On May 6, 11:43 am, BradGuth wrote:
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


They faked it from a small asteroid orbiting Alpha Centauri.

On May 6, 3:22 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
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)

All you can do is bluff and bluster. Why not answer my
question? What did they do to fake the landing?

Martin Hogbin

Are we being funny? Why of course, funny.

Where's Venus (from orbit or surface EVA) as of missions A-11, A-14
and A-16?

They/Apollo simply faked anything and everything having to do with the
moon's surface, and of those essentially naked EVAs is just the best
ever hoax icing on their moon landing cake.

BTW, our physically dark moon isn't illuminated by way of any xenon
arc lamp spectrum.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 6, 10:36 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
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

Finding one fault with the NASA/Apollo holy grail is all it takes.
We've found dozens of faults. Your being in denial of being in denial
isn't helping, is it.

We can also tell, you're having a very bad feeling about this.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 7, 1:26 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

Are we being funny?

It is a simple, straight forward question. I want you
to tell me exactly how you believe the moon landings
were faked.

You seem completely unable to do this and thus you have
no case.



They/Apollo simply faked anything and everything having to do with the
moon's surface, and of those essentially naked EVAs is just the best
ever hoax icing on their moon landing cake.

That is start. Let me help you a bit as you do not
seem to be able to answer a simple question on your own.

Who exactly are 'They/Apollo'?

What did they do?

Martin Hogbin

Are you talking about something like the 9.8 m/s of moon dust falling?

Unless you can't count frames per second, where's the big ass mystery
in that?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 7, 1:27 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 6, 10:36 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
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

Finding one fault with the NASA/Apollo holy grail is all it takes.
We've found dozens of faults. Your being in denial of being in denial
isn't helping, is it.

I cannot be in denial - you have not given me anything
to deny.

Martin Hogbin

Denial of your denial is where you start to appreciate the greater
truth and consequences of your actions.
.. - Brad Guth

Eric Gisse wrote:

The purpose of your reply eludes me.

Try asking him the question that none of the moon
landing conspiracy crackpots can answer; what exactly
do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

All I got was a few grunts in reply.

Martin Hogbin

On May 7, 4:14 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

The purpose of your reply eludes me.

Try asking him the question that none of the moon
landing conspiracy crackpots can answer; what exactly
do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

All I got was a few grunts in reply.

Martin Hogbin

You got a whole lot more than "grunts", my brown-nosed friend.

Sadly, it seems you and others of your kind can not deductively put
two and two together without first checking your NASA/Apollo Qur'an to
see what's scripted.

What brown-nosed part in the NASA/Apollo ruse did you play?
.. - Brad Guth

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...
| Eric Gisse wrote:
|
| The purpose of your reply eludes me.
|
| Try asking him the question that none of the moon
| landing conspiracy crackpots can answer; what exactly
| do you claim really happened and who was in on it?
|
| All I got was a few grunts in reply.
|
| Martin Hogbin


Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

That's the question that none of the relativist crackpots can answer;
what exactly do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

All I get is a few grunts in reply. Right, ignorant piggy?

On May 7, 4:14 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

The purpose of your reply eludes me.

Try asking him the question that none of the moon
landing conspiracy crackpots can answer;

There is no such thing as conspiracy theory or crackpots. You are
either wrong or right. Sometimes, it is subjective. Sometimes, it is
going against what is normally believed. For example, we have this
scenario where most people believe in the God of butterflies being
supreme. Now, someone comes along and claims the God of spiders being
the most supreme instead. This someone will be regarded as a crackpot
and a conspiracy nutcase. shrug

what exactly
do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

You are avoiding the issue. Your question is a separate matter. It
requires some investigation, don’t you think? Have you lost your mind
in scientific methodology?

All I got was a few grunts in reply.

You have erroneously interpreted them as grunts. That is because of
your strong BELIEF IN what you have been taught in the first place and
also very strong peer pressures. If your peers believe in the God of
butterflies, and you believe in the God of spiders, you are going to
feel pressure from your peers.

The subject on manned moon missions can only be decided with more
scientific investigations. Unable to face any scientific inquiries
into the matter, you have resorted to faith. You have called and
tried to dismiss the ones bringing up the questionable events as
conspiracy crackpots. You have lost your scientific methodology in
doing so. shrug

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Going back to the manned moon landing claim, the Apollo manned
missions were the only ones that have gone beyond the low earth orbit
in which the environment enjoys a relatively benign radiation of 10
RADs per year. The Apollo manned missions were also the only ones
that have supposedly gone into the Van Allen Belts and beyond. The
shuttle program only calls out for missions in the low earth orbit.
With relatively and vastly more sophisticated hardware, the shuttle
program is plagued with problems after problems while the Apollo
missions have gone in perfect performance except the staged mission 13
which the problem miraculously happened on the 13th mission, the 13th
hour, the 13th minute, and the 13th second.

The Van Allen Belts represent deadly radiation zones that miraculous
shielded all harmful solar and cosmic radiation from the living
organisms of earth. Beyond these belts, the radiation is not as
severe as in it. However, it is still deadly. The earlier deep space
probes namely the Viking and the Mariner missions did not pay very
much attention to the radiation of deep space. These probes did not
last very long. However, Pioneer and Voyagers did have their
electronics hardened for the deadly radiation. To give you an
example, the geosynchronous satellites have to withstand a radiation
of 300kRADs or more per year beyond the Van Allen Belts. The
following link should cast no doubt on this radiation amount. Each
year, the sun sheds some of its mass (2-3E-14 solar mass) with each
proton having an average energy of 1keV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

That is why semiconductor vendors such as Intersil sell devices that
can withstand some or all these radiation. Check them out.

http://www.intersil.com/military/radhardlist.asp

This is a scientific method of exposing Apollo manned missions being
an elaborate hoax. What is your scientific method of countering
this? None, so you have to resort to faith, right? shrug

On May 8, 1:25 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 7, 4:14 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

The purpose of your reply eludes me.
Try asking him the question that none of the moon
landing conspiracy crackpots can answer; what exactly
do you claim really happened and who was in on it?

All I got was a few grunts in reply.

Martin Hogbin

You got a whole lot more than "grunts", my brown-nosed friend.

No answers.

Sadly, it seems you and others of your kind can not deductively put
two and two together without first checking your NASA/Apollo Qur'an to
see what's scripted.

Why not tell me then?

What brown-nosed part in the NASA/Apollo ruse did you play?

How may people do you think were in on the conspiracy?

A few dozen were fully active or in charge of pulling off the show, a
few hundred and possibly a thousand had to know everything and
participate under our nondisclosure rules(or else), and of most
everyone else was so compartmentalized to death and otherwise
downright scared to death to even think anything that was the least
bit in question of whatever they and others were doing. Signing that
nondisclosure policy is what gave our DARPA/NASA goons the legal right
to having you and your family exterminated for breaking any part of
that nondisclosure policy, and they were extremely serious about it.

As I've said a thousand times before, it wasn't as though we and the
USSR weren't doing everything towards accomplishing that task of
walking upon our moon.

When most everything except the fly-by-rocket lander and rad-hard
astronaut was technically doable, how would you have faked that last
part of having landed upon and walked upon our moon?

Do you actually think our government doesn't lie, and otherwise
doesn't cover their butts?
.. - Brad Guth