I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
landings were fake?

the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
hitler still alive story)
this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
could have held them back from pushing this story?

thx

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:23:29 -0700 (PDT), got1tiel 
wrote:

>I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
>whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
>landings were fake?

Because the Soviets were smart enough to know that they wouldn't
convince anybody that mattered. You don't need but half a brain to see
that the idea is nonsense. They would have to completely fabricate their
own data, but the real data was readily available to the entire free
world. What _actual_ "controversial footage" could they have used?
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"got1tiel"  wrote in message...
news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> landings were fake?
>
> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> hitler still alive story)
> this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> thx

T H A N K   Y O U !

(No matter what other data is debated by either side
of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
milli-minute!)

happy days and...
   starry starry nights!

-- 
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
                 http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
                          http://painellsworth.net

It seems them dirty rotten Russians were part of the same mutually
perpetrated cold-war tango, and for essentially the exact same reasons
none the less.  If they'd blown our cover, guess what would have
happened to their cover?

 ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG


got1tiel wrote:
> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> landings were fake?
>
> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> hitler still alive story)
> this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> thx

On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> "got1tiel"  wrote in message...
>
> news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> > landings were fake?
>
> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> > hitler still alive story)
> > this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> > since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> > thx
>
> T H A N K   Y O U !
>
> (No matter what other data is debated by either side
> of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
> the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
> Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
> milli-minute!)
>
> happy days and...
>    starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S.:  Thank *YOU* for reading!
>
> P.P.S.:  http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
>                  http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
>                          http://painellsworth.net

You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
war perpetrating butts off.

Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)

  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

"BradGuth"  wrote in message...
news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964dddf20@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
>> "got1tiel"  wrote in message...
>> news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
>> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
>> > landings were fake?
>>
>> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
>> > hitler still alive story)
>> > this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
>> > since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
>> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>>
>> > thx
>>
>> T H A N K   Y O U !
>>
>> (No matter what other data is debated by either side
>> of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
>> the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
>> Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
>> milli-minute!)

And Chairman Mao (Tse Tung) would have seen
to it that the US suffer ancient Chinese torture if
he'd gotten wind of such an impossibly intricate
conspiracy to fake a manned Moon landing.

> You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> war perpetrating butts off.
>
> Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)

Brad, on this issue you may talk till you're blue in
the face.  There is no way around the Russia code.
Russia had been first in just about e'erthing until
that day in '69 when we beat 'em to the Moon.
And they would have been all over a conspiracy
like stink on shit!

Yet, not a word from Russia or China.  And at the
time, the US was on both their shit litses.  No way,
man,  N O   W A Y  would they have kept shutup
about the US pullin' a fast one.  No effin' way!

happy days and...
   starry starry nights!

-- 
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
                 http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
                          http://painellsworth.net

The Russians got the cushy grain deals from us they wanted.  They 
blackmailed us.

"got1tiel"  wrote in message 
news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> landings were fake?
>
> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> hitler still alive story)
> this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> thx

On Sep 18, 5:16 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
>
> news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964dddf20@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> "got1tiel"  wrote in message...
> >>news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> >> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> >> > landings were fake?
>
> >> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >> > hitler still alive story)
> >> > this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> >> > since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> >> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> >> > thx
>
> >> T H A N K   Y O U !
>
> >> (No matter what other data is debated by either side
> >> of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
> >> the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
> >> Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
> >> milli-minute!)
>
> And Chairman Mao (Tse Tung) would have seen
> to it that the US suffer ancient Chinese torture if
> he'd gotten wind of such an impossibly intricate
> conspiracy to fake a manned Moon landing.
>
> > You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> > faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> > war perpetrating butts off.
>
> > Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)
>
> Brad, on this issue you may talk till you're blue in
> the face.  There is no way around the Russia code.
> Russia had been first in just about e'erthing until
> that day in '69 when we beat 'em to the Moon.
> And they would have been all over a conspiracy
> like stink on shit!
>
> Yet, not a word from Russia or China.  And at the
> time, the US was on both their shit litses.  No way,
> man,  N O   W A Y  would they have kept shutup
> about the US pullin' a fast one.  No effin' way!
>
> happy days and...
>    starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S.:  Thank *YOU* for reading!
>
> P.P.S.:  http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
>                  http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
>                          http://painellsworth.net

It still takes two to tango, doesn't it?

The cold-war was artificial and otherwise mutually perpetrated, as in
no doubt about it.

There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.

Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
or not?

 ~ BG

On Sep 19, 4:23 am, BradGuth  wrote:
>
> There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
> still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>
> Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
> or not?
>
>  ~ BG

Dear Mr Gush

I am building a spaceship in the back garden to take all the doubters
to the Apollo landing site.

The free tickets are strictly one way.

Return tickets will involve organ removal.

Just to ensure you are taken permanently out of the gene pool.

I'm sure we can manage a bit of microsurgery in your case. ;-

In article ,
BradGuth   wrote:

>You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
>faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
>war perpetrating butts off.

No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
it obvious nonsense.

-- Richard
-- 
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

If I had a choice in what was posted in this very fine group,  I'd
definitely go for dead silence rather than this
crossposting-with-alt.conspiracy-nonsense-kind-of-thing.

"got1tiel"  wrote in message 
news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> landings were fake?
>
> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> hitler still alive story)
> this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> thx

Gee, could it be because we actually DID go to the Moon ....
The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...

got1tiel schreef:
> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> landings were fake?
> 
> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> hitler still alive story)
> this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> could have held them back from pushing this story?
> 
> thx

nothing,they were killing us soldiers in vietnam that same year in 
vietnam,they would also blow this pr stunt for the us..

and why would the us stop with the fake moon landings i question myself.
they could 'build' bases on the 'moon' or land on 'mars' with ease...
think of the propaganda !
WHY didn't they do that?
well,simple ofcourse,the landings were real and did cost a fortune..

"BradGuth"  wrote in message...
news:ff6c299f-57c9-4ca9-8af6-8d467a8a89dd@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 18, 5:16 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
>> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
>> news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964dddf20@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
>> >> "got1tiel"  wrote in message...
>> >>news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
>> >> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>> >> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that 
>> >> > the
>> >> > landings were fake?
>>
>> >> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
>> >> > hitler still alive story)
>> >> > this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
>> >> > since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
>> >> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>>
>> >> > thx
>>
>> >> T H A N K   Y O U !
>>
>> >> (No matter what other data is debated by either side
>> >> of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
>> >> the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
>> >> Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
>> >> milli-minute!)
>>
>> And Chairman Mao (Tse Tung) would have seen
>> to it that the US suffer ancient Chinese torture if
>> he'd gotten wind of such an impossibly intricate
>> conspiracy to fake a manned Moon landing.
>>
>> > You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
>> > faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
>> > war perpetrating butts off.
>>
>> > Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)
>>
>> Brad, on this issue you may talk till you're blue in
>> the face.  There is no way around the Russia code.
>> Russia had been first in just about e'erthing until
>> that day in '69 when we beat 'em to the Moon.
>> And they would have been all over a conspiracy
>> like stink on shit!
>>
>> Yet, not a word from Russia or China.  And at the
>> time, the US was on both their shit litses.  No way,
>> man,  N O   W A Y  would they have kept shutup
>> about the US pullin' a fast one.  No effin' way!
>
> It still takes two to tango, doesn't it?
>
> The cold-war was artificial and otherwise mutually perpetrated, as in
> no doubt about it.
>
> There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
> still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>
> Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
> or not?

What i care about is the present-day resistance
to returning to the Moon.  We should have had a
few bases on the Moon by now for several uses.
The fact is that in 1961 John F. Kennedy *dared*
science to put a man on the Moon "by the end of
the decade".  And science busted balls to do so,
and succeeded.  The fact is that luck had a lot to
do with it.  There were several points in the first
mission when our astronauts could have been
lost.  It is no secret that their success was mainly
due to their ability to meet the challenge.  And
while the massive training had a lot to do with
that, it was moreso the astronauts' ingenuity that
kept them alive and brought them back to Earth
safely.

The ensuing Apollo missions to the Moon were
better, but there was still a lot of luck involved.
And now the scientists and engineers look back
on that, and they seem to feel that they have to
nitpick every little piece of "luck" out of the
equation.  So we have to wait until they have
everything down perfect so that nothing is left
to luck.  And that could mean a long wait.

As much as i do respect NASA, those people do
need to grow some hair on their balls!  They'll
never get it perfect, and there'll always be the
risk. The neo-NASA people have to learn to live
with that.

Or we'll NEVER make it back to the Moon, let
alone to Mars or Venus.

I care about exploration, Brad.  And when such
endeavor is squelched by anything, to include
dipsticks with silly conspiracy ideas, then i have
to admit that it pisses me off.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the
Moon. Their mission was the first of six and they
were the first two of 12 men in all who landed
and who walked on the Moon.  Three brave men
gave their lives for this mission, Gus Grissom,
Ed White and Roger Chaffee.  And three others,
James A. Lovell, John L. "Jack" Swigert and Fred
W. Haise were almost lost during the Apollo 13
explosion in space.  Apollo missions 11, 12, 14,
15, 16 and 17 landed on and explored our sister
planet Selene.

Live with it.  Enjoy it.  Celebrate it.  And use it
to put a burr under NASA's butt!

happy days and...
   starry starry nights!

-- 
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
                 http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
                          http://painellsworth.net

"Hagar"  wrote in message...
news:qPadnXi_YokOME7VnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com...
> "got1tiel"  wrote in message 
> news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
>> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>> soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
>> landings were fake?
>>
>> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
>> hitler still alive story)
>> this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
>> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
>> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>>
>> thx
>
> Gee, could it be because we actually DID go to the Moon ....
> The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
> Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...

Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
It's not a "correction" but just a clarification.  There
were 7 manned missions to the Moon.  Six of them
actually got there and landed, Apollos 11, 12, 14,
15, 16 and 17.  Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
space and had to return without making it to the
Moon.  It is a credit to the program that even after
the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, four more missions
still went to the Moon and explored our sister planet!

The only question is, WTF is holding the neo-NASA
program back now?  Don't say "funding", because if
they pushed hard enough, the money would come.
I think they need to grow some hair on their balls!

happy days and...
   starry starry nights!

-- 
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
                 http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
                          http://painellsworth.net

"Painius"  wrote in message 
news:7ZQAk.227922$102.16295@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Hagar"  wrote in message...
> news:qPadnXi_YokOME7VnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "got1tiel"  wrote in message 
>> news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> snip<

> Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
> It's not a "correction" but just a clarification.  There
> were 7 manned missions to the Moon.  Six of them
> actually got there and landed, Apollos 11, 12, 14,
> 15, 16 and 17.  Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
> space and had to return without making it to the
> Moon.  It is a credit to the program that even after
> the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, four more missions
> still went to the Moon and explored our sister planet!
>
> The only question is, WTF is holding the neo-NASA
> program back now?  Don't say "funding", because if
> they pushed hard enough, the money would come.
> I think they need to grow some hair on their balls!

It is Funding.  The average American is not overly excited
about financing two wars, which have been going on for
way too long and draining our piggy bank, paying scalping
prices for oil, while watching the US Dollar go to hell in a
hand basket.  The funding for any space exploration would
have to be voted on, and right now the masses would regard
any such thing as pork. Sad, but true.  We really should stop
being the world's top cop and regain our supremacy in the
exploration of space, which is slowly slipping from our grip.

On Sep 19, 1:15 am, "Chris.B"  wrote:
> On Sep 19, 4:23 am, BradGuth  wrote:
>
>
>
> > There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
> > still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>
> > Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
> > or not?
>
> >  ~ BG
>
> Dear Mr Gush (Guth)
>
> I am building a spaceship in the back garden to take all the doubters
> to the Apollo landing site.
>
> The free tickets are strictly one way.
>
> Return tickets will involve organ removal.
>
> Just to ensure you are taken permanently out of the gene pool.
>
> I'm sure we can manage a bit of microsurgery in your case. ;-

And still you've got nothing objective to report on behalf of your
DARPA Apollo fiasco.

It still takes two to tango, and a cold-war tango we did.

 ~ BG

On Sep 19, 9:19 am, "Painius"  wrote:
> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
>
> news:ff6c299f-57c9-4ca9-8af6-8d467a8a89dd@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 5:16 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
> >>news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964dddf20@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> >> "got1tiel"  wrote in message...
> >> >>news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> >> >> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >> >> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > landings were fake?
>
> >> >> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >> >> > hitler still alive story)
> >> >> > this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> >> >> > since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> >> >> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> >> >> > thx
>
> >> >> T H A N K   Y O U !
>
> >> >> (No matter what other data is debated by either side
> >> >> of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
> >> >> the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
> >> >> Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
> >> >> milli-minute!)
>
> >> And Chairman Mao (Tse Tung) would have seen
> >> to it that the US suffer ancient Chinese torture if
> >> he'd gotten wind of such an impossibly intricate
> >> conspiracy to fake a manned Moon landing.
>
> >> > You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> >> > faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> >> > war perpetrating butts off.
>
> >> > Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)
>
> >> Brad, on this issue you may talk till you're blue in
> >> the face.  There is no way around the Russia code.
> >> Russia had been first in just about e'erthing until
> >> that day in '69 when we beat 'em to the Moon.
> >> And they would have been all over a conspiracy
> >> like stink on shit!
>
> >> Yet, not a word from Russia or China.  And at the
> >> time, the US was on both their shit litses.  No way,
> >> man,  N O   W A Y  would they have kept shutup
> >> about the US pullin' a fast one.  No effin' way!
>
> > It still takes two to tango, doesn't it?
>
> > The cold-war was artificial and otherwise mutually perpetrated, as in
> > no doubt about it.
>
> > There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
> > still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>
> > Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
> > or not?
>
> What i care about is the present-day resistance
> to returning to the Moon.  We should have had a
> few bases on the Moon by now for several uses.
> The fact is that in 1961 John F. Kennedy *dared*
> science to put a man on the Moon "by the end of
> the decade".  And science busted balls to do so,
> and succeeded.  The fact is that luck had a lot to
> do with it.  There were several points in the first
> mission when our astronauts could have been
> lost.  It is no secret that their success was mainly
> due to their ability to meet the challenge.  And
> while the massive training had a lot to do with
> that, it was moreso the astronauts' ingenuity that
> kept them alive and brought them back to Earth
> safely.
>
> The ensuing Apollo missions to the Moon were
> better, but there was still a lot of luck involved.
> And now the scientists and engineers look back
> on that, and they seem to feel that they have to
> nitpick every little piece of "luck" out of the
> equation.  So we have to wait until they have
> everything down perfect so that nothing is left
> to luck.  And that could mean a long wait.
>
> As much as i do respect NASA, those people do
> need to grow some hair on their balls!  They'll
> never get it perfect, and there'll always be the
> risk. The neo-NASA people have to learn to live
> with that.
>
> Or we'll NEVER make it back to the Moon, let
> alone to Mars or Venus.
>
> I care about exploration, Brad.  And when such
> endeavor is squelched by anything, to include
> dipsticks with silly conspiracy ideas, then i have
> to admit that it pisses me off.
>
> Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the
> Moon. Their mission was the first of six and they
> were the first two of 12 men in all who landed
> and who walked on the Moon.  Three brave men
> gave their lives for this mission, Gus Grissom,
> Ed White and Roger Chaffee.  And three others,
> James A. Lovell, John L. "Jack" Swigert and Fred
> W. Haise were almost lost during the Apollo 13
> explosion in space.  Apollo missions 11, 12, 14,
> 15, 16 and 17 landed on and explored our sister
> planet Selene.
>
> Live with it.  Enjoy it.  Celebrate it.  And use it
> to put a burr under NASA's butt!
>
> happy days and...
>    starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S.:  Thank *YOU* for reading!
>
> P.P.S.:  http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
>                  http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
>                          http://painellsworth.net

Isn't denial a wonderful thing, especially when having to live a lie
such as our DARPA Apollo fiasco.  Why exactly is it that you can't
even put 2 and 2 together, and come up with 4 each and every time?

 ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

On Sep 19, 6:30 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> In article ,
>
> BradGuth   wrote:
> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> >war perpetrating butts off.
>
> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
> it obvious nonsense.

Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
nonsense"?

 ~ BG

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth 
wrote:

>On Sep 19, 6:30 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>> In article ,
>>
>> BradGuth   wrote:
>> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
>> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
>> >war perpetrating butts off.
>>
>> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
>> it obvious nonsense.
>
>Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
>nonsense"?
>
> ~ BG

Only when interpreted by you ~ BG. You take science, run it through your
internal processor and out comes "babble babble babble bable..."

--
Shill #2

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates
what he hears into something he can understand. 
 Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

On Sep 19, 11:30 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth 
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 19, 6:30 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> >> In article ,
>
> >> BradGuth   wrote:
> >> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> >> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> >> >war perpetrating butts off.
>
> >> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
> >> it obvious nonsense.
>
> >Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
> >nonsense"?
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Only when interpreted by you ~ BG. You take science, run it through your
> internal processor and out comes "babble babble babble bable..."
>
> --
> Shill #2
>
> A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
> never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates
> what he hears into something he can understand.
>  Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

How many tens of thousands of USSR government, military and civil
service jobs plus whatever employed and/or retirement benefits were on
the line at the end of WWII?

Same question applied to the American side or point of view.

 ~ BG

On Sep 19, 7:14 am, stefan <bng> wrote:
> got1tiel schreef:
>
> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> > landings were fake?
>
> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> > hitler still alive story)
> > this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> > since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> > thx
>
> nothing,they were killing us soldiers in vietnam that same year in
> vietnam,they would also blow this pr stunt for the us..
>
> and why would the us stop with the fake moon landings i question myself.
> they could 'build' bases on the 'moon' or land on 'mars' with ease...
> think of the propaganda !
> WHY didn't they do that?
> well,simple of course,the landings were real and did cost a fortune..

Now you're saying that the old USSR and Russia of today doesn't tell,
fabricate and/or otherwise go along with lies?  (especially of those
which directly benefit their existence?)

You've got to be kidding, but clearly you are not.  Go figure.

 ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:41:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth 
wrote:

>On Sep 19, 11:30 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 19, 6:30 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>> >> In article ,
>>
>> >> BradGuth   wrote:
>> >> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
>> >> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
>> >> >war perpetrating butts off.
>>
>> >> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
>> >> it obvious nonsense.
>>
>> >Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
>> >nonsense"?
>>
>> > ~ BG
>>
>> Only when interpreted by you ~ BG. You take science, run it through your
>> internal processor and out comes "babble babble babble bable..."
>>
>
>How many tens of thousands of USSR government, military and civil
>service jobs plus whatever employed and/or retirement benefits were on
>the line at the end of WWII?

Huh? See ~ BG? This is what I mean about the incomprehensibility of your
posts. One post you are talking about physics, the next you are waffling
about the USSR and WWII. I am not as crazy as you. These disparate items do
not appear to go together. I'm sure that with the extra voices you have
going in your head this conversation is seamless, but us sane people are
missing half (or more) of your conversation.


>Same question applied to the American side or point of view.

I'm sure it does... What do your other voices tell you is the answer?

--
Shill #2

Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
 theobviousgcashman

On Sep 19, 11:49 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:41:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 19, 11:30 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth 
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sep 19, 6:30 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> >> >> In article ,
>
> >> >> BradGuth   wrote:
> >> >> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> >> >> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> >> >> >war perpetrating butts off.
>
> >> >> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
> >> >> it obvious nonsense.
>
> >> >Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
> >> >nonsense"?
>
> >> > ~ BG
>
> >> Only when interpreted by you ~ BG. You take science, run it through your
> >> internal processor and out comes "babble babble babble bable..."
>
> >How many tens of thousands of USSR government, military and civil
> >service jobs plus whatever employed and/or retirement benefits were on
> >the line at the end of WWII?
>
> Huh? See ~ BG? This is what I mean about the incomprehensibility of your
> posts. One post you are talking about physics, the next you are waffling
> about the USSR and WWII. I am not as crazy as you. These disparate items do
> not appear to go together. I'm sure that with the extra voices you have
> going in your head this conversation is seamless, but us sane people are
> missing half (or more) of your conversation.
>
> >Same question applied to the American side or point of view.
>
> I'm sure it does... What do your other voices tell you is the answer?
>
> --
> Shill #2
>
> Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
>  theobviousgcashman

Evidence exclusion and perpetual denial has been mainstream status quo
for centuries, if not thousands of years.  How many thousand
documented examples of government and faith-based lies upon lies and
of subsequent consequences would you like to ponder?

 ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

"BradGuth"  wrote in message...
news:1d04fda0-dbcc-4f75-ab3e-2d1e10def3f8@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 19, 9:19 am, "Painius"  wrote:
>> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
>> news:ff6c299f-57c9-4ca9-8af6-8d467a8a89dd@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Sep 18, 5:16 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
>> >> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
>> >>news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964dddf20@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
>> >> >> "got1tiel"  wrote in message...
>> >> >>news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking 
>> >> >> > myself,
>> >> >> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>> >> >> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story 
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > landings were fake?
>>
>> >> >> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
>> >> >> > hitler still alive story)
>> >> >> > this  would have been a great propaganda victory for 
>> >> >> > them,especially
>> >> >> > since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. 
>> >> >> > what
>> >> >> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>>
>> >> >> > thx
>>
>> >> >> T H A N K   Y O U !
>>
>> >> >> (No matter what other data is debated by either side
>> >> >> of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
>> >> >> the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
>> >> >> Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
>> >> >> milli-minute!)
>>
>> >> And Chairman Mao (Tse Tung) would have seen
>> >> to it that the US suffer ancient Chinese torture if
>> >> he'd gotten wind of such an impossibly intricate
>> >> conspiracy to fake a manned Moon landing.
>>
>> >> > You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
>> >> > faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
>> >> > war perpetrating butts off.
>>
>> >> > Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)
>>
>> >> Brad, on this issue you may talk till you're blue in
>> >> the face.  There is no way around the Russia code.
>> >> Russia had been first in just about e'erthing until
>> >> that day in '69 when we beat 'em to the Moon.
>> >> And they would have been all over a conspiracy
>> >> like stink on shit!
>>
>> >> Yet, not a word from Russia or China.  And at the
>> >> time, the US was on both their shit litses.  No way,
>> >> man,  N O   W A Y  would they have kept shutup
>> >> about the US pullin' a fast one.  No effin' way!
>>
>> > It still takes two to tango, doesn't it?
>>
>> > The cold-war was artificial and otherwise mutually perpetrated, as in
>> > no doubt about it.
>>
>> > There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
>> > still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>>
>> > Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing,
>> > or not?
>>
>> What i care about is the present-day resistance
>> to returning to the Moon.  We should have had a
>> few bases on the Moon by now for several uses.
>> The fact is that in 1961 John F. Kennedy *dared*
>> science to put a man on the Moon "by the end of
>> the decade".  And science busted balls to do so,
>> and succeeded.  The fact is that luck had a lot to
>> do with it.  There were several points in the first
>> mission when our astronauts could have been
>> lost.  It is no secret that their success was mainly
>> due to their ability to meet the challenge.  And
>> while the massive training had a lot to do with
>> that, it was moreso the astronauts' ingenuity that
>> kept them alive and brought them back to Earth
>> safely.
>>
>> The ensuing Apollo missions to the Moon were
>> better, but there was still a lot of luck involved.
>> And now the scientists and engineers look back
>> on that, and they seem to feel that they have to
>> nitpick every little piece of "luck" out of the
>> equation.  So we have to wait until they have
>> everything down perfect so that nothing is left
>> to luck.  And that could mean a long wait.
>>
>> As much as i do respect NASA, those people do
>> need to grow some hair on their balls!  They'll
>> never get it perfect, and there'll always be the
>> risk. The neo-NASA people have to learn to live
>> with that.
>>
>> Or we'll NEVER make it back to the Moon, let
>> alone to Mars or Venus.
>>
>> I care about exploration, Brad.  And when such
>> endeavor is squelched by anything, to include
>> dipsticks with silly conspiracy ideas, then i have
>> to admit that it pisses me off.
>>
>> Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the
>> Moon. Their mission was the first of six and they
>> were the first two of 12 men in all who landed
>> and who walked on the Moon.  Three brave men
>> gave their lives for this mission, Gus Grissom,
>> Ed White and Roger Chaffee.  And three others,
>> James A. Lovell, John L. "Jack" Swigert and Fred
>> W. Haise were almost lost during the Apollo 13
>> explosion in space.  Apollo missions 11, 12, 14,
>> 15, 16 and 17 landed on and explored our sister
>> planet Selene.
>>
>> Live with it.  Enjoy it.  Celebrate it.  And use it
>> to put a burr under NASA's butt!
>
> Isn't denial a wonderful thing, especially when having to live a lie
> such as our DARPA Apollo fiasco.  Why exactly is it that you can't
> even put 2 and 2 together, and come up with 4 each and every time?
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG


Right back atcha, Brad, you master of irony!  It isn't
denial when you support a historical event.  It *is*
denial when you *deny* the event happened.  Irony
just drips from your fingers onto your keyboard, my
friend.

And sorry, but 2 + 2 does not always equal 4.  2
apples plus 2 oranges does *not* equal 4 aploranges.
And 2 wabbits plus 2 wabbits usually equals a WHOLE
LOT MORE THAN 4 wabbits!

I get a knot in my stomach whenever i have to accept
that ANYBODY would seriously belittle the single most
and greatest exploratory event that human beings
have ever achieved in our entire history!

It's as if the discovery of America is DENIED. You may
as well deny that there are science labs in Antarctica.
Go ahead and deny that chimps can talk with their li'l
hands.  You might as well completely disregard that
the computer in front of you is a great technological
feat of quantum mechanics.  I don't know, Brad... do
you even think it's possible to climax during sex??!!  <g>

As much as i've grown to like you and some of your
ideas, i have to acknowledge that anybody who denies
the great triumph of THE only time men have ever set
foot on another celestial body does not appear to have
even two brain cells to rub together.  Rethink it, bud!

happy days and...
   starry starry nights!

-- 
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
                 http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
                          http://painellsworth.net

On 19 Sep, 18:05, "Painius"  wrote:
> "Hagar"  wrote in message...
>
> news:qPadnXi_YokOME7VnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > "got1tiel"  wrote in message
> >news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> >> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >> soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> >> landings were fake?
>
> >> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >> hitler still alive story)
> >> this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> >> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> >> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> >> thx
>
> > Gee, could it be because we actually DID go to the Moon ....
> > The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
> > Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...
>
> Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
> It's not a "correction" but just a clarification.  There
> were 7 manned missions to the Moon.
There will never be any more manned missions to the moon; they will be
crewed or staffed.

What is the terminology used in the business?

> Six of them
> actually got there and landed, Apollos 11, 12, 14,
> 15, 16 and 17.  Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
> space and had to return without making it to the
> Moon.  It is a credit to the program that even after
> the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, four more missions
> still went to the Moon and explored our sister planet!
>
> The only question is, WTF is holding the neo-NASA
> program back now?  Don't say "funding", because if
> they pushed hard enough, the money would come.
> I think they need to grow some hair on their balls!
>
> happy days and...
>    starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S.:  Thank *YOU* for reading!
>
> P.P.S.:  http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
>                  http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
>                          http://painellsworth.net

On Sep 19, 11:05 am, "Painius"  wrote:
> "Hagar"  wrote in message...
>
> news:qPadnXi_YokOME7VnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > "got1tiel"  wrote in message
> >news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com..> >> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> >> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >> soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> >> landings were fake?
>
> >> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >> hitler still alive story)
> >> this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> >> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> >> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> >> thx
>
> > Gee, could it be because we actually DID go to the Moon ....
> > The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
> > Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...
>
> Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
> It's not a "correction" but just a clarification.  There
> were 7 manned missions to the Moon.  Six of them
> actually got there and landed, Apollos 11, 12, 14,
> 15, 16 and 17.  Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
> space and had to return without making it to the
> Moon.  It is a credit to the program that even after
> the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, four more missions
> still went to the Moon and explored our sister planet!

Actually there were eight manned missions to the moon. Apollo 8 with
Borman, Lovell and Anders was the first manned mission to orbit the
moon, as a test of some of the procedures NASA would use for the
landing attempt.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:23:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by got1tiel
:

>I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
>whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
>soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
>landings were fake?
>
>the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
>hitler still alive story)
>this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
>since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
>could have held them back from pushing this story?

Because it wasn't fake, despite the conspiracy theories
proposed by nutbars, some of whom have the US and the
Soviets conspiring to give the US a major propaganda victory
in the middle of the Cold War.
-- 

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless

i didnt intend that my post sparks off a debate on what actually
happened

i was most interested in how come that since there was a potential for
this story, what was it that held the soviets back from pushing it?
thx

On Sep 19, 2:33 pm, Iarnrod  wrote:
> On Sep 19, 11:05 am, "Painius"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Hagar"  wrote in message...
>
> >news:qPadnXi_YokOME7VnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > > "got1tiel"  wrote in message
> > >news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> > >> I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking myself,
> > >> whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> > >> soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> > >> landings were fake?
>
> > >> the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> > >> hitler still alive story)
> > >> this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> > >> since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves. what
> > >> could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> > >> thx
>
> > > Gee, could it be because we actually DID go to the Moon ....
> > > The naysayers will cling to the "we faked it" story.
> > > Yea right, we faked it 7 or 8 times, no less ...
>
> > Please take this in the nature it is intended, Hagar.
> > It's not a "correction" but just a clarification.  There
> > were 7 manned missions to the Moon.  Six of them
> > actually got there and landed, Apollos 11, 12, 14,
> > 15, 16 and 17.  Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
> > space and had to return without making it to the
> > Moon.  It is a credit to the program that even after
> > the Apollo 13 near-tragedy, four more missions
> > still went to the Moon and explored our sister planet!
>
> Actually there were eight manned missions to the moon. Apollo 8 with
> Borman, Lovell and Anders was the first manned mission to orbit the
> moon, as a test of some of the procedures NASA would use for the
> landing attempt.

Ooops, actually nine. Apollo 10 also orbited the moon and tested the
lunar module separately as well, coming within eight and a half miles
of the surface. That musta sucked for those guys, to have to go back
to the CM after being so close.

On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  wrote:
> On Sep 19, 11:30 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth 
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Sep 19, 6:30 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> > >> In article ,
>
> > >> BradGuth   wrote:
> > >> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> > >> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold> > >> >war perpetrating butts off.
>
> > >> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
> > >> it obvious nonsense.
>
> > >Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
> > >nonsense"?
>
> > > ~ BG
>
> > Only when interpreted by you ~ BG. You take science, run it through your
> > internal processor and out comes "babble babble babble bable..."
>
> > --
> > Shill #2
>
> > A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
> > never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates
> > what he hears into something he can understand.
> >  Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
>
> How many tens of thousands of USSR government, military and civil
> service jobs plus whatever employed and/or retirement benefits were on
> the line at the end of WWII?
>
> Same question applied to the American side or point of view.
>
>  ~ BG

You are a fucking nutcase! I was personally involved in the lunar
program and I can assure you it was not "faked".

Best get some professional help--your schitzy personality is showing
through.

On Sep 19, 12:50 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
>
> news:1d04fda0-dbcc-4f75-ab3e-2d1e10def3f8@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 9:19 am, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
> >>news:ff6c299f-57c9-4ca9-8af6-8d467a8a89dd@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com.> >> > On Sep 18, 5:16 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> >> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
> >> >>news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964dddf20@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> >> >> "got1tiel"  wrote in message...
> >> >> >>news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> > I saw a fox program on fakemoonlandings. but i keep asking
> >> >> >> > myself,
> >> >> >> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >> >> >> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > landings were fake?
>
> >> >> >> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >> >> >> > hitler still alive story)
> >> >> >> > this  would have been a great propaganda victory for
> >> >> >> > them,especially
> >> >> >> > since they knew they would not make it to themoonthemselves.
> >> >> >> > what
> >> >> >> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> >> >> >> > thx
>
> >> >> >> T H A N K   Y O U !
>
> >> >> >> (No matter what other data is debated by either side
> >> >> >> of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
> >> >> >> the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
> >> >> >> Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
> >> >> >> milli-minute!)
>
> >> >> And Chairman Mao (Tse Tung) would have seen
> >> >> to it that the US suffer ancient Chinese torture if
> >> >> he'd gotten wind of such an impossibly intricate
> >> >> conspiracy to fake a mannedMoonlanding.
>
> >> >> > You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> >> >> > faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> >> >> > war perpetrating butts off.
>
> >> >> > Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)
>
> >> >> Brad, on this issue you may talk till you're blue in
> >> >> the face.  There is no way around the Russia code.
> >> >> Russia had been first in just about e'erthing until
> >> >> that day in '69 when we beat 'em to theMoon.
> >> >> And they would have been all over a conspiracy
> >> >> like stink on shit!
>
> >> >> Yet, not a word from Russia or China.  And at the
> >> >> time, the US was on both their shit litses.  No way,
> >> >> man,  N O   W A Y  would they have kept shutup
> >> >> about the US pullin' a fast one.  No effin' way!
>
> >> > It still takes two to tango, doesn't it?
>
> >> > The cold-war was artificial and otherwise mutually perpetrated, as in
> >> > no doubt about it.
>
> >> > There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
> >> > still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>
> >> > Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did themoonwalking thing,
> >> > or not?
>
> >> What i care about is the present-day resistance
> >> to returning to theMoon.  We should have had a
> >> few bases on theMoonby now for several uses.
> >> The fact is that in 1961 John F. Kennedy *dared*
> >> science to put a man on theMoon"by the end of
> >> the decade".  And science busted balls to do so,
> >> and succeeded.  The fact is that luck had a lot to
> >> do with it.  There were several points in the first
> >> mission when our astronauts could have been
> >> lost.  It is no secret that their success was mainly
> >> due to their ability to meet the challenge.  And
> >> while the massive training had a lot to do with
> >> that, it was moreso the astronauts' ingenuity that
> >> kept them alive and brought them back to Earth
> >> safely.
>
> >> The ensuing Apollo missions to theMoonwere
> >> better, but there was still a lot of luck involved.
> >> And now the scientists and engineers look back
> >> on that, and they seem to feel that they have to
> >> nitpick every little piece of "luck" out of the
> >> equation.  So we have to wait until they have
> >> everything down perfect so that nothing is left
> >> to luck.  And that could mean a long wait.
>
> >> As much as i do respect NASA, those people do
> >> need to grow some hair on their balls!  They'll
> >> never get it perfect, and there'll always be the
> >> risk. The neo-NASA people have to learn to live
> >> with that.
>
> >> Or we'll NEVER make it back to theMoon, let
> >> alone to Mars or Venus.
>
> >> I care about exploration, Brad.  And when such
> >> endeavor is squelched by anything, to include
> >> dipsticks with silly conspiracy ideas, then i have
> >> to admit that it pisses me off.
>
> >> Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the
> >>Moon. Their mission was the first of six and they
> >> were the first two of 12 men in all who landed
> >> and who walked on theMoon.  Three brave men
> >> gave their lives for this mission, Gus Grissom,
> >> Ed White and Roger Chaffee.  And three others,
> >> James A. Lovell, John L. "Jack" Swigert and Fred
> >> W. Haise were almost lost during the Apollo 13
> >> explosion in space.  Apollo missions 11, 12, 14,
> >> 15, 16 and 17 landed on and explored our sister
> >> planet Selene.
>
> >> Live with it.  Enjoy it.  Celebrate it.  And use it
> >> to put a burr under NASA's butt!
>
> > Isn't denial a wonderful thing, especially when having to live a lie
> > such as our DARPA Apollo fiasco.  Why exactly is it that you can't
> > even put 2 and 2 together, and come up with 4 each and every time?
>
> > ~ BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth BG
>
> Right back atcha, Brad, you master of irony!  It isn't
> denial when you support a historical event.  It *is*
> denial when you *deny* the event happened.  Irony
> just drips from your fingers onto your keyboard, my
> friend.
>
> And sorry, but 2  2 does not always equal 4.  2
> apples plus 2 oranges does *not* equal 4 aploranges.
> And 2 wabbits plus 2 wabbits usually equals a WHOLE
> LOT MORE THAN 4 wabbits!
>
> I get a knot in my stomach whenever i have to accept
> that ANYBODY would seriously belittle the single most
> and greatest exploratory event that human beings
> have ever achieved in our entire history!
>
> It's as if the discovery of America is DENIED. You may
> as well deny that there are science labs in Antarctica.
> Go ahead and deny that chimps can talk with their li'l
> hands.  You might as well completely disregard that
> the computer in front of you is a great technological
> feat of quantum mechanics.  I don't know, Brad... do
> you even think it's possible to climax during sex??!!  <g>
>
> As much as i've grown to like you and some of your
> ideas, i have to acknowledge that anybody who denies
> the great triumph of THE only time men have ever set
> foot on another celestial body does not appear to have
> even two brain cells to rub together.  Rethink it, bud!

Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated mainstream is
continually trying to snooker and dumbfound its way along.

“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”

Every 5th graders knows or at least should know that the size of a
primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of its
pixel resolution.  GeoEye at a low orbit that’s easily doable, as such
could image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tight as an
Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel.  The USAF has had better than
GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago.

  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

BradGuth wrote:
> On Sep 19, 12:50 pm, "Painius"  wrote:

Just another conspiracy fool, out of ammunition but still desperate
for attention.

On Sep 19, 10:05 am, "Painius"  wrote:
>
> Apollo 13 endured an explosion in
> space and had to return without making it to the
> Moon.
>
13 made it 'to' the moon in the sense of swinging around the far
side.

Also, regarding the eariler tragedy that claimed the lives of Grissom,
White and Chafee, it's generally recognized that it triggered a ground-
up revamping of slipshod and crappy practices.. and the eventual
success of the program was owed to the tragedy.

On Sep 19, 4:24 pm, "g...@my-deja.com"  wrote:
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 12:50 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
>
> Just another conspiracy fool, out of ammunition but still desperate
> for attention.

Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated mainstream is
continually trying to snooker and dumbfound its way along.

“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”

Every 5th graders knows or at least by rights should know that the
size of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification
or of its pixel resolution.  GeoEye offering 0.41 m, except applied at
a low lunar orbit (say 65 km) that’s rather easily doable, as such
could image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tighter than
any Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel, or roughly 0.041 m/pixel
(1.6”) of monochromatic resolution.  The USAF has actually had better
than GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago (similar to GeoEye
2).

  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

On Sep 19, 2:40 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" 
wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 11:30 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Sep 19, 6:30 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> > > >> In article ,
>
> > > >> BradGuth   wrote:
> > > >> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> > > >> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> > > >> >war perpetrating butts off.
>
> > > >> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
> > > >> it obvious nonsense.
>
> > > >Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
> > > >nonsense"?
>
> > > > ~ BG
>
> > > Only when interpreted by you ~ BG. You take science, run it through your
> > > internal processor and out comes "babble babble babble bable..."
>
> > > --
> > > Shill #2
>
> > > A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
> > > never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates
> > > what he hears into something he can understand.
> > >  Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
>
> > How many tens of thousands of USSR government, military and civil
> > service jobs plus whatever employed and/or retirement benefits were on
> > the line at the end of WWII?
>
> > Same question applied to the American side or point of view.
>
> >  ~ BG
>
> You are a fucking nutcase! I was personally involved in the lunar
> program and I can assure you it was not "faked".
>
> Best get some professional help--your schitzy personality is showing
> through.

Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated and otherwise
controlled mainstream is continually trying to snooker and dumbfound
its way along.

“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”

Every 5th grader knows or at least by rights should know that the size
of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of
its pixel resolution.  GeoEye offering 0.41 m, except applied at a low
lunar orbit (say 65 km) that’s rather easily doable, as such could
image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tighter than any
Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel, or roughly 0.041 m/pixel (1.6”)
of monochromatic resolution.  The USAF has actually had better than
GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago (similar to GeoEye 2).

  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

On Sep 19, 2:26 pm, got1tiel  wrote:
> i didnt intend that my post sparks off a debate on what actually
> happened
>
> i was most interested in how come that since there was a potential for
> this story, what was it that held the soviets back from pushing it?
> thx

They had the same fear of unemployment and loss of retirement w/
benefits as priority factors at risk.

 ~ BG

On Sep 19, 1:58 pm, Bob Casanova  wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:23:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by got1tiel
> :
>
> >I saw a fox program on fakemoonlandings. but i keep asking myself,
> >whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story that the
> >landings were fake?
>
> >the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >hitler still alive story)
> >this  would have been a great propaganda victory for them,especially
> >since they knew they would not make it to themoonthemselves. what
> >could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> Because it wasn't fake, despite the conspiracy theories
> proposed by nutbars, some of whom have the US and the
> Soviets conspiring to give the US a major propaganda victory
> in the middle of the Cold War.
> --

Truth-lag never had it so good.

Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated and otherwise
controlled mainstream media is continually trying to snooker and
dumbfound its way along.

“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”

Every 5th grader knows or at least by rights should know that the size
of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of
its pixel resolution.  GeoEye offering 0.41 m, except applied at a low
lunar orbit (say 65 km) that’s rather easily doable, as such could
image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tighter than any
Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel, or roughly 0.041 m/pixel (1.6”)
of monochromatic resolution.  The USAF has actually had better than
GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago (similar to GeoEye 2).

  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

On Sep 19, 12:50 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
>
> news:1d04fda0-dbcc-4f75-ab3e-2d1e10def3f8@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 9:19 am, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
> >>news:ff6c299f-57c9-4ca9-8af6-8d467a8a89dd@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com.> >> > On Sep 18, 5:16 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> >> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
> >> >>news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964dddf20@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> >> >> "got1tiel"  wrote in message...
> >> >> >>news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> > I saw a fox program on fake moon landings. but i keep asking
> >> >> >> > myself,
> >> >> >> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt the
> >> >> >> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > landings were fake?
>
> >> >> >> > the soviets were experts at pushing propaganda stories (like the
> >> >> >> > hitler still alive story)
> >> >> >> > this  would have been a great propaganda victory for
> >> >> >> > them,especially
> >> >> >> > since they knew they would not make it to the moon themselves.
> >> >> >> > what
> >> >> >> > could have held them back from pushing this story?
>
> >> >> >> > thx
>
> >> >> >> T H A N K   Y O U !
>
> >> >> >> (No matter what other data is debated by either side
> >> >> >> of this issue, this is one item that convinces me that
> >> >> >> the conspiracy theorists are waaay out in left field!
> >> >> >> Leonid Brezhnev would have given us up in a hot
> >> >> >> milli-minute!)
>
> >> >> And Chairman Mao (Tse Tung) would have seen
> >> >> to it that the US suffer ancient Chinese torture if
> >> >> he'd gotten wind of such an impossibly intricate
> >> >> conspiracy to fake a manned Moon landing.
>
> >> >> > You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> >> >> > faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> >> >> > war perpetrating butts off.
>
> >> >> > Would you like to know more? (or is head in sand good enough?)
>
> >> >> Brad, on this issue you may talk till you're blue in
> >> >> the face.  There is no way around the Russia code.
> >> >> Russia had been first in just about e'erthing until
> >> >> that day in '69 when we beat 'em to the Moon.
> >> >> And they would have been all over a conspiracy
> >> >> like stink on shit!
>
> >> >> Yet, not a word from Russia or China.  And at the
> >> >> time, the US was on both their shit litses.  No way,
> >> >> man,  N O   W A Y  would they have kept shutup
> >> >> about the US pullin' a fast one.  No effin' way!
>
> >> > It still takes two to tango, doesn't it?
>
> >> > The cold-war was artificial and otherwise mutually perpetrated, as in
> >> > no doubt about it.
>
> >> > There's so much that's horse-pucky about our Apollo fiasco that it
> >> > still, after all these decades, smells to high heaven.
>
> >> > Why do you care if our Zionist/Nazi DARPA did the moon walking thing> >> > or not?
>
> >> What i care about is the present-day resistance
> >> to returning to the Moon.  We should have had a
> >> few bases on the Moon by now for several uses.
> >> The fact is that in 1961 John F. Kennedy *dared*
> >> science to put a man on the Moon "by the end of
> >> the decade".  And science busted balls to do so,
> >> and succeeded.  The fact is that luck had a lot to
> >> do with it.  There were several points in the first
> >> mission when our astronauts could have been
> >> lost.  It is no secret that their success was mainly
> >> due to their ability to meet the challenge.  And
> >> while the massive training had a lot to do with
> >> that, it was moreso the astronauts' ingenuity that
> >> kept them alive and brought them back to Earth
> >> safely.
>
> >> The ensuing Apollo missions to the Moon were
> >> better, but there was still a lot of luck involved.
> >> And now the scientists and engineers look back
> >> on that, and they seem to feel that they have to
> >> nitpick every little piece of "luck" out of the
> >> equation.  So we have to wait until they have
> >> everything down perfect so that nothing is left
> >> to luck.  And that could mean a long wait.
>
> >> As much as i do respect NASA, those people do
> >> need to grow some hair on their balls!  They'll
> >> never get it perfect, and there'll always be the
> >> risk. The neo-NASA people have to learn to live
> >> with that.
>
> >> Or we'll NEVER make it back to the Moon, let
> >> alone to Mars or Venus.
>
> >> I care about exploration, Brad.  And when such
> >> endeavor is squelched by anything, to include
> >> dipsticks with silly conspiracy ideas, then i have
> >> to admit that it pisses me off.
>
> >> Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the
> >> Moon. Their mission was the first of six and they
> >> were the first two of 12 men in all who landed
> >> and who walked on the Moon.  Three brave men
> >> gave their lives for this mission, Gus Grissom,
> >> Ed White and Roger Chaffee.  And three others,
> >> James A. Lovell, John L. "Jack" Swigert and Fred
> >> W. Haise were almost lost during the Apollo 13
> >> explosion in space.  Apollo missions 11, 12, 14,
> >> 15, 16 and 17 landed on and explored our sister
> >> planet Selene.
>
> >> Live with it.  Enjoy it.  Celebrate it.  And use it
> >> to put a burr under NASA's butt!
>
> > Isn't denial a wonderful thing, especially when having to live a lie
> > such as our DARPA Apollo fiasco.  Why exactly is it that you can't
> > even put 2 and 2 together, and come up with 4 each and every time?
>
> > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
>
> Right back atcha, Brad, you master of irony!  It isn't
> denial when you support a historical event.  It *is*
> denial when you *deny* the event happened.  Irony
> just drips from your fingers onto your keyboard, my
> friend.
>
> And sorry, but 2  2 does not always equal 4.  2
> apples plus 2 oranges does *not* equal 4 aploranges.
> And 2 wabbits plus 2 wabbits usually equals a WHOLE
> LOT MORE THAN 4 wabbits!
>
> I get a knot in my stomach whenever i have to accept
> that ANYBODY would seriously belittle the single most
> and greatest exploratory event that human beings
> have ever achieved in our entire history!
>
> It's as if the discovery of America is DENIED. You may
> as well deny that there are science labs in Antarctica.
> Go ahead and deny that chimps can talk with their li'l
> hands.  You might as well completely disregard that
> the computer in front of you is a great technological
> feat of quantum mechanics.  I don't know, Brad... do
> you even think it's possible to climax during sex??!!  <g>
>
> As much as i've grown to like you and some of your
> ideas, i have to acknowledge that anybody who denies
> the great triumph of THE only time men have ever set
> foot on another celestial body does not appear to have
> even two brain cells to rub together.  Rethink it, bud!

Mainstream truth-lag never had it so good.  Call it irony on steroids.

Here’s yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated and otherwise
Zionist controlled mainstream media is continually trying to snooker
and dumbfound its way along.

“To get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
diameter”

Every 5th grader knows or at least by rights should know that the size
of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of
its pixel resolution.  GeoEye offering 0.41 m, except applied at a low
lunar orbit (say 65 km) that’s rather easily doable, as such could
image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tighter than any
Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel, or roughly 0.041 m/pixel (1.6”)
of monochromatic resolution.  The USAF has actually had better than
GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago (similar to GeoEye 2).

  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

In article 
,
 BradGuth  wrote:

> Every 5th grader knows or at least by rights should know that the size
> of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of
> its pixel resolution.  

Hm. Google "telescope resolution" and you get dozens of references with 
the same equation for resolution as I found in my college astronomy 
textbooks. Here's one: 

http://www.licha.de/astro_article_mtf_telescope_resolution.php

In other words, the size of the primary has everything to do with the 
telescope's resolution. You can try to magnify the image produced by a 
telescope with a small primary all you want, but all you get is a blur. 

Maybe you can explain to us why the 200" Hale telescope on Mt. Palomar 
creates images so much better than the telescopes at the Lick 
Observatory on Mt. Hamilton. 

Nah, you probably cant.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> 
http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.

On Sep 19, 2:26 pm, got1tiel  wrote:
> i didnt intend that my post sparks off a debate on what actually
> happened
>
> i was most interested in how come that since there was a potential for
> this story, what was it that held the soviets back from pushing it?
> thx

What held them back?  Try the fact that the landing were real and they
knew that the only people who would buy into a 'fake landing' story
were nutcakes?  The Soviets were good at propaganda but they did stick
to things that were believable.  "Fake landings" doesn't even come
close to being believable.

Harry K

In article <6cf5599b-f57a-4859-b4a4-4d5981684763
@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bradguth@gmail.com says...
> On Sep 19, 2:40 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" 
> wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, BradGuth  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 19, 11:30 am, Government Shill #2  wrote:
> >
> > > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth 
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > >On Sep 19, 6:30 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> > > > >> In article ,
> >
> > > > >> BradGuth   wrote:
> > > > >> >You obviously live in a pretend world, where governments and their
> > > > >> >faith-based puppet masters do not continually lie their mutual cold-
> > > > >> >war perpetrating butts off.
> >
> > > > >> No, but unlike you we aren't willing to believe anything so long as
> > > > >> it obvious nonsense.
> >
> > > > >Now the regular laws of physics and best available science is "obvious
> > > > >nonsense"?
> >
> > > > > ~ BG
> >
> > > > Only when interpreted by you ~ BG. You take science, run it through your
> > > > internal processor and out comes "babble babble babble bable..."
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Shill #2
> >
> > > > A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
> > > > never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates
> > > > what he hears into something he can understand.
> > > >  Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
> >
> > > How many tens of thousands of USSR government, military and civil
> > > service jobs plus whatever employed and/or retirement benefits were on
> > > the line at the end of WWII?
> >
> > > Same question applied to the American side or point of view.
> >
> > >  ~ BG
> >
> > You are a fucking nutcase! I was personally involved in the lunar
> > program and I can assure you it was not "faked".
> >
> > Best get some professional help--your schitzy personality is showing
> > through.
> 
> Here=3Fs yet another good one for the old gipper, as recently published
> in Popular Science, of where the DARPA orchestrated and otherwise
> controlled mainstream is continually trying to snooker and dumbfound
> its way along.
> 
> =3FTo get the resolution to the point where one pixel was the size of a
> foot print, Hubble would need a primary mirror of 2,400 feet in
> diameter=3F
> 
> Every 5th grader knows or at least by rights should know that the size
> of a primary mirror has nothing to do with optical magnification or of
> its pixel resolution.  GeoEye offering 0.41 m, except applied at a low
> lunar orbit (say 65 km) that=3Fs rather easily doable, as such could
> image our physically dark as coal Selene/moon as tighter than any
> Apollo moon-boot foot print per pixel, or roughly 0.041 m/pixel (1.6=3F)
> of monochromatic resolution.  The USAF has actually had better than
> GeoEye optics and cameras as of decades ago (similar to GeoEye 2).
> 
>   ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
> 


Ohhh, babble babble, babble babble!

10-4 Guthball!
-- 
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster

"BradGuth"  wrote in message...
news:f28f7882-95a1-4ebf-925a-717720c23102@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 12:50 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
> news:1d04fda0-dbcc-4f75-ab3e-2d1e10def3f8@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 19, 9:19 am, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
> >>news:ff6c299f-57c9-4ca9-8af6-8d467a8a89dd@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Sep 18, 5:16 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> >> "BradGuth"  wrote in message...
> >> >>news:95752df8-3ccf-49c4-8d76-b1c964dddf20@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > On Sep 18, 2:57 pm, "Painius"  wrote:
> >> >> >> "got1tiel"  wrote in message...
> >> >> >>news:6590cef8-716d-4a02-9217-b31e4598ccc4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> > I saw a fox program on fakemoonlandings. but i keep asking
> >> >> >> > myself,
> >> >> >> > whether or not the nasa landings are true or false, why didnt 
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > soviets exploit the  controversial footage and push the story
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > landings were fake?
>
> >> >>