Refutation of the Moon "hoax" idiocy

Brad the Nazi wrote:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?
as_umsgid=1173662768.946649.37290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Then by all possible means, please do tell the rest of us village
idiots,

How about not the rest of the village iodits, just YOU?

as to where the heck Venus was hiding itself as of missions A11,
A14 and A16.

You can see for yourself. The data for the visibility of Venus, BY
DATE, is listed on this fine web site:

http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/verschijnselen/1969.html#jaar

Take a look at the right graph, for July 1969. The moon landing, of
course, was on 20 July 1969.
You'll note (if you could READ, that is), that Venus WAS NOT VISIBLE.
Ain;t that a kick in the ass.

How about for Apollo 14? Well, the landing there was 5 February 1971.
Let's look at the web site:
http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/verschijnselen/1971.html#jaar

Hmm... Venus isn't visible UNTIL AUGUST. Ain't that a kick in the ass?


How about Apollo 16, jerkoff? The landing was 21 April 1972. Let's
check that web site one mo' time....
http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/verschijnselen/1972.html#jaar

Hmm...Venus was REALLY easy to see in March, but the landing WASN'T in
March, was it? The landing was towards the end of April, when ... drum
roll please... Venus was NOT VISIBLE.


Three strikes and you're out, fucking loser. The three SPECIFIC Apollo
missions YOU mentioned, and you couldn't even GUESS by luck correctly
once..

Answer: Venus was either hiding too close to the Sun to see, or it was
up URANUS.

Ain't that a kick in your balls?

While you're at it;
Why no solar UV?

Because film doesn't usually pick up UV that well, being that the
FIRST thing a photography buys after the camera is a UV FILTER. Here,
again, your complete and utter ignorance of photography bites you in
the ass again.

Why UV filter? Improves the blue of the sky, and it's cheap - it
protects the lense from scratches. EVERYBODY know this - oh, sorry,
everybody edxcept the dumb Nazi sympathizer moron kook.

Why no electrostatic anything?

Because the excess charges are quickly neutralized.

Why no hard-X-rays?

I know you like it HARD.

Why no local Gamma?

You tell me.

Why no sodium?

How do you know that there IS or ISN'T sodium there?

Why so damn little argon?

Because argon is a GAS, and the moon has no Atmosphere (due to minimal
gravity). I would ask to calculate the root mean square spped of argon
at the temp of the moon, and compare it to the escape velocity, but
you are far too fucking stupid to be able to do this calculation.

Why so guano island passive and reflective like?

The moon is very obviously refletive, otherwise it would not reflect
enough light to actually read by on some night.

Got that 60:1 rocket/payload ratio, at nearly 30% inert GLOW, as packing
along each of those unproven (zero prototype) fly-by-rocket landers w/o
momentum reaction wheels?

"unproven"? correct. But you forget, there weren't *** ass coward
like hyou, who flip hamburgers for a liveing, and hide under their
mommy's apron strings. These were REAL MEN, something you could never
understand. They took a lot of risks.

Where's any of their actual film, and of those original video tapes.

At the video store right next to the Mickey D's where you work.
Congratualtions on the "Employee of the Month" award. Still pulling in
a big $5.75 an hour?

Besides less than Jewish squat,

Pity you can't hang out with your buddies: Franck, Frick,
Kaltenbrunner, Keitel, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Sauckel, Seiss-Inquart.
Jodl, Streicher. Why is that, again? "cause they strangled at the
end of a rope? "Tod durch den strang"

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html

what exactly do you folks have that
can't be excluded?
-
Brad Guth

.

Quantcast