anyone know if this book is non-fiction?

Midex wrote:
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.

I gave the query I had used to find the video. You found another
that works for you? Well good for you. Google aims to please.

No
wonder you still beleive the official tripe that is 911 despite the
[...]

No, that's just because I'm not a blithering idiot.


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

There's no such thing. Just stories of what some nut interprets
to be on some fuzzy video of a rehearsal for a telecast.

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.

Stars are much to faint to see if the camera (or your eye) is
adjusted for daylight. You can verify this yourself with a
simple test:

Go out on a clear night and take a picture of the sky where you
can see both stars and the moon. Can you get the moon properly
exposed -- not completely blown to white -- and also see stars?


--
--Bryan

Midex wrote:
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.

But "under penalty of treason" is not true. That's Bean's
objection. Bean won't state the falsehood, much as Sibrel
wants him to.

You lack logical argument.

Do you even care whether what you say is true?

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!!!!

But you guess a lot of things that don't make any sense.


--
--Bryan

Midex wrote:
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.

No, writing multiple responses to each post of mine, some in
the wrong thread, that's absurd.

Go watch Webster Tarpley's explanation of that
problem question:

I might sometime, but really I've wasted too much time on
these idiots already. Watch /Penn and Teller Bull*/, the
conspiracy theory episode, for a bit of reality.

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.

No, the 9/11 nuts lie about this. What they call whistle-blowers
are outsiders pretending to know what they don't. A real
whistle-blower is an insider with direct involvement.


[...]
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.

Except that's not reality. I despise president Bush, and his
war-making. I was disappointed in my country when he was elected,
and disgusted with it when he was re-elected. But he simply
didn't do what the 9/11 kooks say.


--
--Bryan

Cretin "Midex" wrote:

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.


... 911 Truthers....

R O T MF F L M MF A O!

You misspelled "passionately credulous gulls."

Don't take this personally. Obviously, your mind has been
manipulated by cretin herders, who are mostly laughing at you for
taking all that **** seriously. Also, thanks for keeping this
joke alive. It's always worth at least a few chuckles, however
many times it has been dismissed, and you (delusional turkeys
collectively) need to let it spew now and then when the gas
pressure trips your cranial check valves.

On 18 Dec 2006 19:20:45 GMT, John Griffin
wrote:

Obviously, your mind has been manipulated by cretin herders,

....Would you *PLEASE* remove sci.space.history from your followups?
We've all killfiled Midol/Stridex/Whatever, and we really have AbZero
interests in your inability to do the same. It's bad enough the
dip**** - who was not only willingly molested as a child, but
practices it on his own two retarded 3-year-olds and a 7 year old with
Down's Syndrome - had to post this crap, but it's twice as bad when
you respond to him.

If you can't killfile the *******, then at least trim our group from
your headers and put him out of our misery.


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Bryan Olson wrote:

Midex wrote:
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.

I gave the query I had used to find the video. You found another
that works for you? Well good for you. Google aims to please.

No
wonder you still beleive the official tripe that is 911 despite the
[...]

No, that's just because I'm not a blithering idiot.


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

There's no such thing. Just stories of what some nut interprets
to be on some fuzzy video of a rehearsal for a telecast.

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.

Stars are much to faint to see if the camera (or your eye) is
adjusted for daylight. You can verify this yourself with a
simple test:

Go out on a clear night and take a picture of the sky where you
can see both stars and the moon. Can you get the moon properly
exposed -- not completely blown to white -- and also see stars?


--
--Bryan

I told you the condition of reply and you broke it. No wonder you are a
blithering idiot like you claim to be.

I told you, don't answer my post unless you've seen the three
recommended video.

Stupid fool. Go get a degree in chemistry and mathematics. There is
something fundmentally retarded about your thinking process. A degree
in chemistry and mathematics would certify to us all that you are not
logically retarded.

If he swore under penalty of treason and then in 10 years time it was
exposed that the moon landings were a hoax then some future, therefore
unknown, puiblic might hang him for it and use that video as evidence.


Bryan Olson wrote:

Midex wrote:
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.

But "under penalty of treason" is not true. That's Bean's
objection. Bean won't state the falsehood, much as Sibrel
wants him to.

You lack logical argument.

Do you even care whether what you say is true?

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!!!!

But you guess a lot of things that don't make any sense.


--
--Bryan

If he swore under penalty of treason and then in 10 years time it was
exposed that the moon landings were a hoax then some future, therefore
unknown, puiblic might hang him for it and use that video as evidence.


Bryan Olson wrote:

Midex wrote:
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.

But "under penalty of treason" is not true. That's Bean's
objection. Bean won't state the falsehood, much as Sibrel
wants him to.

You lack logical argument.

Do you even care whether what you say is true?

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!!!!

But you guess a lot of things that don't make any sense.


--
--Bryan

I concede when I guess and assert when I know!

Midex wrote:
If he swore under penalty of treason and then in 10 years time it was
exposed that the moon landings were a hoax then some future, therefore
unknown, puiblic might hang him for it and use that video as evidence.

There you ago again, just makin' it up.


follow-ups set to sci-skeptic.

--
--Bryan

Midex wrote:
I told you the condition of reply and you broke it.

You Apollo-deniers have some pretty weird ideas about how things work.


Follow-ups set to sci.skeptic.
--
--Bryan