> On Feb 12, 1:03 pm, Andre Lieven wrote:

>> On Feb 12, 2:19 pm, Matt aol.com> wrote:
>>

>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of...

> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster...

>> But then you've got far better physics and replicated science proof
>> than NASA. Perhaps you should share and share alike. Why is that
>> such a problem?
>> . - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> I can't resist asking, Brad. If every planetary scientist on Earth
> agrees that we have been to the Moon and that Venus is uninhabited and
> uninhabitable (which they do), and you believe the opposite, do you
> ever entertain the notion that YOU might be the one misinterpreting
> the data?

> In article
> i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Feb 12, 1:03 pm, Andre Lieven wrote:

>>> On Feb 12, 2:19 pm, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>

>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>>> Well, I would suggest that a posting name of " Israeldid911 " rather
>>> takes
>>> away from any possible claim of " objectivity "...

>

>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories, ...

> In article
> <8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
>>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
>>> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
>>> etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
>>> any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
>>> paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come ...

>
> A friend and I watched, in real time, video transmitted directly from
> the antenna on the lunar rover during the Apollo 17 mission. My friend
> was a ham operator, and he had a 12-foot parabolic dish in his back
> yard; it was pointed directly at the moon. I contributed the video
> expertise necessary to demodulate the signal. The image was very noisy,
> but recognizable when we saw it some time later on a network broadcast.
>

> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:
>

>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>> objective.  Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom  mission despite the Ranger probes
>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
>> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
>> etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
>> any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
>> paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
>> to light.

>
> If that's what makes yourself and of so many other pretend atheists
> and mainstream status quo rusemasters happy campers, then so be it.
> ...

> On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw witzend.com> wrote:

>> In article
>> <8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>>

>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>>>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
>>>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
>>>> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
>>>> etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose ...

> In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw witzend.com> wrote:

>>> In article
>>> <8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>

>>>  BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>>> objective.  Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories, ...