Less Apollo 11, more Thunderbird 11. Wires prove the Apollo moon landings were filmed on a set.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:31:16 +1000, "Tex"
wrote:

So, in other words, you still can't find a single scientist who supports
your crank theories. I guess they must have all been microchipped by The
Jews.

Seems to be the "normal" bashing lefties try on the USa

Amongst others Pope John Paul viewed the Apollo landing through a
Telescope
Petzl
--
LET'S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA
Terror hotline gets 71,000 calls per annum
http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/
Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat

On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
How do you feel about fluoridated water?

And do you believe the Bali bombing was a micronuke?

(Just trying to find your correct "crank index").

I don't like your mindset contribution. I'm certain that God feels
the same as I.
- Brad Guth -

On Oct 13, 6:31 pm, "Tex" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Oct 12, 7:16 am, "Tex" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Oct 12, 6:40 am, "Tex" wrote:

LOL, says the "Jews are silencing us" conspiracy kook.

Isn't denial an otherwise taking everything out of context a wonderful
thing, especially when there's not so much as any speck of remorse
getting in your way.

Without the likes of yourself, Hitler couldn't have accomplished 10%
of the collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, because it's the
perverted brown-nosed minion mindsets like your very own that makes it
possible for those Hitlers or GW Bush types to exist in the first
place.

Without boot camp, you would have fit right in as is.
- Brad Guth -

Your weird little rant aside, I notice you still haven't been able to
find
any scientists who agree with your kook theories

Once again and again, we're being snookered and/or dumbfounded to
death by those having all the right stuff.

Do tell, as to why Jupiter and Io got depicted as so unusually
pastel? and where the heck are those pesky stars?
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1..._100907_11.jpg
Jupiter isn't exactly getting well enough illuminated, nor is it all
that albedo/reflective, and that onboard camera of such nifty CCD
performance image processing being worth 16+db and having nothing but
the very best available optics isn't exactly wussy in the dynamic
range(DR) department. As for imaging the likes of Pluto will demand a
great deal of such CCD dynamic range, and most certainly that onboard
camera and terrific optics are in fact well suited for that task.

BTW, Venus as easily viewed from our physically dark and naked moon
was not ever a point source of any star like dim illumination, and
only those scientists willing to destroy their job security and/or any
future possibility of related employment would dare go on record as
sharing in this truth, although there have been many qualified
reputations that have fully supported the NASA/Apollo hoax, as for
exactly what it really was another part of our mutually perpetrated
cold-war, exactly as orchestrated along by those pesky Zion Yids that
made the likes of their Hitler into such a royal pain in the butt, and
now doing the same puppeteering on behalf of orchestrating our
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

However, just like Messenger's absolutely **** poor image of Earth and
apparent inability to record our physically dark moon, the New Horizon
CCD image of Jupiter and Io had also been extremely DR limited, as to
offering not much better or even as good of DR than my free cell-phone
camera could provide (certainly far worse off than Kodak film). Why
would they only utilize 1% or less of their CCD Dynamic Range?

Do you think JAXA's Senene CCD images are going to be as intentionally
DR limited?

Kodak KAI-1003 has a DR of 70 DB
Kodak KAI-2020 has a DR of 68 DB
Kodak KAI-4011 has a DR of 60 DB
Fairchield's Condor CCD486 or CCD3041 are only that much better yet,
along with most of such cameras processing out any given 16 bit or 16
DB worth of that CCD's extended DR, means that it should be next to
impossible as to exclude stars unless having intentionally done so via
the firmware or subsequent software instructions. Of any given FOV or
composite image that offers the likes of Earth and our moon side by
side, under identical illumination and using the very same exposure
scan is less than child's play for this generation of impressive
instruments, and anything Kodak or Fairchield can muster is certianly
matched or surpassed by whatever Sony, Fuji or others are capable of
doing.

So, in other words, you still can't find a single scientist who supports
your crank theories. I guess they must have all been microchipped by The
Jews.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The whole truth and nothing but the truth as based upon the regular
laws of physics and otherwise supported by the best available science
is exactly what it is. Sorry about that.
- Brad Guth -

Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:31:16 +1000, "Tex"
wrote:

So, in other words, you still can't find a single scientist who supports
your crank theories. I guess they must have all been microchipped by The
Jews.

Seems to be the "normal" bashing lefties try on the USa

Amongst others Pope John Paul viewed the Apollo landing through a
Telescope
Petzl

Not likely, no Earth bound telescope has the resolution to see such a
small spot on the moon.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Oct 13, 7:11 pm, Petzl wrote:

Amongst others Pope John Paul viewed the Apollo landing through a
Telescope
Petzl

Sorry, God doesn't even have that good of telescope, especially not of
way back in those hocus-pocus times of our mutually perpetrated cold-
war years.
- Brad Guth -

In article .com,
BradGuth (Guthy Gander) honked:

On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
How do you feel about fluoridated water?

And do you believe the Bali bombing was a micronuke?

(Just trying to find your correct "crank index").

I don't like your mindset contribution. I'm certain that God feels
the same as I.
- Brad Guth -

Just about *ALL* nutcases think that God either agrees with them or that
God told them to do it.

BradGuth wrote:
snip

The whole truth and nothing but the truth as based upon the regular
laws of physics and otherwise supported by the best available science
is exactly what it is. Sorry about that.
- Brad Guth -


So tell us, o wise one, how is it unmanned probes had visited most of
the solar system, Venus and the moon by 1972 yet you refuse to believe
man has landed there. You do believe Viking, Venera, Lunakod, Mariner,
Voyager and the rest actually occurred before and since, don't you? How
about shuttle and other Earth orbit manned flights? "Regular laws of
physics" dictate how such things can occur. If not find us some
scientists who can say for sure they didn't and prove it scientifically.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:14:26 -0500, Dan wrote:

Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:31:16 +1000, "Tex"
wrote:

So, in other words, you still can't find a single scientist who supports
your crank theories. I guess they must have all been microchipped by The
Jews.

Seems to be the "normal" bashing lefties try on the USa

Amongst others Pope John Paul viewed the Apollo landing through a
Telescope
Petzl

Not likely, no Earth bound telescope has the resolution to see such a
small spot on the moon.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Not sure how clear he saw it. But he announced he did
Petzl
--
LET'S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA
Terror hotline gets 71,000 calls per annum
http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/
Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat

Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:14:26 -0500, Dan wrote:

Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:31:16 +1000, "Tex"
wrote:

So, in other words, you still can't find a single scientist who supports
your crank theories. I guess they must have all been microchipped by The
Jews.
Seems to be the "normal" bashing lefties try on the USa

Amongst others Pope John Paul viewed the Apollo landing through a
Telescope
Petzl
Not likely, no Earth bound telescope has the resolution to see such a
small spot on the moon.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Not sure how clear he saw it. But he announced he did
Petzl

He wouldn't have been able to see it at all, clear or not. Think
about the smallest object that can be seen on the moon from Earth with
any telescope. That object is still many times larger than a LM. There
ARE photographs of the landing sites available, but they were taken from
lunar orbit.

In any event, anyone with training in physics can explain it better
than I can. It's been too long since I have done any optical
calculations. Think of the size of the LM as being a disc as seen from
above. Now picture an acute triangle using the diameter of that disc as
one side of a triangle with the other two sides coming to a point on
Earth where you have your telescope set up. What is the angle at the
apex? Kinda small, isn't it? The ability to detect an object is a
function of that angle. Add that to the LM being not much darker than
the surface of the moon and and interference from Earth's atmosphere and
you can't see it at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:25:22 -0500, Dan wrote:

Petzl wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:14:26 -0500, Dan wrote:

Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:31:16 +1000, "Tex"
wrote:

So, in other words, you still can't find a single scientist who supports
your crank theories. I guess they must have all been microchipped by The
Jews.
Seems to be the "normal" bashing lefties try on the USa

Amongst others Pope John Paul viewed the Apollo landing through a
Telescope
Petzl
Not likely, no Earth bound telescope has the resolution to see such a
small spot on the moon.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Not sure how clear he saw it. But he announced he did
Petzl

He wouldn't have been able to see it at all, clear or not. Think
about the smallest object that can be seen on the moon from Earth with
any telescope. That object is still many times larger than a LM. There
ARE photographs of the landing sites available, but they were taken from
lunar orbit.

In any event, anyone with training in physics can explain it better
than I can. It's been too long since I have done any optical
calculations. Think of the size of the LM as being a disc as seen from
above. Now picture an acute triangle using the diameter of that disc as
one side of a triangle with the other two sides coming to a point on
Earth where you have your telescope set up. What is the angle at the
apex? Kinda small, isn't it? The ability to detect an object is a
function of that angle. Add that to the LM being not much darker than
the surface of the moon and and interference from Earth's atmosphere and
you can't see it at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


What about the "flare" of ignitition when lander landed and or took
off (probably from the Vatican City)
I know the Pope stated he saw through a telescope the event
Petzl
--
LET'S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA
Terror hotline gets 71,000 calls per annum
http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/
Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat