# Thread: The moons gravity (or lack of)

1. The feather and the hammer test conducted during the lunar landings showed that they were both dropped from the same height and hit the surface at the same time. Can someone please explain to me how this occurrence came to be? If the moons gravity is approx 1/6th of the earths then surely there would have been a variation between the two's momentum?

I hear people mention weight and force etc but, I still don't get it.
Any links to videos would be greatly appreciated, the simplest (laymans terms) explanations would be better.

Thanks.

2.

3. Since both the hammer and the feather were subject ONLY to the Moon's grvaity then why do think there'd be a variation between their impact times?

It wouldn't matter what the particular value of "gravity" was: perform that experiment anywhere (in vacuum of course) and both objects will hit the ground at the same time.

4. I would imagine that we would see variations because the hammer had weight behind it but the feather could it have gone upwards or floated? do things only float at absolute zero gravity? if gravity on the moon is only 1/6th of earths. What kept the astronauts on the moons surface? did they use weights in their boots?

I need to understand the science behind it.

5. Originally Posted by hannah40
Can someone please explain to me how this occurrence came to be?
It's simple geometry. Objects in free fall follow geodesics through space-time; so long as the falling object is very much less massive than the attracting body ( hammer/feather & moon ), these geodesics depend only on the geometry of space-time around the central body, but not on the mass or composition of the freely falling object. That is why both hammer and feather take the same amount of time to travel between the same two reference points - they travel along essentially the same geodesic in space-time.

the feather could it have gone upwards or floated
There is no atmosphere, so no forces act on the feather. Hence no floatation.

6. Originally Posted by hannah40
The feather and the hammer test conducted during the lunar landings showed that they were both dropped from the same height and hit the surface at the same time. Can someone please explain to me how this occurrence came to be? If the moons gravity is approx 1/6th of the earths then surely there would have been a variation between the two's momentum?

I hear people mention weight and force etc but, I still don't get it.
Any links to videos would be greatly appreciated, the simplest (laymans terms) explanations would be better.

Thanks.
There are two separate things here: why do they fall slower on the moon; and why do they fall at the same speed.

The weight of the hammer on the moon is 1/6 what it is on Earth. And the weight of the feather is 1/6th what it is on Earth. Therefore they will both fall (not float) because they are both being acted on by gravity - just less so than on Earth.

The gravitational force between two objects is proportional to their mass. This is (one reason) why gravity is less on the moon: it has less mass then the Earth. (We can ignore the difference in radius, as it is irrelevant for the following discussion).

So, first thing: they will both experience 1/6 the force on the moon and so will fall 1/6 as fast as they would on Earth.

But note that, on Earth, we have the complication of the air: this will cause the feather to drift down slowly. If you put the feather in a vacuum on Earth (so there is no air resistance) then it will fall just as fast as the hammer.

So, next, why do they fall at the same rate (when both are on Earth or both are on the moon)? This is one of those really cool bits of math / physics.

The force on an object is proportional to its mass: so the hammer experiences a greater force than the feather. BUT (and here comes the cool bit) the rate at which something accelerates is inversely proportional to its mass (Newton's 2nd law of motion). So, the hammer has a greater force, but accelerates less for that force than the feather would. On the other hand, the feather experiences very little force, but it takes very little force to accelerate a feather.

Net result? They both accelerate at the same rate and both hit the ground at the same time.

Does that make sense?

I could show you the math, if that helps.

7. No atmosphere? or no air? are they the same or different? what about space? no air but atmosphere? things float in space because of zero gravity, right? what is the difference between space and the moons atmosphere?
If I can find this out then I might understand.

8. Air and atmosphere are basically the same thing (atmosphere means the air around a planet). There is no air/atmosphere in space or on the moon.

The reason there is no air/atmosphere on the moon is because there is not enough gravity to hold it in place.

9. I can't watch videos, but these look as if they might help (with the air bit, at least)
Feather and Ball Bearing Dropped in Vacuum - YouTube
Feather and Coin in a Vacuum | MIT Video

10. Originally Posted by hannah40
No atmosphere? or no air? are they the same or different?
The words 'air' and 'atmosphere' are pretty much interchangeable.

Originally Posted by hannah40
what about space? no air but atmosphere? things float in space because of zero gravity, right?
Things don't really 'float' in space.
Objects maintain their velocity until acted upon by a force. (Newtons 1st Law)

Originally Posted by hannah40
what is the difference between space and the moons atmosphere?
The moon has no atmosphere.
It is surrounded by 'space'.

11. The moons atmosphere isn't a perfect vaccuum and neither is space.

12. Originally Posted by hannah40
The moons atmosphere isn't a perfect vaccuum and neither is space.
True. But it is a far a better vacuum than we can produce on Earth. Any effect of the few atoms there can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion.

13.

14. Originally Posted by hannah40
things float in space because of zero gravity, right?
No, things in space are in free fall. There really isn't any place where there is zero gravity. Take the astronauts in the ISS. They seem to being "floating" around. However, they are not in "zero gravity". At the altitude of the ISS, Earth's gravity is still almost 90% of what it is on the Earth's surface. The reason that the astronauts float around in the space station is that both they and the station are in free fall. They are both "falling around the Earth", and doing so at the same speed. The same thing would happen to you if you were in a elevator which suddenly started falling down its shaft. While the elevator fell, you would could "float" around in it like the astronauts do, because you and the elevator are falling at the same speed. (The difference being that your experience will come to a nasty end when the elevator hits bottom) You have even experienced this slightly if you've ever ridden in a fast elevator. Just at the moment the elevator starts down, you feel a little "lighter".

15. Originally Posted by Janus
There really isn't any place where there is zero gravity.
Thank you. I read/hear the phrase "zero G" everywhere, even from well-educated scientific people.

16. So, to summarise it all:

The lack of air in the lunar atmosphere affects the outcome because although there is 1/6th of earths gravity in lunar conditions it will make two objects fall differently but neccessarily at differing rates?. I can't work out from the video if the hammer fell faster or slower than it would on earth? Should it make a difference?

17. Originally Posted by PumaMan
Originally Posted by Janus
There really isn't any place where there is zero gravity.
Thank you. I read/hear the phrase "zero G" everywhere, even from well-educated scientific people.
I agree, I did some research earlier and people were saying there's not really anywhere where there is zero gravity.

18. Originally Posted by hannah40
So, to summarise it all:

The lack of air in the lunar atmosphere affects the outcome because although there is 1/6th of earths gravity in lunar conditions it will make two objects fall differently but neccessarily at differing rates?. I can't work out from the video if the hammer fell faster or slower than it would on earth? Should it make a difference?
If that is the conclusion you've drawn from what people have posted for you, then you need to take a couple of high school science classes.

19. Originally Posted by hannah40
So, to summarise it all:

The lack of air in the lunar atmosphere affects the outcome because although there is 1/6th of earths gravity in lunar conditions it will make two objects fall differently but neccessarily at differing rates?. I can't work out from the video if the hammer fell faster or slower than it would on earth? Should it make a difference?
You've actually got it almost completely backwards.

The lack of air on the moon is what makes the experiment "clean." It means that the only force acting on the two objects is gravity. On earth, the presence of air confounds things -- the falling of leaves is affected by air in a way that differs from that on a bowling ball (we depend on parachutes behaving differently from bricks). The moon's lack of atmosphere means that we can investigate the action of gravity in a way that is not obscured by air.

To go back to your fundamental question, let's forget about feathers and hammers for the moment. Let's just consider two identical blocks on the moon. If we drop them, we'd expect that, whatever happens, the same thing will happen to both, so they'll hit the moon's surface at the same time, right?

Now suppose that we happen to release the blocks when they are very, very, very close together. They will still fall at the same rate, so we could glue the two blocks together, without any force being exerted on the glue. The two blocks are now, effectively, one single block of twice the mass. The blocks don't suddenly say to themselves, "Oh! We're now one big block -- let's speed up!" They continue to do exactly what they were doing before the glue was magically applied. That's why heavy objects fall at exactly the same rate as do light ones, just as Strange explained.

20. Originally Posted by hannah40
The lack of air in the lunar atmosphere affects the outcome because although there is 1/6th of earths gravity in lunar conditions it will make two objects fall differently but neccessarily at differing rates?. I can't work out from the video if the hammer fell faster or slower than it would on earth? Should it make a difference?
Not quite right.

On Earth: The hammer falls faster than feather because the feather is slowed by air resistance.
On Moon: The hammer falls at the same speed as the feather because there is no air to slow the feather down.

21. Originally Posted by PumaMan
Originally Posted by hannah40
So, to summarise it all:

The lack of air in the lunar atmosphere affects the outcome because although there is 1/6th of earths gravity in lunar conditions it will make two objects fall differently but neccessarily at differing rates?. I can't work out from the video if the hammer fell faster or slower than it would on earth? Should it make a difference?
If that is the conclusion you've drawn from what people have posted for you, then you need to take a couple of high school science classes.
Gee thanks,

I'll remember you and your hilarious wit in the future!

22. I see what you say. If we glued a feather to a hammer in earths atmosphere the feather would fall with the hammer because the weight ratio is on the hammers side. The feather has no resistance.

I also watched a video earlier where they were throwing objects on the moon and some were spinning?

23. Originally Posted by hannah40
I see what you say. If we glued a feather to a hammer in earths atmosphere the feather would fall with the hammer because the weight ratio is on the hammers side.
No. They would fall at the same rate because you glued them together.

The feather has no resistance.
??

I also watched a video earlier where they were throwing objects on the moon and some were spinning?
This has nothing to do with the first part of your question, but yes, when you throw objects -- here or on the moon -- they can spin. That has nothing whatever to do with gravity per se. It just means that they threw it in a way that made it spin in the first place. Unless there's something to make it stop spinning, it'll keep on spinning.

24. Originally Posted by hannah40
Originally Posted by PumaMan
Originally Posted by hannah40
So, to summarise it all:

The lack of air in the lunar atmosphere affects the outcome because although there is 1/6th of earths gravity in lunar conditions it will make two objects fall differently but neccessarily at differing rates?. I can't work out from the video if the hammer fell faster or slower than it would on earth? Should it make a difference?
If that is the conclusion you've drawn from what people have posted for you, then you need to take a couple of high school science classes.
Gee thanks,

I'll remember you and your hilarious wit in the future!
Gee, you're welcome. Wasn't trying to be witty. Just pointing out what you need.

25. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by hannah40
I see what you say. If we glued a feather to a hammer in earths atmosphere the feather would fall with the hammer because the weight ratio is on the hammers side.
No. They would fall at the same rate because you glued them together.
The feather has no resistance.
??
I also watched a video earlier where they were throwing objects on the moon and some were spinning?
This has nothing to do with the first part of your question, but yes, when you throw objects -- here or on the moon -- they can spin. That has nothing whatever to do with gravity per se. It just means that they threw it in a way that made it spin in the first place. Unless there's something to make it stop spinning, it'll keep on spinning.

Ok, I als noticed that when the hammer hit the lunar surface, it then fell forwards? what caused that?

Objects spinning in space would be down to gravity push or pull then? Not air? Like when we throw or spin an object through the earths atmosphere we can see it spin as a result of air flow and force? we know that there is an infinitely small amount of air in the lunar atmosphere but not enough to have an effect?

Would I be right in saying that actually, gravity and air kind of both do smilar things regarding objects movements? They are both 'Forces'?

26. Would I be right in saying that actually, gravity and air kind of both do smilar things regarding objects movements? They are both 'Forces'?
No, you wouldn't be.

27. ok, what about the hammer falling forwards? Can someone explain that? Also, it looked like the feather bounced a little bit when it struck the lunar surface.

28. are you seriously asking why things bounce?

29. Originally Posted by hannah40
Ok, I als noticed that when the hammer hit the lunar surface, it then fell forwards? what caused that?
You seem to be under the impression that the moon obeys different physics than on earth. It doesn't. Things bounce on earth, and they bounce on the moon, too.

The difference is just that the moon's gravity is weaker -- you yourself cited the factor of 6 correctly. The absence of atmosphere, as I've noted, avoids the confusing effect of air. But you can build a vacuum chamber here on earth and enjoy the same freedom from air's effects; no need to go to the moon.

Objects spinning in space would be down to gravity push or pull then? Not air? Like when we throw or spin an object through the earths atmosphere we can see it spin as a result of air flow and force? we know that there is an infinitely small amount of air in the lunar atmosphere but not enough to have an effect?
An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by another force. So if I put spin on a tennis ball by hitting it the right way, it will keep spinning unless acted upon by another force (such as "friction" by air). That's true on earth, the moon, and Pluto.

Would I be right in saying that actually, gravity and air kind of both do smilar things regarding objects movements? They are both 'Forces'?
Air is not a force. It is a collection of molecules.

30. Fine. So, if the feather bounced (which actually does make sense when we look at the conditions that we are believed them to be in) then, why didnt the hammer bounce too? afterall, the effects of their weight terms compared on earth don't apply here and they are both appear to look ( the same weight)? The hammer, instead did a little shimmy dance and fell over, forwards. I can see that even when the astronauts walk, everytime their feet lands on the surface, they meet resistance and are forced back upwards a little bit, appearing to look like they are floating ever so slightly. Also, when the astronaut is holding the hammer in his hand and he slides the hammer upwards through his clenched hand, the hammer seems to shift upwards 'pretty quickly', which does happen here too, (i've just tried doing it). Why was the feather dropped horizontally? Out of curiosity?

31. Originally Posted by hannah40
Why was the feather dropped horizontally? Out of curiosity?
In a vacuum it doesn't matter which way it's held before it's dropped. THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE ON THE MOON!!!!

32. Originally Posted by PumaMan
Originally Posted by hannah40
Why was the feather dropped horizontally? Out of curiosity?
In a vacuum it doesn't matter which way it's held before it's dropped. THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE ON THE MOON!!!!
That's fair enough but the feather started off as horizontal and landed horizontally then, the hammer started off as vertical and ended up horizontal.

Forgive me for questioning but it is something I do a lot of.

A guy named Galileo came up with a a mathematical equation or probabilty regarding physics in the lunar atmosphere, and he was right. That's some pretty damned good work.
I am also aware that we do get lied to and there are governments and agencies who are not completely honest, now, I'm not saying that this is the case here but, I do like to question things.

33. Originally Posted by hannah40
I am also aware that we do get lied to and there are governments and agencies who are not completely honest, .
What in the heck does this have to do with this discussion?

34. Originally Posted by hannah40
the hammer started off as vertical and ended up horizontal.
Maybe the astronaut torqued it a bit when he released it. It's not worth fretting over.

35. TK421 [/QUOTE]Air is not a force. It is a collection of molecules.[/QUOTE]

Try saying that when walking to the shops during a cyclone!

36. Originally Posted by PumaMan
Originally Posted by hannah40
I am also aware that we do get lied to and there are governments and agencies who are not completely honest, .
What in the heck does this have to do with this discussion?
I hope I am wrong but this sounds like the lead-in to "so how do you know they were really on the Moon?"

37. There does seem to be a definite aroma of conspiracy theory crankery hovering around this thread...

38. Originally Posted by hannah40
Originally Posted by tk421
Air is not a force. It is a collection of molecules.
Try saying that when walking to the shops during a cyclone!
Don't confuse air with the movement of air.

If I push against anything, it pushes back (thus saith Newton). That goes for air molecules or bowling balls. Just be happy that bowling-ball cyclones are rare.

Now as to the rest of your posts, it is disheartening to see increasingly that you are likely a moon-landing denier. A typical tactic is to pretend to ask a series of innocent questions, and then morph into "I'm just asking" about a series of irrelevant details in an effort to pinpoint some sign that the landings were all faked on a Hollywood soundstage in the Mojave Desert. If that's the case here, just say so, and we'll go full-on. We'll save a lot of time and frustration.

For now, I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that you are a middle-school student who has not studied much physics. But if you are a landing-denier, then we'll move this thread where it belongs.

39. Originally Posted by billvon
I hope I am wrong but this sounds like the lead-in to "so how do you know they were really on the Moon?"
If they really went to the Moon how come I haven't got the lousy T-shirt?

40. No lice on the moon...

41. Not even flied?

42. Lacist!

43. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Not even flied?
Not until 2015

Chang'e 4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(they forgot to pack it on Chang'e 3...)

44. Originally Posted by tk421
For now, I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that you are a middle-school student who has not studied much physics. But if you are a landing-denier, then we'll move this thread where it belongs.
I assume he is a young person too. Now I know he's not from the US because no one here uses the term "cyclone". That's more of an Asian term. If he is an older person, then . . well . . he's awful damn ignorant.

45. I'm not denying it.

I'm not here to cause trouble. I am here because I believe you can answer any questions or indeed clear up any issues I might have about what we are told.?

I am a citizen Of the UK, Born here and I understand that this forum is probably predominantly American? I don't have an issue with that and I do know that American people are very patriotic and I respect that.

46. OK, off to the trash can.

47. Originally Posted by PumaMan
Originally Posted by tk421
For now, I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that you are a middle-school student who has not studied much physics. But if you are a landing-denier, then we'll move this thread where it belongs.
I assume he is a young person too. Now I know he's not from the US because no one here uses the term "cyclone". That's more of an Asian term. If he is an older person, then . . well . . he's awful damn ignorant.
He? who is he?
Now, who is ignorant? I thought the GLP website was trouble and that David Icke forum but you are like a fish out of water here compared to them.....

48. As a Brit I feel as though I should apologise to the rest of the forum for this conspiracy theory loon, nutjob , poor dumb bastard person.

49. Originally Posted by hannah40
I thought the GLP website was trouble and that David Icke forum but you are like a fish out of water here compared to them.....
You've been on Icke's forum?
I do hope you weren't asking questions there.

Edit: I just checked what "GLP" means.
Yeah... avoid that, too.

50. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by hannah40
Originally Posted by tk421
Air is not a force. It is a collection of molecules.
Try saying that when walking to the shops during a cyclone!
Don't confuse air with the movement of air.

If I push against anything, it pushes back (thus saith Newton). That goes for air molecules or bowling balls. Just be happy that bowling-ball cyclones are rare.

Now as to the rest of your posts, it is disheartening to see increasingly that you are likely a moon-landing denier. A typical tactic is to pretend to ask a series of innocent questions, and then morph into "I'm just asking" about a series of irrelevant details in an effort to pinpoint some sign that the landings were all faked on a Hollywood soundstage in the Mojave Desert. If that's the case here, just say so, and we'll go full-on. We'll save a lot of time and frustration.

For now, I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that you are a middle-school student who has not studied much physics. But if you are a landing-denier, then we'll move this thread where it belongs.

You missed the joke. A cyclone being a vacuum. Do try and keep up....

51. A bigger joke is that apparently some people believe the moon landings didn't happen...

52. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by hannah40
I thought the GLP website was trouble and that David Icke forum but you are like a fish out of water here compared to them.....
You've been on Icke's forum?
I do hope you weren't asking questions there.
Ickes forum is full of disinfo agents and ahem.....nasty people. And rumour has it....ex intelligence too. Stay away.
They are using him for what they can get and then, they will more than likely throw him to the wolves.

53. Originally Posted by hannah40
I understand that this forum is probably predominantly American?
Almost certainly not. My impression is that American's are in a (slight) minority.

I don't have an issue with that and I do know that American people are very patriotic and I respect that.
What does patriotism have to do with gravity?

54. Originally Posted by hannah40
I'm not denying it.
You know, starting a thread and pretending to be interested in physics (which we now find out is a lie) and having several people spend time trying to help you (I'm glad I didn't), this is a contemptible thing you've done. You deserve to be banned.

55. Originally Posted by hannah40
Ickes forum is full of disinfo agents and ahem.....nasty people. And rumour has it....ex intelligence too. Stay away.
They are using him for what they can get and then, they will more than likely throw him to the wolves.
I assume it is full of people who are (or aspire to be) as crazy as Icke.

56. Originally Posted by hannah40
I'm not denying it.

I'm not here to cause trouble. I am here because I believe you can answer any questions or indeed clear up any issues I might have about what we are told.?
Your phrasing "we are told" is troublesome. It is precisely what CT'ers sound like.

I am a citizen Of the UK, Born here and I understand that this forum is probably predominantly American? I don't have an issue with that and I do know that American people are very patriotic and I respect that.
This, too, is uncomfortably similar to how other CT'ers speak: "You are just sheeple, accepting what the Gummint tells you, appealing to patriotism to blind you to The Truth."

In speaking with kids just learning physics (and I have taught many, starting as a tutor in high school), they respond quite differently to answers than you have. Instead of understanding/accepting the answers that are given (and which you can independently check), you zoom in on quite-minor details that are totally irrelevant UNLESS you are desperately in search of "something wrong." That, and the quotes above, tend to strengthen the hypothesis that you are are landing-denier. I don't believe that you are innocently confused about the physics (you are confused about the physics, but not innocently).

57. Originally Posted by PhDemon
As a Brit I feel as tough I should apologise to the rest of the forum for this conspiracy theory loon, nutjob , poor dumb bastard person.
Hi

When you have full rights and proof to prove any of my postings are unreasonable then you can apologise but, until that day, don't try and be a hero. It might make you look silly!

58. Originally Posted by hannah40
Ickes forum is full of disinfo agents
"Disinfo agents"?
Nah, the main problem (apart, of course, from it being Icke himself) is that it's full of credulous ignorant f*ckwits.

They are using him for what they can get and then, they will more than likely throw him to the wolves.
Er yes. Absolutely.

/Backs away, avoiding eye contact.

59. Seriously, so much paranoia here! Calm down!

60. There's only one person looking silly in this thread. (I'll give you a clue, it's the one who has admitted being a moon-landing denier).

61. Originally Posted by hannah40
You missed the joke. A cyclone being a vacuum. Do try and keep up....
It's easy to miss a joke when all of your posts have been equally full of vacuum. And note: A cyclone is not a vacuum.

62. Originally Posted by PhDemon
As a Brit I feel as though I should apologise to the rest of the forum for this conspiracy theory loon, nutjob , poor dumb bastard person.
No need for any type of apology. Every nation has its willfully-ignorant, uneducated, a-holes. The US here is infested with them.

63. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by hannah40
You missed the joke. A cyclone being a vacuum. Do try and keep up....
It's easy to miss a joke when all of your posts have been equally full of vacuum shit.
I know you're too polite so I fixed that for you.

64. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by hannah40
You missed the joke. A cyclone being a vacuum. Do try and keep up....
It's easy to miss a joke when all of your posts have been equally full of vacuum shit.
I know you're too polite so I fixed that for you.
Thanks, man!

65. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by hannah40
Ickes forum is full of disinfo agents
"Disinfo agents"?
Nah, the main problem (apart, of course, from it being Icke himself) is that it's full of credulous ignorant f*ckwits.

They are using him for what they can get and then, they will more than likely throw him to the wolves.
Er yes. Absolutely.

/Backs away, avoiding eye contact.
Sad thing is, Ickes been set up. It is cruel really. But. he's made enough money from it all I suppose. If that is what matters.

66. Originally Posted by PhDemon
There's only one person looking silly in this thread. (I'll give you a clue, it's the one who has admitted being a moon-landing denier).
Which is, who?

Oh, no...I feel a facepalm coming on....

67. Originally Posted by hannah40
Ickes been set up.
Evidence?
(Oh wait... I shouldn't have asked because there isn't any).

68. We should have known when the very first words of the very first sentence of the first post of this thread were:

The feather and the hammer test conducted during the lunar landings . . .
It's one of the things the moon-landing-deniers fret about. At least we've seen (once again) how utterly ignorant and stupid they are on average. Hannah showed us this in spades. I still vote for banning because of the subterfuge.

69. You were accused of being a moon-landing conspiracy theorist and you posted:

Originally Posted by hannah40
I'm not denying it.
So now you are denying it?

Here have two on me:

70. Originally Posted by Strange
What does patriotism have to do with gravity?
Patriotism is a serious thing.
That lends it gravity.

71. Originally Posted by PumaMan
It's one of the things the moon-landing-deniers fret about. At least we've seen (once again) how utterly ignorant and stupid they are on average. Hannah showed us this in spades. I still vote for banning because of the subterfuge.
To be fair, she said she does not believe in that conspiracy theory. I see no reason to doubt her; Hanlon's Razor and all that.

72. Originally Posted by PhDemon
A bigger joke is that apparently some people believe the moon landings didn't happen...
Yes. Some beleive it is made of cheese too.

Mr Icke thinks it is a man made object.

If talking crap makes money then maybe my time on here is not wasted after all!

Thanks for making me rich!!!

73. Originally Posted by hannah40
Mr Icke thinks it is a man made object.
What Icke "thinks" has very little correspondence with reality.

74. Let's stop the name-calling, folks.

75. If talking crap made money there would be a lot more millionaires around (and I'm guessing your bank balance would be higher).

76. Originally Posted by billvon
Originally Posted by PumaMan
It's one of the things the moon-landing-deniers fret about. At least we've seen (once again) how utterly ignorant and stupid they are on average. Hannah showed us this in spades. I still vote for banning because of the subterfuge.
To be fair, she said she does not believe in that conspiracy theory. I see no reason to doubt her; Hanlon's Razor and all that.
Ban me then, based on what? conjecture? Oh, I have had to single handedly endure your ad hominen attacks too. It phases me not!

77. Originally Posted by PhDemon
If talking crap made money there would be a lot more millionaires around (and I'm guessing your bank balance would be higher).
If I was a money orientated. I'm not that kind of person, even if I was in such a position.

78. Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"

79. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Strange
What does patriotism have to do with gravity?
Patriotism is a serious thing.
That lends it gravity.
It doesn't but I could quickly see how all of a sudden there was a surge of comments trying to insinuate against me and I thought ...here we go...it's gonna kick off.

80. Originally Posted by hannah40
If I was a money orientated. I'm not that kind of person, even if I was in such a position.
But you are given to making unsubstantiated claims.

81. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by hannah40
You missed the joke. A cyclone being a vacuum. Do try and keep up....
It's easy to miss a joke when all of your posts have been equally full of vacuum. And note: A cyclone is not a vacuum.
It is....it was made by Dyson himself based on the cyclone model. An 'Upright' or 'Vertical' one too!

Latest Dyson vacuum cleaner technology | official site

82. Originally Posted by hannah40
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by hannah40
You missed the joke. A cyclone being a vacuum. Do try and keep up....
It's easy to miss a joke when all of your posts have been equally full of vacuum. And note: A cyclone is not a vacuum.
It is....it was made by Dyson himself based on the cyclone model. An 'Upright' or 'Vertical' one too!

Latest Dyson vacuum cleaner technology | official site
Since I can't tell when you are joking, here's the wikipedia definition: "In meteorology, a cyclone is an area of closed, circular fluid motion rotating in the same direction as the Earth."

83. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by hannah40
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by hannah40
You missed the joke. A cyclone being a vacuum. Do try and keep up....
It's easy to miss a joke when all of your posts have been equally full of vacuum. And note: A cyclone is not a vacuum.
It is....it was made by Dyson himself based on the cyclone model. An 'Upright' or 'Vertical' one too!

Latest Dyson vacuum cleaner technology | official site
Since I can't tell when you are joking, here's the wikipedia definition: "In meteorology, a cyclone is an area of closed, circular fluid motion rotating in the same direction as the Earth."

Yes. so, where is the safest position to be if there was a cyclone near you?

84. Originally Posted by hannah40
Yes. so, where is the safest position to be if there was a cyclone near you?
Somewhere else.

85. Originally Posted by hannah40
Yes. so, where is the safest position to be if there was a cyclone near you?
Too general, cyclones are usually over water and can have flooding, rain and high winds.

This has nothing to do with your question about hammered feathers or feathered hammers.
So what are you actually trying to do in these threads?
I mean besides playing.

86. If you are unsure of where it was going to go the safest place to be would be at the centre of it!
If you could.

87. Originally Posted by dan hunter
Originally Posted by hannah40
Yes. so, where is the safest position to be if there was a cyclone near you?
Too general, cyclones are usually over water and can have flooding, rain and high winds.

This has nothing to do with your question about hammered feathers or feathered hammers.
So what are you actually trying to do in these threads?
I mean besides playing.

Playing? What are you here to do...the work of the MODS? Incidentally, where are they when a conflict occurs? I've seen this on many boards. tut tut!

88. Originally Posted by hannah40
If you are unsure of where it was going to go the safest place to be would be at the centre of it!
Yeah.
If you can run really fast.

Still no support for your claims?

89. I will leave you with this and say goodnight!

90. So that's a "no" then?

91. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
So that's a "no" then?
Check my previous post. You may have missed my point.
The safest place to be would be at the centre, even with whirlwinds etc....

IF YOU COULD!

92. Still, nobody has told me why the hammer fell forwards after it hit the lunar surface.

I've just had lots of accusations of being a denier or a crank and told not to question anything I want answers too.

Thats liberty for you is it?

93. It had to fall one way or the other. Falling forward is just as easy as falling any other way.

I hope you don't think the hammer was deciding which way to fall on purpose.

94. Originally Posted by hannah40
Still, nobody has told me why the hammer fell forwards after it hit the lunar surface.
Why shouldn't it? Did it land on one end? Then it almost certainly wouldn't be stable and would fall over.

Drop a hammer on Earth, so it lands "head down" it will hit the ground and then probably fall over.

Thats liberty for you is it?
What does liberty have to do with it? The hammer was free to fall in any direction.

95. Originally Posted by hannah40
Check my previous post. You may have missed my point.
Nope.
YOU missed MY point.
I'll try again:
You: Ickes forum is full of disinfo agents
You: Ickes been set up
Me: Evidence?

Got it yet?
You're making unsupported claims.

96. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by hannah40
Still, nobody has told me why the hammer fell forwards after it hit the lunar surface.
Why shouldn't it? Did it land on one end? Then it almost certainly wouldn't be stable and would fall over.

Drop a hammer on Earth, so it lands "head down" it will hit the ground and then probably fall over.

Thats liberty for you is it?
What does liberty have to do with it? The hammer was free to fall in any direction.

Nope, I've tried it and it lands vertical and stays vertical. That's a solid hammer, not one that could be made of lightweight material ie...aluminium.

97. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by hannah40
Check my previous post. You may have missed my point.
Nope.
YOU missed MY point.
I'll try again:
You: Ickes forum is full of disinfo agents
You: Ickes been set up
Me: Evidence?

Got it yet?
You're making unsupported claims.

Learn a bit about intelligence work, then we will have this discussion. OK?

98. Originally Posted by hannah40
Nope, I've tried it and it lands vertical and stays vertical. That's a solid hammer, not one that could be made of lightweight material ie...aluminium.
I have no idea what the astronauts hammer was made of (although the information will be available). Are you dropping it on uneven but solid ground (a rocky surface) or on your carpet?

99. Originally Posted by hannah40
Nope, I've tried it and it lands vertical and stays vertical.
Yeah.
Crap.
Regardless:
Try it on an uneven surface.
Try it with some "spin" on it (which you yourself pointed out was present).

100. Originally Posted by hannah40
Learn a bit about intelligence work

then we will have this discussion. OK?
YOU made a claim: support it.

101. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by hannah40
Learn a bit about intelligence work

then we will have this discussion. OK?
YOU made a claim: support it.
I don't need to.

I have names and associations but I wont put them on here. I could go to prison.

I will tell you that the Icke forum has been reported to authorities and they have said they are investigating it.

It wouldn't be appropriate for me to say too much, pending ongoing investigation.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement