On Jul 5, 11:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"malibu" wrote in message

oups.com...
: On Jul 5, 11:07 am, Benj wrote:: Androcles wrote:

: I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
: Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
: Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
complete
: and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
: But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
:
: "Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
:
: I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
:
: That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
: the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
: that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
: stupid, insane and a complete "****head". Usually that is all the
: "proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
: Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
:
: You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you really
: are a poopy-face!
: In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
: scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
:
:
: No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
: near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
: supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
: set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
: the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
: the porthole.
: "Earthrise, suckers."
:
: John
Does the idiot "Benj" wildly imagine he's not on my killfile,
hallucinating I'd read anything he wrote?
Never mind, rhetorical question...

Play with Google Earth, they have the math correct and
you can download it for free.
Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.
Obviously you and "Benj" are ****heads.
Obviously you don't know the meaning of "obvious", no really.
Imbecile.


the porthole was round, making the view of earth round.
tape was applied to create a straight edge.
The ****ing material is there to view.
If you're not going to view
it, don't comment on it. It just shows
how ignorant you are. Would you like a
jpeg capture of Neil futzing with the camera which
is NOT right up against the window like he said,
but against the far side of the capsule to make them
look as far away as possible?
Or can you actually pause in your business to
take in some data?

John

"malibu" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Jul 5, 11:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: "malibu" wrote in message
:
: oups.com...
: : On Jul 5, 11:07 am, Benj wrote:: Androcles
wrote:
:
: : I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
: : Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
: : Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
: complete
: : and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is
sick.
: : But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
: :
: : "Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
: :
: : I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
: :
: : That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go
read
: : the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point
out
: : that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
: : stupid, insane and a complete "****head". Usually that is all the
: : "proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
: : Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
: :
: : You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you
really
: : are a poopy-face!
: : In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
: : scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
: :
: :
: : No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
: : near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
: : supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
: : set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
: : the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
: : the porthole.
: : "Earthrise, suckers."
: :
: : John
: Does the idiot "Benj" wildly imagine he's not on my killfile,
: hallucinating I'd read anything he wrote?
: Never mind, rhetorical question...
:
: Play with Google Earth, they have the math correct and
: you can download it for free.
: Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
: it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
: Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.
: Obviously you and "Benj" are ****heads.
: Obviously you don't know the meaning of "obvious", no really.
: Imbecile.
:
:
: the porthole was round, making the view of earth round.

**** off, cretin.
*plonk*

On Jul 6, 7:45 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"malibu" wrote in message

oups.com...
: On Jul 5, 11:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: "malibu" wrote in message
:
: roups.com...
: : On Jul 5, 11:07 am, Benj wrote:: Androcles
wrote:
:
: : I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
: : Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
: : Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
: complete
: : and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is
sick.
: : But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
: :
: : "Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
: :
: : I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
: :
: : That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go
read
: : the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point
out
: : that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
: : stupid, insane and a complete "****head". Usually that is all the
: : "proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
: : Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
: :
: : You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you
really
: : are a poopy-face!
: : In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
: : scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
: :
: :
: : No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
: : near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
: : supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
: : set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
: : the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
: : the porthole.
: : "Earthrise, suckers."
: :
: : John
: Does the idiot "Benj" wildly imagine he's not on my killfile,
: hallucinating I'd read anything he wrote?
: Never mind, rhetorical question...
:
: Play with Google Earth, they have the math correct and
: you can download it for free.
: Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
: it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
: Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.
: Obviously you and "Benj" are ****heads.
: Obviously you don't know the meaning of "obvious", no really.
: Imbecile.
:
:
: the porthole was round, making the view of earth round.

**** off, cretin.
*plonk*

Ooh, good one Android.
Is your little metal head getting hot?

John

On Jul 6, 5:09 am, malibu wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:57 am, The_Man wrote:



On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 5, 9:35 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 4, 5:38 pm, wrote:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by theApolloHoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

Fools of such bigotry in denial of their denial, to say the least.

Hot and cold wars have been caused and/or extended by this little
fiasco, our valuable resources and some of our best talents diverted,
and decades of true advancements lost forever. Par for the American
and Zionist Third Reich way of doing such things.
-
BradGuth

BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
unfiltered Kodak moments.

I long ago showed that on the three Apollo missions that YOU
specifically picked, Venus would NOT have been visible.
Oddly, an honest solar system simulator (such as something officially
NASA or better ESA certified) doesn't agree with those infomercial
spewed crapolla simulators as The_Man farted out. (actually The_Man
never did offer us an actual solar system simulator, just the usual
infomercial spewed crapolla of lies upon lies)

At several times, Venus was in fact very much within sight from the
surface of that moon, and otherwise especially as easily obtained
within FOVs taken from orbit.


Nor any other stars, apparently.
Hey, a starscape from the moon's surface- how trite AND
unimportant. Don't bother.

At least I didn't say that they couldn't have easily accommodated a
few one second or longer exposures. If I wanted to prove via camera
and rad-hard film to the world that I'd walked on that physically dark
and nasty moon of ours, as such I would have simply included the likes
of that vibrant big old and often enough nearby Venus, as unavoidably
and otherwise clearly situated above the local horizon.

I assume that you folks have access to a proper solar system simulator
that includes our moon.


Plus, only a handfull of pics of the astronauts- hey,
you can't see their faces anyway, who needs pictures.

I agree, but then their xenon arc lamp of such a terrestrial looking
color spectrum from such artificial illumination is yet another
absolute dead give away. There's simply no further contest here, as
in none at all. Those unfiltered Kodak moments simply were not
obtained while on the physically dark and naked moon of ours.


Don't worry about it. We lost all the
pictures just recently, anyway.

That's true, and it's what always happens when too much of their own
**** keeps hitting that hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo fan.

You do know what I mean by way of asking "where's Venus" don't you?
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 4:57 am, The_Man wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BradGuth wrote:





On Jul 5, 9:35 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 4, 5:38 pm, wrote:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by theApolloHoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

Fools of such bigotry in denial of their denial, to say the least.

Hot and cold wars have been caused and/or extended by this little
fiasco, our valuable resources and some of our best talents diverted,
and decades of true advancements lost forever. Par for the American
and Zionist Third Reich way of doing such things.
-
BradGuth

BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
unfiltered Kodak moments.

I long ago showed that on the three Apollo missions that YOU
specifically picked, Venus would NOT have been visible.

Game, set, match. You lose.





Any 3D interactive orbital simulator proves that we've been snookered,
and then some.
-
BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LLPOF, Just like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

Is that the ver best Zion crapolla you've got to offer?

Let us see your Zion approved solar system simulator in action.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 5:33 am, pico wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
unfiltered Kodak moments.

The DR was just much to great. Besides, the stars look very small
without an atmosphere to shoot through. I've never seen stars in
photographs of the Earth from space. Suppose we never orbited the Earth,
either?

There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.

Venus is not a star, and there's a few other items to boot, although
Sirius would certainly have been impossible to have excluded.

BTW, are you being a silly Zion too?
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 8:32 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.

Venus is not a star, and there's a few other items to boot, although
Sirius would certainly have been impossible to have excluded.

BTW, are you being a silly Zion too?
-
BradGuth

Too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic range of
the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they were
not.

Too bad that your such an incest cloned Zion of a liar, in that most
any fully interactive 3D orbital simulator proves me right, as
otherwise you folks above all could have had those Old Testament
certified solar system simulators and even having tossed in with a few
of those pesky bright stars as being unavoidably shown to us from that
physically dark surface of our nasty moon, that's also a whole lot
more anticathode worthy of sharing gamma and hard-Xrays than any Van
Allen belt, whereas at some time or another within those Apollo EVAs
is when such film DR capable items were in fact situated above their
local horizon.

Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth, and even the likes of Saturn, Jupiter or even Mars isn't
exactly invisible to the dynamic range of such unfiltered Kodak film.
You silly folks don't even admit to realizing what the "unfiltered"
advantage means to having easily recorded such items, especially
Venus.

The fact is, that you'd have to work pretty gosh darn hard at keeping
such items out of all the thousands of those frames of whatever that
Kodak film had supposedly recorded, such as exposed from the
unavoidably gamma and hard-Xray populated surface environment of our
terribly anticathode and otherwise electrostatic charged moon.

As of decades ago, if the likes of I were even the least bit wrong,
you'd be right in there with that Zion certified simulator that's
supposedly better than anything NASA, ESA or of whatever else has to
offer, thus easily proving that as per viewed at the time, as obtained
from that moon is where absolutely nothing of sufficient brightness
was ever within a given FOV. But since you're all nothing but an
infested swarm of Zion liars and cold-war perpetrators, you can't but
fart.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 5, 4:01 am, "CWatters"
wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Wel they definitly didn't land on the dark side of themoon.

That was Pink Floyd.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"I'm all for keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's starte with computers."-Solomon Short (paraphrased)

On Jul 6, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:32 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.
Venus is not a star, and there's a few other items to boot, although
Sirius would certainly have been impossible to have excluded.
BTW, are you being a silly Zion too?
-
BradGuth
Too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic range of
the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they were
not.

Too bad that your such an incest cloned Zion of a liar, in that most
any fully interactive 3D orbital simulator proves me right, as
otherwise you folks above all could have had those Old Testament
certified solar system simulators and even having tossed in with a few
of those pesky bright stars as being unavoidably shown to us from that
physically dark surface of our nasty moon, that's also a whole lot
more anticathode worthy of sharing gamma and hard-Xrays than any Van
Allen belt, whereas at some time or another within those Apollo EVAs
is when such film DR capable items were in fact situated above their
local horizon.

Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth, and even the likes of Saturn, Jupiter or even Mars isn't
exactly invisible to the dynamic range of such unfiltered Kodak film.
You silly folks don't even admit to realizing what the "unfiltered"
advantage means to having easily recorded such items, especially
Venus.

The fact is, that you'd have to work pretty gosh darn hard at keeping
such items out of all the thousands of those frames of whatever that
Kodak film had supposedly recorded, such as exposed from the
unavoidably gamma and hard-Xray populated surface environment of our
terribly anticathode and otherwise electrostatic charged moon.

As of decades ago, if the likes of I were even the least bit wrong,
you'd be right in there with that Zion certified simulator that's
supposedly better than anything NASA, ESA or of whatever else has to
offer, thus easily proving that as per viewed at the time, as obtained
from that moon is where absolutely nothing of sufficient brightness
was ever within a given FOV. But since you're all nothing but an
infested swarm of Zion liars and cold-war perpetrators, you can't but
fart.
-
BradGuth

Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic
range of the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they
were not.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Too bad you've got less than your pro-Zion squat for backing that up.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 8:28 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
fudged to predict the predictions.

** The time dilation part as predicted by the Lorentz transform which
forms the mathematical basis of the interpretation known as the
special theory of relativity has never proven its symmetry. Remember
the twin's paradox is the manifestation of the time dilation and the
principle of relativity in which both are properties of the Lorentz
transform.

The twin's paradox involves accelerations... and contrary to its
name is *not* a paradox.

You can always find a scenario where both twins experience the same
amount and duration of acceleration --- identical mission profile. In
this case, acceleration if it does affect it which it does not then
cancels out in each twin. All that left is pure speed difference.
shrug

Therefore, the twin's paradox was identified as a paradox since 1911
and still is not yet resolved because there is no resolution due to
the nature of the Lorentz transform. Time dilation and the principle
of relativity together manifest this paradox. You need to study and
understand the Lorentz transform for a change. Approach it from the
logical deduction and mathematical reasoning instead of the usual crap
such as religious faith. shrug

** Since the geodesic model of the most popular interpretation to the
mathematics of spacetime generally follow the paths of the maximum
accumulated spacetime, a photon should never propagate through space
in this model. Historically, Einstein proclaimed twice the Newtonian
result on bending of light after the Schwarzschild metric was
identified by Hilbert. In doing so, Einstein argued the gravitational
time dilation of the dt^2 term should contribute an amount equivalent
to the Newtonian result and the dr^2 term also the same. Well, so far
with all these many derivations where one obviously liberally copying
each other have never nailed down the proper integration limits, and
yet all come out to support Einstein's prediction without any
mathematical backing. The prediction part is very questionable
already. Now, the 1919 expeditions by Sir Eddington fudged the
observations to account for Einstein's prediction. In the 60's,
Shipiro's experiment did not prove light bending but gravitational
time dilation. These two phenomena are very different. On top of
that, Shipiro's experiment is very questionable.

** The prediction of Mercury's orbital anomaly is totally based on
the geodesics following the paths of maximal spacetime. And yet, it
does not include the effect where the Schwarzschild metric yields a
slightly higher different balancing centrifugal acceleration. That is
Mercury has to travel at a slightly higher speed to balance between
the gravitational pull and the centrifugal push. The geodesic model
according to the principle of least time actually predicts the
observation but fails at the some certain distance that gravitational
effect suddenly becomes antigravity.

** GPS does not need any GR or SR for its design.

You must be awfully religious to conclude the observations really fit
into SR and GR predictions. shrug If so, you need to follow the
great reverend Hammond to bring more spiritual satisfactions. shrug

The problem is not relativity, but your understanding of it. Hit some
textbooks and get back to us.

OK, I did. All what I have described still remain so. shrug