|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:37:19 -0500, "Bast"
wrote: 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. Caught you in your lie, Bastie. NO NAVY! Beat Army! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:48:58 -0500, "Bast"
wrote: 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. I'm not seeing any answer to my question, Bastie. 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 ? The info on the satellites in orbit in 1969 is readily available on the web. I'm hard pressed to see why you keep stalling and don't produce an answer to my question. I'm beginning to think you're nothing but a liar and a fraud. smirk Geez,.....no wonder the Iraqis were able to hide all those W.M.D from us,....The damn British /POL Geeks . sold us out. WMD's are stealthy? Are you this desperate to wiggle out of answering a simple question? Again? You really are a piece of work aren't you Time for you to flounce off again? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:37:19 -0500, "Bast" wrote: 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. Caught you in your lie, Bastie. NO NAVY! Beat Army! In your mind, I'm sure you "caught" me at least a dozen times. But if you are that shallow that you can delude yourself into "winning" a debate you lost decades ago, against a poor immigrant Kekistani meme farmer. Then knock yourself out. Who knows ?, maybe NASA will see what a great job you are doing to sell their lies, and put you in charge of urinal pucks in the new Werner von Braun executive bathroom .....You ARE special, and don't let those kids who drive to school in the long busses, tell you any different |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:48:58 -0500, "Bast" wrote: 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. I'm not seeing any answer to my question, Bastie. 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 ? The info on the satellites in orbit in 1969 is readily available on the web. I'm hard pressed to see why you keep stalling and don't produce an answer to my question. I'm beginning to think you're nothing but a liar and a fraud. smirk Geez,.....no wonder the Iraqis were able to hide all those W.M.D from us,....The damn British /POL Geeks . sold us out. WMD's are stealthy? Are you this desperate to wiggle out of answering a simple question? Again? You really are a piece of work aren't you Time for you to flounce off again? If you can come up with secret UK Universities that know everything that happens in the cosmos. .....I can "flounce" anytime I want. Though , unlike you, at least I won't do it in public. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:05:54 -0500, "Bast"
wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:37:19 -0500, "Bast" wrote: 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. Caught you in your lie, Bastie. NO NAVY! Beat Army! In your mind, I'm sure you "caught" me at least a dozen times. I'm referring to your lie that you are an engineer. You've never been right in this thread and dozens of others. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:09:51 -0500, "Bast"
wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:48:58 -0500, "Bast" wrote: 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. I'm not seeing any answer to my question, Bastie. 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 ? The info on the satellites in orbit in 1969 is readily available on the web. I'm hard pressed to see why you keep stalling and don't produce an answer to my question. I'm beginning to think you're nothing but a liar and a fraud. smirk Geez,.....no wonder the Iraqis were able to hide all those W.M.D from us,....The damn British /POL Geeks . sold us out. WMD's are stealthy? Are you this desperate to wiggle out of answering a simple question? Again? You really are a piece of work aren't you Time for you to flounce off again? If you can come up with secret UK Universities that know everything that happens in the cosmos. I never said they were "secret" UK universities. See how you so easily lie, Bast. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:05:54 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:37:19 -0500, "Bast" wrote: 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. Caught you in your lie, Bastie. NO NAVY! Beat Army! In your mind, I'm sure you "caught" me at least a dozen times. I'm referring to your lie that you are an engineer. My degrees say you are full of ****. And if you actually were a working professional engineer, you wouldn't even be arguing that point Apollo was a lie. And you are either a NASA shill or and idiot. Either way, your opinion is worthless. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:09:51 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:48:58 -0500, "Bast" wrote: 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. I'm not seeing any answer to my question, Bastie. 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 ? The info on the satellites in orbit in 1969 is readily available on the web. I'm hard pressed to see why you keep stalling and don't produce an answer to my question. I'm beginning to think you're nothing but a liar and a fraud. smirk Geez,.....no wonder the Iraqis were able to hide all those W.M.D from us,....The damn British /POL Geeks . sold us out. WMD's are stealthy? Are you this desperate to wiggle out of answering a simple question? Again? You really are a piece of work aren't you Time for you to flounce off again? If you can come up with secret UK Universities that know everything that happens in the cosmos. I never said they were "secret" UK universities. See how you so easily lie, Bast. You also did not /could not give a name, or a location, or contact information on the web. That sounds pretty SECRET to me. Or perhaps, you simply made it all up |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 07:21:11 -0500, "Bast"
wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:09:51 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:48:58 -0500, "Bast" wrote: 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. I'm not seeing any answer to my question, Bastie. 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 ? The info on the satellites in orbit in 1969 is readily available on the web. I'm hard pressed to see why you keep stalling and don't produce an answer to my question. I'm beginning to think you're nothing but a liar and a fraud. smirk Geez,.....no wonder the Iraqis were able to hide all those W.M.D from us,....The damn British /POL Geeks . sold us out. WMD's are stealthy? Are you this desperate to wiggle out of answering a simple question? Again? You really are a piece of work aren't you Time for you to flounce off again? If you can come up with secret UK Universities that know everything that happens in the cosmos. I never said they were "secret" UK universities. See how you so easily lie, Bast. You also did not /could not give a name, or a location, or contact information on the web. Of what? Civilian tracking of satellites? We have a satellite tracking dish on our house. We track 5 satellites at one time. It's called DirecTV. Here are two US Universities who track satellites 1. Univ. Of Texas The site was created by James Yoder, an electrical and computer engineering student at the University of Texas at Austin. Read mo http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz50no9S14f Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook 2. Univ. Of Arizona https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/stu...ack-satellites I'm not doing the research for you bast, you lazy Lezbo. That sounds pretty SECRET to me. That's because you're not very bright. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 07:13:24 -0500, "Bast"
wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:05:54 -0500, "Bast" wrote: Sarah Ehrett wrote: On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:37:19 -0500, "Bast" wrote: 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. Caught you in your lie, Bastie. NO NAVY! Beat Army! In your mind, I'm sure you "caught" me at least a dozen times. I'm referring to your lie that you are an engineer. My degrees say you are full of ****. You don't have any degrees so there goes your argument. Again. |
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 |