We are going to have this argument for some time- arnt we MH. You simply will not accept the fact that you got it wrong,and continually try to reverse the mistake onto me. Weight is not a measure of mass MH-weight is the measure  of the gravitational pull between two objects--you need to understand or learn that MH-->weight is not a measure of mass-weight is a measure of the gravitational pull between two objects. The only place where weight is directly related to mass is here on earth MH--not the bloody moon. The only time weight can be used to determine mass amount,is on earth-or any other planet or moon that has a gravitational acceleration of 9.8m/sec Squared. You clearly quoted weight when referring to the astronauts and there suits on the moon--first in LB's,and then in KG's.
Weight is !!NOT!! mass MH--it is the gravitational pull between two objects<--do you understand this?. So when you stated that the astronaut and his suit had a combines !!weight!! of 290-pounds,and i corrected you,and gave you the correct !weight! of 47.85 pounds--you got your knickers in a twist. We are on the moon MH-not earth. Weight is not mass MH-weight is the gravitational pull between two objects. Please go and learn what weight is,before incorrectly saying it is mass. I will help you out some.

What is making you believe that I don't understand the difference between weight and mass?

So when you stated that the astronaut and his suit had a combines !!weight!! of 290-pounds,and i corrected you,and gave you the correct !weight! of 47.85 pounds

This is probably at least the third time I am going to tell you this:  I meant "290 pounds of mass."  I told you that I said that sentence in a colloquial sense and that English units are wishy-washy and can sometimes mean weight and sometimes mean mass.  I could just as easily have said "a combined mass of 130 kilograms."  I told you that after that I switched to metric units to avoid any possible misunderstandings.

Yes, the correct weight of the astronaut and his space suit on the moon would be 47.85 pounds.  What would be more appropriate for estimating the energy in the impact on the moon of the "thumps," the mass of 130 kilograms or the weight of 47.85 pounds?

so what do you think about the two pictures associated with the video i posted in my last post MH?. One supposedly taken 4 km south of the other the following day

Now,we can clearly see that it is in fact the same location,but NASA says one is 4 km south of the other. So it is clear that we have now found lie number two(lie number one being the damage done to the astronauts hands by the gloves) from NASA. You can also cross check this with the original NASA video,and time/place index.

Now,if this was some one claiming to have an OU device,and we found just one lie-one hidden wire,battery,power source,then we would be calling hoax. Dose the same go for the moon landing's MH?, or dose the !need to believe! just make all the lie's disappear ?.

Oh,and did you see that the flag never moved when the !ground thumping! astronaut was jumping straight up and down next to the flag
Brad

The answer is that the people in the NASA Marketing and Promotions department made an unwitting mistake, or they simply used footage that did not fit into the narrative for expediency and they were aware of it.  This happens all the time in films and filmmakers do it all the time because they know that the vast majority of the audience will not spot it.  Have you ever read the "goofs" section for a movie on the Internet Movie Database?  So your point means nothing.

Did you read the comments on the YouTube clip about the damage to the astronaut's hands?

Oh,and did you see that the flag never moved when the !ground thumping! astronaut was jumping straight up and down next to the flag

You do this kind of foolishness all the time:

Joe is an Old Salt
Salt dissolves in water
Therefore Joe dissolves in water

Just because the flag wavered in the first shot we discussed, and presumably you are then looking at an astronaut jumping up and down in a different shot that was taken on a different moon mission, then it doesn't necessarily follow that the flag is "supposed" or "not supposed" to waver in the second shot.

It's just like you asking me for an explanation for the flag possibly wavering from the ice sublimation from the astronaut's cooling system.  It can't possibly be answered because it would almost certainly require a full computer simulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

It's all just a conspiracy to sell DVDs and pulp pseudoscience fiction books and to pay for fake-ass lecture tours by fake-ass speakers.  The fake moon landings is just another cottage industry just like the pseudoscience free energy cottage industry.

Don't let yourself get sucked in.