Apollo 11

[thor stoneman]

The Apollo 11 lunar mission did not land on the moon since NASA uses a gravitational sling shot trajectory but the sling shot method is based on the earth and moon gravitational forces affect on the mass of the CSML but the earth and moon gravitational forces on the CSML while propagating to the moon is negligible since the astronauts within the CSML are weightless during the voyage to the moon. Also, the moon is said to have an surface ambient temperture of 210o F, the siliver emulation that is used on the photographic film would not function at the lunar surface temperature of 210o F. Also, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions. The large distance from the Sun to the moon results in parallel shadows of all lunar objects yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs depict large variations of the shadows angles. On a near level surface, the lander an a rock are separated by the distance of approximately 50 meters and are forming shadows that produce an angle of 45 degrees. Plus, the photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander do not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone. Using an analogy, a Lear jet engine is rated with a 3,500 lb thrust. The 3,000 lb lander rocket thrust that produces a 2,000o F flame would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photograph (fig 37) shows no evidence of a blast zone just below the lander exhaust nozzle. Finally, a dispersing radio signal cannot produce a detectable intensity after propagating the distance to the moon. Example, a 1 W cell phone has a maximum range of approximately 8 km, a pirate FM 18 W radio station has a maximum range of approximately 20 km, a 50 kW AM radio station has a night maximum range of approximately 3,000 km and a 2,000 W short wave radio has a range of 6,300 km; consequently, a 2,200 W s-band radio signal that originates from the lander would have an extrapolated maximum range of 21,500 km yet the distance to the moon is 380,000 km.


Apollo Ray Tracing: Second Light Source Confirmed | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

[JanPB]

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:41:16 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> The Apollo 11 lunar mission did not land on the moon

Yes, it did. Post your idiocies at another forum, BTW. This forum is for adults
interested in relativity theory.

--
Jan

[Hung Bolt]

no, wehrner von braun was a nazi. Sometimes you have to ask yourself what
you want. You can't cry about the nazi germany, same time lying about
moon landing. Wake the fuck up.

[JanPB]

You are the one dreaming idiocies that only boost your ego.

--
Jan

[HectorBlake]

there are others, including nasa, saying openly they never landed on the
moon. But you are a cretin, still believing your imbecilities, in spite
of tones of proofs and indicators, you stupidly chose to ignore. Get the
fuck out of here, nazi.

[JanPB]

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:04:10 AM UTC-8, HectorBlake wrote:
> impertinent inbreed nazi, JanPB, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:22:50 PM UTC-8, Hung Bolt wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:41:16 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> The Apollo 11 lunar mission did not land on the moon
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it did. Post your idiocies at another forum, BTW. This forum is
> >> > for adults interested in relativity theory.
> >> no, wehrner von braun was a nazi. Sometimes you have to ask yourself
> >> what you want. You can't cry about the nazi germany, same time lying
> >> about moon landing. Wake the fuck up.
> >
> > You are the one dreaming idiocies that only boost your ego.
> there are others, including nasa, saying openly they never landed on the
> moon.

Nonsense. Why are you making stuff up? What gets accomplished by
this, exactly?

> But you are a cretin, still believing your imbecilities, in spite
> of tones of proofs

There are NO PROOFS. There are only idiots like you confabulating
moronic theories designed to make you guys feel good.

> and indicators, you stupidly chose to ignore. Get the
> fuck out of here, nazi.

No, I won't. I'll stay here as long as I please. If you don't like seeing
posts pointing out your idiocies, just open an Internet forum in which
you have full control of the posts.

Apollo 11 did land on the Moon, get over it. There are more important
issues to get worked up over, like the handling of the covid crisis which
has been abysmal.

--
Jan

[Michael Moroney]

You do realize that you're arguing with the nymshifter troll, don't you?

It got you.

[JanPB]

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 3:45:48 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> You do realize that you're arguing with the nymshifter troll, don't you?
>
> It got you.

I love talking to cretins like him though :-)

--
Jan

[Vaugn Rhea]

Hmm, imbeciles PLC programmers arguing. They never landed on the moon
with men, you cretin. Tons of declarations, circumspections, analysis,
physical impossibilities, math derivations etc etc and etc. Shut the fuck
up, or come up with your best proof, fucking idiot. I never seen one.

You fucking idiots.

[Michael Moroney]

Go away, nymshifter. Nobody gave you permission to speak.

[Vaugn Rhea]

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>>> You do realize that you're arguing with the nymshifter troll, don't
>>>> you? It got you.
>>>
>>> I love talking to cretins like him though
>>
>> Hmm, imbeciles PLC programmers arguing. They never landed on the moon
>> with men, you cretin. Tons of declarations, circumspections, analysis,
>> physical impossibilities, math derivations etc etc and etc. Shut the
>> fuck up, or come up with your best proof, fucking idiot. I never seen
>> one. You fucking idiots.
>>
> Go away, nymshifter. Nobody gave you permission to speak.

exactly my point, you PLC programmers thing math, physics and tech is
done without requirements of proofs. Idiots. Making it obvious.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 5:14:47 AM UTC-8, Vaugn Rhea wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 3:45:48 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> You do realize that you're arguing with the nymshifter troll, don't
> >> you? It got you.
> >
> > I love talking to cretins like him though
> Hmm, imbeciles PLC programmers arguing. They never landed on the moon
> with men, you cretin.

Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. Get over it, find yourself a better sex toy.

> Tons of declarations, circumspections, analysis,
> physical impossibilities, math derivations etc etc and etc.

All of which is 100% nonsense made up by naive fools like you who
suffer from inferiority complex.

> Shut the fuck
> up, or come up with your best proof, fucking idiot. I never seen one.

I don't need to provide any proof. The way the universe works is that YOU
provide a PROOF of your claims because you are the one making the
(cretinic, BTW) accusations.

I'll just twiddle my thumbs and laugh at your infantile naivete.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

You have no point, you just are posting idiocies designed to boost your ego.
They have no connection to reality.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 12:01:53 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 5:14:47 AM UTC-8, Vaugn Rhea wrote:

<snip>

> > up, or come up with your best proof, fucking idiot. I never seen one.

> I don't need to provide any proof. The way the universe works is that YOU
> provide a PROOF of your claims because you are the one making the
> (cretinic, BTW) accusations.
>
> I'll just twiddle my thumbs and laugh at your infantile naivete.

JanPB, he has a point, so don't behave as with relativity and accept without ANY doubt.

If you don't believe in conspiracies of the HIGH POWER, then YOU are the idiot.

Didn't history taught you anything? Or you are just a plain negationist of whatever shakes your credences?

There are many, MANY manouvers that US (in modern times) and other global powers have done to please the masses
and/or gain advantages with their cover actions.

To name a few:

1) Rudolf Hess: In 10 May 1941, Adolf Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess parachuted into Scotland, landing in a field near Eaglesham.
By which reason he was held in prison at Spandau until his suicide in 1987?. I think that being imprisoned for life is a clear case
of vast conspiracy of central powers against a man that renounced to every privilege he had at Germany to bring his peace deal idea.
WWII could have finished rapidly, shortening its duration 4 years and saving more than 40 MILLIONS OF LIVES, including 6 million Jews.
This is one of the most atrocious conspiracies of the XX century, and for what? To kill millions of Russians, Germans, etc?

2) Pearl Harbor: The elite needed an excuse to enrage US citizens and get into WWII in full mode. US had make the situation at Japan
unbearable for its war economy by using embargo. But US citizens were fully against getting into WWII (as it was by then). They had
suffered greatly in and after WWI, the Depression and how US dealt with veterans. Curiously, the major force (aircraft carriers) were
very far from the harbor, and only junk battleships were there. Just useless junk.
US recover from Depression and gained global dominance at every field after WWII: science, economy, global policy, NATO, UN, while
left that Europe fall into pieces AND NEVER, EVER recover (even today).

3) Nixon-Kissinger at China, 1972: Why? To counteract USSR, creating a powerful enemy at its backyard? 20 years later, the US industry
was DEPLETED of local factories, which moved to South-East Asia first (in the '80s) and to China's mainland (massively) in the '90s.
Globalization was borne, with the final stroke given by the fall of USSR. Then, the powerful MIC had to turn into the consumer market to
make money, and just used a few % of their military technology.

Just TWO examples: Hughes decided to CREATE, in a cross deal with content suppliers, DirectTV. By mid '90s, Galaxy 5 satellites (done
by them) and 20" antennae brought satellite TV almost overnight to the world. The main secret?: they just AUGMENTED 10 times the
power of on-board transmitters, just like that. And by such simple action, every previous VSAT antennae of more than 1 meter diameter
was converted into GARBAGE. I know it, and I lived it first hand (in Hughes). Thomsom supplied the top box, IBM supplied the billing and
Hollywood (slowly but steadily) accepted to get in. And Internet and 2G mobile telephony was close to the critical mass.

The other example is China: It had ONLY 40 millions landline telephone connection by 1990. It reached 1 billion in 10 years. It had no
highways, no sky-crappers and manufactured JUNK between mid '80s and mid '90s. Barely, a handful of Chinese had a car. By 2005,
queues 40 miles long formed at Chinese highways, building popped up everywhere and, even, big ghost cities were built in all China.
By 2010, not a single major European or US manufacturer had moved 95% of its consumer products to China: cars, computers, phones,
chemical and metallurgical products, EVERYTHING. Globalization was rising at peak levels. Then, Trump and COVID happened.

The great reset, knowledgeable people call this.


And you DOUBT that are chances that the whole Apollo mission, since 8, could be faked? WAKE UP, ELDER MAN!

Not to mention Korea, Vietnam and several other GAME CHANGER EVENTS since the '60s. And better not to speak about A/H bombs.

Which proof would you convince that it was FAKE?

Maybe this first global conference of the three astronauts, which is PAINFUL TO WATCH. The most depressed people in the planet:

Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference (1969)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeAGGpRYmKY

FINALLY UNCUT - Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzn_Lu9B284

READ THE COMMENTS!

[Michael Moroney]

On 12/19/2021 11:53 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 12:01:53 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 5:14:47 AM UTC-8, Vaugn Rhea wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> up, or come up with your best proof, fucking idiot. I never seen one.
>
>> I don't need to provide any proof. The way the universe works is that YOU
>> provide a PROOF of your claims because you are the one making the
>> (cretinic, BTW) accusations.
>>
>> I'll just twiddle my thumbs and laugh at your infantile naivete.
>
> JanPB, he has a point, so don't behave as with relativity and accept without ANY doubt.
>

Richard, that is the nymshifter, and its only point is to create as much
noise as possible. And the one on top of its head.

<snip foolishness>

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 20.12.2021 05:53, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> If you don't believe in conspiracies of the HIGH POWER, then YOU are the idiot.
>

> <snip>

>
>
> And you DOUBT that are chances that the whole Apollo mission, since 8, could be faked? WAKE UP, ELDER MAN!
>
> Not to mention Korea, Vietnam and several other GAME CHANGER EVENTS since the '60s. And better not to speak about A/H bombs.
>
> Which proof would you convince that it was FAKE?
>
> Maybe this first global conference of the three astronauts, which is PAINFUL TO WATCH. The most depressed people in the planet:
>
> Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference (1969)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeAGGpRYmKY
>
> FINALLY UNCUT - Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzn_Lu9B284
>
> READ THE COMMENTS!

Now I understand why you ignore all the experiments
that confirm GR.

https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

All the experiments are faked and are parts of
the conspiracies of the HIGH POWER!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 20 December 2021 at 09:45:14 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.12.2021 05:53, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >
> > If you don't believe in conspiracies of the HIGH POWER, then YOU are the idiot.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > And you DOUBT that are chances that the whole Apollo mission, since 8, could be faked? WAKE UP, ELDER MAN!
> >
> > Not to mention Korea, Vietnam and several other GAME CHANGER EVENTS since the '60s. And better not to speak about A/H bombs.
> >
> > Which proof would you convince that it was FAKE?
> >
> > Maybe this first global conference of the three astronauts, which is PAINFUL TO WATCH. The most depressed people in the planet:
> >
> > Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference (1969)
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeAGGpRYmKY
> >
> > FINALLY UNCUT - Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzn_Lu9B284
> >
> > READ THE COMMENTS!
> Now I understand why you ignore all the experiments
> that confirm GR.
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

In the meantimne in the real world, of course, forbidden
by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

[J. J. Lodder]

Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> You do realize that you're arguing with the nymshifter troll, don't you?
>
> It got you.

But this whole group is for the care and feeding of relativity nutters.
(just like t.o. is for care and feeding of the American reli-nutter)
If you really want to discuss relativity you should go to the other spr,

Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

You know, I wonder why you think it is fun to stir the pot with nonsense
like this.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Wade Evers]

JanPB wrote:

>> > Go away, nymshifter. Nobody gave you permission to speak.
>> exactly my point, you PLC programmers thing math, physics and tech is
>> done without requirements of proofs. Idiots. Making it obvious.
>
> You have no point, you just are posting idiocies designed to boost your
> ego. They have no connection to reality.

present your *reality* data for the manned moon landing, you irrelevant
idiot. You don't understand the relevancy of strong evidences, proofs and
indicators in science and technology, you unemployable idiot. You always
talk about something else, you incoherent idiot.

[Wade Evers]

JanPB wrote:

>> Tons of declarations, circumspections, analysis,
>> physical impossibilities, math derivations etc etc and etc.
>
> All of which is 100% nonsense made up by naive fools like you who suffer
> from inferiority complex.

It looks like your father was a braindead mongol from Siberia, and your
mother was a whore. No surprise here. You think tensors are PLCs in
mathematics, science and technology. You think these works without data,
recorded data, strong indicators, evidences and proofs.

You uneducated and unemployable idiot.

[Wade Evers]

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> I don't need to provide any proof. The way the universe works is that
>>> YOU provide a PROOF of your claims because you are the one making the
>>> (cretinic, BTW) accusations.
>>> I'll just twiddle my thumbs and laugh at your infantile naivete.
>>
>> JanPB, he has a point, so don't behave as with relativity and accept
>> without ANY doubt.
>>
> Richard, that is the nymshifter, and its only point is to create as much
> noise as possible. And the one on top of its head.

another inbreed imbecile, not realizing the need of data, strong
indicators, evidences and proofs, in science and technology. I bet with
95% probability you guys never worked in science, physics or technology.

disgusting, to suck an extent.

[Wade Evers]

he's an unemployable imbecile, obvious from the stuff he says. You look
like an imbecile as well, but maybe I'm too fast saying it right now.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> But this whole group is for the care and feeding of relativity nutters.

So you’re just hungry? :-D


PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 5:45:14 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 20.12.2021 05:53, skrev Richard Hertz:

<snip>

> > Maybe this first global conference of the three astronauts, which is PAINFUL TO WATCH. The most depressed people in the planet:
> >
> > Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference (1969)
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeAGGpRYmKY
> >
> > FINALLY UNCUT - Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzn_Lu9B284
> >
> > READ THE COMMENTS!

> Now I understand why you ignore all the experiments that confirm GR.
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>
> All the experiments are faked and are parts of the conspiracies of the HIGH POWER!

No Paul, not at all. Most of the papers that you show there are written BY ATTENTION WHORES and/or
professional Einstein's ass kissers.

I recommend you to update your list (as Roberts did with his), because it's a collection of fails and shitty papers.

I was about to answer your challenge from days ago, and even re-organized the list to show how PATHETIC IT IS.
You need urgently to put something with REAL VALUE in there.

Experiments testing relativity

1947  Precession of the perihelion of Mercury. ; G. M. Clemence: The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions
2003  Precession of the perihelion of Mercury. ; Chris Pollock: Mercury’s Perihelion

MY COMMENTS: Clemence paper (he even wrote a wrong formula, missing 2x factor) is just an UPDATE of Le Verrier-Newcomb data,
more than 50 years after the second. It deals only with OBSERVATIONAL DATA for totals and THEORETICAL values for each effect.
Pollock (I have read the paper before) uses 18 pages to brag about how much he knows from solar system dynamics, bla bla bla, to
end USING SCHWARZSCHILD as dozen other previous authors since the '60s, ending in the classic Einstein formula with the cubic term.
Then, he cooks and FUDGE the formula with a small perturbation factor, eliminating terms at will, to finish in the SAME THEORETICAL
FORMULA that dozens of authors.

He start his second half with (28): d²u/dɸ² + u = m/h² + 3mu². BRAVO! Nobody did insert the relativistic term 3mu² before. What a genius!

1886   A repetition of Fizeau's experiment. ; A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley: Influence of Motion of the Medium on the Velocity of Light
1887   The "MMX". ; A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley:  On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether
1913  Test of the invariance of the speed of light. ; A. A. Michelson: EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE
VELOCITY OF LIGHT
1925   Repetition of the Sagnac exp. ; A. A. Michelson:  THE EFFECT OF THE EARTH’S ROTATION ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT PART I
1925   Repetition of the Sagnac exp. ; A. A. Michelson and H. G. Gale:  THE EFFECT OF THE EARTH’S ROTATION ON THE VELOCITY OF
LIGHT PART II

MY COMMENTS: Sagnac effect is not a relativistic derivation. Quite the contrary. But relativists cook WHATEVER IT TAKES to get the formula. Pure crap, theoretical crap.

1959  The Pound & Rebka experiment. ; R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka:  GRAVTATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
1964  Delay of radar pulses. "Shapiro delay". ; Irwin I. Shapiro: FOURTH TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
1968  Delay of radar pulses. "Shapiro delay". ; Irwin I. Shapiro et al.: FOURTH TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: PRELIMINARY RESULTS
2004  Gravitational deflection of EM-radiation. ; S.S. Shapiro, J.L. Davis, D.E. Lebach, and J.S. Gregory: Measurement of the Solar
Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves using Geodetic Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Data, 1979–1999
2004  Gravitational deflection of EM-radiation. ; John D. Anderson, Eunice L. Lau, and Giacomo Giampieri: Measurement of the PPN
Parameter γ with Radio Signals from the Cassini Spacecraft at X- and Ka-Bands
2004  Gravitational deflection of visible light ; M. Froeschlé, F. Mignard and F. Arenou: DETERMINATION OF THE PPN PARAMETER γ
WITH THE HIPPARCOS DATA
2008  Gravitational deflection of light. ; V. G. Turyshev: Relativistic Gravitational Deflection of Light and Its Impact on the Modelling
Accuracy for the Space Interferometry Mission
2009 Gravitational deflection of light. ; E. Fomalont, S. Kopeikin, G. Lanyi and J. Benson: Progress in Measurements of the Gravitational
Bending of Radio Waves Using the VLBA
2012  Gravitational deflection of EM-radiation, gravitational time delay. ; John D. Anderson and Eunice L. Lau: Improved Test of General
Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the Cassini Spacecraft

MY COMMENTS: I've already posted about Pound-Rebka, and showed WHY IT'S PURE EXPERIMENTAL CRAP, based on unproven
STATISTICAL PROPERTIES of hyperfine transitions, with dubious accuracy (VERY DUBIOUS). Seek my thread, from two months ago.
And the objective of THIS experiment, based on Einstein's 1911 paper, was to FIND OUT if light had mass. Read the original paper.
Regarding the others, it's obvious that this shit consumed the life of Shapiro, PROVING NOTHING!
THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS HERE, THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS THERE. Pure relativistic crap: "filter the data to fit the equations, idiot".


1963  Test of the invariance of the speed of light. ; C. G. Babcock and T. G. Bergman: Determination of the Constancy of the Speed of Light
1964  Test of the invariance of the speed of light. ; T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I. Wallin: TEST OF THE SECOND  POSTULATE
OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY IN THE GeV REGION
1964  Test of the invariance of the speed of light. ; P. Beckmann and P. Mandics: Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic
Radiation in High Vacuum
1964  Test of the invariance of the speed of light. ; T. A. Filippas and J. G. Fox: Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source
1977  Test of the invariance of the speed of light ; K. Brecher:  Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?

MY COMMENTS: Call me when UNIDIRECTIONAL TEST proves it. Ah! They can't? Well, then fuck them all and their cooking contest.

1932   The "KTX". ; R. J. Kennedy and E. M. Thorndike:  Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time
1938  Rate of a moving clock. ; H. E. Ives and G. R. Stilwell: An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock
1941  Rate of a moving clock, extended version of the 1938 experiment. ; H. E. Ives and G. R. Stilwell: An Experimental Study of the
Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock. II
1971  The Hafele & Keating experiment. ; J. C. Hafele: PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS OF PORTABLE CLOCKS IN AIRCRAFTS
1972  The Hafele & Keating experiment. ; J. C. Hafele and R. E. Keating: Around-the-World Atomic Clocks
2014  Rate of a moving clock. ; B. Botermann et al: Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed

MY COMMENTS: Accurate use of atomic clocks before 1956? BUT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, they even didn't had DIGITAL COUNTERS.
Hafele-Keating? Highly criticized results for costly experiments performed by two attention whores, who cooked the useless data at will.

1976  The experiment: “Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses” is
described in pages 708-716
1977 Rate of clocks in GPS orbit as observed from the ground. ; J. A. Buisson et al:INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS
NTS-2 SATELLITE

MY COMMENTS: ????

1979 A laser version of the MMX. ; A. Brillet and J.L. Hall: An Improved Test of the Isotropy of Space Using Laser Techniques
1980  Gravity Probe A. ; R. F. C. Vessot et al.: Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen Maser
2011  Gravity Probe B ; C. W. F. Everitt et al:  Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity

MY COMMENTS: Gravity Probe B? Really? Man, have some shame and delete this entry, which was going to prove the whirl in spacetime
around Earth by its rotation and HYPOTHETICAL DRAG EFFECTS on space! Some kind of NANO-GRAVITATIONAL WAVES!

1963  Muon speed and lifetime. ; David H. Frisch and James H. Smith: Measurements of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons
2007  Muon speed and lifetime ; Lulu Liu:  The Speed and Lifetime of Cosmic Ray Muons
2012  Muon speed and lifetime ; Grant Remmen and Elwood McCreary: Measurement of the Speed and Energy Distribution of Cosmic
Ray Muons

MY COMMENTS: Cosmic muons and lab made muons ARE DIFFERENT and are under COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERTURBATIONS!

2014   Overview of experiments testing General Relativity. ; Clifford M. Will: The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment

2016 Detection of gravitational waves confirms GR ; B. P. Abbott et al.: Tests of general relativity with GW150914
2016 Detection of gravitational waves with LIGO ; B. P. Abbott et al.: GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass
Binary Black Hole Coalescence
2016 Detection of gravitational waves with LIGO ; B. P. Abbott et al.: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

MY COMMENTS: Buah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......

[JanPB]

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 12:01:53 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 5:14:47 AM UTC-8, Vaugn Rhea wrote:
> <snip>
> > > up, or come up with your best proof, fucking idiot. I never seen one.
>
> > I don't need to provide any proof. The way the universe works is that YOU
> > provide a PROOF of your claims because you are the one making the
> > (cretinic, BTW) accusations.
> >
> > I'll just twiddle my thumbs and laugh at your infantile naivete.
> JanPB, he has a point, so don't behave as with relativity and accept without ANY doubt.

Lookslike you have responded without reading the thread. The topic is not relativity but
his claim that the Apollo 11 Moon mission was faked (yes, you read it right, this is the
intellectual level we're dealing with).

--
Jan

[JanPB]

Yes, the experience on this NG since ca. 1995 has been that almost
all relativity nuts are in fact deeply committed conspiracy theorists in
general. For some of them it takes years of posting here for this
to finally come out, others are immediately obvious nutcases.

Either way, the characteristic trait is the lack of normally functioning
critical faculties (including self-criticism).

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 8:40:11 AM UTC-8, Wade Evers wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> Tons of declarations, circumspections, analysis,
> >> physical impossibilities, math derivations etc etc and etc.
> >
> > All of which is 100% nonsense made up by naive fools like you who suffer
> > from inferiority complex.
> It looks like your father was a braindead mongol from Siberia, and your
> mother was a whore. No surprise here.

Glad to see that I have now reduced you to just hurling infantile insults.

> You think tensors are PLCs in
> mathematics, science and technology.

What's your cult-like hangup with tensors?

> You think these works without data,
> recorded data, strong indicators, evidences and proofs.

Tensors are multilinear maps (at least in the finite-dimensional case).
Why the drama?

--
Jan

[Willam Dugas]

JanPB wrote:

> On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 8:40:11 AM UTC-8, Wade Evers wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>
>> >> Tons of declarations, circumspections, analysis,
>> >> physical impossibilities, math derivations etc etc and etc.
>> >
>> > All of which is 100% nonsense made up by naive fools like you who
>> > suffer from inferiority complex.
>> It looks like your father was a braindead mongol from Siberia, and your
>> mother was a whore. No surprise here.
>
> Glad to see that I have now reduced you to just hurling infantile
> insults.

It's a neutral and objective observation. You haven't reduce anything at
all. You are the stupid *conspiracy_theorist* saying that's OK of Elon
Musk to crash 10 times his rockets, before taking it right, here on
Earth, controllers and algorithms embedded.

Then your hoaxed manned moon landing first try 1969, in spite of no
computers and algorithms whatsoever.

You are mental retarded, man. Completely unemployable in anything.

[Paul Alsing]

So... you obviously expect to receive the Nobel Prize any day now, right? Perhaps in multiple fields? You seem to think that you have shown all those previous winners to be nothing but cannon fodder for your own Large Brain to play with?

It is just me, or are you the only one here that thinks he knows what he doesn't actually know?

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

[J. J. Lodder]

"Engage brain before putting keyboard into gear"
or perhaps
"A closed mouth gathers no foot"

Or my chess master friend: 'Sit on your hands!'

And knowing the game helps too ...

Jan

[carl eto]

How can the astronauts' be weightless if the earth's gravitational force is causing the sling shot trajectory?

How can photographic film work on the moon?

Please, explain the shadows.

Why are there not stars?

[carl eto]

What about the blast zone?

[carl eto]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:

What about the range of a radio wave?

[carl eto]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syVP6zDZN7I

his basic argument is the reflected light does not allow the stars to appear but the sky would than be gray.

[thor stoneman]

can't defend you position and opinions?

[JanPB]

You are posting idiocies.

--
Jan

[carl eto]

Example.

[Paul Alsing]

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:41:16 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> The Apollo 11 lunar mission did not land on the moon since NASA uses a gravitational sling shot trajectory but the sling shot method is based on the earth and moon gravitational forces affect on the mass of the CSML but the earth and moon gravitational forces on the CSML while propagating to the moon is negligible since the astronauts within the CSML are weightless during the voyage to the moon. Also, the moon is said to have an surface ambient temperture of 210o F, the siliver emulation that is used on the photographic film would not function at the lunar surface temperature of 210o F. Also, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions. The large distance from the Sun to the moon results in parallel shadows of all lunar objects yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs depict large variations of the shadows angles. On a near level surface, the lander an a rock are separated by the distance of approximately 50 meters and are forming shadows that produce an angle of 45 degrees. Plus, the photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander do not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone. Using an analogy, a Lear jet engine is rated with a 3,500 lb thrust. The 3,000 lb lander rocket thrust that produces a 2,000o F flame would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photograph (fig 37) shows no evidence of a blast zone just below the lander exhaust nozzle. Finally, a dispersing radio signal cannot produce a detectable intensity after propagating the distance to the moon. Example, a 1 W cell phone has a maximum range of approximately 8 km, a pirate FM 18 W radio station has a maximum range of approximately 20 km, a 50 kW AM radio station has a night maximum range of approximately 3,000 km and a 2,000 W short wave radio has a range of 6,300 km; consequently, a 2,200 W s-band radio signal that originates from the lander would have an extrapolated maximum range of 21,500 km yet the distance to the moon is 380,000 km.

Some people just don't have the brains given to an orange...

[Sylvia Else]

On 14-Dec-21 9:41 am, thor stoneman wrote:
> he Apollo 11 lunar mission did not land on the moon since NASA uses a
> gravitational sling shot trajectory but the sling shot method is
> based on the earth and moon gravitational forces affect on the mass
> of the CSML but the earth and moon gravitational forces on the CSML
> while propagating to the moon is negligible since the astronauts
> within the CSML are weightless during the voyage to the moon.

This statement is bizarre. The astronauts are in free-fall, not
weightless, but the poster seems oblivious as to the difference, and
seeks to derive a baseless conclusion thereby.

Sylvia.

[JanPB]

Everything you posted on the subject. How can an adult seriously believe this crap
nonsense for even 1/10th of a second.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 7:41:16 PM UTC-3, thor stoneman wrote:
> The Apollo 11 lunar mission did not land on the moon since NASA uses a gravitational sling shot trajectory but the sling shot method is based on the earth and moon gravitational forces affect on the mass of the CSML but the earth and moon gravitational forces on the CSML while propagating to the moon is negligible since the astronauts within the CSML are weightless during the voyage to the moon. Also, the moon is said to have an surface ambient temperture of 210o F, the siliver emulation that is used on the photographic film would not function at the lunar surface temperature of 210o F. Also, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions. The large distance from the Sun to the moon results in parallel shadows of all lunar objects yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs depict large variations of the shadows angles. On a near level surface, the lander an a rock are separated by the distance of approximately 50 meters and are forming shadows that produce an angle of 45 degrees. Plus, the photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander do not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone. Using an analogy, a Lear jet engine is rated with a 3,500 lb thrust. The 3,000 lb lander rocket thrust that produces a 2,000o F flame would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photograph (fig 37) shows no evidence of a blast zone just below the lander exhaust nozzle. Finally, a dispersing radio signal cannot produce a detectable intensity after propagating the distance to the moon. Example, a 1 W cell phone has a maximum range of approximately 8 km, a pirate FM 18 W radio station has a maximum range of approximately 20 km, a 50 kW AM radio station has a night maximum range of approximately 3,000 km and a 2,000 W short wave radio has a range of 6,300 km; consequently, a 2,200 W s-band radio signal that originates from the lander would have an extrapolated maximum range of 21,500 km yet the distance to the moon is 380,000 km.
>
>

> Apollo Ray Tracing: Second Light Source Confirmed | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

Did you ever, in person, witnessed a rocket engine working in vacuum, where there is no air?

The only heat that emanates is radiating heat (call it light, by the way). No air molecules disturbed, no convection heat.
Can this be a reason for a different type of blasting zone there, in the Moon?

Voyager I, weighting 773 kilograms and powered by a 300 Watts plutonium pile, used a 12 feet antenna to communicate with Earth
from Jupiter (600 million Km shortest distance) by using 2DPSK modulation at a bitrate of about 130 Kbps at the S-Band. The bitrate
lowered with almost the inverse square of the distance Earth-Voyager.

Do the math.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 13.12.2021 23:41, skrev thor stoneman:
> Also, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions. The large distance from the Sun to the moon results in parallel shadows of all lunar objects yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs depict large variations of the shadows angles. On a near level surface, the lander an a rock are separated by the distance of approximately 50 meters and are forming shadows that produce an angle of 45 degrees.
>

> Apollo Ray Tracing: Second Light Source Confirmed

How many light sources are there in this photograph?

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/11/27/21/48/forest-1863903__340.jpg

Unless you are a complete idiot you should be
able to see why the parallel shadows do not
appear to be parallel in this _photograph_.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Odd Bodkin]

Because “carl eto” is deeply psychotic, there are all sorts of odd things
he will hold to be true.

[Oval Curd]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>> Example.
>>
>> Everything you posted on the subject. How can an adult seriously
>> believe this crap nonsense for even 1/10th of a second. -- Jan
>
> Because “carl eto” is deeply psychotic, there are all sorts of odd
> things he will hold to be true.

you must be meaning the capitalist idiot JanPB here, a totally imbecilic
moron. In nasa, manned moon landing, the nazis, concentration camps in
his country before the entrance of the nazis, the paperclip nazis faking
the capitalist thing, etc.

you must be a nazi too, supporting the imbecile.

[Oval Curd]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Voyager I, weighting 773 kilograms and powered by a 300 Watts plutonium
> pile, used a 12 feet antenna to communicate with Earth from Jupiter (600
> million Km shortest distance) by using 2DPSK modulation at a bitrate of
> about 130 Kbps at the S-Band. The bitrate lowered with almost the
> inverse square of the distance Earth-Voyager.

this is what they told you, stupid fuck. In 1969 there was no any
plutonium pile, to power the TV transmission. You can even see the frogs
jumping on the ground, you disgusting lying bitch.

NASA's LAUGHABLE APOLLO LUNA LANDER
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xfWVEkRsFDD1/

APPOLLO 11 THE REAL MOON LANDING
https://seed125.bitchute.com/x4t2DPNQVTsV/S120GRdJlfKH.mp4

[Oval Curd]

standing on earth is still freefall, bitch. But when no net-force is
detected, then you are also weightless. Weightless, not massless.

[Oval Curd]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> Apollo Ray Tracing: Second Light Source Confirmed
>
> How many light sources are there in this photograph?
> https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/11/27/21/48/forest-1863903__340.jpg
> Unless you are a complete idiot you should be able to see why the
> parallel shadows do not appear to be parallel in this _photograph_.

those directions are still parallel, you fuck. On photographs that shit
can easily appear fake, so that's a weak argument. However on the moon,
those directions clearly suggest a locally displaced light source.

[carl eto]

What is the downward free fall velocity? (zero). Also, the liquid oxygen replaces the air otherwise there would be no thrust. Also, regarding the shadows

https://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm


What about film operating at 229 degrees?

[Oval Curd]

carl eto wrote:

> What is the downward free fall velocity? (zero). Also, the liquid oxygen
> replaces the air otherwise there would be no thrust. Also, regarding the
> shadows

the combustion is internal, the work gets outside. That's not an
argument. There are stupid arguments, intentionally made stupid.

[carl eto]

Rocket thrust is cause by the change of momentum, the last time I checked. Maybe Sylvia or Bodkin would know

[Paul B. Andersen]

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/11/27/21/48/forest-1863903__340.jpg

Quite right.
Since this photograph is taken on the Earth,
the shadows are still parallel even if they don't
appear to be parallel in the photograph.
So the photograph can easily appear fake to you.

But if a photograph is taken on the Moon,
and the parallel shadows from two objects
don't appear to be parallel in the photograph,
then the shadows must be shadows from two
different light sources.
The photograph must be fake because the laws
of perspective don't apply on the Moon.

Right?

BTW, why isn't it two shadows from each
object if there are two light sources?

2. BTW, what does "parallel, you fuck" mean?
Is "you fuck" a negation so that "parallel, you fuck"
means "not parallel"?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[carl eto]

Anyone that consider themselves a scientist can see with this proves the A11 is fictional.

[carl eto]

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 11.01.2022 18:13, skrev Oval Curd:
> > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> >>> Apollo Ray Tracing: Second Light Source Confirmed
> >>
> >> How many light sources are there in this photograph?
> >> https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/11/27/21/48/forest-1863903__340.jpg
> >> Unless you are a complete idiot you should be able to see why the
> >> parallel shadows do not appear to be parallel in this _photograph_.

Are you saying the the aberration of the angles is caused by the lens.

[Paul Alsing]

You never heard of point-projection perspective? Also, the 2 trees near the center are not parallel to start with...

[carl eto]

45 degrees?

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 1:35:51 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> Anyone that consider themselves a scientist can see with this proves the A11 is fictional.

No, it proves that you have an inferiority complex so that a thoroughly idiotic conspiracy
crapola is tickling your brain. It makes you feel "special". How pathetic.

--
Jan

[Sylvia Else]

Does that approach to debate actually work for you?

Must be interesting when you're trying to negotiate a pay rise above
minimum wage.

Sylvia.

[Oval Curd]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> those directions are still parallel, you fuck. On photographs that shit
>> can easily appear fake, so that's a weak argument. However on the moon,
>> those directions clearly suggest a locally displaced light source.
>
> https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/11/27/21/48/forest-1863903__340.jpg
> Quite right. Since this photograph is taken on the Earth,
> the shadows are still parallel even if they don't appear to be parallel
> in the photograph. So the photograph can easily appear fake to you.
> But if a photograph is taken on the Moon,
> and the parallel shadows from two objects don't appear to be parallel in
> the photograph,
> then the shadows must be shadows from two different light sources.
> The photograph must be fake because the laws of perspective don't apply
> on the Moon. Right?

I said "suggest", or indicates. And that's a weak argument. You look like
a cretin, at your age.

[Oval Curd]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> those directions are still parallel, you fuck. On photographs that shit
>> can easily appear fake, so that's a weak argument. However on the moon,
>> those directions clearly suggest a locally displaced light source.
>
> https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/11/27/21/48/forest-1863903__340.jpg
> Quite right. Since this photograph is taken on the Earth,
> the shadows are still parallel even if they don't appear to be parallel
> in the photograph. So the photograph can easily appear fake to you.
> But if a photograph is taken on the Moon, and the parallel shadows from
> two objects don't appear to be parallel in the photograph,
> then the shadows must be shadows from two different light sources.
> The photograph must be fake because the laws of perspective don't apply
> on the Moon. Right?

btw, in your pix the photo is taken from ABOVE. On moon, taken close to
the ground level. This certainly stays for a single local displaced light
source. Use your brain.

[Oval Curd]

Sylvia Else wrote:

>>> Because “carl eto” is deeply psychotic, there are all sorts of odd
>>> things he will hold to be true.
>>
>> you must be meaning the capitalist idiot JanPB here, a totally
>> imbecilic moron. In nasa, manned moon landing, the nazis, concentration
>> camps in his country before the entrance of the nazis, the paperclip
>> nazis faking the capitalist thing, etc.
>>
>> you must be a nazi too, supporting the imbecile.
>
> Does that approach to debate actually work for you?
> Must be interesting when you're trying to negotiate a pay rise above
> minimum wage.

good point. That shall not be a *minimum_wage*, but a *median_wage*. The
liberal_capitalism are fooling people at each corner. You guys are
sleeping time of winter, not seeing what is going on.

[carl eto]

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:25:15 AM UTC-8, Oval Curd wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
There are a lot of people who dispute the Apollo 11 mission.


https://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm

[Odd Bodkin]

ABout as many as belong to the Flat Earth Society.

Tell you what. There’s a *giant* round-earth conspiracy going on. Almost
everyone is involved.

[carl eto]

Alot of people believe that the earth was flat but experience proved them wrong as the photographs regarding the shadows prove the Apollo 11 mission was a hoax. Also, the blast zone. Any one of these facts is enough to invalidate NASA. You only need One. OK three. Shadows, blast zone and sling shot. there are the three. Example, at a crime scene----- Bodkin's fringier prints, blood (seamen) and the photo on the video during a rape. Bodkin would be guilty of rape.

[The Starmaker]

are there any devices on the moon now?



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[Odd Bodkin]

I’m mildly curious. I’m sure you’ve been told that you’re not well
upstairs. If you’re getting treatment, good for you. But if you’re not
getting treatment, could you tell me what the reasons are? Are you homeless
and cannot get the resources you need? Are you indigent and cannot afford
care? Have you decided that you like your life better as you are now? Or do
you think the people who have told you about your illness are just trying
to suppress you or do away with you? Did you try care and not like the
medications or the confinement?

[carl eto]

The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You both can become great philosophers and use philosophy and poetry to prove that the earth is flat and the NASA landed on the Moon.

Moon beams.

[carl eto]

Do you believe in Alien being like the scientologists. They believe in UFO. Or are you a UFO?

[carl eto]

Are you a rapist?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 11:18:01 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> Are you a rapist?

Did you stop?

[The Starmaker]

his mother said "Don't stop!"

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge

the unchallengeable.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 12.01.2022 17:08, skrev Oval Curd:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 11.01.2022 18:13, skrev Oval Curd:
>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How many light sources are there in this photograph?
>>>> https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/11/27/21/48/forest-1863903__340.jpg
>>>> Unless you are a complete idiot you should be able to see why the

>>>> parallel shadows do not appear to be parallel in this _photograph_.

> btw, in your pix the photo is taken from ABOVE. On moon, taken close to
> the ground level. This certainly stays for a single local displaced light
> source. Use your brain.

'nuff said! :-D

I find it almost unbelievable that these
"Appolo 11 never landed on the Moon" nuts for
years and years can use the argument "parallel
shadows should appear parallel on a photo",
and never realize of ridiculous it is even
if they have had it explained zillions of times.

Its frightening to see how brainwashed
the conspiracy theory believers can be.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[carl eto]

> I find it almost unbelievable that these
> "Appolo 11 never landed on the Moon" nuts for
> years and years can use the argument "parallel
> shadows should appear parallel on a photo",
> and never realize of ridiculous it is even
> if they have had it explained zillions of times.

Yes I am one of those peoples. Sorry no one has explained it to me. So please my dear friend----do tell.

[Oval Curd]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> I said "suggest", or indicates. And that's a weak argument.
>> btw, in your pix the photo is taken from ABOVE. On moon, taken close to
>> the ground level. This certainly stays for a single local displaced
>> light source. Use your brain.
>
> 'nuff said! :-D
> I find it almost unbelievable that these "Appolo 11 never landed on the
> Moon" nuts for years and years can use the argument "parallel shadows
> should appear parallel on a photo",
> and never realize of ridiculous it is even if they have had it explained
> zillions of times.

this imbecile is still not understanding the crucial condition of the
perspective taking a photo, ABOVE versus from one side. You idiot. You
java applets are irrelevant.

[carl eto]

look at this photo


https://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm


you see shadow that form an angle of 45 degrees. Please explain that.

[Oval Curd]

carl eto wrote:

>> > 'nuff said! :-D I find it almost unbelievable that these "Appolo 11
>> > never landed on the Moon" nuts for years and years can use the
>> > argument "parallel shadows should appear parallel on a photo",
>> > and never realize of ridiculous it is even if they have had it
>> > explained zillions of times.
>> this imbecile is still not understanding the crucial condition of the
>> perspective taking a photo, ABOVE versus from one side. You idiot. You
>> java applets are irrelevant.
>
> look at this photo https://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm
> you see shadow that form an angle of 45 degrees. Please explain that.

https://www.75centralphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The-Shadows-in-the-Forest.jpg

all parallel. The angle of the perspective is crucial.

[Oval Curd]

carl eto wrote:

>> > 'nuff said! :-D I find it almost unbelievable that these "Appolo 11
>> > never landed on the Moon" nuts for years and years can use the
>> > argument "parallel shadows should appear parallel on a photo",
>> > and never realize of ridiculous it is even if they have had it
>> > explained zillions of times.
>> this imbecile is still not understanding the crucial condition of the
>> perspective taking a photo, ABOVE versus from one side. You idiot. You
>> java applets are irrelevant.
>
> look at this photo

https://www.dreamstime.com/background-lines-shadows-trees-snow-high-quality-photo-background-parallel-shadows-trees-snow-image209002225

[carl eto]

And the angle in the Apollo 11 photos are very not parallel


https://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm


So explain to me why the Apollo 11 photos are not parallel an form an angle of 45 degrees. One more time for the gipper, please.

[Oval Curd]

carl eto wrote:

>> >> this imbecile is still not understanding the crucial condition of
>> >> the perspective taking a photo, ABOVE versus from one side. You

>> >> idiot. Your java applets are irrelevant.

>> > look at this photo
>> https://www.dreamstime.com/background-lines-shadows-trees-snow-high-
quality-photo-background-parallel-shadows-trees-snow-image209002225
> And the angle in the Apollo 11 photos are very not parallel
> https://www.aulis.com/raytracing.htm
> So explain to me why the Apollo 11 photos are not parallel an form an
> angle of 45 degrees. One more time for the gipper, please.

strongly suggests a local light source, can't you read? I believe you may
both derive the location of the light source, and the size of the lens,
from those photos.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 11:18:01 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> > > Are you a rapist?
> >
> > Did you stop?
>
> his mother said "Don't stop!"

don't. ...stop, ..don't ..stop,

moma, YOU'RE SOOO HOT!!!

me love you long time.



you got a hot mom...carl eto.

[The Starmaker]

carl eto wrote:



> Yes I am one of those peoples. Sorry no one has explained it to me. So please my dear friend----do tell.

I can explain..but first do you believe are there any devices on the moon currently right now? for example, cameras, rovers, etc?

Like for example again, do you believe that currently there is a China's Yutu-2 lunar rover rovering around the moon???? it's either yes or no.

[carl eto]

Think, if we did not land on the moon then all the other stuff is also fictional.

[carl eto]

Shadows, blast zone, sling shot, film temperature and lunar reflector.---------5

[Paul Alsing]

Here you go, every one of your claims debunked...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html


... and there is this...

https://www.space.com/apollo-11-moon-landing-hoax-believers.html

[carl eto]

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.====================



Lear jet has a 3,500 thrust.

[carl eto]

The answer is: The Moon itself. Surprise! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.==============================


Explaining the non parallel shadow with lunar dust?

[carl eto]

Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph.




The angle difference is 45 degree which the perspective cannot explain

[carl eto]

The second don't real say anything and the first link does not explain how photographic film can function of the moon at the temperature of 220 degree

[carl eto]

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:10:31 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> The second don't real say anything and the first link does not explain how photographic film can function of the moon at the temperature of 220 degree

if the Apollo 11 is a hoax then the ISS is also fake.

[carl eto]

Non-parallel shadows, blast zone, sling shot, film temperature and lunar reflector.---------5



The funniest is lunar dust argument. Do you have any real perspective on the subject, Watson?

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:21:58 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> Non-parallel shadows, blast zone, sling shot, film temperature and lunar reflector.---------5
>
>
>
> The funniest is lunar dust argument. Do you have any real perspective on the subject, Watson?

Stop wasting your time on this nonsense. "Parallel shadows", what crapola.

--
Jan

[Ufonaut]

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 2:07:38 PM UTC+10, carl eto wrote:
> Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph.
>
>
>
>
> The angle difference is 45 degree which the perspective cannot explain

Of course perspective explains it.

Here's a perspective grid :

https://previews.123rf.com/images/lishchyshyn/lishchyshyn1904/lishchyshyn190402579/122860720-perspective-grid-background-abstract-vector-wireframe-landscape-abstract-mesh-background-.jpg

Pick a nearby square, and imagine a stick (or a rock ;) ) at its top-right corner. With the Sun at a suitable position, that stick's shadow will fall from top-right to bottom-left of that square, so a 45 degree angle - JUST AS FOR THE ROCK IN THE APOLLO PHOTO.

No imagine also viewing an identical stick on a far-away square. The reality is that the shadow will be unchanged (the diagonal of one square) - but look what that means in perspective ! Perspective means that the far away squares appear flattened - and THAT means the shadow will be appear horizontal - JUST AS FOR THE LUNAR LANDER.

Here's an everyday picture showing exactly the same effect :
https://darkroom.ribaj.com/800/1cece2238bff660cd5165c51bef1c725:427c88b304e978f5bf1ef79e43606bb4/a-colonnade-directs-users-from-the-north-corner-south-to-the-entrance-courtyard

Further away shadows appear more horizontal - just an everyday effect of perspective, nothing more.

What does that tell you about the quality of Aulis' "analysis" ? (please note, this is not a rhetorical question - I really would like your answer )

The universe - including the world around us, and yes, even including human endeavours - contains things we would not expect. When we come across such things, we can say
EITHER : That's unusual, so I must learn more
OR: That's unusual, so it must be fake, nothing to learn here

How sad that people miss out on the wonder and excitement because they choose the second option.

[carl eto]

I think you are right about that. Very good.

but still the radio waves dispersion, blast zone, sling shot, film temperature and lunar reflector.---------

[carl eto]

Ufonaut, do you believe that they landed on the moon.

[The Starmaker]

Think???? you're asking too much from me...

That Chink rover on the moon now can easily find a piece of paper on the moon with words written on it that read:

"This is the family of astronaut Charlie Duke from planet Earth who landed on the moon on April 20, 1972."

and the chink rover can take a picture of this:

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/02/familymoonphoto2.jpg
https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/02/familymoonphoto1.jpg

and send it back to chink world.


and there are laying around 12 cameras on the moon...but they took the film out first before they left because CVS photo processing was closed.

[carl eto]

The Apollo 11 photographs were taken in a movie studio since an Apollo 11 lunar photograph shows the camera that is completely exposed to the Sun's intensity which would result in the camera surface temperature of over 220o F after being exposed to the lunar Sun light for 1.5 hours while on the surface of the moon. The sun energy that would accumulate on the surface of the camera would conduct through the camera's metal structure producing an interior camera temperature of over 300o F yet the maximum operating temperature of a Hasselblad 500EL cameras is 120o F since the Hasselblad is operated by a motor drive that uses lithium batteries that internal structure and batteries are extremely sensitive to temperature, and, the Hasselblad's shutter is a mechanical device that is composed of thin metal sheets that would malfunction at the extremely high temperature ostensibly experienced on the surface of the moon. Furthermore, the film used by the Hasselblad is composed of a thin plastic film which would begin to warp at 150o F, and the silver nitrate emulation that is used on the photographic film would not function at the lunar surface temperature of 220o F.

[carl eto]

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked

https://www.history.com/news/moon-landing-fake-conspiracy-theories

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/17/fact-check-moon-landing-conspiracy-theory-misrepresents-footprint/8380230002/

Nothing about blast zone, sling shot, film temperature and lunar reflector.

[carl eto]

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/debunking-the-moon-landing-hoax-theories/507-7516ffab-a33c-4b64-9eea-fa9df4b58780

As for the lack of a crater, Launius said the astronauts didn't need to use a large blast to slow themselves down, because the moon's gravity is roughly one-sixth that of Earth's. "It was more of a gentle landing," he said.

________________________________________________________________


What about the 3,000 lb thrust of the lander?

[carl eto]

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-to-argue-with-a-moon-landing-denier/


The Lunar Module used a single rocket engine to slow its descent to around one metre per second (walking speed), before gently touching down on the Moon’s surface.


3,000 lb thrust.


===============================



https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/24/18692080/moon-landing-50th-anniversary-steph-curry-conspiracy-theory-hoax



anywhere from 6 to 20 percent of Americans do not believe it actually happened, depending on your source, with an additional (and far more bewildering) 5 percent who said in a 1999 Gallup poll that they were “undecided.”

[JanPB]

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 10:43:39 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> The Apollo 11 photographs were taken in a movie studio

No, they weretaken on the Moon.

> since an Apollo 11 lunar photograph shows the camera that is completely exposed to the Sun's intensity which would result in the camera surface temperature of over 220o F

Nonsense. And the rest of your post is nonsense as well.
I suggest you find a different hobby.

--
Jan