From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On 4/06/2024 11:25 pm, Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:


Again, what real evidence?

There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly dismiss them all without even thinking.

er, you forget most people are really, really stupid.

Rule of thumb - the more conspiracy theories you believe in the dumber
you are.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

"Daniel70" wrote in message news:v3n619$eu93$1@dont-email.me...

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

And during my Aust. Army Career, I've lowered a few Flags and they got
folded as well. Made it easy to unfurl them in the morning.
--
Daniel
------------------------------------ https://phys.org/news/2019-07-fifty-years-apollo-moon-vexillologist.html ""First there were wrinkles in it because of how tightly it was packed. And these add to the illusion that the flag is waving."

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Michael F. Stemper wrote:

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.

No it is not. Flags should be rolled up, not crunched up, if they are to
be treated respectfully.



Flags -- at least the US flag -- are not "rolled up", they

are folded.

<https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/flagfold.pdf>

folded up is not crunched up.

bt
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-05-28 |a 05:24, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

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 -2C 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 -2sheeple-+.

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 -2science-+...

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 -
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:48:06 -0500, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

I've mostly been sitting back, laughing. But, this statement is quite
false. Flags -- at least the US flag -- are not "rolled up", they are
folded.

<https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/flagfold.pdf>

I've been doing the same. I'm normally against feeding the trolls, but
it's drawn out more activity than I've seen here for a long time.

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

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

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

Sometimes the universe takes her sweet time about it.

Lafe

Followup-To has been reset to a.f.h
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3n4km$ega9$1@dont-email.me...

That thing on their back is quite heavy.
------------------------
I examined an Apollo moon walk backpack at a military airshow. It's crammed with batteries, pumps, pressure tanks and plumbing, a complete life support system.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21rC>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?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

"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

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On Jun 5, 2024 at 12:23:02rC>PM EDT, ""Jim Wilkins"" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

"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

Yes, I know. I have seen all the pictures. The "fluttering flag" never
changes from photo to photo. Interesting how the conspiretards never mention that.

But then, trolls gotta troll.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

"Tyrone" wrote in message news:ZIWdnW5zTp6fM_37nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@supernews.com...

On Jun 5, 2024 at 12:23:02 PM EDT, ""Jim Wilkins"" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

"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

Yes, I know. I have seen all the pictures. The "fluttering flag" never
changes from photo to photo. Interesting how the conspiretards never mention that.

But then, trolls gotta troll.
----------------------------
They "see" all evil except their own.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21rC>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.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On Jun 5, 2024 at 8:09:37rC>PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21rC>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?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 5, 2024 at 8:09:37rC>PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21rC>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. .

bt
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On Jun 5, 2024 at 10:46:30rC>PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 5, 2024 at 8:09:37rC>PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21rC>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?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On 6/06/2024 1:16 pm, Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 5, 2024 at 10:46:30rC>PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 5, 2024 at 8:09:37rC>PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21rC>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?

No drugs, this is natural iq
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 5, 2024 at 10:46:30rC>PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 5, 2024 at 8:09:37rC>PM EDT, "bertietaylor" <bertietaylor> wrote:

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 4, 2024 at 9:07:21rC>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"?

Was the US flag made of paper? Crunched up, placed on a stick? Is that
how it is done in the US?

It is absolutely amazing to me that you think a still photo is moving.

I am not amazed at all by what you write, I assure all those who may be interested.

What
kind of drugs are you taking?

None.

bt
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Le 2024-06-04 |a 10:39, Whisper a |-crit-a:

On 4/06/2024 11:25 pm, Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:


Again, what real evidence?

There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
dismiss them all without even thinking.

er, you forget most people are really, really stupid.

Rule of thumb - the more conspiracy theories you believe in the dumber
you are.

Rule of thumb #2 : The more absurd the theories are that you believe in,
the stupider you are.
Rule of thumb #3 : You are more of an idiot that your theories are easy
to disprove.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Le 2024-06-04 |a 21:07, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-05-28 |a 05:24, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

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.-a 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 -2C rock-+ ?

Search for it and ye may find.

Searched, and found -2C rock-+ or Chinese rock, and a rock band named -2C 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 -2sheeple-+.

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
-2explained-+ 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 -2science-+...

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 -

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 01:02, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-01 |a 20:40, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Denonym wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2024 17:46:27 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote:

"Kualinar"-a wrote in message news:v2kuj9$173q6$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>
Le 2024-05-21 |a 16:15, bertietaylor a |-crit :

As for the Muslims...

Moon had
been defiled. Then someone told them it was fake so they stopped in >>>>>> > their rioting. What you say here is : Tell them a reassuring lie >>>>>> to hide the fact that

we landed on the Moon to have them shut up. By the way, there was NO >>>>>> rioting in the Muslim dominated countries about -2the Moon had been >>>>>> defiled-+ at the time.

This is a tactic known as forum sliding including poisoning the well. >>>>
Surround the discussion of government fraud with lunatic theories and >>>>> then the average person gets so confused they can't consider the facts. >>>>
Nobody landed on the moon.

True.
bt

ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
12 persons really landed on the Moon.
Stop denying reality and facts.

Arindam or his followers will go there with Arindamic physics for
reactionless ftl motors and take proper photos showing stars and no C
rock. Without rockets of course, rockets are for fireworks.
Bertietaylor

That would be great, but won't ever happen as that reactionless FTL
engine don't and can't exist.

Within 10-50 years it will replace jet engines and rockets.

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

BERTIETAYLOR
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On 6/06/2024 10:10 pm, Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-04 |a 10:39, Whisper a |-crit-a:

On 4/06/2024 11:25 pm, Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:


Again, what real evidence?

There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
dismiss them all without even thinking.

er, you forget most people are really, really stupid.

Rule of thumb - the more conspiracy theories you believe in the dumber
you are.

Rule of thumb #2 : The more absurd the theories are that you believe in,
the stupider you are.
Rule of thumb #3 : You are more of an idiot that your theories are easy
to disprove.

Anyone with half a functioning brain knows conspiracy theories are
things only dummies believe in. Why? Because once you prove something
is false then absolutely everyone accepts it as it is so obvious. It
really is that simple. There's nothing wrong with being simple, because
as I said the vast majority of people are very low in brain power. You
are actually normal. If everyone was smart we wouldn't have any rich
people, we'd have no workers doing menial tasks etc. You actually are
very useful to society. I actually don't want everyone to be smart as
I'd lose my power/advantage in society. Simple folk who are willing to
work hard for low pay is fantastic for me. Putting up with dumbarse conspiracy theories is a very small price to pay compared to what you contribute to society overall. Carry on, your contribution is much
welcome.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On 06/06/2024 13:36, Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-04 |a 21:07, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

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.





--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$2@dont-email.me...

Searched, and found -2C rock-+ or Chinese rock, and a rock band named -2C 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.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On Jun 6, 2024 at 6:00:45rC>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.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On 06/06/2024 15:38, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Kualinar"-a wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$2@dont-email.me...

Searched, and found -2C rock-+ or Chinese rock, and a rock band named -2C 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.

It's just someone's eyelash. It doesn't appear on the original, only on
the later scans.

Also, for our conspiracy idiot: Stanley Kubrick simply does not make
that kind of mistake.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

"Richard Harnden" wrote in message news:v3sk9b$1ibj5$1@dont-email.me...

On 06/06/2024 15:38, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Kualinar" wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$2@dont-email.me...

Searched, and found -2C rock-+ or Chinese rock, and a rock band named -2C 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.

It's just someone's eyelash. It doesn't appear on the original, only on
the later scans.

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

---------------------------------
The rock appears in two photos but only has the C in copies of copies, not original prints, of one of them. https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/apollo-moon-hoax-there-is-a-prop-rock-labeled-with-a-c/

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 16:23:21 +0100, Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote:

On 06/06/2024 15:38, Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Kualinar"a wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$2@dont-email.me...

Searched, and found 2C rock+ or Chinese rock, and a rock band named 2C
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.

It's just someone's eyelash. It doesn't appear on the original, only on
the later scans.

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

Mr. K. may never have made that kind of error but he employed
thousands of lesser people who could easily have done so. However, had
there been an eyelash on some frame of one of Mr. K.'s movies, he
would have had it removed in post-production.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would you do this?

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

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

It was magical, wonderful and beautiful.

Why would you deny us this?

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

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

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

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

Why do you want us to die on this rock?

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

Why do you hate Life so much?

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

Why don't you just fucking grow up?

J.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

On Thu, 06 Jun 2024 14:30:59 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

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.

The Union Flag of the UKland can be hung "upside-down". I have a
neighbour whose flag I suspect has been erected in this unfortunate
condition. I'm not entirely sure and I don't want to annoy her by
suggesting it until I am.

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

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

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

The Hoaxers are stupid.

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

There was a TV serial called "Battlestar Galactica". In it, politics
was such that "the Press" were allowed access to "the President" and
were permitted to yell and yammer and bloviate as though they were
late 20th Century USAliens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

They will miss out on so very much magic.

I pity them all.

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

"In space, all motion is relative." Dr. Mackay, Pegasus Galaxy.

You are an idiot troll. I am done with you. I have better things to do than >argue with children.

No, you do not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Tyrone wrote:

On Jun 6, 2024 at 6:00:45rC>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".

If not paper then what crunchy fibre was the flag made of? :)
That photo is a hoot.

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

You are beyond help.

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

I see you send crunched up paper flags to the Moon.

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

It is not moving at all.

You are an idiot troll. I am done with you. I have better things to
do
than
argue with children.

Tch, tch.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

"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/

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-04 |a 21:07, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-05-28 |a 05:24, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

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.-a 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 -2C rock-+ ?

Search for it and ye may find.

Searched, and found -2C rock-+ or Chinese rock, and a rock band named -2C 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 -2sheeple-+.

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
-2explained-+ 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 -2science-+...

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 -

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

bertietaylor wrote:

a425couple wrote:

On 5/20/24 22:32, bertietaylor wrote:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-05-14 |a 04:59, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-05-13 |a 03:08, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

R Kym Horsell wrote:

In alt.astronomy bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-05-12 ?? 20:04, bertietaylor a ??crit??:

They never went there.
bt

Are you a flatard or one of those stupid Moon landing denier ? >>>>>>>>> Am a ghostly cyberdog that cannot think why they did not jump up >>>>>>>>> ten feet.

- typically unconvincing bs snipped -
bt

Your calculations are wrong.
The avg astronaught weighs around 110 lb.

I am convinced that the USA did send multiple missions with
American astronauts that landed on the moon and returned.

Politics trumps not physics.
It is very different on the Moon.
The evidence is that the landings were faked.

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.

Wow. If true I must be wrong but in these days of CGI anything can be manufactured digitally and passed off as the purest reality.

bt
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Daniel70 wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote on 28/5/24 8:06 am:

"Richard Harnden"-a 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

60 lb on Moon, they should be jumping out of their skins.

they could hardly jump at all on Earth.

On the Moon they could. On Earth clumsily with wires.

..... and the Dune Buggy they were driving around on the Moon on
whichever mission .... that would have required some top-notch Special Effects if it were actually on Earth!!

Slow speed camera work with good video manipulation.

Bertietaylor
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"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/

2017, huh, anything can be done with CGI these days.
Point remains, the video films of 1969 were a joke and the photos of
1969 were far too good quality wise.\
Had they been jumping in the videos, and had the photos been smudged and
honest that way in 1969, there would be no so-called conspiracy
theories.
Jumping astronauts and honest bad photos would have been enough to
silence any crtics.
Alas, for the moral and intellectual cowardice of the 90% fools fooled
by the cunning tricky dicks at the top. Beyond help.

Bertietaylor

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Kualinar wrote on 6/6/24 10:10 pm:

Le 2024-06-04 |a 10:39, Whisper a |-crit-a:

On 4/06/2024 11:25 pm, Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Again, what real evidence?

There are real evidences that we landed on the Moon, you just blindly
dismiss them all without even thinking.

er, you forget most people are really, really stupid.

Rule of thumb - the more conspiracy theories you believe in the dumber
you are.

Rule of thumb #2 : The more absurd the theories are that you believe in,
the stupider you are.

But if *I* *believe* something, then *IT* *must* be true!! SURELY!! Else
I wouldn't believe it!!

Untill someone *disproves* it, not just *says* it isn't so!! Of course!!

Rule of thumb #3 : You are more of an idiot that your theories are easy
to disprove.

Correct.
--
Daniel
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Le 2024-06-06 |a 10:30, Tyrone a |-crit-a:

On Jun 6, 2024 at 6:00:45rC>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.

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Le 2024-06-06 |a 10:36, Richard Harnden a |-crit-a:

On 06/06/2024 13:36, Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-04 |a 21:07, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

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.

Surface of the moon : magnitude -13, brightest star in the sky, Sirius magnitude -1.5.
That's an 11.5 magnitude difference. +1 in magnitude = 10 times dimer.
That make Sirius about 30 000 000 000 times dimer than the surface of
the Moon.
Those space and Moon landing deniers refuse to understand that. Their expectation are unrealistic, and when reality don't meet their
expectations, they scream FAKE !!!
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Le 2024-06-06 |a 10:38, Jim Wilkins a |-crit-a:

"Kualinar"-a wrote in message news:v3safl$1gdp0$2@dont-email.me...

Searched, and found -2C rock-+ or Chinese rock, and a rock band named -2C 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.

OK. I've seen that one, and the larger original from witch that one got cropped out of.
Picking that one is called cherry picking. Sadly, a common tactic from
those conspiretards.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

"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.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-06 |a 10:36, Richard Harnden a |-crit-a:

On 06/06/2024 13:36, Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-04 |a 21:07, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

Kualinar wrote:

Le 2024-06-03 |a 02:04, bertietaylor a |-crit-a:

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.

Surface of the moon : magnitude -13, brightest star in the sky, Sirius magnitude -1.5.
That's an 11.5 magnitude difference. +1 in magnitude = 10 times dimer.
That make Sirius about 30 000 000 000 times dimer than the surface of
the Moon.
Those space and Moon landing deniers refuse to understand that. Their expectation are unrealistic, and when reality don't meet their
expectations, they scream FAKE !!!

No worries mate, space tourism with Arindam's reactionless internal
force drives will take all who can pay around the Moon. Then all will
see what was what.

Bertietaylor
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.fan.heinlein

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"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.

Unfortunately blind repetition of established lies do not convince the intelligent.

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

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

Hitler should have taken Gibraltar and not invaded USSR until he was
much stronger. Had he done the one and not the other we would have been
talking German today. Blocking the Med.and a strong defence instead of
attack on the Eastern front would have kept the Nazis going.

For example, despite all the hype they provoked, the V1 and V2 missiles

delivered about the same total weight of explosive during the whole of
the
war as the RAF plus US bombers could in one night and day.

Desperate stuff.

bt
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2