Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Warhol
Feb 24, 2012, 5:50:43 PM2/24/12
to
Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
to push the rocket.
but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
(zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
rocket/vehicle itself.
can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
similar creating force in a vacuum?
one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
to push the rocket.
but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
(zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
rocket/vehicle itself.
can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
similar creating force in a vacuum?
George152
Feb 24, 2012, 6:08:05 PM2/24/12
to
Brad Guth
Feb 24, 2012, 6:19:41 PM2/24/12
to
them look. You really need to get yourself out of that cave more
often, because the CO2 saturation is simply too high for your own
good.
Actually, having an atmosphere is highly detrimental to fly-by-rocket
physics. In other words, the less atmosphere the better.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
G=EMC^2
Feb 24, 2012, 6:55:55 PM2/24/12
to
could teach you how a rocket works,but you have no brains TreBert
Dean Markley
Feb 24, 2012, 7:01:56 PM2/24/12
to
saul...@cox.net
Feb 24, 2012, 7:51:11 PM2/24/12
to
WOW, PIGO, YOU OUTDID EVEN YOURSELF WITH THIS ONE!
YOU KNOW NO PHYSICS!
YOU KNOW NO ASTRONOMY!
REALLY YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING!
YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Saul Levy
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:50:43 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
YOU KNOW NO PHYSICS!
YOU KNOW NO ASTRONOMY!
REALLY YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING!
YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Saul Levy
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:50:43 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rod
Feb 24, 2012, 7:54:50 PM2/24/12
to
--
http://obamashlamadama.com/YT-embed/are-you-kidding-me.html
Ernie
Feb 24, 2012, 8:00:58 PM2/24/12
to
This is true. Ernie
Metspitzer
Feb 24, 2012, 8:31:41 PM2/24/12
to
the bait like a large mouth bass.
You can't be that stupid.
George152
Feb 24, 2012, 9:22:16 PM2/24/12
to
Bubba
Feb 24, 2012, 11:02:36 PM2/24/12
to
hoax, rocket propulsion does in fact work in the near vacuum of
deep space BECAUSE for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction. And there is very little atmospheric or gravitational
resistance in deep space to such rocket propulsion, meaning that
the "equal and opposite" sum effect is nearly just that. The solar
wind from the Sun probably affects deep space instruments more than
any other influence, at least within our own solar system.
The published study of astronomy isn't all conspiracy. Some of it
is actually educational, enlightening, entertaining and inspiring.
I only wish all of it was that way. Much of it is not.
--
Bub
harry k
Feb 24, 2012, 11:44:27 PM2/24/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, at least you seem to be not _quite_ as stupid as Warhol.
Harry K
Dennis
Feb 25, 2012, 12:08:06 AM2/25/12
to
Warhol wrote:
> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> to push the rocket.
>
> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> rocket/vehicle itself.
What an idiot...
> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> to push the rocket.
>
> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> rocket/vehicle itself.
> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> similar creating force in a vacuum?
atmosphere...
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 5:35:07 AM2/25/12
to
caught...
http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/155925/530wm/C0093312-Rat_Catcher-SPL.jpg
and none of them is able to prove me wrong....
see above, above,
you will not get the answers on Google neither.
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 5:40:54 AM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 2:00 am, "Ernie" <Ernie...@webtv.net> wrote:
> This is true. Ernie
Right Ernie....And they still don't believe their eyes, the rats...
Scotty, give me all you got.
She's aboot to explode Cap'in. She want hold much longer!
He's dead, Jim.
Fascinating!
clue for NASA shills: A rocket can't fly in THIN air
> This is true. Ernie
Right Ernie....And they still don't believe their eyes, the rats...
Scotty, give me all you got.
She's aboot to explode Cap'in. She want hold much longer!
He's dead, Jim.
Fascinating!
clue for NASA shills: A rocket can't fly in THIN air
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 5:46:07 AM2/25/12
to
understand it
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 5:55:20 AM2/25/12
to
done, is a lie...
the 'essay' would be no good for space travel.
although would be good if you just want to rock back and forth like
many do ;)
well, thats that then!
I'm sure x-factor will be on for you shortly, enjoy the show.
bill
Feb 25, 2012, 6:00:35 AM2/25/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:55:20 -0800, Warhol wrote:
> everything that all the space organizations around the world have done,
> is a lie...
Why would they lie?
> everything that all the space organizations around the world have done,
> is a lie...
--
"Hopefully the fair wind will resume, or this may well take all day."
Admiral Collingwood on being becalmed under the guns of six French ships-
of-the-line at Trafalgar
bill
Feb 25, 2012, 6:06:12 AM2/25/12
to
without warning?
Or was it really a gas main exploding when all those people died when the
New Cross Woolworths exploded in November 1944?
You mock the dead.
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 6:10:15 AM2/25/12
to
We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
or sattelites above there and also Radio communication don't work
neither in a vacuum environment...
Rocket push against a vacuum = zero force
equal and opposite... remember.the laws?
did Isaac Newton have a science degree when he discovered gravity?
this called thinking!
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 6:10:44 AM2/25/12
to
physics classes then come back for some non-ignorant discussions.
Message has been deleted
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 6:11:54 AM2/25/12
to
be good if someone could find me that video I was asking for.
Message has been deleted
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 6:35:08 AM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 12:15 pm, Jeff <j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> > Right, Bubba...
>
> > We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
> > or sattelites
>
> So how come that you can see ISS and some satellites from Earth even
> > Right, Bubba...
>
> > We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
> > or sattelites
>
> with the naked eye?
>
> Jeff
you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
and other space Hoaxes...
the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
Neil Armstrong's cryptic speech for the Tax Payers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx1SURbb3g
"There are Great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughes trues available to
those who can remove one of truth's protecting layers"
The great breakthroughes is that there ain't such thing as Space
travel yet.
bill
Feb 25, 2012, 6:50:48 AM2/25/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 03:10:15 -0800, Warhol wrote:
> did Isaac Newton have a science degree when he discovered gravity?
>
In mathematics.
> did Isaac Newton have a science degree when he discovered gravity?
>
Granted in 1665 at Cambridge.
That year he also discovered the binominal theorem and had started on
infinitesimal calculus.
Message has been deleted
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 7:14:27 AM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 12:00 pm, bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:55:20 -0800, Warhol wrote:
> > everything that all the space organizations around the world have done,
> > is a lie...
>
> Why would they lie?
>
> --
There are many reasons, all connected to the NWO.
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:55:20 -0800, Warhol wrote:
> > everything that all the space organizations around the world have done,
> > is a lie...
>
> Why would they lie?
>
> --
Keith W
Feb 25, 2012, 7:23:54 AM2/25/12
to
Jeff wrote:
>> Right, Bubba...
>>
>> We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
>> or sattelites
>
>> Right, Bubba...
>>
>> We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
>> or sattelites
>
> So how come that you can see ISS and some satellites from Earth even
> with the naked eye?
>
> Jeff
I asked on of these nuggets how it was my satellite tv worked and he
> with the naked eye?
>
> Jeff
solenmly promised it was because there was an invisible guvmint
helicopter relaying the tv signals.
Keith
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 7:26:57 AM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 1:02 pm, Jeff <j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> > you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
> > all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>
> > I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
> > and other space Hoaxes...
>
> > the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>
> Well oh! font of all knowledge, please tell how this hoax is
> > you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
> > all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>
> > I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
> > and other space Hoaxes...
>
> > the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>
> perpetuated, when multiple satellites can be viewed by eye from earth,
> and their continuous orbits observed from different locations, and the
> orbits predicted by orbital maths.
>
> Jeff
I told already how the hoax is perpetuated... they have swimming
pools, vomit airplanes, deserts studio's, bold liars, animations, high
attitude airplanes, balloons etc etc... nothing than tricks while
there above is still nothing seen...
and if you think I am wrong to point you people the facts...
well then show me one video of all that space junk there above... to
prove me wrong.
that must be easy to find, no?
Ok. Imagine now you and I are two floating astronauts. I push you with
my hand. Will you float away from me? Will I float away from you? With
both of us move? Or, will neither of us move?
Just remember everything is at free fall there above...
Dean Markley
Feb 25, 2012, 7:42:43 AM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 5:35 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2:31 am, Metspitzer <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:50:43 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > >one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > >rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > >you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > >propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > >to push the rocket.
>
> > >but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > >from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > >(zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > >rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > >can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> > >similar creating force in a vacuum?
>
> > It is really amazing how you managed to get so many people to go for
> > the bait like a large mouth bass.
>
> > You can't be that stupid.
>
> I couldn't believe my eyes... all the plain stupid NASA shills
> caught...http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/155925/530wm/C0093312-Rat_Catcher-S...
> On Feb 25, 2:31 am, Metspitzer <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:50:43 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > >one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > >rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > >you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > >propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > >to push the rocket.
>
> > >but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > >from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > >(zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > >rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > >can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> > >similar creating force in a vacuum?
>
> > It is really amazing how you managed to get so many people to go for
> > the bait like a large mouth bass.
>
> > You can't be that stupid.
>
> I couldn't believe my eyes... all the plain stupid NASA shills
>
> and none of them is able to prove me wrong....
>
> see above, above,
>
> you will not get the answers on Google neither.
No, Google is also a part of the NWO conspiracy...."
> and none of them is able to prove me wrong....
>
> see above, above,
>
> you will not get the answers on Google neither.
Dean Markley
Feb 25, 2012, 7:45:03 AM2/25/12
to
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 8:14:25 AM2/25/12
to
does perfectly the job...
Everyone should knows this...
http://planetfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ionosphere.jpg
http://www.explorit.org/stumper/gifs/radiowaves300x146.gif
http://member.melbpc.org.au/~jadcock/lfprop/fig5.gif
With all this I will go back into my shack for a while and leave
readers think about it. After a while I would like to hear some
interesting discussion on the subject.
saul...@cox.net
Feb 25, 2012, 10:54:27 AM2/25/12
to
SIXTEEN FUCKING PIGO POSTS THIS MORNING!
ALL WRONG!
GOOD JOB, YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT!
YOU ARE THE DEVIL ON EARTH, IDIOT!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:35:07 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
ALL WRONG!
GOOD JOB, YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT!
YOU ARE THE DEVIL ON EARTH, IDIOT!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:35:07 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
saul...@cox.net
Feb 25, 2012, 10:55:42 AM2/25/12
to
SOMEONE THROW THIS IDIOT SO WE CAN SEE IF HE CAN FLY!
HE WON'T!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:40:54 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
HE WON'T!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:40:54 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
bill
Feb 25, 2012, 11:17:08 AM2/25/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:14:25 -0800, Warhol wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:23 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> >> Right, Bubba...
>>
>> >> We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
>> >> or sattelites
>>
>> > So how come that you can see ISS and some satellites from Earth even
>> > with the naked eye?
>>
>> > Jeff
>>
>> I asked on of these nuggets how it was my satellite tv worked and he
>> solenmly promised it was because there was an invisible guvmint
>> helicopter relaying the tv signals.
>>
>> Keith
>
>
> no need for the satellites to rely your signal... Earth ionosphere does
> perfectly the job...
>
Not at that frequency it doesn't.
> On Feb 25, 1:23 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> >> Right, Bubba...
>>
>> >> We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
>> >> or sattelites
>>
>> > So how come that you can see ISS and some satellites from Earth even
>> > with the naked eye?
>>
>> > Jeff
>>
>> I asked on of these nuggets how it was my satellite tv worked and he
>> solenmly promised it was because there was an invisible guvmint
>> helicopter relaying the tv signals.
>>
>> Keith
>
>
> no need for the satellites to rely your signal... Earth ionosphere does
> perfectly the job...
>
Besides you'd get 'ghosting' if you used ionospheric bounce for TV.
bill
Feb 25, 2012, 11:20:11 AM2/25/12
to
Reasons, or you're a loon.
Actually you are a loon, but I'd like to hear your justification for
this vast conspiracy involving every single senior US politician for two
generations, along with a substantial proportion of the US armed forces
and professional civil service.
saul...@cox.net
Feb 25, 2012, 11:49:54 AM2/25/12
to
WHAT ESSAY, ASSWIPE PIGO?
YOU ONLY GIVE US THE SAME OLD SHIT OVER AND OVER AND OVER!
IF THE IRANIANS ARE AS STUPID AS YOU ARE, PIG, THEY WILL NEVER DEVELOP
DA BOMB!
LET'S HOPE SO!
MEANWHILE BLOW THOSE BASTARDS UP JUST TO BE SURE!
GO ISRAEL GO!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:46:07 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
YOU ONLY GIVE US THE SAME OLD SHIT OVER AND OVER AND OVER!
IF THE IRANIANS ARE AS STUPID AS YOU ARE, PIG, THEY WILL NEVER DEVELOP
DA BOMB!
LET'S HOPE SO!
MEANWHILE BLOW THOSE BASTARDS UP JUST TO BE SURE!
GO ISRAEL GO!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:46:07 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
saul...@cox.net
Feb 25, 2012, 12:51:28 PM2/25/12
to
YOUR DELUSIONS EXCEED YOU, PIGO!
WHAT AN IDIOT YOU ARE!
YOU ARE DEAD WRONG EVERY FUCKING TIME!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:55:20 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
WHAT AN IDIOT YOU ARE!
YOU ARE DEAD WRONG EVERY FUCKING TIME!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:55:20 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
saul...@cox.net
Feb 25, 2012, 12:53:21 PM2/25/12
to
IGNORANT IS THE PIG!
I TOLD EVERYONE THE PIG CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 03:10:44 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I TOLD EVERYONE THE PIG CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 03:10:44 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
saul...@cox.net
Feb 25, 2012, 12:54:58 PM2/25/12
to
IDIOCY KNOWS NOTHING!
THE PIG PROVES IT!
HE IS AN IDIOT!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 03:35:08 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
THE PIG PROVES IT!
HE IS AN IDIOT!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 03:35:08 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
John Mianowski
Feb 25, 2012, 12:57:23 PM2/25/12
to
Alright, you got us!
But please be a quiet! We can't very well ask you to join, if you're
going to go spouting off all of our secrets in public, can we?
JohnM
Global Conspiracy Member #399525341005
But please be a quiet! We can't very well ask you to join, if you're
going to go spouting off all of our secrets in public, can we?
JohnM
Global Conspiracy Member #399525341005
harry k
Feb 25, 2012, 12:59:32 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 24, 2:50 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> to push the rocket.
>
> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> similar creating force in a vacuum?
Videos of space vehicles maneuvering with blasts of gases are out
> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> to push the rocket.
>
> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> similar creating force in a vacuum?
there, just go looking. Google - space shuttle docking video. Many
hits show up.
I'm on dial-up so checking them out is not possible for me.
Harry K
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 1:46:20 PM2/25/12
to
On Feb 25, 5:17 pm, bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:14:25 -0800, Warhol wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 1:23 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> >> Right, Bubba...
>
> >> >> We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
> >> >> or sattelites
>
> >> > So how come that you can see ISS and some satellites from Earth even
> >> > with the naked eye?
>
> >> > Jeff
>
> >> I asked on of these nuggets how it was my satellite tv worked and he
> >> solenmly promised it was because there was an invisible guvmint
> >> helicopter relaying the tv signals.
>
> >> Keith
>
> > no need for the satellites to rely your signal... Earth ionosphere does
> > perfectly the job...
>
> Not at that frequency it doesn't.
>
> Besides you'd get 'ghosting' if you used ionospheric bounce for TV.
>
> --
what do you know of frequency wavelength? ha ha ha bill...
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:14:25 -0800, Warhol wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 1:23 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> >> Right, Bubba...
>
> >> >> We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
> >> >> or sattelites
>
> >> > So how come that you can see ISS and some satellites from Earth even
> >> > with the naked eye?
>
> >> > Jeff
>
> >> I asked on of these nuggets how it was my satellite tv worked and he
> >> solenmly promised it was because there was an invisible guvmint
> >> helicopter relaying the tv signals.
>
> >> Keith
>
> > no need for the satellites to rely your signal... Earth ionosphere does
> > perfectly the job...
>
> Not at that frequency it doesn't.
>
> Besides you'd get 'ghosting' if you used ionospheric bounce for TV.
>
> --
You’ve probably heard about "AM radio" and "FM radio," "VHF" and "UHF"
television, "citizens band radio," "short wave radio" and so on. have
you ever wondered what all of those different names really mean?
What’s the difference between them?A radio wave is an electromagnetic
wave propagated by an antenna. Radio waves have different frequencies,
and by tuning a radio receiver to a specific frequency you can pick up
a specific signal.
In the United States, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
decides who is able to use which frequencies for which purposes, and
it issues licenses to stations for specific frequencies. see how Radio
Works for more details on radio waves.
When you listen to a radio station and the announcer says, "you are
listening to 91.5 FM WRKX The Rock!," what the announcer means is that
you are listening to a radio station broadcasting an FM radio signal
at a frequency of 91.5 megahertz, with FCC-assigned call letters of
WRKX. Megahertz means "millions of cycles per second," so "91.5
megahertz" means that the transmitter at the radio station is
oscillating at a frequency of 91,500,000 cycles per second. Your FM
(frequency modulated) radio can tune in to that specific frequency and
give you clear reception of that station. all FM radio stations
transmit in a band of frequencies between 88 megahertz and 108
megahertz. this band of the radio spectrum is used for no other
purpose but FM radio broadcasts.
In the same way, AM radio is confined to a band from 535 kilohertz to
1,700 kilohertz (kilo meaning "thousands," so 535,000 to 1,700,000
cycles per second). so an AM (amplitude modulated) radio station that
says, "this is AM 680 WPTF" means that the radio station is
broadcasting an AM radio signal at 680 kilohertz and its FCC-assigned
call letters are WPTF.
learn more about about frequency bands and the frequencies that common
gadgets use.
http://withfriendship.com/images/f/26730/the-ionosphere-has-the.jpg
George152
Feb 25, 2012, 2:08:31 PM2/25/12
to
On 2/25/2012 5:02 PM, Bubba wrote:
> While everyone knows the "manned" Apollo Moon landings were a hoax,
> rocket propulsion does in fact work in the near vacuum of deep space
> BECAUSE for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And
> there is very little atmospheric or gravitational resistance in deep
> space to such rocket propulsion, meaning that the "equal and opposite"
> sum effect is nearly just that. The solar wind from the Sun probably
> affects deep space instruments more than any other influence, at least
> within our own solar system. The published study of astronomy isn't
> all conspiracy. Some of it is actually educational, enlightening,
> entertaining and inspiring. I only wish all of it was that way. Much
> of it is not.
The name bubba tells it all..
> While everyone knows the "manned" Apollo Moon landings were a hoax,
> rocket propulsion does in fact work in the near vacuum of deep space
> BECAUSE for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And
> there is very little atmospheric or gravitational resistance in deep
> space to such rocket propulsion, meaning that the "equal and opposite"
> sum effect is nearly just that. The solar wind from the Sun probably
> affects deep space instruments more than any other influence, at least
> within our own solar system. The published study of astronomy isn't
> all conspiracy. Some of it is actually educational, enlightening,
> entertaining and inspiring. I only wish all of it was that way. Much
> of it is not.
George152
Feb 25, 2012, 2:11:21 PM2/25/12
to
On 2/26/2012 12:13 AM, Jeff wrote:
>
> It is also interesting how all those satellites got up there and how
> they are manoeuvred to keep the in position if rockets don't work in
> space!!
>
> Jeff
My satellite TV feed proves that rockets work in space.
If they didn't I'd have terrestrial TV
>
> It is also interesting how all those satellites got up there and how
> they are manoeuvred to keep the in position if rockets don't work in
> space!!
>
> Jeff
My satellite TV feed proves that rockets work in space.
If they didn't I'd have terrestrial TV
George152
Feb 25, 2012, 2:14:31 PM2/25/12
to
were launched from in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 2:24:17 PM2/25/12
to
fly in thin air let stand in empty vacuum space... you need a other
solution to leave this prison world prisoner 666..
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lUu92QY0YZo/S47SKcyWPVI/AAAAAAAAAGg/e8Wv05U_P6M/s400/prisoner_number_six_button-p145128721252798291cff6_400.jpg
bill
Feb 25, 2012, 2:38:09 PM2/25/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:46:20 -0800, Warhol wrote:
> On Feb 25, 5:17 pm, bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:14:25 -0800, Warhol wrote:
>> > On Feb 25, 1:23 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Jeff wrote:
>> >> >> Right, Bubba...
>>
>> >> >> We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no
>> >> >> ISS or sattelites
>>
>> >> > So how come that you can see ISS and some satellites from Earth
>> >> > even with the naked eye?
>>
>> >> > Jeff
>>
>> >> I asked on of these nuggets how it was my satellite tv worked and he
>> >> solenmly promised it was because there was an invisible guvmint
>> >> helicopter relaying the tv signals.
>>
>> >> Keith
>>
>> > no need for the satellites to rely your signal... Earth ionosphere
>> > does perfectly the job...
>>
>> Not at that frequency it doesn't.
>>
>> Besides you'd get 'ghosting' if you used ionospheric bounce for TV.
>>
>> --
>
>
> what do you know of frequency wavelength? ha ha ha bill...
Lots.
> On Feb 25, 5:17 pm, bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:14:25 -0800, Warhol wrote:
>> > On Feb 25, 1:23 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Jeff wrote:
>> >> >> Right, Bubba...
>>
>> >> >> We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no
>> >> >> ISS or sattelites
>>
>> >> > So how come that you can see ISS and some satellites from Earth
>> >> > even with the naked eye?
>>
>> >> > Jeff
>>
>> >> I asked on of these nuggets how it was my satellite tv worked and he
>> >> solenmly promised it was because there was an invisible guvmint
>> >> helicopter relaying the tv signals.
>>
>> >> Keith
>>
>> > no need for the satellites to rely your signal... Earth ionosphere
>> > does perfectly the job...
>>
>> Not at that frequency it doesn't.
>>
>> Besides you'd get 'ghosting' if you used ionospheric bounce for TV.
>>
>> --
>
>
> what do you know of frequency wavelength? ha ha ha bill...
>
> You’ve probably heard about "AM radio" and "FM radio," "VHF" and "UHF"
> television, "citizens band radio," "short wave radio" and so on. have
> you ever wondered what all of those different names really mean?
Now where the hell do you get the bandwidth to push more than a dozen TV
channels down the HF band?
Dean Markley
Feb 25, 2012, 2:39:57 PM2/25/12
to
Dean Markley
Feb 25, 2012, 2:41:14 PM2/25/12
to
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 2:53:52 PM2/25/12
to
your techer of physics?
But you preffer showing your complete ignorance of simple physical
laws you blithering idiot. When did you drop out of school. 1st year
of the infants.
I must admit this is by far the most amusing troll reply of my day.
Did you even take elementary school physics?
What we are told is what everyone believes (including myself once upon
a time)
We believe because it is what we are TOLD.
but Physics say a fail... the gasses are expanding rapidly out of one
end of the rocket, but they are expanding into a vacuum, this vacuum
is 'sucking' on the gasses as quick as they expand so the net result
is zero force in one direction.
Game Over for NASA
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 3:12:55 PM2/25/12
to
radio frequency...
I can answer your questioon by another question like the jews do...
How can one cable carry many signals?
But since I am not a yid I will give you the solution... In
broadcasting, digital subchannels are a means to transmit more than
one independent program at the same time from the same digital radio
or digital television station on "the same radio frequency" channel.
This is done by using data compression techniques to reduce the size
of each individual program stream, and multiplexing to combine them
into a single signal. The practice is sometimes called multicasting.
bill
Feb 25, 2012, 4:04:20 PM2/25/12
to
You can't do clever modulation types at HF, they don't work.
>
> I can answer your questioon by another question like the jews do...
>
> How can one cable carry many signals?
> But since I am not a yid I will give you the solution... In
> broadcasting, digital subchannels are a means to transmit more than one
> independent program at the same time from the same digital radio or
> digital television station on "the same radio frequency" channel. This
> is done by using data compression techniques to reduce the size of each
> individual program stream, and multiplexing to combine them into a
> single signal. The practice is sometimes called multicasting.
I know what the limits are for HF, do you?
Warhol
Feb 25, 2012, 4:22:06 PM2/25/12
to
possibilities of multicasting
http://www.ffi.no/no/Om-ffi/Karriere/Documents/olsen_avhandling.pdf
saul...@cox.net
Feb 25, 2012, 4:55:31 PM2/25/12
to
YEAH SURE PIGO!
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
YOU PROVIDE THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE WITH MUCH COMEDY, PIG!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:14:27 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 25, 12:00 pm, bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:55:20 -0800, Warhol wrote:
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
YOU PROVIDE THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE WITH MUCH COMEDY, PIG!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:14:27 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 25, 12:00 pm, bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:55:20 -0800, Warhol wrote:
>> > everything that all the space organizations around the world have done,
>> > is a lie...
>>
>> Why would they lie?
>> > is a lie...
>>
saul...@cox.net
Feb 25, 2012, 5:38:17 PM2/25/12
to
SUPREME STUPIDITY IS JUST THAT!
YOU GET AN AWARD FOR BEING SO STUPID, PIG!
A STUPID AWARD WITH 100 SHIT CLUSTERS!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:26:57 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 25, 1:02 pm, Jeff <j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
>> > you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
>> > all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>>
>> > I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
>> > and other space Hoaxes...
>>
>> > the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>>
>> Well oh! font of all knowledge, please tell how this hoax is
>> perpetuated, when multiple satellites can be viewed by eye from earth,
>> and their continuous orbits observed from different locations, and the
>> orbits predicted by orbital maths.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
>I told already how the hoax is perpetuated... they have swimming
>pools, vomit airplanes, deserts studio's, bold liars, animations, high
>attitude airplanes, balloons etc etc... nothing than tricks while
>there above is still nothing seen...
>
>and if you think I am wrong to point you people the facts...
>
>well then show me one video of all that space junk there above... to
>prove me wrong.
>
>that must be easy to find, no?
>
>Ok. Imagine now you and I are two floating astronauts. I push you with
>my hand. Will you float away from me? Will I float away from you? With
>both of us move? Or, will neither of us move?
>
>Just remember everything is at free fall there above...
YOU GET AN AWARD FOR BEING SO STUPID, PIG!
A STUPID AWARD WITH 100 SHIT CLUSTERS!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:26:57 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 25, 1:02 pm, Jeff <j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
>> > you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
>> > all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>>
>> > I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
>> > and other space Hoaxes...
>>
>> > the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>>
>> perpetuated, when multiple satellites can be viewed by eye from earth,
>> and their continuous orbits observed from different locations, and the
>> orbits predicted by orbital maths.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>
>I told already how the hoax is perpetuated... they have swimming
>pools, vomit airplanes, deserts studio's, bold liars, animations, high
>attitude airplanes, balloons etc etc... nothing than tricks while
>there above is still nothing seen...
>
>and if you think I am wrong to point you people the facts...
>
>well then show me one video of all that space junk there above... to
>prove me wrong.
>
>that must be easy to find, no?
>
>Ok. Imagine now you and I are two floating astronauts. I push you with
>my hand. Will you float away from me? Will I float away from you? With
>both of us move? Or, will neither of us move?
>
>Just remember everything is at free fall there above...
saul...@cox.net
Feb 25, 2012, 5:42:08 PM2/25/12
to
YES, GO HIDE IN YOUR CAVE, PIGO!
SHACK, MY ASS!
WHEN YOU INTERPRET SHIT, YOU GET OUT SHIT!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:14:25 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
SHACK, MY ASS!
WHEN YOU INTERPRET SHIT, YOU GET OUT SHIT!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:14:25 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
harry k
Feb 25, 2012, 11:26:11 PM2/25/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
You asked for a video, I gave you the search string for many. Scared
to look at them are you?
Harry K
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 12:55:28 AM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 5:26 am, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 11:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 6:59 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 2:50 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > > > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > > > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > > > you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > > > propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > > > to push the rocket.
>
> > > > but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > > > from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > > > (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > > > rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > > > can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> > > > similar creating force in a vacuum?
>
> > > Videos of space vehicles maneuvering with blasts of gases are out
> > > there, just go looking. Google - space shuttle docking video. Many
> > > hits show up.
>
> > > I'm on dial-up so checking them out is not possible for me.
>
> > > Harry K
>
> > yeah I shall try to google it... Dickhead? Why not ask the question to
> > your teacher of physics?
> On Feb 25, 11:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 6:59 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 2:50 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > > > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > > > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > > > you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > > > propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > > > to push the rocket.
>
> > > > but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > > > from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > > > (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > > > rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > > > can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> > > > similar creating force in a vacuum?
>
> > > Videos of space vehicles maneuvering with blasts of gases are out
> > > there, just go looking. Google - space shuttle docking video. Many
> > > hits show up.
>
> > > I'm on dial-up so checking them out is not possible for me.
>
> > > Harry K
>
> > yeah I shall try to google it... Dickhead? Why not ask the question to
>
> > But you prefer showing your complete ignorance of simple physical
> > laws you blithering idiot. When did you drop out of school. 1st year
> > of the infants.
>
> > I must admit this is by far the most amusing troll reply of my day.
> > Did you even take elementary school physics?
>
> > What we are told is what everyone believes (including myself once upon
> > a time)
>
> > We believe because it is what we are TOLD.
>
> > but Physics say a fail... the gasses are expanding rapidly out of one
> > end of the rocket, but they are expanding into a vacuum, this vacuum
> > is 'sucking' on the gasses as quick as they expand so the net result
> > is zero force in one direction.
>
> > Game Over for NASA- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You asked for a video, I gave you the search string for many. Scared
> to look at them are you?
>
> Harry K
0
> > of the infants.
>
> > I must admit this is by far the most amusing troll reply of my day.
> > Did you even take elementary school physics?
>
> > What we are told is what everyone believes (including myself once upon
> > a time)
>
> > We believe because it is what we are TOLD.
>
> > but Physics say a fail... the gasses are expanding rapidly out of one
> > end of the rocket, but they are expanding into a vacuum, this vacuum
> > is 'sucking' on the gasses as quick as they expand so the net result
> > is zero force in one direction.
>
> > Game Over for NASA- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You asked for a video, I gave you the search string for many. Scared
> to look at them are you?
>
> Harry K
Ooh, an Internet tough guy... but you don't appear to be playing with
a full deck.
how can anyone believe NASA nonsense... Dickhead. I just couldn't get
any answers. I didn't get one from you either, just a misdirection.
You do realize what you just wrote is pure gibberish, right?
I did find nothing on Google or any other search engine, and you? did
you find anything? just what I thought... your search string didn't
bring any prove of space travel to the surface.
"There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact it's
all dark."
So the conclusion is that NASA and her hordes of shills are unmasked
for ever and ever. Dickhead, you have been a joke for years but you
have finally been exposed for what you are by this answer.
BTW I did find somethings of interest on Google... They sell kits to
make home made moon landing?
You can build your own Guiding system
http://klabs.org/history/build_agc/
And here I found the ISS in some dark swimming pool but not in
space...
unbelievable but true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ynHKGzplQ
The nasa shills are short-circuiting!
I am giving the NASA shills fair warning, do not further respond,
you've already criminally implicated yourself in a multibillion dollar
fraud.
It isn't worth it, just STFU
Brad Guth
Feb 26, 2012, 1:06:26 AM2/26/12
to
thought of flight is just not in the cards. Otherwise he's not such a
bad guy as long as you can steer clear of his "lake of fire".
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 1:14:04 AM2/26/12
to
In the Mayan year 5127 (2012), according to the Mayan belief system,
the year will be governed by Kab'lajuj E, or the 12th Road, which
represents the "change of authority" in the new time, the path forward
and the destiny of peoples."
JUSTICE IS COMING. CAN YOU FEEL IT YET?
They have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. Time
is running out. Any further injustice would be stupid.
YOU HAVE THE WHOLE ROTTEN ESTABLISHMENT BEHIND YOU,DON'T YOU?
What you don't realize is that they will abandon you like an 87 Escort
with a blown motor the instant you become a liability to them.
STFU already, for your own good
the lunar module folks... Ha ha ha ha ha...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Apollo16LM.jpg/285px-Apollo16LM.jpg
Too Funny hey!?
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 2:03:50 AM2/26/12
to
is that Right BG? and it would be wise you remember your position...
fear not...you are all the beacon
you shall
LIGHT THE DARKNESS
My Gran'Da'Dys hand is palming the world and is about to win the game
with a slam dunk!
Your wicked deeds will be in the open for everyone to see, one day.
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 3:02:58 AM2/26/12
to
On Feb 25, 12:08 am, George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
Fluids Under Pressure in vacuum...
the question is very simply... If I could detonate a firework inside a
contained vacuum void will that exercise any force in a vacuum?... you
can do the test in your physics class if you want and see what the
results are...
http://askthephysicist.com/images/Flipping_coin.gif
This clip below says that when a rocket hits a vacuum space, the
rocket will be pushed back by the vacuum force... hah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdgML_rxYsc
> On 2/25/2012 11:50 AM, Warhol wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > to push the rocket.
>
> > but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> > similar creating force in a vacuum?
>
> Unbelievable.... and just think that this thing can vote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > to push the rocket.
>
> > but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> > similar creating force in a vacuum?
>
Fluids Under Pressure in vacuum...
the question is very simply... If I could detonate a firework inside a
contained vacuum void will that exercise any force in a vacuum?... you
can do the test in your physics class if you want and see what the
results are...
http://askthephysicist.com/images/Flipping_coin.gif
This clip below says that when a rocket hits a vacuum space, the
rocket will be pushed back by the vacuum force... hah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdgML_rxYsc
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 3:43:18 AM2/26/12
to
Sound Cannot Travel In A Vacuum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2pj9k1lrsM
Thats why we do not hear the constant Lion roar of the Sun's fusion
activity.
waves need a medium to propagate... Sound waves work like a truck
hitting a line of cars. The wave travels through the next line from
back to front but would not if there were no cars.
How, then, do radio waves travel through interstellar space?
Radio waves are like Sound waves, all waves need a medium... even in
rocket in vacuum space needs a medium to push against or the object
will be pushed back into the atmosphere...
And the other misconception is that rays are Waves... Rays are beams
and do not need any medium... why we have light from the sun but no
sound.
Its not because you hear nothing that the Lion doesn't Roar...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maARmxjj3f0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2pj9k1lrsM
Thats why we do not hear the constant Lion roar of the Sun's fusion
activity.
waves need a medium to propagate... Sound waves work like a truck
hitting a line of cars. The wave travels through the next line from
back to front but would not if there were no cars.
How, then, do radio waves travel through interstellar space?
Radio waves are like Sound waves, all waves need a medium... even in
rocket in vacuum space needs a medium to push against or the object
will be pushed back into the atmosphere...
And the other misconception is that rays are Waves... Rays are beams
and do not need any medium... why we have light from the sun but no
sound.
Its not because you hear nothing that the Lion doesn't Roar...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maARmxjj3f0
Tony Dragon
Feb 26, 2012, 4:13:01 AM2/26/12
to
quaint idea.
Time to rewrite the laws of physics.
Message has been deleted
bill
Feb 26, 2012, 5:04:02 AM2/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:48:52 +0000, Jeff wrote:
> On 25/02/2012 12:26, Warhol wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 1:02 pm, Jeff<j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
>>>> you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
>>>> all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>>>
>>>> I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
>>>> and other space Hoaxes...
>>>
>>>> the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>>>
>>> Well oh! font of all knowledge, please tell how this hoax is
>>> perpetuated, when multiple satellites can be viewed by eye from earth,
>>> and their continuous orbits observed from different locations, and the
>>> orbits predicted by orbital maths.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> I told already how the hoax is perpetuated... they have swimming pools,
>> vomit airplanes, deserts studio's, bold liars, animations, high
>> attitude airplanes, balloons etc etc... nothing than tricks while there
>> above is still nothing seen...
>
> That does not address the point that multiple satellites can be viewed
> achieved, how please tell us????
>
It doesn't explain those laser bounce panels on the moon either...
> On 25/02/2012 12:26, Warhol wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 1:02 pm, Jeff<j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
>>>> you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
>>>> all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>>>
>>>> I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
>>>> and other space Hoaxes...
>>>
>>>> the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>>>
>>> Well oh! font of all knowledge, please tell how this hoax is
>>> perpetuated, when multiple satellites can be viewed by eye from earth,
>>> and their continuous orbits observed from different locations, and the
>>> orbits predicted by orbital maths.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> I told already how the hoax is perpetuated... they have swimming pools,
>> vomit airplanes, deserts studio's, bold liars, animations, high
>> attitude airplanes, balloons etc etc... nothing than tricks while there
>> above is still nothing seen...
>
> by eye from earth, and their continuous orbits observed from different
> locations, and the orbits predicted by orbital maths. How is this hoax
> achieved, how please tell us????
>
It doesn't explain those laser bounce panels on the moon either...
bill
Feb 26, 2012, 5:27:51 AM2/26/12
to
terrestrial broadcasts as a form of radar.
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 6:28:32 AM2/26/12
to
of electromagnetic waves with frequencies...
Radar (Radio Detection And Ranging) detects objects at a distance by
bouncing radio waves off them. The delay caused by the echo measures
the distance. The direction of the wave determines the direction of
the reflection. The polarization and frequency of the return can sense
the type of surface. Navigational radars scan a wide area two to four
times per minute. They use very short waves that reflect from earth
and stone. They are common on commercial ships and long-distance
commercial aircraft.
General purpose radars generally use navigational radar frequencies,
but modulate and polarize the pulse so the receiver can determine the
type of surface of the reflector. The best general-purpose radars
distinguish the rain of heavy storms, as well as land and vehicles.
Some can superimpose sonar data and map data from GPS position.
Search radars scan a wide area with pulses of short radio waves. They
usually scan the area two to four times a minute. Sometimes search
radars use the Doppler effect to separate moving vehicles from
clutter. Targeting radars use the same principle as search radar but
scan a much smaller area far more often, usually several times a
second or more. Weather radars resemble search radars, but use radio
waves with circular polarization and a wavelength to reflect from
water droplets. Some weather radar use the Doppler effect to measure
wind speeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_radio_emissions
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 6:46:52 AM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 11:04 am, bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:48:52 +0000, Jeff wrote:
> > On 25/02/2012 12:26, Warhol wrote:
> >> On Feb 25, 1:02 pm, Jeff<j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> >>>> you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
> >>>> all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>
> >>>> I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
> >>>> and other space Hoaxes...
>
> >>>> the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>
> >>> Well oh! font of all knowledge, please tell how this hoax is
> >>> perpetuated, when multiple satellites can be viewed by eye from earth,
> >>> and their continuous orbits observed from different locations, and the
> >>> orbits predicted by orbital maths.
>
> >>> Jeff
>
> >> I told already how the hoax is perpetuated... they have swimming pools,
> >> vomit airplanes, deserts studio's, bold liars, animations, high
> >> attitude airplanes, balloons etc etc... nothing than tricks while there
> >> above is still nothing seen...
>
> > That does not address the point that multiple satellites can be viewed
> > by eye from earth, and their continuous orbits observed from different
> > locations, and the orbits predicted by orbital maths. How is this hoax
> > achieved, how please tell us????
>
> It doesn't explain those laser bounce panels on the moon either...
>
> --
I already have replied to same question to other tard in
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:48:52 +0000, Jeff wrote:
> > On 25/02/2012 12:26, Warhol wrote:
> >> On Feb 25, 1:02 pm, Jeff<j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> >>>> you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
> >>>> all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>
> >>>> I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
> >>>> and other space Hoaxes...
>
> >>>> the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>
> >>> Well oh! font of all knowledge, please tell how this hoax is
> >>> perpetuated, when multiple satellites can be viewed by eye from earth,
> >>> and their continuous orbits observed from different locations, and the
> >>> orbits predicted by orbital maths.
>
> >>> Jeff
>
> >> I told already how the hoax is perpetuated... they have swimming pools,
> >> vomit airplanes, deserts studio's, bold liars, animations, high
> >> attitude airplanes, balloons etc etc... nothing than tricks while there
> >> above is still nothing seen...
>
> > That does not address the point that multiple satellites can be viewed
> > by eye from earth, and their continuous orbits observed from different
> > locations, and the orbits predicted by orbital maths. How is this hoax
> > achieved, how please tell us????
>
> It doesn't explain those laser bounce panels on the moon either...
>
> --
alt.conspiracy group
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/1385a9122042c989?hl=en
this was my questions: which of course remained without any answer of
the laser tards...
Did you ApolloTards realize that lasers can be reflected off the
natural lunar surface?
Where is your proof that the lasers are actually hitting retro-
reflectors and not just bouncing off the surface?
Lasers reflect off nearly anything flat, have you ever used a laser
rangefinder?
When one is aimed at the moon, the dot will spread out to 7 miles wide
by the time it reached the moon, and the returning reflection is over
14 miles wide. Even if there were a 'laser reflector' on the moon,
there is no way to aim a laser to hit such a small thing from so far
away.
Yep, unique like Lee H Oswalds' magic bullet.
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 7:02:25 AM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 10:48 am, Jeff <j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> On 25/02/2012 12:26, Warhol wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 1:02 pm, Jeff<j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> >>> you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
> >>> all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>
> >>> I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
> >>> and other space Hoaxes...
>
> >>> the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>
> >> Well oh! font of all knowledge, please tell how this hoax is
> >> perpetuated, when multiple satellites can be viewed by eye from earth,
> >> and their continuous orbits observed from different locations, and the
> >> orbits predicted by orbital maths.
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > I told already how the hoax is perpetuated... they have swimming
> > pools, vomit airplanes, deserts studio's, bold liars, animations, high
> > attitude airplanes, balloons etc etc... nothing than tricks while
> > there above is still nothing seen...
>
> That does not address the point that multiple satellites can be viewed
> by eye from earth, and their continuous orbits observed from different
> locations, and the orbits predicted by orbital maths. How is this hoax
> achieved, how please tell us????
>
> Jeff
> On 25/02/2012 12:26, Warhol wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 1:02 pm, Jeff<j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> >>> you see a flying light, which they tell is the ISS, but that is BS...
> >>> all a HOAX and illusions to fool the blind sheeps.
>
> >>> I have already many threads here, in this groups, over the ISS HOAX
> >>> and other space Hoaxes...
>
> >>> the biggest Space hoaxes of all time!
>
> >> Well oh! font of all knowledge, please tell how this hoax is
> >> perpetuated, when multiple satellites can be viewed by eye from earth,
> >> and their continuous orbits observed from different locations, and the
> >> orbits predicted by orbital maths.
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > I told already how the hoax is perpetuated... they have swimming
> > pools, vomit airplanes, deserts studio's, bold liars, animations, high
> > attitude airplanes, balloons etc etc... nothing than tricks while
> > there above is still nothing seen...
>
> That does not address the point that multiple satellites can be viewed
> by eye from earth, and their continuous orbits observed from different
> locations, and the orbits predicted by orbital maths. How is this hoax
> achieved, how please tell us????
>
I don't see any... how come? I even send my camera up there with a
high altitude balloon to see if anything was visible from there
above... the camera came back down, and the result was still nada to
see...
Tell me now... Do you see any satellite on all this links below? I
dont!!!
http://www.networlddirectory.com/images/blogs/6-2008/first-high-altitude-balloon.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FfkgwPNm3uA/S6a38aeagiI/AAAAAAAAGRE/g0KuclOhgdM/s400/3.jpg
http://bear.sbszoo.com/sable/images/sbl3/117597ft.jpg
http://images.gizmag.com/hero/bear4.jpg
http://moo.pl/~tygrys/balloon/cam-sidelooking/image0126.jpg
http://www.nwaprs.info/images/balloon1flight2.JPG
http://www.straybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1777026410_eff9e5c208_o.jpg
http://wanderingspace.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/2669298161_260b97cc10_b.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/bigheadpete/NIXHAB-3/IMG_0366.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/4610429745_80cab5f825.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/4610429745_80cab5f825.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FfkgwPNm3uA/S6a3728BlQI/AAAAAAAAGQ8/fS8DMg14Ay0/s400/4.jpg
And you tell me you can see satellites with your naked eyes... how is
that possible? since nothing is found there above... so must I
conclude you are liar?
Btw this pictures aint from NASA
Brad Guth
Feb 26, 2012, 7:31:02 AM2/26/12
to
and light business related where the local methlabs only explode every
other month or so.
You really need proper medication for that fear of flying by rocket.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Apollo16LM.jpg/285px-Apollo16LM.jpg
BTW; that Apollo lander image was doctored so extensively and
remastered that there's no forensic way of anyone telling where that
image was taken. In fact, all of those Kodak film documented images
are at risk because of their photographic doctoring (aka PhotoShop)
work done to them behind closed doors.
Certain parts of those NASA/Apollo missions went exactly as planned,
whereas some other parts not so much.
Our government uses eyecandy hype, spin, obfuscation and so much botox
that it's really hard to tell when they are lying or not to us.
bill
Feb 26, 2012, 8:04:33 AM2/26/12
to
and you'll find that if you miss the reflector the signal is down by
about 60dB, so there's something reflective up there...
bill
Feb 26, 2012, 8:07:38 AM2/26/12
to
broadcasts are used as the transmission side and a receiver discriminates
between the original transmission and one that has bounced off an object
in the air.
Actually it is rather clever and could possibly be used for things like
air traffic control and other 'domestic' purposes over inhabited areas.
But it still doesn't prove anything you said it proved.
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 10:20:22 AM2/26/12
to
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 10:19:23 AM2/26/12
to
reflects on those that use it.
Just calling your opponents stupid doesn't make you right.
You still have to proof you're right.
yeah there is thin air up there... why dont you prove in the first
place they went to the moon... and since you shills or NASA cant prove
anything.
I don't think scientists are idiots. But NASA thought the public were
idiots. They didn't expect people to actually use their brains to
decide that a reflector that captures an infinitesimal fraction of a
laser beam would make a difference versus bouncing the beam off the
moon's surface. They were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo
11, so it doesn't prove there are any reflectors up there.
you are a shill or you've never seen the strings attached to the
astronauts in the apollo images. Or a gas can they were trying to hide
in the background for the rover. Or even a place on the lunar module
for a rover. It is a huge crock and you cant disprove anything I just
said.
Shills do a great job at bumping threads. Unfortunately the entire
time is spent arguing with the shill instead of discussing the
significance of something of this magnitude.
The biggest problem facing the astro-nots is the lack of rockets which
can function in vacuum... you see the mayor problem Bill... they are
still prisoners like Prisoner Number six there is no place to escape
to.
No spacecraft has ever exited Earth's gravitational field...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv813f2Xtrg
Jonathan
Feb 26, 2012, 10:37:52 AM2/26/12
to
"George152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:Zsqdna8bVPvIhdXS...@giganews.com...
> On 2/25/2012 11:50 AM, Warhol wrote:
>> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>
>> one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>>
>> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>>
>> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
>> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
>> to push the rocket.
>>
>> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
>> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
>> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
>> rocket/vehicle itself.
>>
>>
>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
>> similar creating force in a vacuum?
>>
>> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>
>> one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>>
>> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>>
>> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
>> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
>> to push the rocket.
>>
>> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
>> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
>> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
>> rocket/vehicle itself.
>>
>>
>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
>> similar creating force in a vacuum?
>>
> Unbelievable.... and just think that this thing can vote
We'd be in real trouble if only the eggheads voted. Or any
other group dominated. Only in a diverse and free system
can the opposite extremes cancel each other out.
But I would agree it's disheartening he hasn't heard of the
concept of the center of mass~
s
Jonathan
Feb 26, 2012, 11:08:13 AM2/26/12
to
"Warhol" <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91eda201-630d-40fd...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
>for you shortly, enjoy the show.
> > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
Spend 30 minutes to watch this video.
Conservation of Momentum
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1865978801687874664#
The entire first year physics course is in video here.
http://www.malcolmgin.com/blog/2008/10/07/caltech-the-mechanical-universe-series-on-google-video/
s
bill
Feb 26, 2012, 11:20:26 AM2/26/12
to
purpose.
bill
Feb 26, 2012, 11:28:58 AM2/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 07:19:23 -0800, Warhol wrote:
they are
> still prisoners like Prisoner Number six there is no place to escape to.
No 6 escapes in two episodes: 'Many Happy Returns' and 'Fall Out'.
they are
> still prisoners like Prisoner Number six there is no place to escape to.
saul...@cox.net
Feb 26, 2012, 12:15:55 PM2/26/12
to
THE PIG IS >>>>>>TRYING<<<<<< TO REWRITE HISTORY AND EVERY SCIENTIFIC
DISCOVERY EVER MADE!
HE IS A FAILURE JUST LIKE HIS SAPPY PAPPY FAKE GOD!
Saul Levy
DISCOVERY EVER MADE!
HE IS A FAILURE JUST LIKE HIS SAPPY PAPPY FAKE GOD!
Saul Levy
Bubba
Feb 26, 2012, 12:43:26 PM2/26/12
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 25, 5:02 am, Bubba <Bub@ba> wrote:
>> hoax, rocket propulsion does in fact work in the near vacuum of
>> deep space BECAUSE for every action there is an equal and opposite
>> reaction. And there is very little atmospheric or gravitational
>> resistance in deep space to such rocket propulsion, meaning that
>> the "equal and opposite" sum effect is nearly just that. The solar
>> wind from the Sun probably affects deep space instruments more than
>> any other influence, at least within our own solar system.
>>
>> The published study of astronomy isn't all conspiracy. Some of it
>> is actually educational, enlightening, entertaining and inspiring.
>> I only wish all of it was that way. Much of it is not.
>>
>> --
>> Bub
>neither in a vacuum environment...
>
>Rocket push against a vacuum = zero force
>
>equal and opposite... remember.the laws?
>
>did Isaac Newton have a science degree when he discovered gravity?
>
>this called thinking!
Deep space is not an absolute vacuum. Like many things that
astronomers observe but don't understand, or fully understand,
"black holes" for example, the phrase "dark matter" is merely
astrophysical legalese for "we have no ideal what we're talking
about but we need the government grants and corporate sponsorhip
to keep the money flowing into our greedy, arrogant, self-
aggrandizing pockets." The love of money and lust for worldly
power is what unites all governments and religions worldwide.
I believe that everyone should completely let go of the past
and focus on the present and the months of global troubles to
come. These are the predicted "earth changes" that will level
the playing field, settle all scores, and solve everyone's
problems. No more governments, religions, or money. If all
goes well, these three evils will become extinct this year.
--
Bub
>On Feb 25, 5:02 am, Bubba <Bub@ba> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>
>> >one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>>
>> >rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>>
>> >you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
>> >propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
>> >to push the rocket.
>>
>> >but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
>> >from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
>> >(zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
>> >rocket/vehicle itself.
>>
>> >can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
>> >similar creating force in a vacuum?
>>
>> While everyone knows the "manned" Apollo Moon landings were a
>> >Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>
>> >one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>>
>> >rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>>
>> >you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
>> >propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
>> >to push the rocket.
>>
>> >but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
>> >from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
>> >(zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
>> >rocket/vehicle itself.
>>
>> >can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
>> >similar creating force in a vacuum?
>>
>> hoax, rocket propulsion does in fact work in the near vacuum of
>> deep space BECAUSE for every action there is an equal and opposite
>> reaction. And there is very little atmospheric or gravitational
>> resistance in deep space to such rocket propulsion, meaning that
>> the "equal and opposite" sum effect is nearly just that. The solar
>> wind from the Sun probably affects deep space instruments more than
>> any other influence, at least within our own solar system.
>>
>> The published study of astronomy isn't all conspiracy. Some of it
>> is actually educational, enlightening, entertaining and inspiring.
>> I only wish all of it was that way. Much of it is not.
>>
>> --
>> Bub
>
>
>Right, Bubba...
>
>We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
>or sattelites above there and also Radio communication don't work
>
>Right, Bubba...
>
>We all know they never went to the Moon... I know there ain't no ISS
>neither in a vacuum environment...
>
>Rocket push against a vacuum = zero force
>
>equal and opposite... remember.the laws?
>
>did Isaac Newton have a science degree when he discovered gravity?
>
>this called thinking!
Deep space is not an absolute vacuum. Like many things that
astronomers observe but don't understand, or fully understand,
"black holes" for example, the phrase "dark matter" is merely
astrophysical legalese for "we have no ideal what we're talking
about but we need the government grants and corporate sponsorhip
to keep the money flowing into our greedy, arrogant, self-
aggrandizing pockets." The love of money and lust for worldly
power is what unites all governments and religions worldwide.
I believe that everyone should completely let go of the past
and focus on the present and the months of global troubles to
come. These are the predicted "earth changes" that will level
the playing field, settle all scores, and solve everyone's
problems. No more governments, religions, or money. If all
goes well, these three evils will become extinct this year.
--
Bub
Message has been deleted
Brad Guth
Feb 26, 2012, 1:22:20 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 9:43 am, Bubba <Bub@ba> wrote:
>
> Deep space is not an absolute vacuum. Like many things that
> astronomers observe but don't understand, or fully understand,
> "black holes" for example, the phrase "dark matter" is merely
> astrophysical legalese for "we have no ideal what we're talking
> about but we need the government grants and corporate sponsorhip
> to keep the money flowing into our greedy, arrogant, self-
> aggrandizing pockets." The love of money and lust for worldly
> power is what unites all governments and religions worldwide.
>
> I believe that everyone should completely let go of the past
> and focus on the present and the months of global troubles to
> come. These are the predicted "earth changes" that will level
> the playing field, settle all scores, and solve everyone's
> problems. No more governments, religions, or money. If all
> goes well, these three evils will become extinct this year.
>
> --
> Bub
Decades ago it was too little too late, because those in authority
>
> Deep space is not an absolute vacuum. Like many things that
> astronomers observe but don't understand, or fully understand,
> "black holes" for example, the phrase "dark matter" is merely
> astrophysical legalese for "we have no ideal what we're talking
> about but we need the government grants and corporate sponsorhip
> to keep the money flowing into our greedy, arrogant, self-
> aggrandizing pockets." The love of money and lust for worldly
> power is what unites all governments and religions worldwide.
>
> I believe that everyone should completely let go of the past
> and focus on the present and the months of global troubles to
> come. These are the predicted "earth changes" that will level
> the playing field, settle all scores, and solve everyone's
> problems. No more governments, religions, or money. If all
> goes well, these three evils will become extinct this year.
>
> --
> Bub
above whomever we elect or appoint are still making it powerless for
those we elect or appoint to enact and enforce proper changes that do
not involve greed, debauchery, skullduggery, multiple lies and wars.
Message has been deleted
BDK
Feb 26, 2012, 2:01:49 PM2/26/12
to
In article <93cc137e-28d7-4d09-98c8-1c4e5713c1d0
@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
And some people claim drugs aren't bad for you. You're proof they are.
--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster.
@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster.
George152
Feb 26, 2012, 2:07:29 PM2/26/12
to
On 2/27/2012 7:19 AM, Jeff wrote:
>
>>
>> When one is aimed at the moon, the dot will spread out to 7 miles wide
>> by the time it reached the moon, and the returning reflection is over
>> 14 miles wide. Even if there were a 'laser reflector' on the moon,
>> there is no way to aim a laser to hit such a small thing from so far
>> away.
>
> But you have just said that you only have to be within 7 miles!!!!!!
>
>>
>> When one is aimed at the moon, the dot will spread out to 7 miles wide
>> by the time it reached the moon, and the returning reflection is over
>> 14 miles wide. Even if there were a 'laser reflector' on the moon,
>> there is no way to aim a laser to hit such a small thing from so far
>> away.
>
>
Oh dear you've caught it out :)
saul...@cox.net
Feb 26, 2012, 2:52:59 PM2/26/12
to
WHY?
WHO SAYS? YOU?
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
YOU'RE A LOONEY TUNE MORON!
Saul Levy
WHO SAYS? YOU?
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
YOU'RE A LOONEY TUNE MORON!
Saul Levy
Bubba
Feb 26, 2012, 3:10:33 PM2/26/12
to
an ancient Greek man who predicted that in about two thousand years
from his time, the meanings of words would become reversed in the
speech of those who ruled the world. George Orwell spelled it out
in his Nineteen Eighty-Four classic, where freedom became slavery,
ignorance strength, war peace, good evil, and so forth.
Western politicians are the most adept at this tactic, by always
saying in public the opposite of their actual deeds. "Friends of
Syria" is their latest example, where the word "friends" actually
means "enemies." In this way, anyone who wants to know what Western
politicians and the zionist military-industrial complex psychopaths
pulling their puppet strings are really doing, simply reverse the
meaning of their publicly spoken words. Eastern politicians aren't
much different. If Iran says they don't already have and are
continuing to develop nuclear weapons, it is obvious that they are
doing that. Establishing a more symmetrical nuclear detente in the
Middle East would be a good thing, and I would not be surprised if
the Russians actually did deliver the S-300s or S-400s, and perhaps
nuclear weapons, contrary to what was stated in public.
But of all the lies ever brainwashed into the gullible minds of the
unsuspecting masses, I believe that the greatest lie ever perpetrated
on the world was that the nazis lost world war two. They simply
invented new bogeymen to demonize in order to continue building up
their military-industrial complex to achieve unassailable air, land,
and sea superiority worldwide.
What is it that makes most people motivated by greed and arrogance?
Most homosexuals believe they were born that way, born "gay" as if
there was a "gay" gene spliced into their hereditary traits. That
sounds believable to me, because I can't imagine anyone simply
wanting to engage in sexual contact with someone of the same sex.
Those who choose to get involved with governments, religions, money,
militaries, corporations, or anything like that must have been born
with an "evil" gene spliced into their hereditary traits. No sane
person could freely choose to do evil or voluntarily assist any evil
person or organization, so they must have inherited that totally
amoral "demonic" pathology from their ancestors.
The Western zionist occupation governments have become so completely
evil and corrupt that it is impossible to "elect" (appoint) anyone
who isn't already on the zionists' "rubber stamp" or "musical chairs"
lists. However, there could be some good news on the horizon, and
that is that this year could bring their reign of terror crashing
down like a house of cards and sending the whole world into the
biggest and shortest war that has ever occurred on Earth. I doubt
that so much as a fossil record could survive in the "glass parking
lot" that would be the end of all life on this planet.
--
Bub
David E. Powell
Feb 26, 2012, 3:29:00 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 25, 12:59 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
live shots, they probably still carry live video of ISS dockings when
they happen.
> On Feb 24, 2:50 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > to push the rocket.
>
> > but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> > similar creating force in a vacuum?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > to push the rocket.
>
> > but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> > similar creating force in a vacuum?
>
> Videos of space vehicles maneuvering with blasts of gases are out
> there, just go looking. Google - space shuttle docking video. Many
> hits show up.
>
> I'm on dial-up so checking them out is not possible for me.
>
> Harry K
NASA TV is online and has tons of them, and used to have plenty of
> there, just go looking. Google - space shuttle docking video. Many
> hits show up.
>
> I'm on dial-up so checking them out is not possible for me.
>
> Harry K
live shots, they probably still carry live video of ISS dockings when
they happen.
harry k
Feb 26, 2012, 3:54:46 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 12:43 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sound Cannot Travel In A Vacuum
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2pj9k1lrsM
>
> Thats why we do not hear the constant Lion roar of the Sun's fusion
> activity.
>
> waves need a medium to propagate... Sound waves work like a truck
> hitting a line of cars. The wave travels through the next line from
> back to front but would not if there were no cars.
>
> How, then, do radio waves travel through interstellar space?
>
> Radio waves are like Sound waves, all waves need a medium... even in
> rocket in vacuum space needs a medium to push against or the object
> will be pushed back into the atmosphere...
>
> And the other misconception is that rays are Waves... Rays are beams
> and do not need any medium... why we have light from the sun but no
> sound.
>
> Its not because you hear nothing that the Lion doesn't Roar...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maARmxjj3f0
> Sound Cannot Travel In A Vacuum
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2pj9k1lrsM
>
> Thats why we do not hear the constant Lion roar of the Sun's fusion
> activity.
>
> waves need a medium to propagate... Sound waves work like a truck
> hitting a line of cars. The wave travels through the next line from
> back to front but would not if there were no cars.
>
> How, then, do radio waves travel through interstellar space?
>
> Radio waves are like Sound waves, all waves need a medium... even in
> rocket in vacuum space needs a medium to push against or the object
> will be pushed back into the atmosphere...
>
> And the other misconception is that rays are Waves... Rays are beams
> and do not need any medium... why we have light from the sun but no
> sound.
>
>
> On Feb 24, 11:50 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > to push the rocket.
>
> > but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
> > similar creating force in a vacuum?- Hide quoted text -
> On Feb 24, 11:50 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> > you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
> > propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
> > to push the rocket.
>
> > but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
> > from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
> > (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
> > rocket/vehicle itself.
>
> > can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see, science per warthog as it was in 1017.
> - Show quoted text -
Harry K
saul...@cox.net
Feb 26, 2012, 4:41:11 PM2/26/12
to
TOO DOOMY AND GLOOMY!
WON'T HAPPEN THAT WAY!
Saul Levy
WON'T HAPPEN THAT WAY!
Saul Levy
saul...@cox.net
Feb 26, 2012, 4:56:36 PM2/26/12
to
GAD, PIG, THAT SOUNDS SO REASONABLE!
WE KNOW YOU ARE SUPREMELY STUPID SO YOU REMAIN DEAD WRONG AS USUAL!
YOUR INTERPRETATION IS ALWAYS DEAD WRONG!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:46:20 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>what do you know of frequency wavelength? ha ha ha bill...
>
>wave propagated by an antenna. Radio waves have different frequencies,
>and by tuning a radio receiver to a specific frequency you can pick up
>a specific signal.
>
>In the United States, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
>decides who is able to use which frequencies for which purposes, and
>it issues licenses to stations for specific frequencies. see how Radio
>Works for more details on radio waves.
>
>When you listen to a radio station and the announcer says, "you are
>listening to 91.5 FM WRKX The Rock!," what the announcer means is that
>you are listening to a radio station broadcasting an FM radio signal
>at a frequency of 91.5 megahertz, with FCC-assigned call letters of
>WRKX. Megahertz means "millions of cycles per second," so "91.5
>megahertz" means that the transmitter at the radio station is
>oscillating at a frequency of 91,500,000 cycles per second. Your FM
>(frequency modulated) radio can tune in to that specific frequency and
>give you clear reception of that station. all FM radio stations
>transmit in a band of frequencies between 88 megahertz and 108
>megahertz. this band of the radio spectrum is used for no other
>purpose but FM radio broadcasts.
>
>In the same way, AM radio is confined to a band from 535 kilohertz to
>1,700 kilohertz (kilo meaning "thousands," so 535,000 to 1,700,000
>cycles per second). so an AM (amplitude modulated) radio station that
>says, "this is AM 680 WPTF" means that the radio station is
>broadcasting an AM radio signal at 680 kilohertz and its FCC-assigned
>call letters are WPTF.
>
>learn more about about frequency bands and the frequencies that common
>gadgets use.
>
>http://withfriendship.com/images/f/26730/the-ionosphere-has-the.jpg
WE KNOW YOU ARE SUPREMELY STUPID SO YOU REMAIN DEAD WRONG AS USUAL!
YOUR INTERPRETATION IS ALWAYS DEAD WRONG!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:46:20 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>what do you know of frequency wavelength? ha ha ha bill...
>
>You’ve probably heard about "AM radio" and "FM radio," "VHF" and "UHF"
>television, "citizens band radio," "short wave radio" and so on. have
>you ever wondered what all of those different names really mean?
>What’s the difference between them?A radio wave is an electromagnetic
>television, "citizens band radio," "short wave radio" and so on. have
>you ever wondered what all of those different names really mean?
>wave propagated by an antenna. Radio waves have different frequencies,
>and by tuning a radio receiver to a specific frequency you can pick up
>a specific signal.
>
>In the United States, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
>decides who is able to use which frequencies for which purposes, and
>it issues licenses to stations for specific frequencies. see how Radio
>Works for more details on radio waves.
>
>When you listen to a radio station and the announcer says, "you are
>listening to 91.5 FM WRKX The Rock!," what the announcer means is that
>you are listening to a radio station broadcasting an FM radio signal
>at a frequency of 91.5 megahertz, with FCC-assigned call letters of
>WRKX. Megahertz means "millions of cycles per second," so "91.5
>megahertz" means that the transmitter at the radio station is
>oscillating at a frequency of 91,500,000 cycles per second. Your FM
>(frequency modulated) radio can tune in to that specific frequency and
>give you clear reception of that station. all FM radio stations
>transmit in a band of frequencies between 88 megahertz and 108
>megahertz. this band of the radio spectrum is used for no other
>purpose but FM radio broadcasts.
>
>In the same way, AM radio is confined to a band from 535 kilohertz to
>1,700 kilohertz (kilo meaning "thousands," so 535,000 to 1,700,000
>cycles per second). so an AM (amplitude modulated) radio station that
>says, "this is AM 680 WPTF" means that the radio station is
>broadcasting an AM radio signal at 680 kilohertz and its FCC-assigned
>call letters are WPTF.
>
>learn more about about frequency bands and the frequencies that common
>gadgets use.
>
>http://withfriendship.com/images/f/26730/the-ionosphere-has-the.jpg
saul...@cox.net
Feb 26, 2012, 5:01:35 PM2/26/12
to
THE PIG CANNOT TRAVEL IN A VACUUM!
WHY? HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN SPACE SUITS!
SEE HOW FUNNY I AM, PIGO?
YOUR STUPIDITY WILL DEFEAT YOU EVERY FUCKING TIME!
YOU ARE WHAT IS DOOMED, PIGO!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:53:52 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
WHY? HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN SPACE SUITS!
SEE HOW FUNNY I AM, PIGO?
YOUR STUPIDITY WILL DEFEAT YOU EVERY FUCKING TIME!
YOU ARE WHAT IS DOOMED, PIGO!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:53:52 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
saul...@cox.net
Feb 26, 2012, 5:03:27 PM2/26/12
to
DON'T TRY TO FOOL US, PIGO!
YOU UNDERSTAND NONE OF THIS! YOU ARE A TECHNICAL IDIOT!
LIAR!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:12:55 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>the digital solution bill, you can use different feeds carried by one
>radio frequency...
>
YOU UNDERSTAND NONE OF THIS! YOU ARE A TECHNICAL IDIOT!
LIAR!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:12:55 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>the digital solution bill, you can use different feeds carried by one
>radio frequency...
>
>I can answer your questioon by another question like the jews do...
>
>How can one cable carry many signals?
>
>
>How can one cable carry many signals?
>
Brad Guth
Feb 26, 2012, 5:25:02 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 12:10 pm, Bubba <Bub@ba> wrote:
Actually, most modern nukes are made fission+fusion tactical enough
that they’ll pinpoint their targets and vaporize within a relatively
tight zone (tactical anti-nuclear-sub versions of our fission+fusion
warheads will generate a hydrodynamic shockwave that’ll easily nullify
any submarine within a 100 mile radius, yet offering minimal
atmospheric fallout), underground penetrators could be the nastiest by
tossing up tonnes of contaminated Earth into the sky, and otherwise
the intended surface targets shouldn't leave nearly as much unspent
fuel as fallout radiation as the WW2 verity did. However, it'll still
be very bad news for many millions and possibly terminating a billion
of us, but that'll still leave our planet as somewhat overpopulated
and at risk of yet future wars as long as the upper most 0.0001% get
to call all the shots regardless of whomever we elect or appoint.
Mainstream faith-based approved greed, insider speculation trading and
putting the screws to the likes of Muslims, so that we keep making
Zionist/Jews happy campers, is only going to infuse yet another 9/11
or worse Karma upon us. So, they’ll have to lie about their motives
and reasons today in order to remain in charge of doing this over and
over again, perhaps until we match what those Georgia Guidestones
specified as a world hosting a maximum of 500 million (as of right now
we’d have to get rid of 6.5 billion humans, of which an all-out WW3
probably could accomplish).
Perhaps China and Russian EMPs could put our WMD deployments and their
targeting on hold until our GPS and CPUs reboot, which should at least
buy us a little time to kiss our butts. The way it’s looking, it’s
almost as though our oligarch/Rothschild masters are hoping for a
fight (as another excuse for justifying their “evil gene” hereditary
trait of their very own incest).
that they’ll pinpoint their targets and vaporize within a relatively
tight zone (tactical anti-nuclear-sub versions of our fission+fusion
warheads will generate a hydrodynamic shockwave that’ll easily nullify
any submarine within a 100 mile radius, yet offering minimal
atmospheric fallout), underground penetrators could be the nastiest by
tossing up tonnes of contaminated Earth into the sky, and otherwise
the intended surface targets shouldn't leave nearly as much unspent
fuel as fallout radiation as the WW2 verity did. However, it'll still
be very bad news for many millions and possibly terminating a billion
of us, but that'll still leave our planet as somewhat overpopulated
and at risk of yet future wars as long as the upper most 0.0001% get
to call all the shots regardless of whomever we elect or appoint.
Mainstream faith-based approved greed, insider speculation trading and
putting the screws to the likes of Muslims, so that we keep making
Zionist/Jews happy campers, is only going to infuse yet another 9/11
or worse Karma upon us. So, they’ll have to lie about their motives
and reasons today in order to remain in charge of doing this over and
over again, perhaps until we match what those Georgia Guidestones
specified as a world hosting a maximum of 500 million (as of right now
we’d have to get rid of 6.5 billion humans, of which an all-out WW3
probably could accomplish).
Perhaps China and Russian EMPs could put our WMD deployments and their
targeting on hold until our GPS and CPUs reboot, which should at least
buy us a little time to kiss our butts. The way it’s looking, it’s
almost as though our oligarch/Rothschild masters are hoping for a
fight (as another excuse for justifying their “evil gene” hereditary
trait of their very own incest).
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 6:01:22 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 5:08 pm, "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Warhol" <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:91eda201-630d-40fd...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> >for you shortly, enjoy the show.
>
> Spend 30 minutes to watch this video.
>
> Conservation of Momentumhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1865978801687874664#
> "Warhol" <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:91eda201-630d-40fd...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>
> > > one of the biggest space hoaxes of all time!
>
> > > rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>
> >for you shortly, enjoy the show.
>
> Spend 30 minutes to watch this video.
>
>
> The entire first year physics course is in video here.http://www.malcolmgin.com/blog/2008/10/07/caltech-the-mechanical-univ...
>
> s
I did watch your video... first... this ain't science anymore but is
Catholic jesuits propaganda for kids and brainwashing of the masses,
they omit most important laws and forget to mention other important
effects which can exercise action or reaction on the mater...
What I know is that truth and real science aint educated anymore...
other wise people would have understood all the lies of the NASA
miracles
second what is your point?
BTW I would like to see them play billiard at free fall (since in
heaven everything is at free fall) and then only we can talk about the
Conservation of Momentum and so start to Understand the Special
Relativity of balls on collision course...
David E. Powell
Feb 26, 2012, 6:06:42 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 3:54 pm, harry k <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
> I see, science per warthog as it was in 1017.
Or, to get things back to Naval science, the Empress Dowager of China
throwing a coin in a bowl of water and telling her Admirals that
they'd be foolish to make those Iron ships they wanted to build
because metal obviously could not float in water.
> Harry K
snip
> I see, science per warthog as it was in 1017.
throwing a coin in a bowl of water and telling her Admirals that
they'd be foolish to make those Iron ships they wanted to build
because metal obviously could not float in water.
> Harry K
Warhol
Feb 26, 2012, 6:21:14 PM2/26/12
to
On Feb 26, 7:19 pm, Jeff <j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> > When one is aimed at the moon, the dot will spread out to 7 miles wide
> > by the time it reached the moon, and the returning reflection is over
> > 14 miles wide. Even if there were a 'laser reflector' on the moon,
> > there is no way to aim a laser to hit such a small thing from so far
> > away.
>
> But you have just said that you only have to be within 7 miles!!!!!!
>
> Jeff
> > When one is aimed at the moon, the dot will spread out to 7 miles wide
> > by the time it reached the moon, and the returning reflection is over
> > 14 miles wide. Even if there were a 'laser reflector' on the moon,
> > there is no way to aim a laser to hit such a small thing from so far
> > away.
>
> But you have just said that you only have to be within 7 miles!!!!!!
>
What I said is that the laser dot is 7 miles wide when it reach the
moon... nothing proves that the laser beam was reflected by any
object left behind by man... and if you didnt snip the rest the post
you would have read that laser experiments where done long before
Apollo 11... So proof enough that there is no need for reflectors.
You stupid shills have certainly to find new tactics to attack the
content of the message... you aint doing your job very well.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages