How can you dismiss all the space footage?

You think he believes the photos on the moon is where the photos were taken?

Yoy think he believes the wind is from moon atmosphere?




No

He beleives it was done on a stage.
If you were listening...

I ignored your second to the last post so the thread can move on.

I’m going to just have to ignore your stupid ass so the thread can just go back to being derailed by bulmabriefs144.

 Seriously Themightykabool, you have a trolling or stalking problem.  Over meaningless shit that derails threads when it’s flat earthers that ignore repeated explanations and repeatedly have reality demonstrated to them.

So, Themightykabool, how many restraining orders you have against you?

You going to let it drop Themightykabool, are you going to get that last meaningless post in that’s going to be ignored so the thread can move on. 

You can see rather clearly the flag waving despite itself. This happens in an atmosphere.

No, you don't.
Yet again you are blatantly lying to try to save your delusional BS.

What we see is people manipulating the flag, moving it around. This causes it to move like that.
There is no indication of any wind.
There is no indication of the flag moving itself.
It is moving around in response to a person moving it.

No
You have a bad-argument problem

You have like a 1.5 second clip where it does not move. The clip in context...



You can see rather clearly the flag waving despite itself. This happens in an atmosphere.

Also.

Guys, what are you doing in-fighting? If "Jesus will not help you," you said, but you two are both RE types, and you're quibbling over something I don't fully get.

Quote

But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand."

If you wish to stand against me (or Jesus), and you cannot agree without fighting, your cause is doomed from the onset.

Bulma, why don't you ask action lab guy to do a video with his vacuum chamber of a flag going into a bit of ground, and see if the flag wobbles? Or you could get a vacuum chamber and do the experiment yourself. Make sure the flag has a rod from the vertical pole, along the top.

Much of this thread is about motion and propulsion. I think the flag is merely wobbling, suspended on the horizontal rod, and moving much like a pendulum, not flapping around in some breeze created by a large fan on a closed film set. Are you picking up what I'm putting down, Bulma? Were they using large fans to simulate wind on the film set of your favourite movie, Capricorn One?

As for Jesus, you seem to be referring to Jesus as God? As one and the same? In all the accounts by the 12 Apostles, Jesus
refers to God as his father who art in heaven. That's a separate entity.

Jesus still can't help you in these arguments, Bulma, but there are two people in this thread who Jesus might be able to help.....

Bulma, no, look, in the video you've posted, throughout the entire 44 seconds not once did buzz aldrin (I assume he's the one planting the flag) take his hands off the flagpole.

Watch this video

Skip to 02:22

Because the rules of buoyancy say that a feather should fall like a brick in zero air pressure, and a helium balloon visibly sags in such a vacuum test,

why do you think he would constantly hold on to it? Let's offer some reasons.
1. Buzz Aldrin knows the truth, as do the other "astronauts"
2. "1/6 of Earth's gravity" is only possible if the room has 6 times the normal air density (and/or they are using some special effects tricks like slow motion for fall)
3. He knows the soil isn't deep enough to hold the flag.
4. And he knows that the wind will blow it over.
5. The room is probably well-ventilated or an actual wind tunnel. Notice the second guy, you noticing that the flag is literally swishing about, rushes over to steady it.

The only way a flag would be stiff as a board is when there is too much air. In low air density, it would mimic half-mast.

And I don't care what Action Labs says. He routinely says crap about gravity. I only pay attention when he slips up.



Rewatch the video. Buzz ALdrin is not trying to shake it. He's trying to hold it steady, in direct contrast with what fraud artist is doing.

Having been to places like Scotland and Ireland on a windy day, it was very easy for your hat to be blown off your head. Exactly like this.

Buma Still can't comprehend the difference between air pressure and gravity. Wow!!!
a truly hopeless case.

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on April 05, 2024, 09:51:39 AM

Bulma, no, look, in the video you've posted, throughout the entire 44 seconds not once did buzz aldrin (I assume he's the one planting the flag) take his hands off the flagpole.

Watch this video

Skip to 02:22

Because the rules of buoyancy say that a feather should fall like a brick in zero air pressure, and a helium balloon visibly sags in such a vacuum test,

why do you think he would constantly hold on to it? Let's offer some reasons.
1. Buzz Aldrin knows the truth, as do the other "astronauts"
2. "1/6 of Earth's gravity" is only possible if the room has 6 times the normal air density (and/or they are using some special effects tricks like slow motion for fall)
3. He knows the soil isn't deep enough to hold the flag.
4. And he knows that the wind will blow it over.
5. The room is probably well-ventilated or an actual wind tunnel. Notice the second guy, you noticing that the flag is literally swishing about, rushes over to steady it.

The only way a flag would be stiff as a board is when there is too much air. In low air density, it would mimic half-mast.

And I don't care what Action Labs says. He routinely says crap about gravity. I only pay attention when he slips up.



Rewatch the video. Buzz ALdrin is not trying to shake it. He's trying to hold it steady, in direct contrast with what fraud artist is doing.

Having been to places like Scotland and Ireland on a windy day, it was very easy for your hat to be blown off your head. Exactly like this.

The video you posted has no correlation between helium balloons, gravity and buoyancy. It's a simple experiment to demonstrate than when atmospheric pressure is removed ballon expands.

1)

Animation of the two photos, showing that although Armstrong's camera moved between exposures the flag is not waving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Environment

2) again, you don't understand gravity. Do my pendulum experiment and stop ignoring it.

3) If they faked the video, wouldn't you think they might have accounted for the soil being too shallow to plant a flag? I mean who goes "let's fake the moon landing" and then forgets to make the deep enough to plant a flag?

4) again, refer to first point

5) If the scientists knew that there is no wind on the moon, why would they create wind in a shooting set for the flag to move? Wouldn't they try to mimic moon's conditions as much as possible?

As for the image about rigid cross piece, you can see that in the original flag as well:

Well obviously since atmosphere blocks far away things from view bottom-up it logically follows that it blows flags to flap on bottom only.





Haaar

Because the rules of buoyancy

Do you mean your delusional BS?
Because that says nothing about reality.

why do you think he would constantly hold on to it?

Because he was putting it in the ground.
Later on, he lets go, and the flag is fine, e.g. the clip you dismissed.

The only way a flag would be stiff as a board is when there is too much air. In low air density, it would mimic half-mast.

How do you have it mimic half mast when there is literally a rod holding it at the top?

Again, you lying just shows your desperation.

Well obviously since atmosphere blocks far away things from view bottom-up it logically follows that it blows flags to flap on bottom only.





Haaar

You aren’t listening.  According to bulmabriefs144, light itself can’t go on forever.  It just dies regardless of atmosphere or no atmosphere. 

Well obviously since atmosphere blocks far away things from view bottom-up it logically follows that it blows flags to flap on bottom only.





Haaar

Strange that you taken a liking to me to make sure you always post back. 


Sorry you’re not my type.

But it is interesting that you bitch “I” don’t listen, you go to extremes to point that out, then give a pass to a flat earther that never “listens”, to the point to derail the thread. 

Well maybe you actually have the hots for bulmabriefs144?  You feel so sorry that people don’t listen to the repeated flat earth lies?  Over multiple threads? 

Or maybe your sick little mind wants a data bulma sandwiched.  You little freak you. 

And I cling to that old rigid cross... 



But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?

Now, I don't care about them, as they are phrased like memes with a lot of weasel words. But the point being, as approximations of actual physical behavior they're okay I guess.

The point being that the first law approximates inertia and momentum, while the third (equal and opposite) approximates propulsion. Propulsion relies on contact. You can makeshift this by releasing liquid or gas under pressure, but you can't indefinitely press against nothing when there is no air. Air will run out.

So as I explained, from 2:22 to 3:41, it pretty much has come to a stop.

Then you say, "Look it's totally the same thing."

Stopped flag. Waving flag. Stopped flag. Waving flag.
(Jedi mind trick)
"These two things are totally the same."

Sorry bro. I have Toydarian brain cells. Gimme money or I won't believe you. And since the average taxpayer has to pay into billions in allocations for NASA, yeah you're not convincing me.

The flag was waving despite them trying to hold it steady.
The other flag was still until they shook the cage. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 05, 2024, 09:37:37 PM

Well obviously since atmosphere blocks far away things from view bottom-up it logically follows that it blows flags to flap on bottom only.





Haaar

Strange that you taken a liking to me to make sure you always post back. 


Sorry you’re not my type.

But it is interesting that you bitch “I” don’t listen, you go to extremes to point that out, then give a pass to a flat earther that never “listens”, to the point to derail the thread. 

Well maybe you actually have the hots for bulmabriefs144?  You feel so sorry that people don’t listen to the repeated flat earth lies?  Over multiple threads? 

Or maybe your sick little mind wants a data bulma sandwiched.  You little freak you.

My cimmetn was to earthisround as it immediately proceeded his.

If i was replying to a previous comment, i would quote to maintain cotiintual contsxt.

And i included an obvious sarcasm indicator 'harr".

You are masterfully stupid.

And I cling to that old rigid cross... 



But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?

Now, I don't care about them, as they are phrased like memes with a lot of weasel words. But the point being, as approximations of actual physical behavior they're okay I guess.

The point being that the first law approximates inertia and momentum, while the third (equal and opposite) approximates propulsion. Propulsion relies on contact. You can makeshift this by releasing liquid or gas under pressure, but you can't indefinitely press against nothing when there is no air. Air will run out.

So as I explained, from 2:22 to 3:41, it pretty much has come to a stop.

Then you say, "Look it's totally the same thing."

Stopped flag. Waving flag. Stopped flag. Waving flag.
(Jedi mind trick)
"These two things are totally the same."

Sorry bro. I have Toydarian brain cells. Gimme money or I won't believe you. And since the average taxpayer has to pay into billions in allocations for NASA, yeah you're not convincing me.

The flag was waving despite them trying to hold it steady.
The other flag was still until they shook the cage.

if thy are in a film studio why are the doors open?

And I cling to that old rigid cross... 

You mean you ignore it because it shows you have been lying.

But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?

No, they apply in the low energy limit.
i.e. basically all the time, but not in rare cases like fully explaining the orbit of Mercury or near a black hole.
Nor do they always apply for quantum events.

But those cases where they don't apply are well outside the scope of this discussion.
For this discussion they do apply.

The point being that the first law approximates inertia and momentum, while the third (equal and opposite) approximates propulsion. Propulsion relies on contact.

i.e. the rocket and gas inside it are pushing against each other, resulting in the hot gas being pushed out the back at a high rate of speed, while the rocket is pushed forwards.

You can makeshift this by releasing liquid or gas under pressure, but you can't indefinitely press against nothing when there is no air.

And there is no need to do it forever.

So as I explained, from 2:22 to 3:41, it pretty much has come to a stop.

Just what video are you referring to?
The one you provided goes for 43 seconds.

The flag was waving despite them trying to hold it steady.

You mean because they were handling it, trying to push it into the ground.
That is not them holding it steady.
Lying wont save you.

And I cling to that old rigid cross... 



But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?

Now, I don't care about them, as they are phrased like memes with a lot of weasel words. But the point being, as approximations of actual physical behavior they're okay I guess.

The point being that the first law approximates inertia and momentum, while the third (equal and opposite) approximates propulsion. Propulsion relies on contact. You can makeshift this by releasing liquid or gas under pressure, but you can't indefinitely press against nothing when there is no air. Air will run out.

So as I explained, from 2:22 to 3:41, it pretty much has come to a stop.

Then you say, "Look it's totally the same thing."

Stopped flag. Waving flag. Stopped flag. Waving flag.
(Jedi mind trick)
"These two things are totally the same."

Sorry bro. I have Toydarian brain cells. Gimme money or I won't believe you. And since the average taxpayer has to pay into billions in allocations for NASA, yeah you're not convincing me.

The flag was waving despite them trying to hold it steady.
The other flag was still until they shook the cage.

Newton's laws are obeyed until you go too big or too small. But for our purpose, they always apply.

The third is simply put, conservation of momentum. You know, back in high school, there was a nice example problem for this. I think it went something like, "A gun of mass 2 kg shoots a bullet of mass 10 g at a speed of 150 m/s. With what speed will the gun move backwards?". Try solving it. You might understand how rockets work if you do.

You watched the wrong part of the video. 2:22 to 3:41, I assume he's still pulling out the air. Anyways, that video was to show that as long as the flag is being manhandled, it will still move in vacuum.

The flag was waving because they were holding it.
The flag came to a stop when they stopped holding.
Show me one footage where the flag is waving despite no astronaut holding on to the flag.

cimmetn

What word is that.


You’re literally babbling again. 

If i was replying to a previous comment, i would quote to maintain cotiintual contsxt.

Speaking of replying

You use this a lot..

hey hey
few months now
you gonna answer - what is the angle between segements of a 300,000sided polygon?
also just curious

Flat Eathers think the earth is flat.  So why would they answer your question that offers no proof of anything.

Themightykabool, flat earthers understand what a ball is.  Flat earthers don’t understand how big the earth is.  So your “go to post” doesn’t help in anyway for arguing the actual shape of earth that is classified as an “irregularly shaped ellipsoid.”  An ellipsoid so large it’s hard for the unaided eye to discern the dip of the horizon. 

But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?

Gravity explains why the atmosphere bunches up at earth’s surface.

It explains why things accelerate when they fall towards earth.

It allows for accurate mathematical predictions and analysis for everyday things on earth. 

It works for engineering. 

Flat earth offers nothing in the magnitude of precision achieved by the heliocentric model.

 Propulsion relies on contact.

For a rocket using a controlled explosion of releasing gasses, way would the laws of motion magically stop in a vacuum. 

if thy are in a film studio why are the doors open?

They aren't. They are on stage in a cage so to speak.

As in, order for them to say "One small step for mankind" while hopping around they wear suits that indeed do regulate pressure. But they are actually hopping around elsewhere. A pool, a wind tunnel, something like that. They film them in the area, cut and paste any color glitches. Then they film grey sand (which is actually yellow sand that has been desaturated). They film just the sand being stomped in, in stop motion. Stop motion  means you carefully stop the camera (normally this is a technique for animating inanimate objects like clay or dolls), then restart. But in this case, we are doing this to edit out something that is there. The people doing the stomping.

In exactly the same way as Lawrence of Arabia can leave footprints on the desert, while not being on the desert, simply by transposing his footprints or whatever, they do the following:
1. Make a background animation.
1b. Grey it out, and allow it to change (footprints).
2. Make a "low gravity jumping" animation with the characters in a controlled environment.
2b. Mask out the surroundings.
3. Splice the characters to the background via superimposition.

In some sense, this technique is as costly as sending a person to space. You and I know how much is spent on film, and film with effects (prior to computers) means you film several times.

But unlike NASA sending people for real, you aren't recklessly playing with human life. The "astronauts" , even if the rocket "blows up" can simply get a haircut and reappear years later under another name.

But there is always doubt. So how can we know this?
1. The flag waving, and even more telling, that the other "astronaut" rushes in to correct it. If the flag waved, you could explain it as the adjustment while Buzz Aldrin is moving the thing to upright. But notice what they do. What normally you would do with a flag when helping a person put it up is help them with the pole. That's not what happens. The other guy grabs the banner end of the flag. That's an extremely curious thing to do, unless your goal is something different from steadying the flag, namely stopping the banner from waving.
2. You can also prove this if you find any animation glitches. By that, I mean that while their absence isn't disproof (it means they were careful), the presence of a footprint before they move to an area means they goofed; it means there definitely is a filmed set. However, since they stop motioned each step, you'd have to look not for the "one. small. step" but some point where they were careless.
3. But we already have proof the whole thing is a sham. What is it? Astronauts almost drowning in space. There is no air nor moisture in space. But here you have the media shills blithely talking about how now they need scuba masks inside their suit.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/astronaut-drowned-space-due-nasas-poor-communication-report/story?id=22687977
They call it a water leak. That's an understatement.
3b. You know those practice exercises where they dive underwater in a space suit? Those and wind tunnels are the same sort of animation footage. They just mask out the background.

So when you see "astronauts" trying to adjust the motion of objects, it's because something is unnatural about it.

The cheering in NASA, then is not because they managed a  space flight, but because they made something that will hoax the population.

 Yes, you can sorta get things to move in a vacuum. But in the face of other things, that isn't really proof. If there is more motion than there should be, one ought to ask "why." Especially when it apears to be flapping in the wind. A ventilation system could be to blame. So could the fact that most pools push water around to aerate it.

Quote from: MouseWalker on April 06, 2024, 04:39:02 PM

if thy are in a film studio why are the doors open?

They aren't. They are on stage in a cage so to speak.

As in, order for them to say "One small step for mankind" while hopping around they wear suits that indeed do regulate pressure. But they are actually hopping around elsewhere. A pool, a wind tunnel, something like that. They film them in the area, cut and paste any color glitches. Then they film grey sand (which is actually yellow sand that has been desaturated). They film just the sand being stomped in, in stop motion. Stop motion  means you carefully stop the camera (normally this is a technique for animating inanimate objects like clay or dolls), then restart. But in this case, we are doing this to edit out something that is there. The people doing the stomping.

In exactly the same way as Lawrence of Arabia can leave footprints on the desert, while not being on the desert, simply by transposing his footprints or whatever, they do the following:
1. Make a background animation.
1b. Grey it out, and allow it to change (footprints).
2. Make a "low gravity jumping" animation with the characters in a controlled environment.
2b. Mask out the surroundings.
3. Splice the characters to the background via superimposition.

In some sense, this technique is as costly as sending a person to space. You and I know how much is spent on film, and film with effects (prior to computers) means you film several times.

But unlike NASA sending people for real, you aren't recklessly playing with human life. The "astronauts" , even if the rocket "blows up" can simply get a haircut and reappear years later under another name.

But there is always doubt. So how can we know this?
1. The flag waving, and even more telling, that the other "astronaut" rushes in to correct it. If the flag waved, you could explain it as the adjustment while Buzz Aldrin is moving the thing to upright. But notice what they do. What normally you would do with a flag when helping a person put it up is help them with the pole. That's not what happens. The other guy grabs the banner end of the flag. That's an extremely curious thing to do, unless your goal is something different from steadying the flag, namely stopping the banner from waving.
2. You can also prove this if you find any animation glitches. By that, I mean that while their absence isn't disproof (it means they were careful), the presence of a footprint before they move to an area means they goofed; it means there definitely is a filmed set. However, since they stop motioned each step, you'd have to look not for the "one. small. step" but some point where they were careless.
3. But we already have proof the whole thing is a sham. What is it? Astronauts almost drowning in space. There is no air nor moisture in space. But here you have the media shills blithely talking about how now they need scuba masks inside their suit.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/astronaut-drowned-space-due-nasas-poor-communication-report/story?id=22687977
They call it a water leak. That's an understatement.
3b. You know those practice exercises where they dive underwater in a space suit? Those and wind tunnels are the same sort of animation footage. They just mask out the background.

So when you see "astronauts" trying to adjust the motion of objects, it's because something is unnatural about it.

The cheering in NASA, then is not because they managed a  space flight, but because they made something that will hoax the population.

 Yes, you can sorta get things to move in a vacuum. But in the face of other things, that isn't really proof. If there is more motion than there should be, one ought to ask "why." Especially when it apears to be flapping in the wind. A ventilation system could be to blame. So could the fact that most pools push water around to aerate it.

And once again, you completely ignore all of my answers and questions. Well done!
But anyways, let me just correct point one

The astronaut rushed over to stop the flag from FALLING TO THE MOON. I don't know if you know, but letting a flag touch the soil, any soil, lunar or otherwise, is a big no no. That's all.

They aren't. They are on stage in a cage so to speak.

From the way they move.  To all evidence they are in direct sunlight.  There is no evidence the moon landings were faked.  And verified from manmade objects transmitting from the moon by third parties. 

Skipping all your delusional BS which has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.

1. The flag waving

When the person is manipulating the flag pole.
This is expected and nothing to try to hide.
This has been explained to you, yet here you are still clinging to this lie.

2. You can also prove this if you find any animation glitches. By that, I mean that while their absence isn't disproof (it means they were careful), the presence of a footprint before they move to an area means they goofed; it means there definitely is a filmed set. However, since they stop motioned each step, you'd have to look not for the "one. small. step" but some point where they were careless.

Yet you provide none. So who cares?

3. But we already have proof the whole thing is a sham. What is it? Astronauts almost drowning in space. There is no air nor moisture in space.

Except the water in the temperature control system in the space suit, but of course you will just ignore that and lie to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

If there is more motion than there should be, one ought to ask "why."

And you are yet to demonstrate there is.

1. The flag waving,

That only happens when the flag is manhandled.




No manhandling, no movement.



https://crosslakeshreveport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 06, 2024, 03:48:35 PM

If i was replying to a previous comment, i would quote to maintain cotiintual contsxt.

Speaking of replying

You use this a lot..

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 06, 2024, 12:48:19 AM

hey hey
few months now
you gonna answer - what is the angle between segements of a 300,000sided polygon?
also just curious

Flat Eathers think the earth is flat.  So why would they answer your question that offers no proof of anything.

Themightykabool, flat earthers understand what a ball is.  Flat earthers don’t understand how big the earth is.  So your “go to post” doesn’t help in anyway for arguing the actual shape of earth that is classified as an “irregularly shaped ellipsoid.”  An ellipsoid so large it’s hard for the unaided eye to discern the dip of the horizon.

Well now
If the concept of a circle is too difficult for them, then what chance do you have claiming gravity or proposulsion are real?

How circles work is undeniable.
Hence they refuse to acknowledge because the answer is clear.
However arguing at nauseum how absteact ideas like gravity and space propulsion get pages and pages.
Because they can word salad it.
They can filubuster.

Cant filibuster circles.

Well now
If the concept of a circle is too difficult for them, then what chance do you have claiming gravity or proposulsion are real?

How circles work is undeniable.
Hence they refuse to acknowledge because the answer is clear.
However arguing at nauseum how absteact ideas like gravity and space propulsion get pages and pages.
Because they can word salad it.
They can filubuster.

Cant filibuster circles.

Changing the argument.

Your first reply from another thread with my response…

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 07, 2024, 09:06:33 AM

His original claim in the forum in general was a a straight homedepot level was striaght flat and level.

Which has nothing to do with the earth looking flat because of it size.

Like this.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on July 22, 2023, 12:10:10 PM

The tank looks flat with a small enough straight edge.  Small enough point of reference where the tank steadily curves at all points around its circumference.

You don’t listen Themightykabool.  The root of the problem is flat earthers don’t understand how big the earth is and the dip of the horizon.

Quote from: MouseWalker on April 06, 2024, 04:39:02 PM

if thy are in a film studio why are the doors open?

They aren't. They are on stage in a cage so to speak.

As in, order for them to say "One small step for mankind" while hopping around they wear suits that indeed do regulate pressure. But they are actually hopping around elsewhere. A pool, a wind tunnel, something like that. They film them in the area, cut and paste any color glitches. Then they film grey sand (which is actually yellow sand that has been desaturated). They film just the sand being stomped in, in stop motion. Stop motion  means you carefully stop the camera (normally this is a technique for animating inanimate objects like clay or dolls), then restart. But in this case, we are doing this to edit out something that is there. The people doing the stomping.

In exactly the same way as Lawrence of Arabia can leave footprints on the desert, while not being on the desert, simply by transposing his footprints or whatever, they do the following:
1. Make a background animation.
1b. Grey it out, and allow it to change (footprints).
2. Make a "low gravity jumping" animation with the characters in a controlled environment.
2b. Mask out the surroundings.
3. Splice the characters to the background via superimposition.

In some sense, this technique is as costly as sending a person to space. You and I know how much is spent on film, and film with effects (prior to computers) means you film several times.

But unlike NASA sending people for real, you aren't recklessly playing with human life. The "astronauts" , even if the rocket "blows up" can simply get a haircut and reappear years later under another name.

But there is always doubt. So how can we know this?
1. The flag waving, and even more telling, that the other "astronaut" rushes in to correct it. If the flag waved, you could explain it as the adjustment while Buzz Aldrin is moving the thing to upright. But notice what they do. What normally you would do with a flag when helping a person put it up is help them with the pole. That's not what happens. The other guy grabs the banner end of the flag. That's an extremely curious thing to do, unless your goal is something different from steadying the flag, namely stopping the banner from waving.
2. You can also prove this if you find any animation glitches. By that, I mean that while their absence isn't disproof (it means they were careful), the presence of a footprint before they move to an area means they goofed; it means there definitely is a filmed set. However, since they stop motioned each step, you'd have to look not for the "one. small. step" but some point where they were careless.
3. But we already have proof the whole thing is a sham. What is it? Astronauts almost drowning in space. There is no air nor moisture in space. But here you have the media shills blithely talking about how now they need scuba masks inside their suit.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/astronaut-drowned-space-due-nasas-poor-communication-report/story?id=22687977
They call it a water leak. That's an understatement.
3b. You know those practice exercises where they dive underwater in a space suit? Those and wind tunnels are the same sort of animation footage. They just mask out the background.

So when you see "astronauts" trying to adjust the motion of objects, it's because something is unnatural about it.

The cheering in NASA, then is not because they managed a  space flight, but because they made something that will hoax the population.

 Yes, you can sorta get things to move in a vacuum. But in the face of other things, that isn't really proof. If there is more motion than there should be, one ought to ask "why." Especially when it apears to be flapping in the wind. A ventilation system could be to blame. So could the fact that most pools push water around to aerate it.

Wow! You've got it all figured out. You're so smart!

I have one big problem with your hollywood movie studio scenario for the moon landing being a hoax.

The last time I checked, when a movie is being filmed, the director can keep shooting a scene over and over until it's perfect. I've heard of twenty takes for a scene or sometimes even more.

So, the problem I naturally have, Bulma, is if a group of people are trying to fool the whole world into thinking man landed on the moon, and they already had all the predicted physics for what can be expected to be seen by a man landing on the moon worked out, don't you think they would have kept shooting each scene until they were perfect and mistake free?

Then, all they had to do was play the mistake free final cut, and pretend to the whole world it is a live feed.

Don't you agree, Bulma?

So, if it was a hoax made in a studio, why did they allow the final cut, the official NASA film, to have so many errors?

The explanation is simple. It was not filmed in a studio with multiple cuts of each scene. It was filmed on the actual moon, there was one cut, and everything you think is a mistake lending way to a hoax, is not a mistake.

you think is a mistake lending way to a hoax, is not a mistake.

Or stinkybriefs144 just right out lies like supposedly the wind was making the flag wave on the moon. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 07, 2024, 03:52:09 PM

Well now
If the concept of a circle is too difficult for them, then what chance do you have claiming gravity or proposulsion are real?

How circles work is undeniable.
Hence they refuse to acknowledge because the answer is clear.
However arguing at nauseum how absteact ideas like gravity and space propulsion get pages and pages.
Because they can word salad it.
They can filubuster.

Cant filibuster circles.

Changing the argument.

Your first reply from another thread with my response…

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 07, 2024, 12:48:20 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 07, 2024, 09:06:33 AM

His original claim in the forum in general was a a straight homedepot level was striaght flat and level.

Which has nothing to do with the earth looking flat because of it size.

Like this.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on July 22, 2023, 12:10:10 PM

The tank looks flat with a small enough straight edge.  Small enough point of reference where the tank steadily curves at all points around its circumference.

You don’t listen Themightykabool.  The root of the problem is flat earthers don’t understand how big the earth is and the dip of the horizon.

I do listen.
I know they think it doesnt make sense.
I know they have really bad concept of physics.
But up until the point they refuse to answer this polygon question is when they have to bury their heads in the sand.

You trying to get recenege on me for calling out your stupidity though is astounding.
I make a siggestion and you blow it up and start doshonestly piecing posts out of context.

You
Are
Just
As
Bad
As
Them

by doing this nonsense.



Happy sunday.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 07, 2024, 04:20:53 PM

you think is a mistake lending way to a hoax, is not a mistake.

Or stinkybriefs144 just right out lies like supposedly the wind was making the flag wave on the moon.

He's not lying, he wasn't there and doesn't know. He's just going along with the flat earth and moon landing denial narrative. So I call him out on his bullshitbelief.