HP3000-L Archives

February 2001, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Boyd <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mark Boyd <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:39:14 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (61 lines)
No. Men really landed on the moon in '69.  Why else would the Government be
covering up the fact that the Moon really IS made of green cheese AND
populated entirely by a race of scantily clad, full lipped, buxom, blondine,
bouncy bottomed, Amazon warrioretts that only want to invade the earth and
enslave men as their love puppets.  THAT'S why it's the year 2001 and there
are NO flying cars.  THAT'S why we don't explore the moon anymore.  I have
irrefutable proof that at the heart of this conspiracy lies a thin lipped,
bony face, small breasted, ball busting, penis envying shrew constipated on
the fact that prince charming came along and saw her perpetually
pre-menstrual self and road off into the sunset at a high gallop without
her; Code Named "My Ex".

The truth is out there.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Phillips [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: Did We Go To The Moon


Last night our local FOX station aired a pseudo-documentary entitled
"Conspiracy Theory:  Did we land on the moon?" (or something like that).
The premise was that NASA faked the moon landing back in 1969 and following.

The reasons given for this were based on analysis of the movies and pictures
taken by the astronauts themselves.  This analysis brought to light some
remarkable questions:

1)  Why are there no stars in the black lunar "sky" in any of the
photographs or movies?

2)  Why was there no blast crater from the rocket engine on the LEM when it
landed?

3)  If the moon is supposedly covered in dust, why was there no dust on the
LEM after it landed?

4)  How did they take that neat picture of the astronaut with the sun behind
him
and still able to see the detail of his suit and images in his visor?  The
astronaut should have been in silhouette.

5)  Why are the shadows going different directions in the pictures if there
was
only one light source (the Sun)?

6)  With the Sun behind the LEM, how did they get a picture of the shadowed
side with full detail of the lander?

7)  Some of the pictures and films that are supposed to be at different
locations have the exact same land features/details.

Inquiring minds want to know!

Jim Phillips                           Information Systems Manager
Email: [log in to unmask]     Therm-O-Link, Inc.
Phone: 330-527-2124                         P. O. Box 285
Fax:   330-527-2123                           10513 Freedom Street
Web:   http://www.tolwire.com          Garrettsville, OH  44231

ATOM RSS1 RSS2