anyone know if this book is non-fiction?

Sorcerer wrote:

What's ThD?



Doctor of Thinkology. :-)

The Great And Powerful Oz
Emerald City

Ioannis wrote:


Doctor of Theology?

That's as valuable as having a Ph.D. in jewelry or baking.



Well, he may have a degree in Theology, but he sure doesn't know what
the hell he's talking about. :-)

Pat

"Sorcerer" wrote in message
. uk...

What's ThD?

.....it's one past THC, which min(iq) has probably smoked waaaaaaaay too much of...

"Scott Schuckert" wrote in message ...
| In article , Sorcerer
| wrote:
|
| What's ThD?
|
| Perhaps he means Doctor of Theology, but every reference I try comes up
| with Total Harmonic Distortion, which is..... Oh, right - same thing.

ROFL!
Verry god, I can see you're are a mann of speling discrimimimation.. err...
descrimin... err... duscrim....err... humour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz2-ukrd2VQ

The more you watch it...

"Eekamouse" wrote in message ...
| "Sorcerer" wrote in message
| . uk...
|
| What's ThD?
|
| ....it's one past THC, which min(iq) has probably smoked waaaaaaaay too much of...
|
I'm sure he has... Interesting function, p = min(i, q).
"Indubitability Min" will miss the irony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz2-ukrd2VQ

"Lorrie Saboley" wrote in sci.astro:

My husband's birthday is right after Christmas and he collects signed
books. Is this about Buzz Aldrin's trip back from the moon?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=170058818616


Have you considered googling?

http://www.amazon.com/Return-Buzz-Aldrin/dp/081257060X


--
CeeBee

*** Democracy is not a spectator sport ***

"CeeBee" ceebee@novalidmail wrote in message
. ..
"Lorrie Saboley" wrote in sci.astro:

My husband's birthday is right after Christmas and he collects signed
books. Is this about Buzz Aldrin's trip back from the moon?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=170058818616


Have you considered googling?

http://www.amazon.com/Return-Buzz-Aldrin/dp/081257060X


These people pointing you to an e-bay item and asking a
obviously trivial question about it are just hawking
their own stuff; they want people to know they've got
something for sale on e-bay.

The form of advertising they're doing is designed to
avoid (just barely) breaching the usenet newsgroup
charters, as there is no way to definitely prove that
this is their intention.

how many
people would have to be in on the plot?/a

What a silly question. No number works. Fewer than thousands
couldn't pull it off, and more than a handful couldn't keep
it secret.


Brian thats absurd. Go watch Webster Tarpley's explanation of that
problem question:
Webster Tarpley: The 9/11 Issue: Key to stopping World War III
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ebster+tarpley

There have been heeps of whistelblowers Brian. The mainstream media
refuses to organise them together.
I know your rejection argument. It is the most common used and it is
the most naive. Its called "simple inductive generalisation". Look it
up on wiki.

Go watch:
www.911pressfortruth.com
www.911mysteries.com

THEN COME BACK AND SAY WHAT YOU SAID AGAIN WITH SUCH SMUG CONFIDENCE.

Remember that the magician wants to make everyone look in the wrong
direction to puzzle out how he pulled off his trick. The trick is
always much simpler than the explanations the audience think of.

Its truly a sad existence for 911 Truthers, to watch all these well
meaning blinded by false trust sheeple leading the west into
devestation and supporting the mass genocide of the middle-east. Truly
a sad time in history and a tragedy considering what could have been
had only people like you taken the time to actually look at the
well-meaning academically erudite research and final presentations of
argument and evidence put forth in the 911 Truth movement.

I've given you three documentary. If you watched them you would know
what I'm talking about.

I doubt you will watch them. You couldn't have come this far and still
believe the bull**** you're being fed unless you are blindly ignorant.
Perhaps you have simply not sat down and watched any documentary yet. I
implore you to.

By the way, its immediately obvious to the 911 Truthers that the person
who posted this orginal question about how many people were behind the
Inside Job is a disinfoagent.
And he's not a real disinfoagent but a anti-muslim bigot who is
personally affronted by the 911 Truth movement because if it turns out
to be common knowledge then he will have to repent all the hate speech
and campaigning he has contributed to the mass murder of the
middle-east.



Bryan Olson wrote:

Amilius PhD ThD wrote:
[...]
Didn't Buzzy punch someone in the nose for asking him to swear
on the Holy Bible that he & his fellow B-rate actors *actually*
went all the way to the Moon & back

No, but at age 72 Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel for harassing
him and calling him a coward and a liar.

Sibrel pestered many astronauts, sometimes claiming that if
they swore on the Bible it would end the controversy. Some
wanted nothing to do with him. Others clearly stated that
they walked on the Moon, but declined to participate in his
Bible-swearing stunt. Eugene Cernan and Alan Bean did swear
on the Bible. Was Sibrel good to his word that doing so
would end his "controversy"?

You can see the video on Google Video, try "moon swear
bible" (without the quotes).

Particularly funny is watching what a worm Sibrel is when
Alan Bean insists on telling the truth. Bean agrees that
the video could be used as a video deposition, and will
swear "under penalty of perjury". Then Sibrel adds
"treason" and Bean objects: "treason has nothing to do
with it". Bean is right: "under penalty of treason" would
be false. He's entirely willing to swear in various ways
Sibrel suggest, but only to the truth. Sibrel keeps
demanding Bean swear "under penalty of treason" even
though Bean makes clear he believes it would be false.


--
--Bryan

Bryan Olson wrote:

Amilius PhD ThD wrote:
[...]
Didn't Buzzy punch someone in the nose for asking him to swear
on the Holy Bible that he & his fellow B-rate actors *actually*
went all the way to the Moon & back

No, but at age 72 Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel for harassing
him and calling him a coward and a liar.

Sibrel pestered many astronauts, sometimes claiming that if
they swore on the Bible it would end the controversy. Some
wanted nothing to do with him. Others clearly stated that
they walked on the Moon, but declined to participate in his
Bible-swearing stunt. Eugene Cernan and Alan Bean did swear
on the Bible. Was Sibrel good to his word that doing so
would end his "controversy"?

You can see the video on Google Video, try "moon swear
bible" (without the quotes)

No rather try for "Bart Sibrel" (with the quotes)

Idiot. Just shows you how stupid your search and find skills are. No
wonder you still beleive the official tripe that is 911 despite the
fact that there are hundreds of documentary proving facts and events
that directly contradict the official story.

Try www.911pressfortruth.com and www.911mysteries.com

There are also many more Moon Landing Was a Hoax documentary on
video-google and I suggest you watch them all.

Now there was the famous footage of the Apollo 11 astronauts faking the
earth shot. Explain that.

Also explain how come the astronauts claimed you can't see stars from
the moon and accordingly why there are none in any of the photos. Light
only diffuses in an atmosphere. Thus regardless of light-reflecting off
the moon the astronaught could see stars just like we can see stars at
night. We need night because of the dispersion of the sunlight.

Also explain how the kodak film survived the extreme temperature
gradiants as well as the solar radiation and van Allen radiation. The
cameras they used were not insulated and nor was the film. It was a
scam of epic proportions and people fell for it because they wanted to
fall for it. Just like you want to believe that muslims were behind
9/11 because you had already been groomed for anit-muslim sentiments in
the 10 years leading up to 9/11.

They had been planning 9/11 for at least 10 years.

Don't answer me unless you've seen those 911 docos.




Particularly funny is watching what a worm Sibrel is when
Alan Bean insists on telling the truth. Bean agrees that
the video could be used as a video deposition, and will
swear "under penalty of perjury". Then Sibrel adds
"treason" and Bean objects: "treason has nothing to do
with it". Bean is right: "under penalty of treason" would
be false. He's entirely willing to swear in various ways
Sibrel suggest, but only to the truth. Sibrel keeps
demanding Bean swear "under penalty of treason" even
though Bean makes clear he believes it would be false.


--
--Bryan

Bryan Olson wrote:

Amilius PhD ThD wrote:
[...]
Didn't Buzzy punch someone in the nose for asking him to swear
on the Holy Bible that he & his fellow B-rate actors *actually*
went all the way to the Moon & back

No, but at age 72 Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel for harassing
him and calling him a coward and a liar.

Sibrel pestered many astronauts, sometimes claiming that if
they swore on the Bible it would end the controversy. Some
wanted nothing to do with him. Others clearly stated that
they walked on the Moon, but declined to participate in his
Bible-swearing stunt. Eugene Cernan and Alan Bean did swear
on the Bible. Was Sibrel good to his word that doing so
would end his "controversy"?

You can see the video on Google Video, try "moon swear
bible" (without the quotes).

Particularly funny is watching what a worm Sibrel is when
Alan Bean insists on telling the truth. Bean agrees that
the video could be used as a video deposition, and will
swear "under penalty of perjury". Then Sibrel adds
"treason" and Bean objects: "treason has nothing to do
with it". Bean is right: "under penalty of treason" would
be false.

Just shows how blindly ignorant you are. It wouldn't matter if Sibrel
asked him to swear under penalty of buggery. If he went to the moon
then he can swear on his own mothers grave about it.

You lack logical argument. I guess its just too painful for you to
accept that the greatest moment of your life watching the moon landing
was a ****ing hoax!!!!


He's entirely willing to swear in various ways
Sibrel suggest, but only to the truth. Sibrel keeps
demanding Bean swear "under penalty of treason" even
though Bean makes clear he believes it would be false.


--
--Bryan