Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>
Bunn E. Rabbit
Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
from the award winning late night radio talk show
www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
production!
Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
mischievous Aliens???
--
Bunn E. Rabbit
_____
"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor
_____
"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____
"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
----------
To send mail: remove hutch
Mother Nature
<BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
<my special ed children snipped>
>
>And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
>really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
>mischievous Aliens???
Bunny, I wish to have a word with you at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
--
Mother Nature
DrPostman
scribed:
>
>Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
>from the award winning late night radio talk show
>www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
>possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
>nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
>production!
>
>Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
>
>www.nexusmagazine.com
>
>Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>
>http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
>
>http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
>
>Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
>
>http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
>And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
>really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
>mischievous Aliens???
But what about this?
http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"I venture to say there is no one writing on the
Internet today who is providing a greater purpose
for mankind than that found in my writings."
- Felonious Ray, destroyer of irony meters
ceniza
"Bunn E. Rabbit" <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in message
news:lhc601tne4eicf59p...@4ax.com...
Joseki
Bunn E. Rabbit wrote:
> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
I think you may want to look up the word "fantastic". I am not sure
your intent, but I agree with what it really means.
Quintal
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:48:43 +0000, Bunn E. Rabbit expelled the following:
>
>>
>> Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
>> from the award winning late night radio talk show
>> www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
>> possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
>> nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
>> production!
>>
>> Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
>>
>> www.nexusmagazine.com
>>
>> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>>
>> http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
>>
>> http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
>>
>> Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
>>
>> http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
>
>ASSHAT ALERT!!!!
CLOSE YOUR EYES! STOP YOUR EARS!
SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!!
Jay Windley
...which unfortunately does not qualify him as knowledgeable on any of the
topics he covered. Allen proves he knows nothing of photographic analysis,
orbital mechanics, and physics. He's just spouting the same old
unscientific nonsense that other lay authors have been tripping over for
decades -- long since debunked.
He claims, for example, that the CSM was just in low Earth orbit for the
entire mission, but since it would be visible to the naked eye in that case
he omits to explain how it went entirely unnoticed for two weeks. He also
omits to explain how radio communications could have been maintained with
such a vehicle for hours on end when that orbit would ensure it would have
line of sight to any particular point on Earth for only four minutes at a
time. Some of the large radio telescopes (operated by non-Americans) can't
even move fast enough to track a LEO object.
He complains about the supposedly surprising high quality of the photographs
taken on the moon, a sure sign of someone with only limited exposure to the
Apollo photographic record. He has obviously seen only the best pictures
reproduced in books and magazines, naturally chosen by their editors because
they are the most presentable. The Apollo photographic record is chock full
of bloopers, but no magazine wants to devote space to a blurry, underexposed
shot of Charlie Duke's left hand.
| Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
|
| http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
I presume you're resorting to name-calling because you can't tell us what
this individual got wrong.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
John Griffin
Wabbits are sarcastic.
Bunn knows that it would be harder to fake a moon landing than to
do it.
Art Deco
Thanks, Jay. After hearing him talking for a few minutes last night, I
was hoping to see your take on his assertions.
The only point he raised that I personally had not heard of was his
claim that direct reentry from lunar-Earth transit was a high-odds crap
shoot -- he used the analogy of dropping a marble from the Empire State
Building into a beer glass. And he raised the point that the Apollo 13
return was likely impossible because of the way mid-course corrections
were made using the LM main engine. Obviously, as you point out, he
knows nothing of how these tasks were actually performed.
>
> | Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
> |
> | http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
> I presume you're resorting to name-calling because you can't tell us what
> this individual got wrong.
--
"a photon can travel faster than light when it is not excited"
"Ions are attracted to IRON"
"The dense ions in the ionosphere are simulating a
much higher gravitational pull to earth."
-- Alexa Cameron demonstrates her 200+ alien-implanted IQ
"I really don't care too much for humans"
"Just think of all the fun watching them from above while they
dance their kooker-step on their burning planet ..."
-- Chuckweasel Bohnehead's delusional non-human self-image
Douglas Berry
<cen...@serveradvcogen.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.conspiracy beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>interesting. compelling!
Is it time to spank you again?
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
C'mon, let's here all your tired claims, and see how long you last
before you run away.. again.
Anyone interested in cenzia's past brushes with insanity are welcome
to review them here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1E0565D9
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W211515D9
He rants, raves, makes insults, and eventually crawls away.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
alt.conspiracy beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>Were the Moon landings a hoax?
No.
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
Ronald Dean
"Phoenix" <rbwa...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:cu0ljl$a4n$7...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> In article <lhc601tne4eicf59p...@4ax.com>,> I think Randy Moss's moon was a hoax.
>
Nonsense, I related to one of the astronaults who
went there.
DrPostman
>interesting. compelling!
>
You've been had, dumbass.
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
You related what?
Jay Windley
"Art Deco" <art_...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:040220051019091412%art_...@127.0.0.1...
|
| Thanks, Jay. After hearing him talking for a few minutes last night, I
| was hoping to see your take on his assertions.
Well, very little we haven't already heard a hundred times from all the
other people trying to make a buck off the gullible and paranoid.
| The only point he raised that I personally had not heard of was his
| claim that direct reentry from lunar-Earth transit was a high-odds crap
| shoot -- he used the analogy of dropping a marble from the Empire State
| Building into a beer glass.
FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). Nobody ever said Apollo was easy; it
doesn't have to be easy in order to get it done. Every Apollo mission
entailed considerable risk. Dropping a marble into a beer glass is a bit
long on the odds compared to re-entry, but people like Allen seem to have no
concept of what industry is capable of.
| And he raised the point that the Apollo 13 return was likely
| impossible because of the way mid-course corrections were made
| using the LM main engine.
He's probably been watching Ron Howard's movie, in which those events are
given more dramatic appeal than they probably deserve.
The LM's main engine was throttlable. This means the timing and the
direction of the actual burns are less important. If you use a small amount
of thrust, you have to burn the engine longer to achieve the same delta-v.
A longer burn means the timing doesn't have to be as accurate, if you
consider the timing error as a percentage.
And contrary to Allen's protests, the returning Apollo capsules have a
window to hit. There is allowance for error. We engineers confess
sometimes to trying to impress laymen by overdramatizing the constraints in
the problems we're trying to solve. Doing so does not admit we don't know
how to do it. For example, to some people cutting something to 0.001 inch
tolerance seems impossible. Ordinary machinists, however, do it every day
without much worry. And they'll boast a little.
Bunn E. Rabbit
<BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
>
>Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
>from the award winning late night radio talk show
>www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
>possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
>nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
>production!
>
>Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
>
>www.nexusmagazine.com
>
>Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>
>http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
>
>http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
>
>Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
>
>http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
>And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
>really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
>mischievous Aliens???
I thought it was obvious. Here's the truth about our solar system:
NASA did not go to the moon. And the Moon isn't hollow as some kooks
suggest but filled with a liquid.
It's true. Otherwise NASA would have discovered that the moon is made
of Blue Cheese(Roquefort if you prefer). In addition,
the moon's core is filled with balsamic vinaigrette dressing.
And those Martian geological oddities of late including the canals on
Mars are where the mold is grown for the Blue Cheese.
And now here's some other interesting facts about our fascinating
Solar System.
-Other satellites, depending on their hue are really reservoirs not
"moons" that contain the following; Extra Virgin olive oil, French,
Russian, Caesar, Ranch, Honey dijon mustard, Poppyseed, Raspberry,
Lime yogurt and Italian dressings.
-The Asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter are not fragments of a
former planet but actually organic whole grain free range croutons.
-Jupiter is not really a giant gaseous planet but a greenhouse that
grows organic baby greens. As well as a hundred other assorted
species of nuts, fruits and vegetables. Kinda like Usenet. The
so-called 'Red Spot' covers the area where red peppers and mile long
hydroponic carrots are grown.
-Europa does have life. Under the ice is an underground Rain Forest
heated via Jupiter's gravity with the main crop being the Cacao Bean
of which dark chocolate is harvested from. And did you know that dark
chocolate without dairy yields the highest and most diverse amounts of
antioxidants? Ha! There's probably a funny joke here with Mother
Nature and chocolate but considering the rest of this post I might end
up spending my afterlife on Venus.
-Comets are not ice and rock but in reality a pepper mill.
-Saturn is a farm where free range chicken is raised without hormones
or antibiotics. And in addition, organic eggs along with a variety of
dairy products. The 'rings' focus the necessary wavelengths from the
Sun for the proper growth of grasses and grains for grazing.
-Uranus as you might expect is for growing healthy fibrous legumes.
-Neptune is the largest reservoir in the Galaxy for mineral water. In
addition, Omega essential fatty acids rich heart/brain healthy cold
water fish are farmed there as well.
-Venus is used for baking whole grain breads as well as other medium
range temperature cooking needs including light saute.
-Mercury simply is a grill.
-Pluto, yes poor Pluto is important too as storage facility for
leftovers.
-Sun being multi-purpose like all Stars serves as a microwave for
leftovers, a recycling bin and for quickly brewing coffee and herb
tea.
The reason of course for all this is so that Mother Nature can
conveniently prepare her salads and other cuisine with ease.
Just trying to help.
John Griffin
Planet X is wine.
Planet XX is beer (Dos Equis).
Phil Miller
theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) wrote:
>In article <Xns95F3ABBDAD85Ath...@130.133.1.4>,
>John Griffin <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote:
>>
>>Planet X is wine.
>>Planet XX is beer (Dos Equis).
>>
>
>Planet XXXX is also beer.
> http://www.xxxx.com.au/home.asp
Oh come now, Geoff. While many people in Queensland consider it beer,
the rest of the country would rather drink battery acid than XXXX. By
the way, it's called XXXX because Queenslanders can't spell Beer.
Phil
--
Pfft...English! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
alt.fan.art-bell in message
<1107520442.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Incredible!
--
V.G.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"Bush things is he never attends a Funderal - He will live forever!" - Donnieboi Ferrt explains... something.
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Clave
news:mdi801do8tk2q1v54...@4ax.com...
> On 4 Feb 2005 04:34:02 -0800, "Joseki" <jose...@gmail.com> wrote in
> alt.fan.art-bell in message
> <1107520442.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>
>>Bunn E. Rabbit wrote:
>>
>>> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>>
>>I think you may want to look up the word "fantastic". I am not sure
>>your intent, but I agree with what it really means.
>
> Incredible!
Inconcievable!
Jim
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>Planet X is wine.
>Planet XX is beer (Dos Equis).
>
Planet XXX is Moonshine
lensman1955
"And put in your earplugs, put on your eyeshades. You know where to put
the cork!"
lensman1955
--
I wouldn't mind the ranting and raving and crawling away if he didn't
keep coming back with the same story every couple of months!
TeaWrecks
"Bunn E. Rabbit" <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in message
news:5k2801pso1i6t62qd...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:48:43 GMT, Bunn E. Rabbit
> <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
>
> I thought it was obvious. Here's the truth about our solar system:
>
> NASA did not go to the moon. And the Moon isn't hollow as some kooks
> suggest but filled with a liquid.
>
> It's true. Otherwise NASA would have discovered that the moon is made
> of Blue Cheese(Roquefort if you prefer). In addition,
> the moon's core is filled with balsamic vinaigrette dressing.
>
> Solar System.
>
> -Other satellites, depending on their hue are really reservoirs not
> "moons" that contain the following; Extra Virgin olive oil, French,
> Russian, Caesar, Ranch, Honey dijon mustard, Poppyseed, Raspberry,
> Lime yogurt and Italian dressings.
My God! The Solar System is an All you can eat salad bar/buffet!
ceniza
making it were nil.
(which they were and are)
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message <t_KdnUskOZJ...@ntd.net>:
>Now, that's bullshit. It is much easier to fake, especially if the odds of
>making it were nil.
>(which they were and are)
Just because something is so far beyond your limited mental abilities
does not necessarily make it impossible.
DrPostman
>Now, that's bullshit. It is much easier to fake, especially if the odds of
>making it were nil.
>(which they were and are)
You never learn, do you? Year after year you get embarrassed with
these silly claims of yours. But your denial keeps you coming back
to get kicked in the ass over and over again.
DrPostman
<brad...@yahoo.com> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>DrPostman; "But what about this?"
>http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
>
>Clavis, badastronomy and apollohoax are every bit part of the mainstream
>hoax. Either that or those folks are so thoroughly snookered that they
>don't know which way is up.
Brad, you have been exposed for the kook that you
are so many times it isn't funny. Why do you keep coming back
for this sort of abuse? Face it, your claims have been
shown to be wrong on those web sites and you
can't argue them down.
John Griffin
[ moved your incredibly dumb remark to the bottom, fool ]
>> Bunn knows that it would be harder to fake a moon landing
>> than to do it.
> Now, that's bullshit. It is much easier to fake, especially
> if the odds of making it were nil.
> (which they were and are)
I almost wish I could believe that you're dumb enough to believe
either or both of those idiotic remarks, so I could laugh at you.
Getting there is an engineering problem. If you have the energy
and means of exploiting it, and the mental horsepower to figure
out how to chart the path, and you throw enough money at the
venture, you get there. We had all that forty years ago.
I bet you think they faked the low gravity effects in an
abandoned hangar which they simply flew in a "zero gravity
simulation path" like the "vomit comet." Oops...no thinking
involved... I should have said you believe that sort of thing,
not "you think." I can't imagine how you believe they faked the
telemetry.
Once you explain how all your imaginary faking was done, you face
the impossible task of explaining how they've kept thousands of
people quiet about it for 35 years. I hope you've noticed that
none of the stupid sons of bitches who claim it was faked claim
to have been a part of the conspiracy.
Do you believe there are really hobbits?
Jay Windley
"ceniza" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
news:t_KdnUskOZJ...@ntd.net...
|
| It is much easier to fake...
I hear a lot of people say that. When I ask them to explain how, I get a
rambling, handwaving description of how one or two things might have been
faked, but no story that explains all the evidence we have. It turns out
that most of the people who think it could have been faked really have
little or no idea how much stuff is out there that would need to have been
faked.
| especially if the odds of making it were nil.
| (which they were and are)
Explain how you arrived at that estimate.
Bookman
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
news:oaua015h7e1ajb7h8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:53:50 +0000 (UTC), "Brad Guth"
> <brad...@yahoo.com> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>>DrPostman; "But what about this?"
>>http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
>>
>>Clavis, badastronomy and apollohoax are every bit part of the mainstream
>>hoax. Either that or those folks are so thoroughly snookered that they
>>don't know which way is up.
>
>
> Brad, you have been exposed for the kook that you
> are so many times it isn't funny. Why do you keep coming back
> for this sort of abuse? Face it, your claims have been
> shown to be wrong on those web sites and you
> can't argue them down.
That's why "Apollo hoax" ko0ks need to k'lame that
there's this "massive conspiracy" - they can't accept
that the evidence proves them wrong.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html
Bunn E. Rabbit
wrote:
Not to mention those pesky moon rocks studied by scientists at
Universities *worldwide*; which puts a monkey wrench into the 'hoax'
theories being an American conspiracy. And of course Blue Cheese
dressing. Which explains why the French can't stand us for
surpassing their Roquefort.
--
Keith
DrPostman
<webm...@clavius.org> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>"ceniza" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
>news:t_KdnUskOZJ...@ntd.net...
>|
>| It is much easier to fake...
>
>I hear a lot of people say that. When I ask them to explain how, I get a
>rambling, handwaving description of how one or two things might have been
>faked, but no story that explains all the evidence we have. It turns out
>that most of the people who think it could have been faked really have
>little or no idea how much stuff is out there that would need to have been
>faked.
>
>| especially if the odds of making it were nil.
>| (which they were and are)
>
>Explain how you arrived at that estimate.
He can't. ceniza used to try, but in the last couple of years he
posts and then runs with his tail between his legs. He throws
around the same stupid arguments and then replies once or
twice. That's all he can do.
ceniza
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
cenizia
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/index.html
"Geoff Cashman" <theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cu15i3$6il$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <cu0s39$b49$1...@news.xmission.com>,
> Jay Windley <webm...@clavius.org> wrote:
> >And contrary to Allen's protests, the returning Apollo capsules have a
> >window to hit. There is allowance for error. We engineers confess
> >sometimes to trying to impress laymen by overdramatizing the constraints
in
> >the problems we're trying to solve. Doing so does not admit we don't
know
> >how to do it. For example, to some people cutting something to 0.001
inch
> >tolerance seems impossible. Ordinary machinists, however, do it every
day
> >without much worry. And they'll boast a little.
>
> I'll echo that.
>
> I used to work for a company that produced high precision small
> metal components using Hydromat machines. The tolerances that
> could be held on those machines were in the .001 realm easily.
> I remember one part in particular that had 96 critical dimensions,
> all of which had .003 or tighter tolerances.
>
> The notion that reentry would have been impossible to accomplish
> because of the odds against it are absurd. High precision operations
> are routine, every day sort of events.
>
> -Geoff
>
>
cenizia
Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
Never happened. Wonder why?
"Bunn E. Rabbit" <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in message
news:v5mb0155nlrbngvv5...@4ax.com...
HateSpam
> rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
> Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
> Never happened. Wonder why?
We live in a society where the POTUS couldn't spooge on an intern without the entire world finding out, and you think
the government could keep a secret like "the moon landings were faked."
What drives people like you? There's a part of me that thinks you goofballs couldn't possibly REALLY believe what you
spout off and that you and your kind are just particularly persistent and self-consistant trolls. I don't know why I
tend to overestimate people.
John Griffin
*********I moved your idiotic remark to the bottom, meathead.
Because we weren't there, you fuckin' moron. Sheesh. Anyway,
it's funny to see one of your kind trying to pass yourself off as
an expert on the quality of proof, after you've consistently
shown that you don't understand the concept.
Try to get a job.
Jay Windley
"cenizia" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
news:q6udnY6-Dr8...@ntd.net...
It doesn't have to be a piece of cake; it just has to be possible. I can't
figure out why these conspiracy theorists think something is impossible just
because it's not easy.
Jay Windley
|
| rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
I disagree. It's physical evidence that, according to all knowledgeable
people, cannot have been fabricated, cannot have originated on Earth, and
have been continuously studied for decades by people all over the world not
sympathetic to American political motives. During the height of the Cold
War, Apollo samples were given to the Soviets, who had obtained their own
lunar samples via an unmanned probe (after Apollo's first samples) and could
very easily have detected a forgery.
| Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
Such as?
| Never happened. Wonder why?
What possible reasons have you considered, and why did you reject them?
Art Deco
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:37:30 -0600, ceniza expelled the following:
>
> > Now, that's bullshit. It is much easier to fake, especially if the odds of
> > making it were nil.
> > (which they were and are)
>
>
> Shut up stupid.
This poast is APPROVED.
--
"a photon can travel faster than light when it is not excited"
"Ions are attracted to IRON"
"The dense ions in the ionosphere are simulating a
much higher gravitational pull to earth."
-- Alexa Cameron demonstrates her 200+ alien-implanted IQ
"I really don't care too much for humans"
"Just think of all the fun watching them from above while they
dance their kooker-step on their burning planet ..."
-- Chuckweasel Bohnehead's delusional non-human self-image
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.conspiracy beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
>"Geoff Cashman" <theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:cu15i3$6il$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>>
>> The notion that reentry would have been impossible to accomplish
>> because of the odds against it are absurd. High precision operations
>> are routine, every day sort of events.
>
>oh, yeah...piece of cake.
>http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/index.html
One shuttle has failed on re-entry.
All the other shuttle missions made it. See the list.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/year1981.html
Care to review each year?
Then there's Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Apollo-Soyuz, and the Skylab
missions.. along with the Soviet/Russian missions. We've
successfully re-entered the Earth's atmosphere well over a hundred
times now with manned spacecraft, losing only 13 people in the
process.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.conspiracy beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
>rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
Only to the scientifically illiterate. To those of us who understand
geology, the rocks are a treasure trove of information and proof of
the missions.
>Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
Like beaming live television back from the Moon?
>Never happened. Wonder why?
Because your previous suggestions were stupid. The Moon is a quarter
of a million miles away. What exactly were they supposed to do?
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
>rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
>Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
>Never happened. Wonder why?
*I* witnessed it.
cenizia
is why you and I subscribe to this newsgroup. And remember my friends, past
events will affect you in the future as history repeats itself. You are
interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable, that is why
you are here. That's why I have brought to you, the full story of what
happened on the fateful Apollo missions. I have given you all the evidence,
based on the facts and the testimony of the miserable souls who "survived"
this "heroic" ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friends, I could not
keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty, let us reward the
innocent. My friends, can your heart stand the shocking facts about MOON
HOAXERS FROM NASA?????
"Bunn E. Rabbit" <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in message
news:lhc601tne4eicf59p...@4ax.com...
>
> Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
> from the award winning late night radio talk show
> www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
> possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
> nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
> production!
>
> Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
>
> www.nexusmagazine.com
>
> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>
> http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
>
> http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
>
> Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
>
> http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
> And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
> really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
> mischievous Aliens???
>
> --
> Bunn E. Rabbit
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"cenizia" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
news:oMidnTqHTOF...@ntd.net...
> Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the moonlandings. For
> that
> is why you and I subscribe to this newsgroup.
You spewed across five of them. To which "this newsgroup" do you refer?
> And remember my friends, past
> events will affect you in the future as history repeats itself. You are
> interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable, that is why
> you are here.
Your behavior is unexplainable, true.
> That's why I have brought to you, the full story of what
> happened on the fateful Apollo missions. I have given you all the
> evidence,
> based on the facts and the testimony of the miserable souls who
> "survived"
> this "heroic" ordeal.
You have provided nothing substantive. Only indirect references to your
self-proclaimed efforts.
> The incidents, the places. My friends, I could not
> keep this a secret any longer.
That you thrive on being flamed.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
Namib
> "I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
"I do not vote". - Mother Nature
Namib
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>on the contrary. i have proven many times the landings were faked.
Only in that puny little mind of yours, kook.
All you have convinced anyone of is that you
are a total idiot.
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>oh, yeah...piece of cake.
>http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/index.html
And now you have convinced us that you are a stupid
ghoul too.
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
>Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
>Never happened. Wonder why?
>
How do you fake a rock with a composition that
can only be from the moon?
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the moonlandings. For that
>is why you and I subscribe to this newsgroup. And remember my friends, past
>events will affect you in the future as history repeats itself. You are
>interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable, that is why
>you are here. That's why I have brought to you, the full story of what
>happened on the fateful Apollo missions. I have given you all the evidence,
>based on the facts and the testimony of the miserable souls who "survived"
>this "heroic" ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friends, I could not
>keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty, let us reward the
>innocent. My friends, can your heart stand the shocking facts about MOON
>HOAXERS FROM NASA?????
Notice how no one cares about your kooky claims.
Especially since you won't give a straight answer
to questions and challenges already put to you.
That's your pattern. Everyone knows it.
You have no friends.
Jay Windley
"cenizia" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
news:oMidnTqHTOF...@ntd.net...
|
| Greetings, my friends.
Uh, was that pile of crap supposed to mean something?
Please answer my questions.
josephus
Art Deco wrote:
> Fredrick Garvin <Ga...@elaborate.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:37:30 -0600, ceniza expelled the following:
>>
>>
>>>Now, that's bullshit. It is much easier to fake, especially if the odds of
>>>making it were nil.
>>>(which they were and are)
>>
>>
>>Shut up stupid.
>
>
> This poast is APPROVED.
>
shut up stupid
josephus
DrPostman wrote:
tell this idiot to shut up!
I dont want to listen to the drivel
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>tell this idiot to shut up!
>I dont want to listen to the drivel
Tell him yourself. Now, about those voices you
seem to be hearing when you read usenet......
DrPostman
<brad...@yahoo.com> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>Thanks Jay, I'll get back to nailing your sorry hide to the barn when
>I've composed upon something with as few of those nonspecific words and
>even fewer specific numbers as you've just contributed.
>
>"Depends on the specifics of the heat transfer"
>
>I thought the likes of frozen water and/or frozen CO2 were relative
>constants. However, since you're the all-knowing expert and wizard of
>nearly everything that's "space", why don't you share with us all about
>those "specifics of the heat transfer".
>
>I'll catch the rest of your usual crapolla later.
>
Sure you will. He nailed your ass to the barn door.
Art Deco
josephus
Fredrick Garvin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:52:54 -0600, cenizia expelled the following:
>
>
>>Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the moonlandings. For that
>>is why you and I subscribe to this newsgroup. And remember my friends, past
>>events will affect you in the future as history repeats itself. You are
>>interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable, that is why
>>you are here. That's why I have brought to you, the full story of what
>>happened on the fateful Apollo missions. I have given you all the evidence,
>>based on the facts and the testimony of the miserable souls who "survived"
>>this "heroic" ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friends, I could not
>>keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty, let us reward the
>>innocent. My friends, can your heart stand the shocking facts about MOON
>>HOAXERS FROM NASA?????
>
>
>
> Shut up stupid.
shut up stupid
josephus
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>
Such witty repartee! How do you come up with replies like that?
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<webm...@clavius.org> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<cu5dhj$2pe$1...@news.xmission.com>:
>
>"cenizia" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
>news:q6udnY6-Dr8...@ntd.net...
>| oh, yeah...piece of cake.
>| http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/index.html
>
>It doesn't have to be a piece of cake; it just has to be possible. I can't
>figure out why these conspiracy theorists think something is impossible just
>because it's not easy.
I've named it "SIDS", Selective Imagination Deficiency Syndrome. They
are capable of huge leaps of imagination, but only so long as those
leaps do not challenge their particular k00kery.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in
message <bsfc0118f6uo48ogd...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 07:48:14 -0600, "cenizia" <cen...@genserconadv.com>
>drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.conspiracy beanbag and
>drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
>>rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
>
>Only to the scientifically illiterate. To those of us who understand
>geology, the rocks are a treasure trove of information and proof of
>the missions.
>
>>Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
>
>Like beaming live television back from the Moon?
>
>>Never happened. Wonder why?
>
>Because your previous suggestions were stupid. The Moon is a quarter
>of a million miles away. What exactly were they supposed to do?
It doesn't matter. The moon-hoax kooks would still have kkklaimed it
was either faked, or done robotically under the command of earth-bound
controllers.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:48:14 -0600, cenizia expelled the following:
>
>> rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
>
>
>Please, do explain to us why?
If he doesn't run away from your question, you will regret asking it.
lensm...@hotmail.com
set off a chemical reaction that could be viewed from Earth. (Humor
moment, someone sabotauged the experiment and instead of just a bright
yellow glow, the Earth saw the Coca Cola logo!) Of course, there is the
point that no one in NASA realized they would have to justify and
proove what they did decades later!
lensm...@hotmail.com
World News"? You seem to have the right grasp for factual evidence.
Jay Windley
"Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message
news:255f01p0ih1qrrm69...@4ax.com...
|
| I've named it "SIDS", Selective Imagination Deficiency Syndrome. They
| are capable of huge leaps of imagination, but only so long as those
| leaps do not challenge their particular k00kery.
That's actually a good observation. Especially with the moon hoax theory,
the conspiracists are all about how impossible (or at least unbelievably
difficult) it would be to actually travel to the moon. But then their own
theories are rife with huge vacuum chambers and elaborate fakery methods to
produce the evidence.
Owamanga
theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) wrote:
<snip>
>An example permutation of this; If the Van Allen belts are deadly
>for humans that enter them (regardless of time spent in them), then
>there's literally thousands of independent PhDs who are in on the
>conspiracy who are quite capable of verifying the belts will kill
>you on contact, but are covering it up. These are PhDs from the
>world over who are all working in happy 40 year silence to uphold
>NASA's conspiracy.
Its either because they love America so much, or they are all being
manipulated by the German Nazi Mind Controllers.
..oh, or the conspiraloons are wrong.
--
Owamanga!
Jay Windley
"Geoff Cashman" <theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cu8m7f$r27$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
|
| Actually, there's a small but significant band of moon hoax nutters who
| believe the number of people who would have had to be in on it would
number
| less than a couple dozen. Of course, this absurd on the face. In detail,
| it'd take a cast of hundreds of people, at a minimum, in the know to fake
| a hoax like this. More like thousands to get it right.
http://www.clavius.org/scale.html
You've reached the same conclusion I did five years ago when I wrote the
above.
If people aren't told they have to help you fake it, they'll end up either
succeeding or admitting failure.
Conspiracy theorists maintain a sort of fantasy in which every worker is so
compartmentalized on his specific task that he is unaware of how his piece
fits into the bigger picture. Supposedly the hoax is visible only at the
highest level, where no one worker can clearly see. The problem is that
this is exactly the opposite of how the Apollo workers really worked. There
was an enormous amount of cross-training and general background. I have
lengthy and detailed familiarization documents with handwritten annotations
by their original owners. These men and women were being versed in systems
that had no direct bearing on what they were doing, but were deemed
necessary background material in order to work on the project.
The "small group" theory arose simply out of wishful thinking. The
conspiracy theorists realized that the scope of what they were proposing
would require vast, widespread cooperation -- even, in some versions, from
the Soviets themselves. This is patently absurd, so they "declared" that
the conspiracy was known only to a few select people, thus supposedly making
it more credible to have persisted for so long. But as you've astutely
noticed, that just diverts the absurdity to a different point: that the
work was just magically set up so that no one had a clue what they were
really doing.
My professional mentors were Apollo engineers. They knew a lot about what
was going on. They weren't focused on a switch here or a valve there.
How, for example, would a photographer or darkroom worker be kept out of the
loop? If you saw *your* photos in National Geographic with the caption
saying they were taken on the moon, and you knew otherwise, how would this
not spill the beans? Certain people just by virtue of what they did would
*have* to know eventually that there was something afoot.
josephus
Geoff Cashman wrote:
> In article <1107803839....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> This would prove nothing. This type of operation could be done
> without humans going to the moon.
>
> -Geoff
>
As near as I can tell the MOONHOAXERs cannot do legitimate historical
research. There is a great mass of historical data and historical
rubbish that would verify almost any event from the holocaust to Apollo
13. Not lonely are there Newspaper reports, but there are original
documents and scientifically qualified evidence. There are 150000
people that have hands on experience with NASA and they know what happened.
HOAXERS should get a life.
DrPostman
theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) in accordance
with The Prophecy scribed:
>In article <1108ik6...@news.supernews.com>,
>Clave <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
>>"Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message
>>news:mdi801do8tk2q1v54...@4ax.com...
>>> On 4 Feb 2005 04:34:02 -0800, "Joseki" <jose...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> alt.fan.art-bell in message
>>> <1107520442.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bunn E. Rabbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>>>>
>>>>I think you may want to look up the word "fantastic". I am not sure
>>>>your intent, but I agree with what it really means.
>>>
>>> Incredible!
>>
>>Inconcievable!
>>
>
> "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
>
Montoya!
DrPostman
with The Prophecy scribed:
>Maybe he's thinking of Arthur C. Clarke's story where the astronauts
This is always worth reposting:
A fellow named Allen Morgan posted this over a year ago in
response to why they didn't set off a bomb or leave a big
mirror to prove that they went there:
NASA: Oh, Mr. Armstrong, there's one more thing.
Armstrong: What's that.
NASA: We'd like you to take a really, really large bomb with you on
the Lunar Lander. Don't worry, we've budgeted for space. Haven't we
Bob?
Bob: You betcha. 200 tons of TNT.
NASA: 400.
Bob: Oh. 400. Right.
Armstrong: Excuse me, a what?
NASA: Bomb. Really big one.
Armstrong: Might I ask why?
NASA: So that you can set it off on the moon.
Armstrong: And....?
NASA: So that we can see it here on Earth
Armstrong: ??
NASA: Well, it would be really cool. And it would prove you went
there.
Armstrong: Are you out of your mind?
NASA: Don't worry, we have a really long detonator cord that you can
use to set it off.
Armstrong: You bozos think I'm going to land on the moon strapped to
200 tons
Bob: 400 tons:
Armstrong: Shut-up pencil neck. 400 tons of explosive????? Did you
decide that this wasn't difficult enough and you wanted to add some
more danger? Are you guys out of your gourd? What purpose does it
serve? What if it goes off on the descent?
NASA: That would *rock*. Suck. Not rock. It would suck, that would
be tragic.
Armstrong: I can't believe this.
NASA: Well, if you don't like that we can ditch it. We have another
idea.
Armstrong: Oh good.
NASA: We'd like you to take a large mirror up there.
Armstrong: Ah, for laser ranging and such. Excellent science.
NASA: Nah, this is so that we can see it from Earth.
Armstrong: What?!?!? How big is this thing?
NASA: Bob?
Bob: A couple of miles across.
Armstrong: Uh?
Bob: Don't worry, it's mylar. Doesn't weigh more than about 50 tons.
Armstrong: 2 miles?
Bob (excitedly): Well, the moon is quite a long way away. If we want
to be able to see the mirror from Earth then it is going to have to
cover a couple of seconds of arc at least. You can do the math
yourself. I like math.
Armstrong: How the hell am I supposed to spread out a mirror that is 2
*miles* across on the moon?????
NASA: Well, you'll have help.
Aldrin: Don't look at me. I have a bad back.
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.conspiracy beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
>Greetings, my friends.
Is it time to spank you again?
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
C'mon, let's here all your tired claims, and see how long you last
before you run away.. again.
Anyone interested in cenzia's past brushes with insanity are welcome
to review them here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1E0565D9
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W211515D9
He rants, raves, makes insults, and eventually crawls away.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Warhol
"Geoff Cashman" <theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu> a écrit dans le
message de news: cu8m7f$r27$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <cu8k47$egi$1...@news.xmission.com>,
> Jay Windley <webm...@clavius.org> wrote:
> >
> >"Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in
message
> >news:255f01p0ih1qrrm69...@4ax.com...
> >|
> >| I've named it "SIDS", Selective Imagination Deficiency Syndrome. They
> >| are capable of huge leaps of imagination, but only so long as those
> >| leaps do not challenge their particular k00kery.
> >
> >That's actually a good observation. Especially with the moon hoax
theory,
> >the conspiracists are all about how impossible (or at least unbelievably
> >difficult) it would be to actually travel to the moon. But then their
own
> >theories are rife with huge vacuum chambers and elaborate fakery methods
to
> >produce the evidence.
>
> believe the number of people who would have had to be in on it would
number
> less than a couple dozen. Of course, this absurd on the face. In detail,
> it'd take a cast of hundreds of people, at a minimum, in the know to fake
> a hoax like this. More like thousands to get it right.
>
> on this notion is; if so few people were in on it, then obviously the
> remaining thousands of employees and researchers worked for a system,
> built a platform, and launched it several times believing it was capable
> of doing exactly as they built it to do; land people on the moon and
return
> them safely. If the Apollo program was capable of landing people on the
> moon (which it would have to be in order for so few people to be in on
> the conspiracy) why not just send people to the moon anyways?
>
> In short, they can't have their cake and eat it too. Either a LOT of
> people (like thousands) were 'in on it', and the Apollo platforms
> were incapable of accomplishing the mission the public thinks they
> were designed to do, or very few people were in on it and the Apollo
> platforms could do exactly as they were designed to do...so why not
> do it?
>
> This is one of the rudimentary issues on which the conspirowackos
> trip; they can't get past it. They won't even discuss it logically.
> Instead, they'll cast insults against anything and everything to
> try to cover up this logical failing on their part.
>
> An example permutation of this; If the Van Allen belts are deadly
> for humans that enter them (regardless of time spent in them), then
> there's literally thousands of independent PhDs who are in on the
> conspiracy who are quite capable of verifying the belts will kill
> you on contact, but are covering it up. These are PhDs from the
> world over who are all working in happy 40 year silence to uphold
> NASA's conspiracy.
>
>
>
hoax and NASA itself is feeding that disinformation to detract and distract
from the REAL conspiracy.
Governments ALLWAYS lie to their own people. That's why they are Zog
governments.
The moon-thing is just not very relevant now. If they have made
propaganda-material to get people interested in the Temple project, that
would be 'wrong', but compard to everything else they do, it would be pretty
innocent.
Yes, I think ALL governments lie. Yes, I think a government's function IS to
lie.
And I also think we should get rid of all governments.
The images where not real photos from the moon, no live images where
transmitted from the moon. They where sent from earth to an American
satellite and then back to earth received in Australia.
Heres the tricky bit:- to get the American people behind the space program
nasa wanted images and pictures, and to make Americans feel as if they where
part of the launch.
The communications link ups with the moon that were shown in front of the TV
where a fake, in actual fact the real transmitions the Russians monitored
had around 7-8 second delays in them, due to the distance of the moon.
So I guess in a way, both parties are right, the footage is fake
Warhol
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
cu8k47$egi$1...@news.xmission.com...
>
> "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in
message
> news:255f01p0ih1qrrm69...@4ax.com...
> |
> | I've named it "SIDS", Selective Imagination Deficiency Syndrome. They
> | are capable of huge leaps of imagination, but only so long as those
> | leaps do not challenge their particular k00kery.
>
> That's actually a good observation. Especially with the moon hoax theory,
> the conspiracists are all about how impossible (or at least unbelievably
> difficult) it would be to actually travel to the moon. But then their own
> theories are rife with huge vacuum chambers and elaborate fakery methods
to
> produce the evidence.
>
> --
> |
One theory is that they lost the footage and made it up in a studio but for
me this is a cover-up.
what's your favourite anti-Zog NASA faked Moon landing site?
here is mine
http://us.geocities.com/nasa_moons_usa/
But then again, I think the Zog communist regime in the Soviet Union was a
hoax too. There is no way a Zog communist government could last nearly
eighty years!
My theory is that they were trading on the Zog blackmarket to keep the
facade up. Probably privatized the military while nobody was looking too!
Warhol
"josephus" <dog...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
fGRNd.2534$UX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Jesus H. Christ.
This moon landing shit has been debunked so many times it is just
ridiculous.
PEOPLE CAN SEE THE SHIT LEFT ON THE MOON BY THE ASTRONAUTS WITH TELESCOPES
YOU FOOLS.
NASA should hire some professional wrestlers to "address" the fake question
(ala Geraldo Riviera's broken nose)...Neil Armstrong is too much of a
gentleman
...we've already granted them the fantasy that they aren't retarded, that's
enough.
__________________
"I believe in God as I believe that the Sun has risen: not only because I
see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Warhol
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> a écrit dans le message de news:
f8tf01979r3v1vrkj...@4ax.com...
Yea but it's still funny watching them come up with their "proof" the images
and video who are fake. The 200 tons of TNT is what I would call the proof,
that will keep our mouth's shout, we the unbelievers, when that light shall
shine on the moon. Than Maybe I shall start to pray again towards the Nasa
Temple. But as long they can't show me a F-eking light on that moon.
I will keep my back towards those Fake Nasa High Priest. They can't even
save the world from "Temple One" that shall hit the Earth in 2012 and that
PROOF I shall Give on the 4 of July 2005. Stupid Magog's can't even destroy
a little rock. Yea, it isn't the Nasa that shall save us.
My serpent shall eat the serpent of the Zog's, do you Remember this story
People? the Rod's (staff) story's and the pharaoh. Could it be that the
ancients Egyptians went to the moon !!! they to had Rod'ss that transformed
in Serpent's.
Yeah this world is still full of mystery's, and they want to take us already
to the moon.
Art Deco
And your professional qualifications to make these judgements are what,
exactly?
Art Deco
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
>Greetings, my friends.
I am not your friend, because you are a militant k00k.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>tell this idiot to shut up!
Ok.
SHUT UP, IDIOT!
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:50:49 +0000 (UTC),
>theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) in accordance
>with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>>In article <1108ik6...@news.supernews.com>,
>>Clave <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
>>>"Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message
>>>news:mdi801do8tk2q1v54...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 4 Feb 2005 04:34:02 -0800, "Joseki" <jose...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> alt.fan.art-bell in message
>>>> <1107520442.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bunn E. Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you may want to look up the word "fantastic". I am not sure
>>>>>your intent, but I agree with what it really means.
>>>>
>>>> Incredible!
>>>
>>>Inconcievable!
>>>
>>
>> "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
>>
>
>
>Montoya!
"Prepare to die."
Clave
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:38:47 GMT, DrPostman <Lo...@mysig.foremail>
> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
> <glrf01l6905jcc879...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:50:49 +0000 (UTC),
>>theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) in accordance
>>with The Prophecy scribed:
>>
>>>In article <1108ik6...@news.supernews.com>,
>>>Clave <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
>>>>"Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:mdi801do8tk2q1v54...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 4 Feb 2005 04:34:02 -0800, "Joseki" <jose...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> alt.fan.art-bell in message
>>>>> <1107520442.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bunn E. Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think you may want to look up the word "fantastic". I am not sure
>>>>>>your intent, but I agree with what it really means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incredible!
>>>>
>>>>Inconcievable!
>>>>
>>>
>>> "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
>>>
>>
>>
>>Montoya!
>
> "Prepare to die."
You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die.
Jim
mariposas morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
no
to the pain and humilation
arf meow arf
cthulu loves you
he loves the little children
with ketchup please
Jay Windley
"Warhol" <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36qjdjF...@individual.net...
|
| Yes, I think ALL governments lie. Yes, I think a government's
| function IS to lie.
That looks good on a bathroom wall, but not a very practical philosophy.
| And I also think we should get rid of all governments.
And replace them with what that isn't a government? Please explain your
luscious new world order.
| They where sent from earth to an American
| satellite and then back to earth received in Australia.
Nope. A satellite won't be in the right place in the sky.
| The communications link ups with the moon that were shown in
| front of the TV where a fake
Oh, and you have proof of this, right?
| ...in actual fact the real transmitions the Russians
| monitored had around 7-8 second delays in them
Compared to what?
| ...due to the distance of the moon.
That only accounts for 2.6 seconds. 5.2 seconds if you count two round
trips. Besides, you said they were sent to a satellite, not to the moon.
Round trip to a geostationary satellite would be only half a second or so.
| So I guess in a way, both parties are right, the footage is fake
I'm of the party that says the footage is real. Am I right too?