| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 61:02:54 |
| Calls: | 633 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,188 |
| D/L today: |
32 files (20,076K bytes) |
| Messages: | 181,421 |
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 01:05 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus
show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
"Apollo 16 Full Mission (Day 6) - Moon Walk 1"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPEvizJS5VQ
There are a few anomalies in this video:
1) the tv-camera, which recorded this video, was actually taking
pictures in color.
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was transmitted
in red.
But if they used a color camera, than why were other items not in color?
2) at the top of these 'back-backs' there is something blinking (occasionally). What was that?
3) the tv-camera pans, tilts and zooms and was placed on a tripod.
But how did they do this?
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 11:51 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 01:05 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus
show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
"Apollo 16 Full Mission (Day 6) - Moon Walk 1"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPEvizJS5VQ
There are a few anomalies in this video:
1) the tv-camera, which recorded this video, was actually taking
pictures in color.
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was transmitted
in red.
Also the golden foil around the lander shines reddish.
This can be seen at 3:27, for instance.
This is rather strange, because if a color camera was actually used,
than it would be rather logic, to turn the others color channels (green
and blue) up, too.
But the pictures look like composed from a luminosity channel and a red channel, while green and blue were missing.
Btw:
a little earlier (at 3:09) there is a drawing of the 'Moon rover'.
This diagram shows, that the rover had no hinges in its frame, what
would make the vehicle difficult to stow into the lander.
But if they used a color camera, than why were other items not in color?
Usually you would be proud about nice pictures from such remote places
like the Moon and would not cripple them intentionally.
2) at the top of these 'back-backs' there is something blinking (occasionally). What was that?
3) the tv-camera pans, tilts and zooms and was placed on a tripod.
But how did they do this?
Tilt, pan and zoom require little motors and those a remote control.
Since the astronauts could not do that themselves (e.g. because they
were actually filmed, had other things to do and wore clumsy
spacesuits), the question remains, who else controlled the camera
movements and how.
TH--
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:23:07 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Facebook shows an Indian photo of the Apollo 11 and 12 Landers on the
Moon. Pretty clear, especially the shadows.
On 12/07/2025 07:26, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:23:07 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>> falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Facebook shows an Indian photo of the Apollo 11 and 12 Landers on the
Moon. Pretty clear, especially the shadows.
Eh? Doesn't the fact that it was an Indian photo tell you that you were looking at a photoshopped image, you ridiculous eejit? Where were the
Indians when the photo was taken? The local tandoori take-away?
On 6/22/25 19:34, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
-a Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:08:46 +0000, occam wrote:
On 12/07/2025 07:26, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:23:07 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>> falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Facebook shows an Indian photo of the Apollo 11 and 12 Landers on the
Moon. Pretty clear, especially the shadows.
Eh? Doesn't the fact that it was an Indian photo tell you that you were
looking at a photoshopped image, you ridiculous eejit? Where were the
Indians when the photo was taken? The local tandoori take-away?
Taken by Moon mission Chandrayan recently and posted on Facebook where
no dissenting sounds were heard. The absence of the non fluttering flag
was noted. It reminded Arindam of lines he wrote to one Mike Morris in misc.writing? many moons ago:
Turn, Morris, turn the Hubble, the Hubble Deep Space telescope
Upon the flag, the flag - not fluttering - on the Apollo lunarscope.
Using the heroic style employed by Macaulay.
Woof woof
--
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>>>> falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier
to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
Hopping was shown as that could be done with cranes pulling them up or
down as per direction.
Insane nonsense.
Why did they not throw a moon rock UP and show how slowly it went up and
came down?
It wasn't on their schedule, they weren't teenagers on a joy ride to
make an internet video, and how fast a thrown object goes up has little
to nothing to do with gravity and almost everything to do with the
thrower.
You are getting more insane by the day.
<snip insane nonsense>
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 2:53:39 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you >>>>>> measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier >>>> to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
Hopping was shown as that could be done with cranes pulling them up or
down as per direction.
Insane nonsense.
Not at all. Best they could do when simulating on Earth. They got better
at that in the later Apollo missions.
Why did they not throw a moon rock UP and show how slowly it went up and >>> came down?
It wasn't on their schedule, they weren't teenagers on a joy ride to
make an internet video, and how fast a thrown object goes up has little
to nothing to do with gravity and almost everything to do with the
thrower.
An object thrown on the Moon would go up high and fast and come down
slowly as compared to the same action done on Earth.
That is possible on Earth with camera work and software these days. Not
in 1969.
Anyway the Indian lunar probe found no flag near Apollo 11 lunar module.
That settles it. Men have never walked on the Moon.
That will happen with Arindam's internal force engines.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof
Bertietaylor
NASA lies do not explain why the Indian probe Chandrayan did not find
the US flag nor any sign of footprints near the Apollo 11 lander. That
thing was dropped there by remote control and likely used for the laser return apparatus for distance estimations.
So while they may have gone around the Moon they never walked on the
Moon.
They could easily use the Hubble or Webb to show the flag and
footprints.
Why don't they? If they can find planets around stars surely they can
show the footprints and flag on the Moon - of course, with an impartial
and incorrupt audience.
Woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:24:34 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/22/25 19:34, Bertitaylor wrote:
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent.-a If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing.-a You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
It should be pretty simple to reverse calculate knowing the angle of
lensing found by observation. Consider the extent of the Sun's corona radially away from the surface. Should be several thousands of
kilometres pointing to and perpendicular to Earth. Then find out how
much the refractive index would do that and then see how plausible that should be.
Yes, they totally neglected the fact that light must bend due to the
greater than unity refractive index of the Sun's corona.
Most successful hoax in human history, absolutely terrific palmjob.
Woof woof woof-woof woof apes know how to profit from lies.
Bertietaylor
--
On 10/06/2025 01:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
But back to the person you are replying to. I have sometimes suspected
that he is only pretending to be a crackpot, and is laughing at all of
us for taking the bait.
That's a generous view to take of Arindam, and it gives him an escape
clause in future should he decide to come clean.
In reality Arindam (& his dog) are broken beyond repair. He is a waste
of time and space. Crackpot theories in physics are one thing,
sycophantic admirer of Trump is an altogether another level of broken.
"A space-time waster" is an apt Einsteinian epiteth he deserves on his gravestone.
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
Apart from that, the matter is of historical interest only.
At todays accuracies bending of starlight is easily observed
all over the sky. (except for diametrically opposite of course)
So for example at 90 degrees away from the Sun,
for starlight that has never been closer to the Sun than the Earth.
Not unusual in science: what starts out as the highest science of the
utmost technical difficulty ends up a hundred years later
as a routinely applied engineering correction,
(with the Hipparcos and GAIA astrometric satellites for example)
Stellar positions are nowadays measured to -micro- arcseconds,
with parallaxes out to 10 000 light years.
Jan
[1] Do have a look at the original 1919 photographs.
The observed stars are well outside the corona.
Arindam is the greatest genius of all time and sole god among lotsaBertie is apparently following the advice "If you can't be a good
devils. [...]
Arindam will be cremated and thus will his physical matter merge back
into aether. No gravestone required. His physics will open up the
universe.
Woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Le 16/07/2025 |a 02:49, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
Bertie is apparently following the advice "If you can't be a good
Arindam is the greatest genius of all time and sole god among lotsa
devils. [...]
Arindam will be cremated and thus will his physical matter merge back
into aether. No gravestone required. His physics will open up the
universe.
Woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
example, try to be a horrible warning."
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 11:51 schrieb Thomas Heger:
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was transmitted
in red.
Also the golden foil around the lander shines reddish.
This can be seen at 3:27, for instance.
This is rather strange, because if a color camera was actually used,
than it would be rather logic, to turn the others color channels (green
and blue) up, too.
But the pictures look like composed from a luminosity channel and a red channel, while green and blue were missing.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on Earth's surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to GR the gravitational deflection of
EM-radiation by the Sun is:
++ = (2GM/(AUriac-#))ria((1+cos-a)/sin-a)
where:
++ is the deflection of the star as observed from the Earth
G is the gravitational constant
M is the mass of the Sun
AU an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
c is the speed of light in vacuum
-a is the angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
When -a = 90rU# the predicted deflection is ++ = 0.000407".
The closest approach to the Sun of the ray from
the star to the Earth is then 149,597,871 km.
The radius of the corona is ~ 8,000,000 km so the the ray
that hit the Earth is _far_ from the corona.
GR's prediction for -a = 90rU# is confirmed by several experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for -a from 1rU# to 179rU#. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for -a from 45rU# to 135rU#. (Figure 2.)
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
Yes, they totally neglected the fact that light must bend due to the
greater than unity refractive index of the Sun's corona.
Most successful hoax in human history, absolutely terrific palmjob.--
Wimp wimp wimp-wimp wimp.
Bertietaylor
--
Found this in the internet:
|Could the displacement of star images near the sun be caused
|by refraction in the atmosphere of the Sun, not by general
|relativity?
|
|No. Long wavelength electromagnetic radio waves are, in fact,
|refracted by the plasma in the solar photosphere, chromosphere
|and corona, but this effect can be accounted for, leaving a |frequency-independent bending of the amount predicted by
|general relativity.
|
|In 1974-75 a series of radio observations were made of the
|occultation by the sun of the quasars 3C273 and 3C279 by
|astronomers Fomalont and Sramek. The measurements were made at
|2.7 and 8.1 gigacycles. Because refraction from the solar
|corona varies with the square of the observing frequency as
|n^2 - 1, where n is the plasma index of refraction, it is
|possible from a 2-frequency observation to eliminate most of
|the effects caused by refraction in the solar atmosphere.
|General relativity predicts that the 'lensing' of light by a
|gravitational field does NOT depend on the frequency of the
|light, unlike lensing of light by optical means.
|
quoted from the internet.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=122222366660155666&set=a.122141150270155666&comment_id=1284100823227094¬if_id=1752522829024202¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
"Turn, Morris, turn the Hubble, the Hubble Deep Space Telescope
Upon the flag, the flag not fluttering, on the Apollo lunarscope." -
Arindam
Woof-woof, can anyone see flag or footprints near the lunar lander?
Bertietaylor
--
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=122222366660155666&set=a.122141150270155666&comment_id=1284100823227094¬if_id=1752522829024202¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
"Turn, Morris, turn the Hubble, the Hubble Deep Space Telescope
Upon the flag, the flag not fluttering, on the Apollo lunarscope." -
Arindam
Woof-woof, can anyone see flag or footprints near the lunar lander?
Bertietaylor
--
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years
away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
Woof woof woof-woof what scoundrels these apes be!--
--
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years
away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
On 14/07/2025 4:18 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 11:51 schrieb Thomas Heger:
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was
transmitted in red.
Also the golden foil around the lander shines reddish.
This can be seen at 3:27, for instance.
This is rather strange, because if a color camera was actually used,
than it would be rather logic, to turn the others color channels
(green and blue) up, too.
But the pictures look like composed from a luminosity channel and a
red channel, while green and blue were missing.
Over such a long distance, bandwidth is a problem. You can deal with
this by deliberately cutting out some of the information, e.g. some of
the colour information. Alternatively, you can try to transmit a full- colour picture, and let the gods of information theory degrade your signal.
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>> close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on Earth's surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote or quoted:
On 6/14/25 13:24, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> writes: Religion is notIs wisdom knowledge?
knowledgeKnowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge, experience, understanding,
common sense, and insight to make good judgments and decisions.
Wisdom is not truth.If wisdom is not truth, what is the value in
having it?
Even if wisdom is not truth itself, it is deeply valuable
because wisdom helps apply truths. Truths are often abstract
or difficult to use. Wisdom helps us apply truths in practical,
ethical, or meaningful ways.
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>>> close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on Earth's >>> surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>>>> close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on Earth's >>>> surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of >>>> kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Le 18/07/2025 |a 06:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on
Earth's
surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is-a ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for-a ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for-a ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted-a no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or because
you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer to my
question is not obvious.
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 06:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on
Earth's
surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is-a ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for-a ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for-a ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted-a no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or because
you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer to my
question is not obvious.
It's not a fallacy
Le 18/07/2025 |a 15:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 06:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of >>>>>>>> starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on >>>>>>> Earth's
surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge >>>>>>> optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is-a ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for-a ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for-a ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted-a no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or because
you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer to my
question is not obvious.
It's not a fallacy
It is.
On 7/18/2025 3:40 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 15:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 06:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that >>>>>>>>>> calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of >>>>>>>>> starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on >>>>>>>> Earth's
surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The >>>>>>>> atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge >>>>>>>> optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is-a ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for-a ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for-a ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted-a no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or because >>>> you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer to my
question is not obvious.
It's not a fallacy
It is.
No it is not
Le 18/07/2025 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :on Earth's
On 7/18/2025 3:40 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 15:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 06:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air
because you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer tosurface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or
It's not a fallacy
It is.
No it is not
It is. http://pico.oabo.inaf.it/~massimo/teaching/2017/notes/lecture1.pdf
On 7/18/2025 3:46 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :on Earth's
On 7/18/2025 3:40 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 15:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 06:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air
because you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer tosurface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or
my question is not obvious.
It's not a fallacy
It is.
No it is not
It is. http://pico.oabo.inaf.it/~massimo/teaching/2017/notes/lecture1.pdf
Another incompetent idiot may easily
support your ignorant opinion; the
facts remain, and they are: according to
your idiot guru light/radio waves in
vacuum take always straight/geodesic
paths. No deflection predicted.
I've asked you some times already:
how does your moronic Shit recognize
a straight/geodesic line of space
(not of spacetime) - and you've
never answerred. Of course, poor
trash.
Le 18/07/2025 |a 16:11, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/18/2025 3:46 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 15:43, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :atmosphere
On 7/18/2025 3:40 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 15:35, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 |a 06:22, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's
that calculationwould bend a ray of star light, and was the result of
bending ofclose to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the
air on Earth'sstarlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than
thousands ofsurface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The >> -a>>>>>>>>> atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
very hugekilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a
because you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answeroptical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is-a ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for-a ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for-a ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted-a no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or
to my question is not obvious.
lecture1.pdf
It's not a fallacy
It is.
No it is not
It is. http://pico.oabo.inaf.it/~massimo/teaching/2017/notes/
Another incompetent idiot may easily
support-a your ignorant opinion; the
facts-a remain, and they are: according to
your idiot guru light/radio waves in
vacuum take always straight/geodesic
paths. No deflection predicted.
I've asked you some times already:
how does your moronic Shit recognize
a straight/geodesic line of space
(not of spacetime) - and you've
never answerred. Of course, poor
trash.
I got my answer : both incompetence and dishonesty. Thanks Maciej!
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote or quoted:
On 6/14/25 13:24, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> writes: Religion is notIs wisdom knowledge?
knowledgeKnowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge, experience, understanding,
common sense, and insight to make good judgments and decisions.
Wisdom is not truth.If wisdom is not truth, what is the value in
having it?
Even if wisdom is not truth itself, it is deeply valuable
because wisdom helps apply truths. Truths are often abstract
or difficult to use. Wisdom helps us apply truths in practical,
ethical, or meaningful ways.
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
Le 19/07/2025 |a 01:00, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse.
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' - <https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon>
Etc..
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-
the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Turn, Morris turn the Hubble...
Woof woof
Le 19/07/2025 |a 09:45, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-
the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
Turn, Morris turn the Hubble...
Woof woof
On a point of language (since this thread is in aue for some reason that escapes me),
incorrigible (literally, that one can't scrape the shit off - the
crotte). B. est ind|-crottable etc.. Has a certain ring to it, doesn't
it? Better than 'Woof!'
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:00:13 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 09:45, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-
the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
The fluttering flag, lack of stars, not jumping up four feet at least, bending forward with the whole weight, C rock, missing negatives, not throwing up a rock, deep footprints, strange shadows...all these are
dodgy. Clincher is the photo of the Apollo 11 site with no sign of flag
or footprints as shown by the Indian space mission, Chandrayan, which appeared in Facebook and was not called fake.
Turn, Morris, turn the Hubble...
Ad hom is the only science for the penisninos.
Den 17.07.2025 02:18, skrev Bertitaylor:moon/
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years
away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
Hubble photos of Moon.
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/moon/
The best Hubble can do: https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/close-up-of-crater-copernicus-on-earths-
"Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across."
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 17.07.2025 02:18, skrev Bertitaylor:moon/
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years
away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
Hubble photos of Moon.
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/moon/
The best Hubble can do:
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/close-up-of-crater-copernicus-on-earths-
"Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across."
Just what you expect, given that Hubble is diffraction-limited,
Jan
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 21:01:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 17.07.2025 02:18, skrev Bertitaylor:moon/
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years >>>> away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
Hubble photos of Moon.
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/moon/
The best Hubble can do:
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/close-up-of-crater-copernicus-on-earths-
"Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across."
Even smaller. Much smaller if it can detect a planet 75 light years
away.
Woof woof
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:00:13 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 09:45, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-
the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
The fluttering flag, lack of stars, not jumping up four feet at least, bending forward with the whole weight, C rock, missing negatives, not throwing up a rock, deep footprints, strange shadows...all these are
dodgy. Clincher is the photo of the Apollo 11 site with no sign of flag
or footprints as shown by the Indian space mission, Chandrayan, which appeared in Facebook and was not called fake. [...]
Le 19/07/2025 |a 15:20, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:00:13 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 09:45, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to- >>>>> the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
The fluttering flag, lack of stars, not jumping up four feet at least,
bending forward with the whole weight, C rock, missing negatives, not
throwing up a rock, deep footprints, strange shadows...all these are
dodgy. Clincher is the photo of the Apollo 11 site with no sign of flag
or footprints as shown by the Indian space mission, Chandrayan, which
appeared in Facebook and was not called fake. [...]
I don't see anything there that really puts the landings in doubt. I
remember discussing one of the photographs with a bloke in
fr.soc.religion some years ago. I just couldn't see in it what he
thought he saw.
No, what I see in such quibbles is evidence of social misfits trying to
give themselves a sense of importance by questioning accepted views.
Your Arindam seems to be a particularly desperate case, with his rail
gun, his perpetual motion, his rubbishing of Einstein, the moon
landings, and I don't know what.
He attacks on all fronts. He thinks himself a genius, a hero, and a
martyr, and all the stupid, corrupt world's agin him. Unfortunately,
he's not going to convince rational people of this. We can just apply
Occam's Razor: which is more likely: that most physics is wrong and most physicists charlatans, or that Arindam is a bit funny in the head?
Turn, Morris turn the Hubble...
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 5:05:09 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 15:20, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:00:13 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 09:45, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to- >>>>>> the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
The fluttering flag, lack of stars, not jumping up four feet at least,
bending forward with the whole weight, C rock, missing negatives, not
throwing up a rock, deep footprints, strange shadows...all these are
dodgy. Clincher is the photo of the Apollo 11 site with no sign of flag
or footprints as shown by the Indian space mission, Chandrayan, which
appeared in Facebook and was not called fake. [...]
I don't see anything there that really puts the landings in doubt. I
remember discussing one of the photographs with a bloke in
fr.soc.religion some years ago. I just couldn't see in it what he
thought he saw.
No, what I see in such quibbles is evidence of social misfits trying to
give themselves a sense of importance by questioning accepted views.
Your Arindam seems to be a particularly desperate case, with his rail
gun, his perpetual motion, his rubbishing of Einstein, the moon
landings, and I don't know what.
Nice diversion. Each to his own and that also goes for Arindam who is
the greatest genius of all time. Being that he must be original. Genius
plays with what talent cannot even see.
We doggies note that you are merely demeaning him on no basis save bias
and established wisdom. When that latter is under attack, on logical
basis, as Arindam is always logical, repeating establishment wisdom as defence is dishonest.
Not that such dishonesty is not amusing in its way, when one ceases to
be disgusted - as is the case.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
He attacks on all fronts. He thinks himself a genius, a hero, and a
martyr, and all the stupid, corrupt world's agin him. Unfortunately,
he's not going to convince rational people of this. We can just apply
Occam's Razor: which is more likely: that most physics is wrong and most
physicists charlatans,
--
Hubble can see objects less than a centimetre in size on the Moon if
properly utilised.
It could easily show the footprints in fair detail and the flag of
course had it really been planted on the Moon.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof with application of middle school
level arithmetic.
Bertietaylor
--
Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Now Webb could tell the shoe size as well.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Le 19/07/2025 |a 01:00, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or, better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third- party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' - <https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- moon>
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 01:00, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-
moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
....
TH
Den 20.07.2025 22:34, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 20.07.2025 15:27, skrev Bertitaylor:
Hubble can see objects less than a centimetre in size on the Moon if
properly utilised.
Why do you guess (or lie) about what is easily checked?
Isn't that stupid?
WFPC2 - Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2
-----------------------------------------
pixel size in Planet Camera mode 0.0455 arcseconds
equivalent to 84.5 m = 277 feet on the Moon
WFC3 - Wide Field Camera 3 (replacing WFPC2)
--------------------------
pixel size 0.04 arcseconds
equivalent to 75.5 m on the Moon
ACS - Advanced Camera for Surveys
---------------------------------
pixel size 0.025 arcseconds
equivalent to 46.6 m on the Moon
Note that the resolution can never be better than the pixel size,
but in most cases it will be worse, because the pixel size
will be made so that it doesn't limit the resolution.
The resolution of a telescope is ++ = 1.22ria++/D
where
++ = angular resolution
++ = wavelength
D = diameter of aperture of telescope
For visible light ++ is in the order of 5000e-10 m
++ = 2.54e-7 rad = 97.5 m on the Moon
However, there are a lot of bandpass filters for the Hubble telescope.
https://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/svo/theory/fps3/index.php?mode=browse&gname=hst&gname2=ACS_HRC&asttype=
For example, for the ACS_HRC there is a bandpass filter with
centre frequency 2254.44e-10 m. This is far UV.
++ = 1.146e-7 rad = 44 m on the Moon
So the small pixel size isn't as pointless as it may appear.
If we use a bandpass filter with centre frequency
4087.81e-10 m (visible violet) for the WFPC2-PC
++ = 2.078e-7 rad = 80 m one the Moon
Can too, can too, can too, So there! Efye
It could easily show the footprints in fair detail and the flag of
course had it really been planted on the Moon.
Looks like chaps here are far too stupid to apply middle school maths.Did you really believe that this idiotic remark would make
Sad.
----
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:37:41 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 20/07/2025 |a 14:36, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a |-crit : >>> Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Show it.
You try. We have given enough hints.
Mathematically
MV + mv is momentum before collision for armature M and system m.
Vel(m + M) is momentum after collision.
And Vel = (MV + mv)/(M+m)
So this is what busts the inertia.
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 01:00, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-
moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 | 01:00, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or, better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third- party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' - <https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
"Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across."
Even smaller. Much smaller if it can detect a planet 75 light years
away.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>> moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
Your assumption would be valid if they behaved more convincingly there.
In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 01:00, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>> moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were
incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and
somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the
astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and
restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
Thomas Heger's post is a textbook case of conspiracy theorist rhetoric wrapped in pseudoscientific claims and speculative historical revisionism. Here's a breakdown and analysis of its components:
1. Framing the Issue ("The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'")
Technique: Shifts the debate away from evidence-based discussion
("did it happen?") to speculation about alternate explanations
("how did it happen?").
Purpose: This rhetorical move is typical in conspiracy circlesrCoit
presumes the conclusion and then retrofits an explanation to fit it.
2. Nazi Haunebu and UFO Technology
"I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which
were incorrectly named 'Ufos'."
Claim: Nazis developed advanced anti-gravity spacecraft called "Haunebus."
Analysis: The Haunebu myth originates from post-war conspiracy
literature and fictional Nazi UFO lore. No credible historical or
technical evidence supports the existence of such crafts. These claims
are heavily reliant on fabricated documents and hoaxes.
Red Flag: Use of "assume" as a foundation for a sweeping historical
technological claim.
3. Free Energy and Suppression
"Hans-Kohler-Generator" ... "free-energy-devices" ... "had to be
suppressed at all costs."
Claim: A secret Nazi energy device capable of powering lunar travel
exists and was hidden to maintain control over energy resources.
Analysis: "Free energy" devices violate fundamental laws of
thermodynamics (especially the First and Second Laws). No such device
has ever been demonstrated to work under scientific scrutiny.
Conspiracy Marker: Claims of suppression of "dangerous knowledge" are
a hallmark of pseudosciencerCousually used to preemptively dismiss the
absence of supporting evidence.
4. Studio Filming Accusation
"filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert."
Claim: The Moon landings were faked using sets.
Analysis: This repeats a well-debunked trope dating back to Bill
Kaysing and popularized by works like Capricorn One or Room 237.
There is overwhelming physical, photographic, telemetry, and eyewitness
evidence of Apollo missionsrCO success.
Error: Misrepresents the technical sophistication of Apollo footage
and fails to account for the extensive third-party tracking of Apollo
flights (e.g., by Jodrell Bank, the Soviets, etc.).
5. Misinterpretation of Photos
"photo of the crew of Apollo 17... pose without helmet..."
Likely Misunderstanding: This refers to photos taken on Earth during
training or PR events. No authenticated lunar surface photos exist
showing astronauts helmetless.
Technique: Classic example of misattribution of contextrCotaking
terrestrial photos and presenting them as lunar evidence.
6. Pseudoscientific Critique of Lunar Soil
"sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create sand you usually
need water."
Claim: The Moon can't have sand without water.
Analysis: Lunar "regolith" is not terrestrial sand. It is formed by
micrometeorite impacts over billions of years, not by weathering via
water. This is basic planetary science.
Error: Demonstrates a lack of understanding of geophysical processes.
7. Calculations of Fuel Capacity
"I actually calculated the amount of fuel..."
Claim: The lander didnrCOt have enough fuel to return to orbit.
Analysis: This is a common claim from those misunderstanding or
oversimplifying rocket mechanics. The Apollo Lunar Module ascent
stage was explicitly designed with sufficient +ov (change in velocity)
to reach lunar orbit. NASArCOs calculations have been confirmed repeatedly.
Red Flag: No data or math shown. Appeals to authority via rCLI
calculated...rCY without evidence.
Overall Characteristics of the Post
Feature Example
Assumptive Language "I assume...", "most likely..."
Pseudoscientific "free energy devices", "fuel not enough..."
Myth Repackaging Haunebu UFOs, studio faking
Selective Evidence Misused Apollo 17 photo, regolith skepticism
Conspiracy Appeal Suppression of truth, hidden technologies
Lack of Citations No sources, no data, vague references
Conclusion
Thomas Heger's post is a blend of science fiction, conspiracy narrative,
and superficial skepticism, posing as a reasoned critique of the Apollo program. It reflects a pattern where personal belief and historical
fantasy override physical evidence and scientific understanding.
If evaluated in terms of epistemic reliability, the post scores extremely lowrCoit relies on unverified assertions, misinterpretations of science,
and discredited historical myths.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 01:00, Bertitaylor a |a--crit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>> moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were
incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and
somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the
astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and
restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
I don't understand, if you simply want proof of "The Apollo moon
landings", can you just not use a telescope to see the stuff left
behind?
i mean, the moon ain't that far...it ain't at the end of the universe...
it's right up there!
FUCKING BIG AS LIFE!!!!
don't they sell telescopes on Amazon????
Look! Look at what I see!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Duke%27s_family_portrait_left_on_the_surface_of_the_moon.jpg
Am Montag000021, 21.07.2025 um 14:44 schrieb Jim Pennino:
In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 |a 01:00, Bertitaylor a |-crit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or, >>>> better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>>> moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were
incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and
somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the
astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and
restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
Thomas Heger's post is a textbook case of conspiracy theorist rhetoric
wrapped in pseudoscientific claims and speculative historical revisionism. >> Here's a breakdown and analysis of its components:
1. Framing the Issue ("The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'")
Technique: Shifts the debate away from evidence-based discussion
("did it happen?") to speculation about alternate explanations
("how did it happen?").
Purpose: This rhetorical move is typical in conspiracy circlesrCoit
presumes the conclusion and then retrofits an explanation to fit it.
2. Nazi Haunebu and UFO Technology
"I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which
were incorrectly named 'Ufos'."
Claim: Nazis developed advanced anti-gravity spacecraft called "Haunebus."
Analysis: The Haunebu myth originates from post-war conspiracy
literature and fictional Nazi UFO lore. No credible historical or
technical evidence supports the existence of such crafts. These claims >> are heavily reliant on fabricated documents and hoaxes.
Red Flag: Use of "assume" as a foundation for a sweeping historical
technological claim.
3. Free Energy and Suppression
"Hans-Kohler-Generator" ... "free-energy-devices" ... "had to be
suppressed at all costs."
Claim: A secret Nazi energy device capable of powering lunar travel
exists and was hidden to maintain control over energy resources.
Analysis: "Free energy" devices violate fundamental laws of
thermodynamics (especially the First and Second Laws). No such device >> has ever been demonstrated to work under scientific scrutiny.
Conspiracy Marker: Claims of suppression of "dangerous knowledge" are >> a hallmark of pseudosciencerCousually used to preemptively dismiss the >> absence of supporting evidence.
4. Studio Filming Accusation
"filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert."
Claim: The Moon landings were faked using sets.
Analysis: This repeats a well-debunked trope dating back to Bill
Kaysing and popularized by works like Capricorn One or Room 237.
There is overwhelming physical, photographic, telemetry, and eyewitness >> evidence of Apollo missionsrCO success.
Error: Misrepresents the technical sophistication of Apollo footage
and fails to account for the extensive third-party tracking of Apollo >> flights (e.g., by Jodrell Bank, the Soviets, etc.).
5. Misinterpretation of Photos
"photo of the crew of Apollo 17... pose without helmet..."
Likely Misunderstanding: This refers to photos taken on Earth during
training or PR events. No authenticated lunar surface photos exist
showing astronauts helmetless.
Technique: Classic example of misattribution of contextrCotaking
terrestrial photos and presenting them as lunar evidence.
6. Pseudoscientific Critique of Lunar Soil
"sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create sand you usually
need water."
Claim: The Moon can't have sand without water.
Analysis: Lunar "regolith" is not terrestrial sand. It is formed by
micrometeorite impacts over billions of years, not by weathering via
water. This is basic planetary science.
Error: Demonstrates a lack of understanding of geophysical processes. >>
7. Calculations of Fuel Capacity
"I actually calculated the amount of fuel..."
Claim: The lander didnrCOt have enough fuel to return to orbit.
Analysis: This is a common claim from those misunderstanding or
oversimplifying rocket mechanics. The Apollo Lunar Module ascent
stage was explicitly designed with sufficient +ov (change in velocity) >> to reach lunar orbit. NASArCOs calculations have been confirmed repeatedly.
Red Flag: No data or math shown. Appeals to authority via rCLI
calculated...rCY without evidence.
Overall Characteristics of the Post
Feature Example
Assumptive Language "I assume...", "most likely..."
Pseudoscientific "free energy devices", "fuel not enough..."
Myth Repackaging Haunebu UFOs, studio faking
Selective Evidence Misused Apollo 17 photo, regolith skepticism
Conspiracy Appeal Suppression of truth, hidden technologies
Lack of Citations No sources, no data, vague references
Conclusion
Thomas Heger's post is a blend of science fiction, conspiracy narrative,
and superficial skepticism, posing as a reasoned critique of the Apollo
program. It reflects a pattern where personal belief and historical
fantasy override physical evidence and scientific understanding.
If evaluated in terms of epistemic reliability, the post scores extremely
lowrCoit relies on unverified assertions, misinterpretations of science,
and discredited historical myths.
Actually I had tried to figure out the amount of fuel, which the 'Eagle' would need to land on the surface of the Moon.
This fuel was necessary, because the Moon has (almost) no atmosphere and therefore a craft landing there needed reverted thrust, to bring the
craft to a halt in respect to the Moon's surface.
This would require fuel and the amount could be calculated.
To do this I used the theory of Tsiolkowski.
It was a little tricky, because the usual case for a rocket launch
didn't fit here.
But finally I have found a result and found, that the 'Eagle' had enough fuel on board to land. But it had only enough fuel to land and non for restart and to accelerate the capsule back to the orbit.
The restart manouver itself was certainly difficult, because it could
not be assited by any kind of ground control or external navigation
system, because there were none.
Since the capsule had only one engine, it would also be extremely
difficult to keep that craft upright, since that would require to
maintain the center of mass exactly above the engine's nozzle.
That would be extremely difficult, bause the astronouts were living
beings and could eventually move.
They also brought stones with them, which also had mass and therefore
needed to be distributed with extreme care.
Any tiny error would make the capsule tip over to the side and that
would have been fatal.
The next collosal problem would have been to make the 'rendezvous' with
the command module in Moon's orbit.
That was so insanely difficult, that I cannot believe it would have been possible at all (supposed they had enough fuel, what they hadn't).
So, in effect, I agreed with many sceptics and thought, the pictures
were fake and fabricated in a studio.
But I assumed, that only the pictures were a fake and that had to do
with secrecy of military developments (-> hidden military technology).
The Nasa guys had actually been to the Moon, but not with those cheep props.
TH
Am Montag000021, 21.07.2025 um 19:41 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 |a-a 01:00, Bertitaylor a |a--crit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or, >>>> better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>>>
moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were
incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and
somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the
astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and
restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
I don't understand, if you simply want proof of "The Apollo moon
landings", can you just not use a telescope to see the stuff left
behind?
i mean, the moon ain't that far...it ain't at the end of the universe...
it's right up there!
FUCKING BIG AS LIFE!!!!
don't they sell telescopes on Amazon????
Look! Look at what I see!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Duke%27s_family_portrait_left_on_the_surface_of_the_moon.jpg
Look at this picture:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/ap16-72-HC-57.jpg
And ask yourself: what do you see?
I see a 'Dune Buggy' wrapped in golden and silvery plastic foil, which seemly was cramped into a compartment, into which it wouldn't fit.
Engineers (like me) have kind of six' sense for what would fit and what would not.
And I would think, it wouldn't fit.
-------------------------------
TH
Le 20/07/2025 |a 14:36, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a |-crit :
Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Show it.
Looks like chaps here are far too stupid to apply middle school maths.
No wonder they worship Chat not that they can grasp it's vomit.
Sad.
Woof
--
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:37:41 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 20/07/2025 |a 14:36, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a |-crit : >>> Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Show it.
You try. We have given enough hints.
WOOF
--
