On May 10, 8:18 am, Keith L wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 10, 12:03 am, Keith L wrote:

Saul Levy wrote:

Don't confuse him, Don! lmao!

Saul Levy

On Tue, 6 May 2008 11:45:27 -0700 (PDT), Don Stockbauer
wrote:

They faked it from a small asteroid orbiting Alpha Centauri.

C'mon folks, 450,000 people worked on the Apollo project! The British,
Russians, Chinese, and a bunch of other verified the Earth-Moon-Earth
transits and landings. As well as us Ham radio operators with Radio
Astronomy capabilities.

Get real...

KL

Then by all means, do tell where and of how our DARPA/NASA managed to
hide Venus as of missions A-11, A-14 and A-16?

How about all of the original film? Is that too going to become MIA?

Do tell us where those 700 larges boxes of our Apollo missions and
supposed moon landing data has gone.

If not a hoax and if you are not at risk, then what do you silly brown-
nosed folks have to hide, besides the matter of our having to employ
those 450,000 folks (not including whatever the USSR had going),
including our cloak and dagger DARPA of those Semitic Third Reich, for
no apparent good reason.

Are you one of those as going to suggest that our mutual cold-war
wasn't Semitic perpetrated on behalf of job-security and profits for
those in charge?
. - Brad Guth

BTW.... The European Space Agency's SMART-1 Lunar Orbiter has
photographed some of the Apollo landing sites.

Read "End of Conspiracy Theories? Spacecraft Snoops Apollo Moon Sites"
athttp://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050304_moon_snoop.html.

KL

That is very true enough, and the best of SMART-1 also hasn't
contributed one iota worth of independent observationology that's in
support of our DARPA/NASA imposed interpretation.

Besides what all sorts of radar soundings (terrestrial as well as via
satellite), gamma-ray spectrometry data is what tells us the
mineralogy composition of the lunar surface, and oddly the JAXA/Selene
mission of their new and greatly improved gamma-ray spectrometry has
gone rather dead, much like their having turned down and/or entirely
excluded the natural color saturation as otherwise HDTV recorded,
perhaps because of it’s UV secondary/recoil of having such an
unavoidable bluish hue, as well as having thus far excluded most all
of their nearly 3D TC obtained images of 10 m resolution, especially
having excluded any of those frames of our supposed Apollo moon
landing sites.

Our moon doesn’t look all that bluish to the terrestrial eye, mostly
because of the 8+r worth of the lunar sodium saturated atmosphere
that’s continually surrounding and trailing away from our moon, as
well as because of our terrestrial sodium and multitude of so many
other polluted aspects of Earth’s atmosphere.

BTW, even the most common alloys or minerals of iron and titanium
within basalt emit their fair share of gamma when hit by cosmic
energy. In fact, most all substances associated with our physically
dark and naked moon (including its sodium) can’t but help emit those
pesky secondary/recoil photons of gamma, plus many other hard and soft
X-rays to boot.

According to the regular laws of physics, when it comes down to
secondary/recoil photons of gamma and X-rays, it seems that our
physically dark and naked moon that's also electrostatic dusty as all
get out, is perhaps capable of being only a thousand fold worse off
dosage than within any Van Allan badlands. Remember that there’s not
all that much of heavy particle density per m3 within them Van Allen
belts for receiving the same cosmic and solar energy to interact and
thus badly react with creating those same secondary/recoil photons,
but on the other hand, it seems our naked moon has lots of good naked
surface density/m3 to offer.
. – Brad Guth