Doctor What

What are millions of dishes all aiming for? And also, what are these all trying to see: Maybe you have a funny Fools and Horses video to hide your fail on answering a question.

You create a false argument. I 100% believe in life on planets other than Earth. I dispute that they are here in Romulan starships firing space weapons. I know Tesla and he was wonderful scientist. Your thread is hijacked by oz and 911/aliens. I apologise for my replies keeping it open. Perhaps ask moderating to move to different thread.

Please don't patronize. I make my own mind up about all things. I say the same thing back to you. These are structure beams low on the building and if cut would drop the building from bottom. So obvious. This thread is turning into futile 911 backwards and forwards. So when finished, girder slides off with gravity. If horizontal no guaranteed fall direction. Similar to cutting trees - to help it not fall on person cutting. BEFORE:- AFTER:- What do you say to this clear evidence? These are columns on low part of building - collapse is from top downwards. Do you dispute this point? How is a top floor column lies vertically after collapse. This is too obvious. You edited this rude comment away. You post honk about space aliens and many truly absurd videos with people channeling Hitler and others - now you repeat old and wrong claims that are so obvious wrong. Proven just above - so I ask you question:- Why would thermite be on lower floor columns?

Leeloo is perfect girl!

When someones says aliens and anti-gravity and cloaking I think of Romulans and science fiction.

Do you have an agenda? I am asking as all threads you post on have this honk about secrets and magical technological things? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P-vkFcnSD4 These are from torch on clearup operation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VskSiHS1r0

But to believe space aliens and phasers is a grounds to be committed

I am very amused that you discount proven landings in favouring a secret that only internet snake-oil salesman 'know about'. Your post is a load of honk. Kubrick was never involved in this and the whole joke of him was begun on April Fool's - say no more. Your posts about ghosting on the videos is seen on the full EVA, here is good page that addresses on other crazy claim from fictional woman: http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html catadioptric Referring to an optical system which uses both reflection (mirrors) and refraction (lenses). This also describes the unwanted effect of lens elements reflecting images inside a compound camera lens. Undesirable catadioptric effects include ghosting and lens flares.

You are very ignorant of the enormous amount of data from ALSEP experiments from the surface.

What a load of honk!

I would say that Russia has mobile reflector found by Lunar reconnaissance camera. I would say for 50 years observatories fire lasers and get exact figures - only possible if there is reflectors on the surface. I would say for third time I ask you to reply to my post properly! False statement. Bounces back from surface lasers are very random in return because of surface uneven. Also, very strong lasers are needed for this to work. With reflectors, less power on laser and always exact same return time. I suggest that you have only picked information from the poor source and not the accurate one.

I have not ignored any evidence. NASA has 25 billion for Apollo and many contractor bills all accounting for this funds. You say ISS and space travel are all faked, usual main claim from mad flat earth people. Fake ISS and space travel is one step below on the crazy ladder.

There is not a contradiction. Underneath lander from images is no loose dust and scouring marks. On Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong talks of this. You are copying this debunked claim and pretending it is yours. I give you web page and of course you haven't read it. Clavius: Vehicles - the blast crater

Do not quote my post and not answer. This is very dishonest. You said reflectors debunked: False statement. Bounces back from surface lasers are very random in return because of surface uneven. Also, very strong lasers are needed for this to work. With reflectors, less power on laser and always exact same return time. I suggest that you have only picked information from the poor source and not the accurate one. Please try once more and properly.

I am missing no point that is relevant. The budget was 25 billion. But let me pick my jaw up from the floor! You now are claiming ISS is also fake this is a extremely stupid idea. And space travel too? Oh dear, are you a flat earther disguised?

Once more you offer your appeal to incredulity. To independent viewers, I offer the obvious. To you, it seems you experience trouble with the obvious. Rocket gases strike a surface at thousands of metres per second if you are unable to understand why dust is moved with this speed I see no point with labouring such a point with you. There are winds on Mars. Because you have no knowledge and understanding doesn't alter the obvious. Not even your own claim. You are what Mr. Icke calls a repeater. Debunked for 20 years - Clavius: Vehicles - the blast crater I have no expectation of you reading this link. One other consideration is why NASA can be so dumb to photograph and talk with astronauts about this issue - but according to only hoax belief should be a big crater! I address this with the same point. It is moving thousands of metres per second. What more is there for you to understand? Appealing once more to incredulity. Same answer. And, seconds before a landing was the LM much more light from almost no fuel and able to throttle back on the engine. Explained on this page you will not read - Clavius: Vehicles - the blast crater

This is your appeal to incredulity, it is not an argument. False statement. Bounces back from surface lasers are very random in return because of surface uneven. Also, very strong lasers are needed for this to work. With reflectors, less power on laser and always exact same return time. I suggest that you have only picked information from the poor source and not the accurate one.

This is a thread for Apollo. Apollo budget was close to 25 billion and much money was spent on Saturn V and launches. Your argument is very poor, all Apollo money was paid to subcontractors for Lunar Module, Command Module, Lunar Rover, Special build computers, space suit. There was half a million staff on Apollo. Lots of wages. The Space Review: A new accounting for Apollo: how much did it really cost?

This is correct. The exhaust on descent stage rocket is coming out at thousands of metres per second. How please can you think dust is not sent very far away? It is very obvious.

This is the result of research and lots of money. It is also nothing to do with NASA, every part of Apollo is designed with sub contractors not NASA. You don't know much about any of it. This is absurd reasoning and I shall ignore your rude label. Because you have no knowledge on this does not equal it being wrong. I wonder if you understand how the screen is working on your monitoring screen. It must be a fake by your logic. This very poor vague arguing. Point to me the preposterous parts. Show me also the impossible parts. No, you could not. I do think you can make up crazy answers though as you are doing it now. Your replies can be put in this category: Hand-waving - Wikipedia

Apollo was technological feat with very much money and people. Space X is landing very large rocket in high gravity with vertical narrow rocket. This is very difficult to do. No, I am not expecting this from you. Everyone else is free to make their own observations and not your place to make claims for them. There is scouring marks under Lunar Module as seen on picture. There is also very obvious flaw with what you have copied. NASA has released pictures under LM and Armstrong is talking of it early on moonwalk. This is not making any sense if this is faked, as NASA simply makes a crater. Or much better does not release images! One thing that is important is no atmosphere, no winds. Slower falling from low gravity. MSC (AV) - Astronaut Armstrong Training in the LLTV (June 16, 1969) - YouTube Yes, this is correct. Very fast displacement, hundreds of metres per second. Sends all the dust long way beyond the lander. No, this is not correct. Firstly is not a video, it is recorded on cine camera called DAC. On official moonwalk footage VHS is released soon after first VHS and Betamax recorders are on sale and box set includes all cine camera films. For very good reason. The landings and takeoffs are recorded on Cine camera for development after landing back on Earth. So it is not even possible for this to be seen live. Your comment makes nonsense. There was no landing video of live landing. The astronauts fixed camera and were busy with landing. Your confusion is your own problem, I would urge you to go and research correctly, but I have doubts you will ever do such a thing.

This is called Appeal to Incredulity. The foil is called Kapton and aluminised Mylar and tape is not sellotape. Apollo 11 Kapton Foil – Apollo11Space Mylar and the moon (dupontteijinfilms.com) All debunked for very long time, not for young people who do not wish to look on the internet for proper answers. Lightweight heat and mini meteorite protection.

No it would help if you went onto the internet to see your copied claims are all answered everywhere. Yes, they are completely debunked https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2keGTQ8NvY86WyeUHGGweQ Who is we? I expected a engine with 1000-10,000 lbs of thrust to move everything hundreds of metres. More suspicious is if pads are having dust on them. This is debunked copied claim - not your own thoughts. You are not very accurate in these claims. The engine for taking off is a different one to landing engine. And of course your second copied claim is 20 years old and debunked everywhere you look on the internet. Jarrah White has made many stupid videos - 10 years have gone by since they have all been debunked by many people. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2keGTQ8NvY86WyeUHGGweQ I have a wonder about which things you think are not debunked. I can answer for you if you ask.

No you don't, you haven't understood how shadows and cameras look. It seems no arguments reach you. Not my fault or problem. I am confused how you think the picture is made in 1969 on a photograph. Why don't you explain? My pictures shows how undulating and distance with wide angle lens changes view. If you choose to not understand simple stuff - choose it. You said you moved on.

I laughed when I read this comment. The pictures from me showing angles almost up to 135 degrees and the NASA lunar picture with a crater showing similar. You say they are not similar - big joke. NASA image has not opposite directions, distant rocks have shadows flattened with perspective. Same as this image above. Evidently for real is you do not like being proved you are wrong. Yes, please move on - because you still have not offered explanations for how you claim lunar image is made. You specify more than one light but single shadows means that is wrong.