Groups > sci.physics > #865669 > unrolled thread

When will they admit that 1969 moon landings were done in some US desert?

Started by	Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
First post	2022-12-07 01:33 -0800
Last post	2022-12-14 18:03 -0800
Articles	20 on this page of 126 — 16 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →

#866076

From	Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
Date	2022-12-12 19:44 -0800
Message-ID	<9837e155-1131-47fd-94b7-2d149bce5bf1n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#866075

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 14:37:22 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 6:44:54 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 13:25:32 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 4:55:03 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > > On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 11:31:58 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > > > On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 12:55:11 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > All the astronauts back in 1969 had to do to prove they had been to the Moon was to pick up a rock and let it drop to the surface. 
> > > > > Well, they DID drop a hammer and a feather at the same time... guess what happened? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%20the,them%20at%20the%20same%20time. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Every time you open your mouth, Banjo-Boy, you stick your foot in it... as always... 
> > > 
> > > > I am talking about Apollo11, imbecile. 
> > > > By the time they got tp 15 their video tricks may have improved. 
> > > By the time they got to Apollo 15, your brain was already badly toasted... 
> > Yes, imbecile, so it was, like the rest of the brainwashed befooled world. 
> > What was badly toasted got reformed, after I discovered e=0.5mvvN(N-k) which shows that with effort and divine blessing from disorder we can get order.
> I never ran across anyone with a negative IQ until I ran into you, Arindam... you really are stump-stupid...
You describe yourself perfectly. You have no comprehension skills. Just as robotic as any human can get. Any mosquito is smarter than you. Now switch off and fuck off.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866083

From	Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com>
Date	2022-12-13 02:29 -0500
Message-ID	<tn99l8$1r12$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#866062

On 12/12/2022 7:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 11:31:58 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 12:55:11 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> All the astronauts back in 1969 had to do to prove they had been to the Moon was to pick up a rock and let it drop to the surface.
>> Well, they DID drop a hammer and a feather at the same time... guess what happened?
>>
>> https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%20the,them%20at%20the%20same%20time.
>>
>> Every time you open your mouth, Banjo-Boy, you stick your foot in it... as always...
> 
> I am talking about Apollo11, imbecile.
> By the time they got tp 15 their video tricks may have improved.
> 

THAT is your pathetic excuse of a response to the dropping of the hammer 
and feather?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866086

From	Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
Date	2022-12-13 00:04 -0800
Message-ID	<8f3d46af-9a3c-454d-9b15-fcbeb9fa5f72n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#866083

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:29:51 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 7:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 11:31:58 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 12:55:11 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> All the astronauts back in 1969 had to do to prove they had been to the Moon was to pick up a rock and let it drop to the surface. 
> >> Well, they DID drop a hammer and a feather at the same time... guess what happened? 

What happened?
> >> 
> >> https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%20the,them%20at%20the%20same%20time. 

Did that happen in 1969, the year of interest?
> >> 
> >> Every time you open your mouth, Banjo-Boy, you stick your foot in it... as always... 
> > 
> > I am talking about Apollo11, imbecile. 
> > By the time they got tp 15 their video tricks may have improved. 
> >
> THAT is your pathetic excuse of a response to the dropping of the hammer 
> and feather?
Why did they not jump six feet in the air and come down slowly, is my answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866087

From	Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
Date	2022-12-13 01:05 -0800
Message-ID	<fe8fc13c-b2c6-44c4-b1f5-bbf12f89b29en@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#866086

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 19:05:01 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:29:51 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > On 12/12/2022 7:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 11:31:58 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > >> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 12:55:11 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >>> All the astronauts back in 1969 had to do to prove they had been to the Moon was to pick up a rock and let it drop to the surface. 
> > >> Well, they DID drop a hammer and a feather at the same time... guess what happened?
> What happened? 
> > >> 
> > >> https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%20the,them%20at%20the%20same%20time. 

Well, opened that link, found some hazy photos.
I downloaded two movie files.
The video did not play.
But there was a nasal audio, saying they were trying to repeat what Galileo did predict would happen.
Most unconvincing, and this confirms the conspiracy theories, this dreadful subterfuge.
Why did they not jump six feet if they really went on the moon?  Why this hocus-pocus with hammer and feather, and NO VIDEO!?
I was expecting to see some video slowed down, but even that was not on.

> 
> Did that happen in 1969, the year of interest?
> > >> 
> > >> Every time you open your mouth, Banjo-Boy, you stick your foot in it... as always... 
> > > 
> > > I am talking about Apollo11, imbecile. 
> > > By the time they got tp 15 their video tricks may have improved. 
> > > 
> > THAT is your pathetic excuse of a response to the dropping of the hammer 
> > and feather?
> Why did they not jump six feet in the air and come down slowly, is my answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866130

From	Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com>
Date	2022-12-13 19:18 -0500
Message-ID	<tnb4np$3tl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#866087

On 12/13/2022 4:05 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 19:05:01 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:29:51 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2022 7:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 11:31:58 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 12:55:11 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All the astronauts back in 1969 had to do to prove they had been to the Moon was to pick up a rock and let it drop to the surface.
>>>>> Well, they DID drop a hammer and a feather at the same time... guess what happened?
>> What happened?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%20the,them%20at%20the%20same%20time.
> 
> Well, opened that link, found some hazy photos.
> I downloaded two movie files.
> The video did not play.
> But there was a nasal audio, saying they were trying to repeat what Galileo did predict would happen.
> Most unconvincing, and this confirms the conspiracy theories, this dreadful subterfuge.
> Why did they not jump six feet if they really went on the moon?  Why this hocus-pocus with hammer and feather, and NO VIDEO!?
> I was expecting to see some video slowed down, but even that was not on.

So you are blaming your defective computer on some conspiracy? I saw it 
just fine. Quit whining about conspiracies and fix your mistake, fix 
your computer!
> 
>>
>> Did that happen in 1969, the year of interest?

Why is "1969" the only year of interest? It's the event of interest, 
whether the US astronauts landed on the moon. The answer is yes if *any* 
of the 6 landings were real, not just one.  Another mistake of yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time you open your mouth, Banjo-Boy, you stick your foot in it... as always...
>>>>
>>>> I am talking about Apollo11, imbecile.
>>>> By the time they got tp 15 their video tricks may have improved.
>>>>
>>> THAT is your pathetic excuse of a response to the dropping of the hammer
>>> and feather?
>> Why did they not jump six feet in the air and come down slowly, is my answer.

Fix your computer and watch the feather and hammer drop slowly.
I notice the astronauts always bounce! I guess bouncing in low gravity 
is even easier than just walking! Conspiracy for you, Banjo. There were 
actually kangaroos in those spacesuits, hence all the bouncing. You must 
be an expert in kangaroos, you should have caught that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866138

From	Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
Date	2022-12-13 18:35 -0800
Message-ID	<5b0f5d5a-0e45-4da8-bee1-dc5e26d4069dn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#866130

On Wednesday, 14 December 2022 at 11:18:07 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/13/2022 4:05 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 19:05:01 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> >> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:29:51 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> >>> On 12/12/2022 7:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> >>>> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 11:31:58 UTC+11, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >>>>> On Monday, December 12, 2022 at 12:55:11 PM UTC-8, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> All the astronauts back in 1969 had to do to prove they had been to the Moon was to pick up a rock and let it drop to the surface. 
> >>>>> Well, they DID drop a hammer and a feather at the same time... guess what happened? 
> >> What happened? 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%20the,them%20at%20the%20same%20time. 
> > 
> > Well, opened that link, found some hazy photos. 
> > I downloaded two movie files. 
> > The video did not play. 
> > But there was a nasal audio, saying they were trying to repeat what Galileo did predict would happen. 
> > Most unconvincing, and this confirms the conspiracy theories, this dreadful subterfuge. 
> > Why did they not jump six feet if they really went on the moon? Why this hocus-pocus with hammer and feather, and NO VIDEO!? 
> > I was expecting to see some video slowed down, but even that was not on.
> So you are blaming your defective computer on some conspiracy? I saw it 
> just fine. Quit whining about conspiracies and fix your mistake, fix 
> your computer.

Nope, my computer is fine.  It runs Windows 10. 
Anyway, silly to do the hammer feather experiment on the moon when they could have jumped 6 feet  in the air.
Or thrown rocks around.
The more one seens the photos and videos, of the 1969 moon landings, the sicker one feels, at the level of fraud and duplicity committed and swallowed by the world.
> > 
> >> 
> >> Did that happen in 1969, the year of interest?
> Why is "1969" the only year of interest? 

Because that is when it first started and when the video tricks department was in its infancy.
So we have to focus on the 1969 photos and videos. Here there is obvious vulnerability.
Later stuff was better contrived, with better wires, lights, springs, etc. if not total graphic art (more likely) as video tech got better.  They had lots of money to pioneer the fakes. Probably done long before the astronauts were sent to orbit the Earth. I mean, is it such a big deal for Hollywood, with all their expertise in special effects.


> It's the event of interest, 
> whether the US astronauts landed on the moon. The answer is yes if *any* 
> of the 6 landings were real, not just one. Another mistake of yours.

No, no mistake.  When the first landing was faked, the later landings were also faked but maybe better presented with hammers and feathers to fool fools. Who dared not ask, why did they NOT throw rocks around, or whey did they NOT jump 6 feet into the air, out of sheer joy at being on the moon.

> >>>>> Every time you open your mouth, Banjo-Boy, you stick your foot in it... as always... 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I am talking about Apollo11, imbecile. 
> >>>> By the time they got tp 15 their video tricks may have improved. 
> >>>> 
> >>> THAT is your pathetic excuse of a response to the dropping of the hammer 
> >>> and feather? 
> >> Why did they not jump six feet in the air and come down slowly, is my answer.
> Fix your computer and watch the feather and hammer drop slowly. 
Irrelevant.
Very thin springs could be attached to them, inhibiting their fall.
All they have to do is jump up 6 feet and come down slowly.
Or throw rocks around.
Any kid would do that, on the moon.

> I notice the astronauts always bounce! I guess bouncing in low gravity 
> is even easier than just walking! 

They always bounce because bouncing is all they can do on planet Earth with its g of 9.8m/s/s.
They may also be helped by overhead wires for that, acting as springs.  They could pull you up, but the descent would not be so nice.  There would be a giveaway.


> Conspiracy for you, Banjo. There were 
> actually kangaroos in those spacesuits, hence all the bouncing. 

Kangaroos in spacesuits on the US desert - hmm, that is more plausible than USAns on the moon.
Ah well, you could train some top athlete to get that bouncy kanga quality.
Some Olympic winner, could come up with a good impersonation.
No need to know who actually was there in the suits.


You must 
> be an expert in kangaroos, you should have caught that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866009

From	Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com>
Date	2022-12-12 12:08 -0500
Message-ID	<tn7n5h$1il7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#866002

On 12/12/2022 3:08 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 12 December 2022 at 16:04:02 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 10:15 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 02:39:07 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2022 3:23 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 01:15:19 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/8/2022 2:33 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 8 December 2022 at 17:47:47 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 4:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 8 December 2022 at 03:37:22 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 4:33 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those three robots did not even land on the moon, assuming they got there, and that is a reasonable assumption maybe.
>>>>>>>>>> But 12 US astronauts did!
>>>>>>>>> And Huey, Louie and Dewey did not.
>>>>>>>> Which is true since they are cartoon characters, and none of the
>>>>>>>> astronauts were named Huey, Louie or Dewey.
>>>>>>> Moroney being a moron did not understand that I had named the three robots as cartoon characters.
>>>>>> What three robots?
>>>>>
>>>>> NASA said that in place of humans they will be sending three humanoid robots to the moon, in Artemis project.
>>>> No, they did not.
>>> They sent 3 mannequins I named Huey, Louie and Dewey in honor of Unca Donald.
>> A mannequin is not a robot. Since they have sensors in them they're more
>> like crash test dummies, but crash test dummies are still not robots.

> A mannequin looks like a humanoid. They are robotic to any extent, as a replacement for humans.

They are not robots.

> Calling them wannabe androids, that is robots of a sort, is not wrong.

It is very wrong. Robots do things. Mannequins don't.

> That their capacity does not exceed that of the dressmaker's dummy by far is a reflection of NASA incompetence.

It shows they are not robots. Besides, what was there for robots to do, 
since it was never intended to land on the moon. Flip switches or 
something? That's why NASA didn't use robots.

> It is also a giveaway.

It's a giveaway that you're a kook trying to argue this.

> If they indeed had sent 12 chaps to the Moon or out of Earth's orbit, then these mannequins with sensors would have been unnecessary.

They were using completely different technology from Apollo. Any number 
of things could have gone wrong. Don't risk human lives unnecessarily.

> So they did not go to the moon, nowhere near, with humans in 1969.

Does not follow. Especially since all the evidence shows we did go there.

> But, they may be planning to.  With such incompetents in charge, the outcome is doubtful.
> Let us see. If you make do it there, with or without humans, forget not to:
> 1. jump high up and come down slowly.  Keep on doing that.

They bounced around higher than expected for earth, plus returned to the 
surface much slower.  (oh here's where you write your claim the video 
was slowed down)

> 2. drop things, let us see them descend slowly to the surface

You didn't see the hammer/feather demo? Both descended slowly.
(here you insert your claim of slowing the video again)

> 3. show off the footprints and the stars

You've been whining about the footprint from the beginning!
Stars visible to the astronauts but too dim to show up for the camera 
settings. (things were bright there!)

> 4. construct a flag, and see whether it blows merrily in the wind, or not
> 5. take nice photos in special cameras that will show who is taking the great photos

??? You mean a smart phone with a selfie camera? The cameras were built 
into the spacesuits.

>>> I had thought these robots would at least do what had been done in 1969 - giving NASA the benefit of the great doubt.
>> They aren't robots.

> Nitpicking moron Moroney - nitpicking is all it can do.

Not nitpicking. They weren't robots. Period.

You can't admit you made a mistake. Just like your buddy Plutonium. If 
you admitted your mistake right away, nobody would remember it by now, 
thinking it was perhaps a language issue. But like Plutonium, you just 
kept digging. (Plutonium has spent YEARS digging his ellipse mistake, 
will you catch up to him one day?)

>>> That was the impression I got, for I had half-believed their story.
>>> They did go near the moon. So to the moon they went, as NASA said. NASA was not good enough to do a Lunakhod, evidently with robot drivers.
>>> I had not thought after all these decades they would do something this pointless, unless of course the entire Apollo stuff was a lot of lies. Which seems to be the case, as so many now conclude.
>> They were not confident enough with this new system to risk human lives
>> in it yet. Lesson learned in part from Apollo 1. Don't expose humans to
>> unnecessary risk.
> 
> In which case, give up on stupid rockets, which are for fireworks, you cowardly morons; not for space conquest.

Except we don't have any other technology to get into space.

> Yes they are at the Apollo 1 stage now, trying to see what happens when you get out of Earth as opposed to making it all up.

I see you didn't understand my Apollo 1 reference.

> If indeed they were at the Soviet 1970s stage they could have at least sent down a lunar module as had been done 50 years ago.

And they beat the Soviets by landing actual people on the moon! The 
Soviet effort to do so went pffffft! right after Apollo 11. No longer 
useful for propaganda, being #2 on the moon isn't a big success story 
when trying to convince people they were better than #1.

> That they did not do that, that this thingy was equivalent to sending probes to the planets, means that they have been lying for decades.

???? Does not follow, makes no sense.
>   
>>>>> At least that is the news I got some time back.
>>>> As usual, you are wrong.
>>> I am never wrong,
>> You are always wrong. In fact, if you posted "the sky is blue" I'd go
>> outside to take a look to check.
> 
> I would not say such a stupid thing,

You already do say such stupid things.

> for the sky is not always blue, but that sort of statement suits a moron like you, Moroney.
> And yes, I am never wrong, for that is just the way it is.

You just lied again.

>  When I make mistakes,

So now you admit being wrong right after saying you're never wrong.

> I correct them, to retain perfection within the parameters.

If you keep making mistakes, there is no perfection.

I see here your megalomania has confused you on this issue.

> However my mistakes

You admit to being wrong again.

>>>> Man, are you ignorant of the politics of the time. Both the US and
>>>> Soviet Union were out to prove themselves superior to each other, via
>>>> winning the space race. As in directly competing with each other. As I
>>>> said, each side was listening into the other's space chatter, and there
>>>> is no way in hell that either side could fake a moon mission without the
>>>> other knowing it. It was easy to eavesdrop, many amateur radio operators
>>>> listened in. The US listened in as a doomed cosmonaut cursed and
>>>> screamed after a failure which guaranteed he would impact earth at many
>>>> hundreds of mph, and he knew it. (The Soviets never admitted this
>>>> happened until the USSR breakup and lots of their secrets revealed)
>>>
>>> So what, the moon-landing-hoax space business was excellent for blackmail.
>> What blackmail? The only possibility of that is if one side caught the
>> other faking it and demanded a concession rather than broadcasting wide
>> and far they caught the other cheating. There was nothing that the USSR
>> wanted more than to catch the US cheating and telling the whole world
>> about it.
> 
> They wanted much more to screw the US for practical gains. Which will be secret.

Conspiracy theory hints. The secrets came out when the USSR fell. The 
USSR knew the US succeeded landing on the moon, and their AHA! moment 
never happened.

> Ditto for all the major powers.
> Anyway the USSR and USA never fought each other except by proxy.

And the space race was largely a proxy (technology instead of armies) 
bloodless Cold War battle.

> They were allies against the Nazis.

Hah!  The USSR and Nazi Germany were on the same side at first! Dividing 
up Poland between them, who knows what other evils were agreed on. The 
only reason the USSR fought the Nazis was the Nazis double crossed the 
USSR, broke the deal and attacked the USSR!

> So there was a lot of co-operation going on, and space was just another issue.  Both stood to gain from fooling the world about their technical abilities. No point pulling each other down.

Looking back the space race does seem foolish, but it was all about 
telling the world "we're better than you, just look what we can do!" 
Pulling each other down was the point. Rather more like outdoing the 
opponent just like in a footrace. Besides the space race was a good way 
to work on developing ICBMs.

> Lies repeated a trillion times in a billion ways become solid truth, for the vast bulk of the naturally moronic population.

But your own lies will get you nowhere.
>   
>> When the USSR fell, formerly secret documents revealed that the Soviets
>> knew the US did land on the moon, despite their best efforts at catching
>> the US cheating. Don't forget the USSR was fairly close to landing their
>> own men on the moon. They were the first there with an unmanned lander.
> 
> A bunch of lies.

That's what you spew, but that's besides the point.

> In 1969 everyone in power including the Soviets had accepted the moon landing hoax.

No, the fake moonlanding cranks didn't exist at the time.

> That despite no jumping up 6 feet

With double their own body mass they couldn't do much more than the 
obvious bouncing they were always doing.

> and no slow dropping of a ball,

They dropped a hammer and feather instead.

> and with the US flag fluttering merrily.

Explained in the refutation links you refuse to look at.

> The only dissenting elements I know about are the Muslims of Nowshera, who stopped going on a rioting rampage after they were told it was all a hoax,

So they were lied to in order to stop them. Gotcha.

>>> When the Soviets could inform the world that USA was a republic of liars, it would be a hit for them.
>> It sure would have been! And they tried their hardest to catch the US
>> cheating. But they couldn't. Because it was real.

> No it was not. Seen carefully it was just a huge hoax.

If it was, the Soviets would have screamed bloody murder how it was all 
a fake. They didn't.

>  The footprint,

As expected.

> the photo,

What photo?

> the flag - all show it was a lie.

Flag was explained.

>  No jumping up,

They couldn't bounce around on earth the way they did.

> no dropping a ball

This is the third time you repeated this mistake. Unless you want to 
whine "it was a hammer and feather, not a ball!"

> - also show they did not go there. Great photos, but no stars.

If the cameras' exposures were set so that you could see the stars, any 
image of the surface/astronauts/etc. would be WAYYYY overexposed. Any 
photographer could tell you that.

> Now that the USSR is gone, there is no point in keeping on with the hoax.

Except there was no hoax to keep going. The USSR knew that.
> 
>>> Amateur observers were the very first to note it was all a fake.
>> Completely wrong. Many amateurs listened in. Others observed the
>> spacecraft with telescopes. One telescopic observation helped save
>> Apollo 13. (NASA needed its exact position when it emerged from the far
>> side of the moon)
> 
> I was talking of amateur observers who saw the video, the photos, etc.

The pre-biased "everything's a conspiracy/the gummit always lies" 
'amateurs'? Hahaha! That's scraping the bottom of the barrel.

> Liars can say anything, but need not expect to be believed.

Yes liars like your 'amateurs' (and yourself) shouldn't be believed.
> 
>>> As my Muslim neighbours in Nowshera, who were about to start a communal right as the sacred Moon has been violated by impious American feet, were no doubt informed.
>> Backwards belief, but why lie to them? What did they do when they
>> learned 6 infidels stomped all over the moon?
> 
> They did nothing, when reliably informed that the infidels had NOT stomped on the moon, so any rioting to express their grief was pointless.

They were lied to, but did they do anything when they found out they 
were lied to and the infidels stomped their holy moon after all?
> 
>>> My father said after watching the video that had he been one of the astronauts, out of joy he would have jumped 6 feet as you could do on the Moon - if you get there that is. Why didn't they?
>> Maybe too dangerous, if they fell, too hard to get up in those clumsy
>> suits despite reduced gravity. But they were having fun bouncing around
>> rather than walking all the time.
> 
> They were strong people weighing only 60 pounds there with the suits.

So you admit they were on the moon?

> They were merely shuffling exactly as they would on Earth, pretending to be on the moon.

And bouncing higher than they would on earth, and coming down slower.

> They would have fallen down very slowly, no chance of them getting hurt, and every joy to all on Earth with such a feat.

It was more a matter of getting back up in those clumsy suits.

>  They were cowards, then, for not trying this simple feat.

Probably explicitly told not to do so for their safety.
> 
>>> Answer is that they were not on the Moon and you cannot jump 6 feet on Earth in a 180lb suit (or less, much less). If they used ropes and jumpy cranes that could be a giveaway, like the flag blowing in the wind.
>> How did they bounce around on earth the way they did with those 180 lb
>> (or whatever) suits?
> 
> They were strong people who could manage that.

All the time? And how could they fake their slower descent?

>  The weight was evenly distributed, so not such a pain.

Except for the mass on their backs.

>  And no point of carrying a 180 pound suit on Earth!  Could be just 20 lb.

Assuming your conclusion.
They needed the 180 lbs on the moon.

>  You can bounce around in a 20 lb suit.

On the moon, sure.

> And take great photos too!  Just as they did.

Because they were on the moon.
> 
> Why did they not drop a ball or their camera on the surface?

The fourth time you made this mistake!
(and the cameras were built into the spacesuits, they couldn't drop them)

>  You cannot fake the slow descent to the ground on Earth, so they did not do it.

They did it with a hammer and feather instead. Showing they really were 
on the moon (or place with 1/6 gravity).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866010

From	Darron Riva <orvd@raria.ar>
Date	2022-12-12 17:17 +0000
Message-ID	<tn7nmp$291f2$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#866009

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 12/12/2022 3:08 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> That their capacity does not exceed that of the dressmaker's dummy by
>> far is a reflection of NASA incompetence.
> 
> It shows they are not robots. Besides, what was there for robots to do,
> since it was never intended to land on the moon. Flip switches or
> something? That's why NASA didn't use robots.

but the people of europe are supporting Russia, you idiot. Only the paid 
politicians are lying supporting america and the khazar nazi uk pigs. The 
can't support *terrorists*, and of course are not saying it. Because their 
*socialist* state wages paid by EU and their state, depends on their lies, 
which otherwise they are kicked out without wages as *state_salariats*. 

yes, the love *socialism*, but that to be only for them, and not for 
everybody. It explains why so many *gays_and_homos* ravages into politics, 
killing children and people with "vaccines".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866033

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2022-12-12 14:20 -0600
Message-ID	<jvpgoiF6s6eU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#866010

On 12/12/2022 11:17 AM, Darron Riva wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
>> On 12/12/2022 3:08 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> That their capacity does not exceed that of the dressmaker's dummy by
>>> far is a reflection of NASA incompetence.
>>
>> It shows they are not robots. Besides, what was there for robots to do,
>> since it was never intended to land on the moon. Flip switches or
>> something? That's why NASA didn't use robots.
> 
> but the people of europe are supporting Russia, you idiot. Only the paid
> politicians are lying supporting america and the khazar nazi uk pigs. The
> can't support *terrorists*, and of course are not saying it. Because their
> *socialist* state wages paid by EU and their state, depends on their lies,
> which otherwise they are kicked out without wages as *state_salariats*.
> 
> yes, the love *socialism*, but that to be only for them, and not for
> everybody. It explains why so many *gays_and_homos* ravages into politics,
> killing children and people with "vaccines".

Aren't you "sniffles" with your big plans and advanced thinking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuJjs8TE_sM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866003 — Banerjee is no rocket scientist.

From	"Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me>
Date	2022-12-12 05:08 -0800
Subject	Banerjee is no rocket scientist.
Message-ID	<Jeff-Relf.Me@Dec.12--5.08am.Seattle.2022>
In reply to	#865997

Banerjee is no rocket scientist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866005 — Re: Banerjee is no rocket scientist.

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2022-12-12 07:46 -0600
Subject	Re: Banerjee is no rocket scientist.
Message-ID	<jvopmdF3aj2U5@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#866003

On 12/12/2022 7:08 AM, Relf wrote:
> Banerjee is no rocket scientist.

Cranks aren't scientists of any sort.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866037 — Re: Banerjee is no rocket scientist.

From	Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
Date	2022-12-12 12:45 -0800
Subject	Re: Banerjee is no rocket scientist.
Message-ID	<65bf2933-c02d-4bb8-a4bf-bb97c3025b0dn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#866005

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 00:47:00 UTC+11, whodat wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 7:08 AM, Relf wrote: 
> > Banerjee is no rocket scientist.
> Cranks aren't scientists of any sort
Rockets are for fireworks.
As for long (since 2000) has been said by
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole god among lotsa devils.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866046

From	Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
Date	2022-12-12 13:26 -0800
Message-ID	<33ead71c-ea12-48e3-93a5-83ec7bf827c8n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#865997

> > 
> >> Fooling the third world was limited to trying to convince thirdworlders 
> >> that siding with "us" was much better than siding with "them" or not 
> >> taking sides. Part of the reason why the Soviets were so friendly to you. 

No, fooling the thirdworld meant showing technical supremacy and thus the excuse to steal the top brains. 
The migrants did not know they were working for fakes.
 
> > The Soviets sent in the nuclear subs to the Bay of Bengal in 1971, to send back the US 7th fleet bent on attacking India, and for that Russia has undying Indian gratitude.
> Of course the USSR (not Russia) only had their own goals in mind, never 
> India's. Their goal was to stare down the US.
The USSR was India's only support when Bangladesh was liberated. Pakistan was the darling of the US and the anti-Hindu West as well. When genocide was committed by the Pakistanis, when millions of people were driven out, the West did not care one bit.  The USSR helped India with their veto in the UN.

> > They were not racist genocidal bigots stewed in hypocrisy like US elites, and their wannabes. Great bonding factor between the Russians and the thirdworld.
> These days freaking Russia is one of the most racist, bigoted countries 
> around! Listen to them talk about Ukraine and their reasons for 
> invading. Look who gets conscripted. Ethnic Russians from Moscow and St. 
> Petersburg? No, it's the minorities (of which Russia has many), 
> especially Asians from the east. The Soviet Union was even worse. Many 
> many ethnic groups deported to Siberia or Kazakhstan.

Bullshit. Russia was supposed to be crushed by sanctions, Putin was about to die or be toppled. 
All lies.
Not a word from the West and their reps like you need be believed.

> >> The individual people, sure. But this was the height of the cold war and 
> >> likely MAD was what saved us from the crazed leaders. 
> > 
> > The craziness was entirely on the American side. The Soviets were always defensive.
> No way, they had spies and disrupters everywhere. Russians still do.

And Americans don't?  What about you?  What about the troll Archie?  What about the entire mainstream US media and academia?  
That lot will only publish or support what suits them. No free speech at all.  For that matter, no freedom at all.  You can be killed, shot, etc. just like that!  So many are in jail.

> >> Enough so that we didn't nuke each other, especially by accident. The 
> >> space race may have been a way for the "superpowers" to compete without 
> >> demonstrating their nukes over each other's cities, the space race was 
> >> largely harmless. 
> > 
> > No, it did give the wrong impression that men or machines made it to the moon. While it heightened prestige, there will be a fallout. Liars cannot expect to be believed. 
> > It harmed science. Science is based upon truth and trust. I do not trust NASA, nor see why anyone should.
> You are a nobody of science, nobody cares whom you trust. Actual 
> scientists know there were many moon landings and many kg of moon rocks.

True that in this corrupt world of physics, I am a nobody, and that is exactly what I want to be, among them. I have nothing to do with physicists, for they are contemptible as they ignore me and my revolutionary work.  They are thus anti-science.
Still, it just so happens that online exists, and I use youtube, facebook and usenet to publish my discoveries, inventions, blogs, articles, etc.
The world can read them, and come to the inevitable conclusions about myself.  
Surly liars can only snarl like the moron Moroney, with its denial tactics.

> >> Of course, thousands and thousands of NASA employees faking the moon 
> >> missions without it leaking that they did so, or deathbed confessions? 
> >> And equally many Soviet workers? And the hams listening in? Absurd. 

When the whole US system is corrupt to the core, with murder as the standard tactic, with Deep State Devils in charge, even charges of presidential elections getting stolen, this is far from surprising.  People shut up as they have been paid to, or for fear of their lives.  We all know what is happening to Assange.
 
> > Since I know how easily possible it is to bully and strangle dissenting voices, that is no wonder.
> Sorry, conspiracies simply don't work when there are that many people 
> who are in on it.

Hardly matters when they are all willfully blind, as they are to my works.
They all ignore it.
They are all corrupt now, and they were all corrupt then. 

> >> I saw it live as well. I also saw the conspiracy theories and knew 
> >> quickly half of them were simply wrong. Reading elsewhere I learned why 
> >> the other half were wrong as well. Yet the conspiracy kooks keep 
> >> trotting the same crap forth. 
> > 
> > See, you are just denying, like every brainwashed moron. And there are so many like you, which is why the Western systems work.
> That's the best answer that you have? Fail.
> > 
> >> Nothing wrong with the footprint. 
> > 
> > More denial. 360 pound/6 = 60 lb or 27Kg. It simply cannot make such a deep indentation on a surface where the landers' feet have not sunk at all,
> They did sink in.
No. 
Photos show otherwise. Shows the feet nicely placed on the soil, just as it would be on Earth.  No sinking in.

> > and where the surface has not been blown away, indicating it is well-packed as on Earth. And that is OK, when it is 360lb on the Earth, you can make such deep indents. 
> > When I walk on a wet beach, I do not make such deep indents. And I am only 240lb.
> The moon isn't wet, fool. The surface dust experiences 1/6 gravity as 
> well so never packed down in the first place. It is extremely fine. 

Moron, one makes indents on wet beaches, not on normal soil. Yes the moon's gravity is 1/6 so the astronauts could have jumped up 6 feet and landed very slowly.  Or just picked up a stone and let it drop. As the whole thing was a hoax, they could not do that for if they did they would get exposed.  
The soft soil was like a wet beach, so it could give the kind of footprints that I make on the beach.

> Wet beach is a poor example. The water binds sand grains together 
> somewhat. Don't believe me, compare a wet beach to a dry beach.

If 200lb people walked with fat shoes on a dry beach (or sandy desert somewhere in the US) they would make the same sort of footprint.

> >> As to the astronauts leaning forward, that wouldn't be due to the weight 
> >> but by being off balance if they stood up straight. How much of that 180 
> >> lbs (on earth) was in that backpack? If they stood up straight, the 
> >> backpack's weight would have made them fall over backwards, even on the 
> >> moon. 
> > 
> > Heh, you are thinking they were on Earth, for indeed they were, as they stood exactly as they should if they carried some weight. Not 180lb of course, but at least 80lb.
> They were carrying weight, even if only ~25 lbs equivalent. A man 
> standing vertically would still be unbalanced with the backpack's 
> weight. Don't forget the astronauts themselves weigh less, they have to 
> lean forward more than on earth to counter that 25 lb on their back.

Ridiculous. Pathetic.
If they overall weighed 60 lb with the strength of 180lb they would not just be standing straight, but jumping up and down with the greatest glee.
> > 
> > 
> >>> As lying is the top quality in science these days - for which reason, as I cannot lie, 
> >> All you do here is lie. 

That is what you do, and that is what I expose.  So your above statement is a lie.
> > 
> > I never lie.
> That itself is a lie, liar.

You have not found a single one, liar. 
You lie to support of the important American frauds.
Patriotic, but evil.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866056

From	Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com>
Date	2022-12-12 18:51 -0500
Message-ID	<tn8epd$tj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#866046

On 12/12/2022 4:26 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>> Fooling the third world was limited to trying to convince thirdworlders
>>>> that siding with "us" was much better than siding with "them" or not
>>>> taking sides. Part of the reason why the Soviets were so friendly to you.
> 
> No, fooling the thirdworld meant showing technical supremacy and thus the excuse to steal the top brains.
> The migrants did not know they were working for fakes.

If they were any good, they'd figure it out quickly.
No need for fakery since the US and USSR were already more advanced than 
the third world.

>>> They were not racist genocidal bigots stewed in hypocrisy like US elites, and their wannabes. Great bonding factor between the Russians and the thirdworld.
>> These days freaking Russia is one of the most racist, bigoted countries
>> around! Listen to them talk about Ukraine and their reasons for
>> invading. Look who gets conscripted. Ethnic Russians from Moscow and St.
>> Petersburg? No, it's the minorities (of which Russia has many),
>> especially Asians from the east. The Soviet Union was even worse. Many
>> many ethnic groups deported to Siberia or Kazakhstan.
> 
> Bullshit.

Nope. Look at what the USSR (esp. Stalin) did. Moved all Germans out 
from eastern Europe, esp. Kaliningrad and the parts of Germany given to 
Poland, Poles from the part of Poland grabbed by USSR, Tatars from 
Crimea (guess why Crimea has so many ethnic Russians, they moved into 
vacant Tatar villages) plus many more. "Mobilized" Russians com 
disproportionately from Asia and much fewer ethnic Russians.

> Russia was supposed to be crushed by sanctions,

Sanctions take a long time to work. But now Moscow malls are burning 
(insurance fraud?) because non-Russian companies pulled out and the 
remaining stores can't get sanctioned stuff. Two Moscow malls burned 
during the last 3 days.

More importantly Russia can't get high tech stuff for their replacement 
weapons. They do get some, black markets do exist, of course.

> Putin was about to die or be toppled.

Putin's medical condition may be wishful thinking but he does seem to 
have strange symptoms. Compared to Iran (violent protests over an 
Islamic dress code arrest and death), and China over Covid restrictions, 
Russia must be all sheeple with mobilized either going or running away, 
no significant protests, even after nearly 100,000 dead soldiers. So 
Putin lives on.

> All lies.

Sanctions are working as expected. Russians are sheeple, so he may 
remain in power longer than expected.


>>> The craziness was entirely on the American side. The Soviets were always defensive.
>> No way, they had spies and disrupters everywhere. Russians still do.
> 
> And Americans don't?

Of course they do. Your claim was the USSR/Russia was defensive when 
they certainly were/are not.

>>>> Enough so that we didn't nuke each other, especially by accident. The
>>>> space race may have been a way for the "superpowers" to compete without
>>>> demonstrating their nukes over each other's cities, the space race was
>>>> largely harmless.
>>>
>>> No, it did give the wrong impression that men or machines made it to the moon. While it heightened prestige, there will be a fallout. Liars cannot expect to be believed.
>>> It harmed science. Science is based upon truth and trust. I do not trust NASA, nor see why anyone should.
>> You are a nobody of science, nobody cares whom you trust. Actual
>> scientists know there were many moon landings and many kg of moon rocks.
> 
> True that in this corrupt world of physics, I am a nobody, and that is exactly what I want to be, among them. I have nothing to do with physicists, for they are contemptible as they ignore me and my revolutionary work.

Fake garbage.

>  They are thus anti-science.

If you were "pro science" you could do MUCH better than your crashing 
"armatures" by collecting and providing MUCH better data than "watch my 
video and believe my lies as I describe what happens".

> Still, it just so happens that online exists, and I use youtube, facebook and usenet to publish my discoveries, inventions, blogs, articles, etc.

And you really think people will be looking through old Facebook posts 
for innovative discoveries? You're just like Archie (again), who thinks 
Google's archiving of Usenet will preserve his discoveries.

> The world can read them, and come to the inevitable conclusions about myself.

That you are a crank, yes.

> Surly liars can only snarl like the moron Moroney, with its denial tactics.

Whine whine whine. That won't help your crap get recognized.
> 
>>>> Of course, thousands and thousands of NASA employees faking the moon
>>>> missions without it leaking that they did so, or deathbed confessions?
>>>> And equally many Soviet workers? And the hams listening in? Absurd.
> 
> When the whole US system is corrupt to the core, with murder as the standard tactic, with Deep State Devils in charge, even charges of presidential elections getting stolen, this is far from surprising.

It would get out.

>  People shut up as they have been paid to, or for fear of their lives.

No deathbed confessions? Money or fear of their lives (from whom?) is no 
longer relevant, and many people are really bothered by bad things they 
did (like faking a moon landing, if they took part in such a thing)

>>> Since I know how easily possible it is to bully and strangle dissenting voices, that is no wonder.
>> Sorry, conspiracies simply don't work when there are that many people
>> who are in on it.
> 
> Hardly matters when they are all willfully blind,

Thousands and thousands "willfully blind"? Sorry, won't happen.

> as they are to my works.
> They all ignore it.

Completely different since your crap deserves to be ignored.

> They are all corrupt now, and they were all corrupt then.

But where are the deathbed confessions of their corruption?
> 
>>>> I saw it live as well. I also saw the conspiracy theories and knew
>>>> quickly half of them were simply wrong. Reading elsewhere I learned why
>>>> the other half were wrong as well. Yet the conspiracy kooks keep
>>>> trotting the same crap forth.
>>>
>>> See, you are just denying, like every brainwashed moron. And there are so many like you, which is why the Western systems work.
>> That's the best answer that you have? Fail.
>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong with the footprint.
>>>
>>> More denial. 360 pound/6 = 60 lb or 27Kg. It simply cannot make such a deep indentation on a surface where the landers' feet have not sunk at all,
>> They did sink in.
> No.
> Photos show otherwise. Shows the feet nicely placed on the soil, just as it would be on Earth.  No sinking in.

I looked up the properties of lunar regolith and despite being extremely 
fine (half the mass <50 micron dust), it was all highly angular and 
interlocking, plus some larger stuff below the topmost surface, so did 
support weight.

> Yes the moon's gravity is 1/6 so the astronauts could have jumped up 6 feet and landed very slowly.  Or just picked up a stone and let it drop.

Fifth time for that mistake! Oh it was a hammer and feather, not a 
stone, that's different. Right?

> As the whole thing was a hoax, they could not do that for if they did they would get exposed.

Since they did it, they were exposed, right?

(also observe the parabolic dust sprays from the wheels of the moon 
buggies. You can figure out local g from them)

> The soft soil was like a wet beach, so it could give the kind of footprints that I make on the beach.
> 
>> Wet beach is a poor example. The water binds sand grains together
>> somewhat. Don't believe me, compare a wet beach to a dry beach.
> 
> If 200lb people walked with fat shoes on a dry beach (or sandy desert somewhere in the US) they would make the same sort of footprint.
> 
I wasn't talking about normal soil. I was talking about dry sand 
beaches. I don't know what kind of beaches you have in Oz or India but I 
wouldn't expect the dry sand portion away from the ocean except severe 
storms to be different. You do sink in differently from wet sand.

>>>> As to the astronauts leaning forward, that wouldn't be due to the weight
>>>> but by being off balance if they stood up straight. How much of that 180
>>>> lbs (on earth) was in that backpack? If they stood up straight, the
>>>> backpack's weight would have made them fall over backwards, even on the
>>>> moon.
>>>
>>> Heh, you are thinking they were on Earth, for indeed they were, as they stood exactly as they should if they carried some weight. Not 180lb of course, but at least 80lb.
>> They were carrying weight, even if only ~25 lbs equivalent. A man
>> standing vertically would still be unbalanced with the backpack's
>> weight. Don't forget the astronauts themselves weigh less, they have to
>> lean forward more than on earth to counter that 25 lb on their back.
> 
> Ridiculous. Pathetic.

How so?

> If they overall weighed 60 lb with the strength of 180lb they would not just be standing straight, but jumping up and down with the greatest glee.

Oh they seem to have lots of fun jumping around like they couldn't do on 
earth!
>>>
>>>
>>>>> As lying is the top quality in science these days - for which reason, as I cannot lie,
>>>> All you do here is lie.
> 
> That is what you do, and that is what I expose.  So your above statement is a lie.
>>>
>>> I never lie.
>> That itself is a lie, liar.
> 
> You have not found a single one, liar.

That itself is also a lie, liar.

> You lie to support of the important American frauds.
> Patriotic, but evil.

Liar (again!).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866057

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2022-12-12 18:15 -0600
Message-ID	<jvpugrF91aoU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#866056

On 12/12/2022 5:51 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 4:26 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Fooling the third world was limited to trying to convince 
>>>>> thirdworlders
>>>>> that siding with "us" was much better than siding with "them" or not
>>>>> taking sides. Part of the reason why the Soviets were so friendly 
>>>>> to you.
>>
>> No, fooling the thirdworld meant showing technical supremacy and thus 
>> the excuse to steal the top brains.
>> The migrants did not know they were working for fakes.
> 
> If they were any good, they'd figure it out quickly.
> No need for fakery since the US and USSR were already more advanced than 
> the third world.
> 
>>>> They were not racist genocidal bigots stewed in hypocrisy like US 
>>>> elites, and their wannabes. Great bonding factor between the 
>>>> Russians and the thirdworld.
>>> These days freaking Russia is one of the most racist, bigoted countries
>>> around! Listen to them talk about Ukraine and their reasons for
>>> invading. Look who gets conscripted. Ethnic Russians from Moscow and St.
>>> Petersburg? No, it's the minorities (of which Russia has many),
>>> especially Asians from the east. The Soviet Union was even worse. Many
>>> many ethnic groups deported to Siberia or Kazakhstan.
>>
>> Bullshit.
> 
> Nope. Look at what the USSR (esp. Stalin) did. Moved all Germans out 
> from eastern Europe, esp. Kaliningrad and the parts of Germany given to 
> Poland, Poles from the part of Poland grabbed by USSR, Tatars from 
> Crimea (guess why Crimea has so many ethnic Russians, they moved into 
> vacant Tatar villages) plus many more. "Mobilized" Russians com 
> disproportionately from Asia and much fewer ethnic Russians.
> 
>> Russia was supposed to be crushed by sanctions,
> 
> Sanctions take a long time to work. But now Moscow malls are burning 
> (insurance fraud?) because non-Russian companies pulled out and the 
> remaining stores can't get sanctioned stuff. Two Moscow malls burned 
> during the last 3 days.
> 
> More importantly Russia can't get high tech stuff for their replacement 
> weapons. They do get some, black markets do exist, of course.
> 
>> Putin was about to die or be toppled.
> 
> Putin's medical condition may be wishful thinking but he does seem to 
> have strange symptoms. Compared to Iran (violent protests over an 
> Islamic dress code arrest and death), and China over Covid restrictions, 
> Russia must be all sheeple with mobilized either going or running away, 
> no significant protests, even after nearly 100,000 dead soldiers. So 
> Putin lives on.
> 
>> All lies.
> 
> Sanctions are working as expected. Russians are sheeple, so he may 
> remain in power longer than expected.
> 
> 
>>>> The craziness was entirely on the American side. The Soviets were 
>>>> always defensive.
>>> No way, they had spies and disrupters everywhere. Russians still do.
>>
>> And Americans don't?
> 
> Of course they do. Your claim was the USSR/Russia was defensive when 
> they certainly were/are not.
> 
>>>>> Enough so that we didn't nuke each other, especially by accident. The
>>>>> space race may have been a way for the "superpowers" to compete 
>>>>> without
>>>>> demonstrating their nukes over each other's cities, the space race was
>>>>> largely harmless.
>>>>
>>>> No, it did give the wrong impression that men or machines made it to 
>>>> the moon. While it heightened prestige, there will be a fallout. 
>>>> Liars cannot expect to be believed.
>>>> It harmed science. Science is based upon truth and trust. I do not 
>>>> trust NASA, nor see why anyone should.
>>> You are a nobody of science, nobody cares whom you trust. Actual
>>> scientists know there were many moon landings and many kg of moon rocks.
>>
>> True that in this corrupt world of physics, I am a nobody, and that is 
>> exactly what I want to be, among them. I have nothing to do with 
>> physicists, for they are contemptible as they ignore me and my 
>> revolutionary work.
> 
> Fake garbage.
> 
>>  They are thus anti-science.
> 
> If you were "pro science" you could do MUCH better than your crashing 
> "armatures" by collecting and providing MUCH better data than "watch my 
> video and believe my lies as I describe what happens".






Mama has him on a strict almost zero budget. He had to utilize the
scraps from the kitchen floor replacement that she approved of for his
most recent "demonstrations." She knows better than to throw good money
after a bad investment. He must obey since he's a kept man and she's the
breadwinner in the household.

I still don't know why he didn't do the obvious demonstration, that is
to suspend his "armature" on wires, hit it with power, and demonstrate
that some sort of thrust moved the armature.

Probably because it doesn't work and the results would be so clear that
even the ordinary uneducated (ineducable according to UA) pedestrian
would figure that out. If any thrust at all were developed this would be
a nice way to demonstrate it. So we can be certain Banerjee knows and
continues with his attempted fraud. He has no value other than his
fraud.






>> Still, it just so happens that online exists, and I use youtube, 
>> facebook and usenet to publish my discoveries, inventions, blogs, 
>> articles, etc.
> 
> And you really think people will be looking through old Facebook posts 
> for innovative discoveries? You're just like Archie (again), who thinks 
> Google's archiving of Usenet will preserve his discoveries.
> 
>> The world can read them, and come to the inevitable conclusions about 
>> myself.
> 
> That you are a crank, yes.
> 
>> Surly liars can only snarl like the moron Moroney, with its denial 
>> tactics.
> 
> Whine whine whine. That won't help your crap get recognized.
>>
>>>>> Of course, thousands and thousands of NASA employees faking the moon
>>>>> missions without it leaking that they did so, or deathbed confessions?
>>>>> And equally many Soviet workers? And the hams listening in? Absurd.
>>
>> When the whole US system is corrupt to the core, with murder as the 
>> standard tactic, with Deep State Devils in charge, even charges of 
>> presidential elections getting stolen, this is far from surprising.
> 
> It would get out.
> 
>>  People shut up as they have been paid to, or for fear of their lives.
> 
> No deathbed confessions? Money or fear of their lives (from whom?) is no 
> longer relevant, and many people are really bothered by bad things they 
> did (like faking a moon landing, if they took part in such a thing)
> 
>>>> Since I know how easily possible it is to bully and strangle 
>>>> dissenting voices, that is no wonder.
>>> Sorry, conspiracies simply don't work when there are that many people
>>> who are in on it.
>>
>> Hardly matters when they are all willfully blind,
> 
> Thousands and thousands "willfully blind"? Sorry, won't happen.
> 
>> as they are to my works.
>> They all ignore it.
> 
> Completely different since your crap deserves to be ignored.
> 
>> They are all corrupt now, and they were all corrupt then.
> 
> But where are the deathbed confessions of their corruption?
>>
>>>>> I saw it live as well. I also saw the conspiracy theories and knew
>>>>> quickly half of them were simply wrong. Reading elsewhere I learned 
>>>>> why
>>>>> the other half were wrong as well. Yet the conspiracy kooks keep
>>>>> trotting the same crap forth.
>>>>
>>>> See, you are just denying, like every brainwashed moron. And there 
>>>> are so many like you, which is why the Western systems work.
>>> That's the best answer that you have? Fail.
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong with the footprint.
>>>>
>>>> More denial. 360 pound/6 = 60 lb or 27Kg. It simply cannot make such 
>>>> a deep indentation on a surface where the landers' feet have not 
>>>> sunk at all,
>>> They did sink in.
>> No.
>> Photos show otherwise. Shows the feet nicely placed on the soil, just 
>> as it would be on Earth.  No sinking in.
> 
> I looked up the properties of lunar regolith and despite being extremely 
> fine (half the mass <50 micron dust), it was all highly angular and 
> interlocking, plus some larger stuff below the topmost surface, so did 
> support weight.
> 
>> Yes the moon's gravity is 1/6 so the astronauts could have jumped up 6 
>> feet and landed very slowly.  Or just picked up a stone and let it drop.
> 
> Fifth time for that mistake! Oh it was a hammer and feather, not a 
> stone, that's different. Right?
> 
>> As the whole thing was a hoax, they could not do that for if they did 
>> they would get exposed.
> 
> Since they did it, they were exposed, right?
> 
> (also observe the parabolic dust sprays from the wheels of the moon 
> buggies. You can figure out local g from them)
> 
>> The soft soil was like a wet beach, so it could give the kind of 
>> footprints that I make on the beach.
>>
>>> Wet beach is a poor example. The water binds sand grains together
>>> somewhat. Don't believe me, compare a wet beach to a dry beach.
>>
>> If 200lb people walked with fat shoes on a dry beach (or sandy desert 
>> somewhere in the US) they would make the same sort of footprint.
>>
> I wasn't talking about normal soil. I was talking about dry sand 
> beaches. I don't know what kind of beaches you have in Oz or India but I 
> wouldn't expect the dry sand portion away from the ocean except severe 
> storms to be different. You do sink in differently from wet sand.
> 
>>>>> As to the astronauts leaning forward, that wouldn't be due to the 
>>>>> weight
>>>>> but by being off balance if they stood up straight. How much of 
>>>>> that 180
>>>>> lbs (on earth) was in that backpack? If they stood up straight, the
>>>>> backpack's weight would have made them fall over backwards, even on 
>>>>> the
>>>>> moon.
>>>>
>>>> Heh, you are thinking they were on Earth, for indeed they were, as 
>>>> they stood exactly as they should if they carried some weight. Not 
>>>> 180lb of course, but at least 80lb.
>>> They were carrying weight, even if only ~25 lbs equivalent. A man
>>> standing vertically would still be unbalanced with the backpack's
>>> weight. Don't forget the astronauts themselves weigh less, they have to
>>> lean forward more than on earth to counter that 25 lb on their back.
>>
>> Ridiculous. Pathetic.
> 
> How so?
> 
>> If they overall weighed 60 lb with the strength of 180lb they would 
>> not just be standing straight, but jumping up and down with the 
>> greatest glee.
> 
> Oh they seem to have lots of fun jumping around like they couldn't do on 
> earth!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> As lying is the top quality in science these days - for which 
>>>>>> reason, as I cannot lie,
>>>>> All you do here is lie.
>>
>> That is what you do, and that is what I expose.  So your above 
>> statement is a lie.
>>>>
>>>> I never lie.
>>> That itself is a lie, liar.
>>
>> You have not found a single one, liar.
> 
> That itself is also a lie, liar.
> 
>> You lie to support of the important American frauds.
>> Patriotic, but evil.
> 
> Liar (again!).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866064

From	Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
Date	2022-12-12 16:58 -0800
Message-ID	<97c6e2f9-c0c7-40e0-97d7-c0639653bc50n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#866057

Whodumbo wakes up to crap bigly.
Zero credibility, for all such wretches.
Who but fools and scoundrels can believe them...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866135

From	Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
Date	2022-12-13 18:12 -0800
Message-ID	<a50dc238-b1b9-43e5-9977-714bb1879d73n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#866056

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 10:51:16 UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 4:26 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > 
> >>> 
> >>>> Fooling the third world was limited to trying to convince thirdworlders 
> >>>> that siding with "us" was much better than siding with "them" or not 
> >>>> taking sides. Part of the reason why the Soviets were so friendly to you. 
> > 
> > No, fooling the thirdworld meant showing technical supremacy and thus the excuse to steal the top brains. 
> > The migrants did not know they were working for fakes.
> If they were any good, they'd figure it out quickly. 
The money they got was not fake. Governments like Singapore and China are advanced as they did not bleed out their top talents, as India did for decades.
Indian students went there to study, learn engineering, and come back to develop the country.  But they were seduced by the Americans. A huge brain-drain, which has made India backward as the lack of good people meant that the mediocre or bad people are in powerful positions, and want to remain there by outing whatever talent still remains. While some middle class families have prospered, the vast bulk of the population remains deprived, so India has fallen behind with its neighbours it dominated even up to the 1970s. 
> No need for fakery since the US and USSR were already more advanced than 
> the third world.
They had made a commitment (Kennedy) which was done sincerely, for they had made incredible advances in jet engines, computers, rocketry.  Not keeping that would be an admission of defeat.  So they chose the tangled path of deceit - lies and truth were equated, and they thought they could get away with it thanks to terrific propaganda and other tricks.  However crime will out, and this fraud was well-known right from the start among those not elites, like my Muslim neighbours at the Nowshera village.

> >>> They were not racist genocidal bigots stewed in hypocrisy like US elites, and their wannabes. Great bonding factor between the Russians and the thirdworld. 
> >> These days freaking Russia is one of the most racist, bigoted countries 
> >> around! 
No, no, that is the US, just look at you and the others here.  You lot are the very worst. Out of racism and bigotry they invade non-Christian countries, are anti-Hindus supreme (so they ignore my physics), have immense problems in their own land, with blacks in jails and howling fundies.
Russians are the greatest friend of the thirdworld.
The US has liar-robber-murderer status in the thirdworld, which it despises and exploits as much as it can.
Russians are very multi-cultural, open-minded, generous and helpful. They never stole top Indian talent like the thieving US, which gave scholarships and then jobs to bright students, retaining them without paying for their primary education.

>>>Listen to them talk about Ukraine and their reasons for 
> >> invading.

Excellent reasons too, as per some decent US observers. Putin wanted to stop NATO invasion from a nuked and armed Ukraine, or being replaced by some thief who would sell out Russia to the West. 
So Putin has the thirdworld on his side.
The US in Putin's position would have invaded with far more cruelty. No doubt about that.

 Look who gets conscripted. Ethnic Russians from Moscow and St. 
> >> Petersburg? No, it's the minorities (of which Russia has many), 
> >> especially Asians from the east. The Soviet Union was even worse. Many 
> >> many ethnic groups deported to Siberia or Kazakhstan. 
> > 
> > Bullshit.
> Nope. Look at what the USSR (esp. Stalin) did. Moved all Germans out 
> from eastern Europe, esp. Kaliningrad and the parts of Germany given to 
> Poland, Poles from the part of Poland grabbed by USSR, Tatars from 
> Crimea (guess why Crimea has so many ethnic Russians, they moved into 
> vacant Tatar villages) plus many more. "Mobilized" Russians com 
> disproportionately from Asia and much fewer ethnic Russians.

Stalin gave technology to China, and China would not have been a superpower without that.
With such technology, China got self-esteem, and now they are doing extremely well. Hundreds of millions have been raised out of poverty to a much better life.

Following from Stalin, India got a lot of help from USSR, mainly in the heavy industry and defence areas.
Stalin was great for workers and engineers.

Who are Americans to talk about grab?  They grabbed the whole vast land, genociding the native populations mercilessly. Lazy people that they are, they got blacks as slaves to do their hard work. Russians do their own hard work, in a much more difficult land.

> > Russia was supposed to be crushed by sanctions,
> Sanctions take a long time to work. But now Moscow malls are burning 
> (insurance fraud?) because non-Russian companies pulled out and the 
> remaining stores can't get sanctioned stuff. Two Moscow malls burned 
> during the last 3 days. 

Keep on with your bullshit.  The sanctions were supposed to cripple Russia in a matter of weeks if not days.  But Russia is stronger than ever, after months. 

> More importantly Russia can't get high tech stuff for their replacement 
> weapons. They do get some, black markets do exist, of course.
> > Putin was about to die or be toppled.
> Putin's medical condition may be wishful thinking but he does seem to 
> have strange symptoms. Compared to Iran (violent protests over an 
> Islamic dress code arrest and death), and China over Covid restrictions, 
> Russia must be all sheeple with mobilized either going or running away, 
> no significant protests, even after nearly 100,000 dead soldiers. So 
> Putin lives on.

And prospers, with solid local and global support.
Which fool but USAnised fools want a world war, which Zelensky is asking for! 
Most people want an end to this war, with the just Russian demands met.
Ukraine's misery is caused by the US/West/NATO leaders who egged them on to destruction.

> > All lies. 

> Sanctions are working as expected. Russians are sheeple, so he may 
> remain in power longer than expected.

No, it is the Americans that are sheeple - their own term - what with their leadership of bad politicians, rabid fundies, corrupt media, crazy billionaires screwing the poor in the population with miserable wages, sleazy mentalities, violence... 

Their top celebrities are actors, novelists, politicians, physicists, thumpers - all liars, that is. 

They have lied about everything in this Ukraine war.
Just as they lied about 911 explosions, Iraq invasions, Afghanistan invasions.
Lying is now their habit, and it all started on such grand lines in 1969. 

No, sanctions are not working. The Russians have been pulverizing the Ukrainians, got 12t worth of territory. They have the support of India and China, and that is enough.

> >>> The craziness was entirely on the American side. The Soviets were always defensive. 
> >> No way, they had spies and disrupters everywhere. Russians still do. 
> > 
> > And Americans don't?
> Of course they do. Your claim was the USSR/Russia was defensive when 
> they certainly were/are not.

They are defensive, far more than the US which invades wherever and whenever it can.

> >>>> Enough so that we didn't nuke each other, especially by accident. The 
> >>>> space race may have been a way for the "superpowers" to compete without 
> >>>> demonstrating their nukes over each other's cities, the space race was 
> >>>> largely harmless. 
> >>> 
> >>> No, it did give the wrong impression that men or machines made it to the moon. While it heightened prestige, there will be a fallout. Liars cannot expect to be believed. 
> >>> It harmed science. Science is based upon truth and trust. I do not trust NASA, nor see why anyone should. 
> >> You are a nobody of science, nobody cares whom you trust. Actual 
> >> scientists know there were many moon landings and many kg of moon rocks. 
> > 
> > True that in this corrupt world of physics, I am a nobody, and that is exactly what I want to be, among them. I have nothing to do with physicists, for they are contemptible as they ignore me and my revolutionary work.
> Fake garbage. 

Nothing fake about my work, presented in you tube free for the whole world to see in these links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s

> 
> > They are thus anti-science. 
> 
> If you were "pro science" you could do MUCH better than your crashing 
> "armatures" by collecting and providing MUCH better data than "watch my 
> video and believe my lies as I describe what happens".

As I am pro science I know how it modern physics is thoroughly corrupted, so I have taken my steps for correction.  Just the way the world works - crooks get power, then they are deposed when exposed. Happens with companies, government, cults... why not in physics.  True that this corruption is totally global.  

On the other hand, online media is very powerful.  When the opponents of my work are reduced to snarling and abusing, instead of putting up proper scientific responses (supportive or otherwise), that does help the good cause, for the malefactors get exposed as such.

So enough evidence is presented, in my videos, about a new design rail gun, a new invention.
It is also clearly shown that the force which causes the violation to inertia does so as it has no reaction -  a discovery, validating the implicit theory in F=BiL.
These are the most stunning breakthroughs in dynamics, equivalent to the discovery of the wheel.
In due course everyone will accept them for same. A matter of time.  I will be devoting myself to that task in the coming year.  

Already, I have provided the theory, the experiments, the analysis and of course the data.  From 2017.  

The links are reposted yet again, below:

Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ

Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ

Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ

Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ

Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ

Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ

Section 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics

Plenty of data, analysis, experiment validating theory above.  
The lack is of ANY reputed institution asking me to deliver a series of lecture-experiments on the above topics.
That shows the level of cowardice, conformity and intimidation caused by the corrupt and biased "scientific" establishments.

> > Still, it just so happens that online exists, and I use youtube, facebook and usenet to publish my discoveries, inventions, blogs, articles, etc.

> And you really think people will be looking through old Facebook posts 
> for innovative discoveries? 

Yes, there will be those who will do just that.  There are those who make copies of whatever I post.  For that matter there are those who remember what I said 60 years ago.  I am certain of that.  Whatever I post online, I post for the good of the world, for posterity.  There are tens of millions of potential readers.  They need not acknowledge me to copy my works and value them.

They will know that I am presently globally persecuted, for my revolutionary breakthough ideas in physics that upsets all the fatcats, and so have no other way to present my discoveries except by online means. They have known this from 2000.  Long time!

So they will take what I post as my gifts to them, and the best among my readers will value them accordingly.  Do not think that the world is entirely full of such mendacious, biased and moronic creatures like you, Moroney.

> You're just like Archie (again), who thinks 
> Google's archiving of Usenet will preserve his discoveries.

I am not like Archie. You may like to think so, but then you are proved a moron, Moroney, if you sincerely think I am like Archie.
What I am, is known by what I post. I have enough evidence to show that I am taken seriously by all intelligent people, and that is as it should be.
I write for intelligent people, who naturally agree with me in the sense that they cannot point out flaws.  So they do not respond. 
A biased moron - such as the moron Moroney - out to demean me with comparison to Archie, performs its racist+bigoted programming, by responding negatively to me. 
Unfortunately that is all the attention I get. Still, an engineer has to do with what he has got.  So I respond, clearly and in detail, for intelligent people to understand if not appreciate (for they have their own interests and biases).

> > The world can read them, and come to the inevitable conclusions about myself.
> That you are a crank, yes.
> > Surly liars can only snarl like the moron Moroney, with its denial tactics.
> Whine whine whine. That won't help your crap get recognized.

When "scientists" like Moroney can only deny and abuse, instead of providing good scientific reasons for their rejection, they perform a service for science, by exposing themselves and their opinions as totally worthless. 
A good service, that.

> >>>> Of course, thousands and thousands of NASA employees faking the moon 
> >>>> missions without it leaking that they did so, or deathbed confessions? 
> >>>> And equally many Soviet workers? And the hams listening in? Absurd. 
> > 
> > When the whole US system is corrupt to the core, with murder as the standard tactic, with Deep State Devils in charge, even charges of presidential elections getting stolen, this is far from surprising.
> It would get out.
> > People shut up as they have been paid to, or for fear of their lives.
> No deathbed confessions? Money or fear of their lives (from whom?) is no 
> longer relevant, and many people are really bothered by bad things they 
> did (like faking a moon landing, if they took part in such a thing)
> >>> Since I know how easily possible it is to bully and strangle dissenting voices, that is no wonder. 
> >> Sorry, conspiracies simply don't work when there are that many people 
> >> who are in on it. 
> > 
> > Hardly matters when they are all willfully blind,
> Thousands and thousands "willfully blind"? Sorry, won't happen.
Millions and billions, as the case may be.
As Neitzsche may have said (saw this in a fb post) pure insanity is uncommon for individuals, but is the rule among groups, nations, religions, etc.
How correct.
All e=mcc wallahs are insane.

> > as they are to my works. 
> > They all ignore it.
> Completely different since your crap deserves to be ignored.

Just abuse and denial here.
Nothing remotely scientific.
Why should the most brilliant and useful original inventions and experiments be ignored?
Answer: it would expose a lot of frauds for what they are.

> > They are all corrupt now, and they were all corrupt then.
> But where are the deathbed confessions of their corruption?

Why should they?  They are willing part of the patriotic lies, or may be concerned for the welfare of their kin.
Mostly, each did his little bit, and thought it made the show go on.  A mass scale deception.
In any case, the confessions would be destroyed.

> >>>> I saw it live as well. I also saw the conspiracy theories and knew 
> >>>> quickly half of them were simply wrong. Reading elsewhere I learned why 
> >>>> the other half were wrong as well. Yet the conspiracy kooks keep 
> >>>> trotting the same crap forth. 
> >>> 
> >>> See, you are just denying, like every brainwashed moron. And there are so many like you, which is why the Western systems work. 
> >> That's the best answer that you have? Fail. 
> >>> 
> >>>> Nothing wrong with the footprint. 
> >>> 
> >>> More denial. 360 pound/6 = 60 lb or 27Kg. It simply cannot make such a deep indentation on a surface where the landers' feet have not sunk at all, 
> >> They did sink in. 
> > No. 
> > Photos show otherwise. Shows the feet nicely placed on the soil, just as it would be on Earth. No sinking in.
> I looked up the properties of lunar regolith and despite being extremely 
> fine (half the mass <50 micron dust), it was all highly angular and 
> interlocking, plus some larger stuff below the topmost surface, so did 
> support weight.

Blah-blah.  It was just like dirt or sand anywhere.
Anyway, why did the astronauts jump up 6 feet in the air and come down slowly?
Why did they in 1969 NOT drop any object, such as a rock, and let it come down slowly to the surface?

> > Yes the moon's gravity is 1/6 so the astronauts could have jumped up 6 feet and landed very slowly. Or just picked up a stone and let it drop.
> Fifth time for that mistake! Oh it was a hammer and feather, not a 
> stone, that's different. Right?

Wrong. The hammer and feather is to show lack of air resistance, not about gravity level.
Why did they in 1969 NOT drop any object, such as a rock, and let it come down slowly to the surface?
Why did the Apollo 15 astronauts NOT jump 6 feet in the air and come down slowly?

> > As the whole thing was a hoax, they could not do that for if they did they would get exposed.
> Since they did it, they were exposed, right? 

Why did they in 1969 NOT drop any object, such as a rock, and let it come down slowly to the surface?
Why did the Apollo 15 astronauts NOT jump 6 feet in the air and come down slowly?
> 
> (also observe the parabolic dust sprays from the wheels of the moon 
> buggies. You can figure out local g from them)

Why did they in 1969 NOT drop any object, such as a rock, and let it come down slowly to the surface?
Why did the Apollo 15 astronauts NOT jump 6 feet in the air and come down slowly?
Video tricks must have improved since 1969, but  not good enough for the former to happen.
They were NEVER moving as if they weighed overall only 60 lbs.
And that is sufficient evidence they never went to the moon.

> > The soft soil was like a wet beach, so it could give the kind of footprints that I make on the beach. 
> > 
> >> Wet beach is a poor example. The water binds sand grains together 
> >> somewhat. Don't believe me, compare a wet beach to a dry beach. 
> > 
> > If 200lb people walked with fat shoes on a dry beach (or sandy desert somewhere in the US) they would make the same sort of footprint. 
> >
> I wasn't talking about normal soil. I was talking about dry sand 
> beaches. I don't know what kind of beaches you have in Oz or India but I 
> wouldn't expect the dry sand portion away from the ocean except severe 
> storms to be different. You do sink in differently from wet sand.

Anyway, the stomping looked and exactly was about people in 200 lb suits shuffling under bright lights in some staged desert scene, which even had a rock marked C, as props apparently are marked in Hollywood.

> >>>> As to the astronauts leaning forward, that wouldn't be due to the weight 
> >>>> but by being off balance if they stood up straight. How much of that 180 
> >>>> lbs (on earth) was in that backpack? If they stood up straight, the 
> >>>> backpack's weight would have made them fall over backwards, even on the 
> >>>> moon. 
> >>> 
> >>> Heh, you are thinking they were on Earth, for indeed they were, as they stood exactly as they should if they carried some weight. Not 180lb of course, but at least 80lb. 
> >> They were carrying weight, even if only ~25 lbs equivalent. A man 
> >> standing vertically would still be unbalanced with the backpack's 
> >> weight. Don't forget the astronauts themselves weigh less, they have to 
> >> lean forward more than on earth to counter that 25 lb on their back. 
> > 
> > Ridiculous. Pathetic.
> How so?
If you weight 30 and your pack weighs 30 when you are used to being 180 lb then you would be standing up straight.
If you weight 180 and are carrying 20 then you have to lean forward.
They were leaning forward.
So they were on the Earth, not the moon.
> > If they overall weighed 60 lb with the strength of 180lb they would not just be standing straight, but jumping up and down with the greatest glee.
> Oh they seem to have lots of fun jumping around like they couldn't do on 
> earth!
Not in 1969, no, and I don't care about the video tricks later done.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>>> As lying is the top quality in science these days - for which reason, as I cannot lie, 
> >>>> All you do here is lie. 
> > 
> > That is what you do, and that is what I expose. So your above statement is a lie. 
> >>> 
> >>> I never lie. 
> >> That itself is a lie, liar. 
> > 
> > You have not found a single one, liar.
> That itself is also a lie, liar.
You lie all the time, for you the truth is the lie, and lie is the truth.  
> > You lie to support of the important American frauds. 
> > Patriotic, but evil.
> Liar (again!).
You lie all the time, for you the truth is the lie, and lie is the truth. 
Fortunately, you are just a moron, so easily exposed as such.
Well, spent enough time on this thread, not a waste I hope.  Got other, better things to do, so bye-bye Moroney.  

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865887

From	Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com>
Date	2022-12-10 07:47 -0800
Message-ID	<2abdfc84-ae6d-4833-848c-b6e3edb2a1ffn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#865669

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 4:33:18 AM UTC-5, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> Those three robots did not even land on the moon, assuming they got there, and that is a reasonable assumption maybe.

And Elon Musk's rockets don't land upright...

It would make perfect sense to do a staging of the moon landing in the desert. Yes: everything was rehearsed. The amount of wiggle room that those astronauts had was minimal I'm sure, and to practice some place realistic and sensible; even to record the thing for later review; all this is sensible. so yeah, let's allow filming in the desert of the lunar landing; just like we should allow the possibility that Trump launched the Wuhan flue.

Somehow though censorship beats us to the punch, and Y2KX never looked this bad on paper. And who is it that has contingencies up their sleeves all the way to your sleeves and mine? Long term damage appears to be the truth of the matter, and so a deep fail in the deep state; they dying of their own design. That wee are our own worst enemy I find entirely acceptable. Fake America Fake Again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865905

From	Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org>
Date	2022-12-10 14:17 -0800
Message-ID	<tn30h5$1o03a$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#865669

On 12/7/22 1:33 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
 > Those three robots did not even land on the moon, assuming they got 
there, and that is a reasonable assumption maybe.

I am thinking that PK said that the moon landings
were real, but I could be mistaken on that.

It might be harder to ask him than it used to be.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865909

From	Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com>
Date	2022-12-10 17:52 -0500
Message-ID	<tn32jn$10k4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#865905

On 12/10/2022 5:17 PM, Trolidan7 wrote:
> On 12/7/22 1:33 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>  > Those three robots did not even land on the moon, assuming they got 
> there, and that is a reasonable assumption maybe.
> 
> I am thinking that PK said that the moon landings
> were real, but I could be mistaken on that.
> 
> It might be harder to ask him than it used to be.
> 
> 

Apollo 11 was faked.

Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 were real.
🤯

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →

csiph-web

When will they admit that 1969 moon landings were done in some US desert?

Contents

#866076

#866083

#866086

#866087

#866130

#866138

#866009

#866010

#866033

#866003 — Banerjee is no rocket scientist.

#866005 — Re: Banerjee is no rocket scientist.

#866037 — Re: Banerjee is no rocket scientist.

#866046

#866056

#866057

#866064

#866135

#865887

#865905

#865909