Bush To Order NASA Back To Moon?

On 4 Dec 2003 17:37:36 GMT, wrote in
alt.fan.art-bell:

In sci.astro Bunn E Rabbit wrote:

(Spread?Eagle), Wrote:
Are we going back to the Moon? NPR says that
Bush may announce it on December 17:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0312030858.asp

Uh oh! Now what are those weirdos who think the Apollo missions were a
hoax gonna do?

Oh man! I can sure say that the ONE part of the "moon hoax" that
WASN'T a hoax was the spending of gigantic amounts of our tax
money! Jeeze. Like Dubya hasn't already spent enough tax dollars
that the next generation gets to pay back!

bjacoby

Look, everyone! Tard-Boi's back!
--
V.G.

"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it is easier to harrass
rich women than it is motorcycle gangs." - Bumper Sticker
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

"ceniza" wrote in message ...
This time, at least the special effects will be good.

So how do you concluded this going to be a hoax this time, or the last time?

No Coke bottles rolling across the lunar surface.

There weren't any in the first place.

Nice site for NASA Apollogists.

Jay Windley wrote in message
...

"ceniza" wrote in message
...
|
| This time, at least the special effects will be good.
| No Coke bottles rolling across the lunar surface.

http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

On 4 Dec 2003 23:30:57 -0800, (AstroMike) wrote:

"ceniza" wrote in message ...
This time, at least the special effects will be good.

So how do you concluded this going to be a hoax this time, or the last time?

No Coke bottles rolling across the lunar surface.

There weren't any in the first place.


It's a waste of time with ceniza. You can point out how wrong he
is as many times as possible, all he does is run away and come
back weeks or months later with the same stupid arguments.




--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"Shake it like a polaroid picture."
- Andre 3000 of Outkast

"ceniza" wrote in message
...
|
| Nice site for NASA Apollogists.

I'm disappointed. All you can do is invoke the standard conspiracy theory
cop-out: "Gee, it must be a NASA disinformation site." I don't work for
NASA. Never have, probably never will. It may surprise you that you don't
have to work for NASA to be an expert in space engineering.

So instead of doing the same old elaborate dance away from those
embarrassing facts that tend to quickly and decisively trump the extreme
ignorance of the conspiracy theories, why don't you take them head on? If
my site is mere NASA disinformation then it would have to be factually or
logically incorrect. And if it's factually incorrect -- for whatever reason
or motive -- then you should be able to point out exactly the spots where
it's wrong. Can you do that? Or is name-calling the only thing you know?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

In sci.astro "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" wrote:

Oh man! I can sure say that the ONE part of the "moon hoax" that
WASN'T a hoax was the spending of gigantic amounts of our tax
money! Jeeze. Like Dubya hasn't already spent enough tax dollars
that the next generation gets to pay back!

Look, everyone! Tard-Boi's back!

Lessee, name-calling. Now THAT really shows a high IQ! You, you,
you are just a...a... POOPY-FACE!!! Oh wait, I think that's
the recess bell! Time for you to go back inside.

bjacoby
(One more anonymous pussy with ZERO credibility. How about you
butch up and post with your real name like the rest of us?)
--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

In sci.astro Carl R. Osterwald wrote:

Oh man! I can sure say that the ONE part of the "moon hoax" that
WASN'T a hoax was the spending of gigantic amounts of our tax
money! Jeeze. Like Dubya hasn't already spent enough tax dollars
that the next generation gets to pay back!

Anything you say can safely be ignored.

Gosh, Carl, this remark really adds a lot to the discussion!
Just what part of "spending gigantic amounts of our tax money"
do you not agree with? Oh, Wait! I get it. You are a DEMOCRAT!

Bjacoby

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

In article , wrote:

In sci.astro Carl R. Osterwald wrote:

Oh man! I can sure say that the ONE part of the "moon hoax" that
WASN'T a hoax was the spending of gigantic amounts of our tax
money! Jeeze. Like Dubya hasn't already spent enough tax dollars
that the next generation gets to pay back!

Anything you say can safely be ignored.

Gosh, Carl, this remark really adds a lot to the discussion!
Just what part of "spending gigantic amounts of our tax money"
do you not agree with? Oh, Wait! I get it. You are a DEMOCRAT!

Despite any and all attempts to convince you otherwise, you believe
(this list is quite likely incomplete):

1) quantum mechanics is bunk
2) moon landings were hoaxed

You refuse to consider valid evidence and persist in posting nonsense
about conspiratorial fantasies. From this I conclude that anything
else you state can be ignored.

Please explain how this implies membership in any political party.


-=-=-=-=-

And, has anyone every explained why you can see right through the astronauts
in so many
film clips?

AstroMike wrote in message
om...
"ceniza" wrote in message
...
This time, at least the special effects will be good.

So how do you concluded this going to be a hoax this time, or the last
time?

No Coke bottles rolling across the lunar surface.

There weren't any in the first place.

Um, yes, yes they have. It's persistence in the video cameras that they
used.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Ghosts.htm

"On some of the video footage of the Apollo landings you can see right
through the astronauts to what's behind them. It's like they're ghosts!
Doesn't this suggest they were faked?

This is a result of the primitive video technology used. What could happen
if they were pointed at a bright stationary object is that the image of it
could 'burn' into the electronic receptors. It's a temporary effect, just
the same way your eyes can still see a light bulb if you stare at it long
enough then turn away. It's also not dissimilar to what can happen to a
computer monitor without a screensaver. What happened on the Apollo
pictures is that the image of the stationary lander in the background was
'burned' onto the camera. So it remained on screen over the top of the
astronaut even as he walked in front of it.

You don't have to take NASA's word on this. Ask anyone who purchased one of
the first video cameras on the market in the 1970s."


"ceniza" wrote in message
...
And, has anyone every explained why you can see right through the
astronauts
in so many
film clips?

AstroMike wrote in message
om...
"ceniza" wrote in message
...
This time, at least the special effects will be good.

So how do you concluded this going to be a hoax this time, or the last
time?

No Coke bottles rolling across the lunar surface.

There weren't any in the first place.