|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:57:35 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. Just how quickly do you think the moon travels across the sky? A lot faster than you think... since the Earth rotates through 4 degrees per minute, and the moon is only about 1/2 degree across, it takes the moon about 2 minutes to move its own diameter in the sky... so someone pointing an antenna at it would have to re-adjust that antenna quite often. Man went to the moon, that has been accepted as fact across the whole world for more than 50 years now. I saw it live on TV, along with everyone else. Many have tried to disprove this, and all have failed, every question has been answered. If you say otherwise, that would be an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof would be on *you*. The video you offer is laughable.. Got any 'real' proof? I didn't think so... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
palsing wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:57:35 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote: Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. Just how quickly do you think the moon travels across the sky? A lot faster than you think... since the Earth rotates through 4 degrees per minute, and the moon is only about 1/2 degree across, it takes the moon about 2 minutes to move its own diameter in the sky... so someone pointing an antenna at it would have to re-adjust that antenna quite often. Man went to the moon, that has been accepted as fact across the whole world for more than 50 years now. I saw it live on TV, along with everyone else. Many have tried to disprove this, and all have failed, every question has been answered. If you say otherwise, that would be an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof would be on *you*. The video you offer is laughable. Got any 'real' proof? I didn't think so... I saw it "live" on TV too,......but I was a child who didn't know any better. ALTHOUGH,....even back then I wondered why the ASTRO-NOTS looked like see through ghosts, when the regular TV shows always showed solid people. ALSO,......while I thought it was kind of cool that the ships manuvering in space always moved in jerky motions. e.g. they would be sitting still,....suddenly just move in some direction, and stop dead again. ....Even as a kid I realized that the mass and momentum of objects on earth would cause them to start moving slowly and build in speed. Then have to slow down before they stopped. As you would expect in real life. Even with massive engines the Saturn boosters sat there for a few seconds when they were lit, and then the ship started moving slowly and then gained speed. Of course many years later we have robotics that are controlled by geared microcontrolled DC stepper motors that do operate with the same "jerky" motions" I saw with Apollo spacraft maneuvers in space. .....But what were the stepper motors back then connected to, out in space ??? I've just offered you the proof of the fakery,.....now it's up to you to explain the stepper motor spacecraft. And what idiot would use a telephoto severely focused antenna to pick up radio signals ? Have you ever seen a radio dish antenna that professional astonomers use ? They are massive, and can pick up signals from a wide arc. Unless they have to be severely focused to pick up a very specific signal from a satellite near earth....perhaps 200 miles away. The NASA "science" is falling apart. Just like the global warming science. And just like the Democratic party science. Just like J.R being shot,.....it turns out it was all dream, that was performed by actors, from scripts, on theater stages. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:03:48 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:57:35 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote: Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. Just how quickly do you think the moon travels across the sky? A lot faster than you think... since the Earth rotates through 4 degrees per minute, and the moon is only about 1/2 degree across, it takes the moon about 2 minutes to move its own diameter in the sky... so someone pointing an antenna at it would have to re-adjust that antenna quite often. Man went to the moon, that has been accepted as fact across the whole world for more than 50 years now. I saw it live on TV, along with everyone else. Many have tried to disprove this, and all have failed, every question has been answered. If you say otherwise, that would be an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof would be on *you*. The video you offer is laughable. Got any 'real' proof? I didn't think so... LOL. Poor old delusional Bast. All her references come from old sci-fi TV shows and cartoons. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:57:34 -0500, "Bast"
wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:47:16 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:03:29 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Perhaps he can still learn something, and let his hemorrhoids heal up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUZr0Wr0v-s If you still miss the point hags,.....NASA faked Apollo That is a lie. And I'm still waiting for your response to the nagging radio signals to and from the moon which have become your personal inconvient truth. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-laser-funding snip Another fail for you Bast. Oh **** facepalm,....that even reads like a fairytale, or a harry potter novel. Maybe Lord Voldemort helped them aim the antenna ?? I don't see you refuting anything, Bastie ..... Maybe if you didn't live in a fantasy land? You write a few lines of crap that you are virtually claining is verified by SNOPES ? Nope. Stop lying Bast. You do realize that even if I swallow your version of events, you just made my argument for me, don't you ? I'll give you a little hint, Bastie: I know all about satellites. But go on.... If you have a moving satellite (closer) or the moon (farther away) Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. This is all simple enough to sort out. Your claim is about a moving satellite in space. The burden of proof is therefore on you to name, specifically, the satellite(s) we have in orbit in 1969 which had the capabilities you claim in your argument? And be specific, Bast. All satellites are named and or numbered and tracked. I anxiously await your answer to my question. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:03:48 -0800 (PST), palsing wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:57:35 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote: Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. Just how quickly do you think the moon travels across the sky? A lot faster than you think... since the Earth rotates through 4 degrees per minute, and the moon is only about 1/2 degree across, it takes the moon about 2 minutes to move its own diameter in the sky... so someone pointing an antenna at it would have to re-adjust that antenna quite often. Man went to the moon, that has been accepted as fact across the whole world for more than 50 years now. I saw it live on TV, along with everyone else. Many have tried to disprove this, and all have failed, every question has been answered. If you say otherwise, that would be an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof would be on *you*. The video you offer is laughable. Got any 'real' proof? I didn't think so... LOL. Poor old delusional Bast. All her references come from old sci-fi TV shows and cartoons. I am trying to dumb things down so even you and Hagar can try understand. Obviously, it's not dumbed down enough for you yet. However, it is interseting how you can't comprehend, but still know what to delete from my posts. .....It's almost like you are trolling. Which is why I won't waste much time responding to you. But that's okay, as all my posts are still there for others to read,...and do thier own research. So I win. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:57:34 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:47:16 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:03:29 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Perhaps he can still learn something, and let his hemorrhoids heal up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUZr0Wr0v-s If you still miss the point hags,.....NASA faked Apollo That is a lie. And I'm still waiting for your response to the nagging radio signals to and from the moon which have become your personal inconvient truth. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-laser-funding snip Another fail for you Bast. Oh **** facepalm,....that even reads like a fairytale, or a harry potter novel. Maybe Lord Voldemort helped them aim the antenna ?? I don't see you refuting anything, Bastie ..... Maybe if you didn't live in a fantasy land? You write a few lines of crap that you are virtually claining is verified by SNOPES ? Nope. Stop lying Bast. You do realize that even if I swallow your version of events, you just made my argument for me, don't you ? I'll give you a little hint, Bastie: I know all about satellites. But go on.... If you have a moving satellite (closer) or the moon (farther away) Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. This is all simple enough to sort out. Your claim is about a moving satellite in space. The burden of proof is therefore on you to name, specifically, the satellite(s) we have in orbit in 1969 which had the capabilities you claim in your argument? And be specific, Bast. All satellites are named and or numbered and tracked. I anxiously await your answer to my question. Are you really that dumb that you don't think the military has their own satellites ? And no one outside of the military knows where they are , or can access them. Hey,...maybe that was what was in Hitlery's emails. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:48:05 -0500, "Bast"
wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:03:48 -0800 (PST), palsing wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:57:35 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote: Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. Just how quickly do you think the moon travels across the sky? A lot faster than you think... since the Earth rotates through 4 degrees per minute, and the moon is only about 1/2 degree across, it takes the moon about 2 minutes to move its own diameter in the sky... so someone pointing an antenna at it would have to re-adjust that antenna quite often. Man went to the moon, that has been accepted as fact across the whole world for more than 50 years now. I saw it live on TV, along with everyone else. Many have tried to disprove this, and all have failed, every question has been answered. If you say otherwise, that would be an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof would be on *you*. The video you offer is laughable. Got any 'real' proof? I didn't think so... LOL. Poor old delusional Bast. All her references come from old sci-fi TV shows and cartoons. I am trying to dumb things down so even you and Hagar can try understand. No one believes you, Bastie, your broken english aside. You're a conspiracy whacko on the Internet and Hagar and I are both engineers. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:52:51 -0500, "Bast"
wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:57:34 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:47:16 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:03:29 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Perhaps he can still learn something, and let his hemorrhoids heal up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUZr0Wr0v-s If you still miss the point hags,.....NASA faked Apollo That is a lie. And I'm still waiting for your response to the nagging radio signals to and from the moon which have become your personal inconvient truth. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-laser-funding snip Another fail for you Bast. Oh **** facepalm,....that even reads like a fairytale, or a harry potter novel. Maybe Lord Voldemort helped them aim the antenna ?? I don't see you refuting anything, Bastie ..... Maybe if you didn't live in a fantasy land? You write a few lines of crap that you are virtually claining is verified by SNOPES ? Nope. Stop lying Bast. You do realize that even if I swallow your version of events, you just made my argument for me, don't you ? I'll give you a little hint, Bastie: I know all about satellites. But go on.... If you have a moving satellite (closer) or the moon (farther away) Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. This is all simple enough to sort out. Your claim is about a moving satellite in space. The burden of proof is therefore on you to name, specifically, the satellite(s) we have in orbit in 1969 which had the capabilities you claim in your argument? And be specific, Bast. All satellites are named and or numbered and tracked. I anxiously await your answer to my question. Are you really that dumb that you don't think the military has their own satellites ? Good question Bastie! Let's try this again since the info on the comsat's I'm asking about in 1969 is NO LONGER CLASSIFIED: The burden of proof is therefore on you to name, specifically, the satellite(s) we have in orbit in 1969 which had the capabilities you claim in your argument? And be specific, Bast. All satellites are named and or numbered and tracked. And no one outside of the military knows where they are , Bastie, any good collegiate Astronomy class can track the satellites in space. There is a University in the UK who takes great pride in tracking all the satellites in space. or can access them. Goal post move. I still nxiously await your answer to my question. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:48:05 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:03:48 -0800 (PST), palsing wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:57:35 PM UTC-8, Bast wrote: Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. Just how quickly do you think the moon travels across the sky? A lot faster than you think... since the Earth rotates through 4 degrees per minute, and the moon is only about 1/2 degree across, it takes the moon about 2 minutes to move its own diameter in the sky... so someone pointing an antenna at it would have to re-adjust that antenna quite often. Man went to the moon, that has been accepted as fact across the whole world for more than 50 years now. I saw it live on TV, along with everyone else. Many have tried to disprove this, and all have failed, every question has been answered. If you say otherwise, that would be an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof would be on *you*. The video you offer is laughable. Got any 'real' proof? I didn't think so... LOL. Poor old delusional Bast. All her references come from old sci-fi TV shows and cartoons. I am trying to dumb things down so even you and Hagar can try understand. No one believes you, Bastie, your broken english aside. You're a conspiracy whacko on the Internet and Hagar and I are both engineers. Good for you. So please get back to keeping the cans clean on your trash pickup route, and leave the science to those of us who can comprehend it |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:52:51 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:57:34 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:47:16 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:03:29 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Perhaps he can still learn something, and let his hemorrhoids heal up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUZr0Wr0v-s If you still miss the point hags,.....NASA faked Apollo That is a lie. And I'm still waiting for your response to the nagging radio signals to and from the moon which have become your personal inconvient truth. https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-laser-funding snip Another fail for you Bast. Oh **** facepalm,....that even reads like a fairytale, or a harry potter novel. Maybe Lord Voldemort helped them aim the antenna ?? I don't see you refuting anything, Bastie ..... Maybe if you didn't live in a fantasy land? You write a few lines of crap that you are virtually claining is verified by SNOPES ? Nope. Stop lying Bast. You do realize that even if I swallow your version of events, you just made my argument for me, don't you ? I'll give you a little hint, Bastie: I know all about satellites. But go on.... If you have a moving satellite (closer) or the moon (farther away) Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point on earth. This is all simple enough to sort out. Your claim is about a moving satellite in space. The burden of proof is therefore on you to name, specifically, the satellite(s) we have in orbit in 1969 which had the capabilities you claim in your argument? And be specific, Bast. All satellites are named and or numbered and tracked. I anxiously await your answer to my question. Are you really that dumb that you don't think the military has their own satellites ? Good question Bastie! Let's try this again since the info on the comsat's I'm asking about in 1969 is NO LONGER CLASSIFIED: The burden of proof is therefore on you to name, specifically, the satellite(s) we have in orbit in 1969 which had the capabilities you claim in your argument? And be specific, Bast. All satellites are named and or numbered and tracked. And no one outside of the military knows where they are , Bastie, any good collegiate Astronomy class can track the satellites in space. There is a University in the UK who takes great pride in tracking all the satellites in space. Riiggghhhht. And I'm sure they even track all the steath aircraft in the world, and sell that information to those bad ol' Ruskies. And BTW,.....did they have this wonderful database ALREADY ESTABLISHED BACK IN THE 1960'S ? Geez,.....no wonder the Iraqis were able to hide all those W.M.D from us,....The damn British /POL Geeks . sold us out. You really are a piece of work aren't you |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FR Bending of Light -- Proof | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 25th 10 08:14 PM |
FR Bending of Light | philippeb8 | Astronomy Misc | 221 | December 8th 09 06:31 PM |
A question about the bending of light. | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | May 1st 06 11:46 PM |
A question about the bending of light. | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | May 1st 06 04:53 PM |
A question about the bending of light. | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 1st 06 04:53 PM |