Reverse Speech & The Apollo Moon Controversy
ISRAELDid911
By: David John Oates
redw...@adam.com.au
It has been a huge controversy over the past several years, even the
topic of a TV special. Did we really go to the moon or not? Did NASA
fake the moon landings? Now one Reverse Speech Practitioner, Karina
Kaiser, has come out with a set of reversals that she claims proves we
did not go to the moon. Her reversals can be seen here -
http://www.reversespeechinternational.com/moonlanding.php.
It has always been the opinion of this author that we did go to the
moon, and I have not been convinced with arguments that say we did not
go. This website examined the question of whether we went to the moon
or not a couple of years ago and our results were posted here -
http://www.reversespeech.com/apollo.htm.
Probably the most significant reversal we found is this one here...
"I don't accept the Bible as a [gospel of any]thing except a
historical record. But we did go to the moon. You betcha sweet ass we
went to the moon." Inevitable saga (Congruent. Confirming what he is
saying forward. Saga is a historical record, a chronology of events
and it was inevitable because mankind was destined to go to the moon.)
I interpreted this reversal as he was telling a true story and an
accurate chronology of historical events. In another example, the
reversal confirms what he is saying forwards.
"Now what that all meant I don't know, but it wasn't the kind of
radiation that gave us a problem of any kind. You could see it. You
could close your eyes and just [see these things] shoot by." You see
this (Talking about travelling through the radiation belt. A congruent
reversal indicating they did travel through the belt.)
Given these seemingly congruent reversals, I was very surprised when
Karina Kaiser came out with her results. This has prompted me to
examine her claims and her reversals closely. Here are my analysis
results of each reversal she has posted. My overall conclusion is
posted at the end of this analysis.
Reversal 1 - Karina's comments:
Walter Cronkite, US Broadcast Journalist and CBS’s former Anchorman
reports live Apollo 11 lift-off:
1. Thirty-two minutes (past the) hour lift off on Apollo 11…
It sucks - what an odd thing to say….
Reversal 1 - My comments
Karina has only documented a small portion of the reversal. The whole
reversal says Apollo 11 not perfect. Ah. It sucks (click on reversal
to download mp3 file in this file and others to follow). What does he
mean by Apollo 11 is not perfect? I don't know.
Reversal 2 - Karina's
Unknown Houston speaker:
2. Apollo 11 – (this is Houston, ID check), over?
Guys, stay down the street - down the street or up in space??
Reversal 2 - My comments
I don't think this reversal is clear enough to document. "Guys" is not
clear at all, and even if it is there, it could mean anything. Houston
Space Centre is a big place, he could have been thinking about another
part of the centre.
Reversal 3 - Karina's comments
Apollo 11 to Houston July 1969
1. You never get a role from them..
Bad rapport. Can I come in? ? - Lets suppose that this conversation
between Apollo 11 & Houston took place in a recording studio. Then
this reversal might say: “I don’t understand, can I come in to your
studio room (and you show me what you want me to do).”
Reversal 3 - My comments
This audio is too bad to really document and that very fact may
explain the reversal. I hear the reversal as "Bad rapport, do I come
in." This is classic radio talk, Bad rapport (the signals are bad) "do
i come in", or can you hear me? Nothing sinister in that.
Reversal 4 - Karina's comments
Buzz Aldrin Jr, Apollo 11 Astronaut:
2 . Well we shut out the sun coming in from [the other window into]
the spacecraft so…
Remember the Lie
Reversal 4 - My comments
I agree with this reversal. But what is the lie he is remembering?
Reversal 5 - Karina's comments
3. …so ah it’s blocking through a ah the ah number one window [and
there isn’t any] reflective light.
Hyena paranoid
Hyena in Reverse Speech describes deceptive cunning and conniving
behaviour and indicates someone with ulterior motives who can not be
trusted.
Reversal 5 - My comments
I agree with this reversal and the Reverse Speech metaphor dictionary
definition. But what are they being deceptive about?"
Reversal 6 - Karina's comments
Apollo 11 – Neil Armstrong 20 July 1969
1.I’m at the foot of the ladder, the LM (Lunar Module) footrests are
only ah depressed in the surface about ah one or two inches although
the surface appears to be ah very very [fine grained as you get close]
to it, it’s almost like powder
Joke engineered now
Reversal 6 - My comments
This reversal is too imprecise to be documented. Too many syllables
and "engineered" can be heard several different ways
Reversal 7 - Karina's comments
2. That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind
Man will spacewal(k) -This is a future tense reversal indicating
it had not taken place yet
Reversal 7 - My comments
I have been playing this reversal for years and explain it very simply
as Armstrong is expressing his hope for the future of mankind in space
as he steps onto the lunar surface. Just because I will have dinner
tomorrow doesn't mean i didn't have dinner today. The same is true for
this reversal.
Androcles
"ISRAELDid911" <dfgsdgt5...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:d9e3d22a-9502-4032...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Did We Go to the Moon or Not?
Was a Crucifixion Victim Born of a Virgin?
(Who gives a flying fuck?)
[idiot argument deleted]
*plonk*
BradGuth
wrote:
> Did We Go to the Moon or Not?
>
> By: David John Oates
>
> It has been a huge controversy over the past several years, even the
> topic of a TV special. Did we really go to the moon or not? Did NASA
> fake the moon landings? Now one Reverse Speech Practitioner, Karina
> Kaiser, has come out with a set of reversals that she claims proves we
>
> It has always been the opinion of this author that we did go to the
> moon, and I have not been convinced with arguments that say we did not
> go. This website examined the question of whether we went to the moon
>
> Probably the most significant reversal we found is this one here...
>
> "I don't accept the Bible as a [gospel of any]thing except a
> historical record. But we did go to the moon. You betcha sweet ass we
> went to the moon." Inevitable saga (Congruent. Confirming what he is
> saying forward. Saga is a historical record, a chronology of events
> and it was inevitable because mankind was destined to go to the moon.)
>
> I interpreted this reversal as he was telling a true story and an
> accurate chronology of historical events. In another example, the
> reversal confirms what he is saying forwards.
>
> "Now what that all meant I don't know, but it wasn't the kind of
> radiation that gave us a problem of any kind. You could see it. You
> could close your eyes and just [see these things] shoot by." You see
> this (Talking about travelling through the radiation belt. A congruent
> reversal indicating they did travel through the belt.)
>
> Given these seemingly congruent reversals, I was very surprised when
> Karina Kaiser came out with her results. This has prompted me to
> examine her claims and her reversals closely. Here are my analysis
> results of each reversal she has posted. My overall conclusion is
> posted at the end of this analysis.
>
> Reversal 1 - Karina's comments:
>
> Walter Cronkite, US Broadcast Journalist and CBS's former Anchorman
> reports live Apollo 11 lift-off:
>
> It sucks - what an odd thing to say....
>
> Reversal 1 - My comments
>
> Karina has only documented a small portion of the reversal. The whole
> reversal says Apollo 11 not perfect. Ah. It sucks (click on reversal
> to download mp3 file in this file and others to follow). What does he
> mean by Apollo 11 is not perfect? I don't know.
>
> Reversal 2 - Karina's
>
> Unknown Houston speaker:
>
> Guys, stay down the street - down the street or up in space??
>
> Reversal 2 - My comments
>
> I don't think this reversal is clear enough to document. "Guys" is not
> clear at all, and even if it is there, it could mean anything. Houston
> Space Centre is a big place, he could have been thinking about another
> part of the centre.
>
> Reversal 3 - Karina's comments
>
> Apollo 11 to Houston July 1969
>
> 1. You never get a role from them..
> Bad rapport. Can I come in? ? - Lets suppose that this conversation
> between Apollo 11 & Houston took place in a recording studio. Then
> this reversal might say: "I don't understand, can I come in to your
> studio room (and you show me what you want me to do)."
>
> Reversal 3 - My comments
>
> This audio is too bad to really document and that very fact may
> explain the reversal. I hear the reversal as "Bad rapport, do I come
> in." This is classic radio talk, Bad rapport (the signals are bad) "do
> i come in", or can you hear me? Nothing sinister in that.
>
> Reversal 4 - Karina's comments
>
> Buzz Aldrin Jr, Apollo 11 Astronaut:
>
> 2 . Well we shut out the sun coming in from [the other window into]
> Remember the Lie
>
> Reversal 4 - My comments
>
> I agree with this reversal. But what is the lie he is remembering?
>
> Reversal 5 - Karina's comments
>
> there isn't any] reflective light.
> Hyena paranoid
>
> Hyena in Reverse Speech describes deceptive cunning and conniving
> behaviour and indicates someone with ulterior motives who can not be
> trusted.
>
> Reversal 5 - My comments
>
> I agree with this reversal and the Reverse Speech metaphor dictionary
> definition. But what are they being deceptive about?"
>
> Reversal 6 - Karina's comments
>
>
> 1.I'm at the foot of the ladder, the LM (Lunar Module) footrests are
> only ah depressed in the surface about ah one or two inches although
> the surface appears to be ah very very [fine grained as you get close]
> to it, it's almost like powder
> Joke engineered now
>
> Reversal 6 - My comments
>
> This reversal is too imprecise to be documented. Too many syllables
> and "engineered" can be heard several different ways
>
> Reversal 7 - Karina's comments
>
> 2. That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind
> Man will spacewal(k) -This is a future tense reversal indicating
> it had not taken place yet
>
> Reversal 7 - My comments
>
> I have been playing this reversal for years and explain it very simply
> as Armstrong is expressing his hope for the future of mankind in space
> as he steps onto the lunar surface. Just because I will have dinner
> tomorrow doesn't mean i didn't have dinner today. The same is true for
> this reversal.
>
> Continued http://www.reversespeech.com/moonhoax.htm
You really only need to apply the regular laws of physics and take
into account the best available science, that for the most part tells
us that we have not walked on our physically dark and nasty moon.
There are dozens of perfectly good arguments as based entirely upon
the regular laws of physics and upon peer replicated science that has
us at best briefly orbiting our nearby mascon, but not having soft
landed upon or much less having EVA walked without lethal
consequences.
. - Brad Guth
Matt
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.
There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.
Igor
wrote:
> Did We Go to the Moon or Not?
>
> By: David John Oates
>
> It has been a huge controversy over the past several years, even the
> topic of a TV special. Did we really go to the moon or not? Did NASA
> fake the moon landings? Now one Reverse Speech Practitioner, Karina
> Kaiser, has come out with a set of reversals that she claims proves we
>
> It has always been the opinion of this author that we did go to the
> moon, and I have not been convinced with arguments that say we did not
> go. This website examined the question of whether we went to the moon
>
> Probably the most significant reversal we found is this one here...
>
> "I don't accept the Bible as a [gospel of any]thing except a
> historical record. But we did go to the moon. You betcha sweet ass we
> went to the moon." Inevitable saga (Congruent. Confirming what he is
> saying forward. Saga is a historical record, a chronology of events
> and it was inevitable because mankind was destined to go to the moon.)
>
> I interpreted this reversal as he was telling a true story and an
> accurate chronology of historical events. In another example, the
> reversal confirms what he is saying forwards.
>
> "Now what that all meant I don't know, but it wasn't the kind of
> radiation that gave us a problem of any kind. You could see it. You
> could close your eyes and just [see these things] shoot by." You see
> this (Talking about travelling through the radiation belt. A congruent
> reversal indicating they did travel through the belt.)
>
> Given these seemingly congruent reversals, I was very surprised when
> Karina Kaiser came out with her results. This has prompted me to
> examine her claims and her reversals closely. Here are my analysis
> results of each reversal she has posted. My overall conclusion is
> posted at the end of this analysis.
>
> Reversal 1 - Karina's comments:
>
> Walter Cronkite, US Broadcast Journalist and CBS's former Anchorman
> reports live Apollo 11 lift-off:
>
> It sucks - what an odd thing to say....
>
> Reversal 1 - My comments
>
> Karina has only documented a small portion of the reversal. The whole
> reversal says Apollo 11 not perfect. Ah. It sucks (click on reversal
> to download mp3 file in this file and others to follow). What does he
> mean by Apollo 11 is not perfect? I don't know.
>
> Reversal 2 - Karina's
>
> Unknown Houston speaker:
>
> Guys, stay down the street - down the street or up in space??
>
> Reversal 2 - My comments
>
> I don't think this reversal is clear enough to document. "Guys" is not
> clear at all, and even if it is there, it could mean anything. Houston
> Space Centre is a big place, he could have been thinking about another
> part of the centre.
>
> Reversal 3 - Karina's comments
>
> Apollo 11 to Houston July 1969
>
> 1. You never get a role from them..
> Bad rapport. Can I come in? ? - Lets suppose that this conversation
> between Apollo 11 & Houston took place in a recording studio. Then
> this reversal might say: "I don't understand, can I come in to your
> studio room (and you show me what you want me to do)."
>
> Reversal 3 - My comments
>
> This audio is too bad to really document and that very fact may
> explain the reversal. I hear the reversal as "Bad rapport, do I come
> in." This is classic radio talk, Bad rapport (the signals are bad) "do
> i come in", or can you hear me? Nothing sinister in that.
>
> Reversal 4 - Karina's comments
>
> Buzz Aldrin Jr, Apollo 11 Astronaut:
>
> 2 . Well we shut out the sun coming in from [the other window into]
> Remember the Lie
>
> Reversal 4 - My comments
>
> I agree with this reversal. But what is the lie he is remembering?
>
> Reversal 5 - Karina's comments
>
> there isn't any] reflective light.
> Hyena paranoid
>
> Hyena in Reverse Speech describes deceptive cunning and conniving
> behaviour and indicates someone with ulterior motives who can not be
> trusted.
>
> Reversal 5 - My comments
>
> I agree with this reversal and the Reverse Speech metaphor dictionary
> definition. But what are they being deceptive about?"
>
> Reversal 6 - Karina's comments
>
>
> 1.I'm at the foot of the ladder, the LM (Lunar Module) footrests are
> only ah depressed in the surface about ah one or two inches although
> the surface appears to be ah very very [fine grained as you get close]
> to it, it's almost like powder
> Joke engineered now
>
> Reversal 6 - My comments
>
> This reversal is too imprecise to be documented. Too many syllables
> and "engineered" can be heard several different ways
>
> Reversal 7 - Karina's comments
>
> 2. That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind
> Man will spacewal(k) -This is a future tense reversal indicating
> it had not taken place yet
>
> Reversal 7 - My comments
>
> I have been playing this reversal for years and explain it very simply
> as Armstrong is expressing his hope for the future of mankind in space
> as he steps onto the lunar surface. Just because I will have dinner
> tomorrow doesn't mean i didn't have dinner today. The same is true for
> this reversal.
>
> Continuedhttp://www.reversespeech.com/moonhoax.htm
GIGO
Andre Lieven
> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.
Well, I would suggest that a posting name of " Israeldid911 " rather
takes
away from any possible claim of " objectivity "...
> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
> energy, radiation, etc. for a moon mission despite the Ranger probes
> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way,
Don't forget the Lunar Orbiters, too. So, both direct ascent and lunar
orbital insertions were, by the time of Apollo, well understood and
practiced tasks.
> and B) The people who
> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
> etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
> any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
> paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
> to light.
Of course. The real issue is simply whackjob nuttery, because the
folks who
screech " we never landed on the Moon ", and often enough, the same
ones
who also screech " Oswald didn't kill JFK ", and " 9/11 was a hoax ".
No facts or truth ever come from such nutjob sources.
Andre
John P.
Wow. What a vivid imagination. ... and a but of a mental disease as well,
it would seem.
(If you speak that line out loud, record it, and play it backwards, it tells
the subconscious truth "Karina is a kook")
BradGuth
If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.
I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.
BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
A moon hard landing or soft impact isn't what we're talking about.
But then you've got far better physics and replicated science proof
than NASA. Perhaps you should share and share alike. Why is that
such a problem?
. - Brad Guth
Matt
> But then you've got far better physics and replicated science proof
> than NASA. Perhaps you should share and share alike. Why is that
> such a problem?
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't resist asking, Brad. If every planetary scientist on Earth
agrees that we have been to the Moon and that Venus is uninhabited and
uninhabitable (which they do), and you believe the opposite, do you
ever entertain the notion that YOU might be the one misinterpreting
the data?
isw
<fde4bb38-9c07-4cea...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, I'll share -- not that it will do any good.
A friend and I watched, in real time, video transmitted directly from
the antenna on the lunar rover during the Apollo 17 mission. My friend
was a ham operator, and he had a 12-foot parabolic dish in his back
yard; it was pointed directly at the moon. I contributed the video
expertise necessary to demodulate the signal. The image was very noisy,
but recognizable when we saw it some time later on a network broadcast.
Also, there are some peculiar video artifacts that show up during the
launch of the lunar module for the return trip, that are very unlikely
to have been faked; nobody would have thought of it.
Isaac
isw
<8f0a5661-4879-481c...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't know much about photography, do you?
Isaac
BradGuth
Whatever you say.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> In article
> <fde4bb38-9c07-4cea-8fa6-ad029531a...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Ever heard of an S-Band transponder, or of the moon's L1 ????
How about our NASA/Apollo "Chapel Bell"? Apparently not.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Are you Muslim, another pretend atheist, or just plain dumb and dumber
because of your incest mutated DNA?
Just answer my questions, or go to hell. It's called 'put up or shut
up'.
. - Brad Guth
Pat Flannery
isw wrote:
>
> A friend and I watched, in real time, video transmitted directly from
> the antenna on the lunar rover during the Apollo 17 mission. My friend
> was a ham operator, and he had a 12-foot parabolic dish in his back
> yard; it was pointed directly at the moon. I contributed the video
> expertise necessary to demodulate the signal. The image was very noisy,
> but recognizable when we saw it some time later on a network broadcast.
>
That's a little fact that Moon hoax supporters will have trouble
with...why were the signals coming from the Moon?
Pat
Disneygeek
Well, since photographs are taken with the sun behind you, and since
Venus would be between the Earth/Moon and the Sun, then I'd have to
believe Venus is behind the photographer's shoulder.
And thus isn't going to show up in too many pictures.
BDK
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Hey Brad! Please, for us sane people who don't know, what exactly is a
"pretend atheist", and why would someone pretend to be one?
BDK
Ready to laugh.
Androcles
"BDK" <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.221e02b8e...@news.buckeye-express.com...
Please do not feed the pretend troll with his incest mutated idiocy.
Disneygeek
> In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
>
> - Show quoted text -
To the absolutly devout, you can't really believe there's no God so if
you say you're an atheist, you must be pretending.
Mind you, this is from a guy who thinks we should have gone to the
Moon to take pictures of Venus!
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
The usual wacko response it that there was a transponder just to fool
the HAMs.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
surfduke
The simple (5) w's are not what You want Brad, (If so this subject
would fade away). Please let the keyboard rest for awhile, (try
reading a good book, (See Dick run.....See Jane hide....).
Carl
BradGuth
> In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
Been there, done that. Go fish.
Whatever, so you've still got nothing. Gee whiz, what a surprise.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
That's rather status quo or bust silly, and/or dumbfounded past the
point of no return.
. - BG
BradGuth
And you've got that fully interactive 3D orbital simulator backing
this analogy up, of Venus always being "behind the photographer's
shoulder" or otherwise nicely hidden out of any FOV?
How about sharing just one FOV/picture, from whatever EVA or how about
one Kodak moment as obtained from orbit that so happens to include any
part of our physically dark moon?
. - Brad Guth
PORTSU...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK OK I get it, an argument just for the sake of debate.
Well I don't mean to disturb you fellas. I am just here in search of
one of my old highschool teachers
by the name of Mr. guth i googled him and this is what i found so
excuse me for the interruption. If this is
my ole english teacher i would like to know if i can e-mail him.
judging from this BLOG i guess u call it
It sounds just like that teacher that nearly took my head off with an
english book. LOL LOL .
I wish to aknowledge one of the few cornerstones of my youth.
PPS
In the world that i live in where the thought of space travel is by no
stretch of the human imagination anything other than a waste of time,
money and intelligence.
We find that building a leveethat can keep us off the roof for 3 days
without water. Healthcare, higher pay for teachers.
not to mention a cure for something, AIDS, CANCER, or how about the
common cold. Something that actully matters might actually
be of value.
Then again what do we know. Most of us have to drop out of school
before we can
even spell the word degree, just to afford section 8 living.
SORRY TO BUTT INTO YALL CONVO.
GOD BLESS.
"YESTERDAY IS HISTORY TOMORROW IS A MYSTERY BUT NOW
IS A GIFT FROM GOD.
THAT'S WHY WE CALL IT "THE PRESENT".
BradGuth
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> OK OK I get it, an argument just for the sake of debate.
> Well I don't mean to disturb you fellas. I am just here in search of
> one of my old highschool teachers
> excuse me for the interruption. If this is
> my ole english teacher i would like to know if i can e-mail him.
> judging from this BLOG i guess u call it
> It sounds just like that teacher that nearly took my head off with an
> english book. LOL LOL .
> I wish to aknowledge one of the few cornerstones of my youth.
>
> PPS
> In the world that i live in where the thought of space travel is by no
> stretch of the human imagination anything other than a waste of time,
> money and intelligence.
> We find that building a leveethat can keep us off the roof for 3 days
> without water. Healthcare, higher pay for teachers.
> not to mention a cure for something, AIDS, CANCER, or how about the
> common cold. Something that actully matters might actually
> be of value.
> Then again what do we know. Most of us have to drop out of school
> before we can
> even spell the word degree, just to afford section 8 living.
>
> SORRY TO BUTT INTO YALL CONVO.
> GOD BLESS.
>
> "YESTERDAY IS HISTORY TOMORROW IS A MYSTERY BUT NOW
> IS A GIFT FROM GOD.
> THAT'S WHY WE CALL IT "THE PRESENT".
For the most part you are correct about space travels being nearly a
total waste of our hard earned loot and of the decades badly spent.
Silly old me, I'd like to focus our best talents and limited resources
upon whatever's nearby and technically obtainable within the realm of
existing technology, and at a cost that we can afford to invest.
Taking care of mother Earth and of ourselves is right up there, at the
top of my to-do list.
I'm not one of your "highschool teachers", but it looks as though we
could each use another English teacher or two. Good luck, as there
are lots of honest and hard working Guths out there that I'm not of
any recent part of their DNA code (as far as I know of).
. - Brad Guth
BDK
@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
So, what does the term mean?
BDK
Waitin' to laugh.
BDK
72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Why won't you answer the question?
BDK
BDK
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
You mean that dark moon that's lit up really brightly a lot of the time?
BDK
BradGuth
> In article <b2de17e0-175c-4ea7-80ec-ce347c68c385
That's it, as rather similar to what an open pit coal mine might look,
along with its mostly basalt surface with extra deposit minerals of
titanium, iron, sodium (from within), possibly thorium and otherwise
all very much dusty soot like dark as hell on average, pretty much
exactly as the average 0.11 albedo specifies, and as having been peer
replicated as being such a coal like dark moon.
If any significant portion of that moon was NASA/Apollo albedo worthy
of 0.75, as such we'd be blinded by the light of that moonshine
(having to wear our shades by night).
. - Brad Guth
BDK
@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Uh huh. Guthball, you're a trip, that's for sure.
BDK
Rand Simberg
<B...@magicsteel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Uh huh. Guthball, you're a trip, that's for sure.
He is insane. Stop feeding the troll, please.
BradGuth
> In article <86348882-eadb-4d04-8254-15c7c6fa6a96
> @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
My pleasure.
. - BG
BradGuth
wrote:
But you and others of your brown-nosed kind keep returning to the
fires of truth. Why is that?
. - BG
BDK
3431e5...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
We like to play with the kooks. It's fun.
You wouldn't know truth if your life depended on it, Venus boy.
Later Guthball.
Seen any pretend believers lately?
BDK
Disneygeek
Never mind that a transponder on the moon to bounce signals off of
would have made the telemetry all wrong... that was the first clue
that began to unravel the conspiracy on "Capricorn One."
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
You're not supposed to look at reality too closely, just accept that
it was all a conspiracy by Bush and company.
Yes, now it can be told; George Bush and the Republicans were behind
the Apollo hoax while we had a Democratic president.
BradGuth
> In article <6bf696fa-6bc5-4d30-8fa8-
> 3431e5536...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
>
> > On Feb 14, 6:31 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:26:31 -0500, in a place far, far away, BDK
> > > <B...@magicsteel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> > > way as to indicate that:
>
> > > >Uh huh. Guthball, you're a trip, that's for sure.
>
> > > He is insane. Stop feeding the troll, please.
>
> > But you and others of your brown-nosed kind keep returning to the
> > fires of truth. Why is that?
> > . - BG
>
> We like to play with the kooks. It's fun.
>
> You wouldn't know truth if your life depended on it, Venus boy.
>
> Later Guthball.
>
> Seen any pretend believers lately?
>
> BDK
Spoken like a true Semitic Third Reich, or brown-nosed minion
thereof.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
You folks are really something special, mouth to pecker all the way.
What lies, disinformation or exclusion of evidence as derived from
your statements would you like to argue about?
A transponder (terrestrial or otherwise) can easily introduce as much
or as little signal delay as you'd like. A transponder need not be on
the moon surface. (oops! sorry about that)
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
It's another Jewish thing, or at the very least Zionist (the same as
what got Hitler so far along).
. - Brad Guth
Eric Gisse
Wait...Hitler was backed by the Jews?
Disneygeek
>
> - Show quoted text -
LIttle thing called speed of light. A signal from the moon takes "x"
amount of seconds. Placing a transponder on the moon and sending the
signal through it from Earth will take "X+" amount of seconds and
those seconds will be detectable.
If you're suggesting we went all the way to the moon, and then orbited
around it for a few days, that will run into the "we could never have
gotten past the Van Allen Radiation Belt" crowd, of which I think you
used to be one.
BDK
15df0c...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Are you back to claiming I'm a jew again? Or a minion of them or someone
else?
What a whackjob you are. A kook's kook.
BWHAHAHA!
BDK
BDK
@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, jow...@gmail.com says...
Of course, he was but a pawn in their evul plans to take ova da VERLT!!
Gotta love kooks so deranged they believe such insanity.
BDK
Randy Poe
> In article <1717eb49-d824-48de-a8e1-1efa583ace85
My favorite Guth threads are the ones where it's
him alone (search for "Jaxa Selene"). Can we have
some more of those?
- Randy
BradGuth
Wait...it sure as hell wasn't the physics and science smarts of
Muslims.
Wait...are you saying that Jews don't eat their own kind, or put their
own kind on a stick for a faith-based PR stunt?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Is there some good reason we're hiding our 100mm resolution images of
our moon?
. - Brad Guth
BDK
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
A better question would be is there a good reason you're still
apparently running around loose?
BDK
BradGuth
> In article <bf44665a-bac7-4215-afc1-93fa3e36e668
> @i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
You should know best, especially since you sleep with rabbi Art Deco.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> In article <4a0a14d7-9d22-4415-ad5b-
> 15df0c834...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
Since you and rabbi Art Deco sleep side by side and mutually bed-wet
as a team effort, in which case you'd know best.
. - Brad Guth
BDK
cdf11f...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
BWHAHAHA! It always gets to the gay sex thing with you kooks!!
If it's not jew hating, 911 BS, Venus fixation, it's some weird gay sex
claim.
It must be part of your disease processes.
BDK
BDK
d2b027...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
So when will you answer my question, Guthball?
Maybe if you ask the attendant to up your med dosages, you can actually
make sense long enough to post something that someone who isn't just a
voice inside your head can understand.
Still waiting..
BDK
Iva hardon
>>> A better question would be is there a good reason you're still
>>> apparently running around loose?
>>>
>>> BDK
>>
>> You should know best, especially since you sleep with rabbi Art Deco.
>> . - Brad Guth
>>
>
> BWHAHAHA! It always gets to the gay sex thing with you kooks!!
> If it's not jew hating, 911 BS, Venus fixation, it's some weird gay sex
> claim.
>
> It must be part of your disease processes.
>
> BDK
Brad is such a fucktard.
BradGuth
You really can't think inside the box, much less outside.
Try thinking like a cloak and dagger spook that has no option but to
fool the fools in charge, keeping in mind that you'd have all the best
talents and unlimited resources at your disposal (same goes for the
USSR side of this tango).
. - Brad Guth
BDK
says...
He puts the "tard" in Fucktard.
BDK
BDK
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Is there no limit to your delusions?
BDK
BradGuth
> In article <cb46576b-2988-48ba-9184-58c490b00611
I have my limits, especially whenever the regular laws of physics do
not add up, and there's little if any peer replicated science to
behold, such as the case with most everything NASA/Apollo that simply
doesn't add up and/or can't be replicated.
Once becoming unsnookered about our NASA/Apollo fiasco, many other
interesting things became crystal clear as a chapel bell S-Band
transponder signal.
To think, even the likes of BDK could fool the fools in charge of our
private parts if given the same cache of talent and unlimited loot to
spend.
. - Brad Guth
BDK
94eecd...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Whatever it is that you are on, I would get off of it, if I was you.
You are a funny kook though, Guthball.
BDK
BradGuth
> In article <f294a6b5-94d2-49d9-bd47-
> 94eecd7ac...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
I do what I can to keep a sense of humor about all of this mess we got
ourselves into.
With a good supercomputer, much like the spendy one we recently bought
for our NASA (of 2048 fast CPUs and nearly unlimited memory), all
sorts of nifty simulations can be accomplished with a great deal of
proficiency, even along with fancy/realistic 3D interactive graphics
to boot.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> In article <08dd8468-8f5c-4e6f-8e86-
> d2b0272e2...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
Are all of Hitler's Semites as up tight about this NASA Apollo moon
landing hoax stuff as yourself?
. - Brad Guth
BDK
@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Umm, 5 weeks later you reply to a post, and you call me uptight?
Isn't it also past the time for you to call me a jew or something?
I guess you just sort of did, in your own special way..
Poor Guthball..where do you come up with these gems?
BDK
BradGuth
Poor old and Semitic BDK, it seems there's still too much that's cloak
and dagger worthy or that of ongoing disinformation and the exclusion
of evidence that's ongoing about our moon, as to not perceive that
we're being officially snookered and otherwise dumbfounded to death by
our very own rabbi kind.
MOM (Motive, Opportunity and Means) = USA/USSR race to the moon
Like most everything published of our NASA/Apollo moon landing,
everything on the following NASA page is either a lie or an exclusion
of whatever evidence that's the least bit contrary to their agenda.
It is not the least bit unusual for governments or of their brown-
nosed minions to lie, because it is so often of what they do best.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
Each and every unfiltered Kodak moment as supposedly obtained while on
the moon is bogus/fake, and as such are only too easily proven as
such without hardly a fight because, peer replicated science as based
upon the regular laws of physics is what works perfectly each and
every time. Oddly their own Kodak partners in crimes against humanity
refuse to step into this NASA/Apollo cesspool O-Ring cult of fire.
There is more than a dozen specifics about such fly-by-rocket
technology, photographics, as well as that of physical and
environmental considerations that simply would not hold up in any
actual court of law if required to support the official record. But
then we all know as a matter of fact that our government does not play
by any set of fair rules, whereas even those rules of their own making
are freely skewed in order to suit or otherwise banish whatever the
situation demands.
The list of viable topics as fair arguments can be as short or as long
as you like, but remember that uncovering only one lie need be the
case of proving without possible doubt that we humans have not walked
on our physically dark moon as officially scripted by our NASA, or of
having been robotically traveled upon as touted by the USSR/Russian
side of this tango. There's also the forever orchestrated clownism
swarm of internet/usenet agents (aka spooks and moles) doing their
usual cloak and dagger thing, of stalking authors for the intent of
making topics that do not fully support the mainstream status quo as
muddy and/or as clownish and otherwise as smut polluted topics as
possible. Even hundreds of intentionally bogus topics of pure
gibberish smut incorporating key wordage as NASA, Apollo, moon
landing, fake and hoax have been created and posted by those in charge
of their PR damage-control, which seems downright silly and otherwise
extremely odd as to why they'd have to resort or otherwise allow such
childish and adult porn tactics.
With an existing overkill worth of efficient spysat imaging resolution
of that very same era, and of far better resolution since, seems
rather odd that such continued and robotically affordable science
gathering of absolutely terrific (0.1 m) resolution, and even capable
of full/extended tri-color spectrum details on behalf of mineral and
deposit mapping as rather easily obtained from a close lunar orbit,
was never accomplished to the degree technically possible by our crack
MI5/CIA/NSA and Air Force spy-masters of our mutually perpetrated cold-
war era, as well as recently JAXA/Selene has been place into a no-win
situation so that their HDTV color and other high resolution images
are officially taboo/nondisclosure rated (in other words, officially
excluded by command of our NASA), as though there is either a little
too much of ET worthy information that they either don't want us to
see, or perhaps it's simply because there's still nothing to see of
exactly where there should have been lots of our Apollo stuff.
So, because there's so much of truth and consequences to select from,
where do we start?
. - Brad Guth
BDK
44041a...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Semitic? There you go again another one who sees jews everywhere.
Snipped Guthball ravings..
Do you bark at the moon Brad?
BDK
BradGuth
>
> Semitic? There you go again another one who sees jews everywhere.
>
> Snipped Guthball ravings..
>
> Do you bark at the moon Brad?
We simply have not walked on the moon. Instead, we have been
snookered and dumbfounded, most of us past the point of no return,
with others merely snookered and dumbfounded into the poor house if
not death.
You simply can not manage to hide Venus, especially as viewed from the
physically dark surface of our moon.
Terribly sorry about all that, and there's certainly lots more that
simply does not add up to representing the whole truth and nothing bur
the truth.
It seems there's still too much that's cloak and dagger worthy or that
of ongoing disinformation and the exclusion of evidence that's ongoing
about our moon, as to not perceive that we're being officially
snookered and otherwise dumbfounded to death by our very own rabbi
kind.
MOM (Motive, Opportunity and Means) = USA/USSR race to the moon
Like most everything published of our NASA/Apollo moon landing,
everything on the following NASA page is either a lie or an exclusion
of whatever evidence that's the least bit contrary to their agenda.
It is not the least bit unusual for governments or of their brown-
nosed minions to lie, because it is so often of what they do best.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
The Apollo Hoax , plus other expert context of David Percy and Jack
White offer a number of their good ones (real world zingers) of better
understandable eye-candy as to the given skewed content of what those
images simply do not add up to be truthful representations for all
sorts of reasons, and to think that doesn't even get into covering
what I've come to realize is the other far better generic or purely
objective forms those Kodak moments worth of proof-positive aspects,
of our not having walked upon the moon, especially as of according to
the NASA Old Testament version of their one and only take-it of leave-
it Koran/Quran policy fr up-yours, or else. Even the best of
WIKIPEDIA doesn't hardly scratch the unfiltered Kodak surface of truth
that's right there to behold, or get deeply enough into the actual
harsh and humanly lethal moon environment as we know it to exist as of
today, because it seems our sun can at times become relatively IR
passive, but that's not the case of what their naked cosmic influx has
to offer, that's anything but DNA or Kodak film friendly.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
Each and every unfiltered Kodak moment with more than sufficient
DR(dynamic range) and spectrum scope for recording lots other than
just the moon and Earth, as supposedly obtained while on the
physically dark moon is bogus/fake, and as per say these are only too
easily proven as such without hardly a fight because, peer replicated
science as based upon the regular laws of physics is what works
perfectly each and every time. Oddly their own Kodak partners in
crimes against humanity refuse to step into this NASA/Apollo cesspool
O-Ring cult of fire.
There are more than a dozen specifics about such fly-by-rocket
technology, of unfiltered photographics, as well as that of the harsh
physical and environmental considerations that simply would not hold
up in any actual court of law if required to support the official
record. But then we all know as a matter of fact that our government
does not play by any set of fair cold-war rules, whereas even those
supposed rules of their own making are freely skewed on the fly in
order to suit or otherwise banish whatever the given argument
situation demands.
The list of viable topics as perfectly fair-game arguments on behalf
of nailing this grand ruse/sting of the century can be as short or as
long as you like, but remember that our uncovering only one lie need
be the case of proving without possible doubt that we humans have not
walked on our physically dark moon as officially touted and scripted
to death by our NASA and company of their brown-nosed minions, or that
of having been robotically traveled upon as touted by the USSR/Russian
side of this mutually perpetrated cold-war tango.
There's also the forever orchestrated clownism swarm of internet/
usenet agents (aka spooks and moles) doing their usual cloak and
dagger thing, of stalking authors for the intent of making topics that
do not fully support the mainstream status quo as muddy and/or as
clownish and otherwise as smut polluted topics as possible. Even
hundreds of intentionally bogus topics of pure gibberish smut
incorporating key wordage as NASA, Apollo, moon landing, fake and hoax
have been created and posted by those in charge of their PR damage-
control, which seems downright silly and otherwise extremely odd as to
why they'd have to resort or otherwise allow such childish and adult
porn tactics.
With an existing overkill worth of efficient spysat imaging resolution
of that very same era, and of far better resolution capability since,
seems rather odd that such continued and robotically affordable
science gathering of absolutely terrific (0.1 m) resolution, and even
capable of full/extended tri-color or greater spectrum details on
behalf of mineral and deposit mapping as rather easily obtained from
a close lunar orbit, was never accomplished to the degree technically
possible by our crack MI5/CIA/NSA and Air Force spy-masters of our
mutually perpetrated cold-war era, as well as recently JAXA/Selene
having been placed into a no-win situation so that their HDTV color
and other high resolution images are officially taboo/nondisclosure
rated (in other words, officially excluded if not terminated by
command of our NASA), as though there is either a little too much of
ET worthy information that they either don't want the rest of us to
see, or perhaps it's simply because there's still nothing much to see
of exactly where there should have been lots of our bright and shiny
Apollo stuff as situated upon that physically dark moon.
So, because there's so much of truth and consequences to select from,
where do we start or end?
. - Brad Guth
BDK
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Excuse me while I rest, I'm tired from all the eye rolling I'm doing
when reading your...stuff.
BDK
BradGuth
>
> Excuse me while I rest, I'm tired from all the eye rolling I'm doing
> when reading your...stuff.
>
> BDK
As per usual, you're not here to constructively help, so what's the
difference?
BTW, what's magic about steel? What does BDK stand for, if anything?
. - Brad Guth
Disneygeek
> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
> > burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
> > objective. Congratulations on your hard work.
>
> > There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
> > that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
> > energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
> > and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
> > went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
> > etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
> > any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
> > paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
> > to light.
>
> If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
> and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.
>
> I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
> simply doesn't count.
>
I remember an article on original thinking called "Get Off Route 10."
The author was an engineer in Detroit, when he mentioned that he was
able to get to the plant faster than anyone else, everyone told him it
was impossible. When he specificed his route, the critics said; "No
wonder, you went off Route 10!" This man also developed the self-
starter for automobiles (which gives you an idea of how long ago I
read this article.) While presenting the starter, one executive at the
auto plant said; "No wonder you made the starter work, you broke every
law in physics!"
Also take into account the canard that, according to physics, the
bumblebee can't fly.
Basically, you might want to reconsider your understanding of the law
of physics. You might have missed something important. (However, since
you never mention WHERE exactly you get your figures from, I wouldn't
be surprised.)
> BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
> moments?
> . - Brad Guth
Well, since photographers are supposed to keep the sun behind them for
shots, I have to assume Venus was near the sun behind the
photographer. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Disneygeek
> On Feb 13, 8:59 pm, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <fde4bb38-9c07-4cea-8fa6-ad029531a...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 12, 1:03 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 12, 2:19 pm, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
> > > > > burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
> > > > > objective. Congratulations on your hard work.
>
> > > > takes
> > > > away from any possible claim of " objectivity "...
>
> > > > > There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
> > > > > that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
> > > > > and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way,
>
> > > > orbital insertions were, by the time of Apollo, well understood and
> > > > practiced tasks.
>
> > > > > and B) The people who
> > > > > went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
> > > > > etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
> > > > > any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
> > > > > paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
> > > > > to light.
>
> > > > folks who
> > > > screech " we never landed on the Moon ", and often enough, the same
> > > > ones
> > > > who also screech " Oswald didn't kill JFK ", and " 9/11 was a hoax ".
>
> > > > No facts or truth ever come from such nutjob sources.
>
> > > > Andre
>
> > > A moon hard landing or soft impact isn't what we're talking about.
>
> > > But then you've got far better physics and replicated science proof
> > > than NASA. Perhaps you should share and share alike. Why is that
> > > such a problem?
>
> > OK, I'll share -- not that it will do any good.
>
> > A friend and I watched, in real time, video transmitted directly from
> > the antenna on the lunar rover during the Apollo 17 mission. My friend
> > was a ham operator, and he had a 12-foot parabolic dish in his back
> > yard; it was pointed directly at the moon. I contributed the video
> > expertise necessary to demodulate the signal. The image was very noisy,
> > but recognizable when we saw it some time later on a network broadcast.
>
> > launch of the lunar module for the return trip, that are very unlikely
> > to have been faked; nobody would have thought of it.
>
> > Isaac
>
> Ever heard of an S-Band transponder, or of the moon's L1 ????
>
> How about our NASA/Apollo "Chapel Bell"? Apparently not.
> . - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So they shot the transmission to the moon and bounced it back to
Earth? Ever hear of time-lag? It was the "Macguffin" that started
unraveling the story in "Capricorn One."
Disneygeek
>
> - Show quoted text -
My apologies, I didn't realize I'd already responded to that point in
this thread.
BradGuth
You big-time assume wrong. But then you are a liar, just like most
all the others.
Run yourself a fully interactive 3D orbital simulator, and try that
one again, and this time don't move your LLPOF butt-cheeks when you
speak.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Ever heard of an S-Band Chapel Bell transponder?
Ever heard of the moon's L1?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
out of it and getting our brave crews safely to/from the moon's L1 was
not impressive enough. Instead of knowing the whole truth, we have
been infomercial spammed by our "no child left behind" policy, of
being disinformed to the point of our being systematically snookered
and dumbfounded, most of us past the point of no return, with others
those few of us having the right stuff.
In no uncertain terms, you simply can not manage to hide Venus from
the unfiltered Kodak eye, especially as viewed from the physically
dark surface of our naked moon.
Terribly sorry about all that, and there's certainly lots more about
the official word of our NASA that simply does not add up to
representing the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Of which our
Apollo hoax (apollohoax) is the truth, even if we'd honestly tried to
pull off the real thing doesn't change what had actually transpired
and having been officially recorded as yet another cold-war lie.
It seems there's still too much that's cloak and dagger worthy, or
that of ongoing disinformation and the exclusion of evidence that's
ongoing about our moon, as to not perceive that we're being officially
snookered and otherwise dumbfounded to death by those of our very own
rabbi kind.
MOM (Motive, Opportunity and Means) = USA/USSR race to the moon was
basically job security, terrific benefits and much spare profit to go
around the inner O-Ring circle of close friends and associates.
BDK
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
> On Mar 30, 1:33 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Excuse me while I rest, I'm tired from all the eye rolling I'm doing
> > when reading your...stuff.
> >
> > BDK
>
> As per usual, you're not here to constructively help, so what's the
> difference?
Help? Help you? I think that ship has sailed Brad.
>
> BTW, what's magic about steel? What does BDK stand for, if anything?
> . - Brad Guth
>
There's nothing magic about steel, it's a joke about the claims the 911
troofers make about steel buildings, and the supposed pools of molten
steel that were under the wreckage for weeks.
BDK? Doesn't mean shit with regards to me. Not my initials, or anything
like that..
BDK
BradGuth
> In article <ae9f6081-325f-4d8b-9995-3a95abbc3be5
>
> > On Mar 30, 1:33 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
>
> > > Excuse me while I rest, I'm tired from all the eye rolling I'm doing
> > > when reading your...stuff.
>
> > > BDK
>
> > As per usual, you're not here to constructively help, so what's the
> > difference?
>
> Help? Help you? I think that ship has sailed Brad.
>
>
>
> > BTW, what's magic about steel? What does BDK stand for, if anything?
> > . - Brad Guth
>
> There's nothing magic about steel, it's a joke about the claims the 911
> troofers make about steel buildings, and the supposed pools of molten
> steel that were under the wreckage for weeks.
>
> BDK? Doesn't mean shit with regards to me. Not my initials, or anything
> like that..
>
> BDK
I can believe those two things, that molten steel didn't exist, and
that you Usenet cloak of BDK is every bit as meaningless as yourself.
BTW, the 911 thing was a rigged event, and otherwise those buildings
were in fact structurally substandard for their era (I'd say
uninsurable), and otherwise ready to fall down from their floor by
floor overloading anyway.
. - Brad Guth
BDK
44db48...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
> On Mar 30, 4:18 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
> > In article <ae9f6081-325f-4d8b-9995-3a95abbc3be5
> > @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > On Mar 30, 1:33 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Excuse me while I rest, I'm tired from all the eye rolling I'm doing
> > > > when reading your...stuff.
> >
> > > > BDK
> >
> > > As per usual, you're not here to constructively help, so what's the
> > > difference?
> >
> > Help? Help you? I think that ship has sailed Brad.
> >
> >
> >
> > > BTW, what's magic about steel? What does BDK stand for, if anything?
> > > . - Brad Guth
> >
> > There's nothing magic about steel, it's a joke about the claims the 911
> > troofers make about steel buildings, and the supposed pools of molten
> > steel that were under the wreckage for weeks.
> >
> > BDK? Doesn't mean shit with regards to me. Not my initials, or anything
> > like that..
> >
> > BDK
>
> I can believe those two things, that molten steel didn't exist, and
> that you Usenet cloak of BDK is every bit as meaningless as yourself.
LOL.
>
> BTW, the 911 thing was a rigged event, and otherwise those buildings
> were in fact structurally substandard for their era (I'd say
> uninsurable), and otherwise ready to fall down from their floor by
> floor overloading anyway.
> . - Brad Guth
>
You're just crazy in general, aren't you, Guthball? There was nothing at
all wrong with the WTC buildings. The proof is how long they stayed up
after the planes hit. Oh, are you one of those poor bastards who are so
deranged they don't think planes hit WTC 1 and 2?
BDK
BDK
Disneygeek
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why? Why should I do a damn thing you and your nasty postings suggest?
I don't need a 3D orbital simulator to tell me that Venus is between
the Earth/Moon and the Sun. Hence, to see Venus, you would have to
look toward the sun. (That's why Venus is the Morning or Evening Star)
Furthermore, you've never explained exactly WHY, with 360 degrees of
space to shoot in, the Apollo astronauts should point their cameras
anywhere NEAR Venus!
Disneygeek
Explain yourself. Oh no wait, you're Brad Guth. You state things as
fact without ever explaining WHERE you got your information from!
Benj
> B) The people who
> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
> etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
> any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
> paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
> to light.
The "reverse speech" thing is hardly any proof, but Matt's arguments
are no better! Just WHO does he think he's fooling here? Anyone with
any political savvy at all knows that the old "if there is any
evidence of this, then why can't you show me it?" is total bullshit
when dealing with governments. They have limitless money, limitless
personnel, limitless authority, plenty of time, and pretty good
connections with other important factors like media. They go around
gathering up all tapes, papers, witnesses, and evidence for ANY
conspiracy and then the paid "debunkers" come out with the age old
argument, well, if this is true, then SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE (which
we've already gathered up and disposed of)!
Sorry that is in NO way a credible argument. Only when there has been
free access to ALL materials from the very beginning can there be any
arguments that the evidence proves the lack of conspiracy.
Governments NEVER grant full open access even when they are not
conspiring!
BradGuth
>
> Explain yourself. Oh no wait, you're Brad Guth. You state things as
> fact without ever explaining WHERE you got your information from!
So, I have to further explain (as though it has never once been
explained before) so that you folks of perpetual denial and of
evidence exclusion which don't have to believe in those regular laws
of physics, or in the best available science of others if any of such
is external to your O-Ring insider cult, as such it's therefore 100+%
up to little old dyslexic me to entirely quantify upon each and every
aspect that proves we haven't walked on the moon, even though of
merely one such uncovered lie is more than sufficient. Sorry folks,
I've been there and done that countless times before, whereas I'm
certainly good at the science of observationology and at a few other
realms of science, but apparently I'm not ever going to be quite that
good enough in order to suit those of you and of your brown-nosed
minion kind.
If I alone have to re-explain S-Band transponders and of what the
moon's L1 is good for, besides pulling off your grand ruse/sting of
your mutually perpetrated cold-war century, as such it's perhaps
expecting more of myself than Christ almighty on a stick could ever
hope to accomplish.
What's in it for me? (make it worth my while)
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Why of course, what the hell was I thinking, of your running any such
3D interactive orbital simulator that would only prove me right is
insane.
I mean after all, that unfiltered Kodak eye of what such a high
quality camera and best available optics of that era could only have
pointed that lens within a few degrees of the sun without having
caused hardly any optical observation complications whatsoever, just
like taking a picture of Earth with that sun nearby is not of any
problem because there's no polluted atmosphere involved.
In fact, there's actually a good enough example of the terrific
DR(dynamic range) worth of a unfiltered Kodak moment, whereas the
direct xenon arch lamp glare of their artificial sun was directly in
the FOV(frame of view), and whereas foreground items were still
reasonably recorded in spite of having that extreme spot of xenon
lamp spectrum photons worth of over-saturation to deal with.
There's also plenty of other proof-positive examples of their
unfiltered film spectrum recording scope, as well as of its respective
DR that would not have had any problems recording the likes of
Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and obviously an extremely vibrant Venus along
with the physically dark moon or that of Earth in the same FOV.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
I agree with that honest analogy, because there's all sorts of
examples of what religion and government has in the past excluded and/
or covered up or simply having mainstream published as their one and
only word of God that can't ever be questioned regardless of old or
new evidence, the laws of physics or that of subsequent peer
replicated science.
Of what era has the authority of religion or that of our faith-based
government not lied to us?
It begs of them holy bastards on high to put-up or shut-up. Since
they have no intentions of ever sharing the whole truth and nothing
but the truth is exactly what makes the rest of us (as supposedly mere
village idiots that are continually dumbfounded past the point of no
return) believe that we haven't actually walked upon that physically
dark moon of ours.
In other words, we're simply not getting our money's worth, much less
the related science worth of knowledge about our moon.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> In article <3ce05bcc-71ab-4eab-9875-
> 44db48087...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
Your denial of being in denial of the truth is exactly what our
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) needed in order to justify your bogus
war in Iraq. Way to go, BDK.
If you insist that your government and of its faith-based puppet-
masters are incapable of having orchestrated anything or much less of
telling a lie, and if that's what makes yourself and others of your
brown-nosed infidel kind into a swarm of happy pretend-atheists (aka
semitic) campers, then so be it.
. - Brad Guth
BDK
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Change the subject....way to go Guthball.
>
> If you insist that your government and of its faith-based puppet-
> masters are incapable of having orchestrated anything or much less of
> telling a lie, and if that's what makes yourself and others of your
> brown-nosed infidel kind into a swarm of happy pretend-atheists (aka
> semitic) campers, then so be it.
> . - Brad Guth
>
Your mental problems are flaring up again. Tell mom.
BDK
BradGuth
> In article <2183fff0-10bd-4f1c-a10e-cc97d2cbc615
> > resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) needed in order to justify your bogus
> > war in Iraq. Way to go, BDK.
>
> Change the subject....way to go Guthball.
>
>
> > If you insist that your government and of its faith-based puppet-
> > masters are incapable of having orchestrated anything or much less of
> > telling a lie, and if that's what makes yourself and others of your
> > brown-nosed infidel kind into a swarm of happy pretend-atheists (aka
> > semitic) campers, then so be it.
> > . - Brad Guth
>
> Your mental problems are flaring up again. Tell mom.
The art and science of spewing disinformation as hyped and promoted by
your faith-based government that supposedly never tells a lie, is
exactly what this topic is all about, as well as being about the likes
of yourself and of other brown-nosed clowns doing their individual as
well as collective form of mainstream damage control.
Reverse speach and the Apollo moon landing controversy (aka hoax) is a
topic about the likes of what yourself apply and reinforce, as to
polishing your NASA/Apollo private parts without so much as a speck of
remorse. The folks you continually brown-nose are basically worse
than liars, perhaps even worse off than one of Hitler's best days.
The use of phony names (such as BDK) and of allowing others to make
use of your Usenet account is exactly what made the Third Reich so
Semitic rich and powerful.
. - Brad Guth
Disneygeek
You get to convince someone with actual evidence as opposed to boring
everyone to tears with your babble, (at least those you don't turn off
by accusing them of being either incest-Borg clones or zionist
puppets!)
And, quite frankly, I've never seen you explain a damn thing you've
ever brought up.
Disneygeek
...and yet, they just don't point the camera anywhere near the sun.
Sorry about that, I'm certain they're sitting there right now
thinking; "Damn, why didn't we point our cameras near the sun and
catch Venus? Then little Brad Guth wouldn't have anything to complain
about."
BTW, I do believe one mission had no television coverage because one
of the astronauts let the television camera point too closely at the
sun and managed to burn out the tube!
BradGuth
What you're saying is that you're new to Usenet, and that you can't
quite figure out how the internet superhighway works.
Can you explain how you've managed to be so out of touch.
Do you even know what Kodak film is?
Are you color blind?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Now that's what I'd call being a silly brown-nosed clown is all about.
What is it about the regular laws of physics that you just don't like?
Are you saying that Kodak film doesn't have to react to any of those
pesky laws of physics?
Are you saying that 3D interactive orbital simulators are going to lie
to us?
. - Brad Guth
BDK
@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
Damage control? The only damage is between your ears. You're a comedy
act Brad, that's why we reply to you.
>
> Reverse speach and the Apollo moon landing controversy (aka hoax) is a
> topic about the likes of what yourself apply and reinforce, as to
> polishing your NASA/Apollo private parts without so much as a speck of
> remorse.
Remorse? About what, Guthball?
> The folks you continually brown-nose are basically worse
> than liars, perhaps even worse off than one of Hitler's best days.
So who exactly am I brown nosing?
>
> The use of phony names (such as BDK) and of allowing others to make
> use of your Usenet account is exactly what made the Third Reich so
> Semitic rich and powerful.
> . - Brad Guth
>
Some of us aren't dumb enough to use our real names Brad. If Brad Guth
is really your name, well, that makes you even funnier.
Allowing others to use my Usenet account? What the hell are you talking
about? Sorry, my account has been used by no one but little old me...
Your "semitic" theories are a crazy as the rest of your shit.
Later Guthball..
BDK
BradGuth
> In article <0f6dc81b-7ca3-4790-8f71-2a8744a76363
> @p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
Without the mindset likes of yourself, other warlords like Hitler
couldn't have accomplished 10% of what that bastard and of his Zionist/
Jewish friends did.
That should make make youself and other spook/mole minions of your
kind feel important?
. - Brad Guth
John P.
skook yllis uoy fo hcihW .yek sht si hceeps esrever esruoc fO
Disneygeek
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am saying what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been
reading your posts for quite some time and I've never seen any
verification or authentication of ANYTHING you've ever said. As near
as I can figure, your argument is that Venus was so breathtakingly
obvious, it should have shown up in the photos. Why? They weren't
there to take pictures of the sky. There was certainly no thought on
anyone's part that they were ever going to need verifiable proof that
they'd been there.
Disneygeek
Doesn't matter how I feel about the laws of physics. Bumblebees break
them all the time, doesn't mean they can't fly.
We went, and nothing you have ever said has ever provided any proof of
anything otherwise.
> Are you saying that Kodak film doesn't have to react to any of those
> pesky laws of physics?
>
Such as what? And with what verifiable evidence? Just because Brad
Guth says so?
> Are you saying that 3D interactive orbital simulators are going to lie
> to us?
> . - Brad Guth
No, I'm saying they didn't point the camera near the sun. They didn't
point the camera near the Earth when the Earth was near the sun. They
didn't catch Venus because they weren't there to take pictures of the
sky. They got pictures of a full Earth. In order to get pictures of a
full Earth, the sun would have to be behind them. There is no way
Venus could have been anywhere near the plane of the Earth if the sun
was behind them as it would have had to be to get a full Earth. I am
certain there would have been times when Venus, the sun and the Earth
would have been in a close FOV... they didn't take pictures at that
time. EOS
Disneygeek
> In article <0f6dc81b-7ca3-4790-8f71-2a8744a76363
> @p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I use mine. I've already had one guy start posting nasty stuff about
me and my wife based on this. So I understand the desire NOT to
particularly let people know who you are.
Disneygeek
> ?ereht reven erew ew evorp ot noom eht ot og ot reetnulov ot ekil dluow
> skook yllis uoy fo hcihW .yek sht si hceeps esrever esruoc fO
Don't forget that in order to rule out "virtual reality" being
projected onto their helmets, they would have to be let out on the
surface of the Moon sans suits!
Martin Brown
<f4f574b6-9992-4036...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Disneygeek <edrh...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Apr 1, 1:02 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 8:05 pm, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Also take into account the canard that, according to physics, the
>> > > > > > bumblebee can't fly.
>>
>> > BTW, I do believe one mission had no television coverage because one
>> > of the astronauts let the television camera point too closely at the
>> > sun and managed to burn out the tube!
They did fry at least one video camera with the sun on an early mission.
The film cameras still worked OK. Venus would be very marginal on a shot
exposed on the lunar surface even if it happened to be in the field of
view.
A brief discussion of the fried colour vidicon camera on Apollo 12 and
transcripts of the mission is online at:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.tvtrbls.html
After that they were a lot more careful about where they pointed
cameras.
>>
>> Now that's what I'd call being a silly brown-nosed clown is all about.
>>
>> What is it about the regular laws of physics that you just don't like?
>>
>
>Doesn't matter how I feel about the laws of physics. Bumblebees break
>them all the time, doesn't mean they can't fly.
This is one of those classic misunderstandings. Bumblebees cannot fly if
you attempt to apply the physics equations for a *fixed wing* aircraft.
The last time I looked a bumblebee was nothing like a fixed wing design
- in fact it wags its wings around extremely rapidly so it should come
as no great surprise that the rules for fixed wing aircraft don't apply.
>We went, and nothing you have ever said has ever provided any proof of
>anything otherwise.
You should realise that Brad Guth is a lunatic net kook (strictly I
suppose a Venusatic) and there is no point arguing with him.
>
>> Are you saying that Kodak film doesn't have to react to any of those
>> pesky laws of physics?
>
>Such as what? And with what verifiable evidence? Just because Brad
>Guth says so?
Kodak film would record Venus if it was in the frame and the exposure
was sufficiently long. It is unlikely that any correctly exposed images
on the sunlit lunar surface would ever record Venus unless heavily
overexposed. There might be a chance of capturing Venus for those few
images taken in the shade of the LEM if any were pointing in the right
direction.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
BDK
684ef0...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
It seems your beliefs about Hitler parallel your moon/venus/and other
whacked out nonsense. How nice.
>
> That should make make youself and other spook/mole minions of your
> kind feel important?
> . - Brad Guth
>
BWHAHAHAHA! You can't even act sane for a second, can you?
BDK
BDK
@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
I got hate mail when I posted a single post under my real name years and
years ago. That was it for me..
BDK
BradGuth
> ?ereht reven erew ew evorp ot noom eht ot og ot reetnulov ot ekil dluow
> skook yllis uoy fo hcihW .yek sht si hceeps esrever esruoc fO
?