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

Kualinar wrote:

> 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.
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

> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.



> 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.

> What do you mean by «C rock» ?

Search for it and ye may find.

>> 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.



>> 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. 


>> 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.

> 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. 

>> 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.

>>> 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.
>> 
>>> 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.

>> 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 -