|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
We *did* NOT land on THE moon
So, not only, the space-travel is fake...
but also the "landing on THE moon" ON MOON-day-night 21-7-69 was fake! Yeah ok. So the maps of the moon are faked because we couldn't really send a surveyor craft there and also all of the hi-res images of all of the other planets, including those old voyager images, our first close-up views of the outer planets...all faked...none of our satellite photos can exist, weather maps, no communication satellites, etc. That little "Live via satellite" logo on Fox news (probably where you get your info, guessing...) it's all not true...Just a grand deception waiting for someone as smart as you to figure it all out...Well done! Your head doesn't work too good does it? Of course you're ideas are excusable if you are less than 10 years old....Otherwise you need help. If you're interested in why your post is so stupid, do some learning and find out why the shuttle can indeed orbit the Earth at 28,000kmph. I could tell you but I suspect you wouldn't believe me. Who will you believe? A learned Fox reporter maybe?..... -- Regards, Eddie Trimarchi ~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.astroshed.com http://www.fitsplug.com "markpeeters666" wrote in message om... For space-travel around the earth, a velocity of 28.000kmph is needed, and that velocity is NOT yet reached, for an earthly object of 1 kilogram (or more), in a vacuumtube... So, not only, the space-travel is fake... but also the "landing on THE moon" ON MOON-day-night 21-7-69 was fake! That is why there is a posting claiming that: "We *did* land ON MOON" ... and... NOT "ON the MOON" ... for more information: http://www.geocities.com/markpeeters96/r0.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
We *did* NOT land on THE moon
This is another sample of someone who understands nothing, flunked sandbox and
most likly thinks the Earth is Flat. They don't care that we've been putting men into space since the late 50's. They don't care to look at nor read the pure 100% facts of the output of the Saturn V rocket engines, or how the Space Shuttle engines work and the power they put out. Nor do they look at or read about the HOW we launch, or why the flights go towards the east. These same people most likly do not belive that mankind has been able to not only split the atom, but to fuse it too. If you where to give these people a IQ test, it would come out in the low to lower 50 - area. -- "In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening towards an east that would not know another dawn. But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go again." Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars SIAR www.starlords.org Bishop's Car Fund http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/ Freelance Writers Shop http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord "markpeeters666" wrote in message om... For space-travel around the earth, a velocity of 28.000kmph is needed, and that velocity is NOT yet reached, for an earthly object of 1 kilogram (or more), in a vacuumtube... So, not only, the space-travel is fake... but also the "landing on THE moon" ON MOON-day-night 21-7-69 was fake! That is why there is a posting claiming that: "We *did* land ON MOON" ... and... NOT "ON the MOON" ... for more information: http://www.geocities.com/markpeeters96/r0.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
We *did* NOT land on THE moon
"markpeeters666" wrote in message om... For space-travel around the earth, a velocity of 28.000kmph is needed, Bull and that velocity is NOT yet reached, for an earthly object of 1 kilogram (or more), in a vacuumtube... Probably also bull, but more importantly completely irrelevant even if true. Please try using ACTUAL facts instead of made-up facts. Here's a news flash: even Min doesn't contest that we landed stuff on the moon - just that there were people in them. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
We *did* NOT land on THE moon
In message ,
markpeeters666 writes For space-travel around the earth, a velocity of 28.000kmph is needed, and that velocity is NOT yet reached, for an earthly object of 1 kilogram (or more), in a vacuumtube... Is this what US kids are learning in school, or does this piece of gobbledegook merely indicate a dead short between the ears? -- "Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with relativity" Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome. Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
We *did* NOT land on THE moon
markpeeters666 wrote:
the "landing on THE moon" as opposed to A moon? ON MOON-day-night 21-7-69 was fake! ^^ Mmmm, as were the "landings on THE moon" ON MOON-day-night 19-7-69, 22-7-69, and 23-7-69. LOL! Kent |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
We *did* NOT land on THE moon
Thanks Geoff I can't believe my response needed explaining...Too many
neurons living in isolation I think... -- Regards, Eddie Trimarchi ~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.astroshed.com http://www.fitsplug.com "Geoff Cashman" wrote in message ... In article , eyes only wrote: "Eddie Trimarchi" wrote in message ... You haven't explained anything. Actually, he has. But for you, he hasn't...because you stuck your fingers in your eyes and stamped around in circles while spewing a bunch of gibberish. The original poster claimed that nothing could achieve the speed required to orbit planet Earth. Yet, we have all kinds of satellites orbiting Earth. -Geoff |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
We *did* NOT land on THE moon
He hasn't explained anything
BFD, who needs to? All you have to do is use your own eyes to go out and watch for some of those objects we have in orbit now, almost nightly I can see at lest 3 or 4 pass overhead. What about the Hybble Space Telescope? How about the ISS? How about all the Com sats we have in orbit? Why try to explain something to someone who doesn't have more than one brain cell working in their head? ( and their head is shoved up their ass anyway ). -- "In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening towards an east that would not know another dawn. But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go again." Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars SIAR www.starlords.org Bishop's Car Fund http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/ Freelance Writers Shop http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord "eyes only" wrote in message ... He hasn't explained anything. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
We *did* NOT land on THE moon
Also, to believe this version, you have to believe that there are no
satellites at all, and that the concorde does not travel at supersonic speeds from NY to Paris (hence there must be a conspiracy to cover up the width of the atlantic). The conspiracy does NOT cover the width of the atlantic, BUT the time of a flight, by using TWO different TIME-zones in NY! Why are there TWO TIME-zones in NY? (The TIME-zone-difference between London and Paris is also handy to create some other confusion....) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
We *did* NOT land on THE moon
"markpeeters666" wrote in message om... Also, to believe this version, you have to believe that there are no satellites at all, and that the concorde does not travel at supersonic speeds from NY to Paris (hence there must be a conspiracy to cover up the width of the atlantic). The conspiracy does NOT cover the width of the atlantic, BUT the time of a flight, by using TWO different TIME-zones in NY! So everyone that has ever done it in that direction is in on the con? They are fed drugs to make the time go quicker? People who have been on it know how long it really takes. As its about to go out of service I fancied having a go. Something like 10x more (ie $10,000) is this a conspiracy too? Elsewhere in this conspiracy there was the "why don't we go to the moon now, and why can't you buy tickets" stuff. This really shows it. Despite having the hard cash to do it, and a faith in this beast that comes from my childhood enthusiasm, and nostalgia that this historic aircraft its soon going out of business. - I am not going to spend that much |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA begins moon return effort | Steve Dufour | Policy | 24 | August 13th 04 10:39 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
Back to the Moon on what? Saturn V, Magnum, Ares launcher, Shuttle Z | TKalbfus | Policy | 179 | January 16th 04 02:11 AM |
SMART-1 leaves Earth on a long journey to the Moon (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 5 | October 1st 03 09:07 PM |