On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective.  Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom  mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?
. - Brad Guth

A friend and I watched, in real time, video transmitted directly from
the antenna on the lunar rover during the Apollo 17 mission. My friend
was a ham operator, and he had a 12-foot parabolic dish in his back
yard; it was pointed directly at the moon. I contributed the video
expertise necessary to demodulate the signal. The image was very noisy,
but recognizable when we saw it some time later on a network broadcast.

In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...





On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
In article
8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

 BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:
The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective.  Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom  mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?

Don't know much about photography, do you?

Isaac

Are you Muslim, another pretend atheist, or just plain dumb and dumber
because of your incest mutated DNA?

Just answer my questions, or go to hell.  It's called 'put up or shut
up'.
. - Brad Guth

Hey Brad! Please, for us sane people who don't know, what exactly is a
"pretend atheist", and why would someone pretend to be one?

BDK
Ready to laugh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:



In article
8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:
The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?

Don't know much about photography, do you?

Isaac

Are you Muslim, another pretend atheist, or just plain dumb and dumber
because of your incest mutated DNA?

Just answer my questions, or go to hell. It's called 'put up or shut
up'.
. - Brad Guth

On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
In article
8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,



BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:
The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?

Don't know much about photography, do you?

Isaac

Are you Muslim, another pretend atheist, or just plain dumb and dumber
because of your incest mutated DNA?

Just answer my questions, or go to hell. It's called 'put up or shut
up'.
. - Brad Guth

In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...



On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
In article
8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:
The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?

Don't know much about photography, do you?

Isaac

Are you Muslim, another pretend atheist, or just plain dumb and dumber
because of your incest mutated DNA?

Just answer my questions, or go to hell. It's called 'put up or shut
up'.
. - Brad Guth

Hey Brad! Please, for us sane people who don't know, what exactly is a
"pretend atheist", and why would someone pretend to be one?

BDK
Ready to laugh.

On Feb 14, 7:48 am, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:



In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
In article
8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:
The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?

Don't know much about photography, do you?

Isaac

Are you Muslim, another pretend atheist, or just plain dumb and dumber
because of your incest mutated DNA?

Just answer my questions, or go to hell. It's called 'put up or shut
up'.
. - Brad Guth

Hey Brad! Please, for us sane people who don't know, what exactly is a
"pretend atheist", and why would someone pretend to be one?

BDK
Ready to laugh.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To the absolutly devout, you can't really believe there's no God so if
you say you're an atheist, you must be pretending.

Mind you, this is from a guy who thinks we should have gone to the
Moon to take pictures of Venus!

On Feb 13, 12:20 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?
. - Brad Guth

Well, since photographs are taken with the sun behind you, and since
Venus would be between the Earth/Moon and the Sun, then I'd have to
believe Venus is behind the photographer's shoulder.

And thus isn't going to show up in too many pictures.

On Feb 14, 3:12 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:





On Feb 13, 12:20 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective.  Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom  mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?
. - Brad Guth

Well, since photographs are taken with the sun behind you, and since
Venus would be between the Earth/Moon and the Sun, then I'd have to
believe Venus is behind the photographer's shoulder.

And thus isn't going to show up in too many pictures.

And you've got that fully interactive 3D orbital simulator backing
this analogy up, of Venus always being "behind the photographer's
shoulder" or otherwise nicely hidden out of any FOV?

How about sharing just one FOV/picture, from whatever EVA or how about
one Kodak moment as obtained from orbit that so happens to include any
part of our physically dark moon?
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

isw wrote:

A friend and I watched, in real time, video transmitted directly from
the antenna on the lunar rover during the Apollo 17 mission. My friend
was a ham operator, and he had a 12-foot parabolic dish in his back
yard; it was pointed directly at the moon. I contributed the video
expertise necessary to demodulate the signal. The image was very noisy,
but recognizable when we saw it some time later on a network broadcast.


That's a little fact that Moon hoax supporters will have trouble
with...why were the signals coming from the Moon?

On Feb 14, 2:10 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Feb 14, 3:12 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 13, 12:20 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?
. -BradGuth

Well, since photographs are taken with the sun behind you, and since
Venus would be between the Earth/Moon and the Sun, then I'd have to
believe Venus is behind the photographer's shoulder.

And thus isn't going to show up in too many pictures.

And you've got that fully interactive 3D orbital simulator backing
this analogy up, of Venus always being "behind the photographer's
shoulder" or otherwise nicely hidden out of any FOV?

How about sharing just one FOV/picture, from whatever EVA or how about
one Kodak moment as obtained from orbit that so happens to include any
part of our physically dark moon?
. -BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK OK I get it, an argument just for the sake of debate.
Well I don't mean to disturb you fellas. I am just here in search of
one of my old highschool teachers
by the name of Mr.guthi googled him and this is what i found so
excuse me for the interruption. If this is
my ole english teacher i would like to know if i can e-mail him.
judging from this BLOG i guess u call it
It sounds just like that teacher that nearly took my head off with an
english book. LOL LOL .
I wish to aknowledge one of the few cornerstones of my youth.

PPS
In the world that i live in where the thought of space travel is by no
stretch of the human imagination anything other than a waste of time,
money and intelligence.
We find that building a leveethat can keep us off the roof for 3 days
without water. Healthcare, higher pay for teachers.
not to mention a cure for something, AIDS, CANCER, or how about the
common cold. Something that actully matters might actually
be of value.
Then again what do we know. Most of us have to drop out of school
before we can
even spell the word degree, just to afford section 8 living.

SORRY TO BUTT INTO YALL CONVO.
GOD BLESS.

"YESTERDAY IS HISTORY TOMORROW IS A MYSTERY BUT NOW
IS A GIFT FROM GOD.
THAT'S WHY WE CALL IT "THE PRESENT".

In article <b2de17e0-175c-4ea7-80ec-ce347c68c385
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...



On Feb 14, 3:12 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:20 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?
. - Brad Guth

Well, since photographs are taken with the sun behind you, and since
Venus would be between the Earth/Moon and the Sun, then I'd have to
believe Venus is behind the photographer's shoulder.

And thus isn't going to show up in too many pictures.

And you've got that fully interactive 3D orbital simulator backing
this analogy up, of Venus always being "behind the photographer's
shoulder" or otherwise nicely hidden out of any FOV?

How about sharing just one FOV/picture, from whatever EVA or how about
one Kodak moment as obtained from orbit that so happens to include any
part of our physically dark moon?
. - Brad Guth

You mean that dark moon that's lit up really brightly a lot of the time?

BDK

In article <86348882-eadb-4d04-8254-15c7c6fa6a96
@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...



On Feb 14, 4:05 pm, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
In article <b2de17e0-175c-4ea7-80ec-ce347c68c385
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

On Feb 14, 3:12 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:20 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt <MattWri...@aol.com> wrote:

The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
to light.

If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.

I guess those off-world laws of physics and of peer replicated science
simply doesn't count.

BTW, where the heck was Venus hiding from those unfiltered Kodak
moments?
. - Brad Guth

Well, since photographs are taken with the sun behind you, and since
Venus would be between the Earth/Moon and the Sun, then I'd have to
believe Venus is behind the photographer's shoulder.

And thus isn't going to show up in too many pictures.

And you've got that fully interactive 3D orbital simulator backing
this analogy up, of Venus always being "behind the photographer's
shoulder" or otherwise nicely hidden out of any FOV?

How about sharing just one FOV/picture, from whatever EVA or how about
one Kodak moment as obtained from orbit that so happens to include any
part of our physically dark moon?
. - Brad Guth

You mean that dark moon that's lit up really brightly a lot of the time?

BDK

That's it, as rather similar to what an open pit coal mine might look,
along with its mostly basalt surface with extra deposit minerals of
titanium, iron, sodium (from within), possibly thorium and otherwise
all very much dusty soot like dark as hell on average, pretty much
exactly as the average 0.11 albedo specifies, and as having been peer
replicated as being such a coal like dark moon.

If any significant portion of that moon was NASA/Apollo albedo worthy
of 0.75, as such we'd be blinded by the light of that moonshine
(having to wear our shades by night).
. - Brad Guth

Uh huh. Guthball, you're a trip, that's for sure.

BDK

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:26:31 -0500, in a place far, far away, BDK
B...@magicsteel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Uh huh. Guthball, you're a trip, that's for sure.

He is insane. Stop feeding the troll, please.