We'll see who went where eh?

Dear Nathan Jones:

"Bring it on'" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.1 - November 2003
Written by Nathan Jones

Usual pointless, thoughtless crap. Unedited, without thought one about the
glaring errors already pointed out.

Be sure and send him money. He obviously needs the cash. Maybe he could
buy a clue!

David A. Smith

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:47:41 -0700, \(formerly\)"
dlzc1.cox@net wrote:

Dear Nathan Jones:

"Bring it on'" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.1 - November 2003
Written by Nathan Jones

Usual pointless, thoughtless crap. Unedited, without thought one about the
glaring errors already pointed out.

Be sure and send him money. He obviously needs the cash. Maybe he could
buy a clue!

David A. Smith


You know, assuming that the US *does* go *back* (yes, BACK) to the
Moon, one wonders what these morons will do to keep their mental
acrobatics going.

They will probably claim, "oh, sure, we can do it now, but not then"


--

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."

Wally Anglesea™ wrote in
sci.astro:


You know, assuming that the US *does* go *back* (yes, BACK) to the
Moon, one wonders what these morons will do to keep their mental
acrobatics going.


Why should one be interested in acrobatics of a twit at all?



They will probably claim, "oh, sure, we can do it now, but not then"


They sure will circumvent my killfile through kind cooperation of the
people who feel obliged to counter new claims of these twits.


Clear skies,

--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:47:41 -0700, \(formerly\)"
dlzc1.cox@net wrote:

Dear Nathan Jones:

"Bring it on'" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.1 - November 2003
Written by Nathan Jones

Usual pointless, thoughtless crap. Unedited, without thought one about
the
glaring errors already pointed out.

Be sure and send him money. He obviously needs the cash. Maybe he could
buy a clue!

David A. Smith


You know, assuming that the US *does* go *back* (yes, BACK) to the
Moon, one wonders what these morons will do to keep their mental
acrobatics going.

They will probably claim, "oh, sure, we can do it now, but not then"

One has to wonder how they will explain away the footprints left by the
first astronauts.



--

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."

Dear The Ancient One:

"The Ancient One" wrote in message
...

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
....
Be sure and send him money. He obviously needs the cash. Maybe he
could
buy a clue!

You know, assuming that the US *does* go *back* (yes, BACK) to the
Moon, one wonders what these morons will do to keep their mental
acrobatics going.

They will probably claim, "oh, sure, we can do it now, but not then"

One has to wonder how they will explain away the footprints left by the
first astronauts.

They took plaster casts with them, and made the "old" footprints. Just
like hoaxers do with the Yeti. But they will get quieter...

David A. Smith

"Bring it on'" wrote in message
...

Subject: (21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein, shadows and
perspective.

You haven't updated it with the full explanation of why "buzz's boot" photo
is extremely easy to explain as it was lit up by armstrong's suit.

"Bring it on'" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.1 - November 2003
Written by Nathan Jones

Subject: (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?

I would remind the reader that It's up to scientists and
claimants of this or that fact to provide proof of their claims.

Excuse me dipstick, but it would be up to the person making the
extraordinary claim (in this case that would be the "pseudo" scientists. to
provide the proof... in any debate where evidence to support an argument
against the status quo is inadequate, the status quo wins.