Scott Hedrick;
A *link* is not proof. A cite to an actual, existing, verifiable document
is proof. *Never* accept a website as proof of anything involving NASA;
at best, it would be a copy of an actual piece of paper, even if it were
an actual NASA website.
Scott Hedrick,
Now even a fully certified link to an official NASA page is getting the
Usenet moonboot kick in the butt, especially if there's anything the
least bit skewed or potentially capable of such getting interpreted
that doesn't reinforce their NASA/Apollo ruse/sting of the century.
Imagine that, and why am I not the least bit surprised.

I suppose next they'll have to start their evidence excluding upon
their very own archives of most all of those NASA/Apollo Kodak moments,
especially of all those EVA obtained images and perhaps even having to
include those more interesting ones of somewhat if not entirely of
better science as having been obtained robotically from orbit.

You are ending up in killfiles because we killfiled him and don't want to
read what he has to say, or what anyone says in response to him.
That's because I'm more often than not been sufficiently right about
most everything I've uncovered. Imagine that, they don't much care for
hearing the truth and nothing but the truth. Of course, neither did
their Hitler or GW Bush.

BTW; you don't have to agree with me if your best available swag has
anything that can be replicated as backing it up.
-
Brad Guth