A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

We *did* NOT land on THE moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 28th 03, 11:23 AM
Eddie Trimarchi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 04:00 PM
Starlord
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 04:23 PM
Dennis Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 06:43 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 09:04 PM
Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 28th 03, 10:57 PM
Eddie Trimarchi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 29th 03, 05:44 AM
Starlord
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #8  
Old July 29th 03, 05:56 AM
eyes only
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default We *did* NOT land on THE moon

(markpeeters666) wrote in message . com...
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


Hi Mark,

I notice you have an interest in Mr. Newton
This is from your page.


NEWTON said : "F=m.a"
The higher the mass , the more Force you need to accelerate, the lower
the maximum speed-gain!


F=ma is widely known as Newton's second law of motion.
Since the acceleration of a body is proportion to the applied force on
that body divided by it's mass then "the higher [larger] the mass" the
lower the acceleration achieved by a given force applied to that mass.
This 'law' has no mention of "maximum speed-gain!".

Newton's first law of motion which may be stated as: "Every body
continues in its state of rest or of uniform speed in a straight line
unless it is compelled to change that state by forces acting on it".
This of course _does_ mention 'speed'.

Based on this explaination can you see how each is a law unto itself
and that the link between Newton 1 and "maximum speed gain!" is at
best tenuous?




So the velocity of the Space Shuttles and the Moon-rockets must be
fake, since the velocity of Boeing and bullets is verifiable!


Surely the velocity of bullets (which gun?), and Boeing's (which
model? what altitude etc etc) has little to do with Space Shuttles and
Rockets as related to Newton? I realise you are attributing velocity
as in 'escape velocity' to your argument and I respect that.

The velocity of bullets varies continuously from [assuming] firing to
impact. A bullet fired on an upwards trajectory into the air desribes
an arc as it continues it's motion. Gravity attracts it towards the
centre of the earth and friction with the air decelerates it. Unlike a
rocket, a bullet is not self propelled. In any event the velocity of a
bullet after firing rapidly increases till it leaves the barrel. A
rocket has no barrel and continues to accelerate because of thrust.
This leads us to Newton 3.

Newton's third law of motion: "Whenever one object exerts a force on a
second object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force on
the first". Often simply stated as "to every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction". The thrust of a rocket is a force, and the
reaction of the rocket is to accelerate.


For a certain height above the earth, a certain mass has a certain
escape velocity. http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0817661.html
Satellites are a perfect example of this. They stay in orbit because
they are travelling at a velocity which is not high enough to allow
them to break orbit. Any faster and they would move away from the
earth, and any slower they would come towards the earth. They orbit
the earth as does the moon, without thrust.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv3.html


Orbits around bodies play a vital role in space exploration. To fly to
Mars you don't point the rocket at Mars and fly a straight line
(relatively) from Earth to Mars. Once the craft is in space however,
it continues as a body in motion without need for thrust.
http://www.marsacademy.com/traj/traj7.htm

---
for AC.
Why Apollo was faked may be answered as it was faked because it was
not possible. However your form of 'Y was not possible because of X'
therefore it was faked depends highly on the validity of your 'X'. And
I do not feel that in this case your 'X' marks the spot however I
support your Y.
  #9  
Old July 31st 03, 09:58 AM
markpeeters666
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 31st 03, 10:25 PM
W K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:11 AM
SMART-1 leaves Earth on a long journey to the Moon (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 5 October 1st 03 09:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.