• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
...and in my book, the list of individual reasons that are said to prove the hoax can each be explained away.
I seriously doubt anyone is ever going to be able to prove it's a hoax...whether NASA filmed the thing in a studio or not. It's tough to prove these things when one side controls 100% of the evidence.

Look at the Kennedy assassination. 54 years later I can say with near 100% certainty the US government had a hand in murdering it's own CIC, but proving it is another matter.

People just smell bs when they see and hear it, and NASA kind of stinks.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I seriously doubt anyone is ever going to be able to prove it's a hoax...whether NASA filmed the thing in a studio or not. It's tough to prove these things when one side controls 100% of the evidence.
They do say it is hard to prove a negative.
...and NASA won't be the only one to control evidence. Other nations have their own Moon programs so it's just a matter of time before more pics of the landing sites come out.

Also, what are your thoughts on the SLS? The plan is to use it to go back to the Moon. It should be getting close. Perhaps we should start a poll? "What will happen first, BTC $100k or NASA returns to the Moon?" lol


Look at the Kennedy assassination. 54 years later I can say with near 100% certainty the US government had a hand in murdering it's own CIC, but proving it is another matter.
I feel the same about that.
...but that doesn't mean the Moon landings had to be faked though. In fact, it could have been a type of national healing, the push for the goal of reaching the Moon in his honor. Soon as that happened, here comes Tricky Dicky to cut that nonsense out. There was a drug war starting up that needed funding.

Also, of all the dirty dealings the gov has been discovered to be or have been involved in, the Moon thing seems kinda like small potatoes to me. In fact, it is my belief that things like Moon hoax, flat Earth, and chemtrails have been started by those trying to obfuscate the real goings on. Get people barkin' up the wrong trees, so to speak. None of those things really matter, but look at all the effort that goes into promoting them. People should be paying attention to the real abuses of power.
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,957
Likes
4,434
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
expansion and contraction. That is how it was explained to me, one side in the sun expands and the side without the sun contracts. This happens at the mean temperatures that we learned in school. Having an atmosphere would just make the stress more of a average.

Who told me this? My dad and he was responsible for the cabinet structure inside the shuttle. He said he did "stress analysis," yeah a lot of ppl thought he was some sort of psychiatrist.

So I myself do wonder how them flimsy space suits kept them guys alive with the vacuum of space pulling on them and then throw in the thermal coefficients of expansion and contraction.

You know? I will just know we went to the moon when they release the data configurations on the van allen belts along with the probes that procured that data. I do not remember such launches.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
So I myself do wonder how them flimsy space suits kept them guys alive with the vacuum of space pulling on them and then throw in the thermal coefficients of expansion and contraction.
How do the astronauts on the ISS survive EVA's? By wearing space suits, that's how. If it works for them, why wouldn't it work elsewhere? Same space.

I found the following. Substitute "spacecraft" for "astronaut in space suit" and the same answer applies. The only heating in space is via radiation. Which can to a substantial degree be reflected. What isn't reflected is protected against by insulation.
...and on the astronauts "dark side" the insulation helps to prevent heat loss.

The amount of heat that a spacecraft radiates into space and receives from the Sun can be controlled by the makeup of its surface. And this is the second secret of the vacuum bottle (or thermos): while the vacuum suppresses heat exchanges by conduction and air convection, exchange by radiation is suppressed by the shiny metallic coating of the bottle. This shiny coating reflects the heat radiation like a mirror and keeps it either inside the bottle (if the content is hot) or outside (if the content is cold).

Dr. Eberhard Moebius https://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
Apollo 8,9,10 never get any trash talk. I want an equal amount of crap directed at those guys!

 
Last edited:

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
expansion and contraction. That is how it was explained to me, one side in the sun expands and the side without the sun contracts. This happens at the mean temperatures that we learned in school. Having an atmosphere would just make the stress more of a average.

Who told me this? My dad and he was responsible for the cabinet structure inside the shuttle. He said he did "stress analysis," yeah a lot of ppl thought he was some sort of psychiatrist.

So I myself do wonder how them flimsy space suits kept them guys alive with the vacuum of space pulling on them and then throw in the thermal coefficients of expansion and contraction.

You know? I will just know we went to the moon when they release the data configurations on the van allen belts along with the probes that procured that data. I do not remember such launches.
Those Suits weren't flimsy at all.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/pressure-suit-a7-l-armstrong-apollo-11-flown
more on the suit

https://www.wired.com/2011/02/pl_spacesuits_showdown/

radiation belt stuff.

you don't remember, because (I don't know your age, I'm 55 so it was before I was born)

Van Allen's experiment on Explorer 1, which launched Jan. 31, 1958, had a simple cosmic ray experiment consisting of a Geiger counter (a device that detects radiation) and a tape recorder. Follow-up experiments on three other missions in 1958 — Explorer 3, Explorer 4 and Pioneer 3 — established that there were two belts of radiation circling the Earth.
https://www.space.com/33948-van-allen-radiation-belts.html

we are still studying!

One aspect that I've yet to study much nor have I heard many folks talk about is what natural effect of the spacecrafts own magnetic field have on radiation shielding. Let's say it's a minuscule .02%

What does the resulting effect have on the dose rate
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
explorers and pioneer.....forgot about those, remembered them as soon as I seen the names.

I was a wee lad back then full of wonderment as to why that water-air pressure propelled rocket could not attain more than 3 feet.
Only 3'? That's no fun.

 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
651
Likes
1,105
Location
Southern MN
Only 3'? That's no fun.

Oh man. A little off topic but this reminds me of a fun day at work several years ago. It was the week of Christmas and it was real slow that day. My co-workers and I got this idea to build a rocket out of one of those candy cane shaped containers (the type that had been full of Hershey's kisses). I made fins out of cardboard, someone else carved a nice cone out of foam. Next thing you know we had something looking like a rocket. We colored it in Christmas colors, after all it was our Christmas rocket. We drilled a hole at the bottom to serve as the nozzle and re-enforced the container with a bit of packing tape. We used a pressurized dust remover can upside down to spray liquid into the rocket to charge it. We were amazed that it would fly 40+ feet up into the air in a very nice trajectory. Eventually I over-filled it, and it exploded with a large boom.

Also off topic, we did water rockets in science class when I was in 9th grade. Everyone else tried to make their rocket as light as possible thinking that would help it go further, using tagboard and weak tape. I built mine to be as strong as possible using congregated cardboard for the fins and duct tape to hold it all together. It just so happened the day we launched it was rainy and very windy. Every other rocket just got taken by the wind and blew to the side and fell apart. Then I launched mine and it went further than all others unfazed by the wind with a perfect ballistic trajectory where it hit nose first into the ground some distance away from launch.

I wish some of you were neighbors for the fun we could have (as I still do silly stuff like that).
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Exactly how far did it go??
I'm not exactly sure, but we can see the shadow of the bag as it comes down and it appears to be a fair distance. The Astronaut is at least 6' tall, so that should offer some perspective to how high and far the bag goes.

Also notice how the bag rotates as it moves. Ie: no wires attached to it.
Go try it in your yard. Flip a bag into the air with a stick. See how it reacts.
In fact, anyone who doubts Apollo missions were real, owes it to themselves to put their theory to the test. This is something anyone can do and then observe the results.

Here is a video that also shows the pendulum test. The bag throw follows it and it gives a lot more info.
A pendulum swinging here on Earth would not behave as shown. Gravity @1.58M/s effects objects differently than does Earths 9.81M/s gravity does. Which is also part of the reason why the bag behaves as it does. Lack of air affects it too.

 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Here's why I posted earlier that if Apollo missions were fake, the Chinese have to be in on it too.

Pics of Chang'e 3 lander and rover pics show no stars, no blast crater, same type of tin foil and sticks lander, tracks in Lunar regolith, and the non-Sun side of lander is visible in shadow. Is there anything I missed?


chang'3 _Lander2_20131215_f537.jpg


Change3_AutoA.jpeg
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
There is some footage of Scott Crossfield's last flight in the X-15 where he is doing the "unauthorized barrel rolls", no stars are seen. Yesterday I posted the video of a 96k ft apogee model rocket and no stars are seen.

For what it's worth
 

the_shootist

Targeted!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,802
Likes
22,396
Here's why I posted earlier that if Apollo missions were fake, the Chinese have to be in on it too.

Pics of Chang'e 3 lander and rover pics show no stars, no blast crater, same type of tin foil and sticks lander, tracks in Lunar regolith, and the non-Sun side of lander is visible in shadow. Is there anything I missed?


View attachment 95812

View attachment 95813
Yep, typical Chinese copy of American stuff (sorry brother, I couldn't resist)
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Yep, typical Chinese copy of American stuff (sorry brother, I couldn't resist)
Fair enough, but they obviously went with what works. That stuff that looks like tin foil is actually thermal blankets.

Look at this depiction of Luna 16. If it were wrapped it would look similar to the Chinese lander.

Luna-16.jpg
 

the_shootist

Targeted!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,802
Likes
22,396
Fair enough, but they obviously went with what works. That stuff that looks like tin foil is actually thermal blankets.

Look at this depiction of Luna 16. If it were wrapped it would look similar to the Chinese lander.

View attachment 95818
All kidding aside, it's tough to understand how we could have gone to the Moon multiple times using 1960's technology yet today with the internet, smartphones, and sophisticated attack drones we don't possess the technology to go to the moon again.
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
In aerodynamics there is one most effecient shape. That of falling raindrop. Notice that just about all cars, aircraft look about the same today. There is no sense in going against the flow. It just doesn' work!
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
All kidding aside, it's tough to understand how we could have gone to the Moon multiple times using 1960's technology yet today with the internet, smartphones, and sophisticated attack drones we don't possess the technology to go to the moon again.
It's because we got locked in to the space shuttle program. Originally the plan was to include space stations, space tugs, and other vehicles to explore further from Earth, but Tricky Dicky cut the budget and started a thing known as the Nixon Space Doctrine. I posted about it in posts #125, #126 and #128. Read for yourself Nixon's own words that were used to justify going with the Space Shuttle.
Going back to the Moon simply wasn't part of the plan and Nixon needed to find money to finance his war on drugs.
People ask, "why didn't we go back?" Well, this is why.


Edited to add:...and they are working on the SLS right now. It'll be bigger than Apollo was.
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,957
Likes
4,434
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
It's because we got locked in to the space shuttle program. Originally the plan was to include space stations, space tugs, and other vehicles to explore further from Earth, but Tricky Dicky cut the budget and started a thing known as the Nixon Space Doctrine. I posted about it in posts #125, #126 and #128. Read for yourself Nixon's own words that were used to justify going with the Space Shuttle.
Going back to the Moon simply wasn't part of the plan and Nixon needed to find money to finance his war on drugs.
People ask, "why didn't we go back?" Well, this is why.


Edited to add:...and they are working on the SLS right now. It'll be bigger than Apollo was.
War on drugs with Nixon leading the charge? *coughs* bullshit. Doctors were still prescribing barbiturates when Gerald took over. Hell it was the early '70's and it was drug education back then.....yep the gumbyment helping the children of the land make 'informed decisions.'

joking; sometimes you hammer out a good argument and then screw it all up by throwing ketchup on it. You do know there are munsters on the moon do you not? Oh and the weaving between belts of radiation that expand and contract at will due to a heathing radiation spewing hydrogenated uncontained reactor which is held together by a force that cannot to this day be proved to exist is just?

I'm going with aliens on this one.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
War on drugs with Nixon leading the charge? *coughs* bullshit.
If you're choking on bullshit, it's not because of anything I posted.

joking; sometimes you hammer out a good argument and then screw it all up by throwing ketchup on it.
The hammer's down Mike.

Nixon DrugWar.PNG


NixonDrugWar2.PNG


http://www.history.com/topics/the-war-on-drugs

https://www.google.com/search?ei=uW...191...0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i67k1.0.6PP36UX2Igo



I'm going with aliens on this one.
You sure 'bout that?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,957
Likes
4,434
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
michael59 said:
I'm going with aliens on this one.
Click to expand...
You sure 'bout that?
reptilians to be precise.

funny thing is I do not remember this war on drugs at all till about ten years later because in the early seventies in fact the late sixties cocaine was a non addictive substance, maybe slightly psychologically addictive but not physically addictive. Oh and your ecstasy in the article; bogus.

MDMA was patented in 1913 and has been used experimentally, most notably as a supplement to psychotherapy in the 1970s. It was made illegal to possess, traffic, import or produce MDMA in Canada in 1976 and in the United States in 1985.

so? Why would a writer infer that MDMA was a part of the early seventies as a schedule 5 substance?

You might be technically correct on a point of time but the application of said war on drugs was in fact Reagan. BUT, but you chose NIXON and then summed it up with the money went to the war on drugs so we could not pester the munsters on the moon with our probes. How bazar.

edited to add: I surly do like this quote though:
Ehrlichman was quoted as saying: “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.”
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Oh and your ecstasy in the article; bogus.
MDMA was patented in 1913 and has been used experimentally, most notably as a supplement to psychotherapy in the 1970s. It was made illegal to possess, traffic, import or produce MDMA in Canada in 1976 and in the United States in 1985.

so? Why would a writer infer that MDMA was a part of the early seventies as a schedule 5 substance?
The writer did not infer it was part of the early Seventies schedule 5 substances list. You should go re-read the article.The only time it lists Ecstasy is by including it in the list of current schedule 1 substances.

NixonDrugWar4.PNG






You might be technically correct on a point of time but the application of said war on drugs was in fact Reagan. BUT, but you chose NIXON and then summed it up with the money went to the war on drugs so we could not pester the munsters on the moon with our probes. How bazar.
I'm not just technically correct, but altogether correct. It was Nixon who started the modern War on Drugs. Reagan ramped it up, but it was started by the Enactment of the CSA and heavily funded during the Nixon admin. The main point was to do exactly what your edit points out.

edited to add: I surly do like this quote though:
Ehrlichman was quoted as saying: “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.”




...and did you even read the Nixon Space Doctrine?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
Here's why I posted earlier that if Apollo missions were fake, the Chinese have to be in on it too.
Wonder if the Chinese were also so shit all stupid they deleted the footage to save storage space.

Probably they're waiting for a manned mission to the moon to wheel out an accidental erasure caper of their own. lol
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Wonder if the Chinese were also so shit all stupid they deleted the footage to save storage space.

Probably they're waiting for a manned mission to the moon to wheel out an accidental erasure caper of their own. lol
I hear ya, losing the tapes is a rather odd thing.
...but it is still only Apollo 11. All the rest are still there and if that one thing is the only reason left, then sheer preponderance of the evidence says the Apollo missions were in fact real and as advertised.
The Moon landing as a hoax theory only works if there is lots of circumstantial evidence. That one thing alone doesn't prove anything.

I've shown lots of logical and factual info on many of the things said to be proof of hoaxes and so far none of it has been refuted. Heck, no one even wants to talk about the pic in the OP anymore that was supposed to be shattering new proof of the hoax.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,957
Likes
4,434
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I'm not just technically correct, but altogether correct. It was Nixon who started the modern War on Drugs. Reagan ramped it up, but it was started by the Enactment of the CSA and heavily funded during the Nixon admin. The main point was to do exactly what your edit points out.
something tells me that you were very young back in the seventies. Do you not know how this all drug stuff happened or are you stuck in books?

They said we went to the moon, I watched neil do his little jump or plop. What I remembered was the no lag edited for tv sound. So, we as a people got the condensed version, fine I can deal with it. But the precise communication with no "Oh crap adjust the antenna/dish; we lost the signal" stuff, no sorry it just don't get it for me.

NOW, if you think we were on the moon then fine with me BUT if you think they/them/those and the others stopped that moon stuff to fight a war on drugs that they were importing themselves onto this land well then buddy I do now posses a diamond machine of my own design that can transmute a carbonated soda in to a diamond. Oh and then there is this bridge over in new York....yeah I can sell that to you.
 

RealJack

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,443
Likes
1,192
I hear ya, losing the tapes is a rather odd thing.
...but it is still only Apollo 11. All the rest are still there and if that one thing is the only reason left, then sheer preponderance of the evidence says the Apollo missions were in fact real and as advertised.
The Moon landing as a hoax theory only works if there is lots of circumstantial evidence. That one thing alone doesn't prove anything.

I've shown lots of logical and factual info on many of the things said to be proof of hoaxes and so far none of it has been refuted. Heck, no one even wants to talk about the pic in the OP anymore that was supposed to be shattering new proof of the hoax.
I'm glad you believe that the moon landings occurred, Joe.

Proving to yourself that they occurred is much like proving to a devout Catholic that God exists.

As you know, the only real evidence is NASA's own evidence. That, and the regurgitations of its devout followers.

I'm not a believer. I don't believe in your god. You haven't convinced me. I also don't believe that NASA and .gov is incompetent.

What I do think is that it's utterly corrupt and most of it is devoted to deception and psychological operations in its quest for empire.

Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics. NASA is a lying scumbag of an institution.

I have no interest in attempting to prove that NASA "didn't" land on the moon. I can't prove a negative,... which is what you're asking.

Sorry, but you aren't winning.
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
Never mind the chinese, India evidence!

Regardless, not a single denier has refuted the NASA evidence, all I have seen so far is a bunch of squealing and squirming by pigeon chess players
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,516
Likes
3,453
The point is that NASA had higher sights in mind than low Earth orbit. The Venus mission also shows they were trying to find more things to do with existing hardware. Ie: they were being cost conscious while still trying to push boundaries.

Very true, Venus is un-landable by manned missions. The best idea for Venus would be the "floating city" concept.

Floating cities on Venus? This is nonsense. We don't have the technology to go you'd low Earth orbit. Building any sort of city on any other planet is purely fantasy.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,516
Likes
3,453
Rendition of an SLS 25 day mission in 8:46
It's what NASA says we'll see. Watch it and then when it happens, we'll all see how accurate it was.

Everything NASA puts out is CGI and VR. Can anyone show me a single real photograph of a satellite in orbit? I've never seen one...
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,516
Likes
3,453
In an environment with a medium to conduct heat, sure. In space though, what is there to pull heat away? How they didn't freeze is the same reason your soup stays warm outside on a cold day if it's inside a vacuum thermos. Ie: because in a vacuum, there's nothing there to conduct heat and outer space vacuum is far more vacuumy than that inside a thermos.
...and it's not just tinfoil, but insulated too.

I'm pretty sure the space suits they wear when going outside the ISS work. Don't they?
...and those suits from Apollo are in the Smithsonian, aren't they?
A thermos does not provide a vacuum environment. All of this is irrelevant because it is a hypothetical scenario. Nobody walked on the moon.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,516
Likes
3,453
Right...NASA says so. The ONE piece of evidence that could easily have been independently verified...they accidentally destroyed.

Not gonna lie. I watch footage of alleged moonwalks and they look fake as hell to me and the doctored up stills aren't any better. When I add that to the "accidental" erasure and the fact that not one human has left LEO since 1972...yeah I find it all kind of hard to take.

Maybe it happened just like fedgov says, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence and my default position is to not believe known liars. NASA/the department of war definitely falls into that category.
That's because the moon landing was faked. We don't have the technology to fly to the moon, land, walk around and play on dirt bikes, then pack up, take off without rockets, fly back through space, enter th atmosphere and land safely here on Earth.

Anyone who believes we did that 25 years before the first cell phone was invented is living in a fantasy world.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,516
Likes
3,453
Oh, btw.....when calculating our weight on the moon to be 1/6th of what it is here on Earth, NASA forgot to account for the lack of centripetal force that impacts our weight here.

You see, although it is completely undetectable, we are actually spinning around on a ball at 1,000mph. This creates centripetal force that causes our gravitational pull to the earth to be less than it actually would be if the earth was not spinning. NASA tells us the moon only spins just enough to show us exactly how one side all the time, thus there is very little spin and very little centripetal force that would cause us to weigh less relative to the gravitational pull caused by its mass.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,760
Likes
6,176
Location
Seattle
And what if I told you that I could pull a picture out of clear air and make it appear on a glass plate?

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

What you don't understand or cannot explain you can refuse to accept or create a scenario to resolve it to your satisfaction.

Carry on,
BF