Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-14 à 04:59, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-13 à 03:08, bertietaylor a écrit :
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up >>>>>>> ten feet.
They never went there.Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ?
bt
- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
bt
Your calculations are wrong.
The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.
On 5/20/24 22:32, bertietaylor wrote:
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-14 à 04:59, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-13 à 03:08, bertietaylor a écrit :
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
They never went there.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.
bt
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.
a425couple wrote:The USA and USSR where mired in a cutthroat competition. IF the USSR had
On 5/20/24 22:32, bertietaylor wrote:
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-14 à 04:59, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-13 à 03:08, bertietaylor a écrit :
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
They never went there.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.
bt
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.
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'tBlackmail opportunity ? Why ?
tell. In India there was tension. The local Muslims were upset as theAt the time, India was regarded as backwater and almost third world
Moon hadWhat you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
bt
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" wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$1@dont-email.me...
Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :
As for the Muslims...
Moon hadWhat you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
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.
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$1@dont-email.me...
Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :
As for the Muslims...
Moon hadWhat you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
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.
Le 2024-05-25 à 02:52, Denonym a écrit :
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400Stop lying. We landed on the Moon a total of 6 times, with two men in
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$1@dont-email.me...
Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :
As for the Muslims...
Moon hadWhat you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
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.
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.
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).
Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :
a425couple wrote:The USA and USSR where mired in a cutthroat competition. IF the USSR
On 5/20/24 22:32, bertietaylor wrote:
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-14 à 04:59, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-13 à 03:08, bertietaylor a écrit :
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
They never went there.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.
bt
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.
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.
had
found ANYTHING to discredit the USA, they would have jumped on the
occasion.
Anyway it could be a blackmail opportunity. Give us this and we won'tBlackmail opportunity ? Why ?
tell. In India there was tension. The local Muslims were upset as theAt the time, India was regarded as backwater and almost third world
country. Almost a non-entity.
As for the Muslims...
Moon hadWhat you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
we landed on the Moon to have them shut up.
rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about «the Moon had been
defiled» at the time.
bt
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 wrote:
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.
--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
bertietaylor wrote on 27/5/24 8:24 am:
Kualinar wrote:
<Snip>
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??
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 wrote:
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.
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
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.
"Richard Harnden" wrote in message news:v32du6$4hb9$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
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"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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.
Jim Wilkins wrote on 28/5/24 8:06 am:
..... and the Dune Buggy they were driving around on the Moon on
"Richard Harnden" wrote in message news:v32du6$4hb9$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
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"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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.
whichever mission .... that would have required some top-notch Special Effects if it were actually on Earth!!
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor wrote:
Richard Harnden wrote:
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote:Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
Daniel70 wrote:If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
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.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
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.
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor wrote:
Richard Harnden wrote:
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote:Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
Daniel70 wrote:If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
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.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
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
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
Everything is wrong about the Apollo11 moon landing. Just a hoax. Very successful that way.
by
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor wrote:
Richard Harnden wrote:
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote:Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they could not
Daniel70 wrote:If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
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.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
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
Le 2024-05-27 à 16:39, bertietaylor a écrit :
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.
Le 2024-05-28 à 07:46, bertietaylor a écrit :
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.
On May 28, 2024 at 3:33:13 PM EDT, "Kualinar" <kuakinar@videotron.ca> wrote:
Le 2024-05-27 à 16:39, bertietaylor a écrit :
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.
And here I thought konspiracy kooktard was good. But conspiretard is
much
better.
We Arindam's ghostly cyberdogs (that is, Bertius Bowus Wowus and Tyler Taylor) know far better physics than Nobel Laureates
"Tyrone" wrote in message news:Z2GdnVbZhdSVgsr7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@supernews.com...
On May 29, 2024 at 1:32:35 AM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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.
On May 29, 2024 at 1:32:35 AM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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.
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$1@dont-email.me...
Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :
As for the Muslims...
Moon hadWhat you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie to hide the fact that
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in
their rioting.
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.
On 5/29/24 9:25 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Tyrone" wrote in message
news:Z2GdnVbZhdSVgsr7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@supernews.com...
On May 29, 2024 at 1:32:35 AM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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
Denonym wrote:ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$1@dont-email.me...
Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :
As for the Muslims...
Moon hadhide the fact that
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
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
Le 2024-06-01 à 20:40, bertietaylor a écrit :Arindam or his followers will go there with Arindamic physics for
Denonym wrote:ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$1@dont-email.me...
Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :
As for the Muslims...
Moon hadhide the fact that
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
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
12 persons really landed on the Moon.
Stop denying reality and facts.
Le 2024-05-28 à 05:24, bertietaylor a écrit :No.
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor wrote:
Richard Harnden wrote:
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote: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
Daniel70 wrote:If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
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.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
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.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?
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.
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.
"Tyrone" wrote in message news:p3mdna3zA5j4i8P7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@supernews.com...
On Jun 3, 2024 at 2:04:59 AM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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.
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.
"Tyrone" wrote in message news:p3mdna3zA5j4i8P7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@supernews.com...
On Jun 3, 2024 at 2:04:59 AM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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.
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.
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,
On Jun 3, 2024 at 5:07:47 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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?
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?
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.
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.
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-06-01 à 20:40, bertietaylor a écrit :Arindam or his followers will go there with Arindamic physics for reactionless ftl motors and take proper photos showing stars and no C
Denonym wrote:ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$1@dont-email.me...
Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :
As for the Muslims...
Moon hadto hide the fact that
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
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
12 persons really landed on the Moon.
Stop denying reality and facts.
rock. Without rockets of course, rockets are for fireworks.
Bertietaylor
On 03/06/2024 16.23, bertietaylor wrote:
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>
Kualinar wrote:Jumps are dangerous on the Moon.
Le 2024-05-28 à 05:24, bertietaylor a écrit :
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor wrote:
Richard Harnden wrote:
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote: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
Daniel70 wrote:If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
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.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
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.
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?Deep foot print ? Been reproduced in a vacuum chamber.
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other oneDo you expect them to hold the camera at eye level ? No, the camera is
clearly not taking it as its showed on the visor? Etc. etc. Mainly itNot at all. It's just reality NOT matching your expectation.
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. ItsThe USA's military budget was still larger than the NASA budget at it's
political purpose was to show off the US. Much money must have beenThat's what YOU claim, NOT what was done.
siphoned off. Much more easy to make bad films and a grand photo shoot
with props. Enough experience there witl Hollywood.
They DID land on the Moon 6 times. NO hoax. NO «sheeple».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.
You didn't explain anything.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 theThat was a CHILDREN book from a few years BEFORE the actual landing. It
Moon". Arindam has a copy and that photo is on his facebook timeline.Ho, I see. Facebook «science»...
The air resistance has nothing to do with jumping up and about on theThere are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
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.
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.
YOU assume that those real evidences are all fake.
Again, what real evidence?
Bertietaylor
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
Again, what real evidence?
dismiss them all without even thinking.
On 03/06/2024 16.23, bertietaylor wrote:
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.
are folded.
<https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/flagfold.pdf>
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :No they are not. You come down slowly, unlike on Earth.
Kualinar wrote:Jumps are dangerous on the Moon.
Le 2024-05-28 à 05:24, bertietaylor a écrit :No.
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor wrote:
Richard Harnden wrote:
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote: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
Daniel70 wrote:If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
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.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
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.I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why
flags
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.
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» ?
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other oneDo you expect them to hold the camera at eye level ? No, the camera is attached to a support on their chest.
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.
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.
political purpose was to show off the US. Much money must have beenThat's what YOU claim, NOT what was done.
siphoned off. Much more easy to make bad films and a grand photo shoot
with props. Enough experience there witl Hollywood.
They DID land on the Moon 6 times. NO hoax. NO «sheeple».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.
You didn't explain anything.
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
That was a CHILDREN book from a few years BEFORE the actual landing.
reflect what was EXPECTED back then. What YOU incorrectly expect. NOT reality.
Moon". Arindam has a copy and that photo is on his facebook timeline.Ho, I see. Facebook «science»...
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>
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.
"Tyrone" wrote in message news:Y2ydnfpwK-xGFf37nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@supernews.com...
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
On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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?
Tyrone wrote:
On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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.
On Jun 5, 2024 at 8:09:37 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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?
Tyrone wrote:
On Jun 5, 2024 at 8:09:37 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote: >>>
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.
On Jun 5, 2024 at 10:46:30 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
On Jun 5, 2024 at 8:09:37 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote: >>>>
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?
On Jun 5, 2024 at 10:46:30 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
On Jun 5, 2024 at 8:09:37 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21 PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote: >>>>
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?
On 4/06/2024 11:25 pm, Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
Again, what real evidence?
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.
Le 2024-06-03 à 01:02, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-06-01 à 20:40, bertietaylor a écrit :Arindam or his followers will go there with Arindamic physics for
Denonym wrote:ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>
Le 2024-05-21 à 16:15, bertietaylor a écrit :
As for the Muslims...
Moon hadwe 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.
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
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
12 persons really landed on the Moon.
Stop denying reality and facts.
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.
Kualinar wrote:Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :No they are not. You come down slowly, unlike on Earth.
Kualinar wrote:Jumps are dangerous on the Moon.
Le 2024-05-28 à 05:24, bertietaylor a écrit :No.
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor wrote:
Richard Harnden wrote:
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote:Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they
Daniel70 wrote:If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
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 >>>>>>>>> thosedays CGI was not there.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
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.I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why
flags
They could not help jumping up at least one foot with every step had
they been on the Moon
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.
The lateral waving always stop shortly after the manipulation stops.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.
Rather everything to do with the physical characteristics of the groundfluttering? 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.
It's a question of MASS and location of the centre of gravity. The backThat 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.
Searched, and found «C rock» or Chinese rock, and a rock band named «C Rock». Some music related stuff. Some construction related stuff.What do you mean by «C rock» ?
Search for it and ye may find.
The astronauts never took any selfie. What you take as a selfie is one astronaut photographed by the other astronaut.How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other oneDo 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.
You excellently describe yourself.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.
Why ? Because that's the what the actual numbers reveal.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.
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.
And leads to massive waste of funds.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.
There already where some reality deniers, even back then. That don'tpolitical purpose was to show off the US. Much money must have beenThat's what YOU claim, NOT what was done.
siphoned off. Much more easy to make bad films and a grand photo shoot
with props. Enough experience there witl Hollywood.
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.
Yes, YOU are immune to reason, facts and logic. Always blindly followingThey DID land on the Moon 6 times. NO hoax. NO «sheeple».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.
That is the bleating of sheeple, immune to facts and logic, blindly
following institutional authority.
You didn't explain ANYTHING. Everything that you claim to haveYou didn't explain anything.
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
Follow the thread here. I have explained everything that any sane and intelligent person can comprehend.
In the 1950's, nobody was able to describe what being on the Moon would be. That book was pure speculation.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
reflect what was EXPECTED back then. What YOU incorrectly expect. NOT
reality.
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 -
Le 2024-06-04 à 10:39, Whisper a écrit :
On 4/06/2024 11:25 pm, Kualinar wrote:Rule of thumb #2 : The more absurd the theories are that you believe in,
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
Again, what real evidence?
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.
the stupider you are.
Rule of thumb #3 : You are more of an idiot that your theories are easy
to disprove.
Le 2024-06-04 à 21:07, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
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.
Was the US flag made of paper? Crunched up, placed on a stick? Is that
how it is done in the US?
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$2@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.
On Jun 6, 2024 at 6:00:45 AM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:
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.
Le 2024-06-04 à 21:07, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :No they are not. You come down slowly, unlike on Earth.
Kualinar wrote:Jumps are dangerous on the Moon.
Le 2024-05-28 à 05:24, bertietaylor a écrit :No.
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor wrote:
Richard Harnden wrote:
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote:Nonsense, they would come down very slowly. In any case they
Daniel70 wrote:If you fall and smash your visor - then it's instant death.
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 >>>>>>>>>> thosedays CGI was not there.
That is the reason why they didn't jump around like idiots.
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.I don't assume that. I prove that. Why no jumps? Why no stars? Why
flags
They could not help jumping up at least one foot with every step had
they been on the Moon
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.
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 lateral waving always stop shortly after the manipulation stops.
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 waving stop due to the internal friction of the fabric.
Rather everything to do with the physical characteristics of the ground
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.
and the regolite covering it.
It's a question of MASS and location of the centre of gravity. The back
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.
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.
Searched, and found «C rock» or Chinese rock, and a rock band named «C Rock». Some music related stuff. Some construction related stuff.
What do you mean by «C rock» ?
Search for it and ye may find.
After 5 pages of results, NOTHING Moon related.
The astronauts never took any selfie. What you take as a selfie is one astronaut photographed by the other astronaut.
How the great photos? Who took the famous photo with the other oneDo 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.
I am not paid to lie by career or political compulsions. Which is notYou excellently describe yourself.
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.
Nothing is revealed to me except obtuseness from those fed by lies fromWhy ? Because that's the what the actual numbers reveal.
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.
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.
Not my money. Paranoid creatures also need ego boost and the dollar hasAnd leads to massive waste of funds.
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.
Usually clever people are in the minority in any population. Sheeple goThere already where some reality deniers, even back then. That don'tpolitical purpose was to show off the US. Much money must have beenThat's what YOU claim, NOT what was done.
siphoned off. Much more easy to make bad films and a grand photo shoot >>>> with props. Enough experience there witl Hollywood.
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.
make them right.
Yes, YOU are immune to reason, facts and logic. Always blindly
They DID land on the Moon 6 times. NO hoax. NO «sheeple».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.
That is the bleating of sheeple, immune to facts and logic, blindly
following institutional authority.
following
your narrative of pure denial.
You didn't explain ANYTHING. Everything that you claim to haveYou didn't explain anything.
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
Follow the thread here. I have explained everything that any sane and
intelligent person can comprehend.
«explained» have been debunked many times.
In the 1950's, nobody was able to describe what being on the Moon would
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.
be.
That book was pure speculation.
It
reflect what was EXPECTED back then. What YOU incorrectly expect. NOT
reality.
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 -
a425couple wrote:
On 5/20/24 22:32, bertietaylor wrote:
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-14 à 04:59, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-13 à 03:08, bertietaylor a écrit :
R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
They never went there.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.
bt
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.
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
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 wrote on 28/5/24 8:06 am:
"Richard Harnden" wrote in message news:v32du6$4hb9$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/05/2024 11:22, bertietaylor wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
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"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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!!
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$2@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/
Le 2024-06-04 à 10:39, Whisper a écrit :
On 4/06/2024 11:25 pm, Kualinar wrote:Rule of thumb #2 : The more absurd the theories are that you believe in,
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
Again, what real evidence?
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.
the stupider you are.
Rule of thumb #3 : You are more of an idiot that your theories are easy
to disprove.
On Jun 6, 2024 at 6:00:45 AM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:With bertietaylor, it's worst than arguing with children. At least,
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.
On 06/06/2024 13:36, Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-06-04 à 21:07, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
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.
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" wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$2@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.
"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3vhrk$25ppb$1@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.
Le 2024-06-06 à 10:36, Richard Harnden a écrit :
On 06/06/2024 13:36, Kualinar wrote:Surface of the moon : magnitude -13, brightest star in the sky, Sirius magnitude -1.5.
Le 2024-06-04 à 21:07, bertietaylor a écrit :
Kualinar wrote:
Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
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.
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.
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 !!!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:04:12 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,566 |