The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

First of all, you destroyed your credibility a long time ago when you tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=132&p=6317012&viewfull=1#post6317012
(post #3946)

I have to keep posting that so that it doesn't get buried.

When it comes to responding to your rebuttal to the summary of hoax proof, all that's necessary is to do the flag issue. You're obviously wrong on that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
2.35 time mark.

You say that camera bloom caused the movement. The main flaw with that argument is that the flag keeps moving after the initial movement. That would only be the case if something caused it to actually move.

This video shows it to be real movement and it also shows that the astronaut was not close enough to the flag to touch it when it started moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

So does this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QrvGmfUxRA
(8:15 time mark)

That totally debunks the camera bloom argument.

We also have this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

At the 00:50 time mark the flag is moving in a vacuum chamber. We can see the Apollo flag movement at the 1:50 time mark. The Apollo flag comes to a stop quickly whereas the flag in the vacuum chamber continues to swing. The curl in the flag isn't enough to make it stop that quickly in a vacuum and it's clear that the support rod is not pulling the flag in a way that makes it stop.

This closes the whole case by itself. What's the point of talking about fifty other points with someone who maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real? Your attitude does not fit the situation.

 

Diversionary spam. The spacewalk wasn't faked and the ultimate of ironies is that the person whose video you rely on for your claims, says Apollo was not faked.

Yet again, the troll avoids the questions. Let's try again shall we?

1. When cables are formed, are they wound on a drum?
2. Does this create shape memory? An example of this being a simple garden hose.
3. In a vacuum with no force acting on a cable, would this very small tendency to assume that shape memory be far greater?
4. What possible reason would China have for using buoyant cables instead of reinforced steel?

What a crock. You're just a serial spammer with some weird fixation, lasting 6 years.

Translation: I have no response to where you tear apart my claims, so I will just keep on spamming my hogwash about the flags. Oh, btw, I noticed you getting owned once again:-



Well well well, all that noise from you and it turns out I was totally correct. I feel righteously smug!

Translation: I daren't list any other points because these ones are flimsy enough, anything else will make me look even more idiotic.

 

Scott you are absolutely correct, it was taken in a studio.

I have only read about half the posts and I have come to the conclusion that none of you were alive when it took place.

In July 1969 as I sat with my father watching this on TV yes we had TV in those days in living color even, the announcer who I think was Walter Cronkite told the audience (those of the world watching) that what we were seeing was filmed on a sound stage, it was mirroring what was happening on the moon.

You see it was a little difficult to get a camera man on the moon to take pictures of this so we had to settle for a sound stage.

HOWEVER

Both the crew on the ground and those on the moon had practiced it like a stage play over and over again so each knew what the other was doing, it was scripted from start to splash down.

If you are in doubt as to the validity of the moon landings, I have only one picture to offer and you can look it up, its the picture of EARTH from the Moon.

If you still don't believe oh well, but thinking of the primitive technologies of that time remember that the SR71 was built in the 50's,


River

 

New evidence has surfaced!

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

 

I've seen a lengthy "documentation" by those, assuming that the moon landing was a hoax. One scene is from the "Apollo 13" movie showing Tom Hanks standing in front an escape hatch, some light entering the window, Tom Hanks saying: "That is Fra Mauro, the place we were supposed to land" (I don't remember the exact wording, it was something similar however). Hoax believers after the scene explained this scene to be "proof" for a hoax, "Fra Mauro" having been on the sunlight unexposed side of the moon when Apollo 13 was passing it, in total darkness therefore Apollo 13 could not have seen it when passing over it. In reality the scene shows an obvioulsy and undeniably staged scene with a known movie actor standing in front of a little window through which a studio light is shining, then uttering his famous words. That scene proves absolutely nothing and cannot be used as proof for anything. Those accusing others to have fabricated evidence by using staged movie scenes cannot use movie scenes to prove their case. That is a paradox which negatively affects the creditibility of the "Hoaxers".

 

I'd like to see who those "Hoax-believers" were. One tactic that the pro-Apollo camp uses is to infiltrate a group of hoax-believers and post an obviously wrong argument.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
-----------------------------
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
-----------------------------

Here's an example of a bunch of shills using that tactic.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628&page=20
(excerpt)

Read the discussion on the "Ribbon cable"before and after post #392 of that thread.

 

This claim comes from the film What Happened on the Moon.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-4.html

"Minute 87-89 Percy suggests that the photograph of the damaged Apollo 13 CSM is identical to one where the cover is removed on another photograph. Irrelevant really what he thinks, the Odyssey photograph shows damage. Another daft contention. Ronnie Stronge makes an assertion that "many experts" claim, such an explosion would throw the craft "way off course". Hogwash. Who are these "many experts" and where are their computations?

We now have Mary Bennett and her "dance through space" speech, where she tells us that the Apollo 13 craft was scheduled to land in darkness, because it was just barely emerging from the terminator when the craft was over 19,000 miles on its way back to Earth. She says that Apollo 13 had just left Lunar orbit whilst it was still dark.

Let's examine this. Firstly, Apollo 13 never went into orbit!! She has the audacity to tell us how anybody with "rudimentary knowledge of astronomy or an ephemeris" could check this, but makes such a basic, bad error. The craft went around the Moon on a free-return-trajectory. This means it did not fire retro to slow its speed to acquire orbit, but was on a speed and course that took it around the Moon far quicker than normal. It also fired its engine to achieve escape velocity.

This means it hit 19,000 miles away from the Moon barely before it would have even performed one orbital rotation! Apollo 13 was scheduled to be in lunar orbit for 26 hours prior to landing. The actual sunrise terminator moves some 13 degrees in longitude between lunar orbital insertion and the landing.

Mary Bennett - epic fail."

The film uses and refers to the Apollo 13 footage to make its case, surely you knew this, it's in your wall of spam.

 

An issue such as that one is easy to obfuscate but the bottom line is that the flag anomaly closes the whole case by itself.

The flag moves without being touched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
(2:35 time mark)

This video shows that it started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it. This destroys the "Camera bloom" theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
The flag movement in a vacuum at the 00:50 time mark of the above video is very different from the Apollo flag movement at the 1:50 time mark of the same video and the rod movement shows that air is making it stop as the rod shows what he's doing with his wrist.

You also destroyed your credibility a long time ago by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.

 

Unable to concede you were wrong as always. It wasn't an infiltrating "shill" it was the moronic film you rely on.

Does it now! You have been conclusively battered with the moving lens flares:-



Anybody, just anybody can take screen prints of the film and produce their own animated gif. The gif above was not doctored - your argument has finally been conclusively laid to rest. Yet stupidity persists.

You are quite possibly, the most deluded spammer on the web. Quite why you persist with your campaign to poison every forum with your ignorant observations is beyond me. Quite how you are even allowed to get away with your repetition is also surprising.

Apollo 15 flag:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

Apollo 17 flag:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html

China Spacewalk:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

Interested readers of this thread will notice that this user will never address any of the points made back at him. I have already posted a concise response to this appalling spam right at the start of this thread - it was almost completely ignored.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
(2:35 time mark)

The flag anomaly closes the whole case so why should I get into long discussions about the other anomalies with somebody who maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real (see post #451).

The pro-Apollo position on the moving flag is that camera bloom is responsible for the initial movement of the flag and that it continued moving because he brushed it with his elbow. This video shows that the flag started moving before he got close enough to brush it with his elbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

That destroys the camera bloom theory. You can't make that go away with rhetoric and invective.

 

That you are a hopelessly deluded spammer who has no grasp of science or logic.

Especially when I have refuted every single point made by the pro-Apollo maker of that video. As I pointed out, once you get your butt kicked, you run away and refuse to answer. The standard cut and paste bull ensues.

Firstly, I am aware of at least 3 valid causes for the initial movement.

The camera bloom, supported by the distance away of the astronaut, the fact it starts the frame he enters, the whole flag and flagpole moving right and now the lens flares also moving at the same rate. Ground vibration, flag pole settling into support - difficult to prove or disprove. Kicked regolith, supported by countless EVA sequences showing surface matter kicked several feet in front of an astronaut and often angled outwards(sometimes consisting of clumps that could also quite easily impact the vertical rod). There is static electricity, but I don's ascribe to that as a valid explanation.

It is fairly dumb of you to dismiss the camera bloom because the flag "moves" initially, when the camera bloom is what makes it appear to move in the first place! But then again, nothing you do seems to be strong in integrity, you just go on spamming and ignoring. What is it, six years now?

Since you respammed your video, let me recopy my post in refutation once again:-



Anybody, just anybody can take screen prints of the film and produce their own animated gif. The gif above was not doctored - your argument has finally been conclusively laid to rest. Yet stupidity persists.

Apollo 15 flag:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

Apollo 17 flag:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html

China Spacewalk:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

Interested readers of this thread will notice that this user will never address any of the points made back at him. I have already posted a concise response to this appalling spam right at the start of this thread - it was almost completely ignored


Just to add, it speaks volumes of this spammer, that he has not learnt to upload videos to youtube, make simple animated gifs or do anything tangible in response to many videos and gifs shown to him. He simply cries foul and says they are doctored, when anyone with a braincell could prove they are not.

 

You seem to be trying to bury post #460 so here it is again.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=46&p=1063070066#post1063070066

Ground vibration would cause the pole to move and the pole would cause the support rod to move. There is no visible movement of either the rod or the pole.

The nauture of the flag movement is consistent with its having been hit by a wall of air. Start watching here at the 8:15 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QrvGmfUxRA

Also, there's no visible surface matter hitting the flag.

There is no other Apollo footage in which the astronaut is close to the flag with the flag being attracted to or repelled by him. The only time pro-Apollo people say there may be static electricity is when the movement is one hundred percent consistent with the flag's being hit by a wall of air.

The movement is consistent with the atmosphere explanation. All the other ones have been shown to be wrong.

This is a good series on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...93.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.2.11.youtube.d2HraHnuXaE

 

You are spamming and as always, in every single case, you cannot answer my post. You are cornered and busted with nowhere to go.

Here is my post once again:-

Especially when I have refuted every single point made by the pro-Apollo maker of that video. As I pointed out, once you get your butt kicked, you run away and refuse to answer. The standard cut and paste bull ensues.

Firstly, I am aware of at least 3 valid causes for the initial movement.

The camera bloom, supported by the distance away of the astronaut, the fact it starts the frame he enters, the whole flag and flagpole moving right and now the lens flares also moving at the same rate. Ground vibration, flag pole settling into support - difficult to prove or disprove. Kicked regolith, supported by countless EVA sequences showing surface matter kicked several feet in front of an astronaut and often angled outwards(sometimes consisting of clumps that could also quite easily impact the vertical rod). There is static electricity, but I don's ascribe to that as a valid explanation.

It is fairly dumb of you to dismiss the camera bloom because the flag "moves" initially, when the camera bloom is what makes it appear to move in the first place! But then again, nothing you do seems to be strong in integrity, you just go on spamming and ignoring. What is it, six years now?

Since you respammed your video, let me recopy my post in refutation once again:-



Anybody, just anybody can take screen prints of the film and produce their own animated gif. The gif above was not doctored - your argument has finally been conclusively laid to rest. Yet stupidity persists.

Apollo 15 flag:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

Apollo 17 flag:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/apollo-17-flag.html

China Spacewalk:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

Interested readers of this thread will notice that this user will never address any of the points made back at him. I have already posted a concise response to this appalling spam right at the start of this thread - it was almost completely ignored


Just to add, it speaks volumes of this spammer, that he has not learnt to upload videos to youtube, make simple animated gifs or do anything tangible in response to many videos and gifs shown to him. He simply cries foul and says they are doctored, when anyone with a braincell could prove they are not

 

You're playing dumb about this.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
---------------------------------------------

 

Simple questions:
1. What would anyone stand to gain from faking a Moon landing?
2. Of all the hundreds of people who would have to have had knowledge of the alleged fakery, why has not one come forward in over 50 years? After all, what would these elderly folk have to lose in admitting their parts in the fakery?

 

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------
Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:

Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
---------------------------------------

It would be dangerous for them and their families.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

Also, if someone were to come forward, the press wouldn't publish what he said. The press is controlled. Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media". Science journals are controlled too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(added 8/24/13)

There's a list of people including scientists who believe the landings were faked here.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax

We never hear their words in the mainstream press.



http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.

 

There's a dead link in post #2 so I want to update the evidence. Here it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Look at the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor at the beginning of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Now look at the reflection of the sun in the visor in this picture.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-115/hires/s115e05753.jpg

It's pretty clear that the reflection in the Apollo astronaut's visor is that of a big light. Here's an article about that.
http://www.aulis.com/sunsize.htm

Also, look at the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor in this video at the 1:25 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM8OYqcXzUo

Obviously the Apollo sun was a great big studio light.

 

Not sure what mode you are in today, trolling or spamming, but either way you are, as always full of it!

Firstly, I am aware of at least 3 valid causes for the initial movement.

The camera bloom, supported by the distance away of the astronaut, the fact it starts the frame he enters, the whole flag and flagpole moving right and now the lens flares also moving at the same rate. Ground vibration, flag pole settling into support - difficult to prove or disprove. Kicked regolith, supported by countless EVA sequences showing surface matter kicked several feet in front of an astronaut and often angled outwards(sometimes consisting of clumps that could also quite easily impact the vertical rod). There is static electricity, but I don's ascribe to that as a valid explanation.

It is fairly dumb of you to dismiss the camera bloom because the flag "moves" initially, when the camera bloom is what makes it appear to move in the first place! But then again, nothing you do seems to be strong in integrity, you just go on spamming and ignoring. What is it, six years now?

 

Are you afraid? I mean seriously, what is stopping that obsessed brain of yours from taking in rebuttal? I refuted this in every way possible, with a simple and extremely effective observation in a 95 second video.

I dare you to respond to this with anything other than spam, I shan't hold my breath:-

[video=youtube;aBVjjPzU8SQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBVjjPzU8SQ[/video]

There is a part 1 that shows the way sunlight diffuses in the same way on any number of surfaces.

"Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former"

Albert Einstein

 

I would have to do some experimenting with both the sun and a superlight to verify whether your conclusion is true and I don't have access to a superlight. Anyway, we all know you're an obfuscator because you tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

You are not a trustworthy person.


You keep avoiding the fact that the flag kept moving after the initial movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU

The trouble with the camera bloom theory is that the flag kept moving which means it was real movement. The ground vibration, static electricity, and kicked regolith theories have all been shown to be wrong.

This video shows that the bottom corner of the flag started moving before he got close enough to brush it with his elbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

This video shows the initial movement which is consistent with a wall of air hitting the middle of the flag at about a forty five degree angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QrvGmfUxRA
(8:15 time mark)

You seem to be trying to bury all of this proof that the flag was in air. I guess I'll have to keep posting it once or twice on each page to thwart you.

I'd say your success rate in convincing people that the moon missions were real is close to zero.

 

Coward. The "superlight" disappears when a narrow rod blocks it, do explain. It's the Sun by the way, and on the Moon.

You are a serial forum spammer with not one ounce of integrity. Your opinion is worthless on pretty much every subject you post on.

You are a liar. I would post the half dozen links to where I have addressed this previously, but I will settle for my blog:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

An idiotic claim, since the astronaut simply brushed it with his arm.

Liar again, they most definitely have not been. Certainly not by you.

You seem to be spamming the same crap, with the same links, same phrases and same responses as you do on over a hundred other forums:-

[video=youtube;LYLwKqPn-YU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYLwKqPn-YU[/video]

Do you have some sort of cut and paste manual you refer to? Get a life.

 

That would clearly be true on a flat reflective surface. To see if that would be true on a convex reflective surface, I'd have to do some experimenting. Anyway, it's a moot point because the flag anomaly has already proven the hoax.

...said the guy who tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=45&p=1062831714#post1062831714

Instead of making me look for it, why don't you just state it right now?

I see you finally stated it. Stop playing dumb about these videos.

This video shows that the bottom corner of the flag started moving before he got close enough to brush it with his elbow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

This video shows the initial movement which is consistent with a wall of air hitting the middle of the flag at about a forty five degree angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QrvGmfUxRA
(8:15 time mark)

I addressed all of that in post #462
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=190138&page=47&p=1063071193#post1063071193

You didn't give a rebuttal. Let's hear your rebuttal.

We have to fight censorship somehow. It's impossible to post any hoax proof in the comment section of any article that gets thousands of views. It never appears. Only pro-Apollo stuff appears. If they get to censor, I get to do mass posting. I really enjoy doing it actually. It's like a hobby. Some people have thanked me and that makes me feel good.

 

Keep spinning those fairy tales scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c...And I pointed out to you before that the laser reflectors were NOT made by a 'french company',but by a US company,the Bendix corp.

The Soviet Unions Lunokhod rovers were the ones with retroreflectors made in France...

And asa far as the reflectors not being up there,people at the University of Texas' McDonald observatory were bouncing lasers off something...And there's a REASON the mainstream press ignores the moon hoaxer whackadoodles....

 

You are either just plain stupid or being deliberately obtuse. The full width of the diffused "superlight" disappears when a very narrow rod obscures the light source. THEREFORE the full width of what we see on the visor is not a reflection of the light but massively diffused by the surface it is striking.

For the hard of understanding, though I'm sure you will find a way to arm wave it away and avoid conceding even one part of your wall of spam!



Guess which one happens on the Apollo video shot on the lunar surface?

Diffusion demonstrated here on the other video:-

[video=youtube;yWyjuCGEODU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWyjuCGEODU[/video]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBVjjPzU8SQ

The Chinese didn't fake their spacewalk, only a complete moron would say this in view of the counter evidence.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

It is obvious why you never respond to this - getting your butt kicked must not even register with your need to spam.

Troll. My reply is directly underneath that post and your "addressing of it" is pathetic.

 

For the serial spammer, the evidence he keeps avoiding. The moving lens flares which support the claim I made originally, that the tiny movement of the flag is caused by a camera bloom. What we see and can easily be verified is the whole flag, the flag pole and even some of the surface itself moving right slightly. What we now have is internal light reflections, also moving right. Now THAT is a complete wrap. Lens flares that move in the same way as the flag, indicate a blooming effect. Yet stupidity persists.



Interested readers of this thread will notice that Scott/Cosmored/Fatfreddy/DavidC character will never address any of the points made back at him. I have already posted a concise response to this appalling spam right at the start of this thread - it was almost completely ignored - see my signature for his whole OP taken apart.