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

Kualinar wrote:

> Le 2024-06-04 à 21:07, bertietaylor a écrit :
>> 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.
> 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.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> 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.

>> 
>>>> 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.
> 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.
>> 
>>> 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. 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 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 -