On Apr 26, 6:04 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...







On Apr 25, 6:25 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 25, 5:46 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

Why the lack of Usenet/Group interest in anything JAXA SELENE?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a.../thread/3a4022...
Brad Guth

That link goes to one of your rants on a different forum.

I don't think Usenet lacks interest in Jaxa; I think Usenet lacks
interest
in Brad Guth.

HTH

That's to be expected.

Since JAXA/Selene is all about our moon, and soon enough orbiting at
merely 10 km with those TC optics recording that physically dark
surface at one meter/pixel, and therefore why is it not worthy of your
expertise?

It is. Post some images of the landing sites. If there aren't any, what
is
the relevance?

JAXA/Selene has by now at least dozens if not hundreds of their crisp
and clear TC frames per given landing site.

Why do you believe this is true?

Oddly they are not
sharing. In fact, even their wide/telephoto HDTV images are extremely
limited and having been frame by frame modified in order to exclude
most of the lunar mineral hue/color saturations, as well as utilizing
a minimal amount of the available dynamic range.

You say that the Japanese are falsifying wide view television images of the
moon. Why would they do that? What do you think they are hiding in these
images? Aliens from Area 41?

Real funny. Since it's the easily peer reviewed whole truth and
nothing but the truth, as otherwise easily proven by a fifth grader,
so why don't you tell us why JAXA changed their tune upon arriving
into the orbital mission. Why is JAXA holding back and otherwise
having to falsifying those wide and telephoto HDTV color images?


Even at 10 m/pixel is more than good enough as is.
. - Brad Guth

No, I supplied the calculations showing it was nowhere near good enough.

Still the same old silly brown-nosed boy, are you not.

No, I am a mathematician with an interest in optics.

You wouldn't accept 0.1 m/pixel as worthy proof of anything going
against your pagan DARPA NASA/Apollo fiasco. So what's the
difference?


Of course, if you would like to post the highest resolution photos of the
landing sites that you have access to, I could go through the physics
with
an actual example.

So why don't you do that?

They're all available from JAXA. Why don't you ask for yourself,

Because I am not trying to prove that Apollo was a hoax. If you want to use
photos as proof that it was a hoax, you really need to be able to produce
the photos. No photos, no evidence.

The joys of evidence exclusion. Up until recently it worked for the
USS LIBERTY fiasco, and of still ongoing as of more recently on behalf
of TWA flight 800, not to mention more than enough unanswered
questions about what brought us 911, as well as countless internal SEC
and Federal Reserve hocus-pocus issues that remain as taboo/
nondisclosure rated. You make a darn good DARPA minion, and rather
brown-nosed to boot.


or
wait until unavoidably they can't help but deliver those 1m/pixel
images.

The images are 10m/pixel, and so would not possibly show the LEM.

Silly boy, are we not. Sounds rather much like Hitler saying "what
Jews", because from where he was standing couldn't possibly see one of
those yids, or any other member of innocent humanity, or otherwise
like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) stipulating them crazy
Muslims got WMD.


Of course China can always dive in for the same or better
resolution.

Yes. If Apollo was a hoax, and there are so many ways it could be disproved,
funny that not one government has ever bother attempted to find out.

With recent Mars missions accomplishing better than 0.1 m/pixel,
therefore Japan, China or perhaps India should not have problems
accomplishing a few of those telephoto resolutions of 0.1 m/pixel from
100 km. Imagine their improved resolution from 10 km, especially as
extra nifty 3D angle of view via those TC configured optics, whereas
you always get loads more useful deductive observationology
information than by way of any 90 degree plan-view could possibly
deliver at ten fold better resolution.
. - Brad Guth

On Apr 26, 7:08 am, Bryan Olson wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:19 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:40 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van Allen
Belts. shrug
Again - what "unmanned missions" are you talking about?

Again, missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van
Allen Belts. shrug

I think you misunderstand Eric's question. Your imaginary
missions could get imaginary ranging equipment to the Moon,
but the stuff is there in *reality*.

--
--Bryan

There is no question or argument that robotic deployments couldn't
have deployed such laser ranging equipment as passive optical
reflectors, of which do not even have to be those of any singular
array.

On an open field of such a nearly coal dark surface, even a bright and
shiny zone of impacted aluminum would be sufficient for doing the
trick. It's not hard to even intentionally deploy a good enough
dusting of such corner cube reflective items just prior to the primary
impact, so that the artificial crater produced cloud of electrostatic
charged dust doesn't entirely coat those items.
.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 26, 9:09 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 26, 7:08 am, Bryan Olson wrote:



Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:19 pm, EricGissewrote:
On Apr 25, 11:40 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van Allen
Belts. shrug
Again - what "unmanned missions" are you talking about?

Again, missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van
Allen Belts. shrug

I think you misunderstand Eric's question. Your imaginary
missions could get imaginary ranging equipment to the Moon,
but the stuff is there in *reality*.

--
--Bryan

There is no question or argument that robotic deployments couldn't
have deployed such laser ranging equipment as passive optical
reflectors, of which do not even have to be those of any singular
array.

On an open field of such a nearly coal dark surface, even a bright and
shiny zone of impacted aluminum would be sufficient for doing the
trick. It's not hard to even intentionally deploy a good enough
dusting of such corner cube reflective items just prior to the primary
impact, so that the artificial crater produced cloud of electrostatic
charged dust doesn't entirely coat those items.
. - Brad Guth

Again, what missions are you talking about? Do you have
any...evidence...that this took place, or is your only evidence the
fact that you don't believe they were put there as advertised?

Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:19 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:40 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van Allen
Belts. shrug

Again - what "unmanned missions" are you talking about?

Again, missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van
Allen Belts. shrug

3rd time now - what missions? Are they imaginary missions that
happened only in your head, or missions that actually took place which
you have documentation of some kind in support?


Oh, the same garbage from fat Gisse again. You were pointed out of
your bullsh*t errors many times over. Get lost. Don�t come back
before you actually understand the stuff you came up with.

Nope - you farted and ran away from the discussion because you
couldn't even read the data sheets.

Not quiet, you failed to understand the material I have presented, and
worst of all you also failed to understand the materials you pulled
out. That is why knowing a few buzz words cannot get you that college
degree. That is why you are an n�th-year (which I have lost count)
super senior at the very prestigious university of Alaska. shrug

Not my fault you can't read basic instrument specifications or read
for comprehension.


In the meantime, the Chinese are �going back to the moon�. I wonder
if they will play the game along and be content with being second.
This would be very easy to do. All you need is a decent special
effect director. Or would they expose and embarrass NASA?

On Apr 26, 7:34 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 26, 9:09 am, BradGuth wrote:


On Apr 26, 7:08 am, Bryan Olson wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:19 pm, EricGissewrote:
On Apr 25, 11:40 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van Allen
Belts. shrug
Again - what "unmanned missions" are you talking about?

Again, missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van
Allen Belts. shrug

I think you misunderstand Eric's question. Your imaginary
missions could get imaginary ranging equipment to the Moon,
but the stuff is there in *reality*.

--
--Bryan

There is no question or argument that robotic deployments couldn't
have deployed such laser ranging equipment as passive optical
reflectors, of which do not even have to be those of any singular
array.

On an open field of such a nearly coal dark surface, even a bright and
shiny zone of impacted aluminum would be sufficient for doing the
trick. It's not hard to even intentionally deploy a good enough
dusting of such corner cube reflective items just prior to the primary
impact, so that the artificial crater produced cloud of electrostatic
charged dust doesn't entirely coat those items.
. - Brad Guth

Again, what missions are you talking about? Do you have
any...evidence...that this took place, or is your only evidence the
fact that you don't believe they were put there as advertised?

I have the exact same subjective evidence that you use in order to
claim everything went down exactly according to your NASA/Apollo
Qur'an, except that I'm deductively interpreting from that very same
basis of subjective data (that's missing all sorts of weird stuff that
shouldn't have been missed) in order to suit my version. So, thus far
at worse case we're even on that one, at best I'm still winning.
.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 26, 7:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:19 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:40 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van Allen
Belts. shrug

Again - what "unmanned missions" are you talking about?

Again, missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van
Allen Belts. shrug

3rd time now - what missions? Are they imaginary missions that
happened only in your head, or missions that actually took place which
you have documentation of some kind in support?



Oh, the same garbage from fat Gisse again. You were pointed out of
your bullsh*t errors many times over. Get lost. Don�t come back
before you actually understand the stuff you came up with.

Nope - you farted and ran away from the discussion because you
couldn't even read the data sheets.

Not quiet, you failed to understand the material I have presented, and
worst of all you also failed to understand the materials you pulled
out. That is why knowing a few buzz words cannot get you that college
degree. That is why you are an n�th-year (which I have lost count)
super senior at the very prestigious university of Alaska. shrug

Not my fault you can't read basic instrument specifications or read
for comprehension.

Why but of course, nothing on Earth or on the moon is ever your
fault.
. - Brad Guth

On Apr 26, 7:21 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 26, 7:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:19 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:40 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van Allen
Belts. shrug

Again - what "unmanned missions" are you talking about?

Again, missions without sending men physically into or beyond the Van
Allen Belts. shrug

3rd time now - what missions? Are they imaginary missions that
happened only in your head, or missions that actually took place which
you have documentation of some kind in support?

Oh, the same garbage from fat Gisse again. You were pointed out of
your bullsh*t errors many times over. Get lost. Don�t come back
before you actually understand the stuff you came up with.

Nope - you farted and ran away from the discussion because you
couldn't even read the data sheets.

Not quiet, you failed to understand the material I have presented, and
worst of all you also failed to understand the materials you pulled
out. That is why knowing a few buzz words cannot get you that college
degree. That is why you are an n�th-year (which I have lost count)
super senior at the very prestigious university of Alaska. shrug

Not my fault you can't read basic instrument specifications or read
for comprehension.

Why but of course, nothing on Earth or on the moon is ever your
fault.
. - Brad Guth

The purpose of your reply eludes me.

On Apr 26, 11:36 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



On Apr 26, 6:04 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 25, 6:25 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 25, 5:46 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

Why the lack of Usenet/Group interest in anything JAXA SELENE?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a.../thread/3a4022...
Brad Guth

That link goes to one of your rants on a different forum.

I don't think Usenet lacks interest in Jaxa; I think Usenet lacks
interest
in Brad Guth.

HTH

That's to be expected.

Since JAXA/Selene is all about our moon, and soon enough orbiting at
merely 10 km with those TC optics recording that physically dark
surface at one meter/pixel, and therefore why is it not worthy of
your
expertise?

It is. Post some images of the landing sites. If there aren't any,
what
is
the relevance?

JAXA/Selene has by now at least dozens if not hundreds of their crisp
and clear TC frames per given landing site.

Why do you believe this is true?

Oddly they are not
sharing. In fact, even their wide/telephoto HDTV images are extremely
limited and having been frame by frame modified in order to exclude
most of the lunar mineral hue/color saturations, as well as utilizing
a minimal amount of the available dynamic range.

You say that the Japanese are falsifying wide view television images of
the
moon. Why would they do that? What do you think they are hiding in these
images? Aliens from Area 41?

Real funny. Since it's the easily peer reviewed whole truth and
nothing but the truth, as otherwise easily proven by a fifth grader,
so why don't you tell us why JAXA changed their tune upon arriving
into the orbital mission. Why is JAXA holding back and otherwise
having to falsifying those wide and telephoto HDTV color images?

I don't think they are.

Being the brown-nosed clown of a minion to the status quo that you
are, you can think whatever you like.


More to the point, what has this got to do with your claim the Apollo
missions are a hoax?

That's a wee bit dumb and dumber, but nice try.


Even at 10 m/pixel is more than good enough as is.
. - Brad Guth

No, I supplied the calculations showing it was nowhere near good
enough.

Still the same old silly brown-nosed boy, are you not.

No, I am a mathematician with an interest in optics.

You wouldn't accept 0.1 m/pixel as worthy proof of anything going
against your pagan DARPA NASA/Apollo fiasco. So what's the
difference?

Wrong. I would accept 0.1m/pixel resolution images.

No kidding. However, what if those images were as obviously doctored
as having been the case thus far?

Would any amount of resolution ever be good enough?

How about those of multi-look per pixel via trustworthy radar obtained
images, such as from a 45 degree angle none the less? (we've had this
capability for the last couple of decades, and of extremely good
resolution as of the last decade)


Of course, if you would like to post the highest resolution photos of
the
landing sites that you have access to, I could go through the physics
with
an actual example.

So why don't you do that?

They're all available from JAXA. Why don't you ask for yourself,

Because I am not trying to prove that Apollo was a hoax. If you want to
use
photos as proof that it was a hoax, you really need to be able to produce
the photos. No photos, no evidence.

The joys of evidence exclusion. Up until recently it worked for the
USS LIBERTY fiasco, and of still ongoing as of more recently on behalf
of TWA flight 800, not to mention more than enough unanswered
questions about what brought us 911, as well as countless internal SEC
and Federal Reserve hocus-pocus issues that remain as taboo/
nondisclosure rated. You make a darn good DARPA minion, and rather
brown-nosed to boot.

So no photos, and hence no evidence?

JAXA has by now archived thousands of those quality TC obtained
frames. I too wonder why those are not made public. Go figure.


or
wait until unavoidably they can't help but deliver those 1m/pixel
images.

The images are 10m/pixel, and so would not possibly show the LEM.

Silly boy, are we not. Sounds rather much like Hitler saying "what
Jews", because from where he was standing couldn't possibly see one of
those yids, or any other member of innocent humanity, or otherwise
like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) stipulating them crazy
Muslims got WMD.

Ummm ... the Japanese claim they are 10 metres/pixel. Why would they lie?

Supposedly you're the really smart one here. Why don't you tell us
why JAXA is being so unusually taboo/nondisclosure rated?


Of course China can always dive in for the same or better
resolution.

Yes. If Apollo was a hoax, and there are so many ways it could be
disproved,
funny that not one government has ever bother attempted to find out.

With recent Mars missions accomplishing better than 0.1 m/pixel,
therefore Japan, China or perhaps India should not have problems
accomplishing a few of those telephoto resolutions of 0.1 m/pixel from
100 km. Imagine their improved resolution from 10 km, especially as
extra nifty 3D angle of view via those TC configured optics, whereas
you always get loads more useful deductive observationology
information than by way of any 90 degree plan-view could possibly
deliver at ten fold better resolution.

Yes. If Apollo was a hoax, many governments (not all friendly to the US)
could easily show it was a hoax.

More great evidence that it wasn't a hoax.

Is that your point?

Only as of this year has another government outside of the cloak and
dagger grasp of our DARPA and of their army of STR spook/mole minions
(aka MIB if you like), had the capability of going in for the kill.

What's your best swag as to the remaining time our NASA/Apollo fiasco
has left?
.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 27, 10:10 am, Smooth John wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 26, 11:36 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 26, 6:04 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 25, 6:25 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Apr 25, 5:46 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

Why the lack of Usenet/Group interest in anything JAXA SELENE?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a.../thread/3a4022...
Brad Guth

That link goes to one of your rants on a different forum.

I don't think Usenet lacks interest in Jaxa; I think Usenet lacks
interest
in Brad Guth.

HTH

That's to be expected.

Since JAXA/Selene is all about our moon, and soon enough orbiting at
merely 10 km with those TC optics recording that physically dark
surface at one meter/pixel, and therefore why is it not worthy of
your
expertise?

It is. Post some images of the landing sites. If there aren't any,
what
is
the relevance?

JAXA/Selene has by now at least dozens if not hundreds of their crisp
and clear TC frames per given landing site.

Why do you believe this is true?

Oddly they are not
sharing. In fact, even their wide/telephoto HDTV images are extremely
limited and having been frame by frame modified in order to exclude
most of the lunar mineral hue/color saturations, as well as utilizing
a minimal amount of the available dynamic range.

You say that the Japanese are falsifying wide view television images of
the
moon. Why would they do that? What do you think they are hiding in these
images? Aliens from Area 41?

Real funny. Since it's the easily peer reviewed whole truth and
nothing but the truth, as otherwise easily proven by a fifth grader,
so why don't you tell us why JAXA changed their tune upon arriving
into the orbital mission. Why is JAXA holding back and otherwise
having to falsifying those wide and telephoto HDTV color images?

I don't think they are.

Being the brown-nosed clown of a minion to the status quo that you
are, you can think whatever you like.

More to the point, what has this got to do with your claim the Apollo
missions are a hoax?

That's a wee bit dumb and dumber, but nice try.

Even at 10 m/pixel is more than good enough as is.
. - Brad Guth

No, I supplied the calculations showing it was nowhere near good
enough.

Still the same old silly brown-nosed boy, are you not.

No, I am a mathematician with an interest in optics.

You wouldn't accept 0.1 m/pixel as worthy proof of anything going
against your pagan DARPA NASA/Apollo fiasco. So what's the
difference?

Wrong. I would accept 0.1m/pixel resolution images.

No kidding. However, what if those images were as obviously doctored
as having been the case thus far?

Are you suggesting that they are afraid to give undoctored
pictures to their population?

What should they be afraid for

Since you're so freaking smart and all-knowing, why the hell don't you
tell me?

Seems more than a wee bit cloak and dagger odd as hell, that such
basic monochrome images and of whatever spectral obtained information
as to the surface mineralogy of our physically dark and otherwise
nasty old moon should be the least bit taboo/nondisclosure rated.

Is the JAXA/Selene mission broken? Roasted to death, or merely over-
saturated with gamma, or what?
.. - Brad Guth


Would any amount of resolution ever be good enough?

How about those of multi-look per pixel via trustworthy radar obtained
images, such as from a 45 degree angle none the less? (we've had this
capability for the last couple of decades, and of extremely good
resolution as of the last decade)

Of course, if you would like to post the highest resolution photos of
the
landing sites that you have access to, I could go through the physics
with
an actual example.

So why don't you do that?

They're all available from JAXA. Why don't you ask for yourself,

Because I am not trying to prove that Apollo was a hoax. If you want to
use
photos as proof that it was a hoax, you really need to be able to produce
the photos. No photos, no evidence.

The joys of evidence exclusion. Up until recently it worked for the
USS LIBERTY fiasco, and of still ongoing as of more recently on behalf
of TWA flight 800, not to mention more than enough unanswered
questions about what brought us 911, as well as countless internal SEC
and Federal Reserve hocus-pocus issues that remain as taboo/
nondisclosure rated. You make a darn good DARPA minion, and rather
brown-nosed to boot.

So no photos, and hence no evidence?

JAXA has by now archived thousands of those quality TC obtained
frames. I too wonder why those are not made public. Go figure.

or
wait until unavoidably they can't help but deliver those 1m/pixel
images.

The images are 10m/pixel, and so would not possibly show the LEM.

Silly boy, are we not. Sounds rather much like Hitler saying "what
Jews", because from where he was standing couldn't possibly see one of
those yids, or any other member of innocent humanity, or otherwise
like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) stipulating them crazy
Muslims got WMD.

Ummm ... the Japanese claim they are 10 metres/pixel. Why would they lie?

Supposedly you're the really smart one here. Why don't you tell us
why JAXA is being so unusually taboo/nondisclosure rated?

Of course China can always dive in for the same or better
resolution.

Yes. If Apollo was a hoax, and there are so many ways it could be
disproved,
funny that not one government has ever bother attempted to find out.

With recent Mars missions accomplishing better than 0.1 m/pixel,
therefore Japan, China or perhaps India should not have problems
accomplishing a few of those telephoto resolutions of 0.1 m/pixel from
100 km. Imagine their improved resolution from 10 km, especially as
extra nifty 3D angle of view via those TC configured optics, whereas
you always get loads more useful deductive observationology
information than by way of any 90 degree plan-view could possibly
deliver at ten fold better resolution.

Yes. If Apollo was a hoax, many governments (not all friendly to the US)
could easily show it was a hoax.

More great evidence that it wasn't a hoax.

Is that your point?

Only as of this year has another government outside of the cloak and
dagger grasp of our DARPA and of their army of STR spook/mole minions
(aka MIB if you like), had the capability of going in for the kill.

What's your best swag as to the remaining time our NASA/Apollo fiasco
has left?
. - Brad Guth

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.

Apollo 1: 3 fatalities during a ground test.
Apollo 2: unmanned, circumnavigated Earth but pressurization test
failed.
Apollo 3: informal name of AS-202. Unmanned, suborbital.
Apollo 4: First Saturn V flight, first launch from Launch Complex 39.
Unmanned.
Apollo 5: Unmanned. "Abort fire" test successful.
Apollo 6: Unmanned, Second Saturn V flight.

Apollo 7: Manned, circumnavigated Earth.
Apollo 8: Manned, circumnavigated Luna. Famous "Earthrise" picture.
Apollo 9: Manned, circumnavigated Earth, tested LM and CSM.
Apollo 10: Manned, circumnavigated Luna. Came within 8.4 naut. miles
of Luna's surface.
Apollo 11: That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.
Apollo 12: Landed on Luna.
Apollo 13: Massive failure precluded lunar landing; no casualties.
Apollo 14: Landed.
Apollo 15: First "J mission". Landed.
Apollo 16: Landed.
Apollo 17: Landed, first night launch.
Apollo 18-21: 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 from http://www.teranews.com