Re: Why the moon landing was a hoax - no jumps!

Le 2024-06-03 à 02:04, bertietaylor a écrit :
> Kualinar wrote:
> 
>> 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:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 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.
>> 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.
> 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 one
Do 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 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.
> 
>> 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».
> 
>> 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.
> 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.
> 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 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.
> 
>> 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?
There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly 
dismiss them all without even thinking.
> Bertietaylor