Discussion:
Why the moon landing was a hoax - no jumps!
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2024-05-21 15:34:24 UTC
Permalink
They never went there.
bt
Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up
ten feet.
- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
bt
Your calculations are wrong.
The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
I am convinced that the USA did send multiple missions with
American astronauts that landed on the moon and returned.

We were in a very competitive race with the USSR (Russia)
and we won. USSR was watching very closely for this
big public relations event. They would have denounced
the news if they could have, but they saw the landing was
real.

Telescopes have gotten so good that we have pictures
of those landing sites and the left behind debris and
the astronauts tracks and footprints.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-05-21 20:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
They never went there.
bt
Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up
ten feet.
- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
bt
Your calculations are wrong.
The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
I am convinced that the USA did send multiple missions with
American astronauts that landed on the moon and returned.
Politics trumps not physics.
It is very different on the Moon.
The evidence is that the landings were faked.
Post by a425couple
We were in a very competitive race with the USSR (Russia)
and we won. USSR was watching very closely for this
big public relations event. They would have denounced
the news if they could have, but they saw the landing was
real.
They had the lowest opinions of Americans so why bother to comment.
Anyway it could be a blackmail opportunity. Give us this and we won't
tell.
In India there was tension. The local Muslims were upset as the Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.

bt
Post by a425couple
Telescopes have gotten so good that we have pictures
of those landing sites and the left behind debris and
the astronauts tracks and footprints.
Kualinar
2024-05-22 14:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by a425couple
They never went there.
bt
Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump
up ten feet.
- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
bt
Your calculations are wrong.
The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
I am convinced that the USA did send multiple missions with
American astronauts that landed on the moon and returned.
Politics trumps not physics.
It is very different on the Moon.
The evidence is that the landings were faked.
Post by a425couple
We were in a very competitive race with the USSR (Russia)
and we won.  USSR was watching very closely for this
big public relations event.  They would have denounced
the news if they could have, but they saw the landing was
real.
They had the lowest opinions of Americans so why bother to comment.
The USA and USSR where mired in a cutthroat competition. IF the USSR had
found ANYTHING to discredit the USA, they would have jumped on the occasion.
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Anyway it could be a blackmail opportunity. Give us this and we won't
Blackmail opportunity ? Why ?
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
tell. In India there was tension. The local Muslims were upset as the
At the time, India was regarded as backwater and almost third world
country. Almost a non-entity.
As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
bt
Post by a425couple
Telescopes have gotten so good that we have pictures
of those landing sites and the left behind debris and
the astronauts tracks and footprints.
Jim Wilkins
2024-05-22 21:46:27 UTC
Permalink
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$***@dont-email.me...

Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :

As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.

--------------------

All their "evidence" is baseless conjecture, ignorant misunderstandings or
malicious lies.

https://www.history.com/news/moon-landing-fake-conspiracy-theories
Denonym
2024-05-25 06:52:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
Post by Kualinar
As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
This is a tactic known as forum sliding including poisoning the well.

Surround the discussion of government fraud with lunatic theories and then the average person gets so confused they can't consider the facts.

Nobody landed on the moon.
Kualinar
2024-05-25 19:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denonym
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
Post by Kualinar
As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
This is a tactic known as forum sliding including poisoning the well.
Surround the discussion of government fraud with lunatic theories and then the average person gets so confused they can't consider the facts.
Nobody landed on the moon.
Stop lying. We landed on the Moon a total of 6 times, with two men in
the LM each times, making it 12 men actually walked on the Moon.
Before that, two missions went to the Moon without landing, and Apollo
13 that failed to land due to mechanical failure.
So, a total of 9 human crews went to the Moon and back, with 6 landings,
meaning a total of 27 humans making it to the Moon and back and 12 men
walking on the Moon.

Each mission have been followed by 1000's of amateur astronomers from
every country, and the radio transmission FROM the space ships listened
to by 1000's of radio amateurs from every countries.
That just can not be faked.

Faking the Moon landings would have cost MORE than actually doing it.
Why ? Simple. You still need to construct the rockets, launch them, sent
the Apollo capsules TO the Moon and back and recover them. You also need
to have the radio transmissions from those to be listened to by 1000's
of peoples you have no possible control upon. Then, you need some
impossibly large sets to simulate the Moon walks. I mean studios that
are several Km wide and long WITHOUT supporting columns. Then, ensure
that nobody ever spill the beans, even accidentally, even on their death
bed.

Remember that the chance of success of such an endeavour in inversely
proportional to (the number of person implied multiplied by the number
of DAY that pass).
Jim Wilkins
2024-05-25 21:11:35 UTC
Permalink
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v2tff5$311dl$***@dont-email.me...

Stop lying. We landed on the Moon a total of 6 times, with two men in
the LM each times, making it 12 men actually walked on the Moon.
Before that, two missions went to the Moon without landing, and Apollo
13 that failed to land due to mechanical failure.
So, a total of 9 human crews went to the Moon and back, with 6 landings,
meaning a total of 27 humans making it to the Moon and back and 12 men
walking on the Moon.

Each mission have been followed by 1000's of amateur astronomers from
every country, and the radio transmission FROM the space ships listened
to by 1000's of radio amateurs from every countries.
That just can not be faked.

Faking the Moon landings would have cost MORE than actually doing it.
Why ? Simple. You still need to construct the rockets, launch them, sent
the Apollo capsules TO the Moon and back and recover them. You also need
to have the radio transmissions from those to be listened to by 1000's
of peoples you have no possible control upon. Then, you need some
impossibly large sets to simulate the Moon walks. I mean studios that
are several Km wide and long WITHOUT supporting columns. Then, ensure
that nobody ever spill the beans, even accidentally, even on their death
bed.

Remember that the chance of success of such an endeavour in inversely
proportional to (the number of person implied multiplied by the number
of DAY that pass).

---------------------------------

I agree, except for the large studio size. I've done some movie tech work
and know about other aspects, like the matte shot, the ancestor of chroma
key (green screen) that merges a photographed or painted background with
actors on a sound stage. Movie painters are so good at photorealism that
their imitations of objects stand up to close examination in person.

The radio transmissions had to come from where they were supposed to, or
else tracking antennas would detect the fake. It might be possible to fool
one amateur radio operator tracking the signal but not many, thousands of
miles apart, who could triangulate the distance.

Amateur does NOT imply low skills, many Hams are also highly placed
engineers doing on their own what they can't interest their employer in, or
proving the possibility to justify the project. I built prototypes of a
space laser comm link in my home machine shop.

Amateur radio operators were the first to detect and track Sputnik.
https://www.onallbands.com/amateur-radio-history-hams-inspired-by-sputnik-1-built-oscar-1-2-and-3-satellites-taking-amateur-radio-into-space/
"... Air Force Chief of the Space Instrumentation Section at NASA’s Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. A ham himself, the Air Force chief set aside space on
the Discover 36 KH-3 Corona surveillance satellite ..."
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-05-26 22:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by Denonym
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
Post by Kualinar
As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
This is a tactic known as forum sliding including poisoning the well.
Surround the discussion of government fraud with lunatic theories and
then the average person gets so confused they can't consider the facts.
Nobody landed on the moon.
Stop lying. We landed on the Moon a total of 6 times, with two men in
the LM each times, making it 12 men actually walked on the Moon.
Bad films and silly photos are proof of US lying.
The C rock is a hoot.
Post by Kualinar
Before that, two missions went to the Moon without landing, and Apollo
13 that failed to land due to mechanical failure.
So, a total of 9 human crews went to the Moon and back, with 6
landings,
With no jumps but lotsa shuffling.
Bad Hollywood direction.
The photos are a joke.
Post by Kualinar
meaning a total of 27 humans making it to the Moon and back and 12 men
walking on the Moon.
In films only.
They did not have the guy wires to make them jump up and fall down
slowly.
Post by Kualinar
Each mission have been followed by 1000's of amateur astronomers from
every country, and the radio transmission FROM the space ships listened
to by 1000's of radio amateurs from every countries.
That just can not be faked.
They can be very easily faked. Propaganda is about faking. The more the
merrier. Just look at Einstein's fake physics. The whole world believes
it. Such is the power of institutional bs.
They may have gone around the Moon but they did not land there.
Post by Kualinar
Faking the Moon landings would have cost MORE than actually doing it.
Silly money reason. I am talking about physics. If they did go there why
behave as if they were on Earth? They would be jumping up and down with
pure joy. So the simple answer is they never went there. Just staged it
on some desert on Earth.
Post by Kualinar
Why ? Simple. You still need to construct the rockets, launch them, sent
the Apollo capsules TO the Moon and back and recover them. You also need
I don't deny a lot of money was wasted and the whole world was fooled.
Post by Kualinar
to have the radio transmissions from those to be listened to by 1000's
of peoples you have no possible control upon. Then, you need some
impossibly large sets to simulate the Moon walks.
Not at all for they were badly done.

I mean studios that
Post by Kualinar
are several Km wide and long WITHOUT supporting columns. Then, ensure
that nobody ever spill the beans, even accidentally, even on their death
bed.
They were badly done so are not convincing to those with some knowledge
of physics.
Post by Kualinar
Remember that the chance of success of such an endeavour in inversely
proportional to (the number of person implied multiplied by the number
of DAY that pass).
Right from day one many thought it was faked. But most people are cowed
down by massive propaganda and the terrific success of the US in other
areas.

bt
Daniel70
2024-05-27 04:52:15 UTC
Permalink
<Snip>
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
I mean studios that are several Km wide and long WITHOUT supporting
columns. Then, ensure that nobody ever spill the beans, even
accidentally, even on their death bed.
They were badly done so are not convincing to those with some
knowledge of physics.
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Remember that the chance of success of such an endeavour in
inversely proportional to (the number of person implied multiplied
by the number of DAY that pass).
Right from day one many thought it was faked. But most people are
cowed down by massive propaganda and the terrific success of the US
in other areas.
bt
--
Daniel
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-05-27 10:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel70
<Snip>
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
I mean studios that are several Km wide and long WITHOUT supporting
columns. Then, ensure that nobody ever spill the beans, even
accidentally, even on their death bed.
They were badly done so are not convincing to those with some
knowledge of physics.
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
Post by Daniel70
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Remember that the chance of success of such an endeavour in
inversely proportional to (the number of person implied multiplied
by the number of DAY that pass).
Right from day one many thought it was faked. But most people are
cowed down by massive propaganda and the terrific success of the US
in other areas.
bt
Richard Harnden
2024-05-27 16:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-05-27 20:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints.

bt
R Kym Horsell
2024-05-28 00:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints.
bt
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was faked.
--
A typical air molecule is a little less than half a nanometer across. Air
molecules are also surprisingly close together (about 3 nm on average) and
traveling really fast (about 1000 miles per hour on average). The result is
that molecules only travel about 70 nm on average between collisions.
-- pressbooks.pub
[A heat photo travels and average ~1.5 mm in air before it interacts
with a gas molecule].
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-05-28 09:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints.
bt
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was fake.
No. I am assuming nothing. That is what you all do. You assume that NASA
is not lying.
I am pointing out that from the evidence they did not land on the Moon.
The evidence they did not land on the Moon is overwhelming.

bt
Richard Harnden
2024-05-28 10:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints. bt
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was fake.
No. I am assuming nothing. That is what you all do. You assume that NASA
is not lying.
I am pointing out that from the evidence they did not land on the Moon.
The evidence they did not land on the Moon is overwhelming.
bt
These look pretty damn good to me:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/

I guess that you'll think that the shadows are 'wrong'
John
2024-05-28 11:14:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 May 2024 11:26:28 +0100, Richard Harnden
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints. bt
Soft, fluffy, crunchy soil and men wearing a hundred kilos of gear.
It's sort of like walking on meringue wearing a soldier's kit.

The Moon needs to be rained on for a few years to compact and settle
the dust.
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by R Kym Horsell
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was fake.
No. I am assuming nothing. That is what you all do. You assume that NASA
is not lying.
I am pointing out that from the evidence they did not land on the Moon.
The evidence they did not land on the Moon is overwhelming.
bt
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/
"Okay, so those *WERE* filmed on the Moon but by robots. Even the
Soviets had lunar robots. There were dozens of them. Scores. Maybe
even hundreds."

"The things in the 'suits' that bounced about were animatronic
mannequins, too. Probably made by Disney and Boston Robotics."
Post by Richard Harnden
I guess that you'll think that the shadows are 'wrong'
"Naw, lighting technicians have been good at their job since the
1890's in Europe, even before Hollywood. They would have got it all
right."


If you don't accept the evidence, *everything* is lies and a Great
Conspiracy. Some people just can never be convinced of the truth
because they have The Truth.

J.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-05-28 11:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Everything is wrong about the Apollo11 moon landing. Just a hoax. Very
successful that way.

by
Kualinar
2024-05-28 19:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Everything is wrong about the Apollo11 moon landing. Just a hoax. Very
successful that way.
by
The only thing wrong here, is YOU, bertietaylor.
YOU are totally wrong.
bertietaylor
2024-05-29 05:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Everything is wrong about the Apollo11 moon landing. Just a hoax. Very
successful that way.
by
The only thing wrong here, is YOU, bertietaylor.
YOU are totally wrong.
No.
we ghostly cyberdogs of Arindam are always correct.
The real irony is that the vast majority of the all-powerful bipeds are
sillier than sheep.

woof-woof

bt
Kualinar
2024-05-28 19:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints. bt
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was fake.
No. I am assuming nothing. That is what you all do. You assume that NASA
is not lying.
I am pointing out that from the evidence they did not land on the Moon.
The evidence they did not land on the Moon is overwhelming.
bt
Yes, YOU are assuming things.
YOU assume that the NASA is lying, when it have NO reason to lie.
YOU assume that landing on the Moon is not possible. It is possible. I
know, what a shocker.
YOU seem to assume that there is an atmosphere on the Moon that have
about the same density as here on Earth. There is NO atmosphere to slow
things down.
YOU assume that there are «evidences» that we didn't land on the Moon,
when there are solid evidences that we did and NONE that we didn't.
YOU assume that those real evidences are all fake.
bertietaylor
2024-06-03 06:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints. bt
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was fake.
No. I am assuming nothing. That is what you all do. You assume that NASA
is not lying.
I am pointing out that from the evidence they did not land on the Moon.
The evidence they did not land on the Moon is overwhelming.
bt
Yes, YOU are assuming things.
No.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that the NASA is lying, when it have NO reason to lie.
I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why flags
fluttering? Why deep footprints? Why chaps leaning forward! Why C rock?
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other one
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc.
Mainly it was just about people NOT behaving as if they had landed on
the Moon, but trying hard to make it appear so.
Physics is on the side of the debunkers. That simple physics is beyond
the sheeple so the deception continues.
NASA got immense prestige, funding, attention etc. from this lie. Its
political purpose was to show off the US. Much money must have been
siphoned off. Much more easy to make bad films and a grand photo shoot
with props. Enough experience there witl Hollywood.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that landing on the Moon is not possible. It is possible. I
know, what a shocker.
I did not say it is not possible. I say they did not land there and the
supposed landing is a hoax. Like so many other hoaxes popularly accepted
by sheeple.
Post by Kualinar
YOU seem to assume that there is an atmosphere on the Moon that have
about the same density as here on Earth. There is NO atmosphere to slow
things down.
You being one of the sheeple know nothing about simple physics. Which I
have explained in detail. And which were well known to US children in
the 1950s. Jumping up 10 feet was an illustration in my book "Off to the
Moon". Arindam has a copy and that photo is on his facebook timeline.
The air resistance has nothing to do with jumping up and about on the
Moon. Feeling great as your weight is only say 12kg. You cannot but jump
up and down 2-3feet every time you take a step. Not weighed down as
those poor lying devils were on Earth.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that there are «evidences» that we didn't land on the Moon,
when there are solid evidences that we did and NONE that we didn't.
What solid evidence? All lies pretending to be truth. Pathetic. After
decades India managed to land something there but it stayed there. And
US robots did go around the Moon but did not land. How could they do so
very much better in 1969? Have they become retarded since, tech wise? If
not, the moon landing must have been a hoax.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that those real evidences are all fake.
Again, what real evidence?

Bertietaylor
Tyrone
2024-06-03 19:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor
I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why flags
fluttering? Why deep footprints? Why chaps leaning forward! Why C rock?
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other one
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc.
OMG. That's it? That's your "proof"? They are all incredibly stupid. I'll
pick one at random.

Why would you expect to see stars in the pictures? You need long exposure
photos IN THE DARK to see stars, because stars are VERY DIM. There are no
stars in the Lunar pictures because they are in full daylight. They are
taking pictures of nearby people and objects that are very brightly lit. That
the sky is black has nothing to do with anything.

Here is your test. Go outside on a clear night, when there are stars. You and
a friend stand under a street light. You take a normal picture of your friend,
lit from above by the street light. If there are no street lights and it is
dark, then use the camera flash. Then tell us how many stars you see in the
background.

The answer - of course - is that you will see none. Closeups of brightly lit
objects will mean a very short exposure. This will be way too short to show
stars in the sky.
Jim Wilkins
2024-06-03 20:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor
I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why flags
fluttering? Why deep footprints? Why chaps leaning forward! Why C rock?
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other one
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc.
OMG. That's it? That's your "proof"? They are all incredibly stupid. I'll
pick one at random.

Why would you expect to see stars in the pictures? You need long exposure
photos IN THE DARK to see stars, because stars are VERY DIM. There are no
stars in the Lunar pictures because they are in full daylight. They are
taking pictures of nearby people and objects that are very brightly lit.
That
the sky is black has nothing to do with anything.

Here is your test. Go outside on a clear night, when there are stars. You
and
a friend stand under a street light. You take a normal picture of your
friend,
lit from above by the street light. If there are no street lights and it is
dark, then use the camera flash. Then tell us how many stars you see in the
background.

The answer - of course - is that you will see none. Closeups of brightly
lit
objects will mean a very short exposure. This will be way too short to show
stars in the sky.

--------------------------------
The camera that took the questioned photo was mounted on the chest of the
suit, where his hands are clearly placed to operate it.
The "evidence" is false.

The C isn't on the original negative.
https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon
The "evidence" is false.

The flag wasn't fluttering, it was wrinkled from storage.
The "evidence" is false.

They did jump quite a bit higher on the Moon than they could on Earth in a
suit that doubled their weight. Pick up someone your size and see how high
you can jump, the only fair comparison.
The "evidence" is false.
bertietaylor
2024-06-03 21:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why flags
fluttering? Why deep footprints? Why chaps leaning forward! Why C rock?
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other one
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc.
OMG. That's it? That's your "proof"? They are all incredibly stupid. I'll
pick one at random.
Why only one?
Post by Tyrone
Why would you expect to see stars in the pictures? You need long exposure
photos IN THE DARK to see stars, because stars are VERY DIM.
Hardly. They are very bright on the Moon, enough to be picked up by any
camera.
Arindam recently photographed the full Moon on Norfolk Island. It is up
on his facebook page.
It shows stars around the Moon and even through the thin clouds.
No pollution there, so such a photo taken with a commercial smartphone.
Would be better on the Moon with no atmosphere at all.




There are
Post by Tyrone
no
stars in the Lunar pictures because they are in full daylight. They are
taking pictures of nearby people and objects that are very brightly lit.
Again, this shows the sheeple mentality. Daylight on the Moon is
nothing like daylight on Earth.

The Sun on the Moon is just a bright object. It does not scatter its
rays as it does on Earth, with the atmosphere. The rays fall directly
from a point. Like a searchlight in the dark, which of course was the
situation when it was all filmed on Earth. Certainly the stars would
have been seen had they been filming on the Moon. The sunlight on the
Moon would not have blocked the starlight.

All astronauts orbiting the Earth see the stars very clearly with the
Sun full on. No reason why things should be different on the Moon.
Post by Tyrone
That
the sky is black has nothing to do with anything.
It shows that the filming was done on Earth under a spotlight and with
special exposures on the cameras to block out the stars.
Post by Tyrone
Here is your test. Go outside on a clear night, when there are stars. You
and
a friend stand under a street light. You take a normal picture of your friend,
lit from above by the street light. If there are no street lights and
it
is
dark, then use the camera flash. Then tell us how many stars you see in the
background.
Let us go to the Moon and try things out.
The high quality photos, perfect shots, could only have been got on
Earth by top photographers.

BertieTaylor
Post by Tyrone
The answer - of course - is that you will see none. Closeups of brightly
lit
objects will mean a very short exposure. This will be way too short to show
stars in the sky.
--------------------------------
The camera that took the questioned photo was mounted on the chest of the
suit, where his hands are clearly placed to operate it.
The "evidence" is false.
The C isn't on the original negative.
https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon
The "evidence" is false.
The flag wasn't fluttering, it was wrinkled from storage.
The "evidence" is false.
They did jump quite a bit higher on the Moon than they could on Earth
in
a
suit that doubled their weight. Pick up someone your size and see how high
you can jump, the only fair comparison.
The "evidence" is false.
Tyrone
2024-06-03 22:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor
Hardly. They are very bright on the Moon, enough to be picked up by any
camera.
Who says that? Someone who has never been to the moon? And if the stars are
much brigter on the moon, wouldn't the Sun also be MUCH BRIGHTER?
Post by bertietaylor
Arindam recently photographed the full Moon on Norfolk Island. It is up
on his facebook page.
It shows stars around the Moon and even through the thin clouds.
So? The picture was taken at night, right? Take it again in full day light.
How many stars do you see?
Post by bertietaylor
Again, this shows the sheeple mentality. Daylight on the Moon is
nothing like daylight on Earth.
Yes, it is MUCH BRIGHTER on the moon, due to no atmosphere to diffuse it.
Plus the surface of the moon is lightly colored, so it all gets reflected.
Sort of like being in snow in bright sunlight. There is LOTS of light on the
moon.
Post by bertietaylor
The Sun on the Moon is just a bright object. It does not scatter its
rays as it does on Earth, with the atmosphere. The rays fall directly
from a point. Like a searchlight in the dark,
No, the sun is not a searchlight. It is not a focused beam. It is light
everywhere.

Sheeple indeed.
bertietaylor
2024-06-04 07:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
Hardly. They are very bright on the Moon, enough to be picked up by any
camera.
Who says that? Someone who has never been to the moon? And if the
stars
are
much brigter on the moon, wouldn't the Sun also be MUCH BRIGHTER?
Post by bertietaylor
Arindam recently photographed the full Moon on Norfolk Island. It is up
on his facebook page.
It shows stars around the Moon and even through the thin clouds.
So? The picture was taken at night, right? Take it again in full day light.
How many stars do you see?
Point is that stars are to be seen with an ordinary camera even with the
full moon.
In the daylight there are no stars as the atmosphere scatters the
sunlight.
So there are no stars to be seen.
If you go up in space in daytime you will see the stars.
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
Again, this shows the sheeple mentality. Daylight on the Moon is
nothing like daylight on Earth.
Yes, it is MUCH BRIGHTER on the moon, due to no atmosphere to diffuse it.
The direct rays are stronger no doubt but that does not affect the
starlight. The stars are as bright as they are in space around Earth
with the Sun on.
Post by Tyrone
Plus the surface of the moon is lightly colored, so it all gets reflected.
Mostly absorbed, but yes there is reflection too. But as there is no
atmosphere there is no scattering of light, both from transmission and
ground reflection, so the stars should have been seen in the photos.

This point is hardly original. All moon landing deniers have said this
for decades.
Post by Tyrone
Sort of like being in snow in bright sunlight. There is LOTS of light
on
the
moon.
True, and there is lots of starlight as well.
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
The Sun on the Moon is just a bright object. It does not scatter its
rays as it does on Earth, with the atmosphere. The rays fall directly
from a point. Like a searchlight in the dark,
No, the sun is not a searchlight. It is not a focused beam. It is light
everywhere.
No it is a point source with parallel rays. Light does get reflected to
outer space but as there is no scattering of light the situation is as
on near space in Earth, with sun on and lotsa stars.

bt
Post by Tyrone
Sheeple indeed.
bertietaylor
2024-06-03 21:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why flags
fluttering? Why deep footprints? Why chaps leaning forward! Why C rock?
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other one
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc.
OMG. That's it? That's your "proof"? They are all incredibly stupid. I'll
pick one at random.
Why would you expect to see stars in the pictures? You need long exposure
photos IN THE DARK to see stars, because stars are VERY DIM. There are no
stars in the Lunar pictures because they are in full daylight. They are
taking pictures of nearby people and objects that are very brightly lit.
That
the sky is black has nothing to do with anything.
Here is your test. Go outside on a clear night, when there are stars. You
and
a friend stand under a street light. You take a normal picture of your friend,
lit from above by the street light. If there are no street lights and
it
is
dark, then use the camera flash. Then tell us how many stars you see in the
background.
The answer - of course - is that you will see none. Closeups of brightly
lit
objects will mean a very short exposure. This will be way too short to show
stars in the sky.
--------------------------------
The camera that took the questioned photo was mounted on the chest of the
suit, where his hands are clearly placed to operate it.
The "evidence" is false.
So how did he manage to take his face photo if the camera was on his
chest?
Managing any camera in such a suit with such gloves is some feat in any
case.
Getting top photos... in such a situation, on a first time basis, is
miraculous.
Post by Tyrone
The C isn't on the original negative.
https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon
The "evidence" is false.
It is said that all the negatives have been destroyed mysteriously.
Well, we have to look at what we have got, and what we see is a prop
Hollywood style. Probably left there by a whistle-blower.
Post by Tyrone
The flag wasn't fluttering, it was wrinkled from storage.
The "evidence" is false.
It did not look like it was wrinkled from storage. Flags are not
crunched up, they are rolled up. It was fluttering as exactly it would
flutter in a breeze on Mother Earth. Your explanation is worse than the
usual one, which is that the springy action on the supporting pole was
causing it to flutter. Which also is not satisfactory, for it is
fluttering exactly as it would flutter in a breeze.
Post by Tyrone
They did jump quite a bit higher on the Moon than they could on Earth
in
a
suit that doubled their weight.
Don't confuse mass with weight. Their mass with suit would be say 150Kg
which means that they would weigh 25 Kg on the Moon. No one says that
their muscle power decreased by 6 times, so they could jump up 6 times
more than on Earth. Also, they would feel that they only weighed 25 Kg,
very light that is, so they would feel full of strength and vitality.
They could not help jumping up at least 1-3 feet with each step, and
falling down slowly. A wonderful experience that would have been, had
they really been there.
Post by Tyrone
Pick up someone your size and see how
high
you can jump, the only fair comparison.
Again, let us do fat farming on the Moon. Get the billionaires there, to
reduce their weight. Best way is to fund Arindam for his ftl motors. He
can do it in 5-10 years, with adequate resourcing. We are afraid that
the unscientific or political attitudes are in opposition to new and
wonderful technologies following from Arindam's new updated Newtonian
physics. But the reactionaries can delay for only so long.
Post by Tyrone
The "evidence" is false.
Yes, all evidence of the so-called moon landing is false. Men never
landed there, but they may have dropped probes and other stuff, and even
gone around the Moon. Anyway, nothing from NASA need be believed. Their
heads are stuck in black holes!


A good fraction of the US population hold that the moon landings were
faked. Aldrin even had to beat up someone who told him so.

BertieTaylor
Michael F. Stemper
2024-06-04 12:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Jim Wilkins
The flag wasn't fluttering, it was wrinkled from storage.
The "evidence" is false.
It did not look like it was wrinkled from storage. Flags are not
crunched up, they are rolled up.
I've mostly been sitting back, laughing. But, this statement is quite
false. Flags -- at least the US flag -- are not "rolled up", they
are folded.

<https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/flagfold.pdf>
--
Michael F. Stemper
Exodus 22:21
Daniel70
2024-06-04 13:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Jim Wilkins
The flag wasn't fluttering, it was wrinkled from storage.
The "evidence" is false.
It did not look like it was wrinkled from storage. Flags are not
crunched up, they are rolled up.
I've mostly been sitting back, laughing. But, this statement is quite
false. Flags -- at least the US flag -- are not "rolled up", they
are folded.
<https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/flagfold.pdf>
Yeap! Having seen the odd U.S. of A. Serviceman's Funeral on T.V., I was
also gunna suggest U.S. of A. Flags are Folded not roiled prior to being
presented to the Widow/Parent.

And during my Aust. Army Career, I've lowered a few Flags and they got
folded as well. Made it easy to unfurl them in the morning.
--
Daniel
Jim Wilkins
2024-06-04 16:52:29 UTC
Permalink
"Daniel70" wrote in message news:v3n619$eu93$***@dont-email.me...

Yeap! Having seen the odd U.S. of A. Serviceman's Funeral on T.V., I was
also gunna suggest U.S. of A. Flags are Folded not roiled prior to being
presented to the Widow/Parent.

And during my Aust. Army Career, I've lowered a few Flags and they got
folded as well. Made it easy to unfurl them in the morning.
--
Daniel
------------------------------------
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-fifty-years-apollo-moon-vexillologist.html
""First there were wrinkles in it because of how tightly it was packed. And
these add to the illusion that the flag is waving."
bertietaylor
2024-06-05 00:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Jim Wilkins
The flag wasn't fluttering, it was wrinkled from storage.
The "evidence" is false.
It did not look like it was wrinkled from storage. Flags are not
crunched up, they are rolled up.
I've mostly been sitting back, laughing. But, this statement is quite
false.
No it is not. Flags should be rolled up, not crunched up, if they are to
be treated respectfully.



Flags -- at least the US flag -- are not "rolled up", they
Post by Michael F. Stemper
are folded.
<https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/flagfold.pdf>
folded up is not crunched up.

bt
Lafe
2024-06-05 01:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
I've mostly been sitting back, laughing. But, this statement is quite
false. Flags -- at least the US flag -- are not "rolled up", they are
folded.
<https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/flagfold.pdf>
I've been doing the same. I'm normally against feeding the trolls, but
it's drawn out more activity than I've seen here for a long time.

I just hope that everyone realizes that this is either just a troll taking
the piss, or a person who is so confidently wrong that it is impossible to
use anything like logic or facts to get through to them. If logic or facts
don't agree with their religious notions, then it's the logic or facts
that are wrong.

I know it's hard to believe that someone can be so stupid, but even RAH
generated some famous quotes on the subject.

"Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity
is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no
appeal and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

Sometimes the universe takes her sweet time about it.

Lafe

Followup-To has been reset to a.f.h
Kualinar
2024-06-04 13:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints. bt
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was fake.
No. I am assuming nothing. That is what you all do. You assume that NASA
is not lying.
I am pointing out that from the evidence they did not land on the Moon.
The evidence they did not land on the Moon is overwhelming.
bt
Yes, YOU are assuming things.
No.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that the NASA is lying, when it have NO reason to lie.
I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why flags
Jumps are dangerous on the Moon.
Stars are way to dim compared to the ground.
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
Post by bertietaylor
fluttering? Why deep footprints? Why chaps leaning forward! Why C rock?
Deep foot print ? Been reproduced in a vacuum chamber.
That thing on their back is quite heavy.
What do you mean by «C rock» ?
Post by bertietaylor
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other one
Do you expect them to hold the camera at eye level ? No, the camera is
attached to a support on their chest.
Post by bertietaylor
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc. Mainly it
was just about people NOT behaving as if they had landed on
the Moon, but trying hard to make it appear so.
Physics is on the side of the debunkers. That simple physics is beyond
the sheeple so the deception continues.
Not at all. It's just reality NOT matching your expectation.
Post by bertietaylor
NASA got immense prestige, funding, attention etc. from this lie. Its
The USA's military budget was still larger than the NASA budget at it's
peak. Now, it's HOURLY budget is higher that the NASA daily budget.

The return on investment in the NASA is about $8.00 per invested Dollar.
8 to 1.
The return on investment in the armies is about $0.002 per invested
Dollar. 0.002 to 1. One FIFTH of a cent per Dollar.
Post by bertietaylor
political purpose was to show off the US. Much money must have been
siphoned off. Much more easy to make bad films and a grand photo shoot
with props. Enough experience there witl Hollywood.
That's what YOU claim, NOT what was done.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that landing on the Moon is not possible. It is possible. I
know, what a shocker.
I did not say it is not possible. I say they did not land there and the
supposed landing is a hoax. Like so many other hoaxes popularly accepted
by sheeple.
They DID land on the Moon 6 times. NO hoax. NO «sheeple».
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
YOU seem to assume that there is an atmosphere on the Moon that have
about the same density as here on Earth. There is NO atmosphere to slow
things down.
You being one of the sheeple know nothing about simple physics. Which I
have explained in detail. And which were well known to US children in
You didn't explain anything.
Post by bertietaylor
the 1950s. Jumping up 10 feet was an illustration in my book "Off to the
That was a CHILDREN book from a few years BEFORE the actual landing. It
reflect what was EXPECTED back then. What YOU incorrectly expect. NOT
reality.
Post by bertietaylor
Moon". Arindam has a copy and that photo is on his facebook timeline.
Ho, I see. Facebook «science»...
Post by bertietaylor
The air resistance has nothing to do with jumping up and about on the
Moon. Feeling great as your weight is only say 12kg. You cannot but jump
up and down 2-3feet every time you take a step. Not weighed down as
those poor lying devils were on Earth.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that there are «evidences» that we didn't land on the Moon,
when there are solid evidences that we did and NONE that we didn't.
What solid evidence? All lies pretending to be truth. Pathetic. After
decades India managed to land something there but it stayed there. And
US robots did go around the Moon but did not land. How could they do so
very much better in 1969? Have they become retarded since, tech wise? If
not, the moon landing must have been a hoax.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that those real evidences are all fake.
Again, what real evidence?
There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
dismiss them all without even thinking.
Post by bertietaylor
Bertietaylor
Whisper
2024-06-04 14:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Again, what real evidence?
There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
dismiss them all without even thinking.
er, you forget most people are really, really stupid.

Rule of thumb - the more conspiracy theories you believe in the dumber
you are.
Kualinar
2024-06-06 12:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Again, what real evidence?
There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
dismiss them all without even thinking.
er, you forget most people are really, really stupid.
Rule of thumb - the more conspiracy theories you believe in the dumber
you are.
Rule of thumb #2 : The more absurd the theories are that you believe in,
the stupider you are.
Rule of thumb #3 : You are more of an idiot that your theories are easy
to disprove.
Whisper
2024-06-06 13:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by Whisper
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Again, what real evidence?
There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
dismiss them all without even thinking.
er, you forget most people are really, really stupid.
Rule of thumb - the more conspiracy theories you believe in the dumber
you are.
Rule of thumb #2 : The more absurd the theories are that you believe in,
the stupider you are.
Rule of thumb #3 : You are more of an idiot that your theories are easy
to disprove.
Anyone with half a functioning brain knows conspiracy theories are
things only dummies believe in. Why? Because once you prove something
is false then absolutely everyone accepts it as it is so obvious. It
really is that simple. There's nothing wrong with being simple, because
as I said the vast majority of people are very low in brain power. You
are actually normal. If everyone was smart we wouldn't have any rich
people, we'd have no workers doing menial tasks etc. You actually are
very useful to society. I actually don't want everyone to be smart as
I'd lose my power/advantage in society. Simple folk who are willing to
work hard for low pay is fantastic for me. Putting up with dumbarse
conspiracy theories is a very small price to pay compared to what you
contribute to society overall. Carry on, your contribution is much
welcome.
Daniel70
2024-06-07 08:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by Whisper
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Again, what real evidence?
There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
dismiss them all without even thinking.
er, you forget most people are really, really stupid.
Rule of thumb - the more conspiracy theories you believe in the dumber
you are.
Rule of thumb #2 : The more absurd the theories are that you believe in,
the stupider you are.
But if *I* *believe* something, then *IT* *must* be true!! SURELY!! Else
I wouldn't believe it!!

Untill someone *disproves* it, not just *says* it isn't so!! Of course!!
Post by Kualinar
Rule of thumb #3 : You are more of an idiot that your theories are easy
to disprove.
Correct.
--
Daniel
bertietaylor
2024-06-05 01:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints. bt
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was fake.
No. I am assuming nothing. That is what you all do. You assume that NASA
is not lying.
I am pointing out that from the evidence they did not land on the Moon.
The evidence they did not land on the Moon is overwhelming.
bt
Yes, YOU are assuming things.
No.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that the NASA is lying, when it have NO reason to lie.
I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why flags
Jumps are dangerous on the Moon.
No they are not. You come down slowly, unlike on Earth.
They could not help jumping up at least one foot with every step had
they been on the Moon
Post by Kualinar
Stars are way to dim compared to the ground.
Rubbish. On the Moon they would be very bright as in near space orbit
away from the atmosphere.
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
fluttering? Why deep footprints? Why chaps leaning forward! Why C rock?
Deep foot print ? Been reproduced in a vacuum chamber.
On Earth, of course. Nothing to do with vacuum. Everything to do with
force upon the ground.
A 25Kgf on the Moon would not make so deep a foot impression.
A 150Kgf on the Earth would make so deep a foot impression.
Post by Kualinar
That thing on their back is quite heavy.
On Earth, maybe. It could be filled with foam on Earth, of course, with
just some oxygen bottles.
On the Moon it would be very light. Some 15 Kgf. Seeing that the
astronaut would would be some 10Kgf they should have been walking very
upright and sprightly, hopping up and down slowly 1-3 feet with every
step and jumping up 10 feet when they chose to show off.
Post by Kualinar
What do you mean by «C rock» ?
Search for it and ye may find.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other one
Do you expect them to hold the camera at eye level ? No, the camera is
attached to a support on their chest.
In which case how did he manage to take such a nice selfie?
Obvious answer is that someone on Earth took it in the studio.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc. Mainly it
was just about people NOT behaving as if they had landed on
the Moon, but trying hard to make it appear so.
Physics is on the side of the debunkers. That simple physics is beyond
the sheeple so the deception continues.
Not at all. It's just reality NOT matching your expectation.
The reality is that sheeple don't want to know they are sheeple.
The lies that exalt them are dearer to them than ten thousand truths.
They will believe anything, do anything, to hang on to their beloved and
exalting untruths.

This attitude does get in the way of scientific advancements. Sheeple
don't want to see truth, they are satisfied with artists' impressions of
theoretical what-nots - or whatever may fetch money by bamboozling.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
NASA got immense prestige, funding, attention etc. from this lie. Its
The USA's military budget was still larger than the NASA budget at it's
peak. Now, it's HOURLY budget is higher that the NASA daily budget.
Lies do not exalt for ever. Military needs are based upon fear, which
works more than coziness considerations.
Post by Kualinar
The return on investment in the NASA is about $8.00 per invested Dollar.
8 to 1.
Why not 1000 to 1. Anyone can play with numbers.
Post by Kualinar
The return on investment in the armies is about $0.002 per invested
Dollar. 0.002 to 1. One FIFTH of a cent per Dollar.
Indeed. But fear is the key.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
political purpose was to show off the US. Much money must have been
siphoned off. Much more easy to make bad films and a grand photo shoot
with props. Enough experience there witl Hollywood.
That's what YOU claim, NOT what was done.
Not just I. Lots of people think this way, right from 1969. As opposed
to the majority sheeple who outnumber thoughtful people by a factor of
ten at least.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that landing on the Moon is not possible. It is possible. I
know, what a shocker.
I did not say it is not possible. I say they did not land there and the
supposed landing is a hoax. Like so many other hoaxes popularly accepted
by sheeple.
They DID land on the Moon 6 times. NO hoax. NO «sheeple».
That is the bleating of sheeple, immune to facts and logic, blindly
following institutional authority.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
YOU seem to assume that there is an atmosphere on the Moon that have
about the same density as here on Earth. There is NO atmosphere to slow
things down.
You being one of the sheeple know nothing about simple physics. Which I
have explained in detail. And which were well known to US children in
You didn't explain anything.
Follow the thread here. I have explained everything that any sane and
intelligent person can comprehend.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
the 1950s. Jumping up 10 feet was an illustration in my book "Off to the
That was a CHILDREN book from a few years BEFORE the actual landing.
Yes and it does show clearly why they did NOT make any actual landing.
Just went around the Moon, at best, though there are those who deny even
that.

Yes it was a children's book on the 1950s when the US was at its peak.
In the 60s what with the killing of Kennedy, Vietnam invasion and
Watergate scandal, things went downhill for the US in the moral sense.
With a tricky dick in charge in 1969, hoax on a grand scale was very
much on.


It
Post by Kualinar
reflect what was EXPECTED back then. What YOU incorrectly expect. NOT
reality.
Post by bertietaylor
Moon". Arindam has a copy and that photo is on his facebook timeline.
Ho, I see. Facebook «science»...
Well what to do, when the frauds have gobbled up everything
institutional, then at least facebook, usenet, youtube, email is there
to provide bread upon the waters.

bertietaylor


- snip -
Tyrone
2024-06-05 15:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that possible?
Jim Wilkins
2024-06-05 16:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that possible?
In the next still the astronaut has moved but the flag hasn't changed.

How it was packed:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2019/07/20/how-apollo-11-raised-the-flag-on-the-moon-and-what-it-means-today/?sh=42b99b5a6f9e
Tyrone
2024-06-05 18:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Tyrone
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that possible?
In the next still the astronaut has moved but the flag hasn't changed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2019/07/20/how-apollo-11-raised-the-flag-on-the-moon-and-what-it-means-today/?sh=42b99b5a6f9e
Yes, I know. I have seen all the pictures. The "fluttering flag" never
changes from photo to photo. Interesting how the conspiretards never mention
that.

But then, trolls gotta troll.
Jim Wilkins
2024-06-05 19:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Tyrone
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that possible?
In the next still the astronaut has moved but the flag hasn't changed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2019/07/20/how-apollo-11-raised-the-flag-on-the-moon-and-what-it-means-today/?sh=42b99b5a6f9e
Yes, I know. I have seen all the pictures. The "fluttering flag" never
changes from photo to photo. Interesting how the conspiretards never mention
that.

But then, trolls gotta troll.
----------------------------
They "see" all evil except their own.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-06 00:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that
possible?
The lateral movements. Impossible in a still.atmosphere. could have
worked on Earth with an evacuated dome but that would have been too
expensive.
Tyrone
2024-06-06 01:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that possible?
The lateral movements. Impossible in a still.atmosphere. could have
worked on Earth with an evacuated dome but that would have been too
expensive.
You see lateral movements in a still photo? AGAIN, how is that possible?
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-06 02:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that possible?
The lateral movements. Impossible in a still.atmosphere. could have
worked on Earth with an evacuated dome but that would have been too
expensive.
You see lateral movements in a still photo? AGAIN, how is that possible?
One xan see a flag waving in the wind and take a photo. Then of that
flag with no wind. The difference between the two states will be
obvious. One can say there was wind in obe case and not the other. .

bt
Tyrone
2024-06-06 03:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that possible?
The lateral movements. Impossible in a still.atmosphere. could have
worked on Earth with an evacuated dome but that would have been too
expensive.
You see lateral movements in a still photo? AGAIN, how is that possible?
One xan see a flag waving in the wind and take a photo. Then of that
flag with no wind. The difference between the two states will be
obvious. One can say there was wind in obe case and not the other.
AGAIN, there is no movement in a still photo. I can crunch up a piece of
paper and take a picture of it. Is it "fluttering in the breeze"?

It is absolutely amazing to me that you think a still photo is moving. What
kind of drugs are you taking?
Whisper
2024-06-06 09:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that possible?
The lateral movements. Impossible in a still.atmosphere. could have
worked on Earth with an evacuated dome but that would have been too
expensive.
You see lateral movements in a still photo? AGAIN, how is that possible?
One xan see a flag waving in the wind and take a photo. Then of that
flag with no wind. The difference between the two states will be
obvious. One can say there was wind in obe case and not the other.
AGAIN, there is no movement in a still photo. I can crunch up a piece of
paper and take a picture of it. Is it "fluttering in the breeze"?
It is absolutely amazing to me that you think a still photo is moving. What
kind of drugs are you taking?
No drugs, this is natural iq
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-06 10:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
You can see the flag fluttering in a still photo? How is that possible?
The lateral movements. Impossible in a still.atmosphere. could have
worked on Earth with an evacuated dome but that would have been too
expensive.
You see lateral movements in a still photo? AGAIN, how is that possible?
One xan see a flag waving in the wind and take a photo. Then of that
flag with no wind. The difference between the two states will be
obvious. One can say there was wind in obe case and not the other.
AGAIN, there is no movement in a still photo. I can crunch up a piece of
paper and take a picture of it. Is it "fluttering in the breeze"?
Was the US flag made of paper? Crunched up, placed on a stick? Is that
how it is done in the US?
Post by Tyrone
It is absolutely amazing to me that you think a still photo is moving.
I am not amazed at all by what you write, I assure all those who may be
interested.
Post by Tyrone
What
kind of drugs are you taking?
None.

bt
Tyrone
2024-06-06 14:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Was the US flag made of paper? Crunched up, placed on a stick? Is that
how it is done in the US?
Yes, it was VERY crunched up AND held in place by a horizontal rod attached to
the vertical rod. It was crunched up because there is very little spare space
on the ship to carry extra stuff to the moon. It was not "rolled up" or
"neatly folded".

Without the horizontal rod, it would have just been hanging down because there
is no BREEZE TO HOLD IT UP.

If you had 2 brain cells to rub together, you could figure out that how things
are done on the moon does not necessarily apply to how things are done in the
U.S.

AGAIN, a still photo does not show motion. How you assume this motion is
happening is simply astonishing. There are multiple photos taken
seconds/minutes apart. The flag is in the exact same position in each photo.
It is not moving at all.

You are an idiot troll. I am done with you. I have better things to do than
argue with children.
John
2024-06-06 20:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Was the US flag made of paper? Crunched up, placed on a stick? Is that
how it is done in the US?
Yes, it was VERY crunched up AND held in place by a horizontal rod attached to
the vertical rod. It was crunched up because there is very little spare space
on the ship to carry extra stuff to the moon. It was not "rolled up" or
"neatly folded".
Without the horizontal rod, it would have just been hanging down because there
is no BREEZE TO HOLD IT UP.
The Union Flag of the UKland can be hung "upside-down". I have a
neighbour whose flag I suspect has been erected in this unfortunate
condition. I'm not entirely sure and I don't want to annoy her by
suggesting it until I am.

I'm not sure because, even on Earth in the windy lands of England in
UKland, catching the flag when it is being blown flat and unfolded
standing straight out from the pole is bloody difficult.

Our winds are not that consistent. Nor that strong. Not for long. Not
without snow, hail and rain accompanying them most of the time.

Having a pretend lunar flag in a studio stand flat out for long
enough to have photos taken would be a minor miracle of Property
Mastery and Special Effects or evidence of several major weather
events.

The Hoaxers are stupid.
Post by Tyrone
If you had 2 brain cells to rub together, you could figure out that how things
are done on the moon does not necessarily apply to how things are done in the
U.S.
There was a TV serial called "Battlestar Galactica". In it, politics
was such that "the Press" were allowed access to "the President" and
were permitted to yell and yammer and bloviate as though they were
late 20th Century USAliens.

This was *Science* *Fiction* supposedly about alien cultures
thousands of years and many, many light years separated from the
politics of 20th Century USAlia yet the writers could not even
consider that the culture might have been more like that of the
Chaldeans or the Mayans or even late 20th Century North Korea than
that of their homeland and era.

"B.G." was, essentially, Washington, D.C. on a boat. They could have,
and many, many other serials *have*, set the identical stories,
struggles and procedures in any town on Earth in the 20th Century
without changing very much of the dialogue. It was "The West Wing"
with a smaller Prsss Corps.

My point is that even with advisors who should have been able to do
better, professional writers were unable to create anything but the
milieu in which they were then immersed. People are not very smart nor
very creative.

Given that those writers probably went to school at least for a while
and that the Berties of the world probably never did, never can and
never will, it is hardly surprising that the Berties are so sad, tiny
minded and stupid.

What is most pitiful is that they are unwilling to ever learn.

They will live their entire lives in a small, cramped, dark,
windowless world of hate and fear and loss and never see the beauty
and wonders of the real universe.

They will miss out on so very much magic.

I pity them all.
Post by Tyrone
AGAIN, a still photo does not show motion. How you assume this motion is
happening is simply astonishing. There are multiple photos taken
seconds/minutes apart. The flag is in the exact same position in each photo.
It is not moving at all.
"In space, all motion is relative." Dr. Mackay, Pegasus Galaxy.
Post by Tyrone
You are an idiot troll. I am done with you. I have better things to do than
argue with children.
No, you do not.

Sorry to contradict you but arguing with children is fun, educational
and extremely worthwhile. They even *learn* from us. I know that I did
on the exceptionally rare occasions when my information sources were
wrong and an adult pointed me to better ones.

Children *love* learning. They think it's fun.

Willfully ignorant adults such as Berties, priests, politicians,
"strong men" and others do not. They *hate* admitting being wrong.
They *hate* admitting to not knowing. It takes millimetres (which they
can't spare) from their members every time they do either.

Berties can't admit to knowing less about physics, optics, history or
just about anything else than someone else does so they *must* be *IN*
*THE* *KNOW* with superior knowledge that only the super-clever,
super-educated select few will ever learn.

And once they have entered that event horizon, it is impossible to
de-program them. Their very ego structure depends upon them being
better than us. Take, as an example, a Stalin, to whom *any*
disagreement was treason, treachery, mutiny and ever so slightly
offensive. Berties are simply minor Stalins without the charisma,
charm or intellectual powers.

Just like a priest or a cop. They can't admit to being wrong. Not
ever. It would crush them.

Little children will soak up Science like dehydrated sponges for
weeks without a strain or a pause. Berties, priests, "strong men" and
politicians can't even admit to not knowing anything.

Catch them young and you'll never *have* Berties.

J.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-06 21:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Was the US flag made of paper? Crunched up, placed on a stick? Is that
how it is done in the US?
Yes, it was VERY crunched up AND held in place by a horizontal rod attached to
the vertical rod. It was crunched up because there is very little spare space
on the ship to carry extra stuff to the moon. It was not "rolled up" or
"neatly folded".
If not paper then what crunchy fibre was the flag made of? :)
That photo is a hoot.
Post by Tyrone
Without the horizontal rod, it would have just been hanging down
because
there
is no BREEZE TO HOLD IT UP.
You are beyond help.
Post by Tyrone
If you had 2 brain cells to rub together, you could figure out that how things
are done on the moon does not necessarily apply to how things are done in the
U.S.
I see you send crunched up paper flags to the Moon.
Post by Tyrone
AGAIN, a still photo does not show motion. How you assume this motion is
happening is simply astonishing. There are multiple photos taken
seconds/minutes apart. The flag is in the exact same position in each photo.
It is not moving at all.
You are an idiot troll. I am done with you. I have better things to
do
than
argue with children.
Tch, tch.
Kualinar
2024-06-07 18:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Was the US flag made of paper? Crunched up, placed on a stick? Is that
how it is done in the US?
Yes, it was VERY crunched up AND held in place by a horizontal rod attached to
the vertical rod. It was crunched up because there is very little spare space
on the ship to carry extra stuff to the moon. It was not "rolled up" or
"neatly folded".
Without the horizontal rod, it would have just been hanging down because there
is no BREEZE TO HOLD IT UP.
If you had 2 brain cells to rub together, you could figure out that how things
are done on the moon does not necessarily apply to how things are done in the
U.S.
AGAIN, a still photo does not show motion. How you assume this motion is
happening is simply astonishing. There are multiple photos taken
seconds/minutes apart. The flag is in the exact same position in each photo.
It is not moving at all.
You are an idiot troll. I am done with you. I have better things to do than
argue with children.
With bertietaylor, it's worst than arguing with children. At least,
children CAN understand, are WILLING, even eager, to learn.
As for bertietaylor... He actively refuse to understand and actively
refuse to learn anything that don't support his stupid conclusion.
Jim Wilkins
2024-06-07 22:06:43 UTC
Permalink
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3vhrk$25ppb$***@dont-email.me...

With bertietaylor, it's worst than arguing with children. At least,
children CAN understand, are WILLING, even eager, to learn.
As for bertietaylor... He actively refuse to understand and actively
refuse to learn anything that don't support his stupid conclusion.

-------------------------------

Many years ago two neo-nazis argued on rec.aviation.military that Germany
could have won if a few things had gone differently. Several of us fairly
politely countered and destroyed all of their arguments. At least they could
accept being proven wrong in each instance, and brought up the next claim.
These deniers are worse than the nazis.

For example, despite all the hype they provoked, the V1 and V2 missiles
delivered about the same total weight of explosive during the whole of the
war as the RAF plus US bombers could in one night and day.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-07 23:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
With bertietaylor, it's worst than arguing with children. At least,
children CAN understand, are WILLING, even eager, to learn.
As for bertietaylor... He actively refuse to understand and actively
refuse to learn anything that don't support his stupid conclusion.
Unfortunately blind repetition of established lies do not convince the
intelligent.
Post by Kualinar
-------------------------------
Many years ago two neo-nazis argued on rec.aviation.military that Germany
could have won if a few things had gone differently. Several of us fairly
politely countered and destroyed all of their arguments. At least they could
accept being proven wrong in each instance, and brought up the next claim.
These deniers are worse than the nazis.
Hitler should have taken Gibraltar and not invaded USSR until he was
much stronger. Had he done the one and not the other we would have been
talking German today. Blocking the Med.and a strong defence instead of
attack on the Eastern front would have kept the Nazis going.
Post by Kualinar
For example, despite all the hype they provoked, the V1 and V2 missiles
delivered about the same total weight of explosive during the whole of the
war as the RAF plus US bombers could in one night and day.
Desperate stuff.

bt

Kualinar
2024-06-06 12:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints. bt
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was fake.
No. I am assuming nothing. That is what you all do. You assume that NASA
is not lying.
I am pointing out that from the evidence they did not land on the Moon.
The evidence they did not land on the Moon is overwhelming.
bt
Yes, YOU are assuming things.
No.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that the NASA is lying, when it have NO reason to lie.
I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why flags
Jumps are dangerous on the Moon.
No they are not. You come down slowly, unlike on Earth.
They could not help jumping up at least one foot with every step had
they been on the Moon
Post by Kualinar
Stars are way to dim compared to the ground.
Rubbish. On the Moon they would be very bright as in near space orbit
away from the atmosphere.
Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
surface of the Earth. The main difference is that they don't twinkle as
their light is not disturbed by the atmospheric turbulence.
So, NO, the stars seen from space are NOT very bright.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
The lateral waving always stop shortly after the manipulation stops.
The waving stop due to the internal friction of the fabric.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
fluttering? Why deep footprints? Why chaps leaning forward! Why C rock?
Deep foot print ? Been reproduced in a vacuum chamber.
On Earth, of course. Nothing to do with vacuum. Everything to do with
force upon the ground.
A 25Kgf on the Moon would not make so deep a foot impression.
A 150Kgf on the Earth would make so deep a foot impression.
Rather everything to do with the physical characteristics of the ground
and the regolite covering it.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
That thing on their back is quite heavy.
On Earth, maybe.  It could be filled with foam on Earth, of course, with
just some oxygen bottles.
On the Moon it would be very light. Some 15 Kgf. Seeing that the
astronaut would would be some 10Kgf they should have been walking very
upright and sprightly, hopping up and down slowly 1-3 feet with every
step and jumping up 10 feet when they chose to show off.
It's a question of MASS and location of the centre of gravity. The back
packs have a large mass with the oxygen reserve, the CO2 scrubbing
device, the thermal controls, the pumps, the water reserve, the radio
transmitter and the batteries to make it all work.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
What do you mean by «C rock» ?
Search for it and ye may find.
Searched, and found «C rock» or Chinese rock, and a rock band named «C
Rock». Some music related stuff. Some construction related stuff.
After 5 pages of results, NOTHING Moon related.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other one
Do you expect them to hold the camera at eye level ? No, the camera is
attached to a support on their chest.
In which case how did he manage to take such a nice selfie?
Obvious answer is that someone on Earth took it in the studio.
The astronauts never took any selfie. What you take as a selfie is one
astronaut photographed by the other astronaut.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc. Mainly it
was just about people NOT behaving as if they had landed on
the Moon, but trying hard to make it appear so.
Physics is on the side of the debunkers. That simple physics is beyond
the sheeple so the deception continues.
Not at all. It's just reality NOT matching your expectation.
The reality is that sheeple don't want to know they are sheeple.
The lies that exalt them are dearer to them than ten thousand truths.
They will believe anything, do anything, to hang on to their beloved and
exalting untruths.
This attitude does get in the way of scientific advancements. Sheeple
don't want to see truth, they are satisfied with artists' impressions of
theoretical what-nots - or whatever may fetch money by bamboozling.
You excellently describe yourself.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
NASA got immense prestige, funding, attention etc. from this lie. Its
The USA's military budget was still larger than the NASA budget at it's
peak. Now, it's HOURLY budget is higher that the NASA daily budget.
Lies do not exalt for ever. Military needs are based upon fear, which
works more than coziness considerations.
Post by Kualinar
The return on investment in the NASA is about $8.00 per invested Dollar.
8 to 1.
Why not 1000 to 1. Anyone can play with numbers.
Why ? Because that's the what the actual numbers reveal.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
The return on investment in the armies is about $0.002 per invested
Dollar. 0.002 to 1. One FIFTH of a cent per Dollar.
Indeed. But fear is the key.
And leads to massive waste of funds.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
political purpose was to show off the US. Much money must have been
siphoned off. Much more easy to make bad films and a grand photo shoot
with props. Enough experience there witl Hollywood.
That's what YOU claim, NOT what was done.
Not just I. Lots of people think this way, right from 1969. As opposed
to the majority sheeple who outnumber thoughtful people by a factor of
ten at least.
There already where some reality deniers, even back then. That don't
make them right.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that landing on the Moon is not possible. It is possible.
I know, what a shocker.
I did not say it is not possible. I say they did not land there and the
supposed landing is a hoax. Like so many other hoaxes popularly accepted
by sheeple.
They DID land on the Moon 6 times. NO hoax. NO «sheeple».
That is the bleating of sheeple, immune to facts and logic, blindly
following institutional authority.
Yes, YOU are immune to reason, facts and logic. Always blindly following
your narrative of pure denial.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
YOU seem to assume that there is an atmosphere on the Moon that have
about the same density as here on Earth. There is NO atmosphere to slow
things down.
You being one of the sheeple know nothing about simple physics. Which I
have explained in detail. And which were well known to US children in
You didn't explain anything.
Follow the thread here. I have explained everything that any sane and
intelligent person can comprehend.
You didn't explain ANYTHING. Everything that you claim to have
«explained» have been debunked many times.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
the 1950s. Jumping up 10 feet was an illustration in my book "Off to the
That was a CHILDREN book from a few years BEFORE the actual landing.
Yes and it does show clearly why they did NOT make any actual landing.
Just went around the Moon, at best, though there are those who deny even
that.
Yes it was a children's book on the 1950s when the US was at its peak.
In the 60s what with the killing of Kennedy, Vietnam invasion and
Watergate scandal, things went downhill for the US in the moral sense.
With a tricky dick in charge in 1969, hoax on a grand scale was very
much on.
In the 1950's, nobody was able to describe what being on the Moon would be.
That book was pure speculation.
Post by bertietaylor
It
Post by Kualinar
reflect what was EXPECTED back then. What YOU incorrectly expect. NOT
reality.
Post by bertietaylor
Moon". Arindam has a copy and that photo is on his facebook timeline.
Ho, I see. Facebook «science»...
Well what to do, when the frauds have gobbled up everything
institutional, then at least facebook, usenet, youtube, email is there
to provide bread upon the waters.
bertietaylor
- snip -
Richard Harnden
2024-06-06 14:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Stars are way to dim compared to the ground.
Rubbish. On the Moon they would be very bright as in near space orbit
away from the atmosphere
.
Post by Kualinar
Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
surface of the Earth. The main difference is that they don't twinkle as
their light is not disturbed by the atmospheric turbulence.
So, NO, the stars seen from space are NOT very bright.
The magnitude on the Moon is about -13, the Sun -27.
Jupiter is -2, Mars about the same.
Sirius is -1.5, Betelgeuse and Aldebaran about +1.
Limit to what you can see is around +6.

The suface of the Moon is way too bright to be able to see any stars if
you're stood to it.
Kualinar
2024-06-07 18:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Stars are way to dim compared to the ground.
Rubbish. On the Moon they would be very bright as in near space orbit
away from the atmosphere
.
Post by Kualinar
Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
surface of the Earth. The main difference is that they don't twinkle
as their light is not disturbed by the atmospheric turbulence.
So, NO, the stars seen from space are NOT very bright.
The magnitude on the Moon is about -13, the Sun -27.
Jupiter is -2, Mars about the same.
Sirius is -1.5, Betelgeuse and Aldebaran about +1.
Limit to what you can see is around +6.
The suface of the Moon is way too bright to be able to see any stars if
you're stood to it.
Surface of the moon : magnitude -13, brightest star in the sky, Sirius
magnitude -1.5.
That's an 11.5 magnitude difference. +1 in magnitude = 10 times dimer.
That make Sirius about 30 000 000 000 times dimer than the surface of
the Moon.
Those space and Moon landing deniers refuse to understand that. Their
expectation are unrealistic, and when reality don't meet their
expectations, they scream FAKE !!!
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-07 23:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Stars are way to dim compared to the ground.
Rubbish. On the Moon they would be very bright as in near space orbit
away from the atmosphere
.
Post by Kualinar
Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
surface of the Earth. The main difference is that they don't twinkle
as their light is not disturbed by the atmospheric turbulence.
So, NO, the stars seen from space are NOT very bright.
The magnitude on the Moon is about -13, the Sun -27.
Jupiter is -2, Mars about the same.
Sirius is -1.5, Betelgeuse and Aldebaran about +1.
Limit to what you can see is around +6.
The suface of the Moon is way too bright to be able to see any stars if
you're stood to it.
Surface of the moon : magnitude -13, brightest star in the sky, Sirius
magnitude -1.5.
That's an 11.5 magnitude difference. +1 in magnitude = 10 times dimer.
That make Sirius about 30 000 000 000 times dimer than the surface of
the Moon.
Those space and Moon landing deniers refuse to understand that. Their
expectation are unrealistic, and when reality don't meet their
expectations, they scream FAKE !!!
No worries mate, space tourism with Arindam's reactionless internal
force drives will take all who can pay around the Moon. Then all will
see what was what.

Bertietaylor
Jim Wilkins
2024-06-06 14:38:13 UTC
Permalink
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$***@dont-email.me...

Searched, and found «C rock» or Chinese rock, and a rock band named «C
Rock». Some music related stuff. Some construction related stuff.
After 5 pages of results, NOTHING Moon related.

------------------------------------
Here is the rock in question:
https://www.spacecentre.co.uk/news/space-now-blog/how-do-we-know-the-moon-landing-really-happened/

My photo lab experience alerted me to the poorer contrast and sharpness of
the print with the C compared to the original, which makes detecting fakery
more difficult.
Richard Harnden
2024-06-06 15:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Searched, and found «C rock» or Chinese rock, and a rock band named «C
Rock». Some music related stuff. Some construction related stuff.
After 5 pages of results, NOTHING Moon related.
------------------------------------
https://www.spacecentre.co.uk/news/space-now-blog/how-do-we-know-the-moon-landing-really-happened/
My photo lab experience alerted me to the poorer contrast and sharpness
of the print with the C compared to the original, which makes detecting
fakery more difficult.
It's just someone's eyelash. It doesn't appear on the original, only on
the later scans.

Also, for our conspiracy idiot: Stanley Kubrick simply does not make
that kind of mistake.
Jim Wilkins
2024-06-06 16:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Searched, and found «C rock» or Chinese rock, and a rock band named «C
Rock». Some music related stuff. Some construction related stuff.
After 5 pages of results, NOTHING Moon related.
------------------------------------
https://www.spacecentre.co.uk/news/space-now-blog/how-do-we-know-the-moon-landing-really-happened/
My photo lab experience alerted me to the poorer contrast and sharpness of
the print with the C compared to the original, which makes detecting
fakery more difficult.
It's just someone's eyelash. It doesn't appear on the original, only on
the later scans.

Also, for our conspiracy idiot: Stanley Kubrick simply does not make
that kind of mistake.

---------------------------------
The rock appears in two photos but only has the C in copies of copies, not
original prints, of one of them.
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/apollo-moon-hoax-there-is-a-prop-rock-labeled-with-a-c/
John
2024-06-06 20:10:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 16:23:21 +0100, Richard Harnden
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by Kualinar
Searched, and found «C rock» or Chinese rock, and a rock band named «C
Rock». Some music related stuff. Some construction related stuff.
After 5 pages of results, NOTHING Moon related.
------------------------------------
https://www.spacecentre.co.uk/news/space-now-blog/how-do-we-know-the-moon-landing-really-happened/
My photo lab experience alerted me to the poorer contrast and sharpness
of the print with the C compared to the original, which makes detecting
fakery more difficult.
It's just someone's eyelash. It doesn't appear on the original, only on
the later scans.
Also, for our conspiracy idiot: Stanley Kubrick simply does not make
that kind of mistake.
Mr. K. may never have made that kind of error but he employed
thousands of lesser people who could easily have done so. However, had
there been an eyelash on some frame of one of Mr. K.'s movies, he
would have had it removed in post-production.

He may not have been perfect in everything he did but he was a
perfectionist to some degree.

Of course, it may not have been him who controlled the filming of the
"fake" lunar landings. Hollywood did have a number of competent
directors and producers.

Though why they would make one single mistake in all of their
prop-work is an intriguing question.

Now, a question for "Bertie": the greatest thing the human species
could ever so is to spread Life over the worlds orbiting around all of
the milliards of stars in this and a few other nearby galaxies.
Supporting this endeavour by learning about Science, our achievements
in technologies and engineering and our Dream Of Stars is how we
little people could touch this glorious future.

This who support the Dream Of Stars are dreaming of a future in which
the Earth is the cradle of a great and mighty, ubiquitous and eternal
spread of Cultures and species. Those who do not, including those who
deny it, are supporting the idea of the Earth as a single mass grave
of our species and all others forever.

Bertie, you are one of those condemning us, or helping to condemn us,
to a mass grave forever wherein our songs are silenced, our histories
lost and our lives forgotten. You are supporting a world as a grave
and an empty, dark, dead, silent, lifeless cosmos forever.

Why would you do this?

The lunar landings were fucking *magnificent*. They were human beings
walking on the surface of an alien planet. They were the first tiny
steps towards The Dream Of Stars.

Landing on our Moon was the first part of Man becoming the creator of
the Human Galaxies.

It was magical, wonderful and beautiful.

Why would you deny us this?

Why aren't you supporting The Dream Of Stars with everything in your
being?

Why aren't you voting for and canvassing for politicians who consider
getting us off-world to be the highest of priorities and the one
single dream that could ensure our eternal future?

Why aren't you supporting those who see The Big Picture?

Why are you smearing The Dream with your silly little filthy
fantasies and ill-educated lies?

Why do you want us to die on this rock?

Why don't you want our songs to live for the lifespan of galaxies?

Why do you hate Life so much?

Why are you so little, so pitiful, so sad?

Why don't you just fucking grow up?

J.
Kualinar
2024-06-07 18:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Searched, and found «C rock» or Chinese rock, and a rock band named «C
Rock». Some music related stuff. Some construction related stuff.
After 5 pages of results, NOTHING Moon related.
------------------------------------
https://www.spacecentre.co.uk/news/space-now-blog/how-do-we-know-the-moon-landing-really-happened/
My photo lab experience alerted me to the poorer contrast and sharpness
of the print with the C compared to the original, which makes detecting
fakery more difficult.
OK. I've seen that one, and the larger original from witch that one got
cropped out of.
Picking that one is called cherry picking. Sadly, a common tactic from
those conspiretards.
Jim Wilkins
2024-06-06 22:29:18 UTC
Permalink
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$***@dont-email.me...

Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
surface of the Earth. The main difference is that they don't twinkle as
their light is not disturbed by the atmospheric turbulence.
So, NO, the stars seen from space are NOT very bright.

------------------------------
Stars are similar in visible light but brighter in the ultraviolet that our
atmosphere absorbs. Apollo 16 carried a camera sensitive to UV and took
plenty of star photos, with the camera shaded from sunlight by the LM.

Notice that in the photo of Earth surrounded by stars the sunlit side of
Earth had to be heavily overexposed, as the dynamic range of film isn't wide
enough to capture both properly. The same would have happened to photos of
sunlit lunar landscapes if exposed long enough to capture stars, but they
were there to study the Moon, not to satisfy fools.

https://lightsinthedark.com/2017/04/04/these-photos-taken-from-the-moon-show-lots-and-lots-of-stars/
bertietaylor
2024-06-07 06:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
surface of the Earth. The main difference is that they don't twinkle as
their light is not disturbed by the atmospheric turbulence.
So, NO, the stars seen from space are NOT very bright.
------------------------------
Stars are similar in visible light but brighter in the ultraviolet that our
atmosphere absorbs. Apollo 16 carried a camera sensitive to UV and took
plenty of star photos, with the camera shaded from sunlight by the LM.
Notice that in the photo of Earth surrounded by stars the sunlit side of
Earth had to be heavily overexposed, as the dynamic range of film isn't wide
enough to capture both properly. The same would have happened to photos of
sunlit lunar landscapes if exposed long enough to capture stars, but they
were there to study the Moon, not to satisfy fools.
https://lightsinthedark.com/2017/04/04/these-photos-taken-from-the-moon-show-lots-and-lots-of-stars/
2017, huh, anything can be done with CGI these days.
Point remains, the video films of 1969 were a joke and the photos of
1969 were far too good quality wise.\
Had they been jumping in the videos, and had the photos been smudged and
honest that way in 1969, there would be no so-called conspiracy
theories.
Jumping astronauts and honest bad photos would have been enough to
silence any crtics.
Alas, for the moral and intellectual cowardice of the 90% fools fooled
by the cunning tricky dicks at the top. Beyond help.

Bertietaylor
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-07 05:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints. bt
Well into circular reasoning land.
If you assume it was a fake then it was fake.
No. I am assuming nothing. That is what you all do. You assume that NASA
is not lying.
I am pointing out that from the evidence they did not land on the Moon.
The evidence they did not land on the Moon is overwhelming.
bt
Yes, YOU are assuming things.
No.
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that the NASA is lying, when it have NO reason to lie.
I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why flags
Jumps are dangerous on the Moon.
No they are not. You come down slowly, unlike on Earth.
They could not help jumping up at least one foot with every step had
they been on the Moon
Post by Kualinar
Stars are way to dim compared to the ground.
Rubbish. On the Moon they would be very bright as in near space orbit
away from the atmosphere.
Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
surface of the Earth. The main difference is that they don't twinkle as
their light is not disturbed by the atmospheric turbulence.
So, NO, the stars seen from space are NOT very bright.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Flags don't flutter, they oscillate from the manipulation. After some
time undisturbed, they no longer flutter.
We all can see how the US flag is fluttering in the photo. The lateral
wavings can only be caused by breeze.
The lateral waving always stop shortly after the manipulation stops.
The waving stop due to the internal friction of the fabric.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
fluttering? Why deep footprints? Why chaps leaning forward! Why C rock?
Deep foot print ? Been reproduced in a vacuum chamber.
On Earth, of course. Nothing to do with vacuum. Everything to do with
force upon the ground.
A 25Kgf on the Moon would not make so deep a foot impression.
A 150Kgf on the Earth would make so deep a foot impression.
Rather everything to do with the physical characteristics of the ground
and the regolite covering it.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
That thing on their back is quite heavy.
On Earth, maybe.  It could be filled with foam on Earth, of course, with
just some oxygen bottles.
On the Moon it would be very light. Some 15 Kgf. Seeing that the
astronaut would would be some 10Kgf they should have been walking very
upright and sprightly, hopping up and down slowly 1-3 feet with every
step and jumping up 10 feet when they chose to show off.
It's a question of MASS and location of the centre of gravity. The back
packs have a large mass with the oxygen reserve, the CO2 scrubbing
device, the thermal controls, the pumps, the water reserve, the radio
transmitter and the batteries to make it all work.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
What do you mean by «C rock» ?
Search for it and ye may find.
Searched, and found «C rock» or Chinese rock, and a rock band named «C
Rock». Some music related stuff. Some construction related stuff.
After 5 pages of results, NOTHING Moon related.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other one
Do you expect them to hold the camera at eye level ? No, the camera is
attached to a support on their chest.
In which case how did he manage to take such a nice selfie?
Obvious answer is that someone on Earth took it in the studio.
The astronauts never took any selfie. What you take as a selfie is one
astronaut photographed by the other astronaut.
That cannot be for the other astronauts shows up on the visor and he is
NOT taking the photograph.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc. Mainly it
was just about people NOT behaving as if they had landed on
the Moon, but trying hard to make it appear so.
Physics is on the side of the debunkers. That simple physics is beyond
the sheeple so the deception continues.
Not at all. It's just reality NOT matching your expectation.
The reality is that sheeple don't want to know they are sheeple.
The lies that exalt them are dearer to them than ten thousand truths.
They will believe anything, do anything, to hang on to their beloved and
exalting untruths.
This attitude does get in the way of scientific advancements. Sheeple
don't want to see truth, they are satisfied with artists' impressions of
theoretical what-nots - or whatever may fetch money by bamboozling.
You excellently describe yourself.
I am not paid to lie by career or political compulsions. Which is not
the case for the professional frauds.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
NASA got immense prestige, funding, attention etc. from this lie. Its
The USA's military budget was still larger than the NASA budget at it's
peak. Now, it's HOURLY budget is higher that the NASA daily budget.
Lies do not exalt for ever. Military needs are based upon fear, which
works more than coziness considerations.
Post by Kualinar
The return on investment in the NASA is about $8.00 per invested Dollar.
8 to 1.
Why not 1000 to 1. Anyone can play with numbers.
Why ? Because that's the what the actual numbers reveal.
Nothing is revealed to me except obtuseness from those fed by lies from
their births.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
The return on investment in the armies is about $0.002 per invested
Dollar. 0.002 to 1. One FIFTH of a cent per Dollar.
Indeed. But fear is the key.
And leads to massive waste of funds.
Not my money. Paranoid creatures also need ego boost and the dollar has
to be kept up with threats and use of violence.
What others do with their money is their concern.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
political purpose was to show off the US. Much money must have been
siphoned off. Much more easy to make bad films and a grand photo shoot
with props. Enough experience there witl Hollywood.
That's what YOU claim, NOT what was done.
Not just I. Lots of people think this way, right from 1969. As opposed
to the majority sheeple who outnumber thoughtful people by a factor of
ten at least.
There already where some reality deniers, even back then. That don't
make them right.
Usually clever people are in the minority in any population. Sheeple go
in for enforced lies from authority. Saves them from the pains of
thinking. Problem is that they become more expensive than robots and
then there is pain from sackings.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
YOU assume that landing on the Moon is not possible. It is possible.
I know, what a shocker.
I did not say it is not possible. I say they did not land there and the
supposed landing is a hoax. Like so many other hoaxes popularly accepted
by sheeple.
They DID land on the Moon 6 times. NO hoax. NO «sheeple».
That is the bleating of sheeple, immune to facts and logic, blindly
following institutional authority.
Yes, YOU are immune to reason, facts and logic. Always blindly
following
your narrative of pure denial.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
YOU seem to assume that there is an atmosphere on the Moon that have
about the same density as here on Earth. There is NO atmosphere to slow
things down.
You being one of the sheeple know nothing about simple physics. Which I
have explained in detail. And which were well known to US children in
You didn't explain anything.
Follow the thread here. I have explained everything that any sane and
intelligent person can comprehend.
You didn't explain ANYTHING. Everything that you claim to have
«explained» have been debunked many times.
Post by bertietaylor
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor
the 1950s. Jumping up 10 feet was an illustration in my book "Off to the
That was a CHILDREN book from a few years BEFORE the actual landing.
Yes and it does show clearly why they did NOT make any actual landing.
Just went around the Moon, at best, though there are those who deny even
that.
Yes it was a children's book on the 1950s when the US was at its peak.
In the 60s what with the killing of Kennedy, Vietnam invasion and
Watergate scandal, things went downhill for the US in the moral sense.
With a tricky dick in charge in 1969, hoax on a grand scale was very
much on.
In the 1950's, nobody was able to describe what being on the Moon would be.
That book was pure speculation.
Post by bertietaylor
It
Post by Kualinar
reflect what was EXPECTED back then. What YOU incorrectly expect. NOT
reality.
Post by bertietaylor
Moon". Arindam has a copy and that photo is on his facebook timeline.
Ho, I see. Facebook «science»...
Well what to do, when the frauds have gobbled up everything
institutional, then at least facebook, usenet, youtube, email is there
to provide bread upon the waters.
bertietaylor
- snip -
Jim Wilkins
2024-06-05 11:16:29 UTC
Permalink
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3n4km$ega9$***@dont-email.me...

That thing on their back is quite heavy.
------------------------
I examined an Apollo moon walk backpack at a military airshow. It's crammed
with batteries, pumps, pressure tanks and plumbing, a complete life support
system.
Kualinar
2024-05-28 19:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints.
bt
They would NOT come down very slowly. They would come back down at the
exact same speed that they jumped up.
Remember that there is NO atmosphere on the Moon to slow you down.

Just accept reality :
The Moon is real, a solid object.
We landed on the Moon a total of 6 times.
Faking it would have been a LOT harder and costly than actually going
there, land on the Moon, and come back.

You are nothing but a reality denier and a conspiretard.
Tyrone
2024-05-29 00:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints.
bt
They would NOT come down very slowly. They would come back down at the
exact same speed that they jumped up.
Remember that there is NO atmosphere on the Moon to slow you down.
The Moon is real, a solid object.
We landed on the Moon a total of 6 times.
Faking it would have been a LOT harder and costly than actually going
there, land on the Moon, and come back.
You are nothing but a reality denier and a conspiretard.
And here I thought konspiracy kooktard was good. But conspiretard is much
better.
bertietaylor
2024-05-29 05:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
help moving up 1-3 feet with every step they took if they really walked
on tge Moon. Nor would they have left such deep footprints.
bt
They would NOT come down very slowly. They would come back down at the
exact same speed that they jumped up.
Yes, of course.
So they would not hurt themselves when they come down from ten feet.
If you jump down from ten feet on EARTH you will harm yourself.
When you jump down from ten feet on the Moon you will not harm yourself,
for you will fall down slowly on the surface with the same velocity with
which you jumped up.

Now you simply cannot jump up straight ten feet up on Earth.
Too much energy required for any individual.
Supposing you could, you would come down with the same speed with which
you jumped up, and yes that could be hurtful.


But see how unscientific imbeciles think!
All their experience has been on Earth, so the very idea of jumping ten
feet up on the Moon and coming down slowly does not occur to them.
Post by Tyrone
Post by Kualinar
Remember that there is NO atmosphere on the Moon to slow you down.
Irrelevant. Air resistance was not factored in any case.
Post by Tyrone
Post by Kualinar
The Moon is real, a solid object.
Yes.
Post by Tyrone
Post by Kualinar
We landed on the Moon a total of 6 times.
Liar.
Post by Tyrone
Post by Kualinar
Faking it would have been a LOT harder and costly than actually going
there, land on the Moon, and come back.
Ridiculous.
Faking meant getting the money to do the landing for making bad videos,
much cheaper.
Also, fooling the public on this grand scale made them so stupid that in
the future they would pay for any lies, when told by the top
institutions.
Post by Tyrone
Post by Kualinar
You are nothing but a reality denier and a conspiretard.
You are reality deniers, fooled by the ruling frauds. Nothing new about
that, though.

Hmm. We are ghostly cyberdogs of Arindam, not silly sheep like you.
Post by Tyrone
And here I thought konspiracy kooktard was good. But conspiretard is much
better.
tch, tch, this ad hominem, what a loser's tactic but the sole one left
to the unscientific sods!

We Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs (that is, Bertius Bowus Wowus and Tyler
Taylor) know far better physics than Nobel Laureates, and don't mind
teaching silly sheeple a thing or two - out of pure altruism, for their
ultimate good. Being ghosts, they cannot kill us for doing them a favour
- such a human thing to do, what.

bt
Tyrone
2024-05-29 12:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor
We Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs (that is, Bertius Bowus Wowus and Tyler
Taylor) know far better physics than Nobel Laureates
Riiiiight. That's why you are on usenet, inventing silly stories about
"conspiracies".

What's next from you? Is the Earth flat? "Chemtrails" are real?

Sheeple indeed.
Jim Wilkins
2024-05-29 13:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor
We Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs (that is, Bertius Bowus Wowus and Tyler
Taylor) know far better physics than Nobel Laureates
Riiiiight. That's why you are on usenet, inventing silly stories about
"conspiracies".

What's next from you? Is the Earth flat? "Chemtrails" are real?

Sheeple indeed.

-------------------------
Just be thankful you aren't like them.
Stephen Harding
2024-05-30 17:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
We Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs (that is, Bertius Bowus Wowus and Tyler
Taylor) know far better physics than Nobel Laureates
Riiiiight. That's why you are on usenet, inventing silly stories about
"conspiracies".
What's next from you?  Is the Earth flat?   "Chemtrails" are real?
Sheeple indeed.
-------------------------
Just be thankful you aren't like them.
Bertius, Bowus, Wowus and Tyler (Bertie?) Taylor must be "Arindam
Laureates".

If they would just publish their ground breaking research in English
instead of Sanskit perhaps much of the rest of the world could become as
enlightened as they.

Wowus indeed!


SMH
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-02 00:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Harding
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
We Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs (that is, Bertius Bowus Wowus and Tyler
Taylor) know far better physics than Nobel Laureates
Riiiiight. That's why you are on usenet, inventing silly stories about
"conspiracies".
What's next from you?  Is the Earth flat?   "Chemtrails" are real?
Sheeple indeed.
-------------------------
Just be thankful you aren't like them.
Bertius, Bowus, Wowus and Tyler (Bertie?) Taylor must be "Arindam
Laureates".
If they would just publish their ground breaking research in English
instead of Sanskit perhaps much of the rest of the world could become as
enlightened as they.
Like some antennas cannot receive radiation there are those who cannot
or will not get it. Different frequencies.

bt
Post by Stephen Harding
Wowus indeed!
SMH
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-02 00:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tyrone
Post by bertietaylor
We Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs (that is, Bertius Bowus Wowus and Tyler
Taylor) know far better physics than Nobel Laureates
Riiiiight. That's why you are on usenet, inventing silly stories about
"conspiracies".
Pure kindness, something impossible for some to get. Putting light in
darkness.
Post by Tyrone
What's next from you? Is the Earth flat? "Chemtrails" are real?
Your kind of thinking.
Post by Tyrone
Sheeple indeed.
That is a kind description.

bt
Jim Wilkins
2024-05-27 22:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.

-------------------------------

During Apollo 16 Charlie Duke and John Young did jump, and Duke fell onto
his life support backpack. Had he broken it he would have quickly died. Even
if Young could drag him back to the LM and up the ladder instantly, the LM
didn't have a separate airlock, the whole cabin had to be sealed and
repressurized, which took longer than (estimated) vacuum survival time. In
the second half Duke admits the deadly chance he had taken.
"Lunar Olympics"


They clearly couldn't jump well flat-footed in the restrictive suits, and
came down visibly slower than on Earth. At 380 (mass) Lbs man + suit they
could hardly jump at all on Earth.
Daniel70
2024-05-28 05:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
-------------------------------
During Apollo 16 Charlie Duke and John Young did jump, and Duke fell
onto his life support backpack. Had he broken it he would have quickly
died. Even if Young could drag him back to the LM and up the ladder
instantly, the LM didn't have a separate airlock, the whole cabin had to
be sealed and repressurized, which took longer than (estimated) vacuum
survival time. In the second half Duke admits the deadly chance he had
taken.
"Lunar Olympics"
http://youtu.be/16D0hmLt-S0
They clearly couldn't jump well flat-footed in the restrictive suits,
and came down visibly slower than on Earth. At 380 (mass) Lbs man + suit
they could hardly jump at all on Earth.
.... and the Dune Buggy they were driving around on the Moon on
whichever mission .... that would have required some top-notch Special
Effects if it were actually on Earth!!
--
Daniel
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-05-28 09:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
-------------------------------
During Apollo 16 Charlie Duke and John Young did jump, and Duke fell
onto his life support backpack. Had he broken it he would have quickly
died. Even if Young could drag him back to the LM and up the ladder
instantly, the LM didn't have a separate airlock, the whole cabin had to
be sealed and repressurized, which took longer than (estimated) vacuum
survival time. In the second half Duke admits the deadly chance he had
taken.
"Lunar Olympics"
http://youtu.be/16D0hmLt-S0
They clearly couldn't jump well flat-footed in the restrictive suits,
and came down visibly slower than on Earth. At 380 (mass) Lbs man + suit
they could hardly jump at all on Earth.
..... and the Dune Buggy they were driving around on the Moon on
whichever mission .... that would have required some top-notch Special
Effects if it were actually on Earth!!
Well they failed in that department with Apollo 11 so tried to do
better. This time with better camera tricks.
Just show them throwing a rock up and letting it come down as slowly as
it should. Make a video of that and put in on YouTube.
It is interesting to note that after 50 years they could not land robots
there let alone cars that returned.

bt
John
2024-05-28 10:30:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 May 2024 15:27:50 +1000, Daniel70
Post by Daniel70
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
-------------------------------
During Apollo 16 Charlie Duke and John Young did jump, and Duke fell
onto his life support backpack. Had he broken it he would have quickly
died. Even if Young could drag him back to the LM and up the ladder
instantly, the LM didn't have a separate airlock, the whole cabin had to
be sealed and repressurized, which took longer than (estimated) vacuum
survival time. In the second half Duke admits the deadly chance he had
taken.
"Lunar Olympics"
http://youtu.be/16D0hmLt-S0
They clearly couldn't jump well flat-footed in the restrictive suits,
and came down visibly slower than on Earth. At 380 (mass) Lbs man + suit
they could hardly jump at all on Earth.
.... and the Dune Buggy they were driving around on the Moon on
whichever mission .... that would have required some top-notch Special
Effects if it were actually on Earth!!
Didn't they manage to simulate things like this extremely well in
"For All Mankind"?

Of course we've had about half of a century to develop better SFX so
we really shouldn't be surprised that they now look good and
realistic.

What would be really cool would be film crews making movies about
Lunar City *on* *location*. Holywood could afford it.

J.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-07 06:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
-------------------------------
During Apollo 16 Charlie Duke and John Young did jump, and Duke fell
onto his life support backpack. Had he broken it he would have quickly
died. Even if Young could drag him back to the LM and up the ladder
instantly, the LM didn't have a separate airlock, the whole cabin had to
be sealed and repressurized, which took longer than (estimated) vacuum
survival time. In the second half Duke admits the deadly chance he had
taken.
"Lunar Olympics"
http://youtu.be/16D0hmLt-S0
They clearly couldn't jump well flat-footed in the restrictive suits,
and came down visibly slower than on Earth. At 380 (mass) Lbs man + suit
60 lb on Moon, they should be jumping out of their skins.
Post by Richard Harnden
they could hardly jump at all on Earth.
On the Moon they could. On Earth clumsily with wires.
..... and the Dune Buggy they were driving around on the Moon on
whichever mission .... that would have required some top-notch Special
Effects if it were actually on Earth!!
Slow speed camera work with good video manipulation.

Bertietaylor
John
2024-05-28 10:25:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 May 2024 18:06:44 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
-------------------------------
During Apollo 16 Charlie Duke and John Young did jump, and Duke fell onto
his life support backpack. Had he broken it he would have quickly died. Even
if Young could drag him back to the LM and up the ladder instantly, the LM
didn't have a separate airlock, the whole cabin had to be sealed and
repressurized, which took longer than (estimated) vacuum survival time. In
the second half Duke admits the deadly chance he had taken.
"Lunar Olympics"
http://youtu.be/16D0hmLt-S0
They clearly couldn't jump well flat-footed in the restrictive suits, and
came down visibly slower than on Earth. At 380 (mass) Lbs man + suit they
could hardly jump at all on Earth.
You said it better than I did. Thank you.

Also, my rough estimate of half of a ton of suit and gear was a
little excessive, yes?

Still, those suits were heavier than anything *I* would like to carry
around, especially on this planet. Maybe I could cope with one on Eros
or Phobos?

J.
John
2024-05-28 10:20:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 May 2024 17:55:34 +0100, Richard Harnden
Post by Richard Harnden
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Daniel70
If the video had been well done, would you have believed then??
Then, yes. If they jumped up ten feet and came down slowly. In those
days CGI was not there.
There's actual video of this being done. Not ten feet (three metres
or so) but at least half of that. The moonwalker managed a salute on
the way up and landed on his feet. He *did* fall slower than he would
have back home in the heavier gravity of Earth. He didn't do "ten
feet" because he was wearing a half of a ton of survival gear without
which the moonwalks would have been quite a lot shorter and more
dangerous.

There's even a "Well, wahjja know, Galileo was right!" video-taped
moment where a moonwalker drops a feather and a hammer from his hands
and they fall at the same accelerating rate and land simultaneously
(or as near as my eyes could tell). Had they landed at different
times, or accelerated at different rates for any reason, that would
have been global news for *months*. It would have been New Physics of
a tremendously powerful kind and would have changed *everything*. The
experiment would also have been repeated, repeated by the other
moonwalker, tried with other pairs of objects, tried with three and
four different objects and would have been celebrated as one of NASA's
greatest achievements.

Confirming the Galileo Hypothesis about objects of different masses
in the same gravity field was cool and worthwhile and fun. Watching
jumpy moonwalkers slowly fall down was also fun.

These videos are easy to find in the Apollo archives. There are
probably copies in the archives of some if not many News
organisations' archives, too.
Post by Richard Harnden
If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
Bollocks.

The suits were full of air and they had tanks of the stuff attached.
The landers and rovers had oodles of tools hanging about, one of which
was probably some form of sticky tape.

Unless the fallen man was many yards from his pal, the rover and the
lander, smashing his faceplate would have been an inconvenience not a
tragedy. Even if he was very alone, he could have covered the smashed
faceplate with his gloves for a while, constricting the outflow of
air.

All of the above is ignoring the fact that the Moon is a low-gravity
environment in which human reactions are fast enough to save fallers
from damaging their hats by simply putting out their arms. Indeed,
some moonwalkers *did* trip and all of them survived. And those
helmets were made to be *tough*. Smashing one on the mostly relatively
soft Moon would not be easy.
Post by Richard Harnden
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
A couple did. There's video. A couple even fell down. The moonwalkers
liked low gravity. But with all of their playing around there is one
statistic that is notable:

Not one human being has ever died on the Moon of a fall nor of
anything else. Not one.

Compared to Earth, the Moon is soft, cuddly and incredibly safe.

Even orbiting the Moon has a 100% survival rate. Orbiting the Moon in
a busted spaceship has a 100% survival rate.

By the record, our Moon is a very safe pace to visit.

Far more people have died on the Earth than on the Moon.

J.



Addendum: just for the record, not one *cat* has ever died on or
orbiting our lovely, little Moon, either.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-02 00:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denonym
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
Post by Kualinar
As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
This is a tactic known as forum sliding including poisoning the well.
Surround the discussion of government fraud with lunatic theories and
then the average person gets so confused they can't consider the facts.
Nobody landed on the moon.
True.
bt
Kualinar
2024-06-02 17:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denonym
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
Post by Kualinar
As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting. What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to
hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
This is a tactic known as forum sliding including poisoning the well.
Surround the discussion of government fraud with lunatic theories and
then the average person gets so confused they can't consider the facts.
Nobody landed on the moon.
True.
bt
ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
12 persons really landed on the Moon.
Stop denying reality and facts.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-03 05:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by Denonym
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
Post by Kualinar
As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting. What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to
hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
This is a tactic known as forum sliding including poisoning the well.
Surround the discussion of government fraud with lunatic theories and
then the average person gets so confused they can't consider the facts.
Nobody landed on the moon.
True.
bt
ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
12 persons really landed on the Moon.
Stop denying reality and facts.
Arindam or his followers will go there with Arindamic physics for
reactionless ftl motors and take proper photos showing stars and no C
rock. Without rockets of course, rockets are for fireworks.

Bertietaylor
Kualinar
2024-06-04 13:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Kualinar
Post by Denonym
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
Post by Kualinar
As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting. What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie
to hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
This is a tactic known as forum sliding including poisoning the well.
Surround the discussion of government fraud with lunatic theories and
then the average person gets so confused they can't consider the facts.
Nobody landed on the moon.
True.
bt
ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
12 persons really landed on the Moon.
Stop denying reality and facts.
Arindam or his followers will go there with Arindamic physics for
reactionless ftl motors and take proper photos showing stars and no C
rock. Without rockets of course, rockets are for fireworks.
Bertietaylor
That would be great, but won't ever happen as that reactionless FTL
engine don't and can't exist.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-06 13:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by Kualinar
Post by Denonym
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
Post by Kualinar
As for the Muslims...
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting. What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie
to hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
This is a tactic known as forum sliding including poisoning the well.
Surround the discussion of government fraud with lunatic theories and
then the average person gets so confused they can't consider the facts.
Nobody landed on the moon.
True.
bt
ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
12 persons really landed on the Moon.
Stop denying reality and facts.
Arindam or his followers will go there with Arindamic physics for
reactionless ftl motors and take proper photos showing stars and no C
rock. Without rockets of course, rockets are for fireworks.
Bertietaylor
That would be great, but won't ever happen as that reactionless FTL
engine don't and can't exist.
Within 10-50 years it will replace jet engines and rockets.

We were with Arindam with body and are now with spirit from his early
failed experiments in 1998 to his present success with inertia violation
experiments using his new rail gun invention.

BERTIETAYLOR
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-05-27 01:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by a425couple
They never went there.
bt
Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump
up ten feet.
- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
bt
Your calculations are wrong.
The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
I am convinced that the USA did send multiple missions with
American astronauts that landed on the moon and returned.
Politics trumps not physics.
It is very different on the Moon.
The evidence is that the landings were faked.
Post by a425couple
We were in a very competitive race with the USSR (Russia)
and we won.  USSR was watching very closely for this
big public relations event.  They would have denounced
the news if they could have, but they saw the landing was
real.
They had the lowest opinions of Americans so why bother to comment.
The USA and USSR where mired in a cutthroat competition. IF the USSR had
found ANYTHING to discredit the USA, they would have jumped on the occasion.
That is a political reason. Not a scientific one.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Anyway it could be a blackmail opportunity. Give us this and we won't
Blackmail opportunity ? Why ?
Politics is all about dirty tricks beyond the sheep posing as people.

Who knows how the wheels work.
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
tell. In India there was tension. The local Muslims were upset as the
At the time, India was regarded as backwater and almost third world
country. Almost a non-entity.
So what. Does not make them as sheep like as racist and bigoted liars.
Being poor they have nothing to lose so they can speak the truth.
Post by Kualinar
As for the Muslims...
Clear thinking on this matter, by them
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up.
No the reassuring lie was told to you gullible fools. To rob your tax
money and make you even more arrogant. Worked very well. After that the
911 explosions were childs' play. Blood this time and trillions too. My
you lot are pathetically gullible.




By the way, there was NO
Post by Kualinar
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
Yes they knew you never went there so why should they bother. Thanks for
solidifying my point.

bt
Post by Kualinar
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
bt
Post by a425couple
Telescopes have gotten so good that we have pictures
of those landing sites and the left behind debris and
the astronauts tracks and footprints.
bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
2024-06-07 06:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor)
Post by a425couple
They never went there.
bt
Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up
ten feet.
- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
bt
Your calculations are wrong.
The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
I am convinced that the USA did send multiple missions with
American astronauts that landed on the moon and returned.
Politics trumps not physics.
It is very different on the Moon.
The evidence is that the landings were faked.
Post by a425couple
We were in a very competitive race with the USSR (Russia)
and we won. USSR was watching very closely for this
big public relations event. They would have denounced
the news if they could have, but they saw the landing was
real.
They had the lowest opinions of Americans so why bother to comment.
Anyway it could be a blackmail opportunity. Give us this and we won't
tell.
In India there was tension. The local Muslims were upset as the Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
bt
Post by a425couple
Telescopes have gotten so good that we have pictures
of those landing sites and the left behind debris and
the astronauts tracks and footprints.
Wow. If true I must be wrong but in these days of CGI anything can be
manufactured digitally and passed off as the purest reality.

bt
Loading...