Moon Walkers.

[Magluvin]

http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/30/china-just-released-true-color-hd-photos-of-the-moon/

Mags

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Stop bullshitting .

You are accusing me of being a liar because I said this, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it."

So you took my very first statement after I learned about PW's explanation and quoted me out of context.  Then you take my last quote where I denied that I dropped the moon quake theory and accused me of being a liar.

I said this early on in the thread, "I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation," and then I said this at the end of the thread, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it" so I must be a liar according to you.

You are not going to accuse me of being a liar.  You are the one that is lying because you are playing a silly immature selective memory game and we are going to straighten this out.

Quoting myself from post #124:

Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation.  I was hedging my bets by going with the "ground thump" explanation because that's the only one that I was aware of that solved the mystery.

Here is how you quoted me in post #124:

Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation.

You intentionally left out the last sentence because you wanted to spin it your way like a sleazy lying politician.

More importantly, quoting myself from post #127 the next day:

Off-gassing from the space suit and a small localized moon tremor from the astronaut's impact on the lunar surface are two perfectly reasonable explanations for the waving flag.  I learned something the other day and changed my view and you seem to think there is something wrong with that.

Here is what I said in post #136:

I simply said that an astronaut and his space suit hitting the surface of the moon could create a localized tremor in the surface material and that could make the flag move.

Here is what I said in post #142:

The earth quake theory is not "utter rubbish."   If you drop a mass of one kilogram onto the surface of the moon from a height of one meter, where does that energy go?

Here is what I said in post #150:

Yes, and the flag is planted in that moon.  But I suppose you have a bionic eye like the six million dollar man and it calculated exactly how much energy impacted onto the flag pole and you are "sure" that your bionic eye is right when it said that the flag should not shake....  You have superpowers.

Here is what I said in post #163:

I will say it to you again to see if it sinks in.  I simply stated that when the astronaut hits the moon's surface it could create a tremor that makes the flag shake.  I did not talk about dropping from a certain height.  I did not even mention the final velocity.

Here is what I said in post #181:

With respect to the flag pole planted in the moon's crust, there is a distinct possibility that when a sound wave traveling through the crust hits it from the astronaut's impact something interesting happens.

It's possible that the low-frequency sound wave from the "thump" is close enough to a resonant frequency mode of the flag pole system - the vertical flag pole, the horizontal pole holding up the flag, and the flag itself.  A small amount of energy in the sound wave travels up the vertical flag pole and then into the horizontal pole holding up the flag, and then the energy gets dumped into the flag itself and dissipates in the wavering flag.

You are accusing me of being a liar and that crossed a line for me, when it's really you that's the liar.  I am saying that you are a liar because you made it a point of going back through this thread multiple times to pull up quotes and it would clearly be impossible for you to miss all of my quoted statements above.  You really hit a low.

The issue of the mass vs. weight is another story all together.  I tried hard to get you to think logically about this for your own benefit but it turned out to be impossible.  Wait two weeks and go and read the thread over again and if you are lucky you may be able to detect your own mass confusion over this issue as well as your serious English comprehension and self expression problems.  Seriously, it's almost insane to read what you said and how your scrambled thought processes were working over and over again.  This sentence from you is a doozie and summarizes it all, "Or- state that you are using mass weight."  This thread was me trying desperately to turn the complete mass confusion in your head into something correct, logical and sensible and I failed.  Perhaps more importantly, you failed yourself because you are so pig-headed.

Anyway, I am no liar and take my advice and wait two weeks and reread this thread at a slow calm pace.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Brad:

You are accusing me of being a liar because I said this, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it."

So you took my very first statement after I learned about PW's explanation and quoted me out of context.  Then you take my last quote where I denied that I dropped the moon quake theory and accused me of being a liar.

I said this early on in the thread, "I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation," and then I said this at the end of the thread, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it" so I must be a liar according to you.

You are not going to accuse me of being a liar.  You are the one that is lying because you are playing a silly immature selective memory game and we are going to straighten this out.

Quoting myself from post #124:

Here is how you quoted me in post #124:

You intentionally left out the last sentence because you wanted to spin it your way like a sleazy lying politician.

More importantly, quoting myself from post #127 the next day:

Here is what I said in post #136:

Here is what I said in post #142:

Here is what I said in post #150:

Here is what I said in post #163:

Here is what I said in post #181:

You are accusing me of being a liar and that crossed a line for me, when it's really you that's the liar.  I am saying that you are a liar because you made it a point of going back through this thread multiple times to pull up quotes and it would clearly be impossible for you to miss all of my quoted statements above.  You really hit a low.

The issue of the mass vs. weight is another story all together.  I tried hard to get you to think logically about this for your own benefit but it turned out to be impossible.  Wait two weeks and go and read the thread over again and if you are lucky you may be able to detect your own mass confusion over this issue as well as your serious English comprehension and self expression problems.  Seriously, it's almost insane to read what you said and how your scrambled thought processes were working over and over again.  This sentence from you is a doozie and summarizes it all, "Or- state that you are using mass weight."  This thread was me trying desperately to turn the complete mass confusion in your head into something correct, logical and sensible and I failed.  Perhaps more importantly, you failed yourself because you are so pig-headed.

Anyway, I am no liar and take my advice and wait two weeks and reread this thread at a slow calm pace.

MileHigh

MH
You are welcome to make comments here,but when you start to put together theories to explain anomalies,then you will be accurate and correct when you post the data to explain that anomaly.
E.G-as we are talking about events that !apparently! took place on the moon,then you will use weights that are associated with the moon-not weights associated with earth. Or simply put -the mass weight,or the lunar weight--just describe what weight you are referring to-it's that simple.
Through out this forum,you have post's all over the place that insist the people here use accurate wording and data,but here,when discussing some so important,you decide to just throw in weights that could have many different value's.

In regards to saying that you are dropping your explanation,and going with PW's in stead,and then saying that you did not drop it--regardless of you saying that your explanation was legit and plausible ,you still said you are going to drop it. You are right,i did pull out a direct quote,but that is the only way to give a direct answer--you do this very often your self. Even on this thread alone,you oull out simple little mistakes of mine,and place the comer mark where it should be,and correct spelling when i miss spell something--this is how critical you are of other peoples writing's MH,and so now that you are getting some of your own medicine back,you don't like it. What go's around,comes around MH--you need to stick to your own protocols MH.

When dealing with great claim's (like an OU device), sound theories do not cut the cake--as you so often point out. So now that you have one of these sound theories about the flag wavering in an environment that has no atmosphere,and where no physical contact was made with the flag,all you have to do now is prove your theory--as you would ask of everyone else on this forum putting up a theory to explain the impossible. If you still like PW's theory,then all you have to do is find out where the out gassing vent is for the suit,and then explain as to how it manages to penetrate the outer micrometeorite proof outer skin of the suit that covers any vents that would be on that side of the suit. TK him self pointed out that the astronaut's bounce past the flags in many other video clip's,and that the flags don't move. I am guessing that he was trying to disprove my theory,but what he has done is to disprove your moon quake theory,as your theory should be present in all the video's--but we see that it is not.

So now you have to either prove your theory MH,or you have to prove PW's theory(as it would seem he has taken leave of this thread).
After that is done,then you could have a crack at explaining as to where all these blisters and damaged skin has gone from all the astronaut's hand's-post moon walk's. No one picture in any of the apollo missions shows any of the astronauts having damaged hand's as they claim in the mission video's-not one.

A quote from wiki
Many conspiracy theorists insist that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax;[59] however, empirical evidence is readily available to show that manned moon landings did indeed occur.
Where is this empirical evidence ?. There is not one shred of solid evidence that clearly shows man went to the moon. Look at the picture below--dose this prove that i went to the moon?-if not,why not?. One landing you believe is real because NASA and the American government told you it is real,and the other landing is fake--because you know that it is fake just from the simple fact that i told you it is. It took me a mere 3 minutes to place my lunar lander and extra rover tracks in there with the very basic window paint program.

Do you know how many craft with high res cameras have been to the moon MH?-

Hiten (Japan)
Lunar Prospector (USA
SMART-1 (ESA
SELENE (Japan
Chang'e 1 (China
LCROSS (USA-LRO carrier
GRAIL (USA
LADEE (USA
Chang'e 3 (China

Not one of these space craft has managed to take just one clear picture of any of the Apollo landing sites--not one. The best we have is the likes of the picture below. Do you really believe that it  is impossible to get just one(just one) clear picture of any of the equipment that was !suppose! to have been left behind by the apollo missions. We seem to have no trouble at all taking high res pictures of people walking around on earth from over 400KM's away,and through the earth's atmosphere,but one clear picture of a lunar lander from as little as 25KM's away with no atmospheric interference seems impossible--yea right

[Magluvin]

Them rover tracks look added in. 

Mags



Edit.  Wrong image was posted. 

[MileHigh]

Brad:

You are welcome to make comments here,but when you start to put together theories to explain anomalies,then you will be accurate and correct when you post the data to explain that anomaly.
E.G-as we are talking about events that !apparently! took place on the moon,then you will use weights that are associated with the moon-not weights associated with earth. Or simply put -the mass weight,or the lunar weight--just describe what weight you are referring to-it's that simple.
Through out this forum,you have post's all over the place that insist the people here use accurate wording and data,but here,when discussing some so important,you decide to just throw in weights that could have many different value's.

Your first place to start is to learn how to express yourself properly when talking about mass and weight in different environments like the Earth, the moon, and in orbit.  Here is a simple fact:  I was expressing myself correctly the whole time and you weren't.  It's true Brad and you need to deal with this issue for yourself.  The first time I mentioned pounds there was a little bit of wiggle room for ambiguity but not really if you make a reasonable assumption that the reader will understand the context.  Subsequent to that everything I said with respect to mass and weight was correct.

I was expressing myself properly - this is a fact that you need to come to terms with.  So you need to roll up your shirtsleeves and do some more research on your own and then understand what I said for starters, and then undertake to learn to express yourself properly about the same thing.