Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #663999 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-06-07 22:23 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-02-17 22:24 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 213 — 51 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-07 22:23 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-07 15:45 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jonny Veselov <veyn@el.ru> - 2025-06-07 23:20 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-08 02:49 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-07 21:05 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Powell Speech-language pathologists Ban <con@gpwzos.org> - 2025-06-08 15:50 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-06-09 00:11 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-09 07:31 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 01:18 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-14 04:17 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-15 10:02 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-05 10:25 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-06-10 07:25 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-10 05:49 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-04 02:43 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-12 23:05 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-12 17:55 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-13 11:51 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-14 08:18 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2025-07-14 08:00 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Peter Moylan <peter@invalid.pmoylan.org> - 2025-07-16 22:04 +1000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-17 18:36 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Mario Vedernikov <eevk@ma.ru> - 2025-07-17 17:09 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-09 12:45 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-09 10:01 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Manley Zhitkov <kinie@oivy.ru> - 2025-06-09 22:17 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 01:38 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-06-10 08:05 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 10:45 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-06-10 13:24 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-06-10 13:00 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-06-10 16:37 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-09 22:10 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-09 15:52 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 00:29 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-09 19:49 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 10:42 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-10 05:52 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Yanko Habov <no@ayvnv.ru> - 2025-06-10 15:38 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-04 03:09 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-07 22:21 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-11 03:20 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-11 21:02 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-11 12:33 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-12 22:33 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-12 23:21 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-12 17:46 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-13 05:58 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-06-10 22:56 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-11 07:48 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-06-11 16:01 +1000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-11 07:54 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-06-11 09:22 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings Shay Bagaev <svhs@agyass.ru> - 2025-06-11 20:40 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-09 19:21 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-06-10 09:48 +1000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 00:46 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 14:27 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-06-10 05:08 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 03:37 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 03:54 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-06-10 05:13 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 01:49 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2025-07-16 06:17 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 07:41 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-10 13:30 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 14:56 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 22:03 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 23:04 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-11 17:13 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 03:09 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-11 20:39 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-11 03:27 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-10 20:52 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-13 01:52 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-12 21:11 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-13 05:52 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jeremiah Jones <jj@j.j> - 2025-07-19 13:48 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-12 13:44 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings Bobauk Pechkurov <caev@uvevubb.ru> - 2025-06-12 18:19 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-13 02:54 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-12 20:47 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-13 12:21 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-13 22:41 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 00:18 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-17 06:27 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-21 19:00 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-21 23:48 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-18 00:03 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-19 00:00 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2025-07-19 09:01 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-19 08:45 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2025-07-19 12:00 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-19 14:20 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-19 07:58 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2025-07-20 06:05 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 06:51 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 12:27 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-20 13:39 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 13:27 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 07:09 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-20 22:34 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 22:11 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 18:10 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-21 12:42 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-21 09:16 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 07:33 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-22 08:09 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Beraldo Glubokovsky <olkv@ldel.ru> - 2025-07-21 11:23 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-21 05:44 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-07-21 10:41 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-22 08:39 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings squalk <sq@net.inv> - 2025-07-22 20:45 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-14 05:45 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-22 18:01 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-22 23:34 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-22 17:23 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2025-06-24 06:10 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-24 06:22 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-25 02:00 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-24 19:29 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-02 22:07 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-25 11:42 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-23 13:24 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-23 23:40 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-27 07:32 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-27 05:55 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Lucus Shalabanov <vuvsa@uouluos.ru> - 2025-06-27 09:07 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-28 00:28 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Oleg Tzeboev <vze@vovob.ru> - 2025-06-28 12:31 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-02 00:03 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Tyller Maksimchikov <il@yiil.ru> - 2025-07-02 18:01 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-02 22:06 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Luther Makhmutov <mkrm@tvml.ru> - 2025-07-03 19:09 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-03 14:28 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-03 23:11 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-04 11:55 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-04 21:32 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Anderw Bakadorov <aakwk@wdorn.ru> - 2025-07-04 21:31 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-04 15:02 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-04 15:05 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Vince Babakulov <ucbcubv@voobab.ru> - 2025-07-05 10:53 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-05 04:50 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Cesario Lokhanov <vaskail@rael.ru> - 2025-07-07 12:13 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-07 12:22 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-07 12:39 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Pat Ruzaev <ztuvu@aatz.ru> - 2025-07-07 20:33 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-07 13:42 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-28 18:18 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-28 23:06 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-28 17:58 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-12 05:19 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 08:00 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-15 20:48 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 22:16 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 15:53 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-16 14:50 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-23 10:44 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-23 10:47 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 05:06 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-16 14:40 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-16 15:23 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-17 21:43 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-18 06:22 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-18 13:32 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-18 15:35 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-18 13:40 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-18 15:43 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-18 13:46 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-18 16:11 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-18 14:14 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-18 16:20 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Johathan Bahmatoff <ohbj@toah.ru> - 2025-07-18 19:21 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-18 21:14 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-16 15:01 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2025-06-10 22:51 -0600
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-05 10:21 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Fonzie Mocharov <reovo@ainc.ru> - 2025-07-05 15:27 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2025-07-06 08:51 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-12 05:26 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-07-14 13:08 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-14 11:20 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 12:06 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 12:57 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 13:21 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-16 06:52 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-17 00:18 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-16 18:19 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-17 14:00 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-19 23:01 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 00:06 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-19 18:08 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 12:36 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 07:17 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Lenoy Balanowski <onloan@wyik.ru> - 2025-07-20 16:46 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-20 19:37 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 22:49 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 18:15 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-21 13:38 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-21 20:58 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-18 09:06 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-16 09:28 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jarvis Dobrov <vibba@vvdrbiorvd.ru> - 2026-02-16 17:02 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-17 00:28 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-16 17:06 -0800
Re: The Apollo moon landings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-16 22:06 -0800
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-17 17:34 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-17 18:45 +0100
Re: The Apollo moon landings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-17 10:15 -0800
Re: The Apollo moon landings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-17 10:29 -0800
Light (was: The Apollo moon landings) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-17 16:32 +0100
Re: Light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-02-17 09:47 -0800
Re: The Apollo moon landings Rayford Bakhmetov <hfeo@re.ru> - 2026-02-17 22:24 +0000
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-20 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rs9vkl-rb2c.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #665166 |
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> --
Arindam’s claim — that “Hubble can see objects less than a centimetre
in size on the Moon if properly utilised” — is factually incorrect and
demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of optical resolution limits,
even at the level of middle school arithmetic he invokes.
Evaluation of Arindam's Claim
False Claim:
Hubble cannot resolve objects as small as a centimeter on the
Moon — not even remotely close. This is a gross exaggeration.
Attempted Rhetorical Move:
Arindam appeals to “middle school level arithmetic,” but this is
a misleading appeal to simplicity. The reality involves angular
resolution limits, wave optics, and telescope aperture physics.
Satirical Tone:
The post ends in another of Arindam’s signature “WOOF woof-woof…”
closings, implying mockery or dismissal. It's unclear whether this
is meant to parody NASA or skeptics, but it contributes no substance.
Hubble’s Actual Resolution Limit
Let’s calculate the theoretical smallest object Hubble can resolve on
the Moon.
Key facts:
Hubble’s primary mirror diameter: 2.4 meters
Wavelength of visible light: ~550 nanometers (0.55 µm)
Distance to the Moon: 384,400 km
Formula (Rayleigh Criterion):
θ = 1.22⋅λ/D
Where:
θ is the angular resolution in radians
λ is the wavelength of light (550e-9 m)
D is the aperture diameter (2.4 m)
θ ≈ 1.22⋅550×10−9/2.4 ≈ 2.8×10−7 radians
To convert angular resolution into linear resolution on the Moon:
s = θ⋅d = 2.8×10−7⋅384,400,000 ≈ 107.6 meters
So the best-case resolution on the Moon for Hubble is ~100 meters.
Even with advanced image processing, you cannot resolve features
smaller than ~60–100 meters. No footprints. No flag. Not even the
lunar module (~4 meters across).
Conclusion
Arindam is wrong by a factor of roughly 10,000×.
His claim violates the diffraction limit of optics, and no “proper
utilisation” of Hubble could change this.
His appeal to "middle school arithmetic" ironically highlights the
lack of any such arithmetic in his argument.
His WOOF refrain masks the absence of physics.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-20 22:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <105jjqc$3hkf0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665166 |
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 θ = 1.22⋅λ/D where θ = angular resolution λ = wavelength D = diameter of aperture of telescope For visible light λ is in the order of 5000e-10 m θ = 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. θ = 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 θ = 2.078e-7 rad = 80 m one the Moon > > It could easily show the footprints in fair detail and the flag of > course had it really been planted on the Moon. > Can too, can too, can too, So there! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-20 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cea217dec2b5c9f10d53702af1961476@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #665166 |
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 --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-20 18:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hkg0ll-un3e.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #665173 |
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> --
Arindam’s response to the explanations about why the Hubble Space
Telescope cannot resolve Apollo landing sites is a dismissive insult,
not a counter-argument. Let’s break down what's happening here:
Content and Structure
“Looks like chaps here are far too stupid to apply middle school maths.”
This is:
Ad hominem: Insulting the intelligence of others instead of
addressing their reasoning.
Vague: No actual “middle school maths” is presented to counter
the original claims.
False implication of superiority: Suggests he understands something
others don't—but offers no evidence.
“No wonder they worship Chat not that they can grasp it's vomit.”
Another insult via association—calling reliance on AI tools like
ChatGPT “worship,” and their output “vomit.”
This adds nothing substantive to the issue; it's just rhetorical sneering.
“Sad.”
Truncated dismissal used for effect, mimicking the style of
contemptuous social media posts. This underscores disdain, not argument.
On the Actual Issue: Hubble and Apollo Sites
The posts Arindam is reacting to likely point out this well-understood fact:
The angular resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope, limited by
diffraction, is around 0.05 arcseconds in visible light.
The smallest object Hubble could resolve on the Moon, given its
distance (384,000 km), is about 85–100 meters across.
Apollo landers, at ~4 meters wide, are far too small for Hubble to resolve.
This is not controversial and is easily demonstrable using basic
optics—precisely the “middle school maths” Arindam invokes but fails to
apply.
What the Post Reveals
Projection: Arindam accuses others of lacking middle school math
skills, but avoids engaging with a quantitative explanation himself.
Confirmation of rhetorical pattern: He avoids empirical engagement and
replaces it with mockery, as seen in previous posts.
Irony: In attempting to portray himself as the only rational party,
he confirms the criticism of his being emotional, evasive, and
logically incoherent.
Conclusion
This response is pure contempt posing as critique. Arindam doesn’t refute
the factual, mathematical limits of the Hubble Space Telescope; he mocks
those who understand and explain them. His use of “middle school maths”
as a cudgel is ironic and hollow, given the absence of any applied math or
logic in his post.
In short:
No counter-evidence. No engagement. Just sneering dismissal.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 12:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <105l5ge$3teg0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665173 |
Den 21.07.2025 00:11, skrev Bertitaylor: > 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 θ = 1.22⋅λ/D >> where >> θ = angular resolution >> λ = wavelength >> D = diameter of aperture of telescope >> >> For visible light λ is in the order of 5000e-10 m >> θ = 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. >> >> θ = 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 >> θ = 2.078e-7 rad = 80 m one the Moon >> >>> >>> It could easily show the footprints in fair detail and the flag of >>> course had it really been planted on the Moon. >>> >> Can too, can too, can too, So there! 😂 >> Bertitaylor, in case you missed it: You are proven wrong! There is no way the Hubble could show footprints 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 people miss the fact that you are proven wrong? > > Sad. Rather pathetic. Why can't you accept the fact that you are wrong when the evidence is shoved into your face? Are you too stupid to understand the evidence? Was the middle school maths to difficult for you? > Whimp > > -- -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 09:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <me67kgFpm5vU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665142 |
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou: > Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit : >> >> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 07:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4865a74f5f3e8b3b41558620bd020e40@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #665188 |
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 7:16:24 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou: >> Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit : >>> >>> 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. Your assumption would be valid if they behaved more convincingly there. Woof woof woof-woof woof only Arindam's physics will make proper air and space travel possible. Bertietaylor > > > 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 --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 08:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <me8o23F7sp4U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665189 |
Am Montag000021, 21.07.2025 um 09:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
...
>>>
>>> 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.
>
Your 'they' means obviously the astronauts of the Apollo program.
'They' did not behave convincingly.
But 'they' were most likely not on the Moon.
On the Moon were the so called 'Ufos', which were invented in Nazi
Germany and called 'Haunebu IV' there.
This was a little earlier than the Apollo program and with a different
type of spacecraft.
About the behavior of those astronauts you know nothing at all.
The reason for 'Apollo' were possibly:
to hide free energy (used in the 'Haunebu')
to grab a few bucks (from the American people)
mocking of the general public
That's why they hired one of the worst of all Nazis (Wernher von Braun).
That sucker was actually part of the management of the worst of all
concentration camps ('Dora Mittelbau') and also a member of the SS.
...
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Beraldo Glubokovsky <olkv@ldel.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 11:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <105l7up$3u8gc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665188 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > 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. idiot, nothing. You only talk to protect your natzis. Only natzis in that shithole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 05:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ap1ll-ptlf.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #665188 |
In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
>> Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
>>>
>>> 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 circles—it
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 pseudoscience—usually 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 missions’ 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 context—taking
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 didn’t 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 Δv (change in velocity)
to reach lunar orbit. NASA’s calculations have been confirmed repeatedly.
Red Flag: No data or math shown. Appeals to authority via “I
calculated...” 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
low—it relies on unverified assertions, misinterpretations of science,
and discredited historical myths.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 10:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <687E7BAC.6D90@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #665188 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou: > > Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit : > >> > >> 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 -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 08:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <me8pqbF7sp4U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665200 |
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 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit : >>>> >>>> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | squalk <sq@net.inv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 20:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wfKcnV2DOugGd-L1nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #665207 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > 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 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> 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. > >------------------------------- Are you saying that a particular voyage didn't make it to the moon, or that none of them did? > TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-14 05:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <98d4ad57f97953b0fd7e58890b7913af@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #664109 |
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. WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor > when British astronomers Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson checked > out how starlight bent near the Sun - just like his General Theory > of Relativity said it would. When they announced the results in > London on November 6 and 8, 1919, it pretty much proved Einstein's > theory and instantly turned him into a worldwide sensation, with > news stories everywhere talking up a "revolution in science" and > the end of Newton’s old-school gravity. > >>Those who heap scorn on Einstein or heap praise on somebody >>who disagrees with him think that authority decides what >>is true. > > In some organizations and companies, that's just how it goes! > In science, it really shouldn't be that way. Outside of > organizations with power structures and outside the academic > world, there aren't any clear-cut rules, but there are still > laws, power structures, and unwritten codes and customs. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-22 18:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1039ugg$9su$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #664164 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-22 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4a81aaa4498cf1468e570fdfca5e9980@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #664479 |
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? >>> >>> 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. WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-22 17:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lcjmil-fck9.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #664481 |
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> 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? >>>> >>>> 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. > > WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof > > Bertietaylor The solar corona's refractive index is less than 1 because it's a plasma, and electromagnetic waves travel faster through plasma than through a vacuum due to their interaction with free electrons. This means any lensing due to the refractive index of the Sun's atmosphere would be going in the opposite direction than the gravity effects. So wrong again crackpot. -- penninojim@yahoo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-24 06:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dc10f832cb39778ae55c0030827e3828@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664484 |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 0:23:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> 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? >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof >> >> Bertietaylor > > The solar corona's refractive index is less than 1 because it's a > plasma, and electromagnetic waves travel faster through plasma than > through a vacuum due to their interaction with free electrons. > > This means any lensing due to the refractive index of the Sun's > atmosphere would be going in the opposite direction than the gravity > effects. > > So wrong again crackpot. Not so, fool. From net search: Light travelling through a plasma can move at speeds both slower and faster than the speed of light. Researchers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the University of Rochester in New York managed to fine-tune the speed of light waves within plasma to anywhere from around one-tenth of light's usual vacuum speed to more than 30 percent faster. ** Light travels upto .1c in plasma upto 1.3c from above. Basically that means that plasma retards light as it has a high refractive index. If it travels at greater than c, all that shows is light speed variance. Light from electrons moving at .3c will be having a speed of 1.3c This assuming that the scientists were not the usual Einstein-crazed bunglers. On the whole plasma has greater than 1 refractive index, so the lensing effect from the Sun's coroan and outside will certainly be there! woof woof woof woof woof woof - really we heavenhounds have our hands full trying to educate silly apes. Bertietaylor N > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-24 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pclqil-mbte.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #664523 |
In sci.physics bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 0:23:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > >> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof >>> >>> Bertietaylor >> >> The solar corona's refractive index is less than 1 because it's a >> plasma, and electromagnetic waves travel faster through plasma than >> through a vacuum due to their interaction with free electrons. >> >> This means any lensing due to the refractive index of the Sun's >> atmosphere would be going in the opposite direction than the gravity >> effects. >> >> So wrong again crackpot. > > Not so, fool. > > From net search: > > Light travelling through a plasma can move at speeds both slower and > faster than the speed of light. Researchers from Lawrence Livermore > National Laboratory in California and the University of Rochester in New > York managed to fine-tune the speed of light waves within plasma to > anywhere from around one-tenth of light's usual vacuum speed to more > than 30 percent faster. Yes, however the index of refraction of light through the Sun's plasma in particular has been calculated and measured with the measurements matching the calculations crackpot. <snip remaining delusional babble> -- penninojim@yahoo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-25 02:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fb126c801159a72bc9ef144566c87e03@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #664545 |
Frauds cook up result to suit their fraudulent theories. Disgusting! WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web