At sceptimatic's request...

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 08:15:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:57:43 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 07:26:55 AM

We know how the sun 'appears' to rotate round the earth as we know sun rise and set times and they are consistent with a round earth.

Discuss.

They are consistent with how you are told the Earth acts in rotation. That's it. If I was to show you a Duck moving across a big window and told you that once it disappears, it will come back around to pass along the window again, you could accept that, right?

What if I was lying and the Duck went past the window and fell off the sill but there were other Ducks timed to start at specific times to follow the other poor Ducks path.

No real Ducks were used in this explanation.

I see the sun rise and set as does everyone else in the world following a pattern that is consistent with a round earth.   The model matches exactly.

The model matches exactly because you are told that it does and shown why this happens. Your own eyes and mind, see what they want you to see.

Please provide your full explanation.

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 07:49:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:00:44 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 06:43:59 AM

@Tappet

It seems that you are missing the key difference between the moon and the earth.  The atmosphere.  The moon lacks any significant atmosphere while the earth has a thick atmosphere.  The dust on the moon falls faster because there is no significant air resistance or wind.  Where as the dust on earth is getting blown around and has to overcome the air resistance of the atmosphere.

The video I posted shows the effect of this by dropping coins and feathers in a chamber.  Initially, the coins float down and the coins drop fast.  After they evacuate the air, or most of it, out of the chamber, the coins and feathers drop at the same rate.

Don't forget, you are also using your gravity ruse at one sixth, so what's it to be. A fast fall or a slow fall? A high jump or a low jump? A soft landing or a hard landing?

What do any of those things have to do with the effect of air resistance on a falling object?

Tappet was speciffically asking why the dust from the rover fell faster than dust does on earth.  I gave him an explination.  So do  you want to give me reasons why my explination is inadequate, or just go off on tangents?

Why do the actornauts fall or move slower as in slow motion. Don't say they don't. It's all there on any film you want to watch.

They fall slower than on earth because of lower gravity.  Since humans are large, they are not effected as drastically by the air resistance of the earth's atmosphere.  They are also in large cumbersome suits that inhibit movement.  Where as dust is very light and is greatly affected by air resistance.

Please provide a video of someone moving on earth that is slowed down that matches identically to how the astronauts move.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 08:15:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:57:43 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 07:26:55 AM

We know how the sun 'appears' to rotate round the earth as we know sun rise and set times and they are consistent with a round earth.

Discuss.

They are consistent with how you are told the Earth acts in rotation. That's it. If I was to show you a Duck moving across a big window and told you that once it disappears, it will come back around to pass along the window again, you could accept that, right?

What if I was lying and the Duck went past the window and fell off the sill but there were other Ducks timed to start at specific times to follow the other poor Ducks path.

No real Ducks were used in this explanation.

I see the sun rise and set as does everyone else in the world following a pattern that is consistent with a round earth.   The model matches exactly.

The model matches exactly because you are told that it does and shown why this happens. Your own eyes and mind, see what they want you to see.

See the bolded word there?  It is shown.  That means there is evidence.  If we were just told, without being shown why, then we would accept your Ice Dome.  Because we are told that it is there and you expect us to just accept it without question.

Geoff. I'm sure you're an intelligent man. I'm also absolutely certain that you're not that naive as to believe in the moon landings, so I won't go any further in attempting to prove anything else to you, because you have all the info and you know the truth, which is, it was all faked.

Round Earth indoctrinates are people like you (and once upon a time, me) that unconditionally follow the official lines by being officially brainwashed into acceptance.

I like to think I'm at least as intelligent as the next man!   

I believe absolutely in the veracity of the moon landings.  I've also not seen any evidence that would indicate otherwise—other than as alleged from the very vocal minority of conspiracy theorists who apparently have some bizarre, hidden agenda.

I'm not sure exactly what you're implying by referring to accredited scientific research as the "official" line.  There are no lines—there's simply science, or no science.  The word "official" is therefore redundant in this scenario.  But I do know that conspiracy theorists—such as yourself—like to use that particular word because of its negative implications; that there's something inherently suspect about what you term the official line.

I'd also like to know why—or how—you think I've been "brainwashed".  Do you truly think that as a mature, educated individual I'm likely to succumb to such obvious mind control processes?  And how can you be sure that you haven't been brainwashed by the flat earth theorists?  What makes you apparently immune to brainwashing, but not me?
 
I really think you need to get over this men-in-black conspiracy stuff.  It's all getting a bit cartoonish don't you think?
 
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 08:20:09 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 08:15:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:57:43 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 07:26:55 AM

We know how the sun 'appears' to rotate round the earth as we know sun rise and set times and they are consistent with a round earth.

Discuss.

They are consistent with how you are told the Earth acts in rotation. That's it. If I was to show you a Duck moving across a big window and told you that once it disappears, it will come back around to pass along the window again, you could accept that, right?

What if I was lying and the Duck went past the window and fell off the sill but there were other Ducks timed to start at specific times to follow the other poor Ducks path.

No real Ducks were used in this explanation.

I see the sun rise and set as does everyone else in the world following a pattern that is consistent with a round earth.   The model matches exactly.

The model matches exactly because you are told that it does and shown why this happens. Your own eyes and mind, see what they want you to see.

Please provide your full explanation.

The full explanation is that you have been carefully coaxed into what you believe to this very day.
If someone calls you a nut, you can brush it off. If people call you a nut, it becomes a problem, because you start to question your own sanity. If they carry on calling you a nut for long enough, it's very possible that you will believe they are correct.
It works both ways. As in. I'm the nut to many because that's how people perceive me, because it's been said time and time again and more people have joined into verify it. Thankfully, I'm a nut and I know it. There's people out there that are nuts and they don't know it.

I believe you are extremely naive. Not nuts. Just very naive and extremely manipluated into beliving anything. A soft touch. Easily indoctrinated by those you feel inferior to.
That's not a dig at you, it's an observation of the likes that I see with many, just as they see me as a clown or tin foil hat lunatic.
If I was a weakling and a follower, I could easily say, " Oh, I follow the masses now, they are right." The point is, I'm not weak and I can think for myself like a good few others can.
Most people cannot in terms of falling to pieces under peer pressure.

The really weak ones are those that will take my quote and attempt to use it against me. That's what I call fully diluted weak.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 08:23:12 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 07:49:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:00:44 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 06:43:59 AM

@Tappet

It seems that you are missing the key difference between the moon and the earth.  The atmosphere.  The moon lacks any significant atmosphere while the earth has a thick atmosphere.  The dust on the moon falls faster because there is no significant air resistance or wind.  Where as the dust on earth is getting blown around and has to overcome the air resistance of the atmosphere.

The video I posted shows the effect of this by dropping coins and feathers in a chamber.  Initially, the coins float down and the coins drop fast.  After they evacuate the air, or most of it, out of the chamber, the coins and feathers drop at the same rate.

Don't forget, you are also using your gravity ruse at one sixth, so what's it to be. A fast fall or a slow fall? A high jump or a low jump? A soft landing or a hard landing?

What do any of those things have to do with the effect of air resistance on a falling object?

Tappet was speciffically asking why the dust from the rover fell faster than dust does on earth.  I gave him an explination.  So do  you want to give me reasons why my explination is inadequate, or just go off on tangents?

Why do the actornauts fall or move slower as in slow motion. Don't say they don't. It's all there on any film you want to watch.

They fall slower than on earth because of lower gravity.  Since humans are large, they are not effected as drastically by the air resistance of the earth's atmosphere.  They are also in large cumbersome suits that inhibit movement.  Where as dust is very light and is greatly affected by air resistance.

Please provide a video of someone moving on earth that is slowed down that matches identically to how the astronauts move.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 08:20:09 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 08:15:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:57:43 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 07:26:55 AM

We know how the sun 'appears' to rotate round the earth as we know sun rise and set times and they are consistent with a round earth.

Discuss.

They are consistent with how you are told the Earth acts in rotation. That's it. If I was to show you a Duck moving across a big window and told you that once it disappears, it will come back around to pass along the window again, you could accept that, right?

What if I was lying and the Duck went past the window and fell off the sill but there were other Ducks timed to start at specific times to follow the other poor Ducks path.

No real Ducks were used in this explanation.

I see the sun rise and set as does everyone else in the world following a pattern that is consistent with a round earth.   The model matches exactly.

The model matches exactly because you are told that it does and shown why this happens. Your own eyes and mind, see what they want you to see.

See the bolded word there?  It is shown.  That means there is evidence.  If we were just told, without being shown why, then we would accept your Ice Dome.  Because we are told that it is there and you expect us to just accept it without question.

You people cannot make up your own minds.

So tell me where my description is flawed.  Don't just go and say it is wrong.  Show me where.  Just like when you post one of your ideas, don't just say it is wrong, I show you why it is wrong.

As usual, your response is pretty much "thats not right! you are wrong!"

You are asking us to have an open and critical mind, I am asking the same of you.  You are automatically starting in conspiracy mode.  You look actively for conspiracies.  If you can't find any evidence of one, you then proclaim that this lack of evidence is actually proof positive of a conspiracy. 

I like to think I'm at least as intelligent as the next man!   

You most probably are, maybe more than some.

I believe absolutely in the veracity of the moon landings.  I've also not seen any evidence that would indicate otherwise—other than as alleged from the very vocal minority of conspiracy theorists who apparently have some bizarre, hidden agenda.

Sorry but I do not believe you on this. Seriously.

I'm not sure exactly what you're implying by referring to accredited scientific research as the "official" line.  There are no lines—there's simply science, or no science.  The word "official" is therefore redundant in this scenario.  But I do know that conspiracy theorists—such as yourself—like to use that particular word because of its negative implications; that there's something inherently suspect about what you term the official line.

When anything is taught in mainstream, it's from official lines, protocol of you like. You cannot deny this, it's there in front of you, no matter where you go.

I'd also like to know why—or how—you think I've been "brainwashed".  Do you truly think that as a mature, educated individual I'm likely to succumb to such obvious mind control processes?  And how can you be sure that you haven't been brainwashed by the flat earth theorists?  What makes you apparently immune to brainwashing, but not me?

I highlighted why. Also, we can all be brainwshed, just some more easily than others. It's about how you see things and how they appear to you as to how easily or difficult it is to brainwash .
 

I really think you need to get over this men-in-black conspiracy stuff.  It's all getting a bit cartoonish don't you think?

Men in black? Questioning stuff that doesn't ring true is not men in black or cartoonish, That only comes from the people who hate others questioning stuff. Like yourself, really.

Seriously I don't get it. Dirt or dust drops quicker on the moon but the astronauts drop slower?

The astronauts have more mass.  The weak gravity takes longer to accelerate them downward compared to the dust.

So tell me where my description is flawed.  Don't just go and say it is wrong.  Show me where.  Just like when you post one of your ideas, don't just say it is wrong, I show you why it is wrong.

As usual, your response is pretty much "thats not right! you are wrong!"

You are asking us to have an open and critical mind, I am asking the same of you.  You are automatically starting in conspiracy mode.  You look actively for conspiracies.  If you can't find any evidence of one, you then proclaim that this lack of evidence is actually proof positive of a conspiracy.

Your actornauts are clearly jumping about in slow motion. Are you denying this? Just tell me the truth. Are they acting in slow motion compared to how they would act normally?
Let me tell you something. If they were moving about in a super thin atmosphere, they would be doing it all a lot faster than you would see in a normal atmosphere, because there is little resistance no matter how light you want to say they are due to you so called less gravity.

Please show me some video where slowing down the footage makes people move just as they do on them moon.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 08:20:09 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 08:15:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:57:43 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 24, 2014, 07:26:55 AM

We know how the sun 'appears' to rotate round the earth as we know sun rise and set times and they are consistent with a round earth.

Discuss.

They are consistent with how you are told the Earth acts in rotation. That's it. If I was to show you a Duck moving across a big window and told you that once it disappears, it will come back around to pass along the window again, you could accept that, right?

What if I was lying and the Duck went past the window and fell off the sill but there were other Ducks timed to start at specific times to follow the other poor Ducks path.

No real Ducks were used in this explanation.

I see the sun rise and set as does everyone else in the world following a pattern that is consistent with a round earth.   The model matches exactly.

The model matches exactly because you are told that it does and shown why this happens. Your own eyes and mind, see what they want you to see.

Please provide your full explanation.

So you are unable to provide any details showing the relationship between the sun and the earth.

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 07:43:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:04:10 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 24, 2014, 06:55:05 AM

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 23, 2014, 08:36:12 PM

These things aren't abstract and all of the conspiracy theories about the moon landings have been thoroughly debunked.. I struggle to understand why they seem to be brought up here a LOT....

I agree that the moon landings conspiracy thing is starting to get very tired, and boring.  At any rate, I fail to see how bogus moon landing videos would potentially prove a flat earth scenario.  There's no correlation whatsoever.

That's like saying because Bugs Bunny doesn't exist in reality, it's also proof that rabbits don't exist on earth.

Because this topic isn't about flat Earth V round Earth. It's about Apollo anomalies and it all CAN eventually, over time, marry up with all of the mainstream scientific theories being questioned.
You find one lie, there will be others. You find otehrs, there will be more...and so on. You know this and so does 99% of round Earth indoctrinates.
That's not a dig, it's simply how it is.

It's quite ironic you choose the word anomalies as, for your first photo at least, the only anomalie is what you think the photo represents. As far as the tyre track photo I think both sides can agree that we could go on about the rover being lowered into position vs the tyre tracks being kicked over indefinately. The only things I would point out are that several photos claiming absence of tyre tracks show tracks in other parts of the photos and an empty rover, suggesting walking in the vicinity of the rover could kick up dust over the tracks. Second, the rover could be and was picked up and moved when required if it was not possible to steer out of a position for whatever reason. Third, if you look at how much dust the rover kicks up at such slow speed and the amount of dust that covered the astronauts then I would say it would be reasonable to assume (and indeed see on various videos of walking on the surface) that kicking up dust over tracks is quite possible. Also as I said along with the last video I posted, you can see the length of time the area in question was being walked on during the repair and, although not directly related to this debate, a nice 360 shot of the area devoid of film crew / equipment etc.  Finaly, the fact the fender needed to be repaired was because of the amount of lunar dust on the surface that the wheels kicked up - something that would support the idea that kicking up dust with your boots is far from implausible.

If that buggy did 30 mph, I'd be inclined to agree with you. We are talking about 10 mph, so they tell us. Go and drive your car on the sand or dry soil at 10 mph and see what's kicked up.

Of course, we are on the moon, aren't we in one sixth gravity, so that's the reason, maybe?
The thing is, people need to make their minds up about the speed in which dust is kicked up and the speed it drops, because we have two conflicting stories, dependent on what anomalies get brought to the fore.
These people who perpetrate this kind of stuff, like showing us a paper/cardboard and thin tin foil craft stuck together with christmas parcel sized stick tape, plus cardboard and duct tape mud/dust guard can do this, because they know how gullible the general public are and they cannot resist laughing at the public.

It doesn't matter how ludicrous this stuff gets...people like you gobble it up. It's the truth. It can be so ridiculous in the extreme and you lot would sit there with straight faces and say, " of course it's possible, they're just saving money and space isn't that bad" and blah blah blah.

That's why I don't trust any of you that hang on to this like limpets. Those who refuse to see the absurdity of it all and then go about debunking it all...I would not trust as far as I could throw them.
Those who believe it because they don't know any different or hven't looked into it, I can accept.

If I could only muster 4 or 5 things about it all, then I'd give in and say it was all legitimate. The fact is, there's hundreds of things and experts that cannot understand why and how things worked and what not, yet they're all supposedly debunked by people who simply pass them off as wacko's.

OK well I see you failed to acknowledge or discuss any of the points I raised in my post. As usual your response is just another ad hominem attack at anyone who doesn't agree with you. You seem to be fixated on the gravitational effect on falling dust, all I was pointing out was that there was dust, and alot of it. I was hoping you would expand on what you think the photo proves. Do you think a crane was used to lower the rover? I would be interested in some evidence. Where are the tracks left by the crane? Why indeed would they even need a crane to move it? These photos were the ones you chose, yet you don't seem inclined to support them in any detail. So far, of the "hundreds" of discrepancies you claim exist, you have presented two photographs - one of which is disingenuous and the other which is inconclusive at best, and that is being generous. Your failure to even admit the first photo was misleading, whether you realised it or not, and your ad hominem attacks as opposed to measured counter arguments make it pretty clear even to a casual observer who the truly brainwashed person is.

Please show me some video where slowing down the footage makes people move just as they do on them moon.

Who cares about slowing down the footage. The fact is, they show us slow motion on the so called moon and it's wrong. They goofed up big time.

Also, we can all be brainwashed, just some more easily than others. It's about how you see things and how they appear to you as to how easily or difficult it is to brainwash.
 

I agree totally with this assertion of yours.

Which is why I asked you how you can be so certain that you haven't been brainwashed by the flat earth theorists, or the flat earth movement as a whole.

We're both intelligent, articulate human beings, so why would it be (conceivably) easier to brainwash me rather than you?
 

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 09:19:06 AM

Please show me some video where slowing down the footage makes people move just as they do on them moon.

Who cares about slowing down the footage. The fact is, they show us slow motion on the so called moon and it's wrong. They goofed up big time.

And the video footage would be evidence to support your claim.  Without it, your claim is baseless.

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 07:49:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:00:44 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 06:43:59 AM

@Tappet

It seems that you are missing the key difference between the moon and the earth.  The atmosphere.  The moon lacks any significant atmosphere while the earth has a thick atmosphere.  The dust on the moon falls faster because there is no significant air resistance or wind.  Where as the dust on earth is getting blown around and has to overcome the air resistance of the atmosphere.

The video I posted shows the effect of this by dropping coins and feathers in a chamber.  Initially, the coins float down and the coins drop fast.  After they evacuate the air, or most of it, out of the chamber, the coins and feathers drop at the same rate.

Don't forget, you are also using your gravity ruse at one sixth, so what's it to be. A fast fall or a slow fall? A high jump or a low jump? A soft landing or a hard landing?

What do any of those things have to do with the effect of air resistance on a falling object?

Tappet was speciffically asking why the dust from the rover fell faster than dust does on earth.  I gave him an explination.  So do  you want to give me reasons why my explination is inadequate, or just go off on tangents?

Why do the actornauts fall or move slower as in slow motion. Don't say they don't. It's all there on any film you want to watch.

The "slow motion" video theory has been debunked completley. #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 09:00:00 AM

Also, we can all be brainwashed, just some more easily than others. It's about how you see things and how they appear to you as to how easily or difficult it is to brainwash.
 

I agree totally with this assertion of yours.

Which is why I asked you how you can be so certain that you haven't been brainwashed by the flat earth theorists, or the flat earth movement as a whole.

We're both intelligent, articulate human beings, so why would it be (conceivably) easier to brainwash me rather than you?

I basically question just about everything now. This was borne from seeing media bull crap after bull crap on many things. You appear to accept without question what is put on your plate, which is fair enough, if that's how you view it all. To be honest, I wish I did but it's got to the stage where I see the media for what it is. A disinfo organisation/
I would like nothing better than basic honesty as far as things go in life. It's only a short life in the grand scheme of things.
Those who are oblivious to any shenanigans, are the lucky ones. They do not include you or me for very different reasons.

We are all brainwashed and will be till the day we die. We will always be indoctrinated. It just depends on what you're ready to absorb and what you will question or reject.
The fact that most of you accept a ot of stuff that deserves serious questioning, astounds me to be honest.
Don't get me wrong though. I don't dwell on any of it. It is what it is and I'll never meet any of you, so I'm hardly going to take anything to heart or drop into despair at the fact that you or others can't see any wrong. You can take all of it to the grave, fighting if you wish and it's fine by me, as I'll take what I know in my own mind to the grave.

It's just good to know that I can question this stuff but also bad to know that I had to get to this stage by events that reek of lies.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 09:38:56 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 09:19:06 AM

Please show me some video where slowing down the footage makes people move just as they do on them moon.

Who cares about slowing down the footage. The fact is, they show us slow motion on the so called moon and it's wrong. They goofed up big time.

And the video footage would be evidence to support your claim.  Without it, your claim is baseless.

Ok, to you and others, it's baseless. Fair enough. It doesn't change the reality of it, though.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 08:23:12 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 07:49:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:00:44 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 06:43:59 AM

@Tappet

It seems that you are missing the key difference between the moon and the earth.  The atmosphere.  The moon lacks any significant atmosphere while the earth has a thick atmosphere.  The dust on the moon falls faster because there is no significant air resistance or wind.  Where as the dust on earth is getting blown around and has to overcome the air resistance of the atmosphere.

The video I posted shows the effect of this by dropping coins and feathers in a chamber.  Initially, the coins float down and the coins drop fast.  After they evacuate the air, or most of it, out of the chamber, the coins and feathers drop at the same rate.

Don't forget, you are also using your gravity ruse at one sixth, so what's it to be. A fast fall or a slow fall? A high jump or a low jump? A soft landing or a hard landing?

What do any of those things have to do with the effect of air resistance on a falling object?

Tappet was speciffically asking why the dust from the rover fell faster than dust does on earth.  I gave him an explination.  So do  you want to give me reasons why my explination is inadequate, or just go off on tangents?

Why do the actornauts fall or move slower as in slow motion. Don't say they don't. It's all there on any film you want to watch.

The "slow motion" video theory has been debunked completley. #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt

Debunked? The slow motion in the REAL videos are not debunked, they are real slow motion depictions of the so called moon actors.
N.A.S.A shows us the videos of actornauts moving in slow motion on the so called moon. I'm not bothered about side by side comparisons, I'm simply saying that slow motion is what is shown to us and it's wrong. They goofed.
They goofed because they used water as their preferred space faking efforts and had to carry it on in slow motion.

You appear to accept
without question what is put on your
plate, which is fair enough, if that's how you view it all.

Except, when what we believe is questioned, we can back up our beliefs with evidence. That's hardly accepting without question is it. If anything it seems you accept the "conspiracy" angle without question. Or you just flat out ignore it when your "evidence" is debunked.

Quote

You appear to accept
without question what is put on your
plate, which is fair enough, if that's how you view it all.

Except, when what we believe is questioned, we can back up our beliefs with evidence. That's hardly accepting without question is it. If anything it seems you accept the "conspiracy" angle without question. Or you just flat out ignore it when your "evidence" is debunked.

You can back up your beliefs with the exact same garbage from what made you believe in the first place. That's not backing anything up in reality, it's merely referencing and re-absorbing the parts you didn't fully absorb in the first place and passing it all off as you actually knowing what you are talking about, as if it was straight from your own mind.

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 10:24:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 08:23:12 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 07:49:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:00:44 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 06:43:59 AM

@Tappet

It seems that you are missing the key difference between the moon and the earth.  The atmosphere.  The moon lacks any significant atmosphere while the earth has a thick atmosphere.  The dust on the moon falls faster because there is no significant air resistance or wind.  Where as the dust on earth is getting blown around and has to overcome the air resistance of the atmosphere.

The video I posted shows the effect of this by dropping coins and feathers in a chamber.  Initially, the coins float down and the coins drop fast.  After they evacuate the air, or most of it, out of the chamber, the coins and feathers drop at the same rate.

Don't forget, you are also using your gravity ruse at one sixth, so what's it to be. A fast fall or a slow fall? A high jump or a low jump? A soft landing or a hard landing?

What do any of those things have to do with the effect of air resistance on a falling object?

Tappet was speciffically asking why the dust from the rover fell faster than dust does on earth.  I gave him an explination.  So do  you want to give me reasons why my explination is inadequate, or just go off on tangents?

Why do the actornauts fall or move slower as in slow motion. Don't say they don't. It's all there on any film you want to watch.

The "slow motion" video theory has been debunked completley. #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt

Debunked? The slow motion in the REAL videos are not debunked, they are real slow motion depictions of the so called moon actors.
N.A.S.A shows us the videos of actornauts moving in slow motion on the so called moon. I'm not bothered about side by side comparisons, I'm simply saying that slow motion is what is shown to us and it's wrong. They goofed.
They goofed because they used water as their preferred space faking efforts and had to carry it on in slow motion.

And yet speeding up the video does not in anyway represent real movements on earth. Yet you maintain it does? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 10:37:55 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 10:24:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 08:23:12 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 07:49:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:00:44 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 06:43:59 AM

@Tappet

It seems that you are missing the key difference between the moon and the earth.  The atmosphere.  The moon lacks any significant atmosphere while the earth has a thick atmosphere.  The dust on the moon falls faster because there is no significant air resistance or wind.  Where as the dust on earth is getting blown around and has to overcome the air resistance of the atmosphere.

The video I posted shows the effect of this by dropping coins and feathers in a chamber.  Initially, the coins float down and the coins drop fast.  After they evacuate the air, or most of it, out of the chamber, the coins and feathers drop at the same rate.

Don't forget, you are also using your gravity ruse at one sixth, so what's it to be. A fast fall or a slow fall? A high jump or a low jump? A soft landing or a hard landing?

What do any of those things have to do with the effect of air resistance on a falling object?

Tappet was speciffically asking why the dust from the rover fell faster than dust does on earth.  I gave him an explination.  So do  you want to give me reasons why my explination is inadequate, or just go off on tangents?

Why do the actornauts fall or move slower as in slow motion. Don't say they don't. It's all there on any film you want to watch.

The "slow motion" video theory has been debunked completley. #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt

Debunked? The slow motion in the REAL videos are not debunked, they are real slow motion depictions of the so called moon actors.
N.A.S.A shows us the videos of actornauts moving in slow motion on the so called moon. I'm not bothered about side by side comparisons, I'm simply saying that slow motion is what is shown to us and it's wrong. They goofed.
They goofed because they used water as their preferred space faking efforts and had to carry it on in slow motion.

And yet speeding up the video does not in anyway represent real movements on earth. Yet you maintain it does? 

Do I? Where do I maintain this?

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 10:43:01 AM

Quote

You appear to accept
without question what is put on your
plate, which is fair enough, if that's how you view it all.

Except, when what we believe is questioned, we can back up our beliefs with evidence. That's hardly accepting without question is it. If anything it seems you accept the "conspiracy" angle without question. Or you just flat out ignore it when your "evidence" is debunked.

You can back up your beliefs with the exact same garbage from what made you believe in the first place. That's not backing anything up in reality, it's merely referencing and re-absorbing the parts you didn't fully absorb in the first place and passing it all off as you actually knowing what you are talking about, as if it was straight from your own mind.

Yawn. You really are a stuck record. Have you got anything more to offer to back up your hoax theory?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 10:53:07 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 10:43:01 AM

Quote

You appear to accept
without question what is put on your
plate, which is fair enough, if that's how you view it all.

Except, when what we believe is questioned, we can back up our beliefs with evidence. That's hardly accepting without question is it. If anything it seems you accept the "conspiracy" angle without question. Or you just flat out ignore it when your "evidence" is debunked.

You can back up your beliefs with the exact same garbage from what made you believe in the first place. That's not backing anything up in reality, it's merely referencing and re-absorbing the parts you didn't fully absorb in the first place and passing it all off as you actually knowing what you are talking about, as if it was straight from your own mind.

Yawn. You really are a stuck record. Have you got anything more to offer to back up your hoax theory?

Yes, plenty. Nothing that you'll be interested in though. You appear tired. Go and have some rest.

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 11:07:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 10:53:07 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 10:43:01 AM

Quote

You appear to accept
without question what is put on your
plate, which is fair enough, if that's how you view it all.

Except, when what we believe is questioned, we can back up our beliefs with evidence. That's hardly accepting without question is it. If anything it seems you accept the "conspiracy" angle without question. Or you just flat out ignore it when your "evidence" is debunked.

You can back up your beliefs with the exact same garbage from what made you believe in the first place. That's not backing anything up in reality, it's merely referencing and re-absorbing the parts you didn't fully absorb in the first place and passing it all off as you actually knowing what you are talking about, as if it was straight from your own mind.

Yawn. You really are a stuck record. Have you got anything more to offer to back up your hoax theory?

Yes, plenty. Nothing that you'll be interested in though. You appear tired. Go and have some rest.

Why don't you offer it up then? That was the whole point of this thread.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 11:09:29 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 11:07:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 10:53:07 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 10:43:01 AM

Quote

You appear to accept
without question what is put on your
plate, which is fair enough, if that's how you view it all.

Except, when what we believe is questioned, we can back up our beliefs with evidence. That's hardly accepting without question is it. If anything it seems you accept the "conspiracy" angle without question. Or you just flat out ignore it when your "evidence" is debunked.

You can back up your beliefs with the exact same garbage from what made you believe in the first place. That's not backing anything up in reality, it's merely referencing and re-absorbing the parts you didn't fully absorb in the first place and passing it all off as you actually knowing what you are talking about, as if it was straight from your own mind.

Yawn. You really are a stuck record. Have you got anything more to offer to back up your hoax theory?

Yes, plenty. Nothing that you'll be interested in though. You appear tired. Go and have some rest.

Why don't you offer it up then? That was the whole point of this thread.

Oh, I will. When you've had some rest you will see a few more snippets of stuff posted sometime , either tonight or tomorrow.
Exercise your mind and sit up straight. Concentrate, focus fully. It's going to be a long haul. You may, at some stage during this marathon topic, get extremely frustrated and start childishly calling me names and such like. I will be coming at you harder and faster as this happens. There will be no let up. Be ready and do your damnest to keep that debunking head on, whilst totally missing the whole point of actually questioning the stupidity of some of the stuff I will be putting forward from your beloved N.A.S.A.

Exercise your mind and sit up straight. Concentrate, focus fully. It's going to be a long haul. You may, at some stage during this marathon topic, get extremely frustrated and start childishly calling me names and such like. I will be coming at you harder and faster as this happens. There will be no let up. Be ready and do your damnest to keep that debunking head on,

You are a very strange person.

Perhaps as you come at us "harder and faster" (ooh err) you could at least work out how to quote properly first.

Exercise your mind and sit up straight. Concentrate, focus fully. It's going to be a long haul. You may, at some stage during this marathon topic, get extremely frustrated and start childishly calling me names and such like. I will be coming at you harder and faster as this happens. There will be no let up. Be ready and do your damnest to keep that debunking head on,

There will be no let up? We can only hope. Over a week in and you have managed to post two photos from your arsenal of hundreds of damning pieces of evidence...Before we move on, would you admit that your "lunar rover still stowed on lem" photo was proven wrong? We can agree the second photo of tyre tracks cant be proven one way or the other. If you can admit the first photo has been debunked it would prove you are not brainwashed after all and we can move on in this debate.

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 10:24:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 08:23:12 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 07:49:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2014, 07:00:44 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 24, 2014, 06:43:59 AM

@Tappet

It seems that you are missing the key difference between the moon and the earth.  The atmosphere.  The moon lacks any significant atmosphere while the earth has a thick atmosphere.  The dust on the moon falls faster because there is no significant air resistance or wind.  Where as the dust on earth is getting blown around and has to overcome the air resistance of the atmosphere.

The video I posted shows the effect of this by dropping coins and feathers in a chamber.  Initially, the coins float down and the coins drop fast.  After they evacuate the air, or most of it, out of the chamber, the coins and feathers drop at the same rate.

Don't forget, you are also using your gravity ruse at one sixth, so what's it to be. A fast fall or a slow fall? A high jump or a low jump? A soft landing or a hard landing?

What do any of those things have to do with the effect of air resistance on a falling object?

Tappet was speciffically asking why the dust from the rover fell faster than dust does on earth.  I gave him an explination.  So do  you want to give me reasons why my explination is inadequate, or just go off on tangents?

Why do the actornauts fall or move slower as in slow motion. Don't say they don't. It's all there on any film you want to watch.

The "slow motion" video theory has been debunked completley. #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt

Debunked? The slow motion in the REAL videos are not debunked, they are real slow motion depictions of the so called moon actors.
N.A.S.A shows us the videos of actornauts moving in slow motion on the so called moon. I'm not bothered about side by side comparisons, I'm simply saying that slow motion is what is shown to us and it's wrong. They goofed.
They goofed because they used water as their preferred space faking efforts and had to carry it on in slow motion.

See a side by side comparison would be evidence to support your claim. So where is your evidence that supports your claim?