Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #416331 > unrolled thread

Apollo 11 Hoax A

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Apollo 11 Hoax A numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 15:32 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-15 03:00 +0200
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Wendi Maddox <ox@awdodww.oe> - 2017-04-15 11:21 +0000
        Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-15 13:40 +0200
          Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Wendi Maddox <ox@awdodww.oe> - 2017-04-15 12:22 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-15 14:44 +0200
        Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-15 13:47 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Emma Harmony <aymmmaeo@anownwrm.cm> - 2017-04-16 15:20 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-16 18:39 +0200
              Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Dusty Han <uaut@sdwduw.ut> - 2017-04-16 16:57 +0000
                Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-16 19:59 +0200
              Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Abstinente Cantara <uei@swbkbiwsessw.it> - 2017-04-17 14:41 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-16 18:10 +0000
              Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Okoto Laki <tuuuknu@wnoowow.to> - 2017-04-16 18:24 +0000
                Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-16 23:43 +0200
                  Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Abstinente Cantara <uei@swbkbiwsessw.it> - 2017-04-17 14:31 +0000
                Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 00:52 +0000
                  Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Abstinente Cantara <uei@swbkbiwsessw.it> - 2017-04-17 14:14 +0000
                    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 15:42 +0000
                  Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Abstinente Cantara <uei@swbkbiwsessw.it> - 2017-04-17 14:34 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 11:30 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 11:48 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 13:06 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 13:22 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 13:49 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 14:16 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 14:30 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 15:21 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 16:47 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A Abstinente Cantara <uei@swbkbiwsessw.it> - 2017-04-17 14:05 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#416331 — Apollo 11 Hoax A

It is not physically possible to land the Apollo 11 lunar lander onto the surface of the moon. A lunar Surveyor 3  probe was initially sent to the surface of the moon to test for the possibility of landing on the moon yet the photograph of the Surveyor 3 lunar probe from the subsequent Apollo 12 mission 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Surveyor+3&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4m4_o8fTSAhVE7mMKHecrCCUQ_AUICSgC&biw=1920&bih=963#imgdii=6zDfGE0seegB7M:&imgrc=6d04KeTxouuW7M:&spf=249)

does not include a blast zone formed by the thrust of the Surveyor probe's rocket engine. The Surveyor engine's thrust is producing a flame that ambient temperature is over 2000o centigrade which results in an extremely intense thrust which is reducing the speed of the probe that is descending towards the moon's surface required to allow the probe to land on the surface of the moon without disintegrating upon impact; consequently, the thrust would result in a blast zone on the moon's surface beneath the Surveyor but the fine lunar particular matter still remains underneath the exhaust nozzle in the Surveyor 3 photograph which suggests that the Lunar Surveyor probe photograph was staged. NASA's explanation is that the Surveyor rocket engine cut off 4.3 meters before landing on the surface of the moon but even at an attitude of 4.3 meter the rocket thrust of the Surveyor's engine would produce a blast zone that would have cleared the fine lunar particular matter in the vicinity where the Surveyor landed yet no blast zone is depicted in the photograph of the Surveyor 3 probe. The Surveyor 3 probe's rocket engine activates at full throttle during the descent where the rocket thrust terminates after the fuel or oxidizer runs out. A rocket engine's thrust does not vary. In addition, the Surveyor 3 probe does not contain enough fuel to land on the surface of the moon. A landing on the surface of the moon, using a rocket engine descent, is virtually impossible since the moon lacks an atmosphere. Without an atmosphere to reduce the velocity of the Surveyor during the descent, it would be impossible to land on the surface of the moon using a rocket engine descent since it would require an enormous amount of fuel. The rocket fuel energy and weight ratio does not physically allow for a rocket descent onto the surface of the moon. Using the approximation that the amount of fuel required in a rocket to liftoff a payload from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit is approximately equal to the amount of fuel required in descending a payload from the earth's orbit to the surface of the earth using a rocket engine descent reentry; consequently, we can then use the liftoff payload weight from the surface of the earth to calculate the approximate fuel load required to land on the surface of the moon by compensating for the gravity. Using the moon gravity of .166 g, the 666 lb Surveyor 3 probe without fuel would be equivalent to landing a 100 lb payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, if the earth did not have an atmosphere. To lift a 100 lb payload from the surface of the earth would require approximately 10,000 lb of fuel since the TD-2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lb yet the total amount of fuel carried by the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe is 1,600 lb which is five times less than the 10,000 lb of fuel required in landing the Surveyor probe onto the surface of the moon which proves the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe did not land on the surface of the moon. It is impossible to land on the moon using a rocket descent since the moon does not have an atmosphere that would cushion the descent of the landing probe resulting in a terminal velocity during the landing. Without an atmosphere the ever increasing velocity would result in an enormous velocity that cannot be neutralize using the energy of the current rocket fuel; consequently, any attempt at landing a probe on the surface of the moon would result in the complete destruction of the probe upon impact. In addition, the Surveyor 3 probe photographs taken during the Apollo 16 mission show boot prints next to the Surveyor 3 probe yet the surface of the moon lacks an atmosphere required in producing the moisture that could form boot prints of the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon. Example, when a person wearing boots walks on dry sand that has been dried in a kiln, an indentation of sand is produced, not a boot printed since the formation of a boot print in sand or the fine particular matter on the surface of the moon would require moisture to support the structure of a boot print. It is not physical possible to form a boot print depicted in the photographs of the Surveyor probe unless the Surveyor probe boot prints were located on the surface of the earth since all substances that can form a boot print contain a small percentage of water yet the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon lack the moisture required in the physical formation of a boot print. Furthermore, Newton's gravity equation is used in the calculation of the moon's gravity but Cavendish's experiment is used to derive Newton's constant G where Cavendish measured a force of 1.74 x 10-7 N or approximately 2 ug that is 1000 times less than the weight (1 mg) measurement uncertainty in 1797; consequently, it is questionable how NASA obtain the .166 g moon gravity since like masses do not physically attract. Example, .73 kg and 158 kg masses, separated by 1 cm, located at the surface of the earth and also located in the international space station do not attract. Also, when Newton's gravity equation is used to represented an astronaut with a mass of 50 kg in the international space station that is located approximately 350 miles from the surface of the earth, a gravitational force of F = (G m1 m2)/r2 =  (6.67384×10-11) x (50) x (6 x 1024 ) / (7 x 106)2 ≃ 400 N is calculated. According to Newton's gravity equation, a 50 kg astronaut in the space station forms a gravitational force of approximately 400 N pointed at the earth which is not experimentally observed since a 50 kg astronaut is weightless in the international space station. In addition, a 1000 lb metal sphere is projected into the earth's orbit, when a 70 N rocket engine thrust (30 s) is applied to the 1000 lb metal sphere and pointed at Jupiter, the 1000 lb metal sphere propagates towards Jupiter which conflicts with Newton's gravity equation that gravitational force would prevent the metal sphere from propagating to Jupiter. In the Apollo 11 lunar lander descent film, the lunar lander is propagating in the horizontal direction. The reaction control thrusters are located on the accent stage and a thrust from the right control thruster produces a horizontal motion of the lander if the reaction control thrusters are positioned at the center of mass of the lander but during the lander descends the center of mass would vary because of the decrease in the weight of the fuel and an off centered horizontal thrust would cause the lunar lander to tip downward resulting in the spinning and subsequent crash of the lunar lander. Also, the lunar lander descent would require more than 100,000 lb of fuel dissipated in less than 5 minute yet the lunar lander only contains 18,000 lb of fuel used in the descent; consequently, the lunar lander does not contain enough fuel to land the lander on the surface of the moon. The landing of the lunar lander on the surface of the moon requires an enormous amount of fuel which would make it physically impossible to land on the surface of the moon; consequently, during the Apollo 11 surface landing, fuel is being wasted by propagating in the horizontal direction and two astronauts are used in the lunar landing when one astronaut would be sufficient. The Apollo 11 mission spendthrift of fuel and weight of the lunar landing implies that the Apollo landing was a hoax. Also, in the film of the decent of the lunar lander, viewed from a window of the lander, there is no smoke cloud caused by the primary thruster engine combustion of the Aerozine fuel and oxidizer upon the final landing approach of the lander onto the surface of the moon. Plus, the close up photographs of the Apollo 11 lunar lander's landing pads do not have any lunar particle matter on the landing pads that would be expected after the rocket engine's thrust disturbs the one half inch depth of fine particle matter on the surface of the moon beneath the lander during the lunar landing. Furthermore, the Apollo 11 lunar landing photographs do not show a blast zone produced by the rocket engine thrust during the final decent of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon with the rocket engine at full throttle. At the end of the descent the rocket engine's thrust would result in a blast crater beneath the lander and the accumulation of smoke at the surface caused by the push back of the smoke cause by the moon's surface. It appears that the lunar lander photographs were staged since the lander's engine thrust produces a flame that ambient temperature that is over 2000o centigrade which would result in the scorching of the moon's surface and the formation of a blast zone that is not depicted in any of the Apollo 11 lunar lander photographs. People argue that the Apollo 11 lander's rocket engine thrust is 3,000 lb before the landing and would not produce a blast crater but during the lunar landing descent, the velocity of the lander would increases while propagating towards the moon's surface. After propagating a distance of 100 miles towards the moon's surface, the lander's velocity would increase to approximately 750 mph at which time the lander's rocket engine is activated and fires at full throttle until the lander touches down on the surface of the moon; consequently the thrust of the lander's rocket engine is estimated at 15,000 lbs that is more than 5 times the 3,000 lb of thrust used to represent the lander's descent onto the surface of the moon. If a person placed a quarter inch layer of sand on the surface beneath the rocket engine before the liftoff of the TD-2 rocket, after the liftoff the surface beneath the rocket exhaust nozzle would  be eliminated of the quarter inch layer of sand placed beneath the rocket engine nozzle. In fact, I would expect that the sand would be completely eliminated from the surface area beneath the rocket engine and a small amount of sand may have also been converted into glass by the rocket thrust flame that ambient temperature is over 2000o centigrade. Using an analogy, the thrust of a F-16 jet plane is used to represent the Apollo lander thrust, if a person were to stand behind the F-16 jet engine, during a full throttle ground testing of the engine (15,000 lb), according to NASA, the person standing directly behind the jet engine, during a full throttle test, would be unharmed but the contrary is true since the jet engine's full throttle thrust would disintegrate the person standing in front of the exhaust nozzle of the F-16 jet engine during the full throttle ground test of the F-16 jet engine. Furthermore, in the Apollo 11 photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the shadows in the lunar surface photographs are in different directions. Plus, the ostensible lunar photographs do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronauts were never on the surface of the moon since the extremely intricate and exact pattern of the stars of the celestial universe represent a specific time and position that the photograph was taken. Every hour, the pattern of the stellar universe would shift which would be extremely difficult to reproduce if the lunar landing photographs were fakes. No photographs were taken of the stellar universe that included the lunar lander or astronauts on the surface of the moon and in an on camera interview with the Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong, after the Apollo 11 mission, Mr. Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon but one of the most spectacular view from the surface of the moon would be the brilliance and clarity of the stars because there is no atmosphere on the surface of the moon. NASA justifies the absents of stars in the Apollo photographs using the explanation that the extremely high intensity of light on the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs and also the short exposure time prevents the image of the stars to appear in the photographs. Nonetheless, the Apollo 11 mission astronauts appear extremely disturbed in the interview when the question was asked regarding the absents of the stars in the photographs taken on the surface of the moon. Neil Armstrong never gave an on camera interview after his first initial interview that included the question regarding why no stars appear in any of the Apollo 11 photographs. In addition, numerous Apollo 11 photographs taken on the surface of the moon clearly contain a cross hair that is beneath the image which suggests that the Apollo 11 photographs were manipulated since all of the cross hairs would be in front of the image since the cross hair are etched into the camera lens system; therefore, a lunar image would appear behind the cross hairs yet in numerous photographs the cross hairs appear behind the lunar image which suggests that the Apollo 11 lunar photographs were manipulated. People argue that the cross hairs are in fact in front of the lunar image and that the distortion is caused by the intensity of the image but the lunar image is clearly behind the cross hairs. In addition, NASA justifies the lunar landing using the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector experiment that was placed onto the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission but the Hubble telescope that is more powerful than the LICK telescope cannot view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon yet the LICK telescope is detecting an intensity of the lunar reflector that has an area of approximately one square meter. There would have been absolutely no question regarding the Apollo 11 lunar landing, if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal. The Caltech-MIT lunar reflector experiment is assuming that a laser beam's intensity does not disperse after propagating from the moon and back displacing a total distance of more than 400,000 miles. Furthermore, in the films of an astronaut walking on the surface of the moon shows the placement of the American flag on the surface of the moon but in the film, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind. The film footage shows the American flag that is producing a horizontal waving or flapping motion but the surface of the moon is approximately a vacuum which conflicts with the waving of the flag which would require an atmosphere similar to that on the surface of the earth which proves the Apollo lunar landing and subsequent lunar walks were staged since the flag is only flapping in the horizontal direction. If the flag waving was produced by another source other than the atmosphere of the earth then the flag flapping would also occur in the vertical direction or a combination of the vertical and horizontal directions but only a horizontal motion of the flapping is observed. Also, the lunar landing films are similar to the movie set of the movie "2001 Space Odyssey" that was released in 1968 approximately one year before the Apollo 11 mission; in the 2001 film, the lunar landing appear to be produced by rocket thrust of compressed air. Finally, the lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required in landing the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander without fuel is 15,000 lbs. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to descending a 2,500 lb payload into the earth's surface from the earth's orbit. Using the approximation that the fuel load required in descending a payload onto the surface of the earth is approximately equal to the total amount of rocket fuel required to accent a payload into the earth's orbit. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of fuel to reach the earth orbit; consequently, the moon's gravity of .166 g forms the weight of the lunar lander comparable to 2,500 lb landing onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent; consequently, more than 200,000 lb of fuel would be required to decent the 15,000 lbs  lander from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon which is not physically possible. It is not physically possible to land on the surface of the moon using rockets because of the weight verse energy ratio of the Aerozine rocket fuel does not allow for a descent landing, using a rocket engine, without the destruction of the lander upon landing. Plus, in the accent stage of the lunar mission, the mass of the accent module is 4,740 lb and the fuel weight is 5,187 lb. At a gravity of .166 g, the accent module would be equivalent of a weight of 790 lb that is accented from the surface of the earth that would require approximately 100,000 lb of fuel yet the accent module contains only 5,167 lb of fuel which is 20 times less than the calculated fuel load required to accent the lunar accent module into the moon's orbit. Plus, the accent film shows the accent module lifting off from the surface of the moon but no flame of the rocket engine or smoke is depicted yet the Titan II rocket uses Aerozine fuel which produces an ignition thrust flame and exhaust smoke that trail from the surface of the earth to over 100 miles in the upward direction. The space Shuttle is used to justify that the lunar lander landed on the surface of the moon but the space Shuttle cannot land on the surface of the moon since the moon does not contain an atmosphere that is required in utilizing the wings and the ceramic tiles of the space Shuttle that are used to slow the descent of the Space Shuttle onto the surface of the earth.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#416338

numbernumber1964@gmail.com, dumb as a stone, wrote:
>
> It is not physically possible to land the Apollo 11 lunar
> lander onto the surface of the moon.

Really? As it has actually happened another hypothesis is far
more likely: It is physically impossible for "numbernubmer1964"
not to be a idiot.

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

#416348

Python wrote:

> numbernumber1964@gmail.com, dumb as a stone, wrote:
>>
>> It is not physically possible to land the Apollo 11 lunar lander onto
>> the surface of the moon.
> 
> Really? As it has actually happened another hypothesis is far

Then you must posses clearance to another level, be knowing something, we 
don't know. Occult, hidden, whatever. Evidences, proofs, repeatability - 
this is what Science is all about, poor idiot. Hurry up, quick!

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

#416350

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Wendi Maddox":

> Python wrote:
>> numbernumber1964@gmail.com, dumb as a stone, wrote:
>>> It is not physically possible to land the Apollo 11 lunar lander onto
>>> the surface of the moon.
>> Really? As it has actually happened another hypothesis is far
> 
> Then you must posses clearance to another level, be knowing something, we
> don't know. Occult, hidden, whatever. Evidences, proofs, repeatability -
> this is what Science is all about, poor idiot. Hurry up, quick!

Yes, in the light of overwhelming evidence that it happened having already 
been presented, where is your evidence that it did not?

(Don’t bother.  You are just a ’nym-shifting troll, and either have no clue 
what you are babbling about or you feign ignorance so that you can troll.)

F'up2 <news:sci.space.history>, *where this belongs*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#416353

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>> Really? As it has actually happened another hypothesis is far
>> 
>> Then you must posses clearance to another level, be knowing something,
>> we don't know. Occult, hidden, whatever. Evidences, proofs,
>> repeatability - this is what Science is all about, poor idiot. Hurry
>> up,
>> quick!
> 
> Yes, in the light of overwhelming evidence that it happened having
> already been presented, where is your evidence that it did not?

A refutable evidence is NOT evidence, meine liebe freunde. Where are your 
proofs and REPEATABILITY located?? Your country is making crappy lying 
cars. The trabant was the best car you ever managed to put together in one 
place, without help.

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

#416355

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Wendi Maddox":

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Really? As it has actually happened another hypothesis is far
>>> Then you must posses clearance to another level, be knowing something,
>>> we don't know. Occult, hidden, whatever. Evidences, proofs,
>>> repeatability - this is what Science is all about, poor idiot. Hurry
>>> up, quick!
>> Yes, in the light of overwhelming evidence that it happened having
>> already been presented, where is your evidence that it did not?
> 
> A refutable evidence is NOT evidence, [Gerberish™]

If the evidence is refutable, then either post your refutation, or shut up.

F'up2 sci.space.history again

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#416358

The nymshifting troll Wendi Maddox <ox@awdodww.oe> writes:

>Python wrote:

>> numbernumber1964@gmail.com, dumb as a stone, wrote:
>>>
>>> It is not physically possible to land the Apollo 11 lunar lander onto
>>> the surface of the moon.
>> 
>> Really? As it has actually happened another hypothesis is far

>Then you must posses clearance to another level, be knowing something, we 
>don't know.

I didn't have or need any clearance to see the Apollo 11 landing when
I was a kid.  The Soviet Union, eager to discredit the US space program
in the space race, were listening in and would have shot down the idea
of a US moon landing in flames if they could. They didn't.

> Occult, hidden, whatever. Evidences, proofs, repeatability - 
>this is what Science is all about, poor idiot. Hurry up, quick!

Repeatability? I guess you didn't hear of Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17
(and 13's attempt or the earlier dry runs). Evidence? A few hundred kilos 
of moon rocks?  Photos of all the Apollo landing sites?

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

#416425

Michael Moroney wrote:

> I didn't have or need any clearance to see the Apollo 11 landing when I
> was a kid. 

That's a large enough proof to me.

> Repeatability? I guess you didn't hear of Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17
> (and 13's attempt or the earlier dry runs). 

Excellent point, that frequent repeatability is very repeatable anymore. 
(lost the blueprints??)

> Evidence? A few hundred kilos of moon rocks?  

Indeed. Mars rocks as well, opening the discussion whereas the Alternative 
4 is real. We did land on Mars in the '60s as well.

> Photos of all the Apollo landing sites?

No pictures. We don't want pictures. We don't take picture. Not existent 
required inverted pendulum control, at that time. Doubled-up radiation 
(direct + reflected). What can you say in your defence?

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

#416434

The ’nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Emma Harmony":

> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Photos of all the Apollo landing sites?
> 
> No pictures. We don't want pictures.

Understandably, *you* don’t want pictures as they would prove you wrong.

> We don't take picture.

Maybe *you* do not; other people do.

> Not existent required inverted pendulum control, at that time. Doubled-up
> radiation (direct + reflected). What can you say in your defence?

Defence is only necessary when there is an attack.
You even fail to attack: your words are gibberish.

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#416435

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The ’nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Emma Harmony":
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Photos of all the Apollo landing sites?
>> 
>> No pictures. We don't want pictures.
> 
> Understandably, *you* don’t want pictures as they would prove you wrong.

The discussion is about Science and Engineering, not pictures, as I 
understood from the lady. You look like a natural born imbecile. Go look 
at pictures somewhere else, por favor.

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

#416442

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Dusty Han":

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The ’nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Emma Harmony":
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Photos of all the Apollo landing sites?
>>> No pictures. We don't want pictures.
>> Understandably, *you* don’t want pictures as they would prove you wrong.
> 
> The discussion is about Science and Engineering, not pictures,

Photos are based on science and engineering.

> as I understood from the lady.

LOL.  *You* are the “lady”.  *PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#416500

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>> Photos of all the Apollo landing sites?
>> 
>> No pictures. We don't want pictures.
> 
> Understandably, *you* don’t want pictures as they would prove you wrong.

Another foot in his mouth, for the pointedhead. He never heard, along the 
line, that a picture is the WORST way to represent anything. Much less to 
prove anything. Clearly incompetent, incapable and uneducated. Pointy, you 
never will get a job in an intelligent country.

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

#416443

The nymshifting troll, now trolling as Emma Harmony <aymmmaeo@anownwrm.cm> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>> I didn't have or need any clearance to see the Apollo 11 landing when I
>> was a kid. 

>That's a large enough proof to me.

Good.

>> Repeatability? I guess you didn't hear of Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17
>> (and 13's attempt or the earlier dry runs). 

>Excellent point, that frequent repeatability is very repeatable anymore. 
English please?

>(lost the blueprints??)

Who lost which blueprints?

>> Evidence? A few hundred kilos of moon rocks?  

>Indeed. Mars rocks as well, opening the discussion whereas the Alternative 
>4 is real. We did land on Mars in the '60s as well.

No we did not, and we don't have Mars rocks other than meteorites believed
to have come from Mars.

>> Photos of all the Apollo landing sites?

>No pictures. We don't want pictures. We don't take picture.

We? You are just one troll, no matter how many nyms you use.

And there are pictures of all the Apollo sites. I don't remember the name 
of the orbiter that took them.

> Not existent 
>required inverted pendulum control, at that time.

English, please?

> Doubled-up radiation 
>(direct + reflected). What can you say in your defence?

That there are pictures of all the Apollo landing sites from a recent
orbiter.

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

#416445

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Not existent required inverted pendulum control, at that time.
> 
> English, please?

You are big scientist not knowing about inverted pendulums, which are 
strictly required in modern applications????+? May we call you moroney 
from now on? Go make your homework, young man.

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

#416451

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Okoto Laki":

> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Not existent required inverted pendulum control, at that time.
>> English, please?
> 
> You are big scientist not knowing about inverted pendulums,

While there may be such things as “inverted pendulums”, your statement is 
gibberish nonetheless.

> Go make your homework, young man.
     ^^^^
One of the reasons why you are so easily uncovered is your failure to 
produce a single correct English sentence.

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#416498

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Not existent required inverted pendulum control, at that time.
>>> English, please?
>> 
>> You are big scientist not knowing about inverted pendulums,
> 
> While there may be such things as “inverted pendulums”, your statement
> is gibberish nonetheless.

The wannabe scientist half-engineer is putting another foot in his stupid 
mouth, displaying his ignorance once again, to the entire free world. "may 
be such things"?? Inverted pendulums are essential in modern science and 
engineering. A branch you admittedly never heard of.

landing compilation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_mtakPlfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xvqQeoA8c

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

#416462

The nymshifting troll trolled as Okoto Laki <tuuuknu@wnoowow.to>:

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> Not existent required inverted pendulum control, at that time.
>> 
>> English, please?

>You are big scientist not knowing about inverted pendulums, which are 
>strictly required in modern applications????+?

No, I know about them but I don't always recognize your stuttering, troll-
accented English.

> May we call you moroney 
>from now on? Go make your homework, young man.

And once again your English gives you away as being the same nymshifter
troll.  As if there was ever any doubt.

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

#416496

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>You are big scientist not knowing about inverted pendulums, which are
>>strictly required in modern applications????+?
> 
> No, I know about them but I don't always recognize your stuttering,
> troll- accented English.

His English is perfect, stubborn imbecile. You never miss an opportunity 
displaying your deep ignorance in the field. Be that any.

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

#416509

The nymshifting troll, now posting as Abstinente Cantara <uei@swbkbiwsessw.it> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>>>You are big scientist not knowing about inverted pendulums, which are
>>>strictly required in modern applications????+?
>> 
>> No, I know about them but I don't always recognize your stuttering,
>> troll- accented English.

>His English

Why are you referring to yourself in the third person, nymshifter? That's
often a sign of insanity, you know.

>His English is perfect, stubborn imbecile.

No, nymshifter, your English is obviously wrong, with bizarre wording that
may make sense in your native Serbian or whatever, but not in English.
Your troll accent gives you away every time.

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

#416499

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>You are big scientist not knowing about inverted pendulums, which are
>>strictly required in modern applications????+?
> 
> No, I know about them but I don't always recognize your stuttering,
> troll- accented English.

Since you are comprehension challenged. Admit your defeat, moroney. Be a 
good capitalist. An asteroid from Mars is still a rock, morony. Come up 
with substantial arguments, or stfu and sit down. Or ask questions, in the 
most submissive way possible.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web