revisiting Apollo

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:32:13 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Yoda
wrote:

Again for those who need it spelled out for them.....take an H, take an
A, take an O, take an X, put them together,....what does that spell?
Hoax right? Now take a V, take an I, take a D, take an E, and take an
O, and put them together ok? What does that spell? Video...right. Now
take a P, take an I, take a C, take a T, take an I, take an R, take an
E, take an S, and put that together...what does that spell?
Pictures..right....now we are getting somewhere. Do you understand yet,
or do you still need it spelled out for you?

The only thing we need spelled out is how much of troll you are, total, or
merely quite large. Maybe they like this nonsense over in sci,astro or
alt.astronomy, though I doubt it





--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
CLC readme: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:32:13 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Yoda
wrote:


Again for those who need it spelled out for them.....take an H, take an
A, take an O, take an X, put them together,....what does that spell?
Hoax right? Now take a V, take an I, take a D, take an E, and take an
O, and put them together ok? What does that spell? Video...right. Now
take a P, take an I, take a C, take a T, take an I, take an R, take an
E, take an S, and put that together...what does that spell?
Pictures..right....now we are getting somewhere. Do you understand yet,
or do you still need it spelled out for you?


The only thing we need spelled out is how much of troll you are, total, or
merely quite large. Maybe they like this nonsense over in sci,astro or
alt.astronomy, though I doubt it

Well you guys demonstrate such a duh factor when it comes to scientific
cross talk that you make bafoons of yourselves with almost every so
called 'attack' on my points of view. Like to discuss anything of
seriousness requires everyone never 'crossing' the imaginary line of
your dumb arse. You guys sometimes only prove that the science of the
last one hundred years is really just a new religion.

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:32:13 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Yoda
wrote:


Again for those who need it spelled out for them.....take an H, take an
A, take an O, take an X, put them together,....what does that spell?
Hoax right? Now take a V, take an I, take a D, take an E, and take an
O, and put them together ok? What does that spell? Video...right. Now
take a P, take an I, take a C, take a T, take an I, take an R, take an
E, take an S, and put that together...what does that spell?
Pictures..right....now we are getting somewhere. Do you understand yet,
or do you still need it spelled out for you?


The only thing we need spelled out is how much of troll you are, total, or
merely quite large. Maybe they like this nonsense over in sci,astro or
alt.astronomy, though I doubt it

Well you guys demonstrate such a duh factor when it comes to scientific
cross talk that you make bafoons of yourselves with almost every so
called 'attack' on my points of view. Like to discuss anything of
seriousness requires everyone never 'crossing' the imaginary line of
your dumb arse. You guys sometimes only prove that the science of the
last one hundred years is really just a new religion.

On 18 Jul 2004 16:08:09 -0700, Gruebait wrote:

For example
there is no 'mud' on the moon, and yet the most famous
pictures of the so-called "first footprint" clearly shows mud.

snip more kookiness

Clearly.

Dust, moron, not mud. No water has been found on the moon.

On 18 Jul 2004 16:08:09 -0700, Gruebait wrote:

For example
there is no 'mud' on the moon, and yet the most famous
pictures of the so-called "first footprint" clearly shows mud.

snip more kookiness

Clearly.

Dust, moron, not mud. No water has been found on the moon.

You're the moron to believe that picture which clearly shows moon mud is
dust. Dust doesnt leave footprints. And what museum has samples of
this dust so that we can all view it and compare samples? Please you
have to do better than that.

vonroach wrote:

On 18 Jul 2004 16:08:09 -0700, Gruebait wrote:


For example
there is no 'mud' on the moon, and yet the most famous
pictures of the so-called "first footprint" clearly shows mud.

It was the US government in the documentary who was laughing about the
muddy footprint photo that the whole world believes is true, and
ofcourse morons like yourself who think it depicts "moon dust".


snip more kookiness

Clearly.


Dust, moron, not mud. No water has been found on the moon.

Duh....

The flag is clearly seen fluttering in the wind. Duh...there is no wind
on the moon because it has no atmosphere, unless you believe the
Russians who say it has developed an atmosphere of recent times.

You're the moron to believe that picture which clearly shows moon mud is
dust. Dust doesnt leave footprints. And what museum has samples of
this dust so that we can all view it and compare samples? Please you
have to do better than that.

vonroach wrote:

On 18 Jul 2004 16:08:09 -0700, Gruebait wrote:


For example
there is no 'mud' on the moon, and yet the most famous
pictures of the so-called "first footprint" clearly shows mud.

It was the US government in the documentary who was laughing about the
muddy footprint photo that the whole world believes is true, and
ofcourse morons like yourself who think it depicts "moon dust".


snip more kookiness

Clearly.


Dust, moron, not mud. No water has been found on the moon.

Duh....

The flag is clearly seen fluttering in the wind. Duh...there is no wind
on the moon because it has no atmosphere, unless you believe the
Russians who say it has developed an atmosphere of recent times.

On 18 Jul 2004, Yoda astonished sci.astro by claiming:


The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all
can share in the very detailed records and televised pictures
that remain. It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact
regardless of the spin put on the facts.


Ian

snip

For example
there is no 'mud' on the moon, and yet the most famous
pictures of the so-called "first footprint" clearly shows mud.

snip more kookiness

Clearly.

--
gruebait
one furlong/fortnight = 0.997857143 centimeters/minute

On 18 Jul 2004, Yoda astonished sci.astro by claiming:


The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all
can share in the very detailed records and televised pictures
that remain. It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact
regardless of the spin put on the facts.


Ian

snip

For example
there is no 'mud' on the moon, and yet the most famous
pictures of the so-called "first footprint" clearly shows mud.

snip more kookiness

Clearly.

--
gruebait
one furlong/fortnight = 0.997857143 centimeters/minute

Yoda wrote:

The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all can
share in the very detailed records and televised pictures that remain.
It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact regardless of the spin
put on the facts.

The US government openly admitted recently that the moon pictures were
hoaxed on the direct order of President Nixon.
[snip]
Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is
fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC.

I presume you meant this documentary:

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunda...oon/about.html

"This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and
entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that
one should always view television with a critical eye."

You failed. The purpose of the documentary is not to make revelations
about the moon landings, but to demonstrate why fools like you
shouldn't blindly believe everything you see on TeeVee.


Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.