Brad Guth is RIGHT!!!

{alt.noise.rush snipped}

"Brad Guth" wrote:

One day you were going to tell me how they faked the telemetry
and communications.
John Griffin,
I've already been there and done that at least a dozen times.
Where the heck were you?

I don't time my life according to your fantasies, but the fact is
that you have not answered and can not answer that question. I
hope you dare to try, since your job is to amuse the normal
people.

BTW; I've never stipulated they didn't go to and perhaps even
at least once per mission orbit that nasty sucker in person.
Why don't you tell us all about those "chapel bell"
S-Band--microwave transponders?

Then there was the day you were going to dispute my contention
that it would be easier to land on the moon than to perpetrate
the hoax you believe in. I'm still waiting for that, too.

You're still in denial of being in denial, as waiting for
those NASA/Apollo cows to come home. Of course, if we
actually had a viable fly-by-rocket lander that was
sufficiently deorbit and downrange capable would have been
nice (I think they're still working the prototype bugs out on
behalf of their next CEV lander and CLV effort).

Are you familiar with the concept "sciolism," or do you just
imitate it by copy-and-paste without knowing what you're doing?

BTW No.2; what "hoax"? I'd always thought we'd honestly
tried every stinking Third Reich trick in the book to land
something/anything upon our moon.

What the **** is a "Third Reich trick"? Fool.

Our CEV chances are most likely going to be so much better, in
that with a good deal of dumb luck and of having an actual
pilot operated prototype CEV lander with those essential
reaction wheels and as easily scaled at less mass in order to
safely proof-test all functions upon Earth should make all the
essential difference that'll be necessary for surviving their
actual lunar applications. -

You could save time by just writing the essentials, i.e., "yap
yap yap."