On Apr 27, 4:05 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

wrote
on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
:



On Apr 24, 2:52 am, "CWatters"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 7:33 am, BradGuth wrote:

Certain individuals were focusing exclusively on the "no stars"
argument and they turned out to be agents. No wonder.

Certain individuals who concentrate on the radaition issue are agents as
well.

Am I the only one who is impressed by the sheer complexity of the
arguments supporting the conspiracy theory? Now it has reached the
point where a rocket /was/ launched, and the rocket went to one of the
Earth-Moon Lagrange points [why? who knows] and the corner cube arrays
were deposited by unmanned landers.

'course the fact there were several Moon missions seems to go un-
mentioned, but hey - conspiracy theory!

More than several.

Apollo1: 3 fatalities during a ground test.Apollo2: unmanned, circumnavigated Earth but pressurization test
failed.Apollo3: informal name of AS-202. Unmanned, suborbital.Apollo4: First Saturn V flight, first launch from Launch Complex 39.
Unmanned.Apollo5: Unmanned. "Abort fire" test successful.Apollo6: Unmanned, Second Saturn V flight.

Apollo7: Manned, circumnavigated Earth.Apollo8: Manned, circumnavigated Luna. Famous "Earthrise" picture.Apollo9: Manned, circumnavigated Earth, tested LM and CSM.Apollo10: Manned, circumnavigated Luna. Came within 8.4 naut. miles
of Luna's surface.Apollo11: That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.Apollo12: Landed on Luna.Apollo13: Massive failure precluded lunarlanding; no casualties.Apollo14: Landed.Apollo15: First "J mission". Landed.Apollo16: Landed.Apollo17: Landed, first night launch.Apollo18-21: Cancelled.

There have been subsequent unmanned missions as well;
Clementine comes to mind. There are hints of a commercial
venture involving robotic Earth-controlled rovers, which
anyone will be able to "rent". (Relatively simple, that,
since Luna's near face always faces us.)

If there is a conspiracy afoot, a number of astronomers
are in on it; there were a number of pictures taken through
telescopes of the space hardware in orbit.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

aren't horribly clear but do show some interesting artifacts.

I've personally seen part of one of the Saturn Vs, in the
"Rocket Garden" (my understanding is that it has since been
moved to another facility for restoration/preservation,
and of course it had no working parts). While not proof
of anything in particular beyond the ability to build such
hardware, it's impressively big.

Of course part of the problem is that no one can *prove*
this. Best I can do is build my own rocket, take myself
and the doubter up to the moon, and leave him there for a
time to examine the evidence (among other things, at least
one of the lunar rovers on Apollos 15-17). Of course,
once I take him back (you wouldn't think I'd *leave* him up
there, would you? :-) ) , he gets to somehow prove to his
peers that he was up there...

--
#191,
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Where's the independent objective proof-positive?

Where are those 700+ large boxes of our NASA/Apollo fiasco?

BTW, Venus wasn't in hiding, nor was Venus representing any pathetic
point source of being star like.

JAXA/Selene at 10 m/pixel and having terrific CCD dynamic range
capability is more than good enough. So, where the hell is their
proof-positive?
.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 23, 7:47 pm, wrote:
On Apr 24, 7:33 am, BradGuth wrote:



On Apr 22, 4:14 am, wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:21 am, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:
skrev:

Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
fake ones from theApollohoax.

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_3_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_4_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_5_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_6_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_7_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_8_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_9_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...v_000_10_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_1_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_2_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_3_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_4_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_5_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_6_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_1_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_2_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_3_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_4_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_5_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_6_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_005_4_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_005_2_l.jpg

Find more at:

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/

No stars?
Must be fakes! :-)

I have personally never contested the "no stars" argument. I have
found those who do use that argument are covert agents. That argument
appeals to the "conspiracy" people but does nothing for the
"debunking" people. That argument makes both crowds happy but
increases the argumentors credibility with the "conspiracy" crowd.
This is a common technique that cointelpro cowards use to infiltrate
and consequently subvert groups. Most people simply can't figure that
one out.

Eric Hufschmid is a case-point example of that. He used that argument
to gain credibility withApolloHoax exposers but it did nothing to
help the sheeple.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Venus was no star.

Various cosmological features should've been visible onApollo
cameras, but as JAXA Kaguya photos revealed not necessarily all stars.
Certain individuals were focusing exclusively on the "no stars"
argument and they turned out to be agents. No wonder.

Any 3D interactive orbital simulator proves that upon missions A-11,
A-14 and A-16 Venus should have been extremely obvious and easily
included within a given FOV that would not have included the sun, but
would have included the lunar horizon, or possibly that of Earth.

Usenet/Groups are chuck full of DARPA and MI5/CIA spooks and moles.
It's what they do best while out of bed.
.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 24, 4:29 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 24, 2:52 am, "CWatters"

wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 7:33 am, BradGuth wrote:

Certain individuals were focusing exclusively on the "no stars"
argument and they turned out to be agents. No wonder.

Certain individuals who concentrate on the radaition issue are agents as
well.

Am I the only one who is impressed by the sheer complexity of the
arguments supporting the conspiracy theory? Now it has reached the
point where a rocket /was/ launched, and the rocket went to one of the
Earth-Moon Lagrange points [why? who knows] and the corner cube arrays
were deposited by unmanned landers.

Oddly, that unmanned lander notion and technically doable moon L1
usage was sort of within my arguments from the very get-go, whereas
others had long been focused upon the rather unusual content weirdness
of why all of those NASA/Apollo EVA obtained images looked so passive,
as though so unusually terrestrial staged, and otherwise as though
having been artificially illuminated and/or subsequently doctored, as
though their version of “the right stuff” via such photographic
conditional laws of physics worked entirely different off-world than
here on Earth. Sure thing folks, why the hell not, especially when
our mostly Semitic DROPA cult was so capably in charge of mainstream
media, and still is the meanest alpha dog in town.


'course the fact there were several Moon missions seems to go un-
mentioned, but hey - conspiracy theory!

Who the hell ever said that those of our mostly Semitic perpetrated
cold-war of such devout mutual partners in crimes against humanity
weren't actually trying every possible fly0-by-rocket trick within our
Third Reich DARPA black book, in order to safely soft-land and walk
upon that physically dark moon of ours? (I certainly haven't suggested
such nonsense)

Just the daunting feat of our brave crews having accomplished the
moon’s L1, and sending off the remainders of each of their respective
Apollo mission, as for their accomplishing the best robotic kind of
lunar science and even with some of our instrumentation having
survived those hard-landing encounters with our dusty old moon, seems
pretty gosh darn nifty as is, and most certainly way better off than
anything them crazy USSR/Russians ever achieved.

Of course, now that our mutually orchestrated global energy inflation
has skyrocketed entirely through the 3200% mark, with no apparent end
in sight, and as a direct result we have also mastered the ongoing
process of summarily screwing humanity and that of traumatizing our
frail environment for all it’s worth, whereas what’s next may become
their New World Order via WWIII, perhaps because they seem to think
those Islamic/Muslim types are wussy enough for us to run over them
and take whatever we like.

Sadly, it seems you simply can not blow such global trillions upon
trillions of our hard earned loot, while having intentionally wasted
such technological decades, without such unfortunate actions having
dire consequences. Just the artificial energy inflation alone has
cost us trillions per cold-war decade, and as of lately it’s costing
us (meaning all of humanity) those extra trillions per year. Of
course, with our crack “no child left behind” policy, it seems not
even a collage graduate can do the math, and of those few others that
can, wouldn’t dare.
. - Brad Guth

On Apr 25, 3:53 pm, Rock Brentwood wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:29 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

Am I the only one who is impressed by the sheer complexity of the
arguments supporting the conspiracy theory?...

"The treacherous are ever distrustful, seeking out conspiracies" --
Lord of the Rings (slight paraphrase)

Complexity is evasion from simple truths. One cannot deny what's
directly in the line of sight, plainly visible for all to see...

Your eyes can see at better than 10 m/pixel? (I'm impressed)

Do share and share alike. Please, let us see whatever it is that you
see with your very own two eyes, or otherwise objectively touch with
your wise finger.
.. - Brad Guth


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ts_on_the_Moon

The analogy would be for a conspiracy nut-case to proclaim (on a
soapbox at noontime on a cloudless day) that there is no sun and that
assertions to the contrary are simply a ploy by a colluding clique of
astronomers to boondoggle the public into supporting solar energy
(which, according to the conspiracy theorist, would then actually be a
secret programme to install 2-ways microwave sensors and transmitters
throughout the land to control the public's brainwaves, since there
would be no sun for the solar energy to be solar of)..

wrote:
Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
fake ones from the Apollo hoax.

Tell me this then. What _exactly_ did happen?

Martin Hogbin

On May 6, 4:13 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On May 6, 3:38 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message

...|schoenfeld....@gma il.com wrote:

| Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
| fake ones from the Apollo hoax.
|
| Tell me this then. What _exactly_ did happen?
|
| Martin Hogbin

The modern ones are fakes produced in a Japanese sound studio,
the Apollo pictures are authentic. It's all a Japanese conspiracy. :-)

They faked the moon landing on Iapetus.

That actually makes more sense than what our NASA/Apollo wizards have
been saying.

BTW, there is a certain guano island that's just right, and to think
they owed us big-time for letting us use their nearly depleted little
isolated island.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 6, 2:01 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
wrote:
Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
fake ones from the Apollo hoax.

Tell me this then. What _exactly_ did happen?

Martin Hogbin

We've done that at least a million times. Didn't do any good, did it.

I guess when you are as certified dumb and dumber, thus having been
continually brown-nosed dumbfounded past the point of no return, it
makes little if any difference if anyone told you or others of your
DARPA cloak and dagger faith the truth.

"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
.. - Brad Guth

Martin Hogbin wrote:
wrote:
Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
fake ones from the Apollo hoax.

Tell me this then. What _exactly_ did happen?

It is telling that no one has answered this simple
question. If the mood landings were faked, how exactly
did they do it. This is the question the moon landing
conspiracy crackpots cannot answer.

Martin Hogbin

BradGuth wrote:
On May 6, 2:01 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
wrote:
Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
fake ones from the Apollo hoax.
Tell me this then. What _exactly_ did happen?

Martin Hogbin

We've done that at least a million times. Didn't do any good, did it.

One more time would not hurt then. How did they fake it?

Martin Hogbin

On May 6, 10:37 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 6, 2:01 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
wrote:
Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
fake ones from the Apollo hoax.
Tell me this then. What _exactly_ did happen?

Martin Hogbin

We've done that at least a million times. Didn't do any good, did it.

One more time would not hurt then. How did they fake it?

Martin Hogbin

I take it that your PC/MAC doesn't do any "search for" basics.

Ever heard of utilizing our moon's L1? (didn't think so)

Ever heard of Nauru (aka guano island)? (didn't think so)

Ever heard of a Chapel Bell S-Band transponder? (didn't think so)

Ever heard of UV secondary/recoil black-light giving a bluish/purplish
hue or tint to most everything in sight? (didn't think so)
.. - Brad Guth