Moon landing hoax exposed
Frisbieinstein
Androcles
"Frisbieinstein" <patmp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bafc86d-6256-4738...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
I won't bother watching the video, the thread title is enough to get a
fucking
boring weirdo like you thrown out.
--
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 19/08/10. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
palsing
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umEpXKdTm5k
I was expecting something very different... but that was pretty funny.
\Paul A
Frisbieinstein
2011> wrote:
> "Frisbieinstein" <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9bafc86d-6256-4738...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
> I won't bother watching the video, the thread title is enough to get a
> fucking
> boring weirdo like you thrown out.
>
> --
> *plonk*
> You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen.
PLEASE exercise your right.
Unfortunately I expect to be disappointed again.
Brad Guth
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umEpXKdTm5k
Kodak can not objectively prove their film was ever exposed to that
naked lunar environment.
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Yousuf Khan
> "Frisbieinstein"<patmp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9bafc86d-6256-4738...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
> I won't bother watching the video, the thread title is enough to get a
> fucking
> boring weirdo like you thrown out.
>
Androcles, if stupidity were currency, you'd be a billionaire.
Brad Guth
> On 23/07/2011 10:27 AM, Androcles wrote:
>
> >news:9bafc86d-6256-4738...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > <snip>
> > I won't bother watching the video, the thread title is enough to get a
> > fucking
> > boring weirdo like you thrown out.
>
> Androcles, if stupidity were currency, you'd be a billionaire.
Perhaps Kodak can objectively prove their film was ever exposed to
that lunar environment, not to mention the to/from trek that required
spending near 4 hours moving through our Van Allen/magnetosphere
that's fairly active, plus there's always 5 gamma hits/cm2/sec.
Cleirach
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 23, 6:13�am, Frisbieinstein <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umEpXKdTm5k
>
>Kodak can not objectively prove their film was ever exposed to that
>naked lunar environment.
>
And they can't objectively dis-prove it either
Funny film anyway - loved the view of the Sleestaks in the first 'act'
Brad Guth
"Cleirach" <cleirac...@frontier.com> wrote in message
news:hg9137h9vbnqct99c...@4ax.com...
I happen to know film, and there is no film on Earth that's rad-hard and/or
immune to being roasted, not to mention unable to record them pesky UV
secondary/recoil photons.
Btw; even though Google Groups or GG+ version of Usenet/newsgroups is still
dysfunctional and showing no sign of recovery since July 25, at least my
"Google-Usenet" and " Guth-Usenet" accounts that are hosted and regulated by
Google servers are sufficiently isolated and fully functional, and for the
moment they are open to the public.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
Cleirach
wrote:
>
>"Cleirach" <cleirac...@frontier.com> wrote in message
>news:hg9137h9vbnqct99c...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>> <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 23, 6:13 am, Frisbieinstein <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umEpXKdTm5k
>>>
>>>Kodak can not objectively prove their film was ever exposed to that
>>>naked lunar environment.
>>>
>>
>> And they can't objectively dis-prove it either
>>
>> Funny film anyway - loved the view of the Sleestaks in the first 'act'
>
>I happen to know film, and there is no film on Earth that's rad-hard and/or
>immune to being roasted, not to mention unable to record them pesky UV
>secondary/recoil photons.
As a semi-pro photographer, I also know film and cameras
You are correct that you can't "harden" film against stray radiation -
that's why I never let them x-ray my camera or film-bag at the airport
BUT
You can harden the camera itself
Leaded glass lenses, lead coating on all metal parts - or even a
sandwich of steel/lead/steel - also make it a pressure container so
that the interior maintains at least a few PSI of pressure to prevent
vacuum effects from damaging the film or internal workings of the
camera
By this method, you can prevent all the nasty radiation from affecting
the film and still get good shots of the Lunas surface, Earth from
orbit and all kinds of fun things
And since the camera itself is proof against anything other than what
you shoot - there's no way to prove or disprove that a particular shot
was taken from space or in a hollywood studio
Myself - having witnessed launches and talked to a couple astronauts
personally - I'll believe that we have had cameras up there and all
the shots we've seen are real
Brad Guth
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:20:17 -0700, "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Cleirach" <cleirachloch...@frontier.com> wrote in message
Gamma and hard X-rays (of which our naked moon has lots to offer) via
cosmic and solar secondary/recoil radiation plus via some of its own
locally sourced radiation, is actually made worse for that film by way
of incorporating high density shielding, unless it's really thick.
Those cameras were not especially shielded, and they most certainly
were not pressurized. The standard but high quality Zeiss optics were
not even special band-pass coated. They only had their neutral
polarized element applied which should have made the physically dark
surface of our moon record even darker.
You do understand what UV does to create secondary/recoil photons of
those bluish/purple colors, not to mention fluorescing minerals which
that moon should have its fair share of.
Actually the isolated island nation of Nauru was ideal, and we
certainly paid them back by sponsoring their UN membership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru
Just in case GG and GG+ Usenet and Newsgroups flatlines or flames-out
again, there's always my "Google-Usenet" and "Guth-Usenet" accounts
that are hosted and regulated by Google servers, as remaining
sufficiently isolated and fully functional, and for the moment they
are open to the public and only managed by myself.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
>
> >On Jul 23, 6:13 am, Frisbieinstein <patmpow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umEpXKdTm5k
>
> >Kodak can not objectively prove their film was ever exposed to that
> >naked lunar environment.
>
> And they can't objectively dis-prove it either
>
> Funny film anyway - loved the view of the Sleestaks in the first 'act'
Speaking about digital PhotoShop in order to remove all them pesky
stars:
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2011/nasasasteroi.jpg
Btw; at least my "Google-Usenet" and " Guth-Usenet" accounts have
remained fully functional, and for the moment they remain open to the
public.
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
Brad Guth
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umEpXKdTm5k
Good daytime photo of our moon and the planet Venus which our crack
NASA/Apollo wizards with all their “right stuff” simply could not
accomplish with their Kodak medium format film, exceptional optics and
no atmosphere in the way.
“Moon Covers Venus. Credit: Kevin Jung”
http://www.universetoday.com/88344/astrophoto-moons-occultation-of-venus-by-kevin-jung/