Was Apollo 13 Faked?
Hurt
the moon. Recently a video has shown up on the Internet showing an
ancient spacecraft on the moon. This is VERY likely to be REAL. From
the moment of its discovery there would have been an irresistible
desire to examine the ruins up close. But how do you go to the moon
discretely, keeping your discovery a secret? Everything you do is
being monitored from Earth. The solution. Go to the moon with a
substitute ground control while you keep everybody busy with a fake
accident and recovery effort.
Doubtful, but you never know. If they did do that it was brilliantly
executed. The spacecraft though is for real.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/2b6e58b41b46ccdf
BDK
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
Of course it is...WHAT?
Oh, excuse me, Darth Vader just called, he's still looking for Padme.
Sad case, he is.
BDK
Phlip
Dude, watch the video. It's either a lunar stalagmite that fell over, or
this little spaceship stuck in a crater. It's much higher resolution than
that doofus "face on mars" nonsense, and the camera zooms in and examines it
as the lunar orbiter travels past it. The most artificial feature is this
rectangular door on top, and the tip of the "spacecraft" shape clearly
projects over the lunar surface.
So, a nice tidbit of possibly real and very intriguing evidence is there.
Sending a probe to it would be worth our while; we would even learn
something even if it were just a curious rock formation.
But what does an amateur conspiracy theorist do with it? Drag in Yeti and
Nazis and whatnot, of course...
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
Hurt
> Dude, watch the video. It's either a lunar stalagmite that fell over, or
> this little spaceship stuck in a crater. It's much higher resolution than
> that doofus "face on mars" nonsense, and the camera zooms in and examines it
> as the lunar orbiter travels past it. The most artificial feature is this
> rectangular door on top, and the tip of the "spacecraft" shape clearly
> projects over the lunar surface.
No way that's a rock. I'd accept it's a hoax before that. If those
pictures are from the Moon that definitely is something intelligently
made. Those bevels are not natural. The holes punched through that
structure by meteorites have well defined edges suggesting metal.
Keep in mind that I don't believe I've seen anything from those who
claim a face on Mars to convince me I've seen any such evidence
before.
George Orwell
It sure looks real, but I don't know what they can do these days with
video software. I was impressed with how it looks exactly like a distant
object seen through a zoom lens would look if the camera was moving with
respect to it. If it's fake, it's likely that the faker took a real video
of some rock that the astronaut focused on for a couple of minutes and
'transformed' the rock into a spaceship using cleverly designed software.
Hell, even if it's fake, it's amazing.
Vandar
Once you view the rest of the so-called "Apollo 20" videos that user
posted, the hoax becomes quite obvious.
Hurt
> Once you view the rest of the so-called "Apollo 20" videos that user
> posted, the hoax becomes quite obvious.
There are a lot of videos that are obviously fake, but that doesn't
make this one so. Copycats? Intentional disinformation?
Hurt
> Hell, even if it's fake, it's amazing.
If it's fake it's one of the best special effects I've ever seen. I
don't think it's fake.
ctyguy
"Hurt" <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179089075.4...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
ctyguy
"Hurt" <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179089075.4...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If it's fake it's one of the best special effects I've ever seen. I
> don't think it's fake.
>
>
Suposedly man went to the moon 50 years ago; were that true by now there
would be weekend flights to vaca on the moon <LOL>
Hurt
> Suposedly man went to the moon 50 years ago; were that true by now there
> would be weekend flights to vaca on the moon <LOL>
There may be a small percentage of the population that is
"vacationing" on the Moon. Some people are paying $20M to go to the
Space Station. Economics plays a role in everything we do. I would
imagine there is and always will be a small group of elite that are in
advance of the rest.
Phlip
> would be weekend flights to vaca on the moon <LOL>
You could say the same uselessly absurd thing about the bottom of the ocean.
Until we bring down the cost of the mission, we don't have weekend flights
to either place.
Or are submarine trips to the bottom of the ocean also on the list of things
we get guilty pleasures denying?
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
Hurt
> You could say the same uselessly absurd thing about the bottom of the ocean.
> Until we bring down the cost of the mission, we don't have weekend flights
> to either place.
>
> Or are submarine trips to the bottom of the ocean also on the list of things
> we get guilty pleasures denying?
Really. The underwater world is equally as alien as the Moon or Mars.
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
Ok... This is gonna keep me up all night. Here is a photo taken from
Apollo 15 (not Apollo 20 like the video is titled) that appears to show
the same object that appears in the video. The full image can be found at
the following link:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625
It's a very wide image, so you may need to scroll left/right to see this
area - it's near the center of the photo.
I've also created a zoomed in version of this photo with the object
circled in red, (for those of you who cannot find it) at the following
link: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/ryandinan/9625copy.jpg
I think from this, we can say with reasonable comfort, that the object the
video is portraying, actually exists. The video appears to be faked (for
numerous reasons). Now, the real question is, "what the hell is the object
in the photo"?
and
I took a few screenshots and put them over the moon images and he got
every bump in the sand in the right spot.
look how ET dug up our space ship!
Douglas Berry
<cty...@hotcoolmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
>Suposedly man went to the moon 50 years ago; were that true by now there
>would be weekend flights to vaca on the moon <LOL>
40 years, and had Congress kept funding the missions we might well
have regular flights by now.
But they didn't. They cut off the Apollo program early to fund Skylab
and the Shuttle.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
Hurt
> Ok... This is gonna keep me up all night. Here is a photo taken from
> Apollo 15 (not Apollo 20 like the video is titled) that appears to show
> the same object that appears in the video. The full image can be found at
> the following link:http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625
That's an "official" NASA photo.
> I think from this, we can say with reasonable comfort, that the object the
> video is portraying, actually exists. The video appears to be faked (for
> numerous reasons). Now, the real question is, "what the hell is the object
> in the photo"?
Please tell me how you can tell the video is fake, because I'm missing
it. The video might be a little suspicious but I see the same thing
in the video as I do in the "official" photo.
And what about that patch. Would a hoaxer make his hoax so obvious.
More information:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/walkaboutmoon.htm
Videos of the boldest and most secret apollo mission. Apollo 20 went
to the moon august 16 1976. Destination was Iszak D, southwest of
Delporte Crater, farside of the moon. The mission was soviet-american.
Crew was William Rutledge CDR, former of bell laboratories, leona
snyder CSP bell laboratories, and alexei leonov, soviet cosmonaut
former "apollo soyouz" (mission one year earlier).
Custard Cream
Hurt
Isn't it odd that one of the "supposed" Apollo 20 astronauts did a
painting about cities on the moon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aleksei_Leonov_%26_Andrei_Sokolov_-_Building_a_Moon_City.jpg
Phlip
> circled in red, (for those of you who cannot find it) at the following
> link: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/ryandinan/9625copy.jpg
That's a different spaceship.
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
Phoon Hencman
> Forget about hoaxing a moon landing, how about hoaxing NOT landing on
> the moon. Recently a video has shown up on the Internet showing an
> ancient spacecraft on the moon. This is VERY likely to be REAL.
Were you born retarded of is it something you had to work on?
> From
> the moment of its discovery there would have been an irresistible
> desire to examine the ruins up close. But how do you go to the moon
> discretely, keeping your discovery a secret? Everything you do is
> being monitored from Earth. The solution. Go to the moon with a
> substitute ground control while you keep everybody busy with a fake
> accident and recovery effort.
See above question.
>
> Doubtful, but you never know. If they did do that it was brilliantly
> executed. The spacecraft though is for real.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/2b6e58b41b46ccdf
You're
>
a fucking retard.
Phoon Hencman
Unless you're a freaking RETARD. Which these assclowns are.
Phoon Hencman
It's fake stupid. Your parents and teachers must be SO proud!
Hurt
> > If it's fake it's one of the best special effects I've ever seen. I
> > don't think it's fake.
>
> It's fake stupid. Your parents and teachers must be SO proud!
Well if it's fake, and it does look a bit odd, a nosecone sticking out
of the middle of the Moon, it's part of a great collective ongoing
hoax. The scope of which would be amazing. So if it's a real
spaceship it's amazing, and, if it's a hoax it's amazing. The readers
will have to decide for themselves. I see no harm in assuming it's
real. And if it's a hoax, give me the reason, the logic, of why it is
so.
BradGuth
> Forget about hoaxing amoonlanding, how about hoaxing NOT landing on
> themoon. Recently a video has shown up on the Internet showing an
> ancient spacecraft on themoon. This is VERY likely to be REAL. From
> the moment of its discovery there would have been an irresistible
> desire to examine the ruins up close. But how do you go to themoon
> discretely, keeping your discovery a secret? Everything you do is
> substitute ground control while you keep everybody busy with a fake
> accident and recovery effort.
>
> Doubtful, but you never know. If they did do that it was brilliantly
> executed. The spacecraft though is for real.
>
Apollo 13 mission itself was not faked, whereas only the supposed
system failures were faked. It was in fact the one and only manned
mission that ever accomplished orbiting our naked anticathode moon,
and it took damn near every last drop of fuel in order to have
accomplished just that much.
Everything before and ever since has been accomplished via robotics.
-
Brad Guth
Hurt
> Apollo 13 mission itself was not faked, whereas only the supposed
> system failures were faked. It was in fact the one and only manned
> mission that ever accomplished orbiting our naked anticathode moon,
> and it took damn near every last drop of fuel in order to have
> accomplished just that much.
Huh? Your belief is that we never landed on the Moon? Anti-cathode?
Douglas Berry
<brad...@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
>Apollo 13 mission itself was not faked, whereas only the supposed
>system failures were faked. It was in fact the one and only manned
>mission that ever accomplished orbiting our naked anticathode moon,
>and it took damn near every last drop of fuel in order to have
>accomplished just that much.
>
>Everything before and ever since has been accomplished via robotics.
Starting with Apollo 8, with the exception of 9 (which was a LEO test
of the LM/CSM stack) every Apollo mission orbited the Moon multiple
times.
The Ghost In The Machine
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 20 May 2007 13:55:13 -0700
<1179694512.9...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
No kidding. Besides, Apollo 8 also orbited the Moon as
well -- and took a rather famous picture. I'll admit to
some curiosity as to how sensitive a camera's film is to
"deadly radiation" coming from the Moon -- Brad Guth's favorite
bugaboo/"disproof" about us actually making it there. (Dunno
if that's the OP's concern, or no.)
Apollo 9 and 10 did, too. Apollo 7 apparently was confined
to low Earth orbit. Apollos 2-6 were unmanned. Apollo 1
was a tragic accident on Earth with a spark igniting
a catastrophic fire while Grissom, White, and Chaffee
perished inside from smoke inhalation. To suggest that
they died while explicitly mimicking moonflight (as opposed
to working out procedures to do it) verges on the ridiculous.
Apollo 11 was historic (well, they all were, really).
Apart from Apollo 1 (which never went anywhere, as it
was a ground-based catastrophe), they all made it back,
even Apollo 13. Apollos 12,14,15,16, and 17 returned
lots of samples, although astronaut Bean got, erm, beaned
with one camera, after aiming another one at the Sun and
destroying it. I hope he's laughing now, but at the time he
required six stitches -- ouch.
It's a painful humor, I guess, at times.
There's still parts of a Saturn V lying around, somewhere,
as well. Used to be in the Rocket Garden but has
since been moved somewhere for either preservation or
restoration, I'm not sure which.
And now we have doubters, just like the Holocaust; they
even made a TV show on FOX about it (I've not watched it,
myself). No doubt in the 1940's we had doubters regarding
the Victorian era.... :-)
Or something.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Insert random misquote here.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Cameltoe Johnson
He's highly retarded, pay him no mind....
BradGuth
That's as right as rain, as based upon those pesky regular laws of
physics, and otherwise of the best available science that we can take
to the bank.
Don't you dare give be that "anti-cathode?" crapolla, or I'll stuff a
gamma rod up your infomercial spewing butt.
Orbiting that nasty noon is as close as we've come, and even of that
much was limited to a little more than one half orbit by A13, unless
you're taking of rad-hard robotics.
There's nothing keeping our naked moon from getting as bad off if not
worse off than any nasty portion of them Van Allen belts, of which
even ISS/ESS avoids the SAA contour that's only slightly as lethal.
Our less than warm and fuzzy NASA has not been of what you'd say "one
of the more open and cooperative of all government agencies", and
because of those pesky regular laws of physics (including their very
own fly-by-rocket crapolla that simply doesn't add up) and otherwise
the well established and fully replicated science of Kodak film is
what further proves that we haven't walked on that moon.
You Sir "Hurt" (aka Robert A. Braeunig) are a fully MI/NSA~NASA
certified rusemaster, or of something a whole lot worse. None of your
pro-NASA hypology gets down to the raw honest to God physics of
dealing with our physically dark, anticathode reactive and
electrostatic collective (worse off than any hot Van Allen belt
dosage) of our moon's naked environment, that which should have been
nearly blinded by the not so little crescent illuminated orb of Venus
(aka impossible not to have photographed).
Your impressive page of NASA's infomercial damage-control doesn't
begin to cut the mustard.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
You Third Reich and of your Jewish minion folks know damn good an well
exactly what I mean by asking; Where's Venus?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs
As I'd said before, that this extremely weird and very artificial
looking item was in fact quite old looking, but otherwise at least
offering an interesting notion to ponder, especially attractive since
I believe ETs had utilized our icy proto-moon on behalf of that
interstellar trek. However, our NASA still does not have such proven
fly-by-rocket expertise (robotic or manned), nor have we the required
rad hard DNA or any of that totally nonreactive/(spectrum insensitive)
Kodak film that supposedly had such hocus-pocus piss poor DR(dynamic
range) that it couldn't possibly have recorded Venus. Go figure.
Starting from the President on down, which agency of our government
hasn't ever before or rather doesn't still lie to us?
Our mutually perpetrated cold-war was 100% orchestrated, and of course
you silly folks wouldn't so much as dare to call that not so little
fiasco a lie. So, what exactly if anything do you folks actually
consider a lie?
Is this also why your Usenet accommodated spermware/fuckware is
currently attempting to terminate my poor old PC, or otherwise into
topic/author stalking, bashings and/or robo moderating all that you
Third Reich and of your Jewish minions can muster?
Now I'm getting the usual GOOGLE/Usenet posting blockage with your "An
error was encountered while trying to post, please try again later."
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In alt.conspiracy, Hurt
> <hurt_beyond_rep...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
> on 20 May 2007 13:55:13 -0700
You're actually one of them, arnt you. How does it feel being so
incest cloned as Third Reich and Jewish at the same time?
-
Brad Guth
Douglas Berry
The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> who stoppeth one in
alt.conspiracy
>Apollo 9 and 10 did, too.
Actually Apollo 9 was a LEO mission to test the Lunar Module in
flight.
BradGuth
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In alt.conspiracy, Hurt
> <hurt_beyond_rep...@yahoo.com>
> on 20 May 2007 13:55:13 -0700
You're actually one of them, arnt you. How does it feel being Third
Hurt
> He's highly retarded, pay him no mind....
Cranial trauma of one sort or another for sure. His posts make me
understand (but not support) gun control advocates.
Douglas Berry
<brad...@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
>That's as right as rain, as based upon those pesky regular laws of
>physics, and otherwise of the best available science that we can take
>to the bank.
Laws that you fail to understand in the slightest.
>Orbiting that nasty noon is as close as we've come, and even of that
>much was limited to a little more than one half orbit by A13, unless
>you're taking of rad-hard robotics.
Sorry, but very wrong. Apoloos 8, 10-17 all made manned orbits of the
Moon.
>There's nothing keeping our naked moon from getting as bad off if not
>worse off than any nasty portion of them Van Allen belts, of which
>even ISS/ESS avoids the SAA contour that's only slightly as lethal.
The Van Allen Belts are created by charged particles getting caught in
Earth's magnetic field. It collects and concentrates these particles.
The Moon has no magnetic field, and thus no Van Allen Belt.
The ISS avoids the VAB because it would loiter there. Apollo went
through the SAA at better than 20,000mph. Minimal exposure. Tell me,
you ever do the teenage rite of passage of jumping through a bonfire?
Minimal exposure time, you emerge unhurt. Stand in a bonfire,
maximizing exposure, and you burn.
>Our less than warm and fuzzy NASA has not been of what you'd say "one
>of the more open and cooperative of all government agencies", and
>because of those pesky regular laws of physics (including their very
>own fly-by-rocket crapolla that simply doesn't add up) and otherwise
>the well established and fully replicated science of Kodak film is
>what further proves that we haven't walked on that moon.
You're cute when you're incoherent.
>You Sir "Hurt" (aka Robert A. Braeunig) are a fully MI/NSA~NASA
>certified rusemaster, or of something a whole lot worse. None of your
>pro-NASA hypology gets down to the raw honest to God physics of
>dealing with our physically dark, anticathode reactive and
>electrostatic collective (worse off than any hot Van Allen belt
>dosage) of our moon's naked environment, that which should have been
>nearly blinded by the not so little crescent illuminated orb of Venus
>(aka impossible not to have photographed).
Unless, of course, Venus was in opposition or below the horizon. Never
mind that their job wasn't to photograph the sky, but lunar surface
features.
>Your impressive page of NASA's infomercial damage-control doesn't
>begin to cut the mustard.
>http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
I see you and raise.
>You Third Reich and of your Jewish minion folks know damn good an well
>exactly what I mean by asking; Where's Venus?
Exactly where its supposed to be. They weren't there to photograph
Venus.
Phoon Hencman
You sir are a troll douche. My uncle worked on the LEMS. He worked for
Singer Link. Contracted by Grumman. He helped install optical systems
and wiring in the LEMS. I guess he was in on the "conspiracy". You're
mentally retarded. Period. Go fuck yourself you fucking idiot.
Phoon Hencman
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> said:
>
>> You Third Reich and of your Jewish minion folks know damn good an well
>> exactly what I mean by asking; Where's Venus?
>
> Exactly where its supposed to be. They weren't there to photograph
> Venus.
Doug,
Just thank his parents and teachers for doing such a great job with
him. Sad isn't it?
BradGuth
How silly, and totally pathetic at the same time. Does this closed
mindset of yours mean that you're also Third Reich Jewish?
Where exactly did I ever stipulate that we weren't trying every trick
in the book, in order to walk on the moon?
Way more than 100,000 folks (perhaps by now as many as a million
folks) have somewhat recently worked their butts off, all on behalf of
accomplishing the horrific collateral damage and ongoing carnage of
Iraq. Does that mean those Muslim WMD existed, or that such was
otherwise justified?
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On 2007-05-22 16:26:03 -0400, Douglas Berry
>
>
>
> >> You Third Reich and of your Jewish minion folks know damn good an well
> >> exactly what I mean by asking; Where's Venus?
>
> > Exactly where its supposed to be. They weren't there to photograph
> > Venus.
>
> Doug,
>
> Just thank his parents and teachers for doing such a great job with
> him. Sad isn't it?
Are you and your fully interactive 3D solar system simulator having
yet another bad fuckology day?
If we assigned 3.6e3 joules/fart, as such we could run the entire
energy demands of Earth off your intellectual LLPOF flatulence.
-
Brad Guth
John P.
a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
the moon.
BDK
JohnP_Da...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com says...
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
>
>
>
Did the girls at Moonbase have purple hair?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(TV_series)
BDK
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
see why we wouldn't, they should in their spare time produce a series
of hoax videos. It would be hilarious to watch hoax videos knowing
they were filmed on the Moon. Wouldn't it?
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
Hurt
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
BradGuth
Hurt, you're going postal again.
Why don't you silly folks try using those pesky regular laws of
physics, and otherwise of the best available science instead of that
totally scripted NASA/Apollo koran.
Try using that fully interactive 3D solar system simulator, and then
telling us again why those unfiltered Kodak moments couldn't have
recorded Venus or a good many other items that were well within the
dynamic range of that film.
Perhaps you'd care to suggest that our moon was at the time an anti
black hole, meaning that from the surface of the moon you can't see
out, yet oddly only the xenon arc lamp spectrum worth of the otherwise
raw solar influx, that by rights should have contained a great deal of
UV spectrum, is what managed to get through as though having been
optically band-pass filtered.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
BradGuth
BradGuth
BradGuth
BradGuth
Douglas Berry
<JohnP_Da...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> who stoppeth one in
alt.conspiracy
>All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
>a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
>the moon.
That is wonderfully recursive.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
BradGuth
Hurt, you're going seriously postal again.
BradGuth
wrote:
> On 20 May 2007 12:45:59 -0700 there was an Ancient BradGuth
> <bradg...@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
>
> >Apollo 13 mission itself was not faked, whereas only the supposed
> >system failures were faked. It was in fact the one and only manned
> >mission that ever accomplished orbiting our naked anticathode moon,
> >and it took damn near every last drop of fuel in order to have
> >accomplished just that much.
>
> >Everything before and ever since has been accomplished via robotics.
>
> Starting with Apollo 8, with the exception of 9 (which was a LEO test
> of the LM/CSM stack) every Apollo mission orbited the Moon multiple
> times.
> --
That statement is not the least bit true, at least not as on behalf of
any manned mission having multiple times orbited that gamma and hard-
Xray moon, much less as having walked on that sucker. Of their
robotic portions of Each mission having orbited that nasty moon of
ours, and having hard-landed or usually impacted, is however true.
You silly folks do realize that all such heavily shielded film that
was robotically frame by frame exposed, as such was subsequently
processed on the fly. That's also why there is no actual archive of
original film to behold, or much less available to verify any portion
thereof.
Hurt, as seen from all those previous damage-control postings, you're
going seriously postal on us again.
Why don't you silly naysay (aka truth excluding) folks try using those
pesky regular laws of physics, and otherwise of accepting upon the
best available science, instead of pushing that totally scripted NASA/
Apollo koran.
Also, try using that fully interactive 3D solar system simulator, and
then telling us again why those unfiltered Kodak moments couldn't have
recorded Venus or a good many other items that were well within the
dynamic range of that violet and near-blue spectrum sensitive film.
Perhaps you'd care to suggest that our moon was at the time
functioning as an anti black hole, meaning that from the surface of
the moon you can't see out, yet oddly only the xenon arc lamp spectrum
worth of the otherwise raw solar influx, that by all of known science
should have contained a great deal of the UV and violet spectrum, is
all of what managed to get through as though having been optically
band-pass filtered.
-
I'm still getting the GOOGLE/Usenet message of: "An error was
encountered while trying to post, please try again later." Obviously
this being another insider damage-control tactic because, others have
been getting their messages contributed and posted into the topic
index.
Perhaps another good question of the day being;
Why the heck are a few select groups of Usenet so often going down for
the count, especially as of nearly everytime folks like myself manage
to contribute a little something special and truth-worthy?
Is usenet having to robo moderate and/or purge itself on behalf of
keeping the rest of the world from knowing the truth, as for such
efforts taking up that much of GOOGLEs CPU and data management
resources?
As of lately, GOOGLE/Usenet is seriously sucking and blowing within
its infomercial spewing butt-cheeks worth of their own MI/NSA damage-
control wind, meaning that the current stink levels of their
intellectual flatulance is running fairly high. Otherwise meaning
that new and improved topic contributions, of those most recent of
updates, are either delaied for hours and/or getting robo-excluded on
the fly, while other parts of Usenet are functioning within spec,
whereas many times I've noticed the previous day's contributions as
having been accepted and yet their never having arrived, similat to
emails sent to me that never arrived or got robo diverted before I
ever had a chance to review such messages.
So, in addition to my email accounts having been trashed and otherwise
of having private files getting stealth modified and/or remote deleted
is apparently the status quo par for the ongoing topic/author stalking
and banishment course of Usenet's damage-control actions. And you
folks thought I was kidding about the Third Reich and of their Jewish
mindset friends, such as those of our 'Skull and Bones' being so alive
and kicking our butts. (fraid not)
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
BradGuth
Now we're getting those total GOOGLE "Server Error" messages nearly
all the time, as though their MI/NSA servers are running a touch low
on their gauntlet of spermware/fuckware flak to toss at us.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
<JohnP_Da_Evil_...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote:
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
OK, please point that gamma and hard-Xray free base of such operations
out to us. We have had the capability of nearly a one meter/pixel
resolution as is, so please be very specific as to the location(s) of
such.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
to why Jews don't honestly give a tinkers damn about anything that's
off-world ET worthy, about otherwise salvaging our environment, or
even less about Muslims?
Yet lo and behold, they seem to know all there is to know about having
been sharing the best of their MI/NSA~Usenet servers, as for having
been contributing a bloody gauntlet of their spermware/fuckware, and
of having otherwise excluded much worse things in their past and of
what's to come that isn't short of WWIII, if that's what it takes.
Obviously decades worth of their mutually perpetrated cold-war(s)
wasn't sufficient.
-
Brad Guth
Douglas Berry
<brad...@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
We have a 1m/pixel resolution? From what platform? Name it.
Douglas Berry
<brad...@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
>wrote:
>> Starting with Apollo 8, with the exception of 9 (which was a LEO test
>> of the LM/CSM stack) every Apollo mission orbited the Moon multiple
>> times.
>
>That statement is not the least bit true, at least not as on behalf of
>any manned mission having multiple times orbited that gamma and hard-
>Xray moon, much less as having walked on that sucker. Of their
>robotic portions of Each mission having orbited that nasty moon of
>ours, and having hard-landed or usually impacted, is however true.
The Moon is hardly a source of gamma or X-rays. We do have radiometers
on the surface, you know.
>You silly folks do realize that all such heavily shielded film that
>was robotically frame by frame exposed, as such was subsequently
>processed on the fly. That's also why there is no actual archive of
>original film to behold, or much less available to verify any portion
>thereof.
The archives in in storage at the Johnson Center.
Oh, and you can buy all the images.
>Hurt, as seen from all those previous damage-control postings, you're
>going seriously postal on us again.
>
>Why don't you silly naysay (aka truth excluding) folks try using those
>pesky regular laws of physics, and otherwise of accepting upon the
>best available science, instead of pushing that totally scripted NASA/
>Apollo koran.
We are using physics. You are the one who seems to live in a universe
with very different laws.
>Also, try using that fully interactive 3D solar system simulator, and
>then telling us again why those unfiltered Kodak moments couldn't have
>recorded Venus or a good many other items that were well within the
>dynamic range of that violet and near-blue spectrum sensitive film.
Because they weren't there to take pictures of the stars. Also, even
you must have noticed that the Moon has a nice, reflective surface?
With cameras adjusted to pick out details on the brightly lit ground,
the stars would be washed out. Finally, the Earth was in the sky for
all the landings. That further washed out the ability to see stars
even for naked eye viewers.
>Perhaps you'd care to suggest that our moon was at the time
>functioning as an anti black hole, meaning that from the surface of
>the moon you can't see out, yet oddly only the xenon arc lamp spectrum
>worth of the otherwise raw solar influx, that by all of known science
>should have contained a great deal of the UV and violet spectrum, is
>all of what managed to get through as though having been optically
>band-pass filtered.
That made no sense whatsoever.
>I'm still getting the GOOGLE/Usenet message of: "An error was
>encountered while trying to post, please try again later." Obviously
>this being another insider damage-control tactic because, others have
>been getting their messages contributed and posted into the topic
>index.
No, it means you need a real news reader. Google sucks.
>Perhaps another good question of the day being;
>Why the heck are a few select groups of Usenet so often going down for
>the count, especially as of nearly everytime folks like myself manage
>to contribute a little something special and truth-worthy?
Brad, the only thing you contribute is a good argument for increased
funding for the mentally ill.
>Is usenet having to robo moderate and/or purge itself on behalf of
>keeping the rest of the world from knowing the truth, as for such
>efforts taking up that much of GOOGLEs CPU and data management
>resources?
No, Google sucks. Try using a real news reader.
>As of lately, GOOGLE/Usenet is seriously sucking and blowing within
>its infomercial spewing butt-cheeks worth of their own MI/NSA damage-
>control wind, meaning that the current stink levels of their
>intellectual flatulance is running fairly high. Otherwise meaning
>that new and improved topic contributions, of those most recent of
>updates, are either delaied for hours and/or getting robo-excluded on
>the fly, while other parts of Usenet are functioning within spec,
>whereas many times I've noticed the previous day's contributions as
>having been accepted and yet their never having arrived, similat to
>emails sent to me that never arrived or got robo diverted before I
>ever had a chance to review such messages.
Brad, do you even understand how Usenet works?
>So, in addition to my email accounts having been trashed and otherwise
>of having private files getting stealth modified and/or remote deleted
>is apparently the status quo par for the ongoing topic/author stalking
>and banishment course of Usenet's damage-control actions. And you
>folks thought I was kidding about the Third Reich and of their Jewish
>mindset friends, such as those of our 'Skull and Bones' being so alive
>and kicking our butts. (fraid not)
No, you're paranoid. Google sucks. Install something better, and
you'll see an improvement.
>Now we're getting those total GOOGLE "Server Error" messages nearly
>all the time, as though their MI/NSA servers are running a touch low
>on their gauntlet of spermware/fuckware flak to toss at us.
Who are "we" exactly?
Douglas Berry
Whoooosh!
Phoon Hencman
> On May 22, 6:49 pm, Phoon Hencman <H...@ican.net> wrote:
>> On 2007-05-22 16:26:03 -0400, Douglas Berry
>> <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You Third Reich and of your Jewish minion folks know damn good an well
>>>> exactly what I mean by asking; Where's Venus?
>>
>>> Exactly where its supposed to be. They weren't there to photograph
>>> Venus.
>>
>> Doug,
>>
>> Just thank his parents and teachers for doing such a great job with
>> him. Sad isn't it?
>
> Are you and your fully interactive 3D solar system simulator having
> yet another bad fuckology day?
>
> If we assigned 3.6e3 joules/fart, as such we could run the entire
> energy demands of Earth off your intellectual LLPOF flatulence.
> -
> Brad Guth
This would work MUCH better if you'd take your thumb out of your ass.
Phoon Hencman
> On May 22, 6:47 pm, Phoon Hencman <H...@ican.net> wrote:
>> On 2007-05-22 10:45:47 -0400, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 20, 1:55 pm, Hurt <hurt_beyond_rep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Apollo 13 mission itself was not faked, whereas only the supposed
>>>>> system failures were faked. It was in fact the one and only manned
>>>>> mission that ever accomplished orbiting our naked anticathode moon,
>>>>> and it took damn near every last drop of fuel in order to have
>>>>> accomplished just that much.
>>
>>>> Huh? Your belief is that we never landed on the Moon? Anti-cathode?
>>
>>> That's as right as rain, as based upon those pesky regular laws of
>>> physics, and otherwise of the best available science that we can take
>>> to the bank.
>>
>>> Don't you dare give be that "anti-cathode?" crapolla, or I'll stuff a
>>> gamma rod up your infomercial spewing butt.
>>
>>> Orbiting that nasty noon is as close as we've come, and even of that
>>> much was limited to a little more than one half orbit by A13, unless
>>> you're taking of rad-hard robotics.
>>
>>> There's nothing keeping our naked moon from getting as bad off if not
>>> worse off than any nasty portion of them Van Allen belts, of which
>>> even ISS/ESS avoids the SAA contour that's only slightly as lethal.
>>
>>> Our less than warm and fuzzy NASA has not been of what you'd say "one
>>> of the more open and cooperative of all government agencies", and
>>> because of those pesky regular laws of physics (including their very
>>> own fly-by-rocket crapolla that simply doesn't add up) and otherwise
>>> the well established and fully replicated science of Kodak film is
>>> what further proves that we haven't walked on that moon.
>>
>>> You Sir "Hurt" (aka Robert A. Braeunig) are a fully MI/NSA~NASA
>>> certified rusemaster, or of something a whole lot worse. None of your
>>> pro-NASA hypology gets down to the raw honest to God physics of
>>> dealing with our physically dark, anticathode reactive and
>>> electrostatic collective (worse off than any hot Van Allen belt
>>> dosage) of our moon's naked environment, that which should have been
>>> nearly blinded by the not so little crescent illuminated orb of Venus
>>> (aka impossible not to have photographed).
>>
>>> Your impressive page of NASA's infomercial damage-control doesn't
>>> begin to cut the mustard.
>>> http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
>>
>>> You Third Reich and of your Jewish minion folks know damn good an well
>>> exactly what I mean by asking; Where's Venus?
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs
>>> As I'd said before, that this extremely weird and very artificial
>>> looking item was in fact quite old looking, but otherwise at least
>>> offering an interesting notion to ponder, especially attractive since
>>> I believe ETs had utilized our icy proto-moon on behalf of that
>>> interstellar trek. However, our NASA still does not have such proven
>>> fly-by-rocket expertise (robotic or manned), nor have we the required
>>> rad hard DNA or any of that totally nonreactive/(spectrum insensitive)
>>> Kodak film that supposedly had such hocus-pocus piss poor DR(dynamic
>>> range) that it couldn't possibly have recorded Venus. Go figure.
>>
>>> Starting from the President on down, which agency of our government
>>> hasn't ever before or rather doesn't still lie to us?
>>
>>> Our mutually perpetrated cold-war was 100% orchestrated, and of course
>>> you silly folks wouldn't so much as dare to call that not so little
>>> fiasco a lie. So, what exactly if anything do you folks actually
>>> consider a lie?
>>
>>> Is this also why your Usenet accommodated spermware/fuckware is
>>> currently attempting to terminate my poor old PC, or otherwise into
>>> topic/author stalking, bashings and/or robo moderating all that you
>>> Third Reich and of your Jewish minions can muster?
>>
>>> Now I'm getting the usual GOOGLE/Usenet posting blockage with your "An
>>> error was encountered while trying to post, please try again later."
>>> -
>>> BradGuth
>>
>> You sir are a troll douche. My uncle worked on the LEMS. He worked for
>> Singer Link. Contracted by Grumman. He helped install optical systems
>> and wiring in the LEMS. I guess he was in on the "conspiracy". You're
>> mentally retarded. Period. Go fuck yourself you fucking idiot.
>
> How silly, and totally pathetic at the same time. Does this closed
> mindset of yours mean that you're also Third Reich Jewish?
LOL! althoough I may have the nose to be jewish I'm not. However, I
HVAE dated jewish women and they are some HOT little monkeys!
>
> Where exactly did I ever stipulate that we weren't trying every trick
> in the book, in order to walk on the moon?
>
> Way more than 100,000 folks (perhaps by now as many as a million
> folks) have somewhat recently worked their butts off, all on behalf of
> accomplishing the horrific collateral damage and ongoing carnage of
> Iraq. Does that mean those Muslim WMD existed, or that such was
> otherwise justified?
> -
> Brad Guth
Go away fuckwit. You can NEVER win your little troll bullshit.
Phoon Hencman
<JohnP_Da...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> said:
> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> the moon.
Right. If you believe that shoot your parents and teachers immediately.
Phoon Hencman
> On May 20, 3:28 pm, Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
> wrote:
>> On 20 May 2007 12:45:59 -0700 there was an Ancient BradGuth
>> <bradg...@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
>>
>>> Apollo 13 mission itself was not faked, whereas only the supposed
>>> system failures were faked. It was in fact the one and only manned
>>> mission that ever accomplished orbiting our naked anticathode moon,
>>> and it took damn near every last drop of fuel in order to have
>>> accomplished just that much.
>>
>>> Everything before and ever since has been accomplished via robotics.
>>
>> Starting with Apollo 8, with the exception of 9 (which was a LEO test
>> of the LM/CSM stack) every Apollo mission orbited the Moon multiple
>> times.
>> --
>
> That statement is not the least bit true, at least not as on behalf of
> any manned mission having multiple times orbited that gamma and hard-
> Xray moon, much less as having walked on that sucker.
Yes it is and YOU are a fucktard.
Phoon Hencman
> Could you folks explain to the rest of us heathen village idiots, as
> to why Jews don't honestly give a tinkers damn about anything that's
> off-world ET worthy, about otherwise salvaging our environment, or
> even less about Muslims?
Could you explain to us what jews have to do with this?
You are a world class assclown.
BDK
brad...@gmail.com says...
Not only are you clueless about the space program, but you're a jew
hater too? Man, you are one screwed up, and clueless conspirokook.
Keep the laughs coming.
BDK
BDK
says...
Read it again. You didn't get the joke.
BDK
BradGuth
> On 2007-05-22 10:45:47 -0400, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 1:55 pm, Hurt <hurt_beyond_rep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> system failures were faked. It was in fact the one and only manned
> >>> mission that ever accomplished orbiting our naked anticathode moon,
> >>> and it took damn near every last drop of fuel in order to have
> >>> accomplished just that much.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why is your GOOGLE/Usenet topic index stuck so firmly on behalf of
listing your infomercial spewed crapolla, as remaining always on top
of the stack?
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On 2007-05-23 15:05:44 -0400, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Could you folks explain to the rest of us heathen village idiots, as
> > to why Jews don't honestly give a tinkers damn about anything that's
> > off-world ET worthy, about otherwise salvaging our environment, or
> > even less about Muslims?
>
> Could you explain to us what jews have to do with this?
>
> You are a world class assclown.
I've explained many times why this Usenet and much of our LLPOF
government is more Jewish than not. It's yourself and others of your
silly kind that don't see any past, current or future problems with
your mostly Jewish status quo mindset that's going to bring on WWIII,
or something worse.
Why is your naysay and otherwise anti-think-tank Usenet so bigoted
against ETs?
What part(s) of your government is totally honest, and thus hasn't
faked us out?
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> In article <1179947144.317459.117...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> bradg...@gmail.com says...
That's odd, because most of the Jews that I happen know of are rather
nice folks that wouldn't hurt a Muslim fly.
There are however more than a few bad Jews on Earth. The question is,
which of those bad Jews, if any, are on your NO-FLY list?
If those really bad and otherwise downright nasty folks so happen to
be Jewish, that's not my fault. Sorry about that.
However, what would you call a group that doesn't police its own kind?
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> In article <1179947144.317459.117...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
That's odd, because most of the Jews that I happen know of are rather
nice folks that wouldn't hurt a Muslim fly.
There are however more than a few bad Jews on Earth. The question is,
which of those bad Jews, if any, are on your NO-FLY list?
If those really bad and otherwise downright nasty folks so happen to
be Jewish, that's not my fault. Sorry about that.
-
Brad Guth
Ed
wrote:
> On 23 May 2007 10:21:28 -0700 there was an Ancient BradGuth
>
> >On May 20, 3:28 pm, Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Starting with Apollo 8, with the exception of 9 (which was a LEO test
> >> of the LM/CSM stack) every Apollo mission orbited the Moon multiple
> >> times.
> >then telling us again why those unfiltered Kodak moments couldn't have
> >recorded Venus or a good many other items that were well within the
> >dynamic range of that violet and near-blue spectrum sensitive film.
>
> Because they weren't there to take pictures of the stars. Also, even
> you must have noticed that the Moon has a nice, reflective surface?
> With cameras adjusted to pick out details on the brightly lit ground,
> the stars would be washed out. Finally, the Earth was in the sky for
> all the landings. That further washed out the ability to see stars
> even for naked eye viewers.
Actually, no. If you read his posts (I know, it's difficult, but it
does give you insight) he claims on several occassions that the moon
is "dark and nasty." He refuses to say <where> he gets his numbers
from, I gave up asking.
> >Perhaps you'd care to suggest that our moon was at the time
> >functioning as an anti black hole, meaning that from the surface of
> >the moon you can't see out, yet oddly only the xenon arc lamp spectrum
> >worth of the otherwise raw solar influx, that by all of known science
> >should have contained a great deal of the UV and violet spectrum, is
> >all of what managed to get through as though having been optically
> >band-pass filtered.
>
> That made no sense whatsoever.
Ah, now you're getting the gist of reading a bradguth message.
> >I'm still getting the GOOGLE/Usenet message of: "An error was
> >encountered while trying to post, please try again later." Obviously
> >this being another insider damage-control tactic because, others have
> >been getting their messages contributed and posted into the topic
> >index.
>
> No, it means you need a real news reader. Google sucks.
Actually, I use Google because it's just easier and lets me check what
threads were updated since I was on last.
Not being able to killfile the brain dead like brad <is> a downside.
Ed
>
> > All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done in
> > a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base on
> > the moon.
>
> Right. If you believe that shoot your parents and teachers immediately.
I think he's honestly being sarcastic. The idea that we built
soundstages on the moon to fake trips to the moon is just too weird to
be taken seriously.
John P.
>> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done
>> in
>> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base
>> on
>> the moon.
> Did the girls at Moonbase have purple hair?
Not until they started eating pizza.
John P.
>> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done
>> in
>> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base
>> on
>> the moon.
> Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
> see why we wouldn't, they should in their spare time produce a series
> of hoax videos. It would be hilarious to watch hoax videos knowing
> they were filmed on the Moon. Wouldn't it?
Yeah. We could start a conspiracy theory about their trip back to earth
being faked on a soundstage on the mooonbase.
John P.
>> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done
>> in
>> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base
>> on
>> the moon.
> OK, please point that gamma and hard-Xray free base of such operations
> out to us. We have had the capability of nearly a one meter/pixel
> resolution as is, so please be very specific as to the location(s) of
> such.
You *are* joking, right?
John P.
>> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done
>> in
>> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base
>> on
>> the moon.
> Right. If you believe that shoot your parents and teachers immediately.
Almost took your head right off! Duck next time.
John P.
>>> All of the Apollo missions were faked. The whole thing was actually done
>>> in
>>> a top secret soundstage set up in a special room in our top secret base
>>> on
>>> the moon.
>> Right. If you believe that shoot your parents and teachers immediately.
> I think he's honestly being sarcastic. The idea that we built
> soundstages on the moon to fake trips to the moon is just too weird to
> be taken seriously.
I guess I should consider it somewhat disconcerting to know there are people
freely walking the streets who were incapable of grasping that immediately
(or even eventually).
BradGuth
> On May 23, 7:55 pm, Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > On 23 May 2007 10:21:28 -0700 there was an Ancient BradGuth
> > <bradg...@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
>
> > >On May 20, 3:28 pm, Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> Starting with Apollo 8, with the exception of 9 (which was a LEO test
> > >> of the LM/CSM stack) every Apollo mission orbited the Moon multiple
> > >> times.
> > >Also, try using that fully interactive 3D solar system simulator, and
> > >then telling us again why those unfiltered Kodak moments couldn't have
> > >recorded Venus or a good many other items that were well within the
> > >dynamic range of that violet and near-blue spectrum sensitive film.
>
> > Because they weren't there to take pictures of the stars. Also, even
> > you must have noticed that the Moon has a nice, reflective surface?
> > With cameras adjusted to pick out details on the brightly lit ground,
> > the stars would be washed out. Finally, the Earth was in the sky for
> > all the landings. That further washed out the ability to see stars
> > even for naked eye viewers.
>
> Actually, no. If you read his posts (I know, it's difficult, but it
> does give you insight) he claims on several occassions that the moon
> is "dark and nasty." He refuses to say <where> he gets his numbers
> from, I gave up asking.
It doesn't matter how many times I've given those numbers, does it.
Odd that only those folks that clearly do not police their own kind
are also those without a speck of remorse, and otherwise without the
necessary physics or science that proves squat about our supposedly
having walked on the moon. Apollo 13 is simply an example of how it
was technically possible to have less than once orbited that moon in
person, which is not quite the same as having walked on the moon.
Apparently there are no such bad Jews within the incest bigoted eyes
of those promoting the silly notions of our having walked on that
moon. Of course, those are the very same eyes telling us there were
WMD in Iraq, and telling us that the Russians were out to get us.
You folks are simply worse than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
>
> > >Perhaps you'd care to suggest that our moon was at the time
> > >functioning as an anti black hole, meaning that from the surface of
> > >the moon you can't see out, yet oddly only the xenon arc lamp spectrum
> > >worth of the otherwise raw solar influx, that by all of known science
> > >should have contained a great deal of the UV and violet spectrum, is
> > >all of what managed to get through as though having been optically
> > >band-pass filtered.
>
> > That made no sense whatsoever.
Then please do bother to tell, where's Venus?
>
> Ah, now you're getting the gist of reading a bradguth message.
No, the gist is that you are actually a born-again liar and otherwise
a bigot from the very get go.
>
> > >I'm still getting the GOOGLE/Usenet message of: "An error was
> > >encountered while trying to post, please try again later." Obviously
> > >this being another insider damage-control tactic because, others have
> > >been getting their messages contributed and posted into the topic
> > >index.
>
> > No, it means you need a real news reader. Google sucks.
It means exactly what it means, that I'm telling the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. How about yourself?
>
> Actually, I use Google because it's just easier and lets me check what
> threads were updated since I was on last.
> Not being able to killfile the brain dead likebrad<is> a downside
But you folks did manage to get one of your own kind put on a stick,
and that's obviously one better than any "killfile". Are you oil
sucking folks still trying for a million similar killfiles in Iraq?
Honest folks trying to reach me have been getting diverted and/or
summarily lied to, and once again, you Old Testament thumping folks
see nothing wrong with that. Gee whiz, what another Christ on a stick
surprise.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> On 23 May 2007 10:21:28 -0700 there was an Ancient BradGuth
>
> >On May 20, 3:28 pm, Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Starting with Apollo 8, with the exception of 9 (which was a LEO test
> >> of the LM/CSM stack) every Apollo mission orbited the Moon multiple
> >> times.
>
> >That statement is not the least bit true, at least not as on behalf of
> >any manned mission having multiple times orbited that gamma and hard-
> >Xray moon, much less as having walked on that sucker. Of their
> >robotic portions of Each mission having orbited that nasty moon of
> >ours, and having hard-landed or usually impacted, is however true.
>
> The Moon is hardly a source of gamma or X-rays. We do have radiometers
> on the surface, you know.
bandpass CCD or that of an Xray bandpass CCD image is, other than hard
numbers?
>
> >You silly folks do realize that all such heavily shielded film that
> >was robotically frame by frame exposed, as such was subsequently
> >processed on the fly. That's also why there is no actual archive of
> >original film to behold, or much less available to verify any portion
> >thereof.
>
> The archives in in storage at the Johnson Center.
Fork over a frame or two, as otherwise you're nothing but a liar, or
dumbfounded past the point of no return. (I happen think that you're a
liar and dumbfounded)
>
> Oh, and you can buy all the images.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/37j7vv
>
> http://tinyurl.com/34g3tb
>
> >Hurt, as seen from all those previous damage-control postings, you're
> >going seriously postal on us again.
>
> >Why don't you silly naysay (aka truth excluding) folks try using those
> >pesky regular laws of physics, and otherwise of accepting upon the
> >best available science, instead of pushing that totally scripted NASA/
> >Apollo koran.
>
> We are using physics. You are the one who seems to live in a universe
> with very different laws.
Strange that my use of physics works each and every time, and it goes
right along with the best available science that has been replicated
to death.
Dear head stuck in the sand ED. Your naysay mindest of denial being
in denial isn't helping one damn bit.
-
Brad Guth
Hurt
> > Very funny. Hey yeah. If we do have bases on the Moon, and I don't
> > see why we wouldn't, they should in their spare time produce a series
> > of hoax videos. It would be hilarious to watch hoax videos knowing
> > they were filmed on the Moon. Wouldn't it?
>
> Yeah. We could start a conspiracy theory about their trip back to earth
> being faked on a soundstage on the mooonbase.
I suppose if you wait a generation or two you could do that. So you'd
have Earthlings believing the Moon landing was a hoax and the
Moonlings(?) believing the Earth landing was a hoax. Of course the
Moon's inhabitants all live inside the Moon so they don't even know
the Earth exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_World_Is_Hollow_and_I_Have_Touched_the_Sky
Hurt
> LOL! althoough I may have the nose to be jewish I'm not. However, I
> HVAE dated jewish women and they are some HOT little monkeys!
Mmm, hot little monkey, I'm thinking of one right now. [You cutie.]
Hurt
> Apparently there are no such bad Jews within the incest bigoted
> moon. Of course, those are the very same eyes telling us there were
> WMD in Iraq, and telling us that the Russians were out to get us.
Except for their pyscotic jews the Russians are nice bunch of people.
However there were and still are WMD in Iraq. Anybody who doesn't
understand that is a fool. It's called oil. Cheap oil that is.
Douglas Berry
<brad...@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
>wrote:
>> The Moon is hardly a source of gamma or X-rays. We do have radiometers
>> on the surface, you know.
>Liar, as in big time LLPOF. What the hell do you think a gamma
>bandpass CCD or that of an Xray bandpass CCD image is, other than hard
>numbers?
Brad, I've seen the numbers. The Moon is not particularly "hot"
>> The archives in in storage at the Johnson Center.
>Fork over a frame or two, as otherwise you're nothing but a liar, or
>dumbfounded past the point of no return. (I happen think that you're a
>liar and dumbfounded)
See below for links where you can buy your own copies of all the
images.
>>
>> Oh, and you can buy all the images.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/37j7vv
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/34g3tb
>>
>> We are using physics. You are the one who seems to live in a universe
>> with very different laws.
>Strange that my use of physics works each and every time, and it goes
>right along with the best available science that has been replicated
>to death.
Brad, you aren't using physics. You're using your own delusional view
of the world.
The Ghost In The Machine
<JohnP_Da...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com>
wrote
on Thu, 24 May 2007 00:34:55 -0500
<upmdnatW6P1nvsjb...@comcast.com>:
Frayed knot. It is his opinion (IIUHC) that the Moon is
highly radioactive and deadly to all 12 men who set foot
(and the 2 additional who didn't, through no fault of
their own).
Of course, putting the same men into a soundstage on the
deadly moon in order to simulate the missions thereto
that would kill them strikes me as extremely strange.
Brad, you're going to have to clarify that statement. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1).
(1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one".
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<brad...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 22 May 2007 12:02:57 -0700
<1179845306.1...@y18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
> On May 21, 10:41 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> In alt.conspiracy, Hurt
>> <hurt_beyond_rep...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote
>> on 20 May 2007 13:55:13 -0700
>> <1179694512.944515.121...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Apollo 13 mission itself was not faked, whereas only the supposed
>> >> system failures were faked. It was in fact the one and only manned
>> >> mission that ever accomplished orbiting our naked anticathode moon,
>> >> and it took damn near every last drop of fuel in order to have
>> >> accomplished just that much.
>>
>> > Huh? Your belief is that we never landed on the Moon? Anti-cathode?
>>
>> well -- and took a rather famous picture. I'll admit to
>> some curiosity as to how sensitive a camera's film is to
>> "deadly radiation" coming from the Moon --BradGuth'sfavorite
>> bugaboo/"disproof" about us actually making it there. (Dunno
>> if that's the OP's concern, or no.)
>>
>> Apollo 9 and 10 did, too. Apollo 7 apparently was confined
>> to low Earth orbit. Apollos 2-6 were unmanned. Apollo 1
>> was a tragic accident on Earth with a spark igniting
>> a catastrophic fire while Grissom, White, and Chaffee
>> perished inside from smoke inhalation. To suggest that
>> they died while explicitly mimicking moonflight (as opposed
>> to working out procedures to do it) verges on the ridiculous.
>>
>> Apollo 11 was historic (well, they all were, really).
>> Apart from Apollo 1 (which never went anywhere, as it
>> was a ground-based catastrophe), they all made it back,
>> even Apollo 13. Apollos 12,14,15,16, and 17 returned
>> lots of samples, although astronaut Bean got, erm, beaned
>> with one camera, after aiming another one at the Sun and
>> destroying it. I hope he's laughing now, but at the time he
>> required six stitches -- ouch.
>>
>> It's a painful humor, I guess, at times.
>>
>> There's still parts of a Saturn V lying around, somewhere,
>> as well. Used to be in the Rocket Garden but has
>> since been moved somewhere for either preservation or
>> restoration, I'm not sure which.
>>
>> And now we have doubters, just like the Holocaust; they
>> even made a TV show on FOX about it (I've not watched it,
>> myself). No doubt in the 1940's we had doubters regarding
>> the Victorian era.... :-)
>>
>> Or something.
>>
>> --
>> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>> Insert random misquote here.> You're actually one of them, arnt you. How does it feel being Third
> Reich and Jewish at the same time?
How does it feel being wrong most of the time? :-P
A simple question for you: how many sieverts or grays
would a man, standing on the Moon with a simple spacesuit
(no radiation-hardened lead undergarments or anything
like that), absorb in the course of an 8-hour day,
full sunlight?
> -
> Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On 2007-05-23 02:46:58 -0400,BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 6:49 pm, Phoon Hencman <H...@ican.net> wrote:
> >> On 2007-05-22 16:26:03 -0400, Douglas Berry
> >> <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> said:
>
> >>>> You Third Reich and of your Jewish minion folks know damn good an well
> >>>> exactly what I mean by asking; Where's Venus?
>
> >>> Venus.
>
> >> Doug,
>
> >> Just thank his parents and teachers for doing such a great job with
> >> him. Sad isn't it?
>
> > Are you and your fully interactive 3D solar system simulator having
> > yet another bad fuckology day?
>
> > If we assigned 3.6e3 joules/fart, as such we could run the entire
> > energy demands of Earth off your intellectual LLPOF flatulence alone.
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
> This would work MUCH better if you'd take your thumb out of your ass
That's an encrypted code of the usual crapolla for what?
Is your being a certified rusemaster as good as it gets?
-
Brad Guth
BDK
brad...@gmail.com says...
What group DOES police "it's own kind"? There is a certain percentage of
Jews, just like every other group that are "Nasty folks". Nasty is a
relative term anyway, there are different types of "nastiness".
BDK
BDK
JohnP_Da...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com says...
Hey! I'm trying to eat my lunch!
BDK
SHADO