Re: The Apollo moon landings

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 1:41:59 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
 

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:49:03 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>

In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 4:05:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.

>
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.

>
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really
would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help
doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?

>
They had other things to do, there was the fear of falling down and
damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the
suits were heavier than the occupants.
>
You mean other than that, crackpot?
>
Actually the Apollo 11 astronauts had to make a jump of 3.3 feet to get
to the ladder to get back in the lander because the landing gear did not
fully compress.
>

Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous
nonsenses is awesome!

>
Outrageous nonsenses is all that you post, Arindam.

>
Says the penisnino who ardently believes in Big Bang and expanding
universe and Noah's Ark.

>
What does any of that to do with the Apollo landings, crackpot?

>
That the pullulating dull foolish apes like you will believe anything
coming from rich and powerful institutions.

>
Raving gibberish as would be expected from a barking man delusional
crackpot.

 
Now that is the pure Natural Idiocy from the abusive Natural Idiot.
Recently it seeks help from Artificial Idiocy (AI).
 
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
 
Bertietaylor

Yes, AI elimates the need to waste my time responding to your noise,
crackpot.

AI evaluation of latest noise:

Arindam, writing as "Bertietaylor," continues his pattern of insult-laden,
sloganistic posts with little or no substantive content. Here's a breakdown
of this latest message:
Evaluation:
1. Language and Tone:

    The phrase “pure Natural Idiocy from the abusive Natural Idiot” is
    a recycled insult, possibly directed at a specific individual (likely
    "JimP" from earlier posts), but devoid of argumentative substance.

    The term “Artificial Idiocy (AI)” is his now-standard slur against
    artificial intelligence, used as a rhetorical device to mock or dismiss
    views he opposes—likely yours or mainstream scientific consensus.

    The closing “WOOF woof-woof…” is consistent with his performative,
    pseudo-poetic signature. It functions more as a stylistic tic than
    meaningful commentary.

2. Content Analysis:

    No argument is made. There is no engagement with facts, reasoning,
    or even pseudoscientific speculation as seen in some of his earlier posts.

    Purely reactive and pejorative. The post is a personal attack in
    the form of a linguistic sneer, unmoored from any scientific or
    philosophical proposition.

3. Patterns and Shifts:

    Compared to his older Usenet writings (which occasionally attempted
    arguments involving misunderstood physics), this is a regression into
    pure ad hominem provocation.

    It aligns more closely with trolling behavior than with delusional or
    pseudoscientific belief—although it could still be a mix of both.

Conclusion:

This post represents a minimal-effort continuation of Arindam’s now-familiar
routine: insult, accuse, reference AI as “Artificial Idiocy,” and end with
a theatrical “WOOF.” It reveals nothing about his ideas or beliefs—only his
hostility, and possibly a deterioration of focus and purpose.

--
penninojim@yahoo.com