Neil Armstrong’s Shadow Found in Thin Section?

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/9/12 3:07 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:

Ben, I knew you weren't the smartest kid on the block, denying
global warming, and the Apollo program. I doubt you would do
very well in the college astronomy course I teach, because I doubt
you would read the textbook and do the homework.

Did you get your astronomy credentials the same way the last astromomer
I met did by hauling telescope parts up a mountain and being cheaper to
support than a donkey?


Take the class and find out, jimp!
http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/syllabus/

Why would I want to take an overview dummy course when I've already had
real astronomy courses?

"neither at an extremely technical level.."

I especially liked:

"Every atom of hydrogen was created by the Big Bang. None since."

So no hydrogen has ever been created anywhere by anything since the Big Bang?

BTW, according to your link you have posted your home phone number to
USENET.

I hope you don't get any crank calls as a result...

On 4/10/12 2:45 PM, wrote:
So no hydrogen has ever been created anywhere by anything since the Big Bang?

Please give your list of other significant sources of hydrogen, jimp.

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/10/12 2:45 PM, wrote:
So no hydrogen has ever been created anywhere by anything since the Big Bang?

Please give your list of other significant sources of hydrogen, jimp.

Nothing was said about "significant sources of hydrogen", you are trying
to misdirect once again.

What you said was:

"Every atom of hydrogen was created by the Big Bang. None since."

All it takes is 1 atom of hydrogen created somewhere in the universe
since the Big Bang to make your statement false.

So, again, no hydrogen has ever been created anywhere by anything since
the Big Bang?

In another thread you are claiming hydrogen is forming.

Don't you read your own posts or is someone else writting them for you?

On 4/10/12 3:12 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:
On 4/10/12 2:45 PM, wrote:
So no hydrogen has ever been created anywhere by anything since the Big Bang?

Please give your list of other significant sources of hydrogen, jimp.

Nothing was said about "significant sources of hydrogen", you are trying
to misdirect once again.

What you said was:

"Every atom of hydrogen was created by the Big Bang. None since."

All it takes is 1 atom of hydrogen created somewhere in the universe
since the Big Bang to make your statement false.

So, again, no hydrogen has ever been created anywhere by anything since
the Big Bang?

In another thread you are claiming hydrogen is forming.

Don't you read your own posts or is someone else writting them for you?




In other words you can't come of with any significant sources of
hydrogen other than the big bang.

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/10/12 3:12 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:
On 4/10/12 2:45 PM, wrote:
So no hydrogen has ever been created anywhere by anything since the Big Bang?

Please give your list of other significant sources of hydrogen, jimp.

Nothing was said about "significant sources of hydrogen", you are trying
to misdirect once again.

What you said was:

"Every atom of hydrogen was created by the Big Bang. None since."

All it takes is 1 atom of hydrogen created somewhere in the universe
since the Big Bang to make your statement false.

So, again, no hydrogen has ever been created anywhere by anything since
the Big Bang?

In another thread you are claiming hydrogen is forming.

Don't you read your own posts or is someone else writting them for you?

In other words you can't come of with any significant sources of
hydrogen other than the big bang.

Nope, in other words you don't understand your own statement, i.e. "Every
atom of hydrogen was created by the Big Bang. None since.", and are
now trying to waffle out of the corner you painted yourself into.

The words "Every atom" and "None since" are pretty clear that the word
"significant" is just an after the fact ploy.

All I need to show that your statement is false is to show where one (1)
atom of hydrogen has been created since the Big Bang, not any "significant"
amount, and that is pretty trivial.

On 4/10/2012 3:13 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT), Matt
wrote:

You do know Iron-Mountain is a long-exposed hoax, a piece of classic
kook/paranoid literature, right?

And one somehow suspects that even if it had been an Evil
Conspiracy blueprint, they'd have been forced to change their
plans after it was published as a book, 45 years ago.

As to Apollo and the Moon landings: I'll go with the guys I've met who
have BEEN THERE.

Excuse me Bill, but if you had any reading comprehension beyond the 5th
grade, you'd have seen that I never said that the Astro-nots have never
BEEN THERE! That is a totally different story. I said they didn't get
there on the Apollo rockets. I said the public data was fake.

As for Iron Mountain, sure it's a hoax. That's why virtually all the
suggestions in it have been tried (including the latest one of "massive
pollution" as a "threat") When ever someone tells me a book is a "hoax"
I always believe them. I especially believe it when there are strong
vested interests in discrediting a leaked document. Hey, I even believed
everyone on the internet when they all told me that Bill Clinton "did
not have sex with that woman!" Hey, I STILL believe it! Everybody knows
that the spooge on the dress was just one more urban legend. Hey, did he
get impeached and found guilty? Nope. See. It was all a hoax. And
Congress verified that. And anyway, adultery of a boss with an underling
employee is just his "private business". All liberals know that much.
I'm betting you all here have a "wide stance".

On 4/10/2012 6:07 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

In another thread you are claiming hydrogen is forming.

Don't you read your own posts or is someone else writting them for you?

In other words you can't come of with any significant sources of
hydrogen other than the big bang.

In other words you can't understand the things even you, yourself wrote?
We REPEAT, Sam, DO YOU SEE THE WORD "SIGNIFICANT" in your original
statement? I don't. Would you PLEASE point it out to us, if I'm missing
it somehow?

The only "science" Sam knows is "political science". And we all know
what that means.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:08:51 -0400, "
wrote:

On 4/10/2012 3:13 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT), Matt
wrote:

You do know Iron-Mountain is a long-exposed hoax, a piece of classic
kook/paranoid literature, right?

And one somehow suspects that even if it had been an Evil
Conspiracy blueprint, they'd have been forced to change their
plans after it was published as a book, 45 years ago.

As to Apollo and the Moon landings: I'll go with the guys I've met who
have BEEN THERE.

Excuse me Bill, but if you had any reading comprehension beyond the 5th
grade, you'd have seen that I never said that the Astro-nots have never
BEEN THERE! That is a totally different story. I said they didn't get
there on the Apollo rockets. I said the public data was fake.

You claim that fantasizing fake Moon landings plus seekrit magic
tech is somehow saner than fantasizing just fake landings? You're
a hoot, ****-bot.

As for Iron Mountain, sure it's a hoax. That's why virtually all the
suggestions in it have been tried (including the latest one of "massive
pollution" as a "threat") When ever someone tells me a book is a "hoax"
I always believe them. I especially believe it when there are strong
vested interests in discrediting a leaked document. Hey, I even believed
everyone on the internet when they all told me that Bill Clinton "did
not have sex with that woman!" Hey, I STILL believe it! Everybody knows
that the spooge on the dress was just one more urban legend. Hey, did he
get impeached and found guilty? Nope. See. It was all a hoax. And
Congress verified that. And anyway, adultery of a boss with an underling
employee is just his "private business". All liberals know that much.
I'm betting you all here have a "wide stance".

And I'm betting you're crazier than a ****house rat.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT), Matt
wrote, perhaps among other things:

You do know Iron-Mountain is a long-exposed hoax, a piece of classic
kook/paranoid literature, right?

As I understand it, it was written as a send-up of that kind of
literature. (It's been more than 35 years since I've read it)

As to Apollo and the Moon landings: I'll go with the guys I've met who
have BEEN THERE.

Amen.

Regards
Matt

On 4月10日, 上�2時25分, " wrote:
On 4/9/2012 7:35 AM,WretchFossilwrote:

However, the above image shows not only biotic branches
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?...044228676&p=29
but also crosshairs and human shadows without human images, just like
many other "moon landing" images. No such things happen in the Apollo
training images (seehttp://galaxywire.net/2009/06/29/apollo-11-lunar-surface-simulation-t...
)
So, the photo containing the "sage brush" is not mistakenly placed in
the Lunar Sample Atlas. It was meant to be there.

Well, sure. The "mistake" was weeds on the "moon".

There is absolutely no doubt for a great MANY reasons that the "rocket
trips" to the moon were faked. You can look them up yourself.

But the biggest sign is the cavalier attitude NASA takes toward
so-called Moon "artifacts" and data. Does one, simply "lose" original
footage of what has to be THE greatest event in the entire history of
mankind? Hardly. One can lose some old Hollywood footage, on the other
hand and while buffs take a fit, it's not that big a deal.

Of course that doesn't mean that trips to the moon were fake or that
mankind had not set foot there. I only said the ROCKET trips were fake.
The only theory that makes sense is that "man" had been on the moon
secretly for quite some time. And they did it with technology, that
takes you there as easy as driving to the corner 7-11. So why spend all
those billions to put a "man on the moon"?

I believe the answer can be found in the book "Report from Iron
Mountain" (Dial Press) where a massive space program is proposed as one
possible "substitute for the war system". I presume the moon shot was a
"test" of that idea. Today we are testing the "massive pollution" war
substitute idea.

Huge Blood Vessels Found In the Lunar Sky

The following photos show huge blood vessels in the sky:
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?...044251983&p=37
http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?...044251984&p=38
Source of above images:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...?AS15-85-11407

Read more at http://www.wretch.cc/blog/lin440315&category_id=0