BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 1:27 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
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.
Denial of your denial is where you start to appreciate the greater
truth and consequences of your actions.
What actions?

Why will you not anser my question?

Martin Hogbin

It can be proven, they had motive, means and opportunity.

To do what???

Martin Hogbin

On May 8, 3:16 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 1:27 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
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.
Denial of your denial is where you start to appreciate the greater
truth and consequences of your actions.
What actions?

Why will you not anser my question?

Martin Hogbin

It can be proven, they had motive, means and opportunity.

To do what???

Martin Hogbin

Aren't you being a cute little brown-nosed clown. Hitler would have
been proud of his minion, just like DARPA and your boss GW Bush are
each proud as punch.

When you finally manage to become as smart as a 5th grader, we'll
talk. (though I'm not holding my breath)

BTW, as of 8+ years ago, it seems I too was just as snookered and
dumbfounded as yourself. Go figure.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 3:13 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 12:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 8, 1:23 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:

Telling our resident spook/mole "Martin Hogbin" the actual truth and
nothing but the truth

You have told me nothing, except that there were around
1000 conspirators. I eagerly await the rest of the
'truth'.

And so would most of the world that's in total shock and awe as to how
pathetic if not dumb and dumber this once great nation has become,
with England in hot pursuit.

Obviously you don't believe in the regular laws of physics, or in any
kind of science as evidence unless it's DARPA/NASA certified. It
seems that you and others of your kind would have made darn good brown-
nosed minions for Hitler, just as your services have been providing
for MI5/CIA as well as GW Bush and company.

What's in it for me, or for you?

I assume you'd want specific names, places, dates and the usual hour
by hour of every tidbit of any paper trail as to where all this cloak
and dagger cold-war effort and subsequent DARPA/NASA loot went. Of
course that would be 99.9% more than we seem to know about how the
hell 911 came to past and subsequently gotten ourselves into Iraq,
having ever since screwed most everything up for the entire world.

On the other hand, why exactly do you care either way? (are you one of
those at risk?)

What if anything would you have done differently if having known the
whole truth, or as of having since known the truth?

Are you in charge of anything that matters, or do you simply want a
piece of the action??
.. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 3:10 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 8, 1:23 am, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

That is because of
your strong BELIEF IN what you have been taught in the first place and
also very strong peer pressures.
I am waiting for you to set me straight. What really
happened in your opinion.

It is not up to me to find out what happened. shrug

So you have no theory at all?? End of story.

Martin Hogbin

Spoken like a good little Semitic Third Reich.

I've posted many theories as to the NASA/Apollo moon landing hoax, all
of which based upon the regular laws of physics and best available
science, so I guess they don't count.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 3:08 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 12:36 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Well, we are making progress. About a thousand
conspirators, you say.

So what did they do?

Having the official means, motive and opportunity, they did whatever
they could with the best available technology and expertise of their
cloak and dagger day, in order to create the illusion of our having
landed upon and having walked for hours upon hours unscaved upon that
physically dark as coal moon of ours.

You are making a meal of this. What was it that they did?

Martin Hogbin

They did pretty much everything except land upon and EVA walk upon our
physically dark and nasty moon.

I'm even pretty well convinced that Apollo mission A-13 did its better
than half orbit of the moon, and safely returned home, because at
least that much was technically and biologically doable without too
much smoke and mirrors.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 3:16 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 8, 1:27 am,Martin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 7, 1:27 am,Martin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 6, 10:36 am,Martin wrote:
Martin Hogbinwrote:
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.
Denial of your denial is where you start to appreciate the greater
truth and consequences of your actions.
What actions?

Why will you not anser my question?

Martin Hogbin

It can be proven, they had motive, means and opportunity.

To do what???

Martin Hogbin

Before going any further, what's with this Evelyn le Chene thing?
.. - Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
So you have no theory at all?? End of story.

Spoken like a good little Semitic Third Reich.

Martin, when you asked who these kooks think did it, I expected
Brad would get around to telling you his answer. Well, there it is.


I've posted many theories as to the NASA/Apollo moon landing hoax, all
of which based upon the regular laws of physics and best available
science, so I guess they don't count.

Sure Brad, keep on guessing.


--
--Bryan

Question: I'm certainly not one of those who thinks the moon landings
were a hoax, but I do wonder about one thing. As I understand, the
moon's surface is about as dark as charcoal, and the space suits were
quite white. In the photos from the moon, the space suits do in fact
appear white, but the moon's surface in the same photos appears as a
light gray. It seems to me that there isn't enough contrast. If the
camera settings were such that the surface appeared light gray, the
space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed. Kind of like how the full
moon may appear bright when viewed from Earth, but how bright would it
appear if someone painted a large part of it with bright white paint.

Also, how much radiation did the astronauts get from the Van Allen Belts.
I do know they took a course that minimized exposure and they weren't
in them for long, but they're pretty intense.

On May 8, 9:24 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Question: I'm certainly not one of those who thinks the moon landings
were a hoax, but I do wonder about one thing. As I understand, the
moon's surface is about as dark as charcoal, and the space suits were
quite white. In the photos from the moon, the space suits do in fact
appear white, but the moon's surface in the same photos appears as a
light gray. It seems to me that there isn't enough contrast. If the
camera settings were such that the surface appeared light gray, the
space suits should be dazzlingly overexposed. Kind of like how the full
moon may appear bright when viewed from Earth, but how bright would it
appear if someone painted a large part of it with bright white paint.

Also, how much radiation did the astronauts get from the Van Allen Belts.
I do know they took a course that minimized exposure and they weren't
in them for long, but they're pretty intense.

Not only is the moon physically dark as coal, but also highly
saturated in solar UV.

Go figure how such unfiltered Kodak moments entirely failed to respond
to the unavoidable secondary/recoil flood of the bluish hue or black
light generated tint of weird color saturation.

It's exactly as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, isn't it.

You can do your own hourly math on those to/from Van Allen belt dosage
amounts. There's roughly a 75,000 km trek each way, so that's 150,000
km worth of Van Allen badlands (not including whatever is outside or
being anywhere near that naked and thus reactive moon of ours).

What was their average speed? (1.5 km/s?)

Say twice that velocity while going to/from through the Van Allen
zones = 13+ hours.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 8, 3:10 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

It is not up to me to find out what happened. shrug

So you have no theory at all??

That is correct. I don’t have enough information to tell you exactly
what happened. I am no conspiracy whacko. However, from the data
which reflects why Professor Roberts called as the results of
experimentations with error bars, I can assure you that manned moon
missions cannot have happened. My discussions are so much within the
implementations of scientific methods. You are just asking for
conspiracy theories.

You need to get through your thick skull that the hoax of manned moon
missions have nothing to do with piecing together what exactly
happened. Once again, I can assure you that manned moon missions
cannot have happened.

End of story.

Not quite. It is time to investigate how NASA was able to fool you,
et al. shrug It is only faith that keeps you from realizing the
truth. It is some brain washing on their part. You are a fine
example of the soulless slave in Orwell’s “1984”. shrug