On May 1, 1:28 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Disneygeek wrote:

I am saying what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been
reading your posts for quite some time and I've never seen any
verification or authentication of ANYTHING you've ever said. As near
as I can figure, your argument is that Venus was so breathtakingly
obvious, it should have shown up in the photos. Why? They weren't
there to take pictures of the sky. There was certainly no thought on
anyone's part that they were ever going to need verifiable proof that
they'd been there.

First off, you are such a born-again liar of the worst possible kind,
meaning worse than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

And do tell us again, as to how many thousand frames (including those
of movie film or video) were obtained, and tell us again as to why
exactly was it so unlikely to have to so easily failed to include the
relatively nearby and absolutely vibrant likes of Venus?

If you're going to continually lie your infowar and disinformation
spewing butt off, at least give us your best 3D interactive orbital
simulations, of those having at least shared one typical look-see per
hour, as of missions A11, A14 and A16 taking into account the planet
Venus, and don't forget those extremely clear and unobstructed FOVs
from orbit.
. - Brad Guth

I don't lie Brad. I could be wrong, so could you, but I don't lie.

Of the thousands of pictures they took, there's no indication that
they took any facing the sun. Venus, if it were in the FOV, would have
to, by nature of it's proximity to the sun, be close to the sun. If it
were at its closest approach to Earth, then it would have the "night
side" facing us (a "new" Venus, if you will). If it were in "full"
mode, it would have to be on the other side of the sun and thus much
further away and smaller.

Was Venus visible to the astronauts? I don't know, they had those gold
shields down when outside which probably cut the light quite a bit.

Would Venus have been visible on film? Again, I don't know, but you
would have to show me MORE than the fact that Venus was in their FOV.
You would have to show me that they'd taken a picture in the general
direction of Venus (ie, in the general direction of the sun) and it
wasn't where it should have been.

Again, with the 360 degrees ofmoonsurface to deal with, the
astronauts tended to shoot pictures facing AWAY from the sun, it's
basic photography.

Nice try, your playing dumb and dumber, that is.

That'd be you pretend-brainbox. Why would an astronaut on the Moon take a
picture towards the Sun (and Venus)? Have you ever used a camera?

BTW, why are we expected to believe anything contributed by a spook/
mole going by the name Disneygeek?
. - Brad Guth

You can't see the Ed Rhodes plainly displayed in his email address? Weird.

Shill #2
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God
who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect
has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

You silly spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo may need to
break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my
array of lose cannons.

On May 1, 11:15 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

You silly spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo may need to
break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my
array of lose cannons.

"spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo"? Bwahahahahaha!

"break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my array of
lose cannons"? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You crack me up. :-)

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

What took you so long?

Where are those supposed big guns of your objective proof-positive on
behalf of ALL things NASA/Apollo?

Are them big guns of your mainstream status quo merely loaded with
blanks?

So, you=3Fve still got nothing outside of your subjective NASA/Apollo
Old Testament Qur=3Fan that has fully scripted everything, so that you
folks can=3Ft even deductively think for yourselves.  Gee whiz, what a
silly surprise, much the same as going into your DARPA conspired gas
chambers instead of your DARPA gang conspired internment campus was
such a surprise to those of your own kind.  Why is that you folks of
the Semitic Third Reich kind think nothing much of killing off others
of your own kind?
. =3F Brad Guth

ROTFL. Indeed you are one powerful kook. POWERFUL Kook!

BDK

On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 1:28 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Disneygeek wrote:

I am saying what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been
reading your posts for quite some time and I've never seen any
verification or authentication of ANYTHING you've ever said. As near
as I can figure, your argument is that Venus was so breathtakingly
obvious, it should have shown up in the photos. Why? They weren't
there to take pictures of the sky. There was certainly no thought on
anyone's part that they were ever going to need verifiable proof that
they'd been there.

First off, you are such a born-again liar of the worst possible kind,
meaning worse than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

And do tell us again, as to how many thousand frames (including those
of movie film or video) were obtained, and tell us again as to why
exactly was it so unlikely to have to so easily failed to include the
relatively nearby and absolutely vibrant likes of Venus?

If you're going to continually lie your infowar and disinformation
spewing butt off, at least give us your best 3D interactive orbital
simulations, of those having at least shared one typical look-see per
hour, as of missions A11, A14 and A16 taking into account the planet
Venus, and don't forget those extremely clear and unobstructed FOVs
from orbit.
. - Brad Guth

I don't lie Brad. I could be wrong, so could you, but I don't lie.

Of the thousands of pictures they took, there's no indication that
they took any facing the sun. Venus, if it were in the FOV, would have
to, by nature of it's proximity to the sun, be close to the sun. If it
were at its closest approach to Earth, then it would have the "night
side" facing us (a "new" Venus, if you will). If it were in "full"
mode, it would have to be on the other side of the sun and thus much
further away and smaller.

Was Venus visible to the astronauts? I don't know, they had those gold
shields down when outside which probably cut the light quite a bit.

Would Venus have been visible on film? Again, I don't know, but you
would have to show me MORE than the fact that Venus was in their FOV.
You would have to show me that they'd taken a picture in the general
direction of Venus (ie, in the general direction of the sun) and it
wasn't where it should have been.

Again, with the 360 degrees ofmoonsurface to deal with, the
astronauts tended to shoot pictures facing AWAY from the sun, it's
basic photography.

Nice try, your playing dumb and dumber, that is.

That'd be you pretend-brainbox. Why would an astronaut on the Moon take a
picture towards the Sun (and Venus)? Have you ever used a camera?

BTW, why are we expected to believe anything contributed by a spook/
mole going by the name Disneygeek?
. - Brad Guth

You can't see the Ed Rhodes plainly displayed in his email address? Weird.

Shill #2
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God
who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect
has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

You silly spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo may need to
break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my
array of lose cannons.

"spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo"? Bwahahahahaha!

"break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my array of
lose cannons"? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You crack me up. :-)

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

On May 1, 12:43 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:25:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 11:15 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

You silly spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo may need to
break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my
array of lose cannons.

"spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo"? Bwahahahahaha!

"break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my array of
lose cannons"? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You crack me up. :-)

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

What took you so long?

Huh?

Where are those supposed big guns of your objective proof-positive on
behalf of ALL things NASA/Apollo?

Are them big guns of your mainstream status quo merely loaded with
blanks?

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the laughs.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

Ever notice how most all the spooks, moles and goons (aka MIB) doing
their usual pretend-atheist thing of covering their brown-nosed butts,
how these folks seem by way of their actions as though so entirely
faith-based Semitic and Third Reich at the same time.

I=3Fve said it before, that their Hitler would have loved this Google/
NOVA Usenet/Groups thing to death, as just another way of summarily
screwing humanity and that of traumatizing our frail environment for
all she=3Fs worth, and then some.
. =3F Brad Guth

On May 1, 12:43 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:25:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 11:15 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

You silly spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo may need to
break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my
array of lose cannons.

"spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo"? Bwahahahahaha!

"break out your big guns in order to fight the good fight against my array of
lose cannons"? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You crack me up. :-)

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

What took you so long?

Huh?

Where are those supposed big guns of your objective proof-positive on
behalf of ALL things NASA/Apollo?

Are them big guns of your mainstream status quo merely loaded with
blanks?

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the laughs.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

So, you=3Fve still got nothing outside of your subjective NASA/Apollo
Old Testament Qur=3Fan that has fully scripted everything, so that you
folks can=3Ft even deductively think for yourselves. Gee whiz, what a
silly surprise, much the same as going into your DARPA conspired gas
chambers instead of your DARPA gang conspired internment campus was
such a surprise to those of your own kind. Why is that you folks of
the Semitic Third Reich kind think nothing much of killing off others
of your own kind?
. =3F Brad Guth