Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969. Keep
it friendly.

J. Fields, USAF Retired

"J.F." > wrote in news:RwpTh.7944$u03.1129
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:

> Just a question to start some dialog.


In a binaries group?


> How many of you thank that we
> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969. Keep
> it friendly.
>
> J. Fields, USAF Retired
>


Astronomers continue to bounce laser beams off the
reflectors that were left on the moon. Yes, the lunar
landings were real.


http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060713-9999-lz1c13laser.html

Yes I know that this is a binaries group and I have posted several pictures
in here. Take a look at this website
http://mrbasheer.tripod.com/moonwalk.htm Its enough to make people believe
that no one has ever been on the moon.


"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "J.F." > wrote in news:RwpTh.7944$u03.1129
> @newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> Just a question to start some dialog.
>
>
> In a binaries group?
>
>
>> How many of you thank that we
>> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969.
>> Keep
>> it friendly.
>>
>> J. Fields, USAF Retired
>>
>
>
> Astronomers continue to bounce laser beams off the
> reflectors that were left on the moon. Yes, the lunar
> landings were real.
>
>
> http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/
>
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060713-9999-lz1c13laser.html

"Mitchell Holman" wrote:

> "J.F." > wrote:

>> Just a question to start some dialog.

> In a binaries group?

>> How many of you thank that we
>> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969.
>> Keep
>> it friendly.

>> J. Fields, USAF Retired

> Astronomers continue to bounce laser beams off the
> reflectors that were left on the moon. Yes, the lunar
> landings were real.

Just glancing at the books on one of my shelves--Taylor's
"Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View," Short's "Planetary Geology,"
Chapman's "The Inner Planets"--the scientific evidence is far
more persuasive than anything offered by the hoax cranks.
None of them seem to know anything useful about astronomy,
photography or any other part of reality.

For that matter, the technology of 1969 wasn't capable of producing
a credible faked film of a lunar landing. Compare the lunar scenes
of "2001" to the films brought back from the Apollo landings.

The real question is, why do idiots waste time raising doubts
about the Apollo flights?

--Bill Thompson

"J.F." wrote:
>
> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969. Keep
> it friendly.
>
> J. Fields, USAF Retired

this is a binaries group. you want discussion, go to a text group.

redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Exxor wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:58:15 GMT, "William R Thompson"
> > wrote:
>
> >The real question is, why do idiots waste time raising doubts
> >about the Apollo flights?
>
> Because they have no appreciation for the Conspiracy Industry's
> explanation of how JFK escaped assassination by UFO on 9/11 in a
> movie studio at Area 51.

now *that's* funny.............

redc1c4,
(glad i wasn't drinking my morning Coke when i read it. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> "J.F." wrote:
>>
>> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
>> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969.
>> Keep
>> it friendly.
>>
>> J. Fields, USAF Retired
>
> this is a binaries group. you want discussion, go to a text group.
>
> redc1c4,
> pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious.
> --
> "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
> considerable watching."
>
> Army Officer's Guide

Did the engine go south in this picture, or did some of the ordinance
explode?

thanx

Frank from Deeetroit wrote:
>
> "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "J.F." wrote:
> >>
> >> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
> >> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969.
> >> Keep
> >> it friendly.
> >>
> >> J. Fields, USAF Retired
> >
> > this is a binaries group. you want discussion, go to a text group.
> >
> > redc1c4,
> > pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious.
> > --
> > "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
> > considerable watching."
> >
> > Army Officer's Guide
>
> Did the engine go south in this picture, or did some of the ordinance
> explode?
>
> thanx

neither:
someone forgot to seal the centerline fuel tank properly, and when it
was pressurized, the fuel naturally escaped out the vent.

when the fuel vapor reached the exhaust stream, it ignited. life
then got *very* exciting for the pilot. %-)

this was out at 29 Palms here in CA, hence the file name.

redc1c4,
who got his info from the sign at the airfield, waiting for a Huey.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:31:38 GMT, "J.F." >
wrote:

>Yes I know that this is a binaries group and I have posted several pictures
>in here. Take a look at this website
>http://mrbasheer.tripod.com/moonwalk.htm Its enough to make people believe
>that no one has ever been on the moon.

The first two pictures (questions) at that website are easily
explained.

If you saw the movie of the flag you would notice that it is not
"fluttering" but in a fixed position. It is placed that way so that
you can see it is the U.S. flag. If you do a search for pictures of
that first landing on the moon, you will notice that the flag is
*always* "fluttering" in the same position. Now *that* would be a
trick to pull on earth.

Shadows? Measure the shadows of legs of the two men. Those are
equal. One shadow may be longer due to the flag being in the picture.
And if one shadow IS longer than the other, how could that trick be
done on earth.

As previously stated, we are still aiming lasers at the moon and
getting back reflections from devices placed there by astronauts.

"J.F." > wrote in message
t...
> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969. Keep
> it friendly.
>
> J. Fields, USAF Retired
>
>

Dave LaCourse wrote:


>
> Shadows? Measure the shadows of legs of the two men. Those are
> equal. One shadow may be longer due to the flag being in the picture.
> And if one shadow IS longer than the other, how could that trick be
> done on earth.
>

It looks as if the ground they are on is not flat.And as for shadows
of different angles, it looks to be a normal effect
(distortion/pincushion/barrel)achieved with such a wide angle lens being
used. Better panoramas are done with a telephoto lens (seperate shots)
and stuck together.

The disappearing crosshair is just because the item is catching so much
bright sunlight.

In article >,
"J.F." > wrote:

> Yes I know that this is a binaries group and I have posted several pictures
> in here. Take a look at this website
> http://mrbasheer.tripod.com/moonwalk.htm Its enough to make people believe
> that no one has ever been on the moon.

It's enough to make feeble-minded conspiracy nutjobs believe no one has
ever been on the moon.

Here's another website you might like:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

--
One is always considered mad when one perfects something that others can
not grasp.*- Ed Wood

Only people with deep emotional problems (conspiarcy theorists, etc.) don't
believe it.


--
Samm Munn

"J.F." > wrote in message
t...
> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969. Keep
> it friendly.
>
> J. Fields, USAF Retired
>

J.F. wrote:
> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969. Keep
> it friendly.
>
> J. Fields, USAF Retired
>
>

I never stated that I didn't believe it. There is no need to call me an
idiot either. I just happened to be reading an article on the net this
morning and wanted to get some feedback from some of the regulars here. I
said to keep it friendly. I spent 20 years in the USAF and I do believe that
we were on the moon. For crying out loud, why all the negativity.
"Samm Munn" > wrote in message
et...
> Only people with deep emotional problems (conspiarcy theorists, etc.)
> don't believe it.
>
>
> --
> Samm Munn
>
> "J.F." > wrote in message
> t...
>> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
>> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969.
>> Keep it friendly.
>>
>> J. Fields, USAF Retired
>>
>
>

"J.F." wrote:
>
> I never stated that I didn't believe it. There is no need to call me an
> idiot either. I just happened to be reading an article on the net this
> morning and wanted to get some feedback from some of the regulars here. I
> said to keep it friendly. I spent 20 years in the USAF and I do believe that
> we were on the moon. For crying out loud, why all the negativity.

maybe because you started a discussion thread in a binaries group, and
you started it on a topic and in a manner as to be seen either as
a net loon or a troll, neither of which are popular here?

redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious, per SOP. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

"J.F." > wrote in message
t...
> Yes I know that this is a binaries group and I have posted several
> pictures in here. Take a look at this website
> http://mrbasheer.tripod.com/moonwalk.htm Its enough to make people
> believe that no one has ever been on the moon.
>
>

Hardly.
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

> For crying out loud, why all the negativity.


Good ****ing question shakespeare.

If you spent twenty years in the military and do believe man went to
the moon then why are you coming to this group with a pseudo did it or
didn't it really happen type of question.

You sound like your trolling.

I don't believe your known to this group so nobody can judge your
credibility.

It's a stupid ****ing question and if you have just a half ounce of
intelligence you know it's a stupic ****ing question.

Did I say you sound like a troll.

"Exxor" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:58:15 GMT, "William R Thompson"
> > wrote:
>
> >The real question is, why do idiots waste time raising doubts
> >about the Apollo flights?
>
> Because they have no appreciation for the Conspiracy Industry's
> explanation of how JFK escaped assassination by UFO on 9/11 in a
> movie studio at Area 51.

LOL!! (thumbs up!)

Alan

--
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those
entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it
into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson

Damn that explains it all!!!


Andrew

"Exxor" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:58:15 GMT, "William R Thompson"
> > wrote:
>
>>The real question is, why do idiots waste time raising doubts
>>about the Apollo flights?
>
> Because they have no appreciation for the Conspiracy Industry's
> explanation of how JFK escaped assassination by UFO on 9/11 in a
> movie studio at Area 51.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:23:13 GMT, "J.F." > wrote:

>Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
>actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969. Keep
>it friendly.

? is there any serious doubt¿

--

09=ix

"J.F." > wrote in
t:

> Yes I know that this is a binaries group and I have posted several
> pictures in here. Take a look at this website
> http://mrbasheer.tripod.com/moonwalk.htm Its enough to make people
> believe that no one has ever been on the moon.


Only because people are fatuous and not very bright all around.
Does your newspaper have an astrology section? Do you get to see psychics
on your TV?

But if it helps, go to http://www.clavius.org/,
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html,
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm, and http://www.apollo-
hoax.me.uk/strangeshadows.html . Just a start.

Your example site might be a little more convincing if the
webmaster (I use the term loosely), bothered to use larger and more
detailed jpegs and not try to obscure the detail within them. All of the
pics, after all, are readily available directly from NASA's sites.

Should you take a look at the situation with the same critical eye
that is required in court cases, you find you have to be able to produce
means, motive, and opportunity for any conspiracy theory as well.
Opportunity, in cases like this, can also include practicality.

NASA is a government-funded private organization. The moon project
was pretty much locked in - they had the funding regardless of whether it
was feasible or not, and required no public displays to convince
Congress. If they wanted to continue funding, they almost certainly would
have found a lot more of interest "on the moon" than they did, and not
let the project die after Apollo 17.

And if you're going to fake something, some things you probably
should not do:

1. Involve half a million subcontracter employees in about seven
different states;

2. Display virtually every aspect of the program publicly, up to
and including live transmissions that have to originate with stations in
England and Australia (whose radio antennas were pointed at, three
guesses now?);

3. Perform every last one of your launches, including tests, from
the edges of populated areas with broad public visibility;

4. Perform your recoveries with the assistance of the US Navy and
several thousand witnesses aboard the recovery ships;

5. Freely distribute and display your information to the public for
the next several decades.

And that's just a start. Do you think NASA also paid off the Soviet
Union, who were tracking each of the flights? Launched the Saturn Vs
simply to deorbit them in the middle of the ocean somewhere (and saved
the cost of only a portion of the fuel and the lander itself, which still
had to be a convincing model for the subcontracters)? Constructed a huge
vacuum chamber so the faked lunar dust would behave properly (something
still beyond our capabilities)?

Do you really believe that, with so much effort in creating this
elaborate facade of the moon, they'd let through video displaying an
errant breeze blowing the flag? Or, for some completely ridiculous
reason, paste part of their equipment image over top of the crosshairs?

Does it strike you as strange that, among the many hundreds to
thousands of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy, not one,
not ONE, has come forth to give details? Seems like that should be a cash
cow, don't you think?

Don't you think?


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain

"J.F." > wrote in message
t...
>
> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969. Keep
> it friendly.
>

Every informed, intelligent person believes that.

"J.F." > wrote in message
t...
>
> Yes I know that this is a binaries group and I have posted several
> pictures in here. Take a look at this website
> http://mrbasheer.tripod.com/moonwalk.htm Its enough to make people
> believe that no one has ever been on the moon.
>

Only stupid people.

"J.F." > wrote in message
t...
>
> I never stated that I didn't believe it. There is no need to call me an
> idiot either. I just happened to be reading an article on the net this
> morning and wanted to get some feedback from some of the regulars here. I
> said to keep it friendly. I spent 20 years in the USAF and I do believe
> that we were on the moon. For crying out loud, why all the negativity.
>

You wrote:

"Yes I know that this is a binaries group and I have posted several pictures
in here. Take a look at this website
http://mrbasheer.tripod.com/moonwalk.htm Its enough to make people believe
that no one has ever been on the moon."

If you believe there is anything on that site that would cause an
intelligent human being to doubt man landed on the moon then you are not a
very bright fellow.

"Garrapata" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:23:13 GMT, "J.F." > wrote:
>
>>Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
>>actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969. Keep
>>it friendly.
>
> ? is there any serious doubt¿
>

No.

For some light entertainment listen to this:

http://www.moonmovie.com/

then click on the link "replay intro".

Looks like "rocket scientist" school has
relaxed some of their standards. Just spout
a bunch of random factoids and finish up
with a firm declaration.

Thanks for the friendly response...
"Al Denelsbeck" > wrote in message
46.128...
> "J.F." > wrote in
> t:
>
>> Yes I know that this is a binaries group and I have posted several
>> pictures in here. Take a look at this website
>> http://mrbasheer.tripod.com/moonwalk.htm Its enough to make people
>> believe that no one has ever been on the moon.
>
>
> Only because people are fatuous and not very bright all around.
> Does your newspaper have an astrology section? Do you get to see psychics
> on your TV?
>
> But if it helps, go to http://www.clavius.org/,
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html,
> http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm, and http://www.apollo-
> hoax.me.uk/strangeshadows.html . Just a start.
>
> Your example site might be a little more convincing if the
> webmaster (I use the term loosely), bothered to use larger and more
> detailed jpegs and not try to obscure the detail within them. All of the
> pics, after all, are readily available directly from NASA's sites.
>
> Should you take a look at the situation with the same critical eye
> that is required in court cases, you find you have to be able to produce
> means, motive, and opportunity for any conspiracy theory as well.
> Opportunity, in cases like this, can also include practicality.
>
> NASA is a government-funded private organization. The moon project
> was pretty much locked in - they had the funding regardless of whether it
> was feasible or not, and required no public displays to convince
> Congress. If they wanted to continue funding, they almost certainly would
> have found a lot more of interest "on the moon" than they did, and not
> let the project die after Apollo 17.
>
> And if you're going to fake something, some things you probably
> should not do:
>
> 1. Involve half a million subcontracter employees in about seven
> different states;
>
> 2. Display virtually every aspect of the program publicly, up to
> and including live transmissions that have to originate with stations in
> England and Australia (whose radio antennas were pointed at, three
> guesses now?);
>
> 3. Perform every last one of your launches, including tests, from
> the edges of populated areas with broad public visibility;
>
> 4. Perform your recoveries with the assistance of the US Navy and
> several thousand witnesses aboard the recovery ships;
>
> 5. Freely distribute and display your information to the public for
> the next several decades.
>
> And that's just a start. Do you think NASA also paid off the Soviet
> Union, who were tracking each of the flights? Launched the Saturn Vs
> simply to deorbit them in the middle of the ocean somewhere (and saved
> the cost of only a portion of the fuel and the lander itself, which still
> had to be a convincing model for the subcontracters)? Constructed a huge
> vacuum chamber so the faked lunar dust would behave properly (something
> still beyond our capabilities)?
>
> Do you really believe that, with so much effort in creating this
> elaborate facade of the moon, they'd let through video displaying an
> errant breeze blowing the flag? Or, for some completely ridiculous
> reason, paste part of their equipment image over top of the crosshairs?
>
> Does it strike you as strange that, among the many hundreds to
> thousands of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy, not one,
> not ONE, has come forth to give details? Seems like that should be a cash
> cow, don't you think?
>
> Don't you think?
>
>
> - Al.
>
> --
> To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain

"muff528" > wrote in news:_P6Uh.533$0S1.279@trnddc01:

> For some light entertainment listen to this:
>
> http://www.moonmovie.com/
>
> then click on the link "replay intro".
>
> Looks like "rocket scientist" school has
> relaxed some of their standards. Just spout
> a bunch of random factoids and finish up
> with a firm declaration.

Guffaw!

She who reads her lines badly implies that the entire Saturn V rocket would
have gone to the moon, landed there, and then returned to Oith. If that's
how flatulantly flimsy the foundation to their arguement is, I'm quite
confident the rest of the movie wouldn't even hold a candle to a bad Sci-Fi
channel Saturday night movie.

Saddest part is that there is no shortage of folks who will swallow it hook,
line and sinker...

>
> She who reads her lines badly implies that the entire Saturn V rocket
> would
> have gone to the moon, landed there, and then returned to Oith.......

....and also that the RP-1 stage is not only responsible for making the whole
trip
but that it also must be lit for the entire journey and is at risk of
running out of gas
at some point because none other than von Braun says the Saturn V is too
small
to carry enough fuel to go to the "myoon" and back!! :-)

OTOH the model of the Space Shuttle is kewl even though it can only travel
a half inch above the globe.

In fact the first man on the moon was Wernher von Braun in 1944 he went to
the moon in a V2 rocket, landed, had a small walk and came back....:-)

--

Gruß Guybrush


"Jim Breckenridge" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:rmvTh.65910$aG1.53117@pd7urf3no...
> J.F. wrote:
>> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
>> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969.
>> Keep
>> it friendly.
>>
>> J. Fields, USAF Retired
>>
>>
>
>

LMFAO!
"Guybrush Threepwood" > wrote in message
...
> In fact the first man on the moon was Wernher von Braun in 1944 he went to
> the moon in a V2 rocket, landed, had a small walk and came back....:-)
>
> --
>
> Gruß Guybrush
>
>
> "Jim Breckenridge" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:rmvTh.65910$aG1.53117@pd7urf3no...
>> J.F. wrote:
>>> Just a question to start some dialog. How many of you thank that we
>>> actually landed on the moon and had the technology to do so in 1969.
>>> Keep
>>> it friendly.
>>>
>>> J. Fields, USAF Retired
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>