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

Groups > sci.physics > #629103 > unrolled thread

Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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 "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-16 18:37 -0700
        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 "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-16 18:34 -0700
              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

#629103 — Re: Apollo 11 Hoax A

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#629104

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]

#629105

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]

#629107

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]

#629112

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]

#629295

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]

#629305

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]

#629433

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 9:39:05 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> The ’nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Emma Harmony":
> 
Mr. Thomas, your beloved Emma is simply
f.art.ingatu

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

#629320

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]

#629321

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]

#629393

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]

#629508

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]

#629424

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]

#629432

> As if there was ever any doubt.
>
then why is it that he is
f.art.ingatu

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

#629507

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]

#629514

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]

#629509

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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web