On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek  wrote:
> On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  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.

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

In article <eb8d345b-bd0d-4ef5-a062-
f7d3bcac0f6b@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradguth@gmail.com says...
> On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek  wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  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.
> 
> BTW, why are we expected to believe anything contributed by a spook/
> mole going by the name Disneygeek?
> . - Brad Guth
> 

Your madness knows no bounds, does it? At least you didn't mention 
Jews/Semites this time.

BDK

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:

>On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek  wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  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

On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:

>On May 1, 1:28 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
>> >On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek  wrote:
>> >> On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  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 Thu, 1 May 2008 11:25:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:

>On May 1, 11:15 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  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

In article , 
gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
> 
> >On May 1, 1:28 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
> >> >On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek  wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  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
> 

He's not known as "Guthball" for nothing.

BDK

In article <3ea9e661-ebd1-4c07-91d1-796943ee7004
@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, bradguth@gmail.com says...
> On May 1, 12:43 pm, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:25:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
> > >On May 1, 11:15 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  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
> 

Oh the Guthballery!!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

BDK

In article <d7988c45-bc4e-4ac2-9884-
d89662579d4d@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradguth@gmail.com says...
> On May 1, 12:43 pm, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:25:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
> > >On May 1, 11:15 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  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
> 

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

BDK

In article <5899040c-9793-453a-b486-d88391cc3da0@
26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, edrhodes@hotmail.com says...
> 
> > > 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
> 
> I'm still reading the thread, even though I've given up on trying to
> actually communicate with him.
> 
> Reading Brad's stuff, I can't help but think of Ford Prefect's line to
> Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; "Zaphod, I
> wish I had heads like yours. I'd have endless fun bashing them into
> walls!"
> 

I sometimes wondered if head trauma was involved.

Then I think it must be drugs, then I think, maybe it's a tumor.

So much Guthballery, so many possibilities.

BDK

On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:44:16 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:

>So, you’ve still got nothing outside of your subjective NASA/Apollo
>Old Testament Qur’an that has fully scripted everything, so that you
>folks can’t 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?
>. – Brad Guth

Whoever is running "Brad" needs to change those typewriting monkeys for a new
batch. These ones are getting lazy. English words. Crap syntax, C'mon guys. How
can we rope people into these conspiracies if the conspiracists don't look sane?

Shill #2
--
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
European Division

On Thu, 1 May 2008 23:39:18 -0400, BDK  wrote:

>In article , 
>gov.shill@gmail.com says...
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
>> 
>> >On May 1, 1:28 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek  wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  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
>> 
>
>He's not known as "Guthball" for nothing.
>
>BDK

I wonder if he talks like that in real life. Imagine the shop assistants face
when he asks for aluminum foil to make a beanie, if the request is anything like
what he posts here.

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

In article , 
gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 23:39:18 -0400, BDK  wrote:
> 
> >In article , 
> >gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On May 1, 1:28 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek  wrote:
> >> >> >> On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  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
> >> 
> >
> >He's not known as "Guthball" for nothing.
> >
> >BDK
> 
> I wonder if he talks like that in real life. Imagine the shop assistants face
> when he asks for aluminum foil to make a beanie, if the request is anything like
> what he posts here.
> 
> Shill #2
> --
> Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
>  theobviousgcashman
> 

I wonder how many people just talk to him on an elevator for a few 
seconds or so get sucked into a whole lot of Guthball gilling about if 
they are "semitic brown nosers", or "pretend atheists"? I would love to 
see their faces react to his ravings..

BDK

In article <bed26886-ca42-4478-9d23-fef4742328c4@
1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, bradguth@gmail.com says...
> On May 2, 12:04 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 May 2008 23:39:18 -0400, BDK  wrote:
> > >In article ,
> > >gov.sh...@gmail.com says...
> > >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
> >
> > >> >On May 1, 1:28 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
> > >> >> >On Apr 2, 2:18 am, Disneygeek  wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Apr 1, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  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
> >
> > >He's not known as "Guthball" for nothing.
> >
> > >BDK
> >
> > I wonder if he talks like that in real life. Imagine the shop assistants face
> > when he asks for aluminum foil to make a beanie, if the request is anything like
> > what he posts here.
> >
> > Shill #2
> > --
> > Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
> >  theobviousgcashman
> 
> Do all Zionist Jews of a global domination feather have their very own
> DARPA certified "loon go round"?
> . - Brad Guth
> 

Why do you imagine everyone who thinks you're a loon is a "zionist jew"?


There are a whole bunch of us who aren't, and do..



Darpa! Darpa! Darpa!

See the amazing Guthball! 

He rants, he raves, he pontificates! 

Read his amazing kookpages!

Laugh at his Venus theories! 

You'll be shocked! 

You'll be mesmerized!

How does this the man stay loose folks?

Come one, come all, bring junior, bring grandma too!

See the amazing, the one and only Brad Guth! 

Known the world over as the famous GUTHBALL!

DARPA! DARPA! DARPA!!

BDK

On Sat, 3 May 2008 11:36:05 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:

>Do all Zionist Jews of a global domination feather have their very own
>DARPA certified "loon go round"?
>. - Brad Guth

Babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble their very own
DARPA babble babble "babble babble babble "?

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

In article , 
gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 11:36:05 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth  wrote:
> 
> >Do all Zionist Jews of a global domination feather have their very own
> >DARPA certified "loon go round"?
> >. - Brad Guth
> 
> Babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble their very own
> DARPA babble babble "babble babble babble "?
> 
> Shill #2
> --
> Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
>  theobviousgcashman
> 

The funniest thing is that he seems to get upset when sane people really 
don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

He should have been used to it a long long time ago..on a planet far 
away..

BDK