On Jul 5, 10:51 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"malibu" wrote in message

ups.com...
: On Jul 5, 10:02 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Ian Parker" wrote in message
:
: roups.com...
: : On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:
: : http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
: :
: : Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
: : eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
: : this planet.
: :
: : There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
: : conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large number
: : of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.
: :
: : Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
: : tightly knit group of people.
: :
: :
: : - Ian Parker
:
: Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
: them is dead.
:
:
:
: The film "Alien Autopsy" claimed to be based
: on actual footage that had
: gone astray.
: It was deemed a hoax. The film approached
: it from the angle of 'could anyone hoax this autopsy?'
:
: The consensus was it shoulda got an Oscar, if it
: was a hoax, cause it sure looked absolutely real.
:
: In the more current happening, the film
: "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon",
: an amount of footage got into the moon videos that wasn't
: supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera
: set up to make the Earth appear to be as far away
: as possible (shooting Earth through the porthole from the
: *opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights off.)
: We get to see Armstrong himself (unless its a hoax and
: someone used a stand-in double- YOU look at
: the film and decide) as the lights come back on, adjusting the
: camera. The other astronaut
: is adjusting the tape that stretches across part
: of the porthole that is making this shot look
: like "Earthrise". The date on the tape is exactly when
: they were supposed to be approaching the moon and
: they are obviously still in low earth orbit.
:
: **********WAS********** it Armstrong?
:
: Watch that movie- it's easily available
: on the web- if you're scared to,
: it just means you have too much invested in
: the fantasy.
:
: Warning, jumping ship earlier is better than later
: when the ship is going down.
: And this one is going down.
:
: John
: Galaxy Model
:
: Every atom has at least ONE of you.
: And me.
:
I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.

Point ends here.

Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a complete
and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
But then, that's just what you are. Sick.

One star, I rate this post, for it's terrible lack of civility and
morals.
Your point is right, but the thing above is not necessary nor is it
good. You like to insult people -- HURT THEIR FEELINGS -- instead
of simply refuting their argument. Their feelings do not need to be
hurt, their argument just needs to be refuted.

The_Man wrote:

It is not a coincidence that the greater one's scientific education,
the more absurd this drivel about "hoaxes" seems.

I presume you have some references to back up this absurd theory of
yours.

My "alternative" theory is that the greater financial ties a scientist
has to government funding the more absurd the "hoaxes" are asserted to
be.

"mike3" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jul 5, 10:51 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: "malibu" wrote in message
:
: ups.com...
: : On Jul 5, 10:02 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: : "Ian Parker" wrote in message
: :
: : roups.com...
: : : On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:
: : : http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
: : :
: : : Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered,
for
: : : eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface
of
: : : this planet.
: : :
: : : There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people
who
: : : conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large
number
: : : of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually
certain.
: : :
: : : Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very
small
: : : tightly knit group of people.
: : :
: : :
: : : - Ian Parker
: :
: : Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
: : them is dead.
: :
: :
: :
: : The film "Alien Autopsy" claimed to be based
: : on actual footage that had
: : gone astray.
: : It was deemed a hoax. The film approached
: : it from the angle of 'could anyone hoax this autopsy?'
: :
: : The consensus was it shoulda got an Oscar, if it
: : was a hoax, cause it sure looked absolutely real.
: :
: : In the more current happening, the film
: : "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon",
: : an amount of footage got into the moon videos that wasn't
: : supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera
: : set up to make the Earth appear to be as far away
: : as possible (shooting Earth through the porthole from the
: : *opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights off.)
: : We get to see Armstrong himself (unless its a hoax and
: : someone used a stand-in double- YOU look at
: : the film and decide) as the lights come back on, adjusting the
: : camera. The other astronaut
: : is adjusting the tape that stretches across part
: : of the porthole that is making this shot look
: : like "Earthrise". The date on the tape is exactly when
: : they were supposed to be approaching the moon and
: : they are obviously still in low earth orbit.
: :
: : **********WAS********** it Armstrong?
: :
: : Watch that movie- it's easily available
: : on the web- if you're scared to,
: : it just means you have too much invested in
: : the fantasy.
: :
: : Warning, jumping ship earlier is better than later
: : when the ship is going down.
: : And this one is going down.
: :
: : John
: : Galaxy Model
: :
: : Every atom has at least ONE of you.
: : And me.
: :
: I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
: Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
:
: Point ends here.

: Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
complete
: and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
: But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
:
: One star, I rate this post, for it's terrible lack of civility and
: morals.
: Your point is right, but the thing above is not necessary nor is it
: good. You like to insult people -- HURT THEIR FEELINGS -- instead
: of simply refuting their argument. Their feelings do not need to be
: hurt, their argument just needs to be refuted.


**** 'em. I never claimed to be good, just logical.
You can't hurt my feelings, many try but I have the skin
of a rhinoceros and I'm not looking for stars from you,
the sky has more than I need.

I insult those that insult the intelligence of others, especially mine.

If Ian Parker or "malibu" want to swallow and spout hoax theories
they've heard of and latched onto then they are trying to hurt the
feelings of the kinfolk of those who dedicated (and lost) their lives
in the pursuit of science.

http://www.vibrationdata.com/space/deaths.htm

I'll kick their inconsiderate and stupid ****in' arses anytime.
Why the **** should I care about their films or your ratings?

On Jul 9, 5:02 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"mike3" wrote in message

ups.com...
: On Jul 5, 10:51 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: "malibu" wrote in message
:
: oups.com...
: : On Jul 5, 10:02 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: : "Ian Parker" wrote in message
: :
: : roups.com...
: : : On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:
: : : http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
: : :
: : : Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered,
for
: : : eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface
of
: : : this planet.
: : :
: : : There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people
who
: : : conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large
number
: : : of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually
certain.
: : :
: : : Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very
small
: : : tightly knit group of people.
: : :
: : :
: : : - Ian Parker
: :
: : Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
: : them is dead.
: :
: :
: :
: : The film "Alien Autopsy" claimed to be based
: : on actual footage that had
: : gone astray.
: : It was deemed a hoax. The film approached
: : it from the angle of 'could anyone hoax this autopsy?'
: :
: : The consensus was it shoulda got an Oscar, if it
: : was a hoax, cause it sure looked absolutely real.
: :
: : In the more current happening, the film
: : "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon",
: : an amount of footage got into the moon videos that wasn't
: : supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera
: : set up to make the Earth appear to be as far away
: : as possible (shooting Earth through the porthole from the
: : *opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights off.)
: : We get to see Armstrong himself (unless its a hoax and
: : someone used a stand-in double- YOU look at
: : the film and decide) as the lights come back on, adjusting the
: : camera. The other astronaut
: : is adjusting the tape that stretches across part
: : of the porthole that is making this shot look
: : like "Earthrise". The date on the tape is exactly when
: : they were supposed to be approaching the moon and
: : they are obviously still in low earth orbit.
: :
: : **********WAS********** it Armstrong?
: :
: : Watch that movie- it's easily available
: : on the web- if you're scared to,
: : it just means you have too much invested in
: : the fantasy.
: :
: : Warning, jumping ship earlier is better than later
: : when the ship is going down.
: : And this one is going down.
: :
: : John
: : Galaxy Model
: :
: : Every atom has at least ONE of you.
: : And me.
: :
: I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
: Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
:
: Point ends here.

: Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
complete
: and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
: But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
:
: One star, I rate this post, for it's terrible lack of civility and
: morals.
: Your point is right, but the thing above is not necessary nor is it
: good. You like to insult people -- HURT THEIR FEELINGS -- instead
: of simply refuting their argument. Their feelings do not need to be
: hurt, their argument just needs to be refuted.

**** 'em. I never claimed to be good, just logical.
You can't hurt my feelings, many try but I have the skin
of a rhinoceros and I'm not looking for stars from you,
the sky has more than I need.

I insult those that insult the intelligence of others, especially mine.

If Ian Parker or "malibu" want to swallow and spout hoax theories
they've heard of and latched onto then they are trying to hurt the
feelings of the kinfolk of those who dedicated (and lost) their lives
in the pursuit of science.

http://www.vibrationdata.com/space/deaths.htm

I'll kick their inconsiderate and stupid ****in' arses anytime.
Why the **** should I care about their films or your ratings?

Armstrong certainly blasted off.
And here he is with earthshine blasting in the
porthole.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/armstrong.jpg
Trouble is, he's supposed to be almost to the moon.
Plus the camera is supposed to be right in the window
in order to see Earth.
But, yeah, he went to space, and that's dangerous
and everything.
John

On Jul 9, 4:14 pm, malibu wrote:

[...]

But, yeah, he went to space, and that's dangerous
and everything.

Is that what the aliens tell you, John?

John

BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:38 am, John Boy wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
[...] I even have
a pathetic VGA cellphone camera with sufficienr DR for having recorded
Venus and that of our physically dark moon within the same FOV.
Shine a flashlight into the lens while you make the same picture. Venus
will not show up, providing the toy camera has exposure control. It will
shutter down to accomodate the flashlight image.

Silly Jewspeak. I see that incest cloning hasn't been exactly kind to
your family tree.

Your so-called range of exposure has to include the intent to gather
fine detail. We do no such thing with astro shots.

Ah, why do I bother with friggin genetically inferior white people like
your sorry ass, I'll never know but it stops here. You are a dead-end of
humanity.

"Sue..." wrote in news:1183976778.193784.197470
@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 9, 6:05 am, bz wrote:
BradGuth wrote

Ha! I am glad I am not the only one that transposes words.

"One argument by proponents of the Apollo-hoax theory is the lack of
stars
in photographs from the lunar surface. While the sunlit surface is
much too
bright to yeild properly exposed images showing stars in visible-
light
photographs, stars are easily visible in images taken using the
ultraviolet
camera carried to the Moon by Apollo 16. The stars seen behind the
Earth
can be identified on those images and interested readers can do so by
using
the Web." --William C. Keel
roups.com:

Souldn't that read

too bright to [properly -- yeild] exposed images )

See how well you can type at 4 am. I swear that the xnews editor sometimes
drops words and tronsposes thangs witch it souldn't do.

However, in the case above, I quoted the abstract.

the sentence says ...surface [is ... too bright to] yeild [properly exposed
images]....

The sentence seems to be correct as the object in question is 'properly
exposed images'.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Jul 9, 11:07 pm, bz wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in news:1183976778.193784.197470
@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:





On Jul 9, 6:05 am, bz wrote:
BradGuth wrote

Ha! I am glad I am not the only one that transposes words.

"One argument by proponents of the Apollo-hoax theory is the lack of
stars
in photographs from the lunar surface. While the sunlit surface is
much too
bright to yeild properly exposed images showing stars in visible-
light
photographs, stars are easily visible in images taken using the
ultraviolet
camera carried to the Moon by Apollo 16. The stars seen behind the
Earth
can be identified on those images and interested readers can do so by
using
the Web." --William C. Keel
roups.com:

Souldn't that read

too bright to [properly -- yeild] exposed images )

See how well you can type at 4 am. I swear that the xnews editor sometimes
drops words and tronsposes thangs witch it souldn't do.

However, in the case above, I quoted the abstract.

the sentence says ...surface [is ... too bright to] yeild [properly
exposed
images]....

The sentence seems to be correct as the object in question is 'properly
exposed images'.

I am taking a online course in ambidextrousness and your
quotation has my in inner and outer products and chirality
tests melting down the floating point engine. Is the ie in
yield swaped? Is yield and properly swapped?
Or are both terms properly swapped?
Does the mirror go bewteen the words and the path
integral gives some probability that Yield goes before
properly except when yeild begins in y or ends in ie.

I have exhaused all permutations to balance the left
with the right and am left here to only write and hear
what options are left to wright this obvious wrong.

How many "ie" can thier be in the word "probability"
unwriteable or unwrightable with a mirror?

Sue...

On Jul 9, 6:53 pm, Jew stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:38 am, John Boy wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
[...] I even have
a pathetic VGA cellphone camera with sufficienr DR for having recorded
Venus and that of our physically dark moon within the same FOV.
Shine a flashlight into the lens while you make the same picture. Venus
will not show up, providing the toy camera has exposure control. It will
shutter down to accomodate the flashlight image.

Silly Jewspeak. I see that incest cloning hasn't been exactly kind to
your family tree.

Your so-called range of exposure has to include the intent to gather
fine detail. We do no such thing with astro shots.

Ah, why do I bother with friggin genetically inferior white people like
your sorry ass, I'll never know but it stops here. You are a dead-end of
humanity.

Right, the truth about humanity (especially of the faith-based kind)
nearly always sucks, doesn't it.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 9, 12:07 pm, mike3 wrote:
On Jul 4, 6:38 pm, wrote:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

Here comes my response and critique.

***
"The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day,
for tomorrow, 21 June 2007:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the
daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.

NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be
visible."
***

Visible to the naked eye, perhaps, when not looking against the
dazzling
surface of the moon. When you have that in the shot, your camera needs
to be adjusted so the moon surface does not appear so dazzling, and
this therefore drowns the much fainter stars. Stars are brighter when
viewed in space, yes, but not so bright they can overshine the intense
reflection from the Sun (remember the Sun appears brighter too due to
the lack of atmosphere, further adding to the effect from the Moon's
already highly-reflective surface.). It would be silly to expose a
photo
where the Moon's surface looks like a solid white patch just so you
can
see the stars, when the whole point is to see the surface!

***
"Eric Hufschmid's Science Challenge asked if Apollo astronauts would
be able to see stars while they were on the moon:www.EricHufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html
And would astronauts see stars as they traveled to and from the moon?
Would astronauts in the space shuttle be able to see stars?

NASA has been claiming for decades that it is nearly impossible for
astronauts to see stars, but now the Astronomy Picture of the Day
admits that without an atmosphere, we would see stars even when the
sun was shining.

Have you seen the Apollo press conference when Neil Armstrong and Mike
Collins said they didn't see stars? The video is on this page:www.EricHufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html"
***

Yes! This is absolutely right. And the astronauts even admitted they
could
see the stars. This proves nothing at all. Once you realize the Moon
photos
were taken with a CAMERA...

Take a film camera, adjusted for taking pictures of the stars. Now try
and take
a picture of the ground in those settings, in broad daylight. Do you
see what
happens to it? Now try taking a picture of the stars with the camera
set up
to take pictures in daylight. Do you see them? Even on the Moon these
principles
still apply. The lack of stars in the photos simply tells us they had
their camera
set up to take a shot of the ground, not the stars...

An unfiltered Kodak eye always sees so much more of the available
spectrum than the human eye, especially more than the bigoted human
eye that's typically blinded by way of its own incest cultivated
arrogance, greed and orchestrated lies upon lies, along with evidence
excluding and subsequent butt loads of continual denial. It's exactly
what made their Zionist Hitler tick.
-
Brad Guth