A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 19th 06, 06:53 PM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into the
earth's curst--and hit water!

Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?


owd

Ads
  #2  
Old February 19th 06, 10:46 PM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.


The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.


Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into the
earth's curst--and hit water!


ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project


Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277


Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?


No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?


No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
  #3  
Old February 19th 06, 11:37 PM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??


"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.


The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.


Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into the
earth's curst--and hit water!


ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project


Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277


Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?


No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?


No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.



A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena! Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ










Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."



  #4  
Old February 20th 06, 01:01 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.usenet.kooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??


"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic

Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into

the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.



A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!

Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ


Another fine Christian sentiment. Do you have a scat obsession?


We don't discuss religion here, remember ?

HJ







Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming

from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell

me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003



  #5  
Old February 20th 06, 01:03 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.usenet.kooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

Honest John wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.


The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.


Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into the
earth's curst--and hit water!


ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project


Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277


Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?


No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?


No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.



A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena! Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ


Another fine Christian sentiment. Do you have a scat obsession?

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003
  #6  
Old February 20th 06, 01:14 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.usenet.kooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic

Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into

the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!

Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ


Another fine Christian sentiment. Do you have a scat obsession?


We don't discuss religion here, remember ?

HJ



Who is "we"?






Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming

from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell

me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003




--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003
  #7  
Old February 20th 06, 01:16 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.usenet.kooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??


"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote

in
message ...
On 19 Feb 2006 10:53:33 -0800, wrote:

Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

I seem to remember some experiment or another (aircraft test

crash?)
that someone said, "There is no such thing as an experiment which
fails."

They went on, if I remember, to say that just because a test does

not
return the results you expected, that is not a failed test. A test
which does not confirm your hypotheses does confirm something, even

if
it is not what the tester wanted.

The only intelligent part of you post right there. You should have
quit while you were ahead.



So, I'm wondering why, sometimes, some 'scientific test' or another
just seems to disappear, vanish, swept under the rug.

Oh, you mean like the geocentric solar system was "swept under the
rug".?

Here's a hint: better observations, better theories, from which
predictions can be made replace older ideas, or explain them better.

Newtonian physics works in everyday life, and for most things.
Einstein explains things a bit better.



One such theory, and test, was that the age of the solar system

could
be proved by the depth of the dust on the moon. This theory was

tested
by the landing on the moon, and promptly disappeared, vanished, was
swept under the rug. Why?

Another such theory was the "moho," or the "Mohorovicic

Discontinuity."

Last I heard, the Russians had drilled some 360 some odd miles into

the
earth's curst--and hit water!

ROFL!!! ,Of course, you have a cite for this that doesn't include
crackpot publications?


Then the "Mohorovicic Discontinuity" was promptly swept under the

rug,
vanished, disappeared. Why??

http://tinyurl.com/99hsw
Mohole project

Here's a better link:

http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/


9 mile hole

Mohorovicic Discontinuity
http://tinyurl.com/78277

Rather than just give a bunch of google discussions, here's some
*real* sites for you. If you are capable of learning, I suggest you
use them:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

http://geology.com/articles/mohorovi...ntinuity.shtml





Moho, not "mohole"

Moho, History, Theory
http://tinyurl.com/9e3ar

Is "Modern Science" intellectually honest when "they" drop a

theory,
and test of that theory, when it does not prove what they want and
expect?

If a scientist proclaims, states and publishes that "the depth of

the
dust on the moon proves the age of the earth and moon" and then

that
dust proves to be 1 inch deep, does that then prove the moon and

earth
is less than 7,000 years old?

No, it doesn't.

Which scientist said this? If you have one, cite it so we(TINW) can
see it in context.


Is THAT why this theory was swept under the rug?

Is it proof that "Science" is morally bankrupt?

No, but your post demonstrates that you are a nut with no
understanding of science whatsoever.


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!

Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

HJ

Another fine Christian sentiment. Do you have a scat obsession?


We don't discuss religion here, remember ?

HJ



Who is "we"?


"We" is anyone that does. Could be Charles and myself, that makes a "we".

HJ








Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming

from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell

me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little

restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003




--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming

from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell

me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003



  #8  
Old February 20th 06, 01:23 AM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??


"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:37:26 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:

SNIP


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!

Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?


I see that you are substantialy incapable of learning.

How unsurprising.

take a hint: the Bible isn't a science text book.


We don't discuss religion anymore you ****ing idiot! Eat some more ****

HJ


  #9  
Old February 20th 06, 01:24 AM posted to alt.astronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:37:26 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:

SNIP


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena! Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?


I see that you are substantialy incapable of learning.

How unsurprising.

take a hint: the Bible isn't a science text book.

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
  #10  
Old February 20th 06, 02:06 AM posted to alt.astronomy,alt.usenet.kooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Depth of the Moon Dust Cover-up? WHY??


"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:23:31 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:


"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:37:26 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:

SNIP


A dumb ass calling somebody a nut. You've got the manners of a hyena!

Why
don't you eat a big pile of **** you jackal?

I see that you are substantialy incapable of learning.

How unsurprising.

take a hint: the Bible isn't a science text book.


We don't discuss religion anymore you ****ing idiot! Eat some more ****


Ahh, your "Christianity" is shining through I see.


We don't discuss religion here, **** for brains.

HJ




Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the Moon Hollow? Sleuths? Imperishable Stars Misc 46 October 8th 04 04:08 PM
Apollo Buzz alDredge UK Astronomy 5 July 28th 04 10:05 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ darla Astronomy Misc 15 July 25th 04 02:57 PM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ darla Misc 10 July 25th 04 02:57 PM
The Apollo Moon Hoax FAQ v4.1 November 2003 Nathan Jones Misc 20 November 11th 03 07:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.