|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Mar 31, 2008 10:42
On Mar 30, 6:17 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 8:14 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Mar 30, 2:20 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>> On Feb 13, 1:20 pm, 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 ...
|
| Show full article (4.78Kb) |
|
| | 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Mar 31, 2008 11:02
On Mar 31, 12:37 am, Benj iwaynet.net> wrote:> On Feb 12, 3:19 pm, Matt aol.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> The "reverse speech" thing is hardly any proof, but Matt's arguments
> are no better! Just WHO does he think he's fooling here? Anyone with
> any political savvy at all knows that the old "if there is any
> evidence of this, then why can't you show me it?" is total bullshit
> when dealing with governments. They have limitless money, limitless
> personnel, limitless authority, plenty of time, and pretty good
> connections with other important factors like media. They go around
> gathering up all tapes, papers, witnesses, and evidence for ANY
> conspiracy and then the paid "debunkers" come out with the age old
> argument, well, if this is true, then SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE (which ...
|
| Show full article (2.41Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Mar 31, 2008 11:11
On Mar 30, 6:04 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>> On Mar 30, 4:18 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Mar 30, 1:33 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>
>>>>> Excuse me while I rest, I'm tired from all the eye rolling I'm doing
>>>>> when reading your...stuff.
>
>>>>> BDK
>
>>>> As per usual, you're not here to constructively help, so what's the
>>>> difference?
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BDKBDK Date: Mar 31, 2008 18:25
> On Mar 30, 6:04 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>>> On Mar 30, 4:18 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>>
>>>>> On Mar 30, 1:33 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>>
>>>>>> Excuse me while I rest, I'm tired from all the eye rolling I'm doing
>>>>>> when reading your...stuff.
>>
>>>>>> BDK
>>
>>>>> As per usual, you're not here to constructively help, so what's the ...
|
| Show full article (2.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Mar 31, 2008 19:34
On Mar 31, 5:25 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>> On Mar 30, 6:04 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Mar 30, 4:18 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> On Mar 30, 1:33 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>> Excuse me while I rest, I'm tired from all the eye rolling I'm doing
>>>>>>> when reading your...stuff.
>
>>>>>>> BDK ...
|
| Show full article (3.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DisneygeekDisneygeek Date: Mar 31, 2008 21:02
On Mar 31, 1:19Â pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 6:17 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Explain yourself. Oh no wait, you're Brad Guth. You state things as
>> fact without ever explaining WHERE you got your information from!
>
> So, I have to further explain (as though it has never once been
> explained before) so that you folks of perpetual denial and of
> evidence exclusion which don't have to believe in those regular laws
> of physics, or in the best available science of others if any of such
> is external to your O-Ring insider cult, as such it's therefore 100+%%
> up to little old dyslexic me to entirely quantify upon each and every
> aspect that proves we haven't walked on the moon, even though of
> merely one such uncovered lie is more than sufficient. Â Sorry folks,
> I've been there and done that countless times before, whereas I'm
> certainly good at the science of observationology and at a few other
> realms of science, but apparently I'm not ever going to be quite that
> good enough in order to suit those of you and of your brown-nosed ...
|
| Show full article (1.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DisneygeekDisneygeek Date: Mar 31, 2008 21:05
On Mar 31, 1:42Â pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 6:17 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Mar 30, 8:14 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> On Mar 30, 2:20 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Feb 13, 1:20 pm, 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. Â Congratulations on your hard work.
>
>>>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions ...
|
| Show full article (5.50Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Mar 31, 2008 21:57
On Mar 31, 8:02 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 31, 1:19 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Mar 30, 6:17 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>> Explain yourself. Oh no wait, you're Brad Guth. You state things as
>>> fact without ever explaining WHERE you got your information from!
>
>> So, I have to further explain (as though it has never once been
>> explained before) so that you folks of perpetual denial and of
>> evidence exclusion which don't have to believe in those regular laws
>> of physics, or in the best available science of others if any of such
>> is external to your O-Ring insider cult, as such it's therefore 100+%%
>> up to little old dyslexic me to entirely quantify upon each and every
>> aspect that proves we haven't walked on the moon, even though of
>> merely one such uncovered lie is more than sufficient. Sorry folks,
>> I've been there and done that countless times before, whereas I'm
>> certainly good at the science of observationology and at a few other ...
|
| Show full article (2.17Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: BradGuthBradGuth Date: Mar 31, 2008 22:02
On Mar 31, 8:05 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 31, 1:42 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Mar 30, 6:17 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>> On Mar 30, 8:14 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Mar 30, 2:20 pm, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>> On Feb 13, 1:20 pm, 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 ...
|
| Show full article (6.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BDKBDK Date: Mar 31, 2008 22:28
> On Mar 31, 5:25 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>>> On Mar 30, 6:04 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>>
>>>>> On Mar 30, 4:18 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 30, 1:33 pm, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:>>
>>>>>>>> Excuse me while I rest, I'm tired from all the eye rolling I'm doing
>>>>>>>> when reading your...stuff. ...
|
| Show full article (4.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
