand on Earth, adhering to player's feet due to surface tension, has nothing to do with how lunar fines behave, adhering to things due to electrostatic charge.

 

Beach sand can be pretty dry on a hot day. There's a gigantic difference in the way the sand behaves in the two cases.

Please address the issue of the fluttering flag in the Chinese spacewalk and the issue of Jay Windley's analysis of the dust-free sand issue. You're not going to make me forget about this.