so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
got1tiel
whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
landings were fake?
the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
hitler still alive story)
this would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
could have held them back from pushing this story?
thx
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
>whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
>landings were fake?
Because the Soviets were smart enough to know that they wouldn't
convince anybody that mattered. You don't need but half a brain to see
that the idea is nonsense. They would have to completely fabricate their
own data, but the real data was readily available to the entire free
world. What _actual_ "controversial footage" could they have used?
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Painius
news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
T H A N K Y O U !
(No matter what other data is debated by either side
of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
milli-minute!)
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!
P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net
BradGuth
perpetrated cold-war tango, and for essentially the exact same reasons
none the less. If they'd blown our cover, guess what would have
happened to their cover?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
BradGuth
> "got1tiel" <got1t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
war perpetrating butts off.
Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)
Painius
news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>> "got1tiel" <got1t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>> news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
>> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>> > soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
>> > landings were fake?
>>
>> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
>> > hitler still alive story)
>> > this would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
>> > since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
>> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>>
>> > thx
>>
>> T H A N K Y O U !
>>
>> (No matter what other data is debated by either side
>> of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
>> the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
>> Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
>> milli-minute!)
And Chairman Mao (Tse Tung) would have seen
to it that the US suffer ancient Chinese torture if
he'd gotten wind of such an impossibly intricate
conspiracy to fake a manned Moon landing.
> You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> war perpetrating butts off.
>
> Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)
Brad, on this issue you may talk till you're blue in
the face. There is no way around the Russia code.
Russia had been first in just about e'erthing until
that day in '69 when we beat 'em to the Moon.
And they would have been all over a conspiracy
like stink on shit!
Yet, not a word from Russia or China. And at the
time, the US was on both their shit litses. No way,
man, N O W A Y would they have kept shutup
about the US pullin' a fast one. No effin' way!
Primeau@webtv.com Ernie Primeau
blackmailed us.
"got1tiel" <got1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
It still takes two to tango, doesn't it?
The cold-war was artificial and otherwise mutually perpetrated, as in
no doubt about it.
There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
or not?
~ BG
Chris.B
>
> There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
> still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>
> Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
> or not?
>
> ~ BG
Dear Mr Gush
I am building a spaceship in the back garden to take all the doubters
to the Apollo landing site.
The free tickets are strictly one way.
Return tickets will involve organ removal.
Just to ensure you are taken permanently out of the gene pool.
I'm sure we can manage a bit of microsurgery in your case. ;-
Richard Tobin
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
>faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
>war perpetrating butts off.
No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
it obvious nonsense.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Hagar
"got1tiel" <got1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Gee, could it be because we actually DID go to the Moon ....
The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...
stefan
nothing,they were killing us soldiers in vietnam that same year in
vietnam,they would also blow this pr stunt for the us..
and why would the us stop with the fake moon landings i question myself.
they could 'build' bases on the 'moon' or land on 'mars' with ease...
think of the propaganda !
WHY didn't they do that?
well,simple ofcourse,the landings were real and did cost a fortune..
Painius
>
> The cold-war was artificial and otherwise mutually perpetrated, as in
> no doubt about it.
>
> There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
> still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>
> Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
> or not?
What i care about is the present-day resistance
to returning to the Moon. We should have had a
few bases on the Moon by now for several uses.
The fact is that in 1961 John F. Kennedy *dared*
science to put a man on the Moon "by the end of
the decade". And science busted balls to do so,
and succeeded. The fact is that luck had a lot to
do with it. There were several points in the first
mission when our astronauts could have been
lost. It is no secret that their success was mainly
due to their ability to meet the challenge. And
while the massive training had a lot to do with
that, it was moreso the astronauts' ingenuity that
kept them alive and brought them back to Earth
safely.
The ensuing Apollo missions to the Moon were
better, but there was still a lot of luck involved.
And now the scientists and engineers look back
on that, and they seem to feel that they have to
nitpick every little piece of "luck" out of the
equation. So we have to wait until they have
everything down perfect so that nothing is left
to luck. And that could mean a long wait.
As much as i do respect NASA, those people do
need to grow some hair on their balls! They'll
never get it perfect, and there'll always be the
risk. The neo-NASA people have to learn to live
with that.
Or we'll NEVER make it back to the Moon, let
alone to Mars or Venus.
I care about exploration, Brad. And when such
endeavor is squelched by anything, to include
dipsticks with silly conspiracy ideas, then i have
to admit that it pisses me off.
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the
Moon. Their mission was the first of six and they
were the first two of 12 men in all who landed
and who walked on the Moon. Three brave men
gave their lives for this mission, Gus Grissom,
Ed White and Roger Chaffee. And three others,
James A. Lovell, John L. "Jack" Swigert and Fred
W. Haise were almost lost during the Apollo 13
explosion in space. Apollo missions 11, 12, 14,
15, 16 and 17 landed on and explored our sister
planet Selene.
Live with it. Enjoy it. Celebrate it. And use it
to put a burr under NASA's butt!
Painius
news:qPadnXi_YokOME7V...@giganews.com...
Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
It's not a "correction" but just a clarification. There
were 7 manned missions to the Moon. Six of them
actually got there and landed, Apollos 11, 12, 14,
15, 16 and 17. Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
space and had to return without making it to the
Moon. It is a credit to the program that even after
the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, four more missions
still went to the Moon and explored our sister planet!
The only question is, WTF is holding the neo-NASA
program back now? Don't say "funding", because if
they pushed hard enough, the money would come.
I think they need to grow some hair on their balls!
David Nakamoto
It's not NASA, it's the public, or perhaps Big Corporations. If either
of the latter really wanted to go to the moon, the former by a majority
consensus, or the latter by Big Bucks, then you'd see an effort put
forth and a new industry pop up.
--- Dave
Hagar
"Painius" <starswi...@maol.com> wrote in message
news:7ZQAk.227922$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message...
> news:qPadnXi_YokOME7V...@giganews.com...
>> "got1tiel" <got1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> snip<
> Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
> It's not a "correction" but just a clarification. There
> were 7 manned missions to the Moon. Six of them
> actually got there and landed, Apollos 11, 12, 14,
> 15, 16 and 17. Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
> space and had to return without making it to the
> Moon. It is a credit to the program that even after
> the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, four more missions
> still went to the Moon and explored our sister planet!
>
> The only question is, WTF is holding the neo-NASA
> program back now? Don't say "funding", because if
> they pushed hard enough, the money would come.
> I think they need to grow some hair on their balls!
It is Funding. The average American is not overly excited
about financing two wars, which have been going on for
way too long and draining our piggy bank, paying scalping
prices for oil, while watching the US Dollar go to hell in a
hand basket. The funding for any space exploration would
have to be voted on, and right now the masses would regard
any such thing as pork. Sad, but true. We really should stop
being the world's top cop and regain our supremacy in the
exploration of space, which is slowly slipping from our grip.
BradGuth
> On Sep 19, 4:23 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
> > still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>
> > Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
> > or not?
>
> > ~ BG
>
>
> I am building a spaceship in the back garden to take all the doubters
> to the Apollo landing site.
>
> The free tickets are strictly one way.
>
> Return tickets will involve organ removal.
>
> Just to ensure you are taken permanently out of the gene pool.
>
> I'm sure we can manage a bit of microsurgery in your case. ;-
And still you've got nothing objective to report on behalf of your
DARPA Apollo fiasco.
It still takes two to tango, and a cold-war tango we did.
~ BG
BradGuth
Isn't denial a wonderful thing, especially when having to live a lie
such as our DARPA Apollo fiasco. Why exactly is it that you can't
even put 2 and 2 together, and come up with 4 each and every time?
BradGuth
> In article <95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964ddd...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> >war perpetrating butts off.
>
> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
> it obvious nonsense.
Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
nonsense"?
~ BG
Government Shill #2
wrote:
Only when interpreted by you ~ BG. You take science, run it through your
internal processor and out comes "babble babble babble bable..."
--
Shill #2
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates
what he hears into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
BradGuth
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
How many tens of thousands of USSR government, military and civil
service jobs plus whatever employed and/or retirement benefits were on
the line at the end of WWII?
Same question applied to the American side or point of view.
~ BG
BradGuth
Now you're saying that the old USSR and Russia of today doesn't tell,
fabricate and/or otherwise go along with lies? (especially of those
which directly benefit their existence?)
You've got to be kidding, but clearly you are not. Go figure.
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>On Sep 19, 11:30 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 19, 6:30 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>> >> In article <95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964ddd...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
>> >> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
>> >> >war perpetrating butts off.
>>
>> >> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
>> >> it obvious nonsense.
>>
>> >Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
>> >nonsense"?
>>
>> > ~ BG
>>
>> Only when interpreted by you ~ BG. You take science, run it through your
>> internal processor and out comes "babble babble babble bable..."
>>
>
>How many tens of thousands of USSR government, military and civil
>service jobs plus whatever employed and/or retirement benefits were on
>the line at the end of WWII?
Huh? See ~ BG? This is what I mean about the incomprehensibility of your
posts. One post you are talking about physics, the next you are waffling
about the USSR and WWII. I am not as crazy as you. These disparate items do
not appear to go together. I'm sure that with the extra voices you have
going in your head this conversation is seamless, but us sane people are
missing half (or more) of your conversation.
>Same question applied to the American side or point of view.
I'm sure it does... What do your other voices tell you is the answer?
--
Shill #2
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman
BradGuth
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:41:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
Evidence exclusion and perpetual denial has been mainstream status quo
for centuries, if not thousands of years. How many thousand
documented examples of government and faith-based lies upon lies and
of subsequent consequences would you like to ponder?
Government Shill #2
wrote:
Babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble
babble babble babble babble babble babble. Babble babble babble babble
babble babble babble babble babble babble-babble babble babble babble
babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble?
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
--
~ Shill #2 Shill_#2 Shill.#2 Shill#2 S2
Painius
> such as our DARPA Apollo fiasco. Why exactly is it that you can't
> even put 2 and 2 together, and come up with 4 each and every time?
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Right back atcha, Brad, you master of irony! It isn't
denial when you support a historical event. It *is*
denial when you *deny* the event happened. Irony
just drips from your fingers onto your keyboard, my
friend.
And sorry, but 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. 2
apples plus 2 oranges does *not* equal 4 aploranges.
And 2 wabbits plus 2 wabbits usually equals a WHOLE
LOT MORE THAN 4 wabbits!
I get a knot in my stomach whenever i have to accept
that ANYBODY would seriously belittle the single most
and greatest exploratory event that human beings
have ever achieved in our entire history!
It's as if the discovery of America is DENIED. You may
as well deny that there are science labs in Antarctica.
Go ahead and deny that chimps can talk with their li'l
hands. You might as well completely disregard that
the computer in front of you is a great technological
feat of quantum mechanics. I don't know, Brad... do
you even think it's possible to climax during sex??!! <g>
As much as i've grown to like you and some of your
ideas, i have to acknowledge that anybody who denies
the great triumph of THE only time men have ever set
foot on another celestial body does not appear to have
even two brain cells to rub together. Rethink it, bud!
Dave
> "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message...
>
> news:qPadnXi_YokOME7V...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> >news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> >> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >> soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
> >> landings were fake?
>
> >> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >> hitler still alive story)
> >> this would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> >> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> >> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> >> thx
>
> > Gee, could it be because we actually DID go to the Moon ....
> > The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
> > Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...
>
> Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
> It's not a "correction" but just a clarification. There
> were 7 manned missions to the Moon.
crewed or staffed.
What is the terminology used in the business?
Iarnrod
> "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message...
>
> news:qPadnXi_YokOME7V...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> >news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> >> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >> soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
> >> landings were fake?
>
> >> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >> hitler still alive story)
> >> this would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> >> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> >> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> >> thx
>
> > Gee, could it be because we actually DID go to the Moon ....
> > The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
> > Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...
>
> Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
> It's not a "correction" but just a clarification. There
> were 7 manned missions to the Moon. Six of them
> actually got there and landed, Apollos 11, 12, 14,
> 15, 16 and 17. Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
> space and had to return without making it to the
> Moon. It is a credit to the program that even after
> the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, four more missions
> still went to the Moon and explored our sister planet!
Actually there were eight manned missions to the moon. Apollo 8 with
Borman, Lovell and Anders was the first manned mission to orbit the
moon, as a test of some of the procedures NASA would use for the
landing attempt.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by got1tiel
<got1...@yahoo.com>:
>I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
>whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
>landings were fake?
>
>the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
>hitler still alive story)
>this would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
>since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
>could have held them back from pushing this story?
Because it wasn't fake, despite the conspiracy theories
proposed by nutbars, some of whom have the US and the
Soviets conspiring to give the US a major propaganda victory
in the middle of the Cold War.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
got1tiel
happened
i was most interested in how come that since there was a potential for
this story, what was it that held the soviets back from pushing it?
thx
Iarnrod
Ooops, actually nine. Apollo 10 also orbited the moon and tested the
lunar module separately as well, coming within eight and a half miles
of the surface. That musta sucked for those guys, to have to go back
to the CM after being so close.
M104g...@gmail.com
You are a fucking nutcase! I was personally involved in the lunar
program and I can assure you it was not "faked".
Best get some professional help--your schitzy personality is showing
through.
Jeff▲Relf
“ 1.4 ≅ 1 ” and “ 2.8 ≅ 3 ”; so, for sufficiently large values of 1
and sufficiently small values of 3: “ 1 + 1 ≅ 3 ”.
P.S. My public radio station, KUOW, had a segment on Sagan today.
Sagan has/had a lot of friends in Seattle, it seems. Quoting KUOW.ORG:
“ Carl Sagan taught the importance and impact of
bringing science to the masses to Cliff Mass.
Cliff is an atmospheric sciences professor at the Univ. of Washington.
His weekly weather forecasts are heard on KUOW.
Cliff first met Carl Sagan in a college classroom. ”.
BradGuth
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:01:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>
> --
> ~ Shill #2 Shill_#2 Shill.#2 Shill#2 S2
>
> Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
> theobviousgcashman
Here’s yet another good one, as recently published in Popular Science,
of where the DARPA mainstream is continually trying to snooker and
dumbfound its way along.
“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”
Every 5th graders knows or at least should know that the size of a
primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of its
pixel resolution. GeoEye at a low orbit that’s easily doable, as such
could image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tight as an
Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel. The USAF has had better than
GeoEye optics as of decades ago.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> news:1d04fda0-dbcc-4f75...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 9:19 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> >>news:ff6c299f-57c9-4ca9...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Sep 18, 5:16 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> >> >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> >> >>news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "got1tiel" <got1t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
> >> >> >>news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > or not?
>
> >> What i care about is the present-day resistance
> >> few bases on theMoonby now for several uses.
> >> The fact is that in 1961 John F. Kennedy *dared*
> >> the decade". And science busted balls to do so,
> >> and succeeded. The fact is that luck had a lot to
> >> do with it. There were several points in the first
> >> mission when our astronauts could have been
> >> lost. It is no secret that their success was mainly
> >> due to their ability to meet the challenge. And
> >> while the massive training had a lot to do with
> >> that, it was moreso the astronauts' ingenuity that
> >> kept them alive and brought them back to Earth
> >> safely.
>
> >> The ensuing Apollo missions to theMoonwere
> >> better, but there was still a lot of luck involved.
> >> And now the scientists and engineers look back
> >> on that, and they seem to feel that they have to
> >> nitpick every little piece of "luck" out of the
> >> equation. So we have to wait until they have
> >> everything down perfect so that nothing is left
> >> to luck. And that could mean a long wait.
>
> >> As much as i do respect NASA, those people do
> >> need to grow some hair on their balls! They'll
> >> never get it perfect, and there'll always be the
> >> risk. The neo-NASA people have to learn to live
> >> with that.
>
> >> alone to Mars or Venus.
>
> >> I care about exploration, Brad. And when such
> >> endeavor is squelched by anything, to include
> >> dipsticks with silly conspiracy ideas, then i have
> >> to admit that it pisses me off.
>
> >> Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the
> >>Moon. Their mission was the first of six and they
> >> were the first two of 12 men in all who landed
> >> gave their lives for this mission, Gus Grissom,
> >> Ed White and Roger Chaffee. And three others,
> >> James A. Lovell, John L. "Jack" Swigert and Fred
> >> W. Haise were almost lost during the Apollo 13
> >> explosion in space. Apollo missions 11, 12, 14,
> >> 15, 16 and 17 landed on and explored our sister
> >> planet Selene.
>
> >> Live with it. Enjoy it. Celebrate it. And use it
> >> to put a burr under NASA's butt!
>
> > Isn't denial a wonderful thing, especially when having to live a lie
> > such as our DARPA Apollo fiasco. Why exactly is it that you can't
> > even put 2 and 2 together, and come up with 4 each and every time?
>
Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated mainstream is
continually trying to snooker and dumbfound its way along.
“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”
Every 5th graders knows or at least should know that the size of a
primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of its
pixel resolution. GeoEye at a low orbit that’s easily doable, as such
could image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tight as an
Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel. The USAF has had better than
GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago.
go...@my-deja.com
BradGuth wrote:
> On Sep 19, 12:50 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
Just another conspiracy fool, out of ammunition but still desperate
for attention.
oldcoot
>
> Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
> space and had to return without making it to the
> Moon.
>
side.
Also, regarding the eariler tragedy that claimed the lives of Grissom,
White and Chafee, it's generally recognized that it triggered a ground-
up revamping of slipshod and crappy practices.. and the eventual
success of the program was owed to the tragedy.
BradGuth
Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated mainstream is
continually trying to snooker and dumbfound its way along.
“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”
Every 5th graders knows or at least by rights should know that the
size of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification
or of its pixel resolution. GeoEye offering 0.41 m, except applied at
a low lunar orbit (say 65 km) that’s rather easily doable, as such
could image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tighter than
any Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel, or roughly 0.041 m/pixel
(1.6”) of monochromatic resolution. The USAF has actually had better
than GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago (similar to GeoEye
2).
BradGuth
wrote:
Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated and otherwise
controlled mainstream is continually trying to snooker and dumbfound
its way along.
“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”
Every 5th grader knows or at least by rights should know that the size
BradGuth
They had the same fear of unemployment and loss of retirement w/
benefits as priority factors at risk.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:23:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by got1tiel
>
> >I saw a fox program on fakemoonlandings. but i keep asking myself,
> >whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
> >landings were fake?
>
> >the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >hitler still alive story)
> >this would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> >could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> Because it wasn't fake, despite the conspiracy theories
> proposed by nutbars, some of whom have the US and the
> Soviets conspiring to give the US a major propaganda victory
> in the middle of the Cold War.
> --
Truth-lag never had it so good.
Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated and otherwise
controlled mainstream media is continually trying to snooker and
BradGuth
Mainstream truth-lag never had it so good. Call it irony on steroids.
Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated and otherwise
Zionist controlled mainstream media is continually trying to snooker
and dumbfound its way along.
“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”
Every 5th grader knows or at least by rights should know that the size
of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of
its pixel resolution. GeoEye offering 0.41 m, except applied at a low
lunar orbit (say 65 km) that’s rather easily doable, as such could
image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tighter than any
Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel, or roughly 0.041 m/pixel (1.6”)
of monochromatic resolution. The USAF has actually had better than
GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago (similar to GeoEye 2).
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Timberwoof
<a093307b-c023-464c...@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Every 5th grader knows or at least by rights should know that the size
> of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of
> its pixel resolution.
Hm. Google "telescope resolution" and you get dozens of references with
the same equation for resolution as I found in my college astronomy
textbooks. Here's one:
http://www.licha.de/astro_article_mtf_telescope_resolution.php
In other words, the size of the primary has everything to do with the
telescope's resolution. You can try to magnify the image produced by a
telescope with a small primary all you want, but all you get is a blur.
Maybe you can explain to us why the 200" Hale telescope on Mt. Palomar
creates images so much better than the telescopes at the Lick
Observatory on Mt. Hamilton.
Nah, you probably cant.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
harry k
What held them back? Try the fact that the landing were real and they
knew that the only people who would buy into a 'fake landing' story
were nutcakes? The Soviets were good at propaganda but they did stick
to things that were believable. "Fake landings" doesn't even come
close to being believable.
Harry K
BDK
@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
> in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated and otherwise
> controlled mainstream is continually trying to snooker and dumbfound
> its way along.
>
> foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
>
> Every 5th grader knows or at least by rights should know that the size
> of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of
> its pixel resolution. GeoEye offering 0.41 m, except applied at a low
> image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tighter than any
> of monochromatic resolution. The USAF has actually had better than
> GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago (similar to GeoEye 2).
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
>
Ohhh, babble babble, babble babble!
10-4 Guthball!
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>On Sep 19, 12:22 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe. But your 5th graders would also understand that GeoEye-1 is
681km/423 miles above the objects it is looking at. The Moon is
384,000km/238600 miles from the Hubble Space Telescope.
http://launch.geoeye.com/LaunchSite/about/fact_sheet.aspx
Maybe you should get a 5th grader to explain it to you.
Painius
*****************************************
And yet... what would be the point in showing you and all the other
manned-Moon-landing-hoax advocates even the most detailed pics?
I can hear them now...
F A K E F A K E F A K E !!!
No way those pics are real. See, what you have to accept is that
even when we return to the Moon, and astronauts send back clear,
hi-res images of Apollo footprints and other evidence of the first
six moon landings, somebody will always holler HHHOOOAAAXXX!!!
"That new astronaut just took a picture of one of his own footprints.
No way that's a print of Commander Cernan's boot!"
And if before another person sets foot on the Moon, a hi-res photo
of a boot print is taken by satellite, the hoaxmongers will scream,
"EITHER A ROBOT LANDED ON THE MOON AND FAKED THE FOOT
PRINT, OR IT WAS EASILY FAKED IN HOLLYNASAWOOD!"
Now i'm about to make a statement of fact...
There has NEVER been a conspiracy of such a nature and scope and
magnitude as the manned-Moon-landing-hoax that didn't suffer at
least one (usually more than one) good solid piece of evidence that
was leaked by one or more people who were close to the subject of
the conspiracy. No not one. Go ahead. Name one if you can. You
will not be able to because it's never happened. If you can just try
to imagine the great extent such a conspiracy begs to envelope,
the sheer meganumber of people who would have to be involved,
and then realize that despite all that, two years after Apollo 18 was
dusted due to lack of funding, some silly yayhoo decided to make a
name for hisself by writing a POS book that lit a fire under the hoax
theorists and sparked the "Neverending Fantasy", the impossible-to-
prove-one-way-or-the-other-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt conspiracy
theory that has NEVER made any reasonable sense, if you could do
all that, you would clearly see how asinine and unclever the whole
hoax idea really is.
There is not one clear piece of evidence that supports the hoax idea,
no not one. Every single shoddy piece of so-called "evidence" has
been soundly debunked. And yet there will be people shouting hoax
for the next hundred millennia just to have something to shout about.
You have let yourself fall into a well that ain't easy to climb out of.
But climb you must, climb you must if you want to be on the side of
T R U T H
Otherwise, you will remain a sadly mistaken arbiter of a kangaroo
court filled with barber shop mirrors--serial reflections having no
end, whichever way you look.
Bob Casanova
>i didnt intend that my post sparks off a debate on what actually
I'd say the reason was the ease with which it could be, and
has been, refuted. If the Soviets had tried this and been
refuted it would have been another major PR coup for the US.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by oldcoot
<oldco...@sbcglobal.net>:
The tragic thing about the pad fire was that it could have
been easily handled if the capsule were in space; it was
only uncontrollable in a ground simulation where venting to
vacuum wasn't an option.
Quadibloc
> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
> landings were fake?
The Americans were blackmailing them, because Sputnik was fake too.
Anyone with a grasp of the basic facts of science ladled out in
elementary school knows that a rocket can't work in a vacuum, it has
nothing to push against.
People knew this as far back as when Goddard was fooling around with
rockets; are you going to argue with the editorial page of the New
York Times?
And, anyhow, the Earth is flat, so putting satellites and space ships
in "orbit" doesn't even make sense.
John Savard
BradGuth
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:06:33 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
What's to explain?
Put GeoEye at 68 km away from the physically dark as coal Selene/moon,
and you'll be getting the resolution I'd mentioned, and that's raw w/o
PhotoShop enlargements.
The USAF has had equal or better than GeoEye 2 for more than three
decades, and that's worth better than 2.5 mm resolution when placed
into the much lower orbit around our moon.
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>On Sep 20, 1:19 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
What's to explain? Well... The quote you cited "“To get the resolution to
the point where one pixel was the size of a foot print, Hubble would need a
primary mirror of 2,400 feet in diameter”"
Followed by your contention that "Every 5th graders knows or at least
should know that the size of a primary mirror has nothing to do with
optical magnification or of its pixel resolution. GeoEye at a low orbit..."
You are trying to tell us that "They" are lying about why the Hubble Space
Telescope's resolution is not good enough to see objects on the Moon and
then you give us the example of a telescope in low Earth orbit.
Maybe you should get a 5th grader to explain to you that you are comparing
oranges and apples.
>Put GeoEye at 68 km away from the physically dark as coal Selene/moon,
>and you'll be getting the resolution I'd mentioned, and that's raw w/o
>PhotoShop enlargements.
>
>The USAF has had equal or better than GeoEye 2 for more than three
>decades, and that's worth better than 2.5 mm resolution when placed
>into the much lower orbit around our moon.
And what... you would believe the USAF (an Evil Guvmint Entity) if they
flew a satellite to the Moon and sent back pictures of Neil Armstrong's
footprints?
Of course you wouldn't!
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
~ Shill #2 Shill_#2 Shill.#2 Shill#2 S2
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God
who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect
has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei
Starman
only flat earth belivers still keep screaming "hoax" because they know so little
about science
try think about how difficult it would be in 1969 to make such a big scale hoax,
and how easy it would collapse
if just 1 tiny thing was exposed
So i bet it was more easy to fly to the moon and land people, than it would be
to fake it in 1969!!
"got1tiel" <got1...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
> landings were fake?
>
> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> hitler still alive story)
> this would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <a093307b-c023-464c-a9d9-c41f92f82...@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
I've been there and done that. It's technically doable for KECK to
extract one meter per given CCD pixel.
Any fool can manage to keep a given telescope at worse resolution if
the intent is to over-saturate those larger CCD pixels.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:30:48 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
What exactly is it about US and USSR government, military and of
nearly countless civil service related job security with vast benefits
that you and others of your mainstream status quo kind do not
understand?
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>On Sep 21, 1:43 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What exactly is it about US and USSR government, military and of
>nearly countless civil service related job security with vast benefits
>that you and others of your mainstream status quo kind do not
>understand?
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Nice tap dance there ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG. Don't
even try to address the points, just bluster and maybe no one will notice.
Quadibloc
> On Sep 18, 3:23 pm, got1tiel <got1t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> > soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
> > landings were fake?
>
> The Americans were blackmailing them, because Sputnik was fake too.
> Anyone with a grasp of the basic facts of science ladled out in
> elementary school knows that a rocket can't work in a vacuum, it has
> nothing to push against.
Oh, sorry. High school.
Painius
news:78394824-c119-44f6...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Sep, 18:05, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>> "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message...
>> news:qPadnXi_YokOME7V...@giganews.com...
>> > "got1tiel" <got1t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
>> >> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>> >> soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
>> >> landings were fake?
>>
>> >> hitler still alive story)
>> >> this would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
>> >> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
>> >> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>>
>> >> thx
>>
>> > The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
>> > Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...
>>
>> Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
>> It's not a "correction" but just a clarification. There
>> were 7 manned missions to the Moon.
> There will never be any more manned missions to the moon; they will be
> crewed or staffed.
>
> What is the terminology used in the business?
No offense meant, and i realize you're probably just
being inquisitive and not trollish, but "manned" as it
is used here is *not* gender specific. There are a lot
of usages for such *seemingly* gender specific terms
that indeed do not have anything to do with separation
of male and female. They apply to both. Anyone who
reduces these terms with implications of gender bias
are running the risk of fueling the fire of the "battle
between the sexes", rather than dousing it.
It might not be "PC", but then, who ever thought it
would have to be?
Painius
news:799c1882-0b34-4537...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 2:33 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 11:05 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> > "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message...
> >news:qPadnXi_YokOME7V...@giganews.com...
> > > "got1tiel" <got1t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:6590cef8-716d-4a02...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> > >> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> > >> soviets exploit the controversial footage and push the story that the
> > >> landings were fake?
>
> > >> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> > >> hitler still alive story)
> > >> this would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> > >> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> > >> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> > >> thx
>
> > > Gee, could it be because we actually DID go to the Moon ....
> > > The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
> > > Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...
>
> > Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
> > It's not a "correction" but just a clarification. There
> > actually got there and landed, Apollos 11, 12, 14,
> > 15, 16 and 17. Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
> > space and had to return without making it to the
> > the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, four more missions
> > still went to the Moon and explored our sister planet!
>
> Actually there were eight manned missions to the moon. Apollo 8 with
> Borman, Lovell and Anders was the first manned mission to orbit the
> moon, as a test of some of the procedures NASA would use for the
> landing attempt.
Ooops, actually nine. Apollo 10 also orbited the moon and tested the
lunar module separately as well, coming within eight and a half miles
of the surface. That musta sucked for those guys, to have to go back
to the CM after being so close.
****************************
If you took a trip, say, to Dallas, and all you did was drive around
the city eight and a half miles from its outskirts, would you feel
right about telling people that you had been to Dallas?
I was speaking about missions to the Moon that actually landed on
the Moon's surface. There were six in all.
hth
Quadibloc
> "Dave" <dwickf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > There will never be any more manned missions to the moon; they will be
> > crewed or staffed.
> > What is the terminology used in the business?
> No offense meant, and i realize you're probably just
> being inquisitive and not trollish, but "manned" as it
> is used here is *not* gender specific.
Be that as it may, all future missions to the moon that are not
automated will be "personnelled". There is, in fact, a new term that
NASA is now careful to use in its public communications.
John Savard
Kang Chung
has travelled on another boday outside the earth.
The Lunicod missions and robotic lunar sample returns. Some 40 kms.
BradGuth
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:08:52 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
In other words, I've got each of you brain dead and pecker sucking
bastards on that one.
“What exactly is it about US and USSR government, military and of
nearly countless civil service related job security with vast benefits
that you and others of your mainstream status quo kind do not
understand?”
~ BG
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>On Sep 21, 9:14 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. You have got nothing. Not even a lucid reply. You are still just tap
dancing about, hoping to not have to answer the question.
Would you believe the USAF (an Evil Guvmint Entity) if they flew a
satellite to the Moon and sent back pictures of Neil Armstrong's
footprints?
>“What exactly is it about US and USSR government, military and of
>nearly countless civil service related job security with vast benefits
>that you and others of your mainstream status quo kind do not
>understand?”
This rant has nothing to do with the question posed. I know the question is
not written in Babble. I don't speak Babble. Can you get a 5th grader to
translate it for you?
Timberwoof
<5fb254eb-ac15-4e08...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Yuck. "Crewed"? Crude.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>:
Any bets on whether some bozo takes this seriously? ;-)
M104g...@gmail.com
> “What exactly is it about US and USSR government, military and of
> nearly countless civil service related job security with vast benefits
> that you and others of your mainstream status quo kind do not
> understand?”
> ~ BG
As a former NASA employee who worked in the Office of Manned Space
Flight in the 60ties while attending GU law school, I can state
without reservation that you are a nutcase!
Hundreds of thousands of government employees and contractors could
keep such a secret for 30 years with no leaks?? You have no clue as to
how the federal government operates; "leaks" are a tactical, political
tool and Washington way of life frequently used for a variety of
nefarious objectives.
Do you also believe the government is hiding little green men?? Alien
space ships??
BTW, I have no "job security or benefits" to worry about--I have
accumulated a rather large sum of money in savings over the last 40
years.
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>
> news:799c1882-0b34-4537...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Hey, you're the one who included Apollo 13 in your initial list, which
you've apparently forgotten.
> I was speaking about missions to the Moon that actually landed on
> the Moon's surface. There were six in all.
But you weren't initially talking about that at all; that's why I
threw in the other two.
BradGuth
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:43:15 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
I’d believe the independently peer replicated whole truth and nothing
but the truth, whereas you’d believe whatever you’re told to believe,
or else.
~ BG
P. Edward Murray
possibility that we did not mount a real effort needs to get himself
or herself to a real Psychiatrist as soon as possible.
P. Edward Murray
land on the moon...is the problem of no stars showing on the video....
Take a photo of anything during daylight...
Now explain to me why we don't see the stars?
Same difference...
Now, if you get into the shadow of a LM...then there's a difference.
BradGuth
wrote:
Been there and done that, as from various satellite images of our
physically dark as coal Selene/moon showing multiple other items, such
as Earth and especially the likes of Venus, plus Jupiter, Saturn, a
little reddish hint of Mars and of course the bluish vibrant Sirius
star/solar system is nearly impossible to exclude without
intentionally keeping it out of the given FOV and/or using PhotoShop.
BDK
@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
> > >> >> >> >of where the DARPA mainstream is continually trying to snooker and
> > >> >> >> >dumbfound its way along.
> >
> > >> >> >> >foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
> >
> > >> >> >> >Every 5th graders knows or at least should know that the size of a
> > >> >> >> >primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of its
> > >> >> >> >could image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tight as an
> > >> >> >> >Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel. The USAF has had better than
> > >> >> >> >GeoEye optics as of decades ago.
> >
> > >> >> >> > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
> >
> > >> >> >> Maybe. But your 5th graders would also understand that GeoEye-1 is
> > >> >> >> 681km/423 miles above the objects it is looking at. The Moon is
> > >> >> >> 384,000km/238600 miles from the Hubble Space Telescope.
> >
> > >> >> >>http://launch.geoeye.com/LaunchSite/about/fact_sheet.aspx
> >
> > >> >> >> Maybe you should get a 5th grader to explain it to you.
> >
> > >> >> >What's to explain?
> >
> > >> >> the point where one pixel was the size of a foot print, Hubble would need a
> > >nearly countless civil service related job security with vast benefits
> > >that you and others of your mainstream status quo kind do not
> >
> > This rant has nothing to do with the question posed. I know the question is
> > not written in Babble. I don't speak Babble. Can you get a 5th grader to
> > translate it for you?
>
> but the truth, whereas you=3Fd believe whatever you=3Fre told to believe,
> or else.
>
> ~ BG
>
Or else what?
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
BDK
gov....@gmail.com says...
> >> >> >> >of where the DARPA mainstream is continually trying to snooker and
> >> >> >> >dumbfound its way along.
> >>
> >> >> >> >foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
> >>
> >> >> >> >Every 5th graders knows or at least should know that the size of a
> >> >> >> >primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of its
> >> >> >> >could image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tight as an
> >> >> >> >Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel. The USAF has had better than
> >> >> >> >GeoEye optics as of decades ago.
> >>
> >> >> >> > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
> >>
> >> >> >> Maybe. But your 5th graders would also understand that GeoEye-1 is
> >> >> >> 681km/423 miles above the objects it is looking at. The Moon is
> >> >> >> 384,000km/238600 miles from the Hubble Space Telescope.
> >>
> >> >> >>http://launch.geoeye.com/LaunchSite/about/fact_sheet.aspx
> >>
> >> >> >> Maybe you should get a 5th grader to explain it to you.
> >>
> >> >> >What's to explain?
> >>
> >> >> the point where one pixel was the size of a foot print, Hubble would need a
> >nearly countless civil service related job security with vast benefits
> >that you and others of your mainstream status quo kind do not
>
> This rant has nothing to do with the question posed. I know the question is
> not written in Babble. I don't speak Babble. Can you get a 5th grader to
> translate it for you?
>
> --
> Shill #2
>
> Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
> theobviousgcashman
>
Wow, even the Great Guthball resorts to the gay sex stuff. Very
disappointing.
Painius
news:5e1307dc-8db1-420e...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
***************************
Apollo 13 was included because 1) the gap that would have
existed between 12 and 14 required filling and 2) Apollo 13
*would have* landed on the Moon if it hadn't been for the
in-space explosion. Like 11 and 12, 13 was a "Moon-landing"
mission when it took off from Earth.
Why are you being arbitrary and argumentative? Why is all
this such a "big deal" to you? I appreciate the added ideas
and "clarifyins" and all, but we're losing focus here.
Bryan Olson
> One of the goofy precepts of this group ..those who believe we didn't
> land on the moon...is the problem of no stars showing on the video....
>
> Take a photo of anything during daylight...
>
> Now explain to me why we don't see the stars?
>
> Same difference...
Better experiment: Take a photo at night in which the Moon is properly
exposed. Without dynamic-range doctoring, do stars show up in the photo?
--
--Bryan
BradGuth
If Sirius could be within the same unfiltered FOV (easy to do from the
moon or easier yet while orbiting the moon), then by all means yes
you'd have the shot with photons and DR to spare. However, planets
like Venus are so much closer, bigger in the given FOV and even so
much brighter than Earth, not to mention the dark as coal moon itself.
Are you afraid to look for published examples?
~ BG
BradGuth
wrote:
> Frankly I think anyone who even pretends to think that there is a
> possibility that we did not mount a real effort needs to get himself
> or herself to a real Psychiatrist as soon as possible.
And can we suppose that everyone else gets a free lollipop, laced with
LSD.
What parts of physics duh-101 and deductive thinking-101 didn’t you
get a passing grade in?
~ BG
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>On Sep 21, 12:56 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which again completely fails to answer the question, whilst tap dancing
around, hoping it will go away.
Would you believe the USAF (an Evil Guvmint Entity) if they flew a
satellite to the Moon and sent back pictures of Neil Armstrong's
footprints?
--
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>Wow, even the Great Guthball resorts to the gay sex stuff. Very
>disappointing.
Anything to avoid the question. He's been caught bullshitting and hopes
that no on else will notice. He seems to think he can drop in some typical
kOOKer gay lames and maybe I'll go away.
BradGuth
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:51:16 -0400, BDK <Shillk...@silentexplosions.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <lg9dd4t0ei56nmr2mj1cm6iachku0g8...@4ax.com>,
> >gov.sh...@gmail.com says...
> >> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:43:15 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
Typical Zionist/Nazi tactics you have. Hitler would be soooo proud of
you.
~ BG
BradGuth
wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2:43 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > “What exactly is it about US and USSR government, military and of
> > nearly countless civil service related job security with vast benefits
> > that you and others of your mainstream status quo kind do not
> > understand?”
> > ~ BG
>
> As a former NASA employee who worked in the Office of Manned Space
> Flight in the 60ties while attending GU law school, I can state
> without reservation that you are a nutcase!
No you can't.
>
> Hundreds of thousands of government employees and contractors could
> keep such a secret for 30 years with no leaks??
What's to leak if you and 99.9% of all others didn't know squat to
begin with?
>
> You have no clue as to
> how the federal government operates; "leaks" are a tactical, political
> tool and Washington way of life frequently used for a variety of
> nefarious objectives.
Are you suggesting that our government doesn't create and publish all
sorts of disinformation?
>
> Do you also believe the government is hiding little green men?? Alien
> space ships??
I believe our government lies and otherwise tells us only whatever
they want to share.
>
> BTW, I have no "job security or benefits" to worry about--I have
> accumulated a rather large sum of money in savings over the last 40
> years.
Most all of which being of public loot, I suspect.
Would you care to share a copy of your various nondisclosure policies
that you and others had to sign in your own blood?
~ BG
Odysseus
Bryan Olson <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote:
I got a half-decent one of the Moon, Regulus and Saturn last February
with my Canon PowerShot, from the street in front of my house ...
... but the Moon was totally eclipsed at the time, within a few minutes
of maximum.
--
Odysseus
Painius
news:5fb254eb-ac15-4e08...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
So you are saying, John, that NASA will from now
on either be using robotic explorers or they will be
"personelling" their exploratory missions?
"Personnel the lifeboats!" <g>
dre
> One of the goofy precepts of this group ..those who believe we didn't
> land on the moon...is the problem of no stars showing on the video....
>
> Take a photo of anything during daylight...
>
> Now explain to me why we don't see the stars?
>
explained a thousend times allready,you won't believe it ,so who cares.
> Same difference...
>
> Now, if you get into the shadow of a LM...then there's a difference.
>
mythbusters busted all that..
BDK
@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Wow, it must be so tiring, doing all that tap dancing to avoid answering
the question.
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>On Sep 21, 10:20 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Zionist/Nazi tactics are to ask questions?? The bastards!
Dance Brad, dance...
Paul Schlyter
If the photo is a close-up of a small part of the Moon, and if a bright
star, e.g. Aldebaran, is very close to the lunar limb, it will also appear
in a photo where the Moon is properly exposed - even when there's no lunar
eclipse.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
M104g...@gmail.com
I had a top secret clearance and DID NOT sign a non-disclosure policy.
And you are suggesting that only .1% of the folks would have known the
lunar landings were fake?? You are totally clueless. Nobody can be
that dumb; you are either a troll having fun stirring people up or you
have a serious mental problem.
Top management of the manned lunar program during the mid-60ties were
virtually all outside private industry top managers from companies
such as IBM and Raytheon, not "government civil servants worried about
pensions". I know; I helped recruit them and devise ways to short-
circuit the burdensome civil service hiring procedures.
Do the names Brainard Holmes, Jim Turnock, Mike Yarymovich, etc, etc
mean anything to you. Geez!
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Because under your own standard of including Apollo 13 as a manned
mission to the moon, you left out two other manned missions to the
moon. You then changed the goal posts to include only those that
actually landed, but the pretended you had not initially said “7” and
tried to make me look like I was incorrect. This is not "arbitrary" on
my part but on yours. I guess the response I expected was “Oh yeah,
that’s right, I forgot about those other two!” But you became
defensive and tried to make me look like the one who was wrong.
Actually, to the moon landing deniers, 8 and 10 would have to have
been faked as well.
It’s no “big deal” to me. I only jumped in because under your first
definition of counting 7, I recalled Apollo 8 and added it, then
forgot about 10 and added it too. 8 and 10 were in moon orbit much
longer than Apollo 13. If you hadn’t tried to demean my contribution
by changing what you said, this would be over.
OK?
BradGuth
No they do not. Were they another part of DARPA?
btw, I didn't realize that so much of our moon had such a relatively
smooth/clean surface albedo of greater than 0.65, whereas in many of
those Apollo Kodak moments our Selene/moon surface looks as though its
albedo was worth nearly 0.75, and xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated
at that.
Too bad our physically dark as coal Selene/moon is otherwise so gamma
saturated, as having been gamma bandpass imaged from our side of the
magnetosphere.
~ BG
M104g...@gmail.com
No, not DARPA. They were the top moon flight managers at NASA's OMSF
in the planning stages in the 60ties. Google them, you will learn
something.
Holmes came from Raytheon where he had directed the BMEWS project
( the largest single technical project since Manhatten ), Turner from
IBM ( head of the Federal Systems Division ) and Yarymovich from DOD
( the Air Force had a manned space flight program then ). Dr.
Yarymovich was a "boy wonder" in his late 20ties who is still active
in aerospace. NASA's OMSF was full of military officers on TDY in the
60ties.
Chris L Peterson
>No, not DARPA. They were the top moon flight managers at NASA's OMSF
>in the planning stages in the 60ties.
Just ARPA in the 60s, though.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
BradGuth
Thanks much for that constructive and otherwise informative feedback.
Now, how about that pesky moon albedo consideration, knowing that our
spendy and intentionally made reflective Apollo moonsuits were of at
least a 0.8 to 0.9 albedo as the given DR(dynamic range) point of
reference (say 0.85), and don't forget each of those camera lens with
their polarized optical element that by rights should have made those
otherwise unfiltered Kodak moments of that lunar surface record as
though darker, rather than lighter, and especially the case of their
supposedly having that single spot source of illumination with loads
of raw solar UV energy to deal with.
What the hell went so off-world wrong with the physics of Kodak film,
especially since there supposedly wasn't hardly any local, cosmic or
nasty solar radiation factors to deal with?
M104g...@gmail.com
Brad-
Don't mean to be insulting but you are just hopeless in your
continuing notion that this sort of "secret" could be held by
thousands, in and out of the US government for almost 40 years. Your
photography questions are irrelevant and easily explained by
knowledgeable folks if you want to listen.
Of course the government keeps some secrets but a moon landing
fabrication? Didn't happen friend; I was deeply involved which I'm
sure you will ignore and plow ahead since you seem to have lots of
time on your hands.
"Cover ups"?? Of course, they happen from time to time as with the
fairly recent shuttle tragedy where the NASA managers knew the shuttle
had a serious hole in it long before re-entry ( cost the Program
Manager and the NASA Administrator their jobs ) but that sort of
nonsense didn't happen with the moon LANDINGS ( plural ). There is a
LARGE amount of Apollo gear ( not just footprints ) left on the moon
for all to eventually see including a Christian cross Buzz Aldrin
left. I have personally seen several he took up and brought back--
which raised a big stink with our Jewish brothers at the time and Buzz
then denied it ever happened.
And I did have a typo above--it was "Jim Turnock" of IBM not "Jim
Turner".
BradGuth
In other words, the fully related subtopics of lunar surface albedo
and of color/hue saturation as based upon the naked solar illumination
that simply does not add up according to terrestrial Kodak physics or
any science thereof, as such is still taboo/nondisclosure rated.
Should have figured as much.
And the tonnes of mostly white and/or bright and shiny Apollo stuff as
supposedly coexisting upon a very physically dark as coal Selene/moon
that has otherwise never been privately or otherwise observed as
objectively peer replicated science should have easily had it, as such
is good enough subjective interpreted science of moon landing proof
for the likes of yourself.
I suppose you or those of those you admirer as having identified
Muslim WMD on behalf of our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), and
having no regrets or remorse ever since, as that would figure about as
subjectively worthy as your faith-based mindset cares to think.
btw, I've never excluded Apollo or USSR inert stuff from having been
hard-landed or impact deposited upon the surface of our moon.
M104g...@gmail.com
> btw, I've never excluded Apollo or USSR inert stuff from having been
> hard-landed or impact deposited upon the surface of our moon.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
So there are 6 LEM lunar landing stages, several moon rovers and a ton
of miscellaneous Apollo stuff on the moon, including flags, laser
reflectors, etc, etc all "hard landed on the moon by NASA" over a
period of almost 5 years at 6 widely different lunar sites at a cost
of billions of $$US to perpetuate the hoax??
And the moon rocks brought back by Apollo and studied by scientists
all over the world are also a giant hoax?? And the Russians, at the
peak of the Cold War, helped us with the hoax??
You really are out of it. I'd rather debate a bot.
Painius
news:c1f303dc-d329-40b2...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
**************************************************
Had i forgotten about the previous important Apollo
missions that led to the landing missions, then i would
have said so. It's interesting that while talking about
Apollos ****11**** through 18, you would think that
i had forgotten that something had to lead up to the
lunar landing part of the program. I had nothing to
become defensive about, Iarnrod. You felt the need
to clarify, and that's all that happened. Anything else
is just stuff you're reading into it that wasn't there.
**************************************************
Actually, to the moon landing deniers, 8 and 10 would have to have
been faked as well.
It’s no “big deal” to me. I only jumped in because under your first
definition of counting 7, I recalled Apollo 8 and added it, then
forgot about 10 and added it too. 8 and 10 were in moon orbit much
longer than Apollo 13. If you hadn’t tried to demean my contribution
by changing what you said, this would be over.
OK?
**************************************************
If you really think i "demeaned" your contribution,
then you have my sincerest apology. Looking back
at my responses to you, i'm sorry but i cannot see
any words that were meant to demean your words.
I was merely stating facts that were in no way to
be construed as demeaning either to you or to the
crucial early missions that helped to put our brave
astronauts on the Moon.
To be specific, there were 7 manned missions that
were slated to land on the Moon. 6 of these made
it to the surface of the Moon. The only clarification
to this would be to include an eighth mission, 18,
that was also slated to land on the Moon, but was
scrapped due to lack of funding.
Yes, there were other missions before these that
went to the Moon, orbited, but did not land. Yes,
there were even earlier missions that did not go
to the Moon, but were crucial steps on the ladder
to the Moon. And yes, there was one mission, the
very first Apollo, where three courageous men
made the supreme sacrifice in their quest to help
put men on the Moon.
In my mind, the only really demeaning thing about
all this is that, since we haven't been back to the
Moon for further explorations, does this not demean
the men and women who gave their lives to and for
the Apollo space program? Did they live and die for
nothing?
I'm not just talking about the tragic deaths during
the program, i'm talking about all the people who
busted their balls to make the program work, who
worked tirelessly to solve the problems, to meet
the challenges. Was their "contribution" all for
naught?
Iarnrod
You’re taking this way too far. All that happened was you said there
were *seven* manned missions to the moon, and only six of which landed
on it. Under that standard, there were *nine* manned missions.
You want to make a distention that 13 was *intended* to land but
didn’t in order not to count 8 and 10, which were only meant to orbit
the moon. Still, if you are counting 13 as a manned mission to the
moon, then you have to toss in 8 and 10.
> Actually, to the moon landing deniers, 8 and 10 would have to have
> been faked as well.
>
> It’s no “big deal” to me. I only jumped in because under your first
> definition of counting 7, I recalled Apollo 8 and added it, then
> forgot about 10 and added it too. 8 and 10 were in moon orbit much
> longer than Apollo 13. If you hadn’t tried to demean my contribution
> by changing what you said, this would be over.
>
> OK?
>
> **************************************************
>
> If you really think i "demeaned" your contribution,
> then you have my sincerest apology.
Thanks.
> Looking back
> at my responses to you, i'm sorry but i cannot see
> any words that were meant to demean your words.
> I was merely stating facts that were in no way to
> be construed as demeaning either to you or to the
> crucial early missions that helped to put our brave
> astronauts on the Moon.
It just read like you were changing the definitions after I had added
two missing data points to your original definition, and then you
added that “driving around Dallas without entering it” argument, which
didn’t help you WRT 13 at all.
We agree on everything else. I guess, like I said, I expected a polite
“Oh thanks, yes those earlier ones also were moon missions but I meant
to refer only tot hose that landed and threw in 13 because it was
intended to land even though it didn’t.”
It just seemed to me that when you say “how many manned missions to
the moon” and count 13 among them, you can’t exclude 8 and 10.
Painius
news:i68Ck.235290$102.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> . . . To be specific, there were 7 manned missions that
> were slated to land on the Moon. 6 of these made
> it to the surface of the Moon. The only clarification
> to this would be to include an eighth mission, 18,
> that was also slated to land on the Moon, but was
> scrapped due to lack of funding.
It appears that a little more clarification is needed.
There were originally 20 missions in the Apollo space
program. And several more missions after that, which
were also considered part of the Apollo program.
Apollos 11 - 20 were all scheduled to land on the Moon
and return safely to Earth. Six of these missions were
successful. Apollo 13 was considered a "successful
failure" because, while the astronauts didn't land on
Moon, they had to use every ounce of their ingenuity
and the combined skills of Houston's personnel to get
back to Earth safely.
Apollo's 18, 19 and 20 were scratched due to NASA's
running out of cash. And while there were as many as
thirty more missions planned, only two were realized...
the Skylab space station (May 1973 – February 1974),
and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (July 1975)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_space_program
It might also be worthwhile to remember that, when
John F. Kennedy made his challenge in 1961 to land
a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, only
one American astronaut, Alan Shepard, had actually
been in space.
Gus Grissom, the second American in space, went up
and came down after Kennedy's challenge was made.
Grissom, who later died in the Apollo 1, almost died
on this first mission. The hatch opened prematurely
before recovery, and the "Liberty Bell 7" Mercury
capsule sank. Gus barely made it out alive.
And it wasn't until the next year, 1962, that astronaut
John Glenn became the first American to orbit Earth.
He dazzled everybody by going around our planet
three times! Someone even wrote a rock 'n roll song...
(This is from memory, as i can't find it on the net.)
M I G H T Y J O H N G L E N N
The rocket was a risin', there goes our ace,
Everybody watch him as he goes into space,
As he rose higher into the sky,
The clouds opened up to let John go by!
(Ch.)
Johnny Glenn, what a man,
Hey Johnny Glenn, what a man,
Johnny Glenn, what a man,
Yes, Johnny Glenn is a mighty man!
He went through space like nobody can,
Everybody said he was a "travelin' man",
He orbited twice then once again,
He's our number one Johnny Glenn!
(Repeat Ch.)
Then he said it was a beautiful sight,
Goin' so fast from day to night,
The world gave thanks to the powers that be,
When he landed safely in the deep blue sea!
(Repeat Ch.)
Johnny Glenn is a mighty man!
John Glenn is a mighty man!
I did a paraphrased version to commemorate John
Glenn's flight on the space shuttle Discovery in 1998.
At age 77, Glenn became the oldest person to ever
fly into space. The new version of the song is on this
page if you're interested...
http://home.att.net/~Paine_Ellsworth/poms0006.htm
BradGuth
wrote:
Yourself as part of the military and civil service cabal/cartel are
clearly limited as to whatever your closely moderated and otherwise
cultivated mindset can accept or share. Don't expect little old me to
change what has been done over and over to your mindset until the
point of no return.
I've never once stipulated or having otherwise suggested that our
DARPA and their crack NASA/Apollo team wasn't trying every good or bad
trick within their Zionist/Nazi book, for getting themselves safely to/
from the surface of our moon. Them dirty rotten Russians were
obviously doing the same, and for the exact same government, military
and civil service job security with loads of benefit reasons, as that
which our side of this mutually perpetrated cold-war had been trying
to pull off.