Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #893093 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-06-07 22:23 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-02-16 09:28 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 195 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 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 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-08 13:22 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-08 07:14 -0700
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) - 2025-06-10 23:14 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-10 18:41 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-04 00:54 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-03 18:23 -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 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 William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 16:15 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 19:04 -0500
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 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 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 22:23 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-12 22:16 +0000
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 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-10 01:29 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-06-09 19:53 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 12:15 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 06:43 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-15 14:07 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-15 07:44 -0700
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 David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-10 15:37 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 02:28 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-11 06:30 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-12 14:27 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-12 15:19 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-13 02:09 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-12 23:08 -0400
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-13 07:27 +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 David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2025-06-11 14:03 -0400
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 01:10 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-12 18:20 -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 Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-13 07:04 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-16 14:26 +0000
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 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 Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-13 15:09 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-13 13:34 +0000
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 Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-21 05:44 -0700
Re: The Apollo moon landings Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-22 08:30 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-22 06:41 -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 Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-25 06:49 +0200
Re: The Apollo moon landings Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-06-25 12:27 -0500
Re: The Apollo moon landings bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-02 22:07 +0000
Re: The Apollo moon landings nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-25 12:08 +0200
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 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 "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 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 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 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-18 09:34 -0800
Re: The Apollo moon landings nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-02-16 09:28 +0100
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 08:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <me8o23F7sp4U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #894114 |
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 | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 05:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ap1ll-ptlf.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #894113 |
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 | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <me8pa3F7sp4U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #894122 |
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 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.
>
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <k0h4ll-6eqj.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #894134 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> 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 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.
>>
>
>
> 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
1. Use of Rocket Equation (Tsiolkovsky's Formula)
Heger says he attempted to calculate whether the Lunar Module (LM)
"Eagle" had enough fuel to land using the rocket equation. He acknowledges
the difficulty of applying it due to the unique landing situation
(retro-thrust, low gravity, no atmospheric drag).
Assessment:
This shows a sincere effort to engage with the physics. However:
He does not provide actual numbers, assumptions, or delta-v values.
The LM's descent and ascent stages were separate, and each had its
own engine and fuel.
NASA's mission design included delta-v budgets, tested simulations,
and redundancies.
The claim that "no fuel was available for ascent" ignores that the
ascent stage had its own independent tank and engine.
Conclusion: His reasoning is incomplete and likely based on incorrect
or oversimplified modeling.
2. Claim About No External Navigation or Ground Control
"The restart manoeuvre itself was certainly difficult, because it
could not be assisted by any kind of ground control or external
navigation system..."
Assessment:
This misunderstands how inertial guidance systems worked (Apollo
had them).
The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) onboard both modules was
developed precisely to handle such autonomous control.
Radar and visual alignment were used for rendezvous.
Conclusion: Heger underestimates the onboard autonomy and overstates
the dependence on ground-based assistance.
3. Instability from Astronaut Movement or Rock Storage
"Any tiny error would make the capsule tip over to the side..."
Assessment:
The LM ascent stage did not rely on perfect balance during launch.
It was designed with thrust vector tolerance and low center of gravity.
Astronaut and rock mass was well within margin and accounted for
during engineering.
Conclusion: This is a highly speculative claim with no basis in the LM's
actual design parameters or performance tolerances.
4. "Rendezvous was impossible" Argument
"That was so insanely difficult, that I cannot believe it would have
been possible at all..."
Assessment:
Apollo practiced rendezvous procedures extensively in Earth orbit
and simulations.
Gemini missions successfully demonstrated these techniques in the
mid-1960s.
Lunar orbit rendezvous was complex but well within known orbital
mechanics.
Conclusion: This is an appeal to personal incredulity, not a valid
technical objection.
5. Conspiratorial Drift
"So, in effect... the pictures were fake... but the Nasa guys had
actually been to the Moon..."
Assessment:
This is an attempt at a middle-ground conspiracy: real landing,
fake photos.
Justification: military secrecy. No concrete evidence offered,
only suspicion.
The idea that astronauts made it to the Moon but filmed fakes on
Earth contradicts the massive volume of telemetry, rock samples,
and independent tracking by multiple nations.
Conclusion: This is a hybrid theory with no empirical support, emerging
more from distrust than data.
Thomas Heger’s post is a classic case of partial technical literacy
combined with intuitive doubt, leading to an elaborate but flawed
skepticism. It reflects effort but not rigor, curiosity but not
comprehension. His conclusions rest less on the physics or engineering
and more on a sense of “this seems too hard to be real,” which is a weak
foundation for denial of a well-documented historical and scientific
achievement.
--
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 | #894113 |
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 | #894127 |
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 | #894135 |
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 | #893189 |
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 | #893252 |
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 | #893518 |
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 | #893522 |
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 | #893523 |
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 | #893543 |
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 | #893554 |
Frauds cook up result to suit their fraudulent theories. Disgusting! WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-24 19:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <th3sil-s37h.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #893557 |
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: > Frauds cook up result to suit their fraudulent theories. Raving, delusional crackpots haven't the slightest clue about science of any kind. > > Disgusting! Hilarious. > > WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Lost all contact with reality. > > Bertietaylor Not fooling anyone Arindam. > > -- -- penninojim@yahoo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-25 06:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <184c2fe0b84b4b22$201669$2064386$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #893558 |
On 6/25/2025 4:29 AM, Jim Pennino wrote: > In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> Frauds cook up result to suit their fraudulent theories. > > Raving, delusional crackpots haven't the slightest clue about science of > any kind. And all they can ever do is chanting "whoever doesn't believe our beloved Shit of our beloved Giant Guru is a raving, delusional crackpot!!", combined with other insults and slanders.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-25 12:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <103hbij$18oko$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #893563 |
On 6/24/25 11:49 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 6/25/2025 4:29 AM, Jim Pennino wrote: >> In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >>> Frauds cook up result to suit their fraudulent theories. >> >> Raving, delusional crackpots haven't the slightest clue about science of >> any kind. > > And all they can ever do is chanting "whoever > doesn't believe our beloved Shit of our > beloved Giant Guru is a raving, delusional > crackpot!!", combined with other insults > and slanders. > Did your kibbutz get given by any Iranian gift?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-02 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <125a92e8126539c80d923b871d207c2a@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893558 |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 2:29:51 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote: > In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote: >> Frauds cook up result to suit their fraudulent theories. > > Raving, delusional crackpots haven't the slightest clue about science of > any kind. Quite, all establishment physicists are just that. > >> >> Disgusting! > > Hilarious. > >> >> WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof > > Lost all contact with reality. > >> >> Bertietaylor > > Not fooling anyone Arindam. > >> >> -- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-25 12:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1reh8v5.uxbx1g1yrqs7zN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #893554 |
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote: > 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. Indeed. In particular, it can be done with VLBI. The long baseline interference is sensitive enough to see gravitational deflection farther away from the sun, and the radio waves, unlike visible light, are sensitive to diffraction by solar plasma. All routine, nowadays, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-25 11:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <399ce3bd87d4406c3a6c252531017e86@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #893566 |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 10:08:25 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote: > >> 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. Who went up there with measurement equipment? Can't even measure the temperature 13KKm belowy my feet! > > Indeed. In particular, it can be done with VLBI. > The long baseline interference is sensitive enough > to see gravitational deflection farther away from the sun, > and the radio waves, unlike visible light, > are sensitive to diffraction by solar plasma. > > All routine, nowadays, Lying is standard activity for Einsteinians. > > Jan --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web