Argue in the comments below. 8)Why do politicians rarely speak any truth even about the most simple things of life ?
You have yet to prove a single lie from NASA. Your most recent "logic" seems to be, everyone lies so everything NASA says is a lie.Argue in the comments below. 8)Why do politicians rarely speak any truth even about the most simple things of life ?
Why do dictators claim the country is doing great, while the people are feeling miserable ?
Why do commercials claim anything but the truth ?
Why do men lie about the size of their penisses and salery ?
Maybe humans like to lie ?
And when you throw in money and power in the mix, there is no boundary at all.
And the muppets....uhhh scientific community is solely defending it's own position....even the collapse of building 7 and the NIST report conclusions didn't cause a shockwave in that extremely selfish community.
NASA is just an ordinary money maker, with liars, free masons and actors who can't even keep a single story line as i have proved over and over again.
The likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Don Pettit are among the most obvious liars of the whole space fantasy industry.....they are so over the top that i can't imagine that people cannot see through their acting attempts.
What people do to defend the lies is reaching ''cosmic levels''....so to speak :o
NASA and no one has seen the earth to determine the shape of earth,....therefor you have to go really high, something no one has ever done.
The earth is to big to determine it's shape from moderate heights.
That Apollo show doesn't cut it anymore in 2017 and i am glad the youth is awakening more and more.
Those stubborn old Texan idiots that salute the stars and stripes and want to make America great again are loosing ground rapidtly.
No one is interrested in a youth fairytail about brave men in idiotic suits played golf on the moon while they traveled 380.000 km in a trashcan in alu and goldfoil bought in the local grocery store. And a flag that either was very special or just an ordinary flag.
Without the 24 astronauts no one went to outerspace. We are still waiting for the firts real video of a rotating ball.
The likes of Rabinoz who worship CGI prefer bad graphics over high defenition photographs, but the is also seeing through the CGI crap more and more.
NASA is to embarrased to acknowledge they never went to outerspace that they hang onto their science fictional fairy tail for as long as possible.......
You have yet to prove a single lie from NASA. Your most recent "logic" seems to be, everyone lies so everything NASA says is a lie.
Also over 500 people from many different countries have been to space, not just 24.
You have yet to prove a single lie from NASA. Your most recent "logic" seems to be, everyone lies so everything NASA says is a lie.
Also over 500 people from many different countries have been to space, not just 24.
I know my grammar sucks , but your reading skills are one of a kind too.
I talked about 24 NASA astronauts in outerspace not LEO.
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And what makes you think it didn't?''Nonono Neil, Buzz and Mickey''.....''you go into that homeless shelter and get your asses to the moon'', ''it is perfectly safe,...our scientist just confirmd''
Some youtube video about beer cans and tinfoil?
And what makes you think it didn't?''Nonono Neil, Buzz and Mickey''.....''you go into that homeless shelter and get your asses to the moon'', ''it is perfectly safe,...our scientist just confirmd''
Some youtube video about beer cans and tinfoil?
No way in hell that any human being apart from the mentally ill, would try to go to the moon or any place in particular in that ''thing''.
But i understand, the cool hightech is underneath the trashy outside. :o ;D
535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Damn, now i want a burger.
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Damn, now i want a burger.
Lol.
That "Space Craft" looks like a child's collage.
To the OP
To hide God and get paid 52 million a day.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.Yes, it works all the time !!
Exactly. You don't understand it so you misrepresent it and claim it is fake. You could actually look into how it was constructed, tested, used and learn some actual facts. But that would go against your belief so you won't do it.Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.Yes, it works all the time !!
I don't understand that a trascan wrapped in goldfoil and cardboard that looks like a homeless tweaker's shelter can safely land on the moon ;D
(http://flatearthwiki.com/images/b/bd/Chitj98UkAA-uaH.jpg)
To the OPIf that were true, then why would the NASA astronauts read from Genesis on live TV during the Apollo 8 mission?
To hide God...
blablabla
What do i have to add ? I am simply not capable to express my thoughts.....i tried, but i am the first to acknowledge that you should stick to those things you can explain at a bare minimum. The jargon involved in the eclips (English for all things) is to much for me to post a coherent post.blablabla
Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there... :-\
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.Yes, it works all the time !!
I don't understand that a trashcan wrapped in goldfoil and cardboard that looks like a homeless tweaker's shelter can safely land on the moon ;D
(http://flatearthwiki.com/images/b/bd/Chitj98UkAA-uaH.jpg)
What do i have to add ? I am simply not capable to express my thoughts.....i tried, but i am the first to acknowledge that you should stick to those things you can explain at a bare minimum. The jargon involved in the eclips (English for all things) is to much for me to post a coherent post.blablabla
Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there... :-\
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.nYes, it works all the time !!
I don't understand that a trashcan wrapped in goldfoil and cardboard that looks like a homeless tweaker's shelter can safely land on the moon ;D
(http://flatearthwiki.com/images/b/bd/Chitj98UkAA-uaH.jpg)
So, what's wrong with it?Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.Yes, it works all the time !!
I don't understand that a trashcan wrapped in goldfoil and cardboard that looks like a homeless tweaker's shelter can safely land on the moon ;D
(http://flatearthwiki.com/images/b/bd/Chitj98UkAA-uaH.jpg)
A boy you're funny ;D ;D ;D
If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.
But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
Actually, most of the descent was handled by the LM's flight computer. Niel did take over about a minute or so before landing when he noticed that the computer was guiding them towards a rather nasty boulder field.A boy you're funny ;D ;D ;D
If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.
But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.
Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Damn, now i want a burger.
Lol.
That "Space Craft" looks like a child's collage.
To the OP
To hide God and get paid 52 million a day.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Like I said, your YouTube Shepherd has you locked down.Our best international expert on demolitions agrees !!
Must be horrible living such a paranoid life. I bet you think 9/11 was an inside job as well.
Actually, most of the descent was handled by the LM's flight computer. Niel did take over about a minute or so before landing when he noticed that the computer was guiding them towards a rather nasty boulder field.You mean the 24k flight computer ? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
To the OPIf that were true, then why would the NASA astronauts read from Genesis on live TV during the Apollo 8 mission?
To hide God...
Why would Buzz Aldrin give communion to Niel Armstrong when they landed on the moon?
Here are a few other examples of religious activity in space:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_space
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
Again, all you two are saying is you don't understand it so it can't work. Why don't you look over the details of the lander and point out what you think can't work and why.Essentially the argument you and Dutch are making here is, I don't understand it so it must be fake.535 humans have left Earths atmosphere.(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
There is no conspiracy, only a handful of youtube sheep who'll believe anything if it contradicts "the Man".
They'll repeatedly say that they've shown proof, but in all actuality, have never shown a shred of evidence.
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/apollo-14_lm.jpg)
Some people think this can reach the moon
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Damn, now i want a burger.
Lol.
That "Space Craft" looks like a child's collage.
To the OP
To hide God and get paid 52 million a day.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Again, all you two are saying is you don't understand it so it can't work. Why don't you look over the details of the lander and point out what you think can't work and why.Perhaps FE'ers should familiarize themselves with the Lunar Module. This might help.
Again, all you two are saying is you don't understand it so it can't work. Why don't you look over the details of the lander and point out what you think can't work and why.Perhaps FE'ers should familiarize themselves with the Lunar Module. This might help.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Fam-Manual.pdf
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.
In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.
In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
No problem with vegetarianism. There are healthy vegan/vegetarian diets and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian diets. There are healthy omnivorous diets and unhealthy omnivorous diets. All about balance.
I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.
In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
No problem with vegetarianism. There are healthy vegan/vegetarian diets and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian diets. There are healthy omnivorous diets and unhealthy omnivorous diets. All about balance.
As a vegetarian for 33 years I can't stand preachy in your face ones. It's like sexual preferences - what you choose to put in your mouth I'd nobody's business but your own.
Eat meat. Don't eat meat. Whatever :)
</derail>
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.
In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
No problem with vegetarianism. There are healthy vegan/vegetarian diets and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian diets. There are healthy omnivorous diets and unhealthy omnivorous diets. All about balance.
As a vegetarian for 33 years I can't stand preachy in your face ones. It's like sexual preferences - what you choose to put in your mouth I'd nobody's business but your own.
Eat meat. Don't eat meat. Whatever :)
</derail>
Your vegetarianism explains why you are stupid and dosile.
You are like cattle.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
(http://images.footyroom.com/posts/025a6d03677b69e701bbd438568d2a66/the-ultimate-hamburger)
Some people think this is not bad for them......
Damn Dutchy! What's wrong with that burger? Nice looking meat patty, a bit of lettuce and tomato. Not dripping in fat with excessive bacon or cheese. You've got your carbs, your protein, a bit of fat and vitamins and minerals. That's a mighty fine looking burger! Sure, not every day, but as part of a balanced diet, go for it!
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.
In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
No problem with vegetarianism. There are healthy vegan/vegetarian diets and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian diets. There are healthy omnivorous diets and unhealthy omnivorous diets. All about balance.
As a vegetarian for 33 years I can't stand preachy in your face ones. It's like sexual preferences - what you choose to put in your mouth I'd nobody's business but your own.
Eat meat. Don't eat meat. Whatever :)
</derail>
Your vegetarianism explains why you are stupid and dosile.
You are like cattle.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.I do realise:
But here we are smart enough to know that your repeating the lieTHE PERSUASIVE POWER OF REPEATED FALSEHOODS
New research finds repeated false statements are more likely to be perceived as truthful,
even when we have enough knowledge to contradict them.
I Understand everything.Incorrect.
Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander. You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".
Me overloaded?
IMPOSSIBLE !
I Understand everything.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
As you well know, that is what successful brainwashing does. I keeps the believer believing the impossible.It is much lke a child believing in the tooth fairy.A boy you're funny ;D ;D ;D
If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.
But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.
This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)
Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
Err, but why would the contractors not build and design the equipment they were paid to build?Actually, most of the descent was handled by the LM's flight computer. Niel did take over about a minute or so before landing when he noticed that the computer was guiding them towards a rather nasty boulder field.You mean the 24k flight computer ? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later?A boy you're funny ;D ;D ;D
If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.
But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.
This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)
Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
It was not a prototype, it was a LM simulator meant to simulating flying and landing. It didn't work that well though, quite a few crashes. Later it was replaced by mechanical computer simulations later.so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later?A boy you're funny ;D ;D ;D
If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.
But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.
This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)
Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
It was both actually. It was a simulator and a prototype of the simulator (he was flying one of the earlier versions). I didn't mean it was a prototype of the LM.It was not a prototype, it was a LM simulator meant to simulating flying and landing. It didn't work that well though, quite a few crashes. Later it was replaced by mechanical computer simulations later.so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later?A boy you're funny ;D ;D ;D
If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.
But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.
This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)
Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
Yup.It was both actually. It was a simulator and a prototype of the simulator (he was flying one of the earlier versions). I didn't mean it was a prototype of the LM.It was not a prototype, it was a LM simulator meant to simulating flying and landing. It didn't work that well though, quite a few crashes. Later it was replaced by mechanical computer simulations later.so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later?A boy you're funny ;D ;D ;D
If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.
But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.
This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)
Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
and while there were a few crashes, there were also hundreds of successful flights and those who flew it said it was a very useful tool.
Heck, plenty of them claim the crash was a WEEK before Apollo 11.Yup.It was both actually. It was a simulator and a prototype of the simulator (he was flying one of the earlier versions). I didn't mean it was a prototype of the LM.It was not a prototype, it was a LM simulator meant to simulating flying and landing. It didn't work that well though, quite a few crashes. Later it was replaced by mechanical computer simulations later.so a crash in an prototype craft caused by an unrelated system means the real thing couldn't work a year later?A boy you're funny ;D ;D ;D
If you spent just 10% of your YouTube conspiracy time looking at the actual engineering marvel that was the Saturn moon landing system, you may gain a simple understanding as to why the lunar module looks the way it does.
But your YouTube Shepherd won't allow that!
The reality on earth with a much better device for actuall landing than the real LM was extremely difficult.
And do take into account the tremendous speed when they were heading for the moon during Apollo.
Neil ''throttled'' down the manual throttle just like parking a car and then engine shut down ...and a perfect landing.
This is reality on earth !!!!
(http://)
Are you really such a gullible sheep ??? I think you're just trolling Big Ma....time ;D, because i can't believe you fall for this cheap propaganda of the late sixties and early seventies.
and while there were a few crashes, there were also hundreds of successful flights and those who flew it said it was a very useful tool.
Plenty of hoaxtard videos claim it was suppose to be a LM prototype made a year before Apollo 11.
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!I thought the little green alien with an addiction for hamburgers was solely here to laugh ?
dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.
so, you have THAT going for you.
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.I am a vegetarian for only half a year, after consuming lots of beef, chicken and pork !!!!!!
In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
As you well know, that is what successful brainwashing does. I keeps the believer believing the impossible.It is much lke a child believing in the tooth fairy.Exactly !
Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander. You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".
Me overloaded?
IMPOSSIBLE !
I Understand everything.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But please be specific.
What is your source for 24k memory?As you well know, that is what successful brainwashing does. I keeps the believer believing the impossible.It is much lke a child believing in the tooth fairy.Exactly !
On earth they aren't able to succesfully land a prototype that had more stearing oppertunities than the Apollo LM and flew extremely slow by comparison.
Besides that in the ''eclips'' topic we ''learned'' about the huge velocity of the moon.
They went in a trashcan to earth's satelite 380.000 km away, with an onboard computer with 24k of memory, speeding towards the surface with unbelieveable speed, somehow managed to slow down conviniently with a manual throttle single engine, bypassed a large crater before shutting down the engine and standing straight without dust on the LEM's landing pads or visible crater.
Compare that to the video and the brainwashing runs really deep indeed !!!
Why would Grumman not build a functional space craft?Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander. You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".
Me overloaded?
IMPOSSIBLE !
I Understand everything.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But please be specific.
So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.
Lol.
Are you for real ?
Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.I am a vegetarian for only half a year, after consuming lots of beef, chicken and pork !!!!!!
In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
I did it because i saw what a modern slaughterhouse is really like !
If you wouldn't be such a humorless payed shill that runs a secondary blog about irrelevant space fantasies, then you should have known it was my personal gripe with Mrs Grundy (formerly known as ''here to laugh at you'') that allowed me to tease him with a ''hamburger'' addiction. (for the record ....he hasn't).
So again, don't take this reply to serious, because i deliberately said things you don't like... ::)
So that would be a no then. And we are back to you don't understand it so it must be fake.Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander. You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".
Me overloaded?
IMPOSSIBLE !
I Understand everything.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But please be specific.
So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.
Lol.
Are you for real ?
Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Look who starts the trolling !!!I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.I am a vegetarian for only half a year, after consuming lots of beef, chicken and pork !!!!!!
In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
I did it because i saw what a modern slaughterhouse is really like !
If you wouldn't be such a humorless payed shill that runs a secondary blog about irrelevant space fantasies, then you should have known it was my personal gripe with Mrs Grundy (formerly known as ''here to laugh at you'') that allowed me to tease him with a ''hamburger'' addiction. (for the record ....he hasn't).
So again, don't take this reply to serious, because i deliberately said things you don't like... ::)
So, just trolling then. No real point to make other than tired old re-hashes of easily debunked garbage.
Your shill accusations are as boring as they are false, and just another piece of tedious trolling by you.
Grow up.
Look who starts the trolling !!!I think dutchy has this idea that everyone who believes Apollo went to the moon, or the Earth is round, or whatever other conspiracy nonsense he has eaten with his tofu, are all slavering predators who eat live cows and enjoy watching videos of slaughterhouses in action. It's a common conspiracy trait: if you believe in z then you must also believe in a to y. If you are wrong about one thing then by default you are wrong about everything.I am a vegetarian for only half a year, after consuming lots of beef, chicken and pork !!!!!!
In reality, some of us have been vegetarian for longer than most posters on here have been alive.
I did it because i saw what a modern slaughterhouse is really like !
If you wouldn't be such a humorless payed shill that runs a secondary blog about irrelevant space fantasies, then you should have known it was my personal gripe with Mrs Grundy (formerly known as ''here to laugh at you'') that allowed me to tease him with a ''hamburger'' addiction. (for the record ....he hasn't).
So again, don't take this reply to serious, because i deliberately said things you don't like... ::)
So, just trolling then. No real point to make other than tired old re-hashes of easily debunked garbage.
Your shill accusations are as boring as they are false, and just another piece of tedious trolling by you.
Grow up.
Because i master those skills and you obviously don't, doesn't mean that you shouldn't stick to the facts. Fact is you started about me and tofu or whatever....... ;D
And i have presented you with numerous facts about astronauts claiming that they could only see the moon , sun and earth. No stars !!! But you gave a new defenition to the word 'gullible'.
It's all good...Just like the chest mounted camera without auto focus. Neil practiced, practiced, practiced in hus garden after dinner in his spare time.
I really don't expect someone who can't keep a tricycle from falling over, to believe humans can perform such extraordinary tasks.
It was probably a walk in the park for Neil, given the 1/6 gravity and the 16 rcs thrusters in addition to the descent engine.
Practice, practice, practice. One day you will move up to a two wheeler with training wheels.
So that would be a no then. And we are back to you don't understand it so it must be fake.Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander. You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".
Me overloaded?
IMPOSSIBLE !
I Understand everything.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But please be specific.
So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.
Lol.
Are you for real ?
Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And of course, you can't be bothered to actually research the thing you claim is a fake.
You truly are amazing.
Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.
Why indeed. You have your opinions there is no reason to let facts get in the way. And if you actually researched it you might come across facts and facts are bad for your delusion.So that would be a no then. And we are back to you don't understand it so it must be fake.Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander. You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".
Me overloaded?
IMPOSSIBLE !
I Understand everything.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But please be specific.
So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.
Lol.
Are you for real ?
Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And of course, you can't be bothered to actually research the thing you claim is a fake.
You truly are amazing.
Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.
If someone told you the ToothFairy was real would you research it.?
I have never come across such a wet sweaty sock such as yourself in all my life.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!
dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.
so, you have THAT going for you.
Why indeed. You have your opinions there is no reason to let facts get in the way. And if you actually researched it you might come across facts and facts are bad for your delusion.So that would be a no then. And we are back to you don't understand it so it must be fake.Great so can point out specifically what is wrong with the lunar lander. You can use the documents provided here to show what part of the engineering is wrong and wouldn't work.I think you said too much and overloaded poor Mr Resistance.is.Futile.I understand that the Child's Collage would not last 5 minutes on a english summers day.But you don't understand how much time and effort went into the LM.
It would be simpler to say "Resistance.is.Futile doesn't understand anything".
Me overloaded?
IMPOSSIBLE !
I Understand everything.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But please be specific.
So you want me to use some fabricated documents one of your brethren pulled out of his arse to debunk the lunar lander.
Lol.
Are you for real ?
Any normal person that looks at that thing can see it's a child's collage put together to fool cattle like you.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And of course, you can't be bothered to actually research the thing you claim is a fake.
You truly are amazing.
Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.
If someone told you the ToothFairy was real would you research it.?
I have never come across such a wet sweaty sock such as yourself in all my life.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I understand perfectly why you would not want to research the subject you claim to be such an expert on.
I merely pointed out that you aren't the only vegetarian in the world, and that it does not imbue you with any kind of moral superiority over anyone. Clearly as someone new to the game you are still at the "annoying preachy shitbag" stage. You'll grow out of it.I cook dinner in the evening most of the time and i do include meat 4-5 times a week for those in my family who do want their meat.
I only annoy a schemer like you that clearly participates on the wrong forum you should ask the flatearthers about my contributions.
The only thing you have done is misrepresent facts, ignore anything that proves you wrong, fail utterly to account for context and freely admit to posting just to annoy people.
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-gossip-is-a-plague-that-consumes-weak-gullible-people-and-blinds-them-from-the-truth-david-spade-143-91-76.jpg)Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!
dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.
so, you have THAT going for you.
The worst part is that he's a 50 years old child
So you can that you understand both sides in order to make a well reasoned, cogent argument.
Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.
<snip>
Why did Grummann not build a working LM? they were paid to do so by NASA. Grumman of course did not know about the hoax, why would they know? It would be retarded for NASA to spill the beans without any reason to do so.You are right, Grumman tried to built a working LM,.....but that's not all ....
Why would NASA tell Grumman about the hoax? that would make no sense.
You want the hoax to be as small as possible.
By telling Grumman that everything is a hoax for no reason, you enlarge the hoax for no reason.
Which makes no sense.
That's just crazy talk. When you already know stuff there is no reason to research something because everyone knows it doesn't exist anyway so really there's nothing to research. Why do hate God?So you can that you understand both sides in order to make a well reasoned, cogent argument.
Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.
<snip>
Just saying
Mike
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-gossip-is-a-plague-that-consumes-weak-gullible-people-and-blinds-them-from-the-truth-david-spade-143-91-76.jpg)Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!
dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.
so, you have THAT going for you.
The worst part is that he's a 50 years old child
Correct, at the moment we do not have all of the Apollo hardware needed to launch and land on the moon. Most has been send to museums and has been decommissioned. NASA has been working on a new project to leave low earth orbit. The Orion capsule uses many desing features from the Command Module.Why did Grummann not build a working LM? they were paid to do so by NASA. Grumman of course did not know about the hoax, why would they know? It would be retarded for NASA to spill the beans without any reason to do so.You are right, Grunman tried to built a working LM,.....but that's not all ....
Why would NASA tell Grumman about the hoax? that would make no sense.
You want the hoax to be as small as possible.
By telling Grumman that everything is a hoax for no reason, you enlarge the hoax for no reason.
Which makes no sense.
Don Pettit clearly said,...we have destroyed the technologies to go back to moon, we don't have them anymore.
Did Don Pettit contact Grunman and other contractors ?
Did all contractors destroy their part in the greatest achievements of mankind too ?
Are there induviduals that understand the WHOLE LM and how it functions ?
Clearly the mars curiousity teamleader can't answer any specific questions that were extremely related to the mission.
A teamleader of the mars mission does not know in what format curiousity sends it's data back to earth and many more questions the guy does not KNOW in the press conference!!!!!
(http://)
Do i have to believe there were induviduals at Grumman who could tell about each and every part and it's functionality of the LM ?
Answer.....no !!!!! Only NASA insiders knew and grumman did their part ..after delivery NASA took it to the ''next level''.
That is why every INDUVIDUAL does their best to make a single part functional, but rarely oversees the bigger picture.
Like my ''mars'' example proves is that teamleaders don't know specific details either.
The saturn 5 rocket alone was made by several contractors only responsible for one stage or something else
Of course the rocket could go upwards and the LM could probably do all sorts of things after assembly of all the specific parts made by specific teams/induviduals.
But if the saturn 5 could lift the LM into outerspace whichthen went to the moon 380.000 km away with enough speed, executing a perfect landing is extremely debatable.
I heard some NASA top figure claim that they did a double dip during re-entry to prevent a burning capsule.
An Apollo astronaut claimed they never performed the double dip during re-entry.
There are very few induviduals in the know of every important detail, just like during the Manhattan project. Compartmentalisation at it's most functional.
I have researched the moonlandings for years and did not encounter a single astronaut, spokesman or scientists who could remotely explain what they had achieved during Apollo....all made remarks that showed they did not really know and only knew about stuff related to their very unique and specific part of the Apollo project.
Yes after the nineties till now, the NASA ''repair team'' did a ''good'' job explaining away many inconsistancies, but still the smoking gun is huge....
Just like the chest mounted camera without auto focus. Neil practiced, practiced, practiced in hus garden after dinner in his spare time.Yes, exactly. The astronauts were issued cameras to take home and practice with so that they could learn to estimate focus, exposure and rough framing.
Why would I waste my time researching something that looks as ridiculous as that.Then, pray tell, what do you think that a real lunar lander should look like?
Also the magazines had exposures written on them as here:Just like the chest mounted camera without auto focus. Neil practiced, practiced, practiced in hus garden after dinner in his spare time.Yes, exactly. The astronauts were issued cameras to take home and practice with so that they could learn to estimate focus, exposure and rough framing.
You are right, Grumman tried to built a working LM,.....but that's not all ....I don’t know if you’ve ever worked for the government but over time they disassemble, cannibalize parts, lose track of, and just plain junk nearly everything that sits around or any length of time; this is especially true of the military. You may think I’m kidding but I'm not.
Don Pettit clearly said,...we have destroyed the technologies to go back to moon, we don't have them anymore.
Did Don Pettit contact Grunman and other contractors ?
Did all contractors destroy their part in the greatest achievements of mankind too?
<snip>
Shouting "fake! fake!" again and again without a single proof of why you think something it is fake also damages society.I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that some astronauts see the stars in cislunarspace ten times as bright by simply looking out of the cabine's window.
A six year old would learn that already, when will you? (assuming you are not a troll, but that's hard to believe seeing how you crave at the fact of making a fool out of yourself)In psychology this is called ''projection''
I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that some astronauts see the stars in cislunarspace ten times as bright by simply looking out of the cabine's window.
others claim at the same position (different journey) not to have seen any stars without the use of optics.
I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that some astronauts see the stars in cislunarspace ten times as bright by simply looking out of the cabine's window.
others claim at the same position (different journey) not to have seen any stars without the use of optics.
It is you who deny the facts and squirm towards irrelevant damage control.
In psychology this is called ''projection''
Someone who calls himself simba and accuses others that his learning curve barely qualifies for a six year old .
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ee/44/16/ee44167f8f6ec026767a0da93a200108.jpg)
Ah we finally getting somewhere :
I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that some astronauts see the stars in cislunarspace ten times as bright by simply looking out of the cabine's window.
others claim at the same position (different journey) not to have seen any stars without the use of optics.
You have done no such thing. You keep referring to "without the use of optics", which was Armstrong's comment about seeing stars on the lunar surface. Plenty of other astronauts, including Armstrong, report seeing stars in cislunar space and in lunar orbit. All you've actually done is point out what other people have done. You haven't proved anything other than Apollo astronauts were where they claimed to be - in space.
[People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.Calm down boy. I didn't say to some ''people'' over here that they have psychological issues, i pointed out a certain aspect of behaviour to YOU !!!!
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!
dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.
so, you have THAT going for you.
The worst part is that he's a 50 years old child
[People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.Calm down boy. I didn't say to some ''people'' over here that they have psychological issues, i pointed out a certain aspect of behaviour to YOU !!!!
How can you to speak about proof, facts, and study when you post things like this.
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!
dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.
so, you have THAT going for you.
The worst part is that he's a 50 years old child
Why do you REtards feel the need to gang up on people?
Is it because you can't stand on your own two feet ?
So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on. :-\
I don't know why most globers have such a hard time to hear what astronauts and flatearthers actually say.....it is absolutely astounding the amount of inaccuracy i wittiness among globers over here when simple words/sentences are interpreted. Let's look at the specific quotes !!So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on. :-\
So I obviously got a warning for this post where I spilled nothing but the truth, dutchy left the eclipse thread stating he was obviously unfit for further debate when his arguements got destroyed, and yet he comes back gushing happily in other threads.
Are you fucking kidding, whoever got me that warning? ::)
The level of ignorance displayed by dutchy and this resistance is futile sheep is astounding.Besides the clear indication that your purpose to ''laugh at flattards'' is becoming a huge failure, your cognitive dissonance is kicking in real hard when it comes to understanding what flatearthers have to say.
YouTube cult indoctrination at its finest.
To say it's a waste of time to research facts about the lunar module, but spend hours a day bleating and babbling about some non-existent conspiracy is the definition of stupidity.
Or a really bad troll
If you wouldn't be such an indoctrinated sheep you would try to listen.[People literally explain things to you and you just brush it off, shut your ears and keep digging the same hole of stubbornness, you are the least entittled here to go pointing at people and say they have psychological issues.Calm down boy. I didn't say to some ''people'' over here that they have psychological issues, i pointed out a certain aspect of behaviour to YOU !!!!
How can you to speak about proof, facts, and study when you post things like this.
What are you even trying to say here? I am a person, therefore part of "some people". You can't even get your point through, can you?
Bottom line: If you don't have proof to back your argument, don't use said argument. You didn't even made mention of this subject wich goes to demonstrate my later point: you shut your ears, brush it off and keep on being sttuborn.
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!
dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.
so, you have THAT going for you.
Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!
dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.
so, you have THAT going for you.
You should start an ignore list.
Luckily i can debunk your silly posts without any response. Looking forward to the coming year(s).Nah... He's the reason I'm here ;^)Once a conspiritard, ALWAYS a conspiritard!
dutchy, you are a horrible, closed minded uneducated fool. I will never address you personally, or respond to any of your bullshit again.
so, you have THAT going for you.
You should start an ignore list.
And even if you proved this to everyone's satisfaction (you won't, but let's pretend) where has it got you?
I have been very, very cautious for years to dismiss the moonlandings and did take the subject way more serious than many believers and even astronauts who make a mockery of themselves and the tax payer, or are extremely lazy when it comes to the details.
What was it you wanted to discuss about the moonlandings and/or NASA ? Please specify !
twelve, countries from the list below (USSR, USA, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Iran and North Korea) and one regional organization (the European Space Agency, ESA) have independently launched satellites on their own indigenously developed launch vehicles.So you have eleven countries, some of which would never collude with the USA, who have launched their own satellites.
If you wouldn't be such an indoctrinated sheep you would try to listen.
I will brake it down real simple.
1 I have researched the moonlandings for i think about 5 years
2 I couldn't believe there were real people dumb enough to doubt the greatest achievement of mankind
3 I read chapters in the books of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Renee that started a process.
4 I watched all Jarrah White's video's about the moonlandings and read the counter arguments at the Clavius forum (pro NASA)
5 I started to look for every interview in papers and online footage made by astronauts and NASA insiders.
6 It became clear there were huge discrepancies in the official storyline
7 I read about how scientists and rocket engeneres envisioned spacetravel in the fifties and how extremely different it was when Apollo became reality.
8 I started to read about an ongoing rehabilitation program for Nazi's in the USA that lasted until the nineties and the heavy involvement from NASA.
9 I learned between the connection of Walt Disney and NASA (Werner Von Braun)
10 I started to examine the photographs and original video from the moon
11 I learned about that episode in American history...the Kennedy legacy, the cold war, and riots on home soil.
12 during the nineties NASA has repaired a lot of mistakes of the past concerning the Apollo missions.
After a few years in a fascinating personal journey it became so obvious that it was all a hoax during the Vietnam war and president Nixon in charge.
An heroic story to boast the USA in rough times and fullfill the ''prophecy'' of Kennedy just before the decade was over.
Then the house of cards was coming down real fast.
Each and every evidence of the moonlandings proved the opposite to me.....
I have been very, very cautious for years to dismiss the moonlandings and did take the subject way more serious than many believers and even astronauts who make a mockery of themselves and the tax payer, or are extremely lazy when it comes to the details.
What was it you wanted to discuss about the moonlandings and/or NASA ? Please specify !
I don't know why most globers have such a hard time to hear what astronauts and flatearthers actually say.....it is absolutely astounding the amount of inaccuracy i wittiness among globers over here when simple words/sentences are interpreted. Let's look at the specific quotes !!So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on. :-\
So I obviously got a warning for this post where I spilled nothing but the truth, dutchy left the eclipse thread stating he was obviously unfit for further debate when his arguements got destroyed, and yet he comes back gushing happily in other threads.
Are you fucking kidding, whoever got me that warning? ::)
You said :
Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there... :-\
I replied
What do i have to add ? I am simply not capable to express my thoughts.....i tried, but i am the first to acknowledge that you should stick to those things you can explain at a bare minimum. The jargon involved in the eclips (English for all things) is to much for me to post a coherent post.
Any objective reader understands i was talking about specific jargon related to the eclips,....because (guess what) that is exactly what i said yeahhhhh !!!
I did participate with a lenghty post AFTER i acknowledged that the umbra could indeed move west to east.
You obviously have missed that, where i tried to explain why the umbra should be in reversed mode at the very beginning and leaving the surface very fast in it's final stages.
It was to difficult to explain what i meant and how i came to that conclusion after hours of reading, also on NASA sites.
I thought,....okay i have overdone it this time, knowing i couldn't explain it the way i wanted in English
In your stubborn mind, you not only claimed you missed me in that specific topic(which is dubious in hindsight) you also draw several wrong conclusions that ended in rediculing me for the WRONG reasons as i have pointed out.
Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.
Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)
and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)
Now think again. ::)
Before i reply ( i am going to a party so i cannot comment on your weak attempts now) i will say the following.There was lots of glare from the lunar surface. Lots of scattering of light by the lunar surface.
The moon has according to Neil deGrasse Tyson no atmosphere (almost zero)
No scattered sunlight, no reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere, no nothing.
Only looking directly into the sun stops you from seeing stars !!!!!
Neil had to adjust and use the optics to clearly see stars.
Without an atmosphere reflecting the scattered sunlight or surface reflections this shouldn't be needed .
This is complete bullseye proof that you simply ignore over and over again.
Ignore the facts, misinterpret them, redirect, say i never have proved anything and start all over again.
Neil had to adjust to the bright sunlight and had to use optics to get the most of the starlight.
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson and any reasonable mind it is utter nonsense, because the moon has no atmosphere.
Before you ignore this for the zillionth time ...... the moon has no atmosphere, so the scattered sunlight is absend !!!!!!
Look man....... it's called PROOF of NASA inconsistancies that matter very much. We are not talking about the size of Neil's camera here...
You are kidding me, don't tell me you are serious !I don't know why most globers have such a hard time to hear what astronauts and flatearthers actually say.....it is absolutely astounding the amount of inaccuracy i wittiness among globers over here when simple words/sentences are interpreted. Let's look at the specific quotes !!So poor dutchy outright admitted he is unfit to debate on here in the english language in the first place, yet he can't help himself to continue ridiculing matters he obviously doesn't understand properly.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're done on this board obviously and any of your responses should be considered
in vain and void from now on. :-\
So I obviously got a warning for this post where I spilled nothing but the truth, dutchy left the eclipse thread stating he was obviously unfit for further debate when his arguements got destroyed, and yet he comes back gushing happily in other threads.
Are you fucking kidding, whoever got me that warning? ::)
You said :
Why you abandoned the eclipse thread, though? We miss you there... :-\
I replied
What do i have to add ? I am simply not capable to express my thoughts.....i tried, but i am the first to acknowledge that you should stick to those things you can explain at a bare minimum. The jargon involved in the eclips (English for all things) is to much for me to post a coherent post.
Any objective reader understands i was talking about specific jargon related to the eclips,....because (guess what) that is exactly what i said yeahhhhh !!!
I did participate with a lenghty post AFTER i acknowledged that the umbra could indeed move west to east.
You obviously have missed that, where i tried to explain why the umbra should be in reversed mode at the very beginning and leaving the surface very fast in it's final stages.
It was to difficult to explain what i meant and how i came to that conclusion after hours of reading, also on NASA sites.
I thought,....okay i have overdone it this time, knowing i couldn't explain it the way i wanted in English
In your stubborn mind, you not only claimed you missed me in that specific topic(which is dubious in hindsight) you also draw several wrong conclusions that ended in rediculing me for the WRONG reasons as i have pointed out.
Again: I'm not a native english speaker for myself, but other than you I had no problem to follow the arguementation of your claim about the umbra and debunk it quite easily as you never responded after that answer of mine:Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.
Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)
and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)
Now think again. ::)
And just for the record: Abandoning threads after your claims were debunked and then stating you did so only because you ran out of the proper scientific terms to go on further on the topic when being called out on it in other threads where you continue to gush about NASA pictures is nothing but weak in my book.
You really think we are that dumb to not know why you left in the first place? Man up and take the blow if you were wrong and learn for once how credibility works on any forum. ::)
Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.After you posted your silly diagram of bullshit, i decided it wasn't worth my energy, because debunking that silly diagram would need really specific jargon in English.
Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)
and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)
Now think again. ::)
Before i reply ( i am going to a party so i cannot comment on your weak attempts now) i will say the following."Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.
The moon has according to Neil deGrasse Tyson no atmosphere (almost zero)
No scattered sunlight, no reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere, no nothing.
Only looking directly into the sun stops you from seeing stars !!!!!
Neil had to adjust and use the optics to clearly see stars.The only difference is the lack of the bright sky. The very bright sunlight still reflects off the lunar surface.
Without an atmosphere reflecting the scattered sunlight or surface reflections this shouldn't be needed .
This is complete bullseye proof that you simply ignore over and over again.
Ignore the facts, misinterpret them, redirect, say i never have proved anything and start all over again.
Neil had to adjust to the bright sunlight and had to use optics to get the most of the starlight.Obviously "Neil had to adjust to the bright sunlight"! There's no way you can deny that!
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson and any reasonable mind it is utter nonsense, because the moon has no atmosphere.
Before you ignore this for the zillionth time ...... the moon has no atmosphere, so the scattered sunlight is absend !!!!!!I have answered that numerous times.
Look man....... it's called PROOF of NASA inconsistancies that matter very much. We are not talking about the size of Neil's camera here...You might call it "PROOF of NASA inconsistencies". I call it you refusal to acknowledge known facts about vision.
Your animation shows a fixed globe.Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.After you posted your silly diagram of bullshit, i decided it wasn't worth my energy, because debunking that silly diagram would need really specific jargon in English.
Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)
and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)
Now think again. ::)
As if we don't know you didn't even try because your claim about the eclipse shadow moving in counter direction when entering and leaving the Earths sphere has been trashed to bits.
But yeah, whatever. Just go forth with your ramblings about NASA pictures, I wonder when you would come to a point where your english skills "prevent" you from further engagement here and you'd run away like a coward again. As i see it now you're nothing short but a dishonest liar. ::)
"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....
Your animation shows a fixed globe.No, the globe is fixed there in reference of both the Sun and the Moons shadow to show the combined movement. Didn't you notice the terminator line moving constantly?
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.Again: Angular speed is irrelevant here since the transversal trajectory of the Moons shadow is linear, hence you have to look at the projected transversal speed of a point on a revolving Earth. I showed that in my second animation where you can see it as the blue dot shows zero velocity when being perpendicular to reference point straight up.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.
Your animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,..... the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)See above, both animations disprove your claim about the relative motion on the side of the globe being faster than the Moons shadow, in fact the shadow is much faster as the projected trajectory for a point on the globe is very slow on the sides of the globe. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say tbh.
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.
So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.
'Dishonest liar ?'Either that, or you're just lacking the intellect to grasp the concept of it all. It's been shown and explained to you now, so what should it be?
Your animation shows a fixed globe.Nothing ever satisfies you! Go find you own animations - but the Heliocentric Globe works - your flat earth doesn't!
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.
Your animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,..... the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.
So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.
All the pics of apollo suits I've seen show it wasn't easy to lean back or look up. And even if done the large glass visor could still be catching reflected light from the surface making it harder for ones eyes to adjust."Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....
What can interfere between his direct line of sight and the stars ?
There is only the void of space between the direct line of the observer and the stars.
There are no molecules to reflect upon or scatter the sunlight.
So all your claims are false untill you explain the following.
What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?
I understand that your masters don't like it you avoid this very simple question again and again........or maybe they command you to avoid an impossible answer......
Because the suit is back heavy, it was difficult to look up. The astronaut had to curve his entire back back to view the sky.All the pics of apollo suits I've seen show it wasn't easy to lean back or look up. And even if done the large glass visor could still be catching reflected light from the surface making it harder for ones eyes to adjust."Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....
What can interfere between his direct line of sight and the stars ?
There is only the void of space between the direct line of the observer and the stars.
There are no molecules to reflect upon or scatter the sunlight.
So all your claims are false untill you explain the following.
What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?
I understand that your masters don't like it you avoid this very simple question again and again........or maybe they command you to avoid an impossible answer......
What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?
Ok, you think you have debunked the globe eclipse. Explain how it works on a flat earth. Because until you can do that, you have nothing.Your animation shows a fixed globe.Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.After you posted your silly diagram of bullshit, i decided it wasn't worth my energy, because debunking that silly diagram would need really specific jargon in English.
Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)
and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)
Now think again. ::)
As if we don't know you didn't even try because your claim about the eclipse shadow moving in counter direction when entering and leaving the Earths sphere has been trashed to bits.
But yeah, whatever. Just go forth with your ramblings about NASA pictures, I wonder when you would come to a point where your english skills "prevent" you from further engagement here and you'd run away like a coward again. As i see it now you're nothing short but a dishonest liar. ::)
When you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.
Your animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,..... the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.
So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.
'Dishonest liar ?' I really hope you don't have a spouce in life......
I am still waiting for an answer, not secondary info.Since it's obvious that no one ever went to the moon, there is no way to verify the answer. Wouldn't you agree?
The question is really simple :
If a person standing on the moon would look upwards to the sky, is there anything in between the direct line of sight and the incoming starlight that somehow obscures the bright starlight ?
I am not asking if they could lean backwards enough or that they had ground camera's pointed to the skies....
I am asking if in the vacuum of space any reflection or other light scattering could occur and somehow obscure the incoming starlight.
I want a scientific explaination how there could possibly be any interaction between light and the absense of any atmosphere/molecules to reflect upon.
The lightsource (star) should shine it's light in the eye of the observer without anything that could possibly obscure the line of sight, because...again there is no atmosphere, no molecules !!!
Is this correct ? If not explain how the vacuum of space has certain properties that obscures incoming rays from a direct source of light, so that it can obscure the lightsource
Then we talk about the rest.
First we are going to establish the properties of a vacuum in between an observer and a direct lightsource (star)
Remember we dont look at the rigolet, mountains....we look directly towards the vacuum and stars !
No, i don't consider myself that important. ''Because i cannot go to the moon, no one can'' is never an option for me.I am still waiting for an answer, not secondary info.Since it's obvious that no one ever went to the moon, there is no way to verify the answer. Wouldn't you agree?
The question is really simple :
If a person standing on the moon would look upwards to the sky, is there anything in between the direct line of sight and the incoming starlight that somehow obscures the bright starlight ?
I am not asking if they could lean backwards enough or that they had ground camera's pointed to the skies....
I am asking if in the vacuum of space any reflection or other light scattering could occur and somehow obscure the incoming starlight.
I want a scientific explaination how there could possibly be any interaction between light and the absense of any atmosphere/molecules to reflect upon.
The lightsource (star) should shine it's light in the eye of the observer without anything that could possibly obscure the line of sight, because...again there is no atmosphere, no molecules !!!
Is this correct ? If not explain how the vacuum of space has certain properties that obscures incoming rays from a direct source of light, so that it can obscure the lightsource
Then we talk about the rest.
First we are going to establish the properties of a vacuum in between an observer and a direct lightsource (star)
Remember we dont look at the rigolet, mountains....we look directly towards the vacuum and stars !
Not enough! The astronaut's eyes need minutes to adapt - FACT!"Reflection from the surface that hits an atmosphere" doesn't amount to much, but light still reflects from lunar rocks and surface and re-reflects.When an astronaut on the moon bends his head towards the sky.....
What can interfere between his direct line of sight and the stars ?The FACT that the astronaut's eyes need minutes to adapt.
There is only the void of space between the direct line of the observer and the stars.Incorrect!
There are no molecules to reflect upon or scatter the sunlight.
So all your claims are false untill you explain the following.
I have given you the reason a zillion times, but you have totally ignored my explanation a zillion times.
What can interfere in the vacuum between an astronaut looking upwards between his line of sight and the starlight ?
Condition | Illumination | |
Sunlight | 107527 lux | |
Full Daylight | 10752 lux | |
Twilight | 10.8 lux | |
Full Moon | 0.108 lux | |
Starlight | 0.0011 lux | |
Starlight (excluding air-glow) | 0.0002 lux |
A rule-of-thumb for ship's lookouts is that around 20 minutes is needed to adapt to dark conditions.
How long does it take our eyes to fully adapt to darkness?
Human eyes take several hours to fully adapt to darkness and reach their optimal sensitivity to low light conditions. The quickest gains in vision sensitivity are made in the first few minutes after exposure to darkness. For this reason, many people think that after only a few minutes, their eyes have reached their peak sensitivity. But several hours into darkness exposure, the human eyes continue to adapt and make small gains in sensitivity.
More information in: How long does it take our eyes to fully adapt to darkness? (http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/08/09/how-long-does-it-take-our-eyes-to-fully-adapt-to-darkness/)(http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/images/darkadaptationcurve.gif)
I understand that your masters don't like it you avoid this very simple question again and again........or maybe they command you to avoid an impossible answer......Stop being a total idiot! I have no masters (in that sense) and I have not avoided the question.
Human eyes take several hours to fully adapt to darkness and reach their optimal sensitivity to low light conditions. The quickest gains in vision sensitivity are made in the first few minutes after exposure to darkness. For this reason, many people think that after only a few minutes, their eyes have reached their peak sensitivity. But several hours into darkness exposure, the human eyes continue to adapt and make small gains in sensitivity.Horse manure,.....i can immidiatly see the stars. i don't have to adapt for hours when going outside to see a full sky of stars. Granted after a while i see even more stars
Of course a vacuum can not obscure light from hitting your eyes.Thanks we are getting somewhere !
It is a vacuum... it blocks absolutely nothing.
Now, the eyes of the astronaut will be inside his pressure suit of course, and thus not in a vacuum environment. (Yes the Apollo EVA suit consist of multiple parts, not just one layer.)
But you haven't discovered huge amounts of anomalies. You have basically found one guy who has never been saying that under ideal conditions it should be this and guy who has been, not under ideal conditions said I experienced this.No, i don't consider myself that important. ''Because i cannot go to the moon, no one can'' is never an option for me.I am still waiting for an answer, not secondary info.Since it's obvious that no one ever went to the moon, there is no way to verify the answer. Wouldn't you agree?
The question is really simple :
If a person standing on the moon would look upwards to the sky, is there anything in between the direct line of sight and the incoming starlight that somehow obscures the bright starlight ?
I am not asking if they could lean backwards enough or that they had ground camera's pointed to the skies....
I am asking if in the vacuum of space any reflection or other light scattering could occur and somehow obscure the incoming starlight.
I want a scientific explaination how there could possibly be any interaction between light and the absense of any atmosphere/molecules to reflect upon.
The lightsource (star) should shine it's light in the eye of the observer without anything that could possibly obscure the line of sight, because...again there is no atmosphere, no molecules !!!
Is this correct ? If not explain how the vacuum of space has certain properties that obscures incoming rays from a direct source of light, so that it can obscure the lightsource
Then we talk about the rest.
First we are going to establish the properties of a vacuum in between an observer and a direct lightsource (star)
Remember we dont look at the rigolet, mountains....we look directly towards the vacuum and stars !
When i discover huge amounts of anomalies in the official storyline and a several important motives to fake it all, then it becomes clear that no one has gone to the moon and back in the late sixties and early seventies.
What i find really disturbing is that the discussion is so loaded.
So could you please answer my questions markjo ? You know....about scattered light and reflected light in between the observer, the vacuum and the lightsource ?
Can the vacuum obscure the light coming into your eyes ?
You have never, ever had to make the transition from full sunlight with its 100,000 lux intensity to starlight with its 0.0002 lux intesity.Human eyes take several hours to fully adapt to darkness and reach their optimal sensitivity to low light conditions. The quickest gains in vision sensitivity are made in the first few minutes after exposure to darkness. For this reason, many people think that after only a few minutes, their eyes have reached their peak sensitivity. But several hours into darkness exposure, the human eyes continue to adapt and make small gains in sensitivity.Horse manure,.....i can immidiatly see the stars. i don't have to adapt for hours when going outside to see a full sky of stars. Granted after a while i see even more stars
Does the suit of an astromaut prevents the astronaut from seeing any stars at all from the daylight side of the moon ?I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.
And why does he have to adapt to the circomstances considering he is surrounded by the biggest vacuum imaginable ?The vacuum itself has little to do with the case! The environment on the moon is extremely bright, brighter than the noon-day sun.
Human eyes take several hours to fully adapt to darkness and reach their optimal sensitivity to low light conditions. The quickest gains in vision sensitivity are made in the first few minutes after exposure to darkness. For this reason, many people think that after only a few minutes, their eyes have reached their peak sensitivity. But several hours into darkness exposure, the human eyes continue to adapt and make small gains in sensitivity.Horse manure,.....i can immidiatly see the stars. i don't have to adapt for hours when going outside to see a full sky of stars. Granted after a while i see even more stars
Contrary to Neil, Buzz and Michael's claims that they could not see any stars on the daylight surface of the moon.
And the rest of your post is more of your irritating attempts to0 muddy the waters.
It doesn't matter how bright the sun is, you gullible puppet.
In the vacuum of space there isn't any atmosphere or molecules to interfere with an astronaut's line of sight in the direction of the stars.
The sun cannot possibly scatter it's brightness in a vacuum,.........no molecules to bounce off.
The only precaution the astronaut has to make is to avoid the direct line of sight with the sun, no matter how bright that sun is.
Ever seen a laserlight ? It becomes visible because it bounces off dust particles, without those particles it wouldn't be visible.
The sun cannot interfere with the starlight, because around the sun there is the largest vacuum imaginable.
Your animation shows a fixed globe.No, the globe is fixed there in reference of both the Sun and the Moons shadow to show the combined movement. Didn't you notice the terminator line moving constantly?QuoteWhen you look at the original blue marble it only shows Africa and a bit of Europe.Again: Angular speed is irrelevant here since the transversal trajectory of the Moons shadow is linear, hence you have to look at the projected transversal speed of a point on a revolving Earth. I showed that in my second animation where you can see it as the blue dot shows zero velocity when being perpendicular to reference point straight up.
South America and Australia are crammed into the last visible part of the globe.
Once you start to turn the globe, (the blue marble as reference) South America covers a lot of ground only after turning the globe a bit.
It means that any shadow from the sides cannot match the angular speed of the globe.QuoteYour animation is full of bullshit because it fails to show the most important part,..... the relative motion of the globe on the sides that are obscured but are there ( blue marble as reference where it seems some continents are on the othe side, but are crammed together at the sides)See above, both animations disprove your claim about the relative motion on the side of the globe being faster than the Moons shadow, in fact the shadow is much faster as the projected trajectory for a point on the globe is very slow on the sides of the globe. If you can't see that I don't know what else to say tbh.
The relative motion on the side is greater than the speed of the shadow when moving upward and the shadow is much faster when it is near the end of the eclips.
So either show me an animation from the perspective of someone standing on the side ( boat in the pacific) of the spinning globe at the start of the eclips where i can see why the speed of the umbra is faster than the uphill motion of the earth at that specific position.Quote'Dishonest liar ?'Either that, or you're just lacking the intellect to grasp the concept of it all. It's been shown and explained to you now, so what should it be?
I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.You don't know, you don't know ??
The vacuum itself has little to do with the case! The environment on the moon is extremely bright, brighter than the noon-day sun.My o my, don't discuss matters when you obviously have no clue whatsoever.
So the astronaut certainly would have to adapt from the bright lunar surface to the very low intensity starlight,though I doubt that stray light would allow good adaptation anyway.But, as I have said many times (twice is always), neither you nor I have been there, nor in any similar situation .
Run off and ask some expert on this matter, though you might ask yourself why night lookouts on ships can be expected to take up to 20 minutes to adapt.
You might read Night-time Lookout Duty: The Role of Ambient Light Levels and Dark Adaptation (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259425341_Night-time_Lookout_Duty_The_Role_of_Ambient_Light_Levels_and_Dark_Adaptation)
Unless you think that they too are part of this dastardly NASA conpiracy all out to hide the truth fro poor, poor dutchy!But, whatever you prove, the Heliocentric Globe just keeps orbiting good old Sol.
There is never any suggestion that Neil Armstrong ever took the time for his eyes to adapt, so how could he ever see stars.I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.You don't know, you don't know ??
According to Neil Armstrong they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics.
Not after a minute, not after hours !
They were never ( you understand the word never do you ?) able to see stars on the daylight surface of the moon without using optics.
This was said twice in different interviews after an interviewer specifically asked about GAZING UPWARDS.
So your miracle wonder suit and visor prevents the Apollo liars from seeing any stars in the vaccuum, not even after their eyes could have adjusted to the new situation !!!!!
They were never able to see stars without optics .....NEVER !!!!!
Wow that was a very weak reply by your standards.There is never any suggestion that Neil Armstrong ever took the time for his eyes to adapt, so how could he ever see stars.I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.You don't know, you don't know ??
According to Neil Armstrong they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics.
Not after a minute, not after hours !
They were never ( you understand the word never do you ?) able to see stars on the daylight surface of the moon without using optics.
This was said twice in different interviews after an interviewer specifically asked about GAZING UPWARDS.
So your miracle wonder suit and visor prevents the Apollo liars from seeing any stars in the vaccuum, not even after their eyes could have adjusted to the new situation !!!!!
They were never able to see stars without optics .....NEVER !!!!!
The simple fact is that with all the ambient light around, unless special precautions were taken his eyes would never adapt.
You do, I hope understand the significance of never?
So, I see nothing at all wrong with Neil Armstrong''s claiming thst "they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics."
And I imagine the words "Not after a minute, not after hours!" are just your fabrication, because there is no way that those astronauts would waste 20 minutes, let alone hours for that.
And "GAZING UPWARDS"would not help in the slightest, unless he gazed upwards
in a location where no direct or reflected sunlight could enter his visor
for long enough for his eyes would take to adapt.
Why would they waste time doing that, just to see the stars that they knew full were there anyway?
But I do realise that you would never be convinced because it would totally destroy the fictional flat earth model you believe in with a religious fervour!
But, why do you keep ignoring all the other nations with space agencies? NASA wasn't the first to launch a satellite, nor the first to "put a man into space", so:
What about the 11 other countries that have launched their own satellites, including numerous (unmanned) lunar missions by Russia and a few by other countries.
Nor much to say about the 60 (if I remember correctly) countries with their own TV, communications and weather satellites.
NASA is the least of your worries it you want to disprove the possibility of space exploration and usage.
But you just keep you NASAphobic protective glasses clamped on tight least you get contaminated by this terrible Heliocentric Globe.
There is never any suggestion that Neil Armstrong ever took the time for his eyes to adapt, so how could he ever see stars.I don't know! But, I can see plenty of chance for glare to reflect from parts of the helmet and faceplate.You don't know, you don't know ??
According to Neil Armstrong they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics.
Not after a minute, not after hours !
They were never ( you understand the word never do you ?) able to see stars on the daylight surface of the moon without using optics.
This was said twice in different interviews after an interviewer specifically asked about GAZING UPWARDS.
So your miracle wonder suit and visor prevents the Apollo liars from seeing any stars in the vaccuum, not even after their eyes could have adjusted to the new situation !!!!!
They were never able to see stars without optics .....NEVER !!!!!
The simple fact is that with all the ambient light around, unless special precautions were taken his eyes would never adapt.
You do, I hope understand the significance of never?
So, I see nothing at all wrong with Neil Armstrong''s claiming thst "they couldn't see the stars on the daylight surface of the moon at any given time without looking through optics."
And I imagine the words "Not after a minute, not after hours!" are just your fabrication, because there is no way that those astronauts would waste 20 minutes, let alone hours for that.
And "GAZING UPWARDS"would not help in the slightest, unless he gazed upwards
in a location where no direct or reflected sunlight could enter his visor
for long enough for his eyes would take to adapt.
Why would they waste time doing that, just to see the stars that they knew full were there anyway?
But I do realise that you would never be convinced because it would totally destroy the fictional flat earth model you believe in with a religious fervour!
But, why do you keep ignoring all the other nations with space agencies? NASA wasn't the first to launch a satellite, nor the first to "put a man into space", so:
What about the 11 other countries that have launched their own satellites, including numerous (unmanned) lunar missions by Russia and a few by other countries.
Nor much to say about the 60 (if I remember correctly) countries with their own TV, communications and weather satellites.
NASA is the least of your worries it you want to disprove the possibility of space exploration and usage.
But you just keep you NASAphobic protective glasses clamped on tight least you get contaminated by this terrible Heliocentric Globe.
Wow that was a very weak reply by your standards.
The cracks are clearly showing, you cannot explain why they couldn't see stars contrary to Neil de Grasse Tyson' claims.
The only weak explaination is than it would have been a waste of time to look upwards.
Playing golf, taking lots of photographs from a chauvinistic flag, LM and all other time consuming stuff was more important ?
Any real person looks to the skies when he is on the moon, no matter how important the flag, golf and a jolly good rover ride seems to be by comparison.
And that is what astronauts claim...... what struck them the most was seeing earth in the sky. I bed they were drawn like a magnet to that blue marble in the sky. Of course they would have seen the stars without optics.
If only Neil , Buzz would have thought it through better, before claiming they could never see the stars on the daylight side of the moon without looking through the optics.
I am sure Ed Mitchell has a different point of view, he saw the stars in cislunar space without optics ten times as bright !
Something Neil and the boys were never able to see. They hardly saw any stars, even with the use of optics !
Very good advise about chords, scales & arpeggios !! Then try to play rhytm guitar and make sure you learn the aspects of strumming. Learn to move your hand up and down even when you don't hit the strings during a particular groove.*Mad lies snipped*
Your time would be better spent practicing your appallingly sloppy guitar technique than harassing & lying to strangers on the internet for no reason whatsoever...
Buy a metronome & start with chords, scales & arpeggios.
Dutchy could probably offer you further advice, should you wish it...
Just my two cents.
In all the silly fake Munn landinkz film the sky is black & teh munn a dingy grey colour...What would a Haitian Voodoo Priest know? Stick to casting spells and fiddling with chicken's bones.
Not much 'ambient light' at all.
You also seem to be claiming that humans are incapable of Lying with your shpayze ajenssys bollocks...I don't know much about lying humans, but I know you Voodoo Priests wouldn't hesitate if it meant another victim.
it could depending on which visor they brought down.Of course a vacuum can not obscure light from hitting your eyes.Thanks we are getting somewhere !
It is a vacuum... it blocks absolutely nothing.
Now, the eyes of the astronaut will be inside his pressure suit of course, and thus not in a vacuum environment. (Yes the Apollo EVA suit consist of multiple parts, not just one layer.)
Does the suit of an astromaut prevents the astronaut from seeing any stars at all from the daylight side of the moon ?
And why does he have to adapt to the circomstances considering he is surrounded by the biggest vacuum imaginable ?
Very good advise about chords, scales & arpeggios !! Then try to play rhytm guitar and make sure you learn the aspects of strumming. Learn to hit the strings up and down even when you don't hit the strings during a particular groove.*Mad lies snipped*
Your time would be better spent practicing your appallingly sloppy guitar technique than harassing & lying to strangers on the internet for no reason whatsoever...
Buy a metronome & start with chords, scales & arpeggios.
Dutchy could probably offer you further advice, should you wish it...
Just my two cents.
It's called a 'ghost note strumming' and it seperates the amature from the pro who can follow the beat no matter what because his strumming skills are dead on.
And never, never join a cover band that tries to cover the greatest rock, country and pop hits when you can't remotely reproduce the guitar solo's.
A common mistake, because some solo's seem easy for the casual ear, but are way more difficult to execute perfectly.
Results ? Just another guy that thinks he can play the guitar, but embarasses himself, the band and the listener.
Simply have 'your fun' in another way in a private setting instead of performing in front of an audience.
I hope they take some advice, but i won't count on it, because the illiterate over here defend a live performance between the guitar hero over at the ISS and band earth+choir.
They feel no shame whatsoever to defend this impossible event, without being hindered by musical skills and knowledge about acoustic phenomena and studio recording.
Someone told them they have to believe they are experst in every thinkable field,.........
I have no other explaination for their willfull display of arrogance in each and every topic ever presented at the flatearth forums.
Thanks ! althaugh it was nothing special, anyone with half a brain understands why they tried to pull of a little marketing scam involving some accoustic science fiction.
Yes, your analysis of the ISS live show was absolutely spot on - good work.
And it's very decent of you to offer Paul White advice on improving his atrocious technique too; he really should learn from your gracious manner.Nah,.... they even openly doubted if i knew anything at all about music related stuff..... as if i was quickly copy paisting fancy jargon from the www.
As you can see, rabinoz is currently going berserk; it's best to ignore him when he gets like this, it's way past his bedtime & he'll be on his 3rd bottle of gin by now...:D ;D ;D
Nice talking to you anyway!Thanks, the feeling is mutual !!
Thanks ! althaugh it was nothing special, anyone with half a brain understands why they tried to pull of a little marketing scam involving some accoustic science fiction.
Yes, your analysis of the ISS live show was absolutely spot on - good work.QuoteAnd it's very decent of you to offer Paul White advice on improving his atrocious technique too; he really should learn from your gracious manner.Nah,.... they even openly doubted if i knew anything at all about music related stuff..... as if i was quickly copy paisting fancy jargon from the www.
I guess it is exactly how they keep up their appearences over here...
Any expert can clearly see that i know what i am talking about, but not over here.
Anything to defend their fake space and other fantasies.QuoteAs you can see, rabinoz is currently going berserk; it's best to ignore him when he gets like this, it's way past his bedtime & he'll be on his 3rd bottle of gin by now...:D ;D ;D
I never understood why he is participating over here. He says he does it outta love for the scientific truth,.... so that secret readers of this forum engage with the universally known truth that goes back all the way to the ancient Greeks. ::)e
I say he has all the signs of a payed shill, but he doesn't seem to like that particular suggestion.QuoteNice talking to you anyway!Thanks, the feeling is mutual !!
You should participate more, because they seem to fear you which is a good token !
No no noit could depending on which visor they brought down.Of course a vacuum can not obscure light from hitting your eyes.Thanks we are getting somewhere !
It is a vacuum... it blocks absolutely nothing.
Now, the eyes of the astronaut will be inside his pressure suit of course, and thus not in a vacuum environment. (Yes the Apollo EVA suit consist of multiple parts, not just one layer.)
Does the suit of an astromaut prevents the astronaut from seeing any stars at all from the daylight side of the moon ?
And why does he have to adapt to the circomstances considering he is surrounded by the biggest vacuum imaginable ?
The golden visor blocks a lot of light, glare and reflections. It was meant so astronauts could see the bright lunar surface without their eyes hurting and becoming tired. They could lift the golden visor but then they would get lots of reflection from the sun and lunar surface.
However long you need to stare straight at the sky to adapt for the stars, they didn't do it in Apollo 11. They were always busy doing something, didn't have the time to wait for stars to show up.
They did look up the the Earth though, and said it was a wonderful sight.
The sky is black, aside from planets, the sun and stars.
The lunar surface and man-made objects are all very bright.
When your eyes adapt to the lunar surface, they are adapted to the bright light.
And of course, there still is the SUN, which is more bright on the Moon because it is not lessened by Earth atmosphere.
I already showed you a photo of all the flaps on later Apollo suits, to show how much shielding they needed to keep glare, reflections and unwanted light at a minimum.
Also, are you saying NASA can't have astronauts say they saw stars, but CAN fake stars in photographs? (Yes those were taken in the Apollo program.)
Check out the 'OK Go upside down & inside out' video on YouTube - you will fucking love it.Thanks, i found it !!
Can't post a link cuz I'm on a shitty tablet.
Wait til you see how much better it is than the absolute garbage NASA serve up from their shitty fake ISS...
NASA are such talentless bastards!
Look at what talented people can do on a zero-g plane:Neat video but it doesn't prove or disprove a thing.
Compare it to NASA's witless garbage & weep.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong. He forgets that the lunar surface is bright and the sun can reflect into the visor assembly.No no noit could depending on which visor they brought down.Of course a vacuum can not obscure light from hitting your eyes.Thanks we are getting somewhere !
It is a vacuum... it blocks absolutely nothing.
Now, the eyes of the astronaut will be inside his pressure suit of course, and thus not in a vacuum environment. (Yes the Apollo EVA suit consist of multiple parts, not just one layer.)
Does the suit of an astromaut prevents the astronaut from seeing any stars at all from the daylight side of the moon ?
And why does he have to adapt to the circomstances considering he is surrounded by the biggest vacuum imaginable ?
The golden visor blocks a lot of light, glare and reflections. It was meant so astronauts could see the bright lunar surface without their eyes hurting and becoming tired. They could lift the golden visor but then they would get lots of reflection from the sun and lunar surface.
However long you need to stare straight at the sky to adapt for the stars, they didn't do it in Apollo 11. They were always busy doing something, didn't have the time to wait for stars to show up.
They did look up the the Earth though, and said it was a wonderful sight.
The sky is black, aside from planets, the sun and stars.
The lunar surface and man-made objects are all very bright.
When your eyes adapt to the lunar surface, they are adapted to the bright light.
And of course, there still is the SUN, which is more bright on the Moon because it is not lessened by Earth atmosphere.
I already showed you a photo of all the flaps on later Apollo suits, to show how much shielding they needed to keep glare, reflections and unwanted light at a minimum.
Also, are you saying NASA can't have astronauts say they saw stars, but CAN fake stars in photographs? (Yes those were taken in the Apollo program.)
Neil deGrasse Tyson says :
SINCE THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE, ...IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.
You give all sorts of excuses as to why the quote of Neil is false when men are indeed on the moon.
Do i have to addept at night to see a full sky of stars ? no
Does earth surface prevent me from seeing the stars at night ? no
Do i need special vizors to see the stars at night ? no
Do i need to adjust to get a glimps of the stars at night ? no
Neil says : IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.
Neil doesn't say :IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D COULD SEE THE STARS EVENTUALLY, AFTER YOUR EYES ADAPT FOR SOME TIME AND WHEN YOU PUT YOUR GOLDEN VIZORS ON TO BLOCK GLARE , LIGHT AND REFLECTIONS
BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T BE JUST LIKE ON EARTH DURING THE NIGHT NOW WOULD IT ?
Besides that Neil deGrasse Tyson has given this a lot of thought i presume...as expert and all......
All your excuses are elements that would indeed make Neil deGrasse Tyson's claims stupid, because there would not be any circomstances on the moon similar to a night sky on earth full of stars for the observer.
But sorry for you,....that is exactly what Neil DOES claim, contrary to what you claim.
Check out the 'OK Go upside down & inside out' video on YouTube - you will fucking love it.Thanks, i found it !!
Can't post a link cuz I'm on a shitty tablet.
Wait til you see how much better it is than the absolute garbage NASA serve up from their shitty fake ISS...
NASA are such talentless bastards!
(http://)
That was indeed really funny and a total mockery towards the ISS and there micro gravity environment ;D ;D ;D ;D
I always have to clean my eyes when Rabinoz presents another cartoon from NASA like ''darkside of the moon crossing earth'', or ''umbra traveling over earth'', because it looks so extremely fake, but they think it is a spot on presentation of reality.Of course they mock me as if i only can say ''it looks kinda fake''
But i am sincerely worried for mankind.
I think it has to do with the overall degeneration of the senses by the modern virtual reality that people prefer over the real world more and more.
The abilities to discern live music and visible reality from studio recordings and CGI seems to become harder and harder for those that are part of the ''matrix''.
And here is how they did that:
http://okgo.net/2016/02/11/upside-down-inside-out-faq/
Notice it took a lot of training by the people who train cosmonauts to go to the ISS to learn their stunts. Notice how it took 45 minutes and some video trickery to get 3 minutes of video, and how many people were involved.
Now if you want to explain how you can get hours of live broadcast from the ISS using endless parabolic flights edited together in a studio then you just go right ahead.
Look at what talented people can do on a zero-g plane:Notice how they have to hold something, sit down or fall down every 20 seconds because of the zero-g plane diving.
Compare it to NASA's witless garbage & weep.
They can not always be wearing harnesses, because in plenty of videos they travel through the ISS and change orientation all the time.Look at what talented people can do on a zero-g plane:Notice how they have to hold something, sit down or fall down every 20 seconds because of the zero-g plane diving.
Compare it to NASA's witless garbage & weep.
Does live NASA footage have to do that too ever 20 seconds? no.
Was the video made live? no. Is NASA footage live? yes.
Well, the NASA clowns are hanging in harnesses, which helps...
And you have fuck all evidence their footage is live too, so it's pretty much fuck off time for you too, ain't it?
Also, anyone wishing to complain about Paul Whites Islamophobia, cyberbullying & harassment can do so here:
https://www.bradford.gov.uk/compliments-and-complaints/council-services/make-a-comment-complaint-or-compliment-about-bradford-council/
His job title is T-projects officer in the department of regeneration and culture at Jacobs Well.
Don't fuck with Legba, motherfuckers, cuz Legba will Fuck
You Up every fucking time!
Sorry I didn't see this post...Thanks i will be cautious of this ''Paul White and his sock puppets'' the guitar hero wannabe ::), the more i am delving into the dungeons of NASA/NAZI propaganda the more sinister it gets over the years.
You are absolutely correct about the inability to discern real from fake being drilled into us by virtual reality...
Take the ' Oberth effect' - this is a pseudoscientific formula that cannot be demonstrated in reality but is easily Incorporated into a game such as Kerbal space program...
Fact is that thermodynamics kills all possibility of 'space travel' stone dead, but nobody really learns thermodynamics any more....
They go straight from Galileo & a bastardised version of Newton to the retard Einstein & ignore all science in-between.
They are fucked, frankly.
Oh, & microbeta is a sockpuppet of Paul White: gutless specimen isn't he?
NASA shills are all cowards, in case you haven't noticed...
Interesting post. ;D
Sorry I didn't see this post...
You are absolutely correct about the inability to discern real from fake being drilled into us by virtual reality...
Take the ' Oberth effect' - this is a pseudoscientific formula that cannot be demonstrated in reality but is easily Incorporated into a game such as Kerbal space program...
Fact is that thermodynamics kills all possibility of 'space travel' stone dead, but nobody really learns thermodynamics any more....
They go straight from Galileo & a bastardised version of Newton to the retard Einstein & ignore all science in-between.
They are fucked, frankly.
Oh, & microbeta is a sockpuppet of Paul White: gutless specimen isn't he?
NASA shills are all cowards, in case you haven't noticed...And here is how they did that:
http://okgo.net/2016/02/11/upside-down-inside-out-faq/
Notice it took a lot of training by the people who train cosmonauts to go to the ISS to learn their stunts. Notice how it took 45 minutes and some video trickery to get 3 minutes of video, and how many people were involved.
Now if you want to explain how you can get hours of live broadcast from the ISS using endless parabolic flights edited together in a studio then you just go right ahead.
There is no 'hours of live broadcast' from the silly fake ISS you fucking retard.
First thing in the morning I'm emailing your employers & reporting you for cyberbullying & harassment.
Plus Islamophobia you racist motherfucker - how do you think that'll go down?
Everybody look...This is exactly happening.
Look at the internet badasses!
Just look at them!
OooooOOOOooo....
Sorry I didn't see this post...Thanks i will be cautious of this ''Paul White and his sock puppets'' the guitar hero wannabe ::), the more i am delving into the dungeons of NASA/NAZI propaganda the more sinister it gets over the years.
You are absolutely correct about the inability to discern real from fake being drilled into us by virtual reality...
Take the ' Oberth effect' - this is a pseudoscientific formula that cannot be demonstrated in reality but is easily Incorporated into a game such as Kerbal space program...
Fact is that thermodynamics kills all possibility of 'space travel' stone dead, but nobody really learns thermodynamics any more....
They go straight from Galileo & a bastardised version of Newton to the retard Einstein & ignore all science in-between.
They are fucked, frankly.
Oh, & microbeta is a sockpuppet of Paul White: gutless specimen isn't he?
NASA shills are all cowards, in case you haven't noticed...
These people have no human integrity whatsoever. Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson is just an actor clown and somehow i can even laugh about this clown's burger/mike onemanshow.
But the likes of Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Don Pettit would all sell their mothers if needed.....they are the worst of the bunch, absolutely no signs of regret or dignity.
You have to realize that we're dealing with a tiny group of weirdos, all related, not exceeding maybe 50 or 60 worldwide, all pulling 16 hour shifts a day thought policing the internet...Wow, i have to let it sink in for a while.......
That's the facts as far as I've been able to work them out.
You have to realize that we're dealing with a tiny group of weirdos, all related, not exceeding maybe 50 or 60 worldwide, all pulling 16 hour shifts a day thought policing the internet...Wow, i have to let it sink in for a while.......
That's the facts as far as I've been able to work them out.
You have to realize that we're dealing with a tiny group of weirdos, all related, not exceeding maybe 50 or 60 worldwide, all pulling 16 hour shifts a day thought policing the internet...Wow, i have to let it sink in for a while.......
That's the facts as far as I've been able to work them out.
This guy has been tracking them for years:
https://m.youtube.com/user/thebadger7
Try getting in touch with him if you want to learn more.
As far as I'm concerned they made this shit personal long ago & it's total war from here on out...
And total war is a thing I was born & bred to wage, sadly for them!
I'm not a flat Earther.
In fact, the one time I posted evidence of visible curvature all you REtard shills went mental and begged to have me banned...
Which told me all I needed to know about this place.
Now fuck off, retard.
And you listen to someone call himselfSorry I didn't see this post...Thanks i will be cautious of this ''Paul White and his sock puppets'' the guitar hero wannabe ::), the more i am delving into the dungeons of NASA/NAZI propaganda the more sinister it gets over the years.
You are absolutely correct about the inability to discern real from fake being drilled into us by virtual reality...
Take the ' Oberth effect' - this is a pseudoscientific formula that cannot be demonstrated in reality but is easily Incorporated into a game such as Kerbal space program...
Fact is that thermodynamics kills all possibility of 'space travel' stone dead, but nobody really learns thermodynamics any more....
They go straight from Galileo & a bastardised version of Newton to the retard Einstein & ignore all science in-between.
They are fucked, frankly.
Oh, & microbeta is a sockpuppet of Paul White: gutless specimen isn't he?
NASA shills are all cowards, in case you haven't noticed...
These people have no human integrity whatsoever. Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson is just an actor clown and somehow i can even laugh about this clown's burger/mike onemanshow.
But the likes of Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell and Don Pettit would all sell their mothers if needed.....they are the worst of the bunch, absolutely no signs of regret or dignity.
I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...Rabinoz can you confirm ??,.......because this would be hilarious if true....i am going to laugh for at least the next 24 hours...
The name chose me.
That's how voodoo works, you jug-eared paedo.
Now let's look at your lying rat face & laugh at your total bullshit, eh?
Confirm what?I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...Rabinoz can you confirm ??,.......because this would be hilarious if true....i am going to laugh for at least the next 24 hours...
The name chose me.
That's how voodoo works, you jug-eared paedo.
Now let's look at your lying rat face & laugh at your total bullshit, eh?
And you would loose the last bit of credibilty in my eyes ....of course.
Please tell me you ain't that dude in the video.....that is simply not healthy for anyone !!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...
The name chose me.
Confirm what?If that dude in the video without any charisma talking about rockets is Rabinoz posting here.
I am literary speechless.......
Rabinoz and Onebigmonky are indeed some frustrated middleaged men that look so ordinary and mediocre in real life compared to their big mouths and presentation online.
Thanks Papa Legba, for giving me such a feeling of joy....i am dealing with several payed shills that's for sure.
I personally had found out (and told so over here) that Astrobrant 2, frenat, Kris deValle and others are around for years commenting on every video and forum related to Apollo and other space fantasies.
Clearly payed shills and they seem to take their job extremely serious.
Thanks again !
Glad to help.I know his channel, he wanted me to look into his stuff....,but i missed the guitar playing ;D, because it was yet another propaganda site full of crap....and i don't examine those anymore.
I'd post a video of onebigshitehawks terrible guitar playing too but the fucker removed them from his channel...
Lol!
Here's his shit channel anyway:
https://m.youtube.com/user/LizardOverlord
Note it's full of mad fake Munn landinkz shit that nobody cares about...
Lulz!!!
Still no proof of a single NASA lie. Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.Glad to help.I know his channel, he wanted me to look into his stuff....,but i missed the guitar playing ;D, because it was yet another propaganda site full of crap....and i don't examine those anymore.
I'd post a video of onebigshitehawks terrible guitar playing too but the fucker removed them from his channel...
Lol!
Here's his shit channel anyway:
https://m.youtube.com/user/LizardOverlord
Note it's full of mad fake Munn landinkz shit that nobody cares about...
Lulz!!!
After reading Clavius for years i simple can't swallow any repair nonsense of the NASA fanboys and their precious articles and sites/blogs.
To discuss things over here is the limit, but going to some NAZI Apollo propaganda is simply to much now.......
Good job giving some insight with whome we are dealing here........Rabinoz ;D :o ;D :o ;D
Nothing whatever to do with me. But you might learn something from the rest of Peter Leane's videos - bit dry for my taste though.I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...Rabinoz can you confirm ??,.......because this would be hilarious if true....i am going to laugh for at least the next 24 hours...
The name chose me.
. . . . . .Rockets in a vacuum Ver1 part 1 of 4, Peter Leane (http://)
And you would loose the last bit of credibilty in my eyes ....of course.
Please tell me you ain't that dude in the video.....that is simply not healthy for anyone !!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
UserName | Location | Date Registered | Last Active | |||
Geoff | . . . . . . . | February 27, 2007, 10:14:10 AM | March 12, 2009, 05:55:56 AM | |||
ausGeoff | Victoria, Australia. | December 21, 2013, 08:08:44 PM | July 30, 2016, 10:39:07 PM | |||
and myself | ||||||
rabinoz | Queensland, Australia | August 20, 2015, 01:08:38 PM | Today at 10:46:46 AM |
Still no proof of a single NASA lie. Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.Glad to help.I know his channel, he wanted me to look into his stuff....,but i missed the guitar playing ;D, because it was yet another propaganda site full of crap....and i don't examine those anymore.
I'd post a video of onebigshitehawks terrible guitar playing too but the fucker removed them from his channel...
Lol!
Here's his shit channel anyway:
https://m.youtube.com/user/LizardOverlord
Note it's full of mad fake Munn landinkz shit that nobody cares about...
Lulz!!!
After reading Clavius for years i simple can't swallow any repair nonsense of the NASA fanboys and their precious articles and sites/blogs.
To discuss things over here is the limit, but going to some NAZI Apollo propaganda is simply to much now.......
Good job giving some insight with whome we are dealing here........Rabinoz ;D :o ;D :o ;D
Nothing whatever to do with me. But you might learn something from the rest of Peter Leane's videos - bit dry for my taste though.I didn't choose the name Legba, Geoff...Rabinoz can you confirm ??,.......because this would be hilarious if true....i am going to laugh for at least the next 24 hours...
The name chose me.
. . . . . .Rockets in a vacuum Ver1 part 1 of 4, Peter Leane (http://)
And you would loose the last bit of credibilty in my eyes ....of course.
Please tell me you ain't that dude in the video.....that is simply not healthy for anyone !!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
There have been two Geoffs:If you check ausGeoff's posts youu might find then far better reasoned than mine, even if somewhat moer "crude".
UserName Location Date Registered Last Active Geoff . . . . . . . February 27, 2007, 10:14:10 AM March 12, 2009, 05:55:56 AM ausGeoff Victoria, Australia. December 21, 2013, 08:08:44 PM July 30, 2016, 10:39:07 PMand myself rabinoz Queensland, Australia August 20, 2015, 01:08:38 PM Today at 10:46:46 AM
I'm sure you would :P love :P his anti-anti-NASA posts - wish I could do as well as he!
Of course the dim-witted Papa Legba thinks that since ausGeoff comes from Victoria, Australia, and I come from Queensland, Australia, about 1600 km away we must be the same persons.
Also I have never posted a YouTube video of any description nor have I have "Alts". I have enough trouble with line drawings.
I've certainly made mistakes in some posts (like last night!) and said some unwise things, but I certainly have no connection with any Geoff, whatever a deluded and admitted VooDoo priest might say!
But, believe who you will!
PS I don't really believe that poor old Papa Legba is really a Voodoo Priest, nor much else that he says.
But Peter Leane is you alright.Really? I must have had far reaching plastic surgery since I last looked in the mirror - a couple of hours ago!
Quote Legba is the promoter of verbal facility, of double talk, the arch deceiver, |
Still no proof of a single NASA lie. Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!
Oh, it's definitely you, ain't it, Geoff...Papa, you do me too great an honour! Do you really think that I could make learned videos on topics like:
Oh, it's definitely you, ain't it, Geoff...Papa, you do me too great an honour! Do you really think that I could make learned videos on topics like:
Spinal Cord Repair (Part 1) - Yes it could be possible (http://)
Spinal Cord Repair (Part 2) Placenta (http://)
Spinal Cord Repair (Part 3) Human Nervous System - Basics (http://)
Clean Coal - Yes it could be possible - Part A (http://)
Clean Coal - The Hazelwood Experiment - Part - B (http://)
He does do a few on Flat Earth Topics as well:
Curve of the Earth Measurement Ver 1(2 X Points of Reference) (http://)
Curve of the Earth Measurement Ver 2 (3 X Points of Reference) (http://)
So, Papa confuse me with:D :D Peter Leane if you like :D :D, but he's much smarter than I, and lives on the other side of the Globe.Apart from those little problems, who know you might even be right - idiot!
In other words, to put it in highly professional terms - your are stark starin' bonkers!
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCBeY0OQcepDv_Vg7gscY-CQSo, I subscribed to a few YouTube channels, big deal - and what "random strangers am I harassing"?
Now stop bullying and harassing random strangers on the internet
Yes, but Neil deGrasse Tyson does not "work for NASA", not that cold hard facts ever bother a NASAphobe like you.Still no proof of a single NASA lie. Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!
I busted your little munlanding bubble.....Yes, but Neil deGrasse Tyson does not "work for NASA", not that cold hard facts ever bother a NASAphobe like you.Still no proof of a single NASA lie. Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!
Sure, he has written and spoken about NASA, but he has done the same on: Spirituality, Race and social justice, Animal rights etc.
But, the mere mention of NASA makes poor dutchy foam at the mouth.
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCBeY0OQcepDv_Vg7gscY-CQSo, I subscribed to a few YouTube channels, big deal - and what "random strangers am I harassing"?
Now stop bullying and harassing random strangers on the internet
Go back to your den on Haiti. Your voodoo doesn't work here.
Well you're harassing dutchy for a start you mad bastard, as well as resistance is futile...Poor, poor dutchy and Ignorance.is.Bliss! They're both old enough and ugly to look after themselves!
Rubbish, cornered by a delusional NASAphobic! - not likely, run off and play it you pizza planet.I understand this is going to be very difficult for you, but i've got you cornered completely and there is no way out this time around !!!!Yes, but Neil deGrasse Tyson does not "work for NASA", not that cold hard facts ever bother a NASAphobe like you.Still no proof of a single NASA lie. Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!
Sure, he has written and spoken about NASA, but he has done the same on: Spirituality, Race and social justice, Animal rights etc.
But, the mere mention of NASA makes poor dutchy foam at the mouth.
So please avoid any further embarrassment by pretending light behaves 'earthlike' on the daylight side of the moon.
Well you're harassing dutchy for a start you mad bastard, as well as resistance is futile...Poor, poor dutchy and Ignorance.is.Bliss! They're both old enough and ugly to look after themselves!
They don't the local Voodoo Priest interceding for them, so run off back to your hide-out in Haiti.
You really blew it big-time with Peter Leane who lives in the UK and does medical research.
He couldn't even be ausGeoff, you total loser.
dooky and baby legba sure are keeping this thread on topic!
I swear, it's like watching a couple toddlers on a play date, when they think no one is looking, they start touching each others pee pee's.
dooky and baby legba sure are keeping this thread on topic!
I swear, it's like watching a couple toddlers on a play date, when they think no one is looking, they start touching each others pee pee's.
So you like spying on toddlers playing with each other's pee pees do you?
Paedo confirmed.
Rubbish, cornered by a delusional NASAphobic! - not likely, run off and play it you pizza planet.Ha Rab is insecure, he must be feeling there is something very wrong with his precious ''munlundings''.
Facts just don't have the slightest on the totally indoctrinated. You keep raving on about the effect of the vacuum and ignore everything else.
Bye bye - believe what you like, but the Globe still keeps turning sedately around and nothing you have said has the slightest impact on the truth of that.
It seems clear to me that all the people derailing the thread work for NASA, and are just trying to take our attention off the main subject so that we can't discover their schemes.Well, you tell just them higher-ups at NAZA that we're getting jack o' workin' for no pay!
They are smart indeed.
Please Rab, get a hold of yourself !! This is not the person you want to be.It seems clear to me that all the people derailing the thread work for NASA, and are just trying to take our attention off the main subject so that we can't discover their schemes.Well, you tell just them higher-ups at NAZA that we're getting jack o' workin' for no pay!
They are smart indeed.
Look our kids is starvin' an' all we can feed 'em is wot fish we can flog from them mutant penguins down 'ere an' they fight like the devil his-self!
Meanwhile, we're freezin' to death in these Antarctic conditions, wot, with the failure of this promised global warming!
If we don't get paid soon we're all goin' on strike and then how are they gonna keep this "hollow earth" a secret?
You just get some of that Gadzillion dollas that this Neil the Grasse bloke got Trumpy to give them.So, we delegate you Mr Jugemu no Chosuke our delhi-gate - just you givem an ulter-matem! So there!
It seems clear to me that all the people derailing the thread work for NASA, and are just trying to take our attention off the main subject so that we can't discover their schemes.Well, you tell just them higher-ups at NAZA that we're getting jack o' workin' for no pay!
They are smart indeed.
Look our kids is starvin' an' all we can feed 'em is wot fish we can flog from them mutant penguins down 'ere an' they fight like the devil his-self!
Meanwhile, we're freezin' to death in these Antarctic conditions, wot, with the failure of this promised global warming!
If we don't get paid soon we're all goin' on strike and then how are they gonna keep this "hollow earth" a secret?
You just get some of that Gadzillion dollas that this Neil the Grasse bloke got Trumpy to give them.So, we delegate you Mr Jugemu no Chosuke our delhi-gate - just you givem an ulter-matem! So there!
Yes, I'm afraid our Ace has been Trumped well and truly! So you'll help?
That's terrible. All that work to save humanity from the mutant penguins, and you aren't even well paid.
I blame Trump.
Why would I be insecure? The moon-landings don't form any significant part of why I believe that the earth is a rotating Globe.Rubbish, cornered by a delusional NASAphobic! - not likely, run off and play it you pizza planet.Ha Rab is insecure, he must be feeling there is something very wrong with his precious ''munlundings''.
Facts just don't have the slightest on the totally indoctrinated. You keep raving on about the effect of the vacuum and ignore everything else.
Bye bye - believe what you like, but the Globe still keeps turning sedately around and nothing you have said has the slightest impact on the truth of that.
But i am willing to go over it again :Yes, I agree with
If you turn your back towards the sun on the daylight side of the moon, the sun cannot reflect off a vacuum.
There are no dust particles or enough molecules in the moon's ''sky'' for the sun to scatter in every direction.
The sky should be black but also full of stars as bright as ever (comparable to earth's nightsky)
<< no need to waste more of your valuable time - we read it the first time! >>
Yes, I'm afraid our Ace has been Trumped well and truly! So you'll help?
That's terrible. All that work to save humanity from the mutant penguins, and you aren't even well paid.
I blame Trump.
Please, oh please we're desperate, especially as now we're being hounded by a deranged Voodoo Priest!And we can't have that!
Why would I be insecure? The moon-landings don't form any significant part of why I believe that the earth is a rotating Globe.Well you being so angree and all lately,.....it surely looks like an increasing insecurity thing,....but i will give you the benefit of doubts, only because you say so.
There is much more to it than that - I don't need pretty pictures. I can see from all the other evidence known for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.
Yes, measurements have changed and been made much more precise, but the Heliocentric Globe model was built up gradually as the evidence accumulated.
So, no dutchy, I am not the slightest bit insecure in my belief, but you must be to continually harp on NASA this and NASA that!
NASA had nothing to do with destroying your flat earth model - it never really was!Not even the ancient Babylonians had the irrational flat earth model pushed today.
Yes, I agree with(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)"The sky should be black but also full of stars as bright as ever (comparable to earth's nightsky)"and probably much more intense than a night sky down here because even on the darkest night here there is a faint "air-glow".
But, said astronaut has to be in dark conditions for 10 to 20 minutes to adapt to the dark conditions.:D you check it out next time you are there :D.Not only that, but the astronaut has to find a direction to look away from the sun (which is UP) and away from the moon's surface (which is DOWN)and have no stray light getting in the sides of the visor - the later side shields helped that.
I imagine if such time had been allowed in the schedule and a shaded enough location providedit could have been done - BUT it was not on the schedule, so live with it!
I know it is remiss of them not to have the forethought to realise that realise that poor old dutchy would be so insistent, but such is life!
Now, excuse me, there's a weird red dot in the middle of my chest, I'll go to the window see what's up with this.Duck! Sorry (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ozrruswj0mkocp/Ducks.jpeg?dl=1) too late!
No, I do not see the sun, but I see it's effect on the flag and the suit, so it is there with the direct light coming in on the left!(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)Do you see the sun or moon landscape ?
No they were indeed able to gaze upwards to the black skies.
Your excuse of 10-20 adjustment minutes conflicts with the testimony of Neil deGrasse Tyson.It does? Exactly what does he say? Not your interpretation of it!
You know why?YOU have NEVER been in a situation with full lunar sunshine (in excess of 100,000 lux) and moved directly into total darkness!
BECAUSE ON EARTH I DON'T NEED TO ADJUST FOR 10-20 MINUTES AND NDGT SAYS THE STARS REVEAL THEMSELVES LIKE ON EARTH.
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA. You interpret something one way and consider it proof. It isn't. You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.Still no proof of a single NASA lie. Before you bring up Tyson again, he wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA.Yes i do bring up Neil deGrasse Tyson AGAIN !!!
After all of you denied any inconsistancy at all when i first meticulously posted the exact quotes from NASA liars, you all denied any inconsistancy whatsoever.
After my hard work we have reached the point that some of you understand that indeed Neil deGrasse Tyson's idea's about the daylight surface of the moon are incompatible with what Neil Armstrong claims about the daylight side of the moon and seeing stars.
Now all of a sudden "Neil deGrasse Tyson wasn't there and doesn't work for NASA".
Neil deGrasse Tyson one of the smartest majors in astrophysics , NASA promotor and spokesman.
Yes, yes Neil deGrasse Tyson simply gave it not enough thought and the nono's and amatures around the www understand much better what it is like on the daylight side on the moon.
You 've got your proof of a NASA lie, you may not consider it important enough, that's up to you.
But please don't let your ego get in the way this much to try to suggest it is "really nothing"".
You guys are so extremely stubborn, we could have reached that conclusion about Neil de Grasse Tyson pages ago.
Why do you make discussion so damned difficult ? Is it so important to hold on to the fabrications of men ?
Let us progress from here :
Why does NdGT who gave it a lot of thought ( do to the fact that he knows so much more about all aspects in the heliocentric hypothetical universe compared to the average online poster.) ...... claim we can easily see the stars on the daylight side of the moon ??
We have fully dismissed the option that Neil Grasse Tyson simply babbled about things he doesn't really understand. It his is job and he has all the cridentials possible to know what it's like on the daylight side of the moon from a scientific point of view.
That opens the door to the other possibilty,....... Neil Armstrong is talking shit.
I personally think that is the truth !
The interviews of Neil Armstrong are from the early seventies. They didn't really define what it is like on the daylight side of the moon without an atmosphere. It is indeed weird to imagine how light, despite being very bright, simply cannot scatter or reflect like it does on earth without an atmosphere.
Neil deGrasse Tyson knows this and his enthousiasm and expertise took the better of him.
Oeps..... there were those silly interviews from the early seventies by scientifically illiterate astronauts...... again oeps.. they talk about the properties of light as if they were still on earth..... oeps.
Why are ships look-outs given time to adapt? So dutchy knows better than marine authorities now.They didn't see any star at all during their stay on the moon.
It is even in the regulations that the relieved lookout must not leave his post until the relieving lookout's eyes have adequately adapted.
So stop denying self-evident facts with your perpetual NASAphobia.
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA. You interpret something one way and consider it proof. It isn't. You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''
When did they have 2.5 hours of time without sunlight in their view? Or any time really? You seem to be claiming that their eyes would adapt during the 2.5 hours but the entire time they are in bright sunlight.I am even willing to accept your arguements, but.....in that case Neil deGrasse Tyson talks out of his ass.
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view. Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up. Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt. Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.When did they have 2.5 hours of time without sunlight in their view? Or any time really? You seem to be claiming that their eyes would adapt during the 2.5 hours but the entire time they are in bright sunlight.I am even willing to accept your arguements, but.....in that case Neil deGrasse Tyson talks out of his ass.
One could never see the stars from the daylight surface of the moon just like during a night on earth if your explainations are true.
Your argument is that there is no ''just like a night on earth'' on the daylightside of the moon.
Your astronauts on the moon cannot see the stars because of the influence of the bright sunlight.
NdGT says because of an absent atmosphere there is no scattered sunlight and the stars would reveal themselves just like on earth.
Rabinoz and you argue that the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon are such that you can't see the stars due to bright reflections.
Astrobrant2 said Neilde Grasse Tyson was wrond on this occasion,....what do you say ?
Because one of them is talking shit, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Neil Armstrong.
But all of you seem to afraid to point a finger,......which i understand because the implications in thios topic will be huge, mark my words ;D
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view. Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up. Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt. Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.That is not ''the stars on the daylight side of the moon reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''..when standing on the moon's daylight surface.
IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
AGAIN, Tyson was not considering the bright surface still being in view. The astronaut that did take the time still had to have his eyes adjust like any real person would. When did I say it was "the stars reveal themselves just like they do during the night on earth"? I wasn't trying to say that nor was I trying to say his experience was exactly as Tyson described it. Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote.Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view. Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up. Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt. Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.That is not ''the stars reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''
IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''
So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
Ah the inevitable reduction to insults. I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see. But that does seem to be the case.There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA. You interpret something one way and consider it proof. It isn't. You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''
Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.
I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
I didn't suggest that you said that ....NdGT did ! that is the whole pointAGAIN, Tyson was not considering the bright surface still being in view. The astronaut that did take the time still had to have his eyes adjust like any real person would. When did I say it was "the stars reveal themselves just like they do during the night on earth"? I wasn't trying to say that nor was I trying to say his experience was exactly as Tyson described it. Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote.Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view. Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up. Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt. Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.That is not ''the stars reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''
IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''
So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his. YOU seemed to indicate I was. In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view. So no failure. And no deceit on my part.I didn't suggest that you said that ....NdGT did ! that is the whole pointAGAIN, Tyson was not considering the bright surface still being in view. The astronaut that did take the time still had to have his eyes adjust like any real person would. When did I say it was "the stars reveal themselves just like they do during the night on earth"? I wasn't trying to say that nor was I trying to say his experience was exactly as Tyson described it. Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote.Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view. Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up. Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt. Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.That is not ''the stars reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''
IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''
So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
Neil de GrasseTyson
SINCE THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE,...IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.
Frenat
In order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.
And NdGT was talking about a position of your body where the bright surface is no longer in view
Your opinion on the matter fully demolishes NdGT claims....you can't see a sky full of stars on the daylight side of the moon like on earth during the night if you were there.
You can see some stars on the daylight side of the moon after certain measurements are taken, as described by you.
The whole idea behind NdGT statement is that you see the stars just like during the night, not after some lenghty adjustment and carefull positioning one can detect some stars.
Doesn't this sound different to you ?
I sometimes wonder where i am in this place full of deceit.
So you fully disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson then ?Ah the inevitable reduction to insults. I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see. But that does seem to be the case.There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA. You interpret something one way and consider it proof. It isn't. You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''
Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.
I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his. YOU seemed to indicate I was. In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view. So no failure. And no deceit on my part.This is what happens all the time.
And you are changing what I said. I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object" I made no recommendation at all. I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
What part of "Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view" do you not understand?So you fully disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson then ?Ah the inevitable reduction to insults. I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see. But that does seem to be the case.There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA. You interpret something one way and consider it proof. It isn't. You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''
Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.
I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
If you would stand on the daylight side of the moon you would see a nightsky full of stars according to NdGT !
According to you this isn't the case,.......the surface is way to reflective.
I can get my head around a bright surface,......i cannot get my head around the fact that you cannpot explain why NdGT doesn't see this as any sort of problem to simply see a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night.
You trying to change what other people say? If you say so. ;DAnd I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his. YOU seemed to indicate I was. In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view. So no failure. And no deceit on my part.This is what happens all the time.
And you are changing what I said. I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object" I made no recommendation at all. I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question isSince this is the first time I have been asked the question, this is the first time I can give an answer. Since I have never been there, I don't know. What I do know is I was only trying to relay another person's experience and YOU are trying to make it about me. I can imagine that if I were looking at the sky with no sun in view and no part of the surface or anything else reflective in view then I would probably see stars. I can imagine that the suit would make it difficult to do that. But I can't say for sure what I would see either way as I haven't been there so the entire line of questioning is simply you trying to win a pissing match.
What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?
Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
Always the first to come out and talk about what went on during Apollo.You trying to change what other people say? If you say so. ;DAnd I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his. YOU seemed to indicate I was. In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view. So no failure. And no deceit on my part.This is what happens all the time.
And you are changing what I said. I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object" I made no recommendation at all. I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question isSince this is the first time I have been asked the question, this is the first time I can give an answer. Since I have never been there, I don't know. What I do know is I was only trying to relay another person's experience and YOU are trying to make it about me. I can imagine that if I were looking at the sky with no sun in view and no part of the surface or anything else reflective in view then I would probably see stars. I can imagine that the suit would make it difficult to do that. But I can't say for sure what I would see either way as I haven't been there so the entire line of questioning is simply you trying to win a pissing match.
What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?
Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
Btw, here is the Apollo 16 helmet with its multiple visors:Doesn't seem extremely bright does it ? And very, very earthlike.
(http://scmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Apollo-16-helmet.jpg)
So we all know that the helmet was not just one piece of glass, but made out of multiple parts.
In this series of photos you can see how far they could manipulate the front flaps to suit lightning:
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2014/as17-134-20476.jpg?itok%5Cx3dNmbYBLM6)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17jack20472.jpg)
Down almost all the way:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20453HR.jpg)
I think it depends on the circumstances and the optics/visor. I feel no obligation to explain why Tyson didn't take this into account.So you fully disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson then ?Ah the inevitable reduction to insults. I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see. But that does seem to be the case.There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA. You interpret something one way and consider it proof. It isn't. You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''
Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.
I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
If you would stand on the daylight side of the moon you would see a nightsky full of stars according to NdGT !
According to you this isn't the case,.......the surface is way to reflective.
I can get my head around a bright moon surface,......i cannot get my head around the fact that you cannot explain why NdGT doesn't see this as any sort of problem on the moon when viewing sky full of stars just like on earth during the night.
How bright a photo looks depends on the exposure settings.Btw, here is the Apollo 16 helmet with its multiple visors:Doesn't seem extremely bright does it ? And very, very earthlike.
(http://scmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Apollo-16-helmet.jpg)
So we all know that the helmet was not just one piece of glass, but made out of multiple parts.
In this series of photos you can see how far they could manipulate the front flaps to suit lightning:
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2014/as17-134-20476.jpg?itok%5Cx3dNmbYBLM6)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17jack20472.jpg)
Down almost all the way:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20453HR.jpg)
Seems like they should see a sky full of stars like Neil deGrasse Tyson claimed, instead of their inability to descern any star at all.
Really? ALWAYS the first? Bet you can't prove that.Always the first to come out and talk about what went on during Apollo.You trying to change what other people say? If you say so. ;DAnd I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his. YOU seemed to indicate I was. In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view. So no failure. And no deceit on my part.This is what happens all the time.
And you are changing what I said. I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object" I made no recommendation at all. I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question isSince this is the first time I have been asked the question, this is the first time I can give an answer. Since I have never been there, I don't know. What I do know is I was only trying to relay another person's experience and YOU are trying to make it about me. I can imagine that if I were looking at the sky with no sun in view and no part of the surface or anything else reflective in view then I would probably see stars. I can imagine that the suit would make it difficult to do that. But I can't say for sure what I would see either way as I haven't been there so the entire line of questioning is simply you trying to win a pissing match.
What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?
Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
And now frenat is modest....for the very first time, ''because he wasn't on the moon himself''.As if I ever claimed otherwise.
All of your 10.000+ posts and comments around the www did not contain that modesty sir.You should have mentioned that you weren't on the moon yourself when adressing all aspect of Apollo. But you always commented in absolutes concerning Apollo !!!Please find any of those 10,000+ posts where I commented on something that is not documented that I would only know if I was there. Bet you can't
Only this time you show modesty, because like Astrobrant2 one of your little payed online Apollo buddies, you have found out that NdGT statements are extremely conflicting.I don't care what Tyson said or did not say nor how it looks. That is an invention of yours. I HAVE specifically said he was not considering everything. And I bet you can't prove I or anyone else is paid to post. I know for a fact that I am not.
Astrobrant2 has acknowledeg that NdGT was talking shit, because Neil was to busy doing other space related things and was therefor wrong about this casual slip of thought.
But that doesn't look good, now does it ?
So you tried the approach just displayed the very last posts.....you all of a sudden don't really know what to expect when looking upwards on the moon.Please show where I have EVER claimed to know "everything ... absolutely everything about Apollo". I'll bet you can't as I have never said that. That seems like another invention of yours. And I rarely comment on youtube videos. In fact, if you really analysed my posts, you would find that I not only comment far less than others, but that I also have slowed down and have never displayed the arrogance you are associating with me.
Kris deValle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah, frenat........are on the www for years and years commenting on each and every youtube video and forums about Apollo, claiming you know everything...absolutely everything about Apollo.
This time there is a huge discrepancy between NdGT and Neil Armstrong like Astrobrant2 acknowledged at the time !!!!Please prove I or anyone else is paid to post here or anywhere else. Please prove my "tactics" have be changed "all of a sudden".
The answer for you payed shill is to suddenly take the road of modesty as if you cannot make a clear cut statement about what they could see on the daylight surface of the moon.
About everything else it always sounds as if you were on the moon as part of the Apollo crew, why change your tactics all of a sudden ?
Because NdGT statements are THE hot potato for you payed Apollo apologists.
Gladly i know the names involved in the Apollo apologist team working around the clock the last decade and understand what is going on here........
And for readers who don't believe me ? Frenat, Kris de Valle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah are covering the www for the last decade, they comment on everything related to Apollo.Because it is impossible for someone to read and comment on a subject that is interesting to them, right? ::) Please prove I've spent thousands of hours specifically to defend NASA or that it is significant when most of my time is simply reading for entertainment. Thanks for providing that by the way. I honestly can't think of a time I've spent JUST looking at forums to comment on them. Usually I'm working on something else and this is in the background or I'm watching TV and this is in the background. Please show where I've changed my avatar name or admitted to using sockpuppets.
They aren't payed or hired by NASA, so they claim and have changed their avatar names occasionally and admit to use many sock puppets also.
They say (when confronted) they are simply amature astronomers acting out of admiration and love for the USA and NASA and their achievements.
How stupid would one be to believe that, knowing they've spend thousends of hours online to defend NASA whenever possible.
Only a payed shills would do that.........not some amature enthousiast.
If you wouldn't be such an indoctrinated sheep you would try to listen.
I will brake it down real simple.
1 I have researched the moonlandings for i think about 5 years
2 I couldn't believe there were real people dumb enough to doubt the greatest achievement of mankind
3 I read chapters in the books of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Renee that started a process.
4 I watched all Jarrah White's video's about the moonlandings and read the counter arguments at the Clavius forum (pro NASA)
5 I started to look for every interview in papers and online footage made by astronauts and NASA insiders.
6 It became clear there were huge discrepancies in the official storyline
7 I read about how scientists and rocket engeneres envisioned spacetravel in the fifties and how extremely different it was when Apollo became reality.
8 I started to read about an ongoing rehabilitation program for Nazi's in the USA that lasted until the nineties and the heavy involvement from NASA.
9 I learned between the connection of Walt Disney and NASA (Werner Von Braun)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qFqMZ_s54UU/Vr9zQYFoMxI/AAAAAAAAKoI/XfLXKwjRWuo/s1600/Walt%2BDisney%2Band%2BWernher%2BVon%2BBraun.jpg)
10 I started to examine the photographs and original video from the moon
11 I learned about that episode in American history...the Kennedy legacy, the cold war, and riots on home soil.
12 during the nineties NASA has repaired a lot of mistakes of the past concerning the Apollo missions.
After a few years in a fascinating personal journey it became so obvious that it was all a hoax during the Vietnam war and president Nixon in charge.
An heroic story to boast the USA in rough times and fullfill the ''prophecy'' of Kennedy just before the decade was over.
Then the house of cards was coming down real fast.
Each and every evidence of the moonlandings proved the opposite to me.....
I have been very, very cautious for years to dismiss the moonlandings and did take the subject way more serious than many believers and even astronauts who make a mockery of themselves and the tax payer, or are extremely lazy when it comes to the details.
What was it you wanted to discuss about the moonlandings and/or NASA ? Please specify !
You guys would make PL's poop so much easier to clean up if you didn't reply to it EVERY TIME >:(
Anyway, I think I've got the worst of his diarrhea cleaned up. If you see something that needs to be removed (such as if it has actual personal information, etc) let me know. You can always send me a message with a link to the problem post, that makes it easier to find since people report lots of posts and many of them aren't even breaking the rules.
Really? ALWAYS the first? Bet you can't prove that.I confronted you with it on numerous occasions. the moment I posted something about the moonlandings,....it took a brief moment for frenat to reply......althaugh i live in the Netherlands and post at very different times. I thought it was a remarkable feat to reply that fast on so many different occasions
When your ideas are so shit you have to claim everyone is a paid shill.Do you think frenat's behaviour as clearly shown is behaviour for a normal functioning human being ?
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
I received an official warning for my post that showed what frenat is doing all over the www.Wow, stalking and harassing another member is against the rules. That is sinister.
It is against the rules.....wazzzzzzz
Who is in charge of this place........it is sinister as hell,....that's for sure.
Okay i will respect the mods.If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing. I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
Half of us work for NASA, so he's right.
I understand your temporarely feelings of euphoria and your attempt to seek the momentum to hurt me personally after i was indeed in shock about frenat.......I received an official warning for my post that showed what frenat is doing all over the www.Wow, stalking and harassing another member is against the rules. That is sinister.
It is against the rules.....wazzzzzzz
Who is in charge of this place........it is sinister as hell,....that's for sure.
but not ALWAYS the first. On many forums I don't enter the discussion until many pages in, if at all. You've proven I have an interest in space flight and apollo. Congratulations. And I've had that interest for nearly 20 years. A lot happens in 20 years. I won't apologize for being interested in a subject for a long time.Really? ALWAYS the first? Bet you can't prove that.I confronted you with it on numerous occasions. the moment I posted something about the moonlandings,....it took a brief moment for frenat to reply......althaugh i live in the Netherlands and post at very different times. I thought it was a remarkable feat to reply that fast on so many different occasions
Here is a list where your avatar name showed up....there were much more....I knew you were all over the internet defending Apollo, but it is much worse, much worse.
It contains forums, articles etc.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?members/frenat.55123/recent-content
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/84783-moon-landing-was-fake/
https://ronabbass.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/moon-landing-hoax-nasa-unwittingly-reveals-van-allen-radiation-belts-prohibit-human-spaceflight-2min-vid-incl/
https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/40921-apollohoax-net/1147-van-allen-on-space-radiation
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4560&st=60
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/881/moon-landings-fact-fiction?page=37
http://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/randi-JREF-revisionism-pseudo-skeptic-3.html
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1146343
It took me 20 minutes. Then i started to read and fuck me....it is you frenat,....each and every time
I sadly realise i have to do with a person extremely obsessed with DEFENDING Apollo.That is an opinion. The reality would be I am interested in the topic.
My God you have posted 934 specific posts over at the David Icke forumsSame thing as here. Reading for entertainment. I don't have to agree with everything on a forum to post on it, do I? Notice also I haven't posted there in years and when I did I stayed well away from the shapeshifting lizard crap. Or at least you would notice if your "research" consisted of more than a Google search.
You know, the guy who believes the queen of England is a shapeshifting lizard from Niburu.What were you doing there frenat and what are you doing here and at every thinkable forum that contains a specific Apollo/moonlanding topic ?
You are either mentally ill and obsessed with Apollo or a thick payed shill.None of which you can prove and the reality is I've had an interest for a long time. Horror of horrors!!
My god you do scare me and you make me angree also,....you are far worse than your space amature avatar outlook.Retaliation? For exposing that I have an interest in space flight and Apollo? Paranoid much?
This place becomes stranger by the minute........
I really have to reconsider my position the coming days and fear for some sort of retaliation coming my way.
You are really sick frenat,.....or a payed shill, i don't know what i fear more.....i believe it is the latter.AGAIN, I am not now, nor have I ever been, paid to post here or anywhere else. Nor am I compensated in any way. Just because YOU can't comprehend how I might be interested in the topic, doesn't mean it isn't true. But I am sure I can't convince you of what I say. After all, I can't reason you into a position you didn't reason yourself into. But I'll still laugh about it when you bring it up because I KNOW it isn't true.
I won't go over any details with you about Apollo after you make clear what and who you really are and what your purpose is over here.
And you get the same answer I've mentioned before. I am not now, nor have I ever been, paid or in any way compensated to post here or anywhere else. But I doubt you'll believe it. the apparent paranoia looks to run deep.Okay i will respect the mods.If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing. I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
I know you are not on any paycheck,.......simply not good enough to promote the globular illusion.Half of us work for NASA, so he's right.
Did you get your check today? Looks like mine got lost on the mail
How did I attempt to hurt you personally?I understand your temporarely feelings of euphoria and your attempt to seek the momentum to hurt me personally after i was indeed in shock about frenat.......I received an official warning for my post that showed what frenat is doing all over the www.Wow, stalking and harassing another member is against the rules. That is sinister.
It is against the rules.....wazzzzzzz
Who is in charge of this place........it is sinister as hell,....that's for sure.
You have been proven wrong so many times that i consider your childish reply as compensation behaviour
''no no still no proof'' you are a broken record and no match for my knowledge about NASA and Apollo.
You can try again of course, but as always i will kick your bud into orbit while you are yelling in LEO ''still no proof''. ;D
This is of course a ''figure of speech'', before you jump to the wrong conclusions again....
Really you should read and study more before joining an international forum.
I know you are not on any paycheck,.......simply not good enough to promote the globular illusion.Half of us work for NASA, so he's right.
Did you get your check today? Looks like mine got lost on the mail
Pay more attention to Onebigmonkey and Rabinoz, ....one day you could recieive a certain phonecall that could be financial beneficially.
But for now, pay attention and see the pro's at work from both sides of the hypothetical spectrum considering earth's shape..
Okay i will respect the mods.If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing. I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
but not ALWAYS the first. On many forums I don't enter the discussion until many pages in, if at all. You've proven I have an interest in space flight and apollo. Congratulations. And I've had that interest for nearly 20 years. A lot happens in 20 years. I won't apologize for being interested in a subject for a long time.But joining the flatearth forums and for all...the David Icke forums to share your vision ??
As for replying soon after you, I happen to be online most of the day, whether at work or at home, while I'm doing other things. Sue me for using the forum software as intended and knowing how email works. ::) If you like, I can wait a certain amount of time after you post before replying so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities. ::)
That is an opinion. The reality would be I am interested in the topic.An opinion indeed, that has discovered a poster over here also posts at the David Icke forums and political forums and more to promote his take on Apollo.
Same thing as here. Reading for entertainment. I don't have to agree with everything on a forum to post on it, do I? Notice also I haven't posted there in years and when I did I stayed well away from the shapeshifting lizard crap. Or at least you would notice if your "research" consisted of more than a Google search.It is a matter of personal manners, conviction and MORALS.
Expecting answers when you're known to abandon threads in order not to is quite rich coming from you.Does the eclips give you some sort of special climax ? Does any new reply about that topic give you a special feeling ?
Clean up your own mess first. ::)
Actually if ten teachers can't teach something to a student I would say the student simply cannot grasp the subject. This a really good analogy. Multiple people have tried to explain it but you guys are simply not getting it. Others are so I would suggest the problem isn't the teachers or material but rather the student. That really is the most logical explaination.Expecting answers when you're known to abandon threads in order not to is quite rich coming from you.Does the eclips give you some sort of special climax ? Does any new reply about that topic give you a special feeling ?
Clean up your own mess first. ::)
I read it and ''resistance is futile'' is doing a great job. He has all of you cornered and you cannot seem to express your thoughts in a way that would promote a fruitfull discussion.
Ýour failures to engage with another human being doesn't mean i have to be part of your mess in the eclips topic.
If you are unable to explain ''your eclips truth'' to ''resistance is futile'',.... it says a whole lot more about you than resistance is futile.
Picture this,.....ten teachers in a classroom unable to teach the pupil the principles of geometry...who is to blame ?
You are to blame, because your fucked up model is indeed inexplainable to rational minds.
And resistance is futile is a strong personality in real life, to put up with your continious harassements at a place he should feel safe to express his thoughts is revealing....namely THE FLATEARTH FORUMS. Not the ''we believe in the heliocentric fantasy forums''
but not ALWAYS the first. On many forums I don't enter the discussion until many pages in, if at all. You've proven I have an interest in space flight and apollo. Congratulations. And I've had that interest for nearly 20 years. A lot happens in 20 years. I won't apologize for being interested in a subject for a long time.But joining the flatearth forums and for all...the David Icke forums to share your vision ??
As for replying soon after you, I happen to be online most of the day, whether at work or at home, while I'm doing other things. Sue me for using the forum software as intended and knowing how email works. ::) If you like, I can wait a certain amount of time after you post before replying so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities. ::)
I can understand you like a certain subject. I participate on 3 international forums about musical instruments. American and German...althaugh i am Dutch.No, i don't. I think that I have followed my interest to interesting places. Especially when oftentimes I was asked to follow the discussion over there by others involved.
I narrow it down to forums and sub forums that i can participate in and have a certain knowledge about the subjects.
If you join the David Icke forum and political charged forums to talk about Apollo related stuff, i become very suspicious.
That doesn't look like a hobby, more an obsession or evangelical drive to promote the holy moonlandings.
Don't you think that is a bit bizare frenat ?
Again, yes.QuoteThat is an opinion. The reality would be I am interested in the topic.An opinion indeed, that has discovered a poster over here also posts at the David Icke forums and political forums and more to promote his take on Apollo.
You think that is absolute normal behaviour from someone who simply likes to talk about Apollo ?
I first would doubt they have a science section to have threads about it at all. Second, I would doubt I'd find the thread at all as I wouldn't be near the forum to start with. The David Icke forum you're hung up on has quite a large section of thread that have nothing to do with the namesake.QuoteSame thing as here. Reading for entertainment. I don't have to agree with everything on a forum to post on it, do I? Notice also I haven't posted there in years and when I did I stayed well away from the shapeshifting lizard crap. Or at least you would notice if your "research" consisted of more than a Google search.It is a matter of personal manners, conviction and MORALS.
Would you post on the ''white stormfront'' or whatever rightwing neo nazi forum if it covered the moonlandings ?
You don't believe in flatearth, so you shouldn't post here, you don't beleive in Daviod Icke's ideology, you shouldn't post there at all.So I should just let ignorance and lies stand. And screw having any other interests or entertainment. Don't bother to look at the other side if you don't believe any of it, right? How DARE anybody share any thoughts and ideas with people that don't think the way they do!! ::)
The only reason i can think of is that you are eather a pyed shill or have a psychological obsession with promoting NASA related achievements at any given oppertunity, despite the fact that it goes against your own morality and conviction.Again, that is your opinion and one without evidence.
I am willing to give you the benefits of the doubt and withdraw any insinuation of you being payed.Only because you are incapable of imagining any other alternative. That is your problem, not mine.
That leaves me with a very disturbing alternative frenat.
It is not normal behaviour to search all over the internet to forums, articles and blogs that gives you the oppertunity to say something about NASA and the moonlandings.Again, that is an opinion without merit and you seem to be forgetting that it is spread out over 20 years. And I don't go searching. Again, I have sometimes been invited to a particular discussion by someone already there. Sometimes it is more informal where someone mentions an interesting discussion is happening. If the place looks interesting, I'll stick around. If not, I won't. Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about your concerns. You've clearly let your paranoia take over. Have fun with that.
I really hope you understand my deep concerns.
Take care and give my replies some thought, even if i have said some things that were untrue !! Sorry for that.Except I doubt you are.
Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about your concerns. You've clearly let your paranoia take over. Have fun with that.You can thank me in time frenat !!
Why would I thank you for your unfounded paranoia?Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about your concerns. You've clearly let your paranoia take over. Have fun with that.You can thank me in time frenat !!
The time on the moon or the time of the moonwalk are totally irrelevant.Why are ships look-outs given time to adapt? So dutchy knows better than marine authorities now.They didn't see any star at all during their stay on the moon.
It is even in the regulations that the relieved lookout must not leave his post until the relieving lookout's eyes have adequately adapted.
So stop denying self-evident facts with your perpetual NASAphobia.
No fainted stars, not less bright stars, no nothing....no visible stars during their 2,5 hours moonwalk.
Yes i know better than you, far better to conclude that this is impossible.No, it means that they didn't see stars on the moon
Sure they would need to adapt, i have never denied that.
But your default conclusion is that during their stay on the moon it was reasonable that they could not see stars with their eyes. Not even a few, fainted ones or less bright.
Not even after 2.5 hours ?
You see what these means don't you. It means THEY COULDN'T SEE STARS ON THE MOON
Or would they have seen stars after a week, a month ? Is 2,5 hours not enough to adapt ?It means nothing of the sort
It means that Neil deGrasse Tyson is talking out of his ass or Neil Armstrong.No it does not!
Neil deGRasse Tyson says you would see the stars just like during the nightAnd others seem to agree with what I say!
Neil Armstrong says you can't see stars even after 2.5 hours no star is visible
Why did Neil deGrasse Tyson say that you could see a full sky of stars on the moon during the daytime, but the Apollo astronauts said that they couldn't see any?/size]
Drew Northcott
The human eye works like this. when incoming light is bright the iris closes down to limit the amount of light coming into the eye. On the surface of the moon, you are standing on a daylit surface looking approximately at the horizon, half your vision is full of brightly lit ground, the iris closes down reducing the light coming into the eye. You’re also wearing UV filters and a mirrored visor which helps block the light, so you generally won’t see any but the very brightest stars, so does that mean Neil Degrasse Tyson is wrong? No.
The stars are still there, but you have to make an effort to see them, stand in a large shadow, look up to exclude the bright surface from your field of vision, raise the protective UV filters of your helmet and wait for your eyes to adapt to the darkness, then you will see stars. One of the Apollo Astronauts (Gene Cernan I think) did just that.
Another way to do this would be to look through a tube in order to exclude extraneous light. There were a couple of instruments built into the Apollo craft in order to check navigation and orientation that were used in just this way during the trip.
It’s also worth noting that although stars don’t show up in the photos Venus appeared in a few. It’s bright enough to show up even with other lit objects in frame.
From: Why did Neil deGrasse Tyson say that you could see a full sky of stars . . . . . . ? (https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-say-that-you-could-see-a-full-sky-of-stars-on-the-moon-during-the-daytime-but-the-Apollo-astronauts-said-that-they-couldnt-see-any)
So your whole ''time to adapt'' is futileNot at all!
.......no stars vs bright stars....who is right Neil or Neil ;DBOTH
What loss? Your claims mean nothing and I am defending my position as a man that with plenty dignity left.
Now stop lying and take your loss as a man that has some dignity left.
So there you have, take it how you like!Sorry , but the majority of your posts read like Chinese to me. Of course that is due to my understanding first, but i only experience this when trying to decifer your posts.
Wow look at that NASA propaganda from 1966.Nup, we're not tormented, you are just showing your ignorance and paranoia.
The earth has changed since then, way to fast for me..... ::) ::) ::)
What a crap load of brainwashing shit.
Apologist, time to defend daddy NASA, althaugh it must feel like being tormented at times. ;D
Look at that blue uhhh marble at 2.55 in the videoFlat Earth - First Picture of Earth (1966) Flat Earth Hub (http://)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gxvi4ddy1n36pxd/First%20Photograph%20of%20nearly%20full%20planet%20from%20215%2C000%2C000%20miles%20away.jpg?dl=1) Flat Earth - First Picture of Earth (1966) Flat Earth Hub | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp60myxsgo0xmj8/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015.png?dl=1) From Russian Weather Satellite, similar aspect |
Well, I do my best, but really I couldn't care in the slightest what you think!So there you have, take it how you like!Sorry , but the majority of your posts read like Chinese to me. Of course that is due to my understanding first, but i only experience this when trying to decifer your posts.
I get it that you are here to post the scientific thruth and hope that illiterate silent readers with false notions of reality understand what true science is all about compared to nonsense like the flatearth and Apollo deniers claim.I definitely would not accuse these "silent readers" of being "illiterate " or being "with false notions of reality". I'll leave those accusations to you.
What i don't get at all is when you talk in absolute riddles explaining what Neil A. and Neil dGT meant and how nothing in their claims was possibly contradictory.I do not see their statements as contradictory, and neither do most people not wearing your anti-NASA filters.
Sorry i give up, you can have your little space fantasies, despite the fact that they are contradictory as anything.It is only you that is claiming "that they are contradictory as anything".
Want to comment on my 1966 video full of early NASA propaganda and a uhhhhh grey marble ?
I honestly don't understand how you don't understand this. It was explained perfectly well to you. Really, a middle school kid would get from that explaination.So there you have, take it how you like!Sorry , but the majority of your posts read like Chinese to me. Of course that is due to my understanding first, but i only experience this when trying to decifer your posts.
I get it that you are here to post the scientific thruth and hope that illiterate silent readers with false notions of reality understand what true science is all about compared to nonsense like the flatearth and Apollo deniers claim.
What i don't get at all is when you talk in absolute riddles explaining what Neil A. and Neil dGT meant and how nothing in their claims was possibly contradictory.
Sorry i give up, you can have your little space fantasies, despite the fact that they are contradictory as anything.
Want to comment on my 1966 video full of early NASA propaganda and a uhhhhh grey marble ?
I don't care what he does. You and other flat brainers get monstrously destroyed time and time again yet still come back. That's not normal behavior.When your ideas are so shit you have to claim everyone is a paid shill.Do you think frenat's behaviour as clearly shown is behaviour for a normal functioning human being ?
Have you clicked on the links,....frenat is a madman obsessed about defending Apollo all over the www.
You think that is normal behaviour or simply a hobby ?
In order to cover up God? What?That's a question I've often asked, maybe dutchy can answer.
What does the geometry of the Earth have that displays a god of a specific religion?
That is a strange one. I would also wonder what NASA gains from this.
The plan was and is to make sure that ''God'' is considered a scientific impossibility.
This is considering our biblical roots an extreme abomination
Behind the scenes this carefully executed plan took centuries and has reached it's final episode in the history of men.
The globe is only a part of a much bigger problem.
The bigger problem is that the human race has accepted the supposed non existance of God in every thinkable way .
The many falsehoods within the hypothetical science of our cosmos, roots and morals have done all the brainwashing.
Wow look at that NASA propaganda from 1966.
The earth has changed since then, way to fast for me..... ::) ::) ::)
What a crap load of brainwashing shit.
Apologist, time to defend daddy NASA, althaugh it must feel like being tormented at times. ;D
Look at that blue uhhh marble at 2.55 in the video
(http://)
Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.Okay i will respect the mods.If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing. I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
But it's against the rules, i received a warning.Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.Okay i will respect the mods.If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing. I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
How about the angle where the shapeshifting lizard crap is completely separated from the space section and those posts were not only spread out over about 5 years but also that the account was closed over 5 years ago? 934 posts over 5 years is at best 1 post every 2 days. It isn't my fault that you can't understand that a forum can talk about many different things. From what I remember about that forum, very few threw in with Icke's crazy beliefs. Were all the hundreds (probably thousands) that didn't exactly agree with him shills?But it's against the rules, i received a warning.Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.Okay i will respect the mods.If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing. I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, i am way to gullible at times,..... i know.
But his 900+ post over at the David Icke forums are utterly shocking, no matter what angle i try to see it from.
There are indeed few names circling around the www In my research after Apollo it was a small clan ready to jump in all over the net,..... like i showed with frenat's links.Any link to this supposed conversation? How do you know they weren't joking? Playing around with paranoid posters that already believed they did that stuff anyway? For that matter, if it was recorded and later deleted, how do you know it was genuine and not created by someone else?
I saw a recorded converstation in a comment section that was deleted afterwards, between Astrobrant2 and Kris de Valle ( 2 diehard Apollo defenders) It was utterly shocking. Not only did they recommend using one of their sock puppets in various ways to attack certain anti Apollo posters, they truly seemed to be taken their online services extremely serious. As if their carere depended on proving Apollo and NASA right.
I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.Clavius doesn't have a forum.
That doesn't make them shills of course, but it was a scary clan of totally obsessed Apollo believers. It was like a cult that immidiatly threw the cosmic wrath upon disbelievers.People with a shared interest talking about said interest on a forum dedicated to said interest? And defend that interest against trolls and people that start out calling them liars and shills? What a shocker! Next you'll be telling me there are people who believe in a flat Earth that talk about it in some kind of Flat Earth Society forum!
I never dared to participate, fearing to be fried by their communication tactics... althaugh i was deeply troubled over the moonlandings.
And yet you have still failed to prove even one lie from NASA.But it's against the rules, i received a warning.Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.Okay i will respect the mods.If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing. I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, i am way to gullible at times,..... i know.
But his 900+ post over at the David Icke forums are utterly shocking, no matter what angle i try to see it from.
There are indeed few names circling around the www In my research after Apollo it was a small clan ready to jump in all over the net,..... like i showed with frenat's links.
I saw a recorded converstation in a comment section that was deleted afterwards, between Astrobrant2 and Kris de Valle ( 2 diehard Apollo defenders) It was utterly shocking. Not only did they recommend using one of their sock puppets in various ways to attack certain anti Apollo posters, they truly seemed to be taken their online services extremely serious. As if their carere depended on proving Apollo and NASA right.
I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.
That doesn't make them shills of course, but it was a scary clan of totally obsessed Apollo believers. It was like a cult that immidiatly threw the cosmic wrath upon disbelievers.
I never dared to participate, fearing to be fried by their communication tactics... althaugh i was deeply troubled over the moonlandings.
I am beying accused of being obsessed by NASA.... and yes their fakery has drawn my attention very much, but what those , let's say 10 hardcore insiders have done over the years is mind boggling.
Blogs, sites, video's, clips, reviews, forums etc.
They must have raised the bar for amateurism without it's equall,..... or ???
According to your beloved science the multiverse is getting more probable every year.And yet you have still failed to prove even one lie from NASA.But it's against the rules, i received a warning.Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.Okay i will respect the mods.If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing. I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, i am way to gullible at times,..... i know.
But his 900+ post over at the David Icke forums are utterly shocking, no matter what angle i try to see it from.
There are indeed few names circling around the www In my research after Apollo it was a small clan ready to jump in all over the net,..... like i showed with frenat's links.
I saw a recorded converstation in a comment section that was deleted afterwards, between Astrobrant2 and Kris de Valle ( 2 diehard Apollo defenders) It was utterly shocking. Not only did they recommend using one of their sock puppets in various ways to attack certain anti Apollo posters, they truly seemed to be taken their online services extremely serious. As if their carere depended on proving Apollo and NASA right.
I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.
That doesn't make them shills of course, but it was a scary clan of totally obsessed Apollo believers. It was like a cult that immidiatly threw the cosmic wrath upon disbelievers.
I never dared to participate, fearing to be fried by their communication tactics... althaugh i was deeply troubled over the moonlandings.
I am beying accused of being obsessed by NASA.... and yes their fakery has drawn my attention very much, but what those , let's say 10 hardcore insiders have done over the years is mind boggling.
Blogs, sites, video's, clips, reviews, forums etc.
They must have raised the bar for amateurism without it's equall,..... or ???
So personal insults but still no proof. And you say I sound like a broken record. Now that's funny.According to your beloved science the multiverse is getting more probable every year.And yet you have still failed to prove even one lie from NASA.But it's against the rules, i received a warning.Frenat doesn't need to admit to being a shill, you caught him.Okay i will respect the mods.If you pick up where PL left off, you'll be joining him in bamnation.Dear space Cowgirl, what is it what i wrote that is against the rules ?
I will edit my posts after i understand what about it's content is so abrasive.
Look, there's no reason to post links to a bunch of different forums trying to prove that "frenat" is a shill. It's spam at best, and harassment at worst. I read the some of the 1st link and it doesn't seem anything like the frenat that posts here. Just argue with his words, there's no reason to go fishing. I've read lots of your posts since you joined, and have been glad that you defend the FE so vigorously. There's absolutely no need to post like PL. He's not FE. He doesn't even make good arguments for the things he claims to believe.
But i do hope frenat is answering, because it is him, each and every time....and i want an explaination from him !!!
I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, i am way to gullible at times,..... i know.
But his 900+ post over at the David Icke forums are utterly shocking, no matter what angle i try to see it from.
There are indeed few names circling around the www In my research after Apollo it was a small clan ready to jump in all over the net,..... like i showed with frenat's links.
I saw a recorded converstation in a comment section that was deleted afterwards, between Astrobrant2 and Kris de Valle ( 2 diehard Apollo defenders) It was utterly shocking. Not only did they recommend using one of their sock puppets in various ways to attack certain anti Apollo posters, they truly seemed to be taken their online services extremely serious. As if their carere depended on proving Apollo and NASA right.
I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.
That doesn't make them shills of course, but it was a scary clan of totally obsessed Apollo believers. It was like a cult that immidiatly threw the cosmic wrath upon disbelievers.
I never dared to participate, fearing to be fried by their communication tactics... althaugh i was deeply troubled over the moonlandings.
I am beying accused of being obsessed by NASA.... and yes their fakery has drawn my attention very much, but what those , let's say 10 hardcore insiders have done over the years is mind boggling.
Blogs, sites, video's, clips, reviews, forums etc.
They must have raised the bar for amateurism without it's equall,..... or ???
Can you believe you are also partaking in another universe defending the flatearth ??
;D ;D
That gives me so much pleasure......
But i do hope you don't sound like a broken record over there like you do here.
That wouldn't do the flatearth cause no good in that other place ::)
Psst use a bit of variation in your oneliners....
So personal insults but still no proof. And you say I sound like a broken record. Now that's funny.Ooo i am sorry, i am sometimes not aware of insulting people, not intended this time around....i will tone down. ;D ;D ;D ;D
I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.
I accept your apology, but I must note that you still have not produced any evidence of a NASA lie.So personal insults but still no proof. And you say I sound like a broken record. Now that's funny.Ooo i am sorry, i am sometimes not aware of insulting people, not intended this time around....i will tone down. ;D ;D ;D ;D
::)
I accept your apology, but I must note that you still have not produced any evidence of a NASA lie.Evidence is kryptonite to me.,....why do you hurt me so much ?
But we've already agreed at least one of them was prerecorded, it had to be because of the delay. If anything that's evidence he was actually on the ISS in space.I accept your apology, but I must note that you still have not produced any evidence of a NASA lie.Evidence is kryptonite to me.,....why do you hurt me so much ?
On a more serious note......i think i have proven NASA's marketing trick about the ISS guitar hero and bandearth+choir
Why ?
1 The initial small talk between the host and guitarman was clearly a live conversation and performance and nothing was ever said to the contrary
2 The music we hear is a post production, because of audible added effects, audible streamlined vocals eq, visual clicktrack drums and audible perfect eq
Even the most expensive live performance on earth is not capable of a perfect mix in real time as shown between ISS and earth.
3 ''Guitarman'' didn't make any mistake, not a tiny one, althaugh he claimed that he had little time to practice and playing in micro gravity needed lots of practice
Clearly another case of aftermath in the post production.
4 The time delay makes any live performance impossible, but they forgot to mention this, because playing along in the ISS with a pre recorded tape doesn't look as good as a pretentious live show between space and earth.
If you don't consider that proof, i am afraid nothing will in your lifespan.
You may consider it unimportant, granted.......but it is proof of NASA fakery.
If you doubt my skills ?....just read along in the various topics, because a detected yet another desperate guitar hero wannabe over here that needs a little professional guidance. ;D ;D ;D
Most globers over here do not only harrass flatearthers in their place, some even annoy the inhabitants of flatearth with their underpar guitar skills...yuk.
Further more,......the vast majority of guitar players are the cause for band conflicts.
With their idiotic amount of crazy effect pedals (chorus, flanger, phazer, delay, fuzz, distortion etc.) , tube stacks, racks crammed with all their ''other'' guitars on a tiny stage, loud volume, bad timing and contact disturbed attitude ....
And it does say something that i allready detected TWO wannabe guitar players among globeearth posters over here. I can not handle more wannabe guitar players.....so be silent about it globers........you don't play the guitar....remember !!
Or was the ISS cosmic guitarshow a form of inspiration to pick up a guitar ???? ::) ::) ::)
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
t was a Canadian astronaut on Canadian TV, it was a corporately sponsored event, if I recall.
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.Ok, why don't you back some of that up? As for technology, can you imagine how much more expensive that technology would have been had the private sector developed it? If it would have been developed at all. I am in favor of government funding scientific research, it's a good thing.
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
Thanks I forgot to ask about that.NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
What is MODN? Did you mean MOND?
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits,
and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs
they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector.
They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
Diplomat Rock: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.htmlNASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.Ok, why don't you back some of that up? As for technology, can you imagine how much more expensive that technology would have been had the private sector developed it? If it would have been developed at all. I am in favor of government funding scientific research, it's a good thing.
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
I still have yet to see you guys produce any proof of NASA faking anything. It's just people saying they don't understand how it works so it must be fake.
I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.People don't use NASA technology to produce useful products, industry does.
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.Good post John !!
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
They have been caught using government resources, multiple times, to the ends of their cocaine habits. I never claimed it was proof of a flat earth, though I understand the average globularist may have trouble reading so I will hold my tongue.NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits,
Are you arguing that NASA is a drug cartel, or just that some NASA employees have been caught spending their salaries on coke? Hardly proof of a flat Earth.
I would say not very well: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2171Quoteand their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs
In order to get funding they need to quantify what they intend to spend it on. How well has NASA's budget fared over the past few decades would you say?
The technology should be given freely to whomever wants it. The goal of NASA is not to make money to fund their projects, its to take the funding they are given to perform the research the people want.Quotethey also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector.
and by selling the technology they recoup some of the investment of those taxpayers. Why would they give it away to the USA's private health care sector so that the medical profession there can make even more money?
Not in an Open and Free society, it isn't.QuoteThey are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.
Or they are a large research organisation, one of many, that uses the resources it is given to promote and publish that research. That's how research works.
I am not in a position currently to do your research for you.QuoteYes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Show us a lie.
And industry could do this cheaper (and more industries could be built, by yes people) if it was available for free as it should.I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.People don't use NASA technology to produce useful products, industry does.
BTW, I would imagine that some of NASA's budget relies on the patent license fees to ease the taxpayer burden.
Thank youNASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.Good post John !!
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
As far as the private sector, it seems to be doing just fine faking their own technology with SpaceX.Thanks, call me ignorant....but i didn't know that. What a scumbag organisation NASA is ....a bottomless pit of taxpayer's money and destroyers of specific Apollo data.They have been caught using government resources, multiple times, to the ends of their cocaine habits. I never claimed it was proof of a flat earth, though I understand the average globularist may have trouble reading so I will hold my tongue.NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits,
Are you arguing that NASA is a drug cartel, or just that some NASA employees have been caught spending their salaries on coke? Hardly proof of a flat Earth.
Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space.
“The activity of destroying God.”
This seems to be the sole purpose of NASA.
Why should industry profit from taxpayer funded research?And industry could do this cheaper (and more industries could be built, by yes people) if it was available for free as it should.I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.People don't use NASA technology to produce useful products, industry does.
BTW, I would imagine that some of NASA's budget relies on the patent license fees to ease the taxpayer burden.
It eases the burden of those at NASA who want to research one of many of their ridiculous products. The tax payer pays the same amount to NASA whether or not they choose to embezzle it.If the products are so ridiculous, then why would industry bother licensing the patents? ???
Yes, I meant MOND. I'm posting from work so I'm typing in a hurry.You were right about the moon rock, I had forgotten about that. So, some employees use cocaine, at work, and that means the entire organization is guilty of wasting taxpayer money on drugs?Diplomat Rock: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.htmlNASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.Ok, why don't you back some of that up? As for technology, can you imagine how much more expensive that technology would have been had the private sector developed it? If it would have been developed at all. I am in favor of government funding scientific research, it's a good thing.
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
I still have yet to see you guys produce any proof of NASA faking anything. It's just people saying they don't understand how it works so it must be fake.
Caught Using Cocaine At NASA: https://www.space.com/11128-nasa-kennedy-space-center-cocaine.html
I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.
I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.How does that manifest?
I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.Right, and I bet you believe that the government should give taxpayer funded nuclear bomb technology to the people too. ::)
I think medical technology and nuclear bomb technology are a bit different. Wouldn't you agree?I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.Right, and I bet you believe that the government should give taxpayer funded nuclear bomb technology to the people too. ::)
No John is right, there are allready remarkable achievements in sharing technologies online.Yes, there is no reason privately funded science and community driven science would not function. Look at almost the entirety of the history of science. The only reason for it not to be this way is to maintain a center of power.
I heard a company put all their blueprints and data for a 3D printer online and within 24 hours the nerds of this world made it three times faster and 4 times more reliable.
I don't have a link, but it was on the radio recently....
It could manifest as simply as securing the patent and granting rights of use to any and all citizens of America, or alternative the world.Do you honestly think that the medical industry would cut their prices if NASA just gave them the research for free? Mega-corps like those are legally obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders.I think medical technology and nuclear bomb technology are a bit different. Wouldn't you agree?I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.Right, and I bet you believe that the government should give taxpayer funded nuclear bomb technology to the people too. ::)
Yes, I meant MOND. I'm posting from work so I'm typing in a hurry.NASA only gave Moon rocks to the Netherlands two times.Diplomat Rock: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.htmlNASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits, and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector. They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.Ok, why don't you back some of that up? As for technology, can you imagine how much more expensive that technology would have been had the private sector developed it? If it would have been developed at all. I am in favor of government funding scientific research, it's a good thing.
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.
Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.
Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.
I still have yet to see you guys produce any proof of NASA faking anything. It's just people saying they don't understand how it works so it must be fake.
Caught Using Cocaine At NASA: https://www.space.com/11128-nasa-kennedy-space-center-cocaine.html
I'm fine with the government researching and funding engineering efforts. I am not ok with them selling it to private sector to fund their pet projects. The are given the money the people feel they warrant through the processes we put in place to ensure that. The technology belongs to the people, not the scientists at NASA so they can sell it to circumvent their budgeting restrictions.
Ideally, an open and free society would have a separation not only between religion and government - but also science and government as argued by many including expert on Scientific Method Karl Popper.Well, what piece of NASA technology would you like to know?
However, I'm not talking about ideals. This would be the minimum for them not to be lying and thieving asshats.
How so?Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS. That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.How so?Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS. That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
Those that are owned by contractors for one. Secondly, I'd love to sell my own memory foam and upside down pens. Likewise for the rest of the pile of proprietary technology created by NASA in the medical industry.Ideally, an open and free society would have a separation not only between religion and government - but also science and government as argued by many including expert on Scientific Method Karl Popper.Well, what piece of NASA technology would you like to know?
However, I'm not talking about ideals. This would be the minimum for them not to be lying and thieving asshats.
The Apollo program has the most documentation online of any program as far as I know. Thought I have not researched many other programs. And the modern ones that are still running may not have their documentation online because they are still classified, or owned by the contractor that designed them.
Yes, it's virtually indistinguishable from a round earth. How clever. ::)Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.How so?Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS. That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.Neutral buoyancy is not the same as zero/micro-gravity.
It could manifest as simply as securing the patent and granting rights of use to any and all citizens of America, or alternative the world.Actually I could get behind thatI think medical technology and nuclear bomb technology are a bit different. Wouldn't you agree?I would prefer for them to give the technology to the people, who rightfully own it, for anybody to use as they will. That is their responsibility.Right, and I bet you believe that the government should give taxpayer funded nuclear bomb technology to the people too. ::)
So its my fault now that the round earth is not falsifiable? Oh boy. That's a new one. I guess that's why I'm sometimes known as Globe Killer, as well as the most influential zetetic scientist ever.Yes, it's virtually indistinguishable from a round earth. How clever. ::)Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.How so?Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS. That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.Neutral buoyancy is not the same as zero/micro-gravity.
In some ways it is. In many more ways, a sustained pseudo-force is supposedly exactly the same as zero/micro-gravity.So its my fault now that the round earth is not falsifiable? Oh boy. That's a new one. I guess that's why I'm sometimes known as Globe Killer, as well as the most influential zetetic scientist ever.Yes, it's virtually indistinguishable from a round earth. How clever. ::)Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.How so?Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS. That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.Neutral buoyancy is not the same as zero/micro-gravity.
They do not refute my non-euclidean model. They would lay serious concern upon the infinite flat earth, if they were indeed legitimate and correctly interpreted.Well the are legit so how does that work with your model?
They do not refute my non-euclidean model. They would lay serious concern upon the infinite flat earth, if they were indeed legitimate and correctly interpreted.Of course "they" do not refute your non-Euclidean model - "they" haven't a clue what a non-Euclidean model is - do you?
What Is Gravity?
Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.
. . . . . . . . . . . << :P possibly relevant material omitted for brevity :P >> . . . . . . . .
What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.
No, it's your fault that your non-euclidean earth is not falsifiable.So its my fault now that the round earth is not falsifiable?Yes, it's virtually indistinguishable from a round earth. How clever. ::)Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.How so?Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS. That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
A submarine is neutrally buoyant. The sailors inside do not experience zero/micro-gravity.QuoteIn some ways it is. In many more ways, a sustained pseudo-force is supposedly exactly the same as zero/micro-gravity.For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.Neutral buoyancy is not the same as zero/micro-gravity.
I never claimed they did.Then you agree that neutral buoyancy isn't all that much like zero/micro-gravity after all.
They do not refute my non-euclidean model. They would lay serious concern upon the infinite flat earth, if they were indeed legitimate and correctly interpreted.Of course "they" do not refute your non-Euclidean model - "they" haven't a clue what a non-Euclidean model is - do you?
You mean your "non-Euclidean model" that is the earth is really flat,
but looks like a Globe, measures like a Globe and behaves like a Globe. Let's just cut to the chase and call is a Globe.
Then I suppose it doesn't really rotate, but it just seems like to rotate, - Mach's principle or something.
And I suppose it doesn't really orbit the sun, but it just seems to orbit the sun, - :D that sounds Machiavellian to me :D!
So the earth looks like a Heliocentric Globe, measures like a Heliocentric Globe and behaves like a Heliocentric Globe.
It would seem a lot simpler to simply say that the earth is a Heliocentric Globe.
As for your infinite flat earth, I do believe that it requires something akin to Newtonian Gravitation.
It certainly reads that way in Infinite Flat Earth (https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Infinite+Flat+Earth).
But we are told quite unequivocally in the FAQ:QuoteWhat Is Gravity?
Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.
. . . . . . . . . . . << :P possibly relevant material omitted for brevity :P >> . . . . . . . .
What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.
Any more "flat earth models" in your "little bottom drawer".
It seems that the only common point with these Flat Earth theories is that the earth looks flat - but the non-Euclidean model seems to fail even that.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your theories, so maybe your could explain just how they would explain observations and distances, etc.
Its a fancy way of saying it is flat, and space is curved.
Which part of technology? have you send an Email to a contractor yet?Not necessarily; you know my views on the non-euclidean earth.How so?Well, NASA claims to be doing a fair bit of medical research aboard the ISS. That means that if the research is valid and the patents useful, then the ISS must be real and NASA has been right about the shape of the earth all along.
For those who don't hold that, they could be doing medical research for money (now that they have bled the space race and our country dry) under-water or in a simulator such as those they use for training.Those that are owned by contractors for one. Secondly, I'd love to sell my own memory foam and upside down pens. Likewise for the rest of the pile of proprietary technology created by NASA in the medical industry.Ideally, an open and free society would have a separation not only between religion and government - but also science and government as argued by many including expert on Scientific Method Karl Popper.Well, what piece of NASA technology would you like to know?
However, I'm not talking about ideals. This would be the minimum for them not to be lying and thieving asshats.
The Apollo program has the most documentation online of any program as far as I know. Thought I have not researched many other programs. And the modern ones that are still running may not have their documentation online because they are still classified, or owned by the contractor that designed them.
Everyone knows that NASA lies!Fixed it for you !!
As we also all know that vacciness make some people very, very rich
And climate change started in America, ...the country which rediculed the ''club of Rome'' in the early seventies, because they were just starting to expand their McDonalds consumers and pollution empire over the world.
Peope wake up!EveryoneNASA, Pharmaceuticals, Monsanto, oil companies, the total war industry, lawyers, Wallstreet and every thinkable acquaintance lie to us!
Those that are owned by contractors for one. Secondly, I'd love to sell my own memory foam and upside down pens. Likewise for the rest of the pile of proprietary technology created by NASA in the medical industry.
Point still stands. They sell technology owned by the people to the private sector, causing the people to have to pay twice for its development.Do you mean like this:
NASA has released 56 formerly-patented agency technologies into the public domain, making its government-developed technologies freely available for unrestricted commercial use. In addition to the release of these technologies, a searchable database now is available that catalogs thousands of expired NASA patents already in the public domain.
Point still stands. They sell technology owned by the people to the private sector, causing the people to have to pay twice for its development.Technology which might not have existed without NASA.
Everyone knows that NASA lies!Autism VS Polio
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.
Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!
Everyone knows that NASA lies!Well apparently NASA did not lie, as people received signals from the Moon at the time of Apollo.
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.
Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!
Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.
Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!
Psst little green man...he's on your side !Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.
Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!
Everyone??
We??
I suppose you've spoken to a LOT of people? Billions??
Psst little green man...he's on your side !Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.
Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!
Everyone??
We??
I suppose you've spoken to a LOT of people? Billions??
This is what he posted to tease us.....i know you like it so here it is :
We don`t know how thick it is, but we know for sure it rests on 4 elephants which stand on the back of a giant turtle.
See he is your buddy in this place !!
Your strange flat earth without elephants and turtle religion is false!That was funny !! ;D ;D ;D
Your strange flat earth without elephants and turtle religion is false!That was funny !! ;D ;D ;D
Wow i found a glober with humor.... CONGRATULATIONS you are one of a kind !
Your strange flat earth without elephants and turtle religion is false!That was funny !! ;D ;D ;D
Wow i found a glober with humor.... CONGRATULATIONS you are one of a kind !
Thank you! I just did what Resistance.Is.Futile constantly is doing. So I was thinking that I can do it too and well, it was successfull! Hope he doesn`t mind that I took the crown from him. ;D
First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style ;DBehind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!
I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Then it's turtles all the way down.Psst little green man...he's on your side !Everyone knows that NASA lies!
As we also all know that vacciness cause autism.
And the climate change is also a hoax/conspiracy.
Peope wake up! Everyone lies to us!
Everyone??
We??
I suppose you've spoken to a LOT of people? Billions??
This is what he posted to tease us.....i know you like it so here it is :
We don`t know how thick it is, but we know for sure it rests on 4 elephants which stand on the back of a giant turtle.
See he is your buddy in this place !!
What tease? That is the truth. No FE "evidence" can and does refute the fact that the earth rests on 4 elephants which stand on the back of a giant turtle.
Your strange flat earth without elephants and turtle religion is false!
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style ;DBehind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!
I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.;D ;D
Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style ;DBehind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!
I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style ;DBehind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!
I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I know, but it is a side effect !
To be honest thst is not what I'm trying to achieve.
This has been explained ad nauseam. If you can't understand it that's not my problem.Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.;D ;D
Could you help me please ...i am looking for the real moon, but i cannot solve this puzzle
Moon A The moon where you can see countless stars like a night on earth !
Moon B The moon where you have to use optics to detect some faint stars !
Moon C The moon where you can see stars when you are not part of the reflecting surface and are allowed to gaze upwards, otherwise you can't see any stars.
And i have to be very cautious, because otherwise Rabinoz, frenat and Onebigmonky post nonsense like this :
nnnnnoooo dutchy did not accurately calculate the baseline for autorefraction from the fully lit moon rigolet that bounced off the multi layered anti reflecting vizors so that the invisible stars were visible if you hadn't played golf and your antibodies did not interfere with your line of sight, because the Hasselblad camera they used wasn't calibrated for cosmic observations and prevented them from gazing upwards.
Every scientist around the globe knows this, only stupid, really stupid people like ''dutchy'' still don't understand why they could see the stars, but couldn't if they wanted but didn't !!!
Could you help me to pick the real moon ? A, B or C...or is there another D moon ?
It is so confusing,....i simply want to know which moon is th real moon.....you know the moon moon.
I must have missed that oneStill waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.First it was Rab now it is you emulating my style ;DBehind all their reducule they do admire you. They are almost obsessed by you, ....classic !!!
I don't mind you Heliocentrics need all the help you can get.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
He just posted a cool cockpit video of a shuttle launch, thinking it exposes some NASA lie...
I think he didn't like the launch suits!
If you can't explain the circomstances on the daylight side on the moon in one coherant sentence, something is very wrong.This has been explained ad nauseam. If you can't understand it that's not my problem.Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.;D ;D
Could you help me please ...i am looking for the real moon, but i cannot solve this puzzle
Moon A The moon where you can see countless stars like a night on earth !
Moon B The moon where you have to use optics to detect some faint stars !
Moon C The moon where you can see stars when you are not part of the reflecting surface and are allowed to gaze upwards, otherwise you can't see any stars.
And i have to be very cautious, because otherwise Rabinoz, frenat and Onebigmonky post nonsense like this :
nnnnnoooo dutchy did not accurately calculate the baseline for autorefraction from the fully lit moon rigolet that bounced off the multi layered anti reflecting vizors so that the invisible stars were visible if you hadn't played golf and your antibodies did not interfere with your line of sight, because the Hasselblad camera they used wasn't calibrated for cosmic observations and prevented them from gazing upwards.
Every scientist around the globe knows this, only stupid, really stupid people like ''dutchy'' still don't understand why they could see the stars, but couldn't if they wanted but didn't !!!
Could you help me to pick the real moon ? A, B or C...or is there another D moon ?
It is so confusing,....i simply want to know which moon is th real moon.....you know the moon moon.
But I take it since you keep coming back to this you actually have nothing else.
That can't be true since claim everything from NASA is a lie. So, do you have anything else?
Again this has been explained. So you have nothing else?If you can't explaion the circomstances on the daylight side on the moon in one coherant sentence, something is very wrong.This has been explained ad nauseam. If you can't understand it that's not my problem.Still waiting for you to prove a single NASA lie.;D ;D
Could you help me please ...i am looking for the real moon, but i cannot solve this puzzle
Moon A The moon where you can see countless stars like a night on earth !
Moon B The moon where you have to use optics to detect some faint stars !
Moon C The moon where you can see stars when you are not part of the reflecting surface and are allowed to gaze upwards, otherwise you can't see any stars.
And i have to be very cautious, because otherwise Rabinoz, frenat and Onebigmonky post nonsense like this :
nnnnnoooo dutchy did not accurately calculate the baseline for autorefraction from the fully lit moon rigolet that bounced off the multi layered anti reflecting vizors so that the invisible stars were visible if you hadn't played golf and your antibodies did not interfere with your line of sight, because the Hasselblad camera they used wasn't calibrated for cosmic observations and prevented them from gazing upwards.
Every scientist around the globe knows this, only stupid, really stupid people like ''dutchy'' still don't understand why they could see the stars, but couldn't if they wanted but didn't !!!
Could you help me to pick the real moon ? A, B or C...or is there another D moon ?
It is so confusing,....i simply want to know which moon is th real moon.....you know the moon moon.
But I take it since you keep coming back to this you actually have nothing else.
That can't be true since claim everything from NASA is a lie. So, do you have anything else?
Let me show you
During the day on earth we cannot see stars because the scattered sunlight washes out the starlight completely in earth's atmosphere
During the night we can see stars with the exception of a clouded night that obscures many stars or the presense of bright artificial (city) light
I only ask for a coherent sentence that describes what we see on the daylight side of the moon just like i tried to do for earth !!!
You will do that for me don't you ?
[Again this has been explained. So you have nothing else?No it hasn't been explained.... You know that and the fact that you refuse to make any attempt to formulate the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon in one coherant sentence says it all.
So you have nothing? Your lack of ability to understand is really no one else's problem.[Again this has been explained. So you have nothing else?No it hasn't been explained.... You know that and the fact that you refuse to make any attempt to formulate the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon in one coherant sentence says it all.
It can't be done, because someone's testimony about the visuality of stars on the moon is screwed.
I really don't need your conformation , so don't bother.
It is for my personal understanding and this is one big glaring discrepancy in the moon landings.
I have carefully read every reply and not one remotely answered my question in whatever topic over the last months.
Only attempts with a bombardment of words, vague circomstances, derailing attempts and jargon to hide it cannot be explained without screwing someone's clear testimony.
My question to explain the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon in one coherant sentence (make it as long as you wish) is a test for rationality and reason,....if you can't do it, something is wrong and you know it.....one sentence is all one needs to answer these type of questions correctly up to 95% .
You fanboys need at least 20 sentences to hide inconsistancies....no surprise here.
Thanks anyway, it is comfirmed again that no one set foot on the moon ever ! It was worth all the hours of reading and research online.
The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.Neil de Grasse Tyson says you see the stars just like a nightsky on earth. The stars reveal themselves on the daylight surface of the moon as they would on earth Neil says !!
And still not a single proof of a lie from NASA.The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.This is your sentence i presume ? Comformation please.......
Thanks anyway,.....now that wasn't so difficult now was it ?
Point still stands. They sell technology owned by the people to the private sector, causing the people to have to pay twice for its development.
You are so stupid. Dutch has given multiple proofs, just because you do not comprehend written words doesn't mean he has not fulfilled his end of the bargain. It is more likely you are just a run of the mill shill, rather than just too stupid to comprehend.And still not a single proof of a lie from NASA.The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.This is your sentence i presume ? Comformation please.......
Thanks anyway,.....now that wasn't so difficult now was it ?
Have you on ignore so it took a minute. Nope, not even one. He has beaten the dead horse of seeing stars on the moon for days, ignoring all explainations. And that's pretty much it.You are so stupid. Dutch has given multiple proofs, just because you do not comprehend written words doesn't mean he has not fulfilled his end of the bargain. It is more likely you are just a run of the mill shill, rather than just too stupid to comprehend.And still not a single proof of a lie from NASA.The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.This is your sentence i presume ? Comformation please.......
Thanks anyway,.....now that wasn't so difficult now was it ?
Well then, maybe you should take me off of ignore. Your handlers may be timing how long before you shills pop out of the woodwork.Have you on ignore so it took a minute. Nope, not even one. He has beaten the dead horse of seeing stars on the moon for days, ignoring all explainations. And that's pretty much it.You are so stupid. Dutch has given multiple proofs, just because you do not comprehend written words doesn't mean he has not fulfilled his end of the bargain. It is more likely you are just a run of the mill shill, rather than just too stupid to comprehend.And still not a single proof of a lie from NASA.The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.This is your sentence i presume ? Comformation please.......
Thanks anyway,.....now that wasn't so difficult now was it ?
Ok back to the ignore bin with you as you never have anything to add.
The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.Neil de Grasse Tyson says you see the stars just like a nightsky on earth. The stars reveal themselves on the daylight surface of the moon as they would on earth Neil says !!
Sorry i edited my final proof in a previous post so here it is again , because indon't want to miss Badxtoss reply !!Ok so you have nothing else? This one has been debunked numerous times.The stars are there but the reflection off the moon's surface and the direct sunlight, is incredibly bright so in order to see stars you would have to stand in the shade, look up, and give your eyes time to adjust.Neil de Grasse Tyson says you see the stars just like a nightsky on earth. The stars reveal themselves on the daylight surface of the moon as they would on earth Neil says !!
Do you need time to adjust to see stars when you go outside ?
Not at all, you see them immidiatly and even more after a while.
You claim you have to go to the shade and wait to adjust.......
That is not 'just like on earth during the night'
Can i walk for hours during the night on earth without seeing any star ?
No
Did Neil and Buzz walked on the moon for hours without seeing any star ?
Yes
And you have the guts to claim i have no proof ....... f.... me.
I have provided absolute proof and will consider any attempts to claim otherwise, the behaviour of a sore looser.
Ok so you have nothing else? This one has been debunked numerous times.According to you and the Apollo apologists one can't see the stars on the moon without taking precautionary measures (shade and proper eye adjustment)
You really are a one trick pony aren't you? Let me know when you can prove an actual lie from NASA or faked photo.Ok so you have nothing else? This one has been debunked numerous times.According to you and the Apollo apologists one can't see the stars on the moon without taking precautionary measures (shade and proper eye adjustment)
Even after those specific adjustments the stars on the dailight side of the moon STILL do not reveal themselves just like they would on earth during the night !
No reports of astronauts claiming anything remotely in that direction.....to the contrary !
Neil and Buzz did not see any star during a couple of hours....not very ''like a night on earth''
All have debated me in this topic go against Neil deGrasse Tyson without saying so, which is extremely childish and showing your intend over here.
At least one of the most aggressive Apollo lovers ''Astrobrant2'' acknowledged that IF Neil would have said that, NdGT was WRONG !!!!
As i showed in clips and a meticulously ''word for word'' post, Neil de Grasse Tyson indeed did say those very things !!!
Neil deGrasse tyson is an astrophysicist
I personally do not believe in the hypothetical bullshit universe of Neil deGrasse Tyson & Co, but i surely understand who is talking shit against the hypothetical model and that is Neil Armstrong, Buzz Alldrin and Michael Collins & Co
This is Neil deGrasse Tyson's job !!!!
Astrophysics is a branch of space science that applies the laws of physics and chemistry to explain the birth, life and death of stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae and other objects in the universe. It has two sibling sciences, astronomy and cosmology, and the lines between them blur.
Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson understands how light on the daylight surface of the moon behaves !
If the lunar reflections were such a dominant factor in detecting stars, Neil would have known from the onset !
A smart man as Neil would never ever say that the stars on the daylight surface would reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth.
He would say something along the lines :
in outerspace you see the stars and you won't have to go to the dark side of earth or any other celestial body, because the sunlight can not scatter through the vacuum of the solar system and apart from directly towards the sun you can see stars everywhere in outerspace.
On the daylight surface of the moon however another phenomena is preventing you to see the stars without optics. It is the extreme reflective nature of the lunar surface that prevents you from seeing stars, therefor they could hardly see any star on the daylight side of the moon.
So the only question anyone with a grain of honesty left should answer.......who is talking shit ?
Neil de Grasse Tyson, or Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alldrin & Co.
For the simple fact that the reflections on the hypothetical moon could not reflect that much to hide all stars (again no atmosphere) i think Neil deGrasse Tyson is understanding the hypothetical model far better than those amatures and bad actors of the late sixties.
Because of your agressive style for decades, you Apollo apologists are not used to some founded resistance.
You can try to do what ever you want, but this subject will return each and every time in the appropriate topics untill you openly say who is right and who isn't about the visuality on the moon, so we can continue to ask ourselves what the moon really is (after you also made the quantum leap in accepting no one landed on a rock in outerspace, because they clearly lied about not being able to see the stars.... a clear exhibit A, more than enough to dismmiss the moonlandings all together) !
Are you ready to roll ?
You really are a one trick pony aren't you? Let me know when you can prove an actual lie from NASA or faked photo.Is called a trump card ;D
In other words, nothing. No lies, no fake photos, nothing.You really are a one trick pony aren't you? Let me know when you can prove an actual lie from NASA or faked photo.Is called a trump card ;D
Of course you want to talk about photographs ,you want to know why ?
Because NASA has a sort of pseudo scientific answer ready that muddies the waters completely, but give the impression that everything is uhhh ''moon solid''.
Therefor i read for very long to understand how they do it and how they repair mistakes or ignore them all together.
The latter is what you do in this very conversation about the visibilty of stars from the daylight surface of the moon, so i think you know what i mean ::)..
Therefor, because neither one of us can check outerspace, we have to understand the hypothetical model that cosmologists told us.
The sun is 400.000 times brighter than the moon.
The sun cannot scatter through the vacuum so that an astronaut can see (claimed by Edgar Mitchell)ten times brighter stars althaugh the sun is shining in the vacuum of space.
The reflected sunlight from the moon's surface is only a fraction of the sunlight......
If the bright sun itself is very local and the astronauts like Ed Mitchell claimed to have seen 10 times brighter stars without hiding behind a celestial body's dark side,
do you really think that the surface reflection on the moon, that is relatively weak prevents the astronauts from seeing any star during 2,5-10 hours (as bright as the night on earth )?
Final conclusion
If the reflections of the lunar surface were absent the stars would have been 10 times brighter than earth's nightsky.
Because of the surface bright reflections the stars are only equally bright compared to earth's night sky !
The latter is what Neil deGrasse Tyson claims and he is right
Without a reflecting lunar surface the stars would be ten times as bright.....
With a reflecting lunar surface the stars reveal them equally to what one would see during the night on earth
But not being able to see stars without optics and other excuses is impossible on all accounts
I know the truth hurts at times........but Neil Armstrong & co never went to ''ze moon'' !!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ok so you have nothing else? This one has been debunked numerous times.According to you and the Apollo apologists one can't see the stars on the moon without taking precautionary measures (shade and proper eye adjustment)
Even after those specific adjustments the stars on the dailight side of the moon STILL do not reveal themselves just like they would on earth during the night !
No reports of astronauts claiming anything remotely in that direction.....to the contrary !
Neil and Buzz did not see any star during a couple of hours....not very ''like a night on earth''
All have debated me in this topic go against Neil deGrasse Tyson without saying so, which is extremely childish and showing your intend over here.
At least one of the most aggressive Apollo lovers ''Astrobrant2'' acknowledged that IF Neil would have said that, NdGT was WRONG !!!!
As i showed in clips and a meticulously ''word for word'' post, Neil de Grasse Tyson indeed did say those very things !!!
Neil deGrasse tyson is an astrophysicist
I personally do not believe in the hypothetical bullshit universe of Neil deGrasse Tyson & Co, but i surely understand who is talking shit against the hypothetical model and that is Neil Armstrong, Buzz Alldrin and Michael Collins & Co
This is Neil deGrasse Tyson's job !!!!
Astrophysics is a branch of space science that applies the laws of physics and chemistry to explain the birth, life and death of stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae and other objects in the universe. It has two sibling sciences, astronomy and cosmology, and the lines between them blur.
Of course Neil deGrasse Tyson understands how light on the daylight surface of the moon behaves !
If the lunar reflections were such a dominant factor in detecting stars, Neil would have known from the onset !
A smart man as Neil would never ever say that the stars on the daylight surface would reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth.
He would say something along the lines :
in outerspace you see the stars and you won't have to go to the dark side of earth or any other celestial body, because the sunlight can not scatter through the vacuum of the solar system and apart from directly towards the sun you can see stars everywhere in outerspace.
On the daylight surface of the moon however another phenomena is preventing you to see the stars without optics. It is the extreme reflective nature of the lunar surface that prevents you from seeing stars, therefor they could hardly see any star on the daylight side of the moon.
So the only question anyone with a grain of honesty left should answer.......who is talking shit ?
Neil de Grasse Tyson, or Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alldrin & Co.
For the simple fact that the reflections on the hypothetical moon could not reflect that much to hide all stars (again no atmosphere) i think Neil deGrasse Tyson is understanding the hypothetical model far better than those amatures and bad actors of the late sixties.
Because of your agressive style for decades, you Apollo apologists are not used to some founded resistance.
You can try to do what ever you want, but this subject will return each and every time in the appropriate topics untill you openly say who is right and who isn't about the visuality on the moon, so we can continue to ask ourselves what the moon really is (after you also made the quantum leap in accepting no one landed on a rock in outerspace, because they clearly lied about not being able to see the stars.... a clear exhibit A, more than enough to dismmiss the moonlandings all together) !
Are you ready to roll ?
It doesn't matter what the answer is, because in the end, you've already chosen your answer, making all this skirmish pointless!It is not about rumours, but if the reflection on the moon surface is strong enough to prevent an astronaut from seeing stars just like we do on earth during the night.
We aren't the ones who failed here dutchy. You simply stating the surface cannot be bright enough doesn't make it so. Do you not understand how the human eye works? Or how tinted visors work?It doesn't matter what the answer is, because in the end, you've already chosen your answer, making all this skirmish pointless!It is not about rumours, but if the reflection on the moon surface is strong enough to prevent an astronaut from seeing stars just like we do on earth during the night.
If you would understand that, you also would conclude that the astronauts weren't on the moon.
In your model the moon's surface cannot prevent the astronauts from seeing stars just like we see on earth during the night !!!!
Do you want me to explain it to you again WHY the reflection of the moon's surface isn't strong enough to prevent astronauts from seeing stars like they would on earth during the night ?
Do you not understand how sunlight behaves in the vacuum ?
Do you not understand how bright the moon's reflections are ?
Do you not understand how the vaccuum ''opens'' a sky full of stars for the observer on the moon ?
What exactly do i have to explain to you, so that you understand like Neil deGrasse Tyson and i, that Neil Armstrong should have seen the stars on the daylight surface of the moon like a nightsky on earth !
Without the bright surface reflections the stars would reveal them ''TEN TIMES'' AS BRIGHT !!
With surface reflection the stars are visible just like on earth during the night so ''90%'' is indeed obscured by the bright surface reflections !!
Not being able to see stars standing on the reflecting lunar surface is not an option,....it is proof that you have not been to the moon !
I can not present it in a more ''kindergarten'' stylish attempt, because you do not seem to understand the circomstances on the lunar surface in your model very well.
If i am just an absolute idiot then you would have no problem at all setting me straight....but all of you fail miserably till now.......
I really, really would like a good answer though.......
And like the ''eclips'' topic proved, i am humble enough to confess when anything does make sense at any given moment...knowing it makes me look dumb.
A quality that i have not seen with ''Apollophobes'' here.......
10 times as bright is an exaggeration. The atmosphere dims light by about 15%. This is something you can test for yourself. View a star when directly overhead and measure its brightness then view it again when 30 degrees off the horizon and measure its brightness. For the latter it is going through about twice as much atmosphere as when directly overhead.What ? Why would anyone exaggerate by such a huge margin ? (Edgar Mitchell)
Have you asked him? Why would you expect other people to know why he said it?10 times as bright is an exaggeration. The atmosphere dims light by about 15%. This is something you can test for yourself. View a star when directly overhead and measure its brightness then view it again when 30 degrees off the horizon and measure its brightness. For the latter it is going through about twice as much atmosphere as when directly overhead.What ? Why would anyone exaggerate by such a huge margin ? (Edgar Mitchell)
We aren't the ones who failed here dutchy. You simply stating the surface cannot be bright enough doesn't make it so. Do you not understand how the human eye works? Or how tinted visors work?Of course i do understand how the human eye works and how tinted vizors work.
You have failed to understand the answers, that doesn't make them wrong. And you have failed come up with anything else.
So there is something that Neil deGrasse Tyson says you agree with?We aren't the ones who failed here dutchy. You simply stating the surface cannot be bright enough doesn't make it so. Do you not understand how the human eye works? Or how tinted visors work?Of course i do understand how the human eye works and how tinted vizors work.
You have failed to understand the answers, that doesn't make them wrong. And you have failed come up with anything else.
And now pauze for a moment.....i do understand this !!!!!!!
That means that you don't see stars like you do on earth during the nigtht.
Neil de Grasse Tyson says that IS the case though...the stars reveal themselves just like they do on earth during the night.
You think that's not possible on the lunar surface.... yes you can see stars, but only after going to the shade and eye adjustments.
I have no problem with your view, but it has extreme lunar reflections that obscure most of the starlight !!!!
And i explained it perfectly and Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees with my take on the visuality of stars on the daylight side of the moon !!
The lunar reflection is there of course, but Neil Armstrong during the hours he was on the moon should have seen the stars just like one would during a night on earth !
But Neil Armstrong couldn't see stars...not once.....
I think they not properly rehearsed things back then.......before going public !
I guess the pressure must have been huge to produce a coherent story that would last for decades.......
So there is something that Neil deGrasse Tyson says you agree with?If you want to comment on me then i would appreciate it if you read my posts in this specific topic.
When you cherry pick what you decide is ok to believe and not, it is really hard to take you serious.So there is something that Neil deGrasse Tyson says you agree with?If you want to comment on me then i would appreciate it if you read my posts in this specific topic.
I do not agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson's hypothetical cosmos.
Neil de Grasse Tyson however does not defy the specific laws of this hypothetical universe like Neil Armstrong does.
It is Neil deGrasse' daily job to understand the hypothetical model, so the chances he makes such glaring mistakes about the lunar surface and visuality for the unaided eye are zero.
It is like playing chess.....It has nothing to do with reality, but there are rules in the game of chess that one must obey.
Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the rules, most Apollo astronauts do not !!!
And of course most posters in this topic do not understand the rules in their own game of cosmology !
Btw i was a youth champion chess in South Holland/Netherlands and studied the game of chess for quite some time... i couldn't resist the anology ;D
It doesn't matter what the answer is, because in the end, you've already chosen your answer, making all this skirmish pointless!It is not about rumours, but if the reflection on the moon surface is strong enough to prevent an astronaut from seeing stars just like we do on earth during the night.
If you would understand that, you also would conclude that the astronauts weren't on the moon.
In your model the moon's surface cannot prevent the astronauts from seeing stars just like we see on earth during the night !!!!
Do you want me to explain it to you again WHY the reflection of the moon's surface isn't strong enough to prevent astronauts from seeing stars like they would on earth during the night ?
Do you not understand how sunlight behaves in the vacuum ?
Do you not understand how bright the moon's reflections are ?
Do you not understand how the vaccuum ''opens'' a sky full of stars for the observer on the moon ?
What exactly do i have to explain to you, so that you understand like Neil deGrasse Tyson and i, that Neil Armstrong should have seen the stars on the daylight surface of the moon like a nightsky on earth !
Without the bright surface reflections the stars would reveal them ''TEN TIMES'' AS BRIGHT !!
With surface reflection the stars are visible just like on earth during the night so ''90%'' is indeed obscured by the bright surface reflections !!
Not being able to see stars standing on the reflecting lunar surface is not an option,....it is proof that you have not been to the moon !
I can not present it in a more ''kindergarten'' stylish attempt, because you do not seem to understand the circomstances on the lunar surface in your model very well.
If i am just an absolute idiot then you would have no problem at all setting me straight....but all of you fail miserably till now.......
I really, really would like a good answer though.......
And like the ''eclips'' topic proved, i am humble enough to confess when anything does make sense at any given moment...knowing it makes me look dumb.
A quality that i have not seen with ''Apollophobes'' here.......
Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the rules, most Apollo astronauts do not !!!
And of course most posters in this topic do not understand the rules in their own game of cosmology !
Correct !! Only 12 persons in history supposedly walked on the moon ! No one else including me !Neil deGrasse Tyson understands the rules, most Apollo astronauts do not !!!
And of course most posters in this topic do not understand the rules in their own game of cosmology !
You are putting out some very serious claims here. Who understands what and who don't. But after skipping through thread I think you don't even know rules yourself. You have never been on the moon, you don't know what are the rules up there and how they differ i ndifferent situations. You just play with sayings taken from different persons without really understanding what they say and what are the circumstances of situation they are talking about.
You are simply incapable of facing well proven facts!
Correct !! Only 12 persons in history supposedly walked on the moon ! No one else including me !
And they happened to belong to NASA and the USA who happened to be involved in a dirty war.
I explained perfectly well that a supposed vacuum would reveal the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.
Therefor Apollo astronauts rarely talk about the actual moon surface, but in vague generalisation like 'awesome', 'unique ' and 'one of a kind'.
Neil Armstrong said he couldn't see stars everwhile he was on the moon.
Every explaination about reflection, ignoring the skies because of a different agenda...and time to adjust your eyes won't cut it.
If that was true NdGT would not have claimed the stars reveal themselves just like on earth during the night.Face facts!
No such thing happened during the hours Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Never did he see stars, let alone stars like on earth.Simply because he never took the time in a dark enough location to adapt! That is a fact!
You are running around in circles ..are you.??......it's obvious Neil Armstrong and the other 11 star deniers and star promoters (Ed Michell ) went to no rock in space EVER.Who is running around in circles again?
summaryYou don't need to keep saying the same thin over and over - it does not make it more true!
Neil deGrasse was a huge Apollo fan as he confessed in interviews.
He is a well known astrophysicist and promotor of NASA
He claims when you would be on the daylight surface of the moon the stars would reveal them just like on earth during the night. His credentials and interrest in Apollo and NASA in general excludes the possiblity that he is unaware with the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon.
Did the astronauts saw stars just like on earth during the night ?It does not matter how long they were on the moon! That is totally irrelevant.
Nothing of the sorts happened, some never saw stars, some saw few stars, some never said anything about the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.
All where around a considerable amount of time........ no stars or few with the use of optics,
But no one ever saw the stars just like a night on earth.No YOU cannot prove it! But it is quite reasonable "to believe Neil Armstrong could not see stars, not a single one during his stay on the moon........ not even one .....unintentionally....... nada .......".
That did not happen.
I can not proof it of course, but you have to be real stupid to believe Neil Armstrong could not see stars, not a single one during his stay on the moon........ not even one .....unintentionally....... nada .......
I am full of self-assurance, so if i have to explain it another hundred times, i will gladly do so !I am afraid that being "full of self-assurance" has no connection with being correct, especially when you have proven yourself to ne totally biased and paranoid towards NASA!
10 Absurd Claims Of Modern Flat Earth Conspiracy TheoristsSeems I'm not quite alone.
To the Flat Earth Society, NASA is the penultimate baddie. Throw a healthy mix of Freemasons, Illuminati, lizards, and satanic forces into a blender, dust your slurry with magic fairy powder, and let it ferment. In a week, you’ll end up with a fully formed NASA. The only thing worse is the people who control them. But since nobody’s ever taken a picture of those guys, we don’t know who to blame.
However, it might be Nazis.
To tell this tale, we need to travel back to the magical decade known as the 1940s. World War II was in full swing, and a young engineer named Wernher von Braun was building rockets for the Nazis. Von Braun is now famous for designing the V-2 ballistic missile that rained hellfire on London in 1944.
After his surrender to the Allies in 1945, von Braun went to work for the US Army and became one of the pivotal figures in the creation of the fledgling US space program. Von Braun spearheaded the development of the Saturn V rocket that launched the Apollo shuttles. NASA has since called him “the greatest rocket scientist in history.”
From these inauspicious beginnings came some of the greatest technological advances in history and a chance to finally dream of visiting new worlds. At least, depending on the shape of your planet.
In flat Earth theory, NASA’s Nazi origins were just the start. The whole organization is nothing more than a “pack of professional liars, pseudoscientists, charlatans, Freemasons, and Mormons.” After all, “Apollo” is another name for Satan, right? What further proof do you need?
All said and done, it’s that line of thinking that almost makes sense of this whole thing. Everyone needs someone to blame, whether it manifests as benign angst toward the government or vitriolic hate against the satanic Masonic warlocks who keep putting Matt Damon into great movies. If you have to change the literal shape of your world to finger a scapegoat for the unfocused discontent you feel with life, so be it.
From: 10 Absurd Claims Of Modern Flat Earth Conspiracy Theorists (http://listverse.com/2016/02/01/10-absurd-claims-of-modern-flat-earth-conspiracy-theorists/)
To end this stalemate, who is going contact Neil Degrasse Tyson and ask for clarification?I think he will explain his earlier remarks more in line with Apollo. Why ?
summary
Neil deGrasse was a huge Apollo fan as he confessed in interviews.
He is a well known astrophysicist and promoter of NASA
He claims when you would be on the daylight surface of the moon the stars would reveal them just like on earth during the night.
His credentials and interrest in Apollo and NASA in general excludes the possiblity that he is unaware with the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon.
Did the astronauts saw stars just like on earth during the night ?
Nothing of the sorts happened, some never saw stars, some saw few stars, some never said anything about the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.
All where around a considerable amount of time........ no stars or few with the use of optics,
But no one ever saw the stars just like a night on earth.
That did not happen.
I can not proof it of course, but you have to be real stupid to believe Neil Armstrong could not see stars, not a single one during his stay on the moon........ not even one .....unintentionally....... nada .......
I am full of self-assurance, so if i have to explain it another hundred times, i will gladly do so !
I explained perfectly well that a supposed vacuum would reveal the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.Let me ask this, if I go out at night and look up do I see stars every time, 100 times out of 100 times? No, it depends on many things. Its totally possible for astronauts not to see stars and NdGT can also be correct. You just are ignoring that astronauts were in one situation and NdGT refers to another situation. Its like me going out at the day and complaining that I don't see stars and drawing from there conclusion that I can't see stars from earth. Without verifying all other different circumstances. Whatever situation may be, even at clear night.
Therefor Apollo astronauts rarely talk about the actual moon surface, but in vague generalisation like 'awesome', 'unique ' and 'one of a kind'.
Neil Armstrong said he couldn't see stars ever while he was on the moon.
Every explaination about reflection, ignoring the skies because of a different agenda...and time to adjust your eyes won't cut it.
If that was true NdGT would not have claimed the stars reveal themselves just like on earth during the night.
No such thing happened during the hours Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Never did he see stars, let alone stars like on earth.
You are running around in circles ..are you.??......it's obvious Neil Armstrong and the other 11 star deniers and star promoters (Ed Michell ) went to no rock in space EVER.
To end this stalemate, who is going contact Neil Degrasse Tyson and ask for clarification?I think he will explain his earlier remarks more in line with Apollo. Why ?
Because he knows how to do damage control.
When a reporter asked Edgar Mitchell why he could see ten times brighter stars in cislunar space and Neil Armstrong couldn't see much in cislunar space other than the moon, earth and the sun ( he called those the only visible objects in cislunar space) ....... Edgar Mitchell became annoyed and replied to the reporter to ask Neil about his specific sightings, but Edgar Mitchell said he sticked with his ! ( ten times brighter stars in cislunar space without the use of optics !!)
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a modern marketing man and knows how to handle a stage.
Of course he will think of something to explain his initial comments so that they are more in line with the AVERAGE idea of the visuality on the lunar surface.
But those who read and heard Edgar Mitchell and compared all of his talk with Neil Armstrong...... then somebody did not go to the moon ;D
Further more the sun is 400.000 times brighter than the moon.
On earth on a very bright and shining day we can still see the moon very clear at times.
On the daylight surface of the moon without an atmosphere we cannot see the stars ?
Because all of a sudden the reflections are so bright they totally block out all starlight for the astronauts ?
Pure nonsense, otherwise we would see the full moon not 400.000 less bright than the sun.
It means the brightness of the moonsurface can't be that influential to prevent them from seeing any star.....
And like simba claimed ..... they could only look forward and not really gaze upwards ,..... this photograph shows they most certainly could bend towards the sky if the chest mounted camera could make this shot !!
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)
To end this stalemate, who is going contact Neil Degrasse Tyson and ask for clarification?I think he will explain his earlier remarks more in line with Apollo. Why ?
Because he knows how to do damage control.
When a reporter asked Edgar Mitchell why he could see ten times brighter stars in cislunar space and Neil Armstrong couldn't see much in cislunar space other than the moon, earth and the sun ( he called those the only visible objects in cislunar space) .......
Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth.
Edgar Mitchell became annoyed and replied to the reporter to ask Neil about his specific sightings, but Edgar Mitchell said he sticked with his ! ( ten times brighter stars in cislunar space without the use of optics !!)
Further more the sun is 400.000 times brighter than the moon.
On earth on a very bright and shining day we can still see the moon very clear at times.
On the daylight surface of the moon without an atmosphere we cannot see the stars ?
Because all of a sudden the reflections are so bright they totally block out all starlight for the astronauts ?
Pure nonsense, otherwise we would see the full moon not 400.000 less bright than the sun.
It means the brightness of the moonsurface can't be that influential to prevent them from seeing any star.....
And like simba claimed ..... they could only look forward and not really gaze upwards ,..... this photograph shows they most certainly could bend towards the sky if the chest mounted camera could make this shot !!
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)
What are the dark spots on the moon ?Your inability to understand doesn't make it a fact.
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2016/11/lunar_features-1200x1200.jpg?width=960)
(https://mholloway63.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/neil-moon8dayfrankbarrettanno-sabine-etc1-1024x668.jpg)
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/as11_44_6609.jpg)
Problem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada
Look at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun, the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !
It is fairytale and you know it !
This was my final conclusion,........the moonlandings featuring Neil Armstrong & co never happened.
They lied to us, about everything....... fast forward.........
flatearth !!!
Your inability to understand doesn't make it a fact.Your ability to ignore the truth makes it fact.
Sorry but you are the one ignoring things. Everything has been explained multiple times but you are stuck on aspects you can't seem to understand. You have decided the landings were fake and refuse to accept anything that goes against this belief.Your inability to understand doesn't make it a fact.Your ability to ignore the truth makes it fact.
you have shown that in order to maintain the moonlanding fairytales alive, the laws of nature and physics can be altered at will and extremely conflicting testimonies can be unified in one clear message to hold on to the impossible.Sorry but you are the one ignoring things. Everything has been explained multiple times but you are stuck on aspects you can't seem to understand. You have decided the landings were fake and refuse to accept anything that goes against this belief.Your inability to understand doesn't make it a fact.Your ability to ignore the truth makes it fact.
All you have proven is how closed minded you are.
so in all your research you never figured out the camera was removable?
And like simba claimed ..... they could only look forward and not really gaze upwards ,..... this photograph shows they most certainly could bend towards the sky if the chest mounted camera could make this shot !!
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg)
Nice pictures taken from Lunar Orbit. But they can not be used to explain the landing site features, your photos do not have sufficient spatial resolution to see the landing site features.Looks great and shaded, thanks !!!
Now lets look at some photos that are a proper representation of the Apollo 11 landing site:
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO_NAC_Apollo_11_Enhanced_Images.html
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M102000149RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_gamma0dot6_fft_final_1dot00meters.jpg
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150368601RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150361817RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M135039651LE_cropped1_decompanded_2X_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot25meters.tif
And here the deepest Apollo 11 crater, 4 meter deep:
(Source for crater depth: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/ )
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5956HR.jpg)
Says someone who is trying to pull an orbital photograph off as closeup features of the lunar surface.Of course i do know the source of the photographs !!!
And I am not sure if you realize, but one of the photos you just used was taken on Apollo 11.
so in all your research you never figured out the camera was removable?Stupid,...... i don't believe they couldn't see a partial sky , because they could !!
and the surface is still in the field of view.
This was my final conclusion,........the moonlandings featuring Neil Armstrong & co never happened.I always wonder about this kind of logic. Taking something totally unrelated to earth shape and saying that because of that the earth is flat. It always reminds me some weird logic from South Park episode, S07E04:
They lied to us, about everything....... fast forward.........
flatearth !!!
I still think it is funny that you posted a photo of the lunar landscape to show how the moon looks, when that photo was taken on Apollo 11, a mission you say never happened. Great consistency my friend.Nice pictures taken from Lunar Orbit. But they can not be used to explain the landing site features, your photos do not have sufficient spatial resolution to see the landing site features.Looks great and shaded, thanks !!!
Now lets look at some photos that are a proper representation of the Apollo 11 landing site:
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO_NAC_Apollo_11_Enhanced_Images.html
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M102000149RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_gamma0dot6_fft_final_1dot00meters.jpg
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150368601RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M150361817RE_cropped1_decompanded_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot50meters.tif
http://apollo.mem-tek.com/LRO/a11/M135039651LE_cropped1_decompanded_2X_deconvolved_fft_final_0dot25meters.tif
And here the deepest Apollo 11 crater, 4 meter deep:
(Source for crater depth: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/ )
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5956HR.jpg)
Are you personally convinced Neil Armstrong could not see a star, not even accidentally ?
Neil deGrasse Tyson should have said :.
The moon has no atmosphere and the stars reveal themselves just like a night on earth, but because the lunar surface is so reflective they couldn't see a sky full of stars.
And if they were able to see it, which they weren't due to reflections, they would have seen a sky full of stars, but they didn't because they couldn't.
The logic in this whole topic is absolutely absent in every possible way.
But thanks for your gentile replies !!
It is fairytaleIn your opinion!
and you know it !Don't you dare pretend to know what others know!
This was my final conclusion,........the moonlandings featuring Neil Armstrong & co never happened.
They lied to us, about everything....... fast forward.........
flatearth !!!
What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/as11_44_6609.jpg)
Problem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada
Look at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun,
the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !
Can you ever reflect on what i say ?What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/as11_44_6609.jpg)
The last photo there is of the lunar far side crater Daedalus
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_44_6609.html
You are presenting a photograph taken in lunar orbit of the lunar far side by a human being as proof that no-one went to the moon. Think about thatQuoteProblem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada
Problem is that this statement is a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space.QuoteLook at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun,
Look at it through a telescope. See how bright you think it is. Count the stars you can see next to it.Quote
the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !
And even if you look at an actual photograph of Tranquility Base you'll see many bright places.
There may well have been stars in the sky, but there are perfectly good reasons as to why he would not have been able to see them. He could see Earth though, with its unique meteorological fingerprint for that day, with it's terminator just where it should be, with exactly the right configuration of land masses on show.
Can you ever reflect on what i say ?What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/as11_44_6609.jpg)
The last photo there is of the lunar far side crater Daedalus
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_44_6609.html
You are presenting a photograph taken in lunar orbit of the lunar far side by a human being as proof that no-one went to the moon. Think about thatQuoteProblem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada
Problem is that this statement is a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space.QuoteLook at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun,
Look at it through a telescope. See how bright you think it is. Count the stars you can see next to it.Quote
the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !
And even if you look at an actual photograph of Tranquility Base you'll see many bright places.
There may well have been stars in the sky, but there are perfectly good reasons as to why he would not have been able to see them. He could see Earth though, with its unique meteorological fingerprint for that day, with it's terminator just where it should be, with exactly the right configuration of land masses on show.
Neil Armstrong claimed he never saw a star , nada, zero ON THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON. Very childish of you to reply as if my statesments were untrue and talk about Neil's comments about visuality in cislunar space.
Again very childish of you.
What you have proven is that you refuse to see your glaring problems ignoring everything because the brick wall in front of your nose must be preserved.
The Apollo 11 astronauts were on a below average reflective place on the moon
They walked around and encountered even more shaded places
Neil Armstrong still couldn't see any stars at all.
According to the expert Neil deGrasse Tyson he should have seen a sky full of stars just like a night on earth.
Is this Neil deGrasse Tyson the biggest moron spokesman ever seen on television/radio ?
Did Neil deGrasse not know it is impossible to see stars, let alone a sky full of stars like on earth during the night ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that you have to wear a spacesuit on the moon always ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that spacehelmets+suits were limtited and prevented the astronauts from gazing upwards ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know how extremely reflective the lunar surface was ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that the effects of the reflective surface outperformed the benefits of an absent atmosphere for 'star gazers' ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that contrary to earth you have to search for an ideal spot and take the time to be able to see a few stars ?
If Neil deGrasse Tyson was aware about all of the above he would never ever, in this universe or somewhere else, not in the past, present or future claim something as absurd as he did.
Unless of course he made a honest slip of the tongue, because he knows what to expect from standing on the moon.
Contrary to some fighterjet pilots who sold their soul to the devil and claimed to sky was deep black.
Why do you prefer to lie Onebigmonkey ?
Why do you change my words all the time ?
Why do you deliberately try to derail the essence of my remarks ?
Could you enlighten me why you refuse to honestly answer my observations and the opposite claims between Neil A. and Neil dGT , but instead do everything possible to ignore the essence of my message and talk about....... 'god knows what'.... instead addressing the only thing of importance ..... Neil vs Neil.
I know it is a well known tactic and the last days i have encountered this approach more and more.
Only proof for my personal conviction that not only NASA lied, but their lies have also concored your hearts.
All your replies are meant to derail the essence of my posts ( Neil vs Neil ) and to make them say things they don't.
But really nothing stops you from doing what you do ehh ?
I won't derail my own attempts to fall in your trap of deceit.
The facts :
cislunar space
Edgar Mitchel : unaided eye ten times as bright, ten times as numerous stars....enlightening experience !!!
Neil Armstrong : the sky is deep black when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space[/i].....
The earh is the only visible object that can be seen other than the sun !(interview with Patrick Moore)
Since Neil Armstrong went to the same place in cislunar space where Edgar Mitchell saw the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars', then he would surely mention such important sighting in the interview with Patrick Moore.
If Neil further in time claimed he saw stars in cislunar space then it is still incompatable with the ten times as bright and ten times as numerous religious sightings of Edgar Mitchell.
The daylight surface of the moon
Without an atmosphere the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars' would have been visible on the moon.
But the reflective surface obscures some of the light from the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars'
The question is HOW MUCH ?
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alldrin
Neil couldn't see any star with his eyes, not once ( only through optics)
Buzz says in his book the sky on the moon was black and void of any stars.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Neil says the stars reveal themselves just like they would during the night on earth.
That is not so bright compared to what can be seen in the vaccuum of space ( ten times brighter and numerous), but still very much visible for the unaided eye.
These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.
You have to cancel out some of the facts to create an artificial reality where all observations are in harmony with other testimonies.
But i won't let your little lies cloud the truth.
Papa Legba, althaugh i certainly do not approve of his use of language was right about you !
The truth is clear cut and transparent and you will do just about everything to ignore it.
These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
If both can be true then show me how.!!!These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
Why? You haven't shown that they cannot be both true.If both can be true then show me how.!!!These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
Of course i have.... at least 20 times.Read the topic..Why? You haven't shown that they cannot be both true.If both can be true then show me how.!!!These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.Ehhhh ?
Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match planetarium software.Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.Ehhhh ?
They roughly do, but Jarrah White ( a kryptonite name for Onebigmonkey and frenat...... just watch ) has clearly shown that venus was in the wrong place on a photograph .Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match digital planetarium software.Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.Ehhhh ?
Amateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.I would gladly reply to all of your remarks, but Onebigmonkey and frenat would be extremely happy when the focus would change towards other aspects of the Apollo missions.
Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.
At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live video tapes can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels.
They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.
No, you haven't. You just say that one says one thing and other another thing but you have not shown in any ways that both cannot be true. And you can't, because to show it you must go to the moon to verify. For now you just assume and speculate.Of course i have.... at least 20 times.Read the topic..Why? You haven't shown that they cannot be both true.If both can be true then show me how.!!!These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.You know, even if these are the facts they don't cancel each other out. Both can be true and you clinging to belief that one must be false and this somehow proves something is ridicilous.
You've got no one in a strangle hold. You have only shown you lack the reasoning skills to understand the simple things that have been explained to you numerous times.They roughly do, but Jarrah White ( a kryptonite name for Onebigmonkey and frenat...... just watch ) has clearly shown that venus was in the wrong place on a photograph .Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match digital planetarium software.Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.Ehhhh ?
It was a proper attempt by NASA but still failed the position and given timeframe.
Sorry but i do not have the video that proves that right now, only if it is real important for you i will search for it .QuoteAmateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.I would gladly reply to all of your remarks, but Onebigmonkey and frenat would be extremely happy when the focus would change towards other aspects of the Apollo missions.
Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.
At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live video tapes can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels.
They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.
Now that i have them in a stranglehold i won't let go.
The testimonies of the astronauts and experts about the visuality of stars in cislunarspace and on the daylight side of the moon are extremely conflicting and defying the laws of cosmology in outerspace one way or the other.
You are wellcome to try and allign all that was said about visuality.
Till now, nobody succeded remotely in explaining how the respective testimonies could differ so greatly.
And we have arrived at a certain point where globers retraid from the facts and claim all observations made by astronauts and experts are in harmony without taking the quotes at face value.
And that is unacceptable for me.
I think I have seen the video by Jarrah White, and a debunking video. The problem is, that there is always a percentage of error when overlaying images. It depends on which part you center the images to. Film is not a perfect medium and will have small inconsistencies.They roughly do, but Jarrah White ( a kryptonite name for Onebigmonkey and frenat...... just watch ) has clearly shown that venus was in the wrong place on a photograph .Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match digital planetarium software.Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.Ehhhh ?
It was a proper attempt by NASA but still failed the position and given timeframe.
Sorry but i do not have the video that proves that right now, only if it is real important for you i will search for it .QuoteAmateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.I would gladly reply to all of your remarks, but Onebigmonkey and frenat would be extremely happy when the focus would change towards other aspects of the Apollo missions.
Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.
At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live video tapes can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels.
They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.
Now that i have them in a stranglehold i won't let go.
The testimonies of the astronauts and experts about the visuality of stars in cislunarspace and on the daylight side of the moon are extremely conflicting and defying the laws of cosmology in outerspace one way or the other.
You are wellcome to try and allign all that was said about visuality.
Till now, nobody succeded remotely in explaining how the respective testimonies could differ so greatly.
And we have arrived at a certain point where globers retraid from the facts and claim all observations made by astronauts and experts are in harmony without taking the quotes at face value.
And that is unacceptable for me.
You've got no one in a strangle hold. You have only shown you lack the reasoning skills to understand the simple things that have been explained to you numerous times.According to Neil deGrasse Tyson the stars should reveil them on the daylightside of the moon like they do on earth during the night.
Why do you keep bringing up cislunar space? If you are trying to say Armstrong said there were no stars then you are simply being dishonest.Fuck me.......
There is no conflict in the statements you listed. The problem is only in your lack of reasoning skills.You are showing your true colours as i found out in other topics ..... sad i kinda liked you....
I honestly don't know what to tell. You seem to be the only one who can't get this. But you also won't move on to anything else. It's becoming impossible to have a discussion with you.You've got no one in a strangle hold. You have only shown you lack the reasoning skills to understand the simple things that have been explained to you numerous times.According to Neil deGrasse Tyson the stars should reveil them on the daylightside of the moon like they do on earth during the night.
Your dispiccable tactics have you look the other way, because no stars were visible for the unaided eye according to Neil Amstrong.
That is quite a difference isn't it ??
Why don't you simply explain this without making Neil deGrasse Tyson look like an utter fool totally unaware of the powerfull lunar reflections !!!QuoteWhy do you keep bringing up cislunar space? If you are trying to say Armstrong said there were no stars then you are simply being dishonest.Fuck me.......
I provided the exact quote from Neil Armstrong from his interview in 1970 with Patrick Moore. He himself mentioned the sky is deep black on the moon as it is in cislunar space.
Assume he didn't exclude stars in cislunar space for the unaided eye, then it is totally rediculous when you compare it to the religious experience of Edgar Mitchel. 'Ten times as numerous, ten times as bright' most unique sighting ever !!!
And Neil only says cislunar space is black........ the stars were there somewhat, but irrelevant to mention when Patrick Moore asked him about the skies and Neil Armstrong mentioned cislunar space is black...... period
Did Neil forget that in cislunar space the stars are ten times brighter and ten times more numerous ? was simply mentioning that cislunar space was deep black without immidiatly mentioning what heavenly sighting was going on with ten times brighter stars enough info ?? Neil never saw stars like Edgar Mitchell claimed to have seen them. I huge, huge difference on all accounts.QuoteThere is no conflict in the statements you listed. The problem is only in your lack of reasoning skills.You are showing your true colours as i found out in other topics ..... sad i kinda liked you....
The so called top government, military, and NASA people know the earth is flat and there's a dome. But they can't suddenly admit the truth now after 50-60 years of lying. It looks bad for them. They don't care about the truth or gullible public who believes anything as long as these organizations are funded with the tax money. Stop the money, then they may show their true face.Prove it! You claim to be "Truther", so first, you have to have to prove that the earth is flat and nobody has yet done that.
Argue in the comments below. 8)
They roughly do, but Jarrah White ( a kryptonite name for Onebigmonkey and frenat...... just watch ) has clearly shown that venus was in the wrong place on a photograph .Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match digital planetarium software.Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.Ehhhh ?
It was a proper attempt by NASA but still failed the position and given timeframe.
Sorry but i do not have the video that proves that right now, only if it is real important for you i will search for it .
QuoteAmateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.I would gladly reply to all of your remarks, but Onebigmonkey and frenat would be extremely happy when the focus would change towards other aspects of the Apollo missions.
Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.
At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live video tapes can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels.
They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.
Now that i have them in a stranglehold i won't let go.
The testimonies of the astronauts and experts about the visuality of stars in cislunarspace and on the daylight side of the moon are extremely conflicting and defying the laws of cosmology in outerspace one way or the other.
You are wellcome to try and allign all that was said about visuality.
Till now, nobody succeded remotely in explaining how the respective testimonies could differ so greatly.
And we have arrived at a certain point where globers retraid from the facts and claim all observations made by astronauts and experts are in harmony without taking the quotes at face value.
And that is unacceptable for me.
So you're finally starting to understand the impact of light pollution on one's ability to observe stars?
It's about time. ::)
So you're finally starting to understand the impact of light pollution on one's ability to observe stars?
It's about time. ::)
Still not over the parental chastisement i gave you ?So you're finally starting to understand the impact of light pollution on one's ability to observe stars?
It's about time. ::)
He's worse at sarcasm than you are.
I wonder if he's ever seen stars during the day? I have a brick that might help him.
So, are you gonna ask Neil degGrasse or a you just gonna keep on asuming what he meant? I think you gonna go for the second, since, you know, unverified claims are what works for you and this theory. Now i know why you have 5 years into this and "everything seems to fit".Ummm,it is true that the statements of NdGT are indeed strange ( as if NdGT is totally unaware of any of the obstacles an astronaut on the moon is facing)
This is nonsense, is definitely not going anywhere.
So you don't think that light pollution applies to outer space or the moon? ???Still not over the parental chastisement i gave you ?So you're finally starting to understand the impact of light pollution on one's ability to observe stars?
It's about time. ::)
He's worse at sarcasm than you are.
I wonder if he's ever seen stars during the day? I have a brick that might help him.
I can't see stars during the day because earth has an atmosphere and the scattered sunlight washes out the starlight !
Therefor Neil DeGrasse Tyson says despite the fact that we are on the daylight side of the moon, the absense of an atmosphere makes the sunlight very local and the stars reveil themselves just as they would during the NIGHT on earth.
So, are you gonna ask Neil degGrasse or a you just gonna keep on asuming what he meant? I think you gonna go for the second, since, you know, unverified claims are what works for you and this theory. Now i know why you have 5 years into this and "everything seems to fit".Ummm,it is true that the statements of NdGT are indeed strange ( as if NdGT is totally unaware of any of the obstacles an astronaut on the moon is facing)
This is nonsense, is definitely not going anywhere.
One would conclude that NdGT is a talkshow host or actor , but not an astrophysicist at all......
The real surprise is that you think this is in line with what the Apollo astronauts claim.
I am beating a supposed dead horse , because this is the first time i personally faced party (NASA) indoctrination that forbids any acknowledgement of errors.
I have spoken to a JW for years and despite all the proof i gave about Rutherford's wordily lifestyle and false prophecies he wasn't able to acknowledge that even the tiniest thing was wrong.
Nothing was ever wrong and nobody lied or did anything wrong.
I am facing the same phenomena in this very topic and it is absolutely fascinating, i will use this info for further study.
The other thing is the two astronauts went to cislunar space, one mentions the most awesome sighting of stars ( ten times as bright, ten times as numerous) and the other refurs to this same place as deep black ( nothing more to say )
Nobody is willing to say that both examples are odd.
Even the use of the word 'odd' is like cursing in a JW kingdom hall.
No no no dutchy is not willing to accept the well known and universally accepted facts about Apollo and all who have explained it to him over and over again.
Again this is absolutely mindblowing stuff.
Of course not, because you people allready gave an answer,..... that of course will be the answer of NdGT when asked for. It is the 'party line' that no one can alter.So, are you gonna ask Neil degGrasse or a you just gonna keep on asuming what he meant? I think you gonna go for the second, since, you know, unverified claims are what works for you and this theory. Now i know why you have 5 years into this and "everything seems to fit".Ummm,it is true that the statements of NdGT are indeed strange ( as if NdGT is totally unaware of any of the obstacles an astronaut on the moon is facing)
This is nonsense, is definitely not going anywhere.
One would conclude that NdGT is a talkshow host or actor , but not an astrophysicist at all......
The real surprise is that you think this is in line with what the Apollo astronauts claim.
I am beating a supposed dead horse , because this is the first time i personally faced party (NASA) indoctrination that forbids any acknowledgement of errors.
I have spoken to a JW for years and despite all the proof i gave about Rutherford's wordily lifestyle and false prophecies he wasn't able to acknowledge that even the tiniest thing was wrong.
Nothing was ever wrong and nobody lied or did anything wrong.
I am facing the same phenomena in this very topic and it is absolutely fascinating, i will use this info for further study.
The other thing is the two astronauts went to cislunar space, one mentions the most awesome sighting of stars ( ten times as bright, ten times as numerous) and the other refurs to this same place as deep black ( nothing more to say )
Nobody is willing to say that both examples are odd.
Even the use of the word 'odd' is like cursing in a JW kingdom hall.
No no no dutchy is not willing to accept the well known and universally accepted facts about Apollo and all who have explained it to him over and over again.
Again this is absolutely mindblowing stuff.
So you won't ask Neil deGrasse and will keep on assuming what he said, got it.
So you won't ask Neil deGrasse and will keep on assuming what he said, got it.Of course not, because you people allready gave an answer,..... that of course will be the answer of NdGT when asked for. It is the 'party line' that no one can alter.
Of course not, because you people allready gave an answer,..... that of course will be the answer of NdGT when asked for. It is the 'party line' that no one can alter.So, are you gonna ask Neil degGrasse or a you just gonna keep on asuming what he meant? I think you gonna go for the second, since, you know, unverified claims are what works for you and this theory. Now i know why you have 5 years into this and "everything seems to fit".Ummm,it is true that the statements of NdGT are indeed strange ( as if NdGT is totally unaware of any of the obstacles an astronaut on the moon is facing)
This is nonsense, is definitely not going anywhere.
One would conclude that NdGT is a talkshow host or actor , but not an astrophysicist at all......
The real surprise is that you think this is in line with what the Apollo astronauts claim.
I am beating a supposed dead horse , because this is the first time i personally faced party (NASA) indoctrination that forbids any acknowledgement of errors.
I have spoken to a JW for years and despite all the proof i gave about Rutherford's wordily lifestyle and false prophecies he wasn't able to acknowledge that even the tiniest thing was wrong.
Nothing was ever wrong and nobody lied or did anything wrong.
I am facing the same phenomena in this very topic and it is absolutely fascinating, i will use this info for further study.
The other thing is the two astronauts went to cislunar space, one mentions the most awesome sighting of stars ( ten times as bright, ten times as numerous) and the other refurs to this same place as deep black ( nothing more to say )
Nobody is willing to say that both examples are odd.
Even the use of the word 'odd' is like cursing in a JW kingdom hall.
No no no dutchy is not willing to accept the well known and universally accepted facts about Apollo and all who have explained it to him over and over again.
Again this is absolutely mindblowing stuff.
So you won't ask Neil deGrasse and will keep on assuming what he said, got it.
A well thought and well reasoned answer to cover the horse manure.
The majority of the people feel intimidated.
"Neil wasn't talking about the stars but the fluctuations between the solar corona and the vacuum of space , so that the lunar reflections in combination with the limited optics made Neil's comments about a black void resonable althaugh he of course saw stars.
This is explained numerous times and it was exactly what the reporter asked in the first place ::) ::)
Wow......ah thanks, sounds plausible....i didn't know that...... thanks again
Someone has to explain the truth, but it is not for you but for the thousends who have read this topic.
All who answer me have not read a thing i wrote and markjo is taking it to a whole new level of desinterrest with his latest remarks.
But i like this topic and i am going to stay here.
This just shows that you are unwhilling to "find the truth". Are you gonna tell me that you are satisfied with what's been said here? For the first time in all the time you have here? Yeah...Wait, is it because this makes you falsely right on a topic that has nothing to do with anyone here? Me thinks so.Are you drunk or something ?
You don't have to make up excuses, you either ask him or not, is that simple.I don't want to ask him, i have explained to you how NASA party indoctrination works. Same applies to politics......''i did not have sex with that woman''
This "truth seeking pilgimage" of yours is so fake that it makes Kim Kardashian looks like a human being for the first time.That is your problem.....Kim Kardashian is a marketing concept she never acts like a real human being....that's the whole idea.
I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.
simple......I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.
I just can't emphasize it enough - there are no conflicts. Just different views just like you going out at night and not seeing exact same view all the time. Yuo really are a dense.
Could you ever doubt NASA ?Sure I can. I am not even interested in NASA, only times I see this usually is when flat earthers mention it. Or maybe some local newspaper sometimes. Problem with your claims is that you are ignoring that there may be different circumstances. In one you can see and in other you can't. If Armstrong didn't see that does not mean that you can't see in different circumstances. And NdGT didn't see stars on moon, he just deducts logically that you shóuld see stars on the moon. There is no conflict in these statements. And as you are so fixed to this then its more probable that you are mind controlled and brainwashed because if sufficient evidence is presented I can change my views. But you are making it perfectly clear that you don't, whatever the case is and whatever facts are presented to you. And that is clearly a mark of mind control/brainwashing.
This just shows that you are unwhilling to "find the truth". Are you gonna tell me that you are satisfied with what's been said here? For the first time in all the time you have here? Yeah...Wait, is it because this makes you falsely right on a topic that has nothing to do with anyone here? Me thinks so.Are you drunk or something ?
I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.
I have copied and written down all that was said by the persons involved.
The testimonies were extremely conflicting.
What did i receive as replies ?
Many, but not a single one that replies to my remarks,....on top of that a shameless exageration as if each and every of my accurate observations were addressed.QuoteYou don't have to make up excuses, you either ask him or not, is that simple.I don't want to ask him, i have explained to you how NASA party indoctrination works. Same applies to politics......''i did not have sex with that woman''
People like Neil deGrasse Tyson will of course lie or he remains silent about his spontanious revelations about the visuality on the daylight side of the moon !
How do i know that ?
Because Edgar Mitchell refused to answer why he saw ten times brighter stars in cislunar space with the unaided eye and a religious experience and Neil Armstrong did not experience anything remotely the same.....more a ''deep black void'' experience.
Ed got angry and didn't want to answer.
That is how they are at NASA and how you have been ignoring all of my posts.QuoteThis "truth seeking pilgimage" of yours is so fake that it makes Kim Kardashian looks like a human being for the first time.That is your problem.....Kim Kardashian is a marketing concept she never acts like a real human being....that's the whole idea.
Since my answer over at the flatearth forums somehow upgrade the marketing concept Kim K. into a ''human being'' for the first time, shows that you are
1 vulnerable for secondary input that has nothing to do with the ''marketing concept'' Kim Kardashian , but has great influence on how you perceive Kim Kardeshian.
My answers in a NASA subject somehow changed your mind about Kim Kardeshian.
2 that means you are a weak character that changes his mind about a ''person'' not because that ''person'' has changed, but because secondary input that has nothing to do with Kim, influences your weak mind in how you percieve Kim Kardeshian all of a sudden.
3 that means of course that you are an easy target for those in power and you are willing to believe just about anything, because you don't realise what your own criterea for truth seeking are.
My remarks should never have any bearing on how you perceive Kim Kardeshian.
simple......I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.
I just can't emphasize it enough - there are no conflicts. Just different views just like you going out at night and not seeing exact same view all the time. Yuo really are a dense.
Neil Armstrong,.......not being able to see a single star without optics on the lunar surface
Neil deGrasse Tyson.......being able to see stars just like a night on earth, because no atmosphere on the daylight surface
Edgar Mitchell.........stars ten times as bright and numerous in cislunar space..religious experience
Neil Armstrong........sky is deep black on the moon as it is in cislunar space, ....stars not worthy of mentioning
Of course in your mind controled NASA environment this is perfectly explainable, but for normal people it is not.
Try to present this info to people not clouded by NASA ....not positively or negatively and ask them how they understand this !
Do not influence them with yuor ''repair'' nonsense just show them what was said about the lunar surface and cislunar space and the stars.
Of course no one can even remotely phantom this nonsense without NASA repair trash that somehow explains this.........
Don't believe me ? Most if not all initial reactions are siding with me,....not you.....and please try it out in your own surroundings as i have.
Very little people know about this and only presenting the recorded words causes disbelief as if i couldn't possibly present the correct info....
You know why ? because it is so obvious that those comments are extremely conflicting...only after intense NASA ''massage'' it seems not so strange as before.
Could you ever doubt NASA ?
Could you ever doubt NASA ?If simply cannot understand your paranoic hatred of NASA.
SatelliteNot only that but about 80 countries, of various religious faiths, have launched or have had launched satellites for communication, TV or weather surveillance.
Twelve, countries . . . . (USSR, USA, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Iran and North Korea) and one regional organization (the European Space Agency, ESA) have independently launched satellites on their own indigenously developed launch vehicles.
From: Wikipedia, Satellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite)
Hatred is a very destructive emotion. I don't feel it towards anyone in particular.Could you ever doubt NASA ?If simply cannot understand your paranoic hatred of NASA.As far as I can see the only reason that you have this hatred is in the silly, mistaken belief that space travel destroyed your totally false view of the earth.
Most reasonable people do not need to see pretty pictures for proof that we live on a globe,Most reasonable people couldn't make a case for the globe if you gave them the spotlights for 15 minutes to make a solid claim for the globe.
The scientists that took part in the docu the ''priciple'' have another opinion based on hardcore data that proves earth is the centre of our universe !!!we know the earth is a rotating Globe from all the other evidence.
In any case NASA were not the "first into space" and they are not by any means the only ones.Sputnik was a radio in a trashcan....so much for the capabilities of amature astronomers and professionals to understand what is going on when the distance increases.
Russia launched Sputnik I before the US launched a satellite. Russia put a man into space before the US did.
Not only that, but many countries have launched their own satellites.And yet no induvidual can give an overall and detailed presentation about satelites and how they work in great detail.
Twelve, countries . . . . (USSR, USA, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Iran and North Korea) and one regional organization (the European Space Agency, ESA) have independently launched satellites on their own indigenously developed launch vehicles.
From: Wikipedia, Satellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite)
Not only that but about 80 countries, of various religious faiths, have launched or have had launched satellites for communication, TV or weather surveillance.
Are all these countries lying just to hide what you claim is the true shape of the esrth - that's a really big ask!''All these countries'' is a misnomer, because we are talking about specialists and not some random nations.
So, Mr Dutchy, you are wasting all your time and energy flogging NASA when space exploration and satellites are well proven.again give me a link of a spokesman that is capable enough to explain it.
Most reasonable people couldn't make a case for the globe if you gave them the spotlights for 15 minutes to make a solid claim for the globe.I doubt there is anyone who can make a case for anything which he/she doesn't really think about and is not researhcing every day. There isn't also anyone who can make a solid claim for flat earth in 15 minutes(claiming that you can't see curvature isn't solid case). You can make the case for round earth if you are given time but you can't make a case for flat earth even if you are given time. If you are claiming that you can make a case for flat earth them please, go and answer my questions about sunset - https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71666.msg1943889#msg1943889 . I bet that your flat earth sunset explanations is limited to only - "it just sets" or "perspective".
An organisation is composed of individuals and you are accusing those individuals.Hatred is a very destructive emotion. I don't feel it towards anyone in particular.Could you ever doubt NASA ?If simply cannot understand your paranoic hatred of NASA.As far as I can see the only reason that you have this hatred is in the silly, mistaken belief that space travel destroyed your totally false view of the earth.
However NASA is a satanical organisation worshipping demons and idols, and are not shy to show it off through ongoing occult symbolism.
The sooner they are destroyed as an organisation the better !!
That is never intedended towards induviduals, but the format that creates evil induviduals like the Apollo astronauts who sold their soul to the devil....so to speak.
The scientists that took part in the docu the ''priciple'' have another opinion based on hardcore data that proves earth is the centre of our universe !!!References please! We have seen how your thinking clouds how you interpret information.
The PrincipleTry again! More later!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle is a 2014 American indie documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis that rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific notion that the Earth is center of the universe in accordance with their religious beliefs. The film is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Michio Kaku. Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas advocated in the film and stated that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.
I agree with the former parts of your post.....Most reasonable people couldn't make a case for the globe if you gave them the spotlights for 15 minutes to make a solid claim for the globe.I doubt there is anyone who can make a case for anything which he/she doesn't really think about and is not researhcing every day. There isn't also anyone who can make a solid claim for flat earth in 15 minutes(claiming that you can't see curvature isn't solid case). You can make the case for round earth if you are given time but you can't make a case for flat earth even if you are given time. If you are claiming that you can make a case for flat earth them please, go and answer my questions about sunset - https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71666.msg1943889#msg1943889 . I bet that your flat earth sunset explanations is limited to only - "it just sets" or "perspective".
An organisation is composed of individuals and you are accusing those individuals.A country with it's roots in christianity (ahem) would never approve of a pyramid with an all seeing eye on the dollar bill.
And a statement like "creates evil individuals like the Apollo astronauts who sold their soul to the devil" is very personal.
Whatever you claim, you are directly accusing
The organisation cannot "be satanical", nor can an organisation "worship demons and idols" and all these stupid accusation of "not shy to show it off through ongoing occult symbolism" is nothing but the workings of a totally delusional mind.
References please! We have seen how your thinking clouds how you interpret information.No silly, you are so brainwashed that you have only one flavour. The priciple isn't about a flatearth, it is proof what kind of evil church the current cosmology has become.
And the "earth is the centre of our universe" is a far cry from being flat and stationary.Quote from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe PrincipleTry again! More later!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle is a 2014 American indie documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis that rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific notion that the Earth is center of the universe in accordance with their religious beliefs. The film is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Michio Kaku. Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas advocated in the film and stated that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.
Anyone with a grain of historical awareness should understand the moral conflict.Of course I understand the moral conflict.
Don't you think they understood the implications among Christians ? Of course they did, but because they like to show off their true colors, the moral obligation was destroyed
Sure, I know ;D ;D everybody is brainwashed, except you few "in the know" ;D ;D. In other words you are no more than another sect of a religion.Quote from: rabinozReferences please! We have seen how your thinking clouds how you interpret information.No silly, you are so brainwashed that you have only one flavour. The priciple isn't about a flatearth, it is proof what kind of evil church the current cosmology has become.
And the "earth is the centre of our universe" is a far cry from being flat and stationary.Quote from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe PrincipleTry again! More later!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle is a 2014 American indie documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis that rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific notion that the Earth is center of the universe in accordance with their religious beliefs. The film is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Michio Kaku. Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas advocated in the film and stated that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.
A hypothetical graveyard and everything, from redshift to cosmic background radiation must fit into this pile of horse manure...althaugh they do not fit at times (like ''the principle'' shows)Whatever you think of "modern cosmology" it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, nor even the basic heliocentric system.
Proof,....god knows what that means in modern cosmology, is only validated when it serves the wetdream of some.......others are dismissed (like the principle) on extremely arbitrary grounds.
If the early Islamic astronomers did not believe that the earth was a Globe why would Al Biruni in around 1,000 AD make measurements of the circumference of the earth using Eratosthenes' method and the radius using the "dip angle to the horizon". Al Biruni did this careful measurement to assist the Muslims of the time in their Qiblah. |
If the early monks did not believe the earth a Globe why would we find this: Quote One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day. Looks like this Globe idea started before the time of the Venerable Bede (673–735) and note that he was very specific about the shape "represent the figure of a perfect globe". |
I laugh at your pseudo trash that favors one trashcan over the other......in fact it is so rediculous i don't have words for it.Laugh all you like, after all the favourite of flat earthers is the old argumentum ad absurdum followed by argumentum ad nauseum.
Neil de Grasse Tyson claimed the sun was 300 times further away than the moon........hahahahaIf you make a claim like that you must quote you source! He might have said it by mistake or his words might have been taken out-of-context as deceitful people tend to do (what with pear-shaped and all that).
This bullshit universe of your NASA friends is going to end soon.What total balderdash. But, I have no NASA friends.
Your wiki comments are so besides the truth, you are not so smart as you like to present yourself.....the only reasonable conclusion....that wiki link about the priciple was really dumb Rabinoz.
But give me a microphone and i can tell in 15 minutes why i belief the earth is flat !!Do I see hypocrisy here? I am sure that if you are given microphone then you are going to nitpick some round earth aspects which you don't understand and can't explain. But in the same time you don't apply same standards on your flat earth model and say that every thing does not need to be explained. And still, if you are given some time then you can explain practically all things you observe for round earth, but for flat earth you can't. You can try of course, but in the end it goes down to conspiracy and magic. If there would be put down conditions that you can't use conspiracy theme, that governments and scientific institutions all lie to us, all data is faked and our technological advancment is also lie and you can't use any devised up magic to explain phenomenons then ... How to you explain things using math and physics for flat earth?
That doesn't mean i have to explain everything, because i can't. The most problematic aspect of the current cosmology is that they search for plausible answers for every observed phenomena.
In my flatearth conviction that is not needed. This is seen as a weakness, but i see the search for plausible answers to match every observation as a weakness.
That makes any discussion very difficult with people who want to know all the secrets of the cosmos and more.I don't want to know al lthe secrets of the cosmos and more. I just want to know how sun sets. And then maybe what makes bottom of the things disappear when they are far away. And maybe usable map which can be used for traveling. And then maybe physical and working flat earth model. And there is more actually. But let the last things be and start with the sunset. You can't really say to me that it does not need to be answered and explained. Or you do?
The moment i tell them that some things don't need to be answered is where the confusion starts.
An organisation is composed of individuals and you are accusing those individuals.A country with it's roots in christianity (ahem) would never approve of a pyramid with an all seeing eye on the dollar bill.
And a statement like "creates evil individuals like the Apollo astronauts who sold their soul to the devil" is very personal.
Whatever you claim, you are directly accusing
The organisation cannot "be satanical", nor can an organisation "worship demons and idols" and all these stupid accusation of "not shy to show it off through ongoing occult symbolism" is nothing but the workings of a totally delusional mind.
Apollo is an idol and so is the serpent tongue. and many other symbols.
Apollo is a powerful God which has inspired several “demonic” or Abyssic Gods. Known as Helios by Nero Caesar, Phoebus or “Shining,” Apollo is the twin brother of Artemis (Diana). His center of worship was at was at Delphi and was renowned throughout the ancient world for its oracular advice delivered by a priestess called the Pythia the Chthonic serpent/dragon.
Nero Caesar and Domitian actually considered himself a manifestation of Apollo as he is the God of Illumination, Light, Music, Medicine and more. His arrows send plague and death which earned him the Biblical name of Apollyon or Abaddon, the King of the Bottomless Pit/ Lucifer.
“Apollo” is another name for Satan or Lucifer.
Anyone with a grain of historical awareness should understand the moral conflict.
Don't you think they understood the implications among Christians ? Of course they did, but because they like to show off their true colors, the moral obligation was destroyedQuoteReferences please! We have seen how your thinking clouds how you interpret information.No silly, you are so brainwashed that you have only one flavour. The priciple isn't about a flatearth, it is proof what kind of evil church the current cosmology has become.
And the "earth is the centre of our universe" is a far cry from being flat and stationary.Quote from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe PrincipleTry again! More later!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Principle is a 2014 American indie documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis that rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific notion that the Earth is center of the universe in accordance with their religious beliefs. The film is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Michio Kaku. Mulgrew and scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas advocated in the film and stated that their involvement was the result of being misled by the filmmaker.
A hypothetical graveyard and everything, from redshift to cosmic background radiation must fit into this pile of horse manure...althaugh they do not fit at times (like ''the principle'' shows)
Proof,....god knows what that means in modern cosmology, is only validated when it serves the wetdream of some.......others are dismissed (like the principle) on extremely arbitrary grounds.
I laugh at your pseudo trash that favors one trashcan over the other......in fact it is so rediculous i don't have words for it.
Neil de Grasse Tyson claimed the sun was 300 times further away than the moon........hahahaha
This bullshit universe of your NASA friends is going to end soon.
Your wiki comments are so besides the truth, you are not so smart as you like to present yourself.....the only reasonable conclusion....that wiki link about the priciple was really dumb Rabinoz.