Men on the moon?

Science > Physics > Men on the moon?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 6 of 6

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"CNC Area"
Date:	28 Jan 2005 08:04:28 PM
Object:	Men on the moon?

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C505A6.DD51C6E2
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Mr Frazir,
Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C505A6.DD51C6E2
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>Men on the moon?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Mr Frazir,
 Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C505A6.DD51C6E2--
.

User: "James Kibo Parry"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	17 Feb 2005 08:05:10 PM

In sci.physics, tj Frazir (GravityPhysics@webtv.net) wrote:

FU Kiboo.. The secret rock service is allready
probing the white house rocks. No stone will be left untruned.

The Secret Rock Service?
Excuse me, the Secret Rock Service?
Sounds like a "Flintstones" spin-off that Hanna-Barbera rejected
as being too unrealistic.
I imagine Jack Webb would not only be the star, he'd draw every
episode all by himself. And the title sequence would involve him
holding you down and yelling "DUMB, DA DUMB DUMB!" in your ear.

my guts bustin

Maybe it's your stomach truning. Is it chruning? Heartbruning?

The clinton rock ,,***** no one wants to turn it over. Not the clinton
rock. It has an M on it.
The Hoover rock smock could put a wrench on the Bust space clock .

Hooray! You've progressed from simple incoherence to making clang
associations!
Clang tang walla-walla bing bang rock smock space clock, Mr. Spock!
Thinking like you is hard. My brain strain hurts, nertz.

Nasa cant decide what delapitated multibillion usd pice of ***** to
relinquish wile they still have bush to sine the bills.
Bush said we were going back to the moon .
It's clear to nasa that Bush wants his own rocks shacked painted white
and put on the white house lawn.

Is this the White House in Washington, D.C., or the other one on the Moon?
I know all about the secret Moon White House because I'm a member of
the Secret Rock Service. I bust filthy hippies to try to turn rocks
into gravel for their groovy aquariums. You smash a rock in my country,
pal, and you're gonna go to prison. Hard labor. You'll be busting
rocks there all right, but they'll be _bad_ rocks. Rocks that committed
crimes. Rocks that went to the Moon without permission. So, hippie,
don't try getting "stoned" with any of my rocks. I took an oath
to protect rocks from hippies, preverts, and erosion. And when someone
puts their hands on a rock they're not married to, it erodes my patience.
You understand, space hippie?
-- K.
Now let's see you headin' out to Eden, brother.
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon? sand plus head equals glass	17 Feb 2005 09:21:17 PM

Look under it real good.. that rocket is 4 fucking feet from the moon.
Thats a carator of dust .
Why is there no glass from the rocket and why is the rocket 4 feet above
4 inches of undisturbed dust ?
It should have dug a hole under the rocket.
But it failed tp move 4 inches of dust .
The lander pads went in a foot.
But between the pad and the rocket id a 6 inch dust bowl. The rocket
plume was 140 feet to te flame tip so that dust bowl where a deep pit
should be is imposible to ignore.
As plain as day the dust is in perfect shape and not still glowing
pice of hot glass .
You hold a rocket against the ground and see if there is no glass ,
see of a 22 ton thrust rocket will blow a 4 inch pile of dust out of
its plume .
Google Image Result for
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo14/A14_PackageFS.gif
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo14/A14_PackageFS.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo14/A14_Surface_EVA1.html&h=509&w=492&sz=189&tbnid=6f3nM27Mx2oJ:&tbnh=127&tbnw=123&start=20&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dapollo%2Blunar%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DN
Nasa claimes this rocket fired against the ground for 42 seconds.
*****...if you lit that rocket where it is ...
A toy rocket would have blown that dust bowl away .

.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	17 Feb 2005 08:47:39 PM

Note to verical landings.
nasa used a steerable rocket to land with.
They used a laderal thruster for ballance.
Pushed to the side to stop the fall.
Then 30 billion and one verical landing plane says its imposible to
use a side thruster.
all thrusters must point down.
The air force is telling nasa that cant be done.
No one has yet flew any trubine the way the nasa trainer lander is
put together.
100 pound thusters fire to the side to ballance it. Like standing on
a ball wile you put your hand against a wall.
Its fucking retarted.
That stupid thing wount land on te moon .
It's uncontroled crash garenteed.
UGC lunar lander.
No one on the planet could fly the lander because its so stupid and
wrong.
You get in the lander and Ill drop you off at 2000 feet ,,now land.
You know what happends when a rocket tryes to hover ? think about a
rocket not going up.
It roles then spins flipping end over end.
that stupid thing cant land.

.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	17 Feb 2005 09:23:32 PM

The pads damaged the dust and sank a foot.
But a rocket 4 feet above the dust ,,wount move any dust .
Google Image Result for
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo14/A14_PackageFS.gif
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo14/A14_PackageFS.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo14/A14_Surface_EVA1.html&h=509&w=492&sz=189&tbnid=6f3nM27Mx2oJ:&tbnh=127&tbnw=123&start=20&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dapollo%2Blunar%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DN
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	17 Feb 2005 10:24:12 PM

Google Image Result for
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/gallery/image_gallery/earth/graphics/apollo17_earth.jpg
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/gallery/image_gallery/earth/graphics/apollo17_earth.jpg&imgrefurl=http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/gallery/image_gallery/earth/earth_full.html&h=432&w=432&sz=41&tbnid=Ie7umdHW7JQJ:&tbnh=123&tbnw=123&start=67&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dapollo%2B%2Bearth%2Bfrom%2Bmoon%26start%3D60%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DN
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	14 Mar 2005 12:57:23 PM

Dear 'tj Frazir' and other friends of humanity,
You're up against the incest intellectual cesspool of life itself.
These are incest cloned borgs of the mainstream status quo got their
seed DNA from the remains of Hitler. As such their borg programming is
hardwired into their incest mutated brains, that which too often keeps
leaking out from between their butt-cheaks.
Evidence exclusions is what recently worked for their resident
warlord(GW Bush), just as it did for the likes of a certain Pope that
had a thing for Cathars and Hitler having his torment over Jews or
actually anyone standing in his way, and onto accomplishing the
extermination of JFK in order to sustain their perpetrated cold-war
ruse/sting of the century as being effectively dog-wagged and/or
cloaked by way of NASA/Apollo.
All of our rotten cold-war eggs are in the very same basket as were all
of the dirty rotten USSR eggs. Unfortunately, some of those rotten eggs
are so bad that the stench is circumnavigating the globe, so much so
that it isn't possible to get yourself upwind of that nor of the
intellectual flatulence arising from the incest butt-brains of what
you're attempting to resolve as the grand lie by the grandest of liars
upon mother Earth.
So, don't expect anything but the usual butt-crack movements and those
silly grins as indicating that yet another stinking lie is on it's way.
Regardless of what's physically within those supposed surface obtained
images of exactly what you know doesn't follow the laws of physics,
please remember that unless that Kodak film they were using had one of
the dye emulsion layers removed, such as the one most responsive to the
near-UV and UV/a spectrum of energy, of which the lunar environment
offered at least 256 fold greater dosage than upon Earth where normal
Kodak film was formulated to function at roughly 0.25~0.5 w/m2 worth of
UV intensity, whereas anything of whatever was supposedly lunar surface
photographed remains at total risk of being entirely bogus, and that's
no freaking lie.
The fact that of our NASA nor can Russia so much as demonstrate even a
gravity scaled AI/robotic 4D fly-by-rocket capability is simply further
proof-positive that we've all been snookered, actually good many
thousands upon thousands (meaning millions) having been summarily
snookered to death over our mutually perpetrated cold-wars that are
ongoing as we speak. Therefore, the collective of whatever appeases the
upper most 0.1% of humanity is what will transpire or bust.
BTW; the physical threat of EVA folks being impacted even nearby from
so much as a dust-bunny arriving at 30 km/s is extremely real, and it's
so much more likely the case if you're situated on such a raw surface
having damn little atmosphere plus the 1.623 m/s/s gravity influencing
upon whatever's within the neighborhood as to arriving from just about
any direction you can think of, but especially nasty from the head-on
direction of 30 km/s plus whatever the solar flak offered at 600 km/s
has to share isn't hardly insignificant if you're standing essentially
naked(without atmosphere) upon the basalt dark and nasty hot moon
that's reacting rather badly into producing loads of secondary(recoil)
photons.
So, focus your talents upon the near-UV and UV/a factors of what their
unfiltered Kodak film failed to record, as they absolutely have not a
physics leg to sand upon. Then focus upon those entirely bogus landers.
Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	15 Mar 2005 04:37:53 PM

tj Frazir,
It's not that there's only one item or law of physics that doesn't fit
the mold of what we've been shown and informed by NASA, as there are
dozens of questionable if not somewhat impossible considerations that
just shouldn't have been the case. Loads of unusual evidence exclusions
of what should otherwise have told us considerably more about the raw
environment of having to survive upon the fully solar illuminated moon,
that which simply could not have been any EVA moonsuit 'walk in the
park'.
Besides the many skewed gravity related issues which you've correctly
pointed out, and the fact that neither us nor (at the time) them dirty
rotten Russians have zilch worth of any such R&D results upon either
that of our manned fly-by-rocket landers nor of those AI/robotic
Russian landers. As of today there's still nothing on the books or even
in the labs that'll get a small instrument package safely deployed onto
a given moon or small planet having no atmosphere. Even the results of
getting instruments onto the surface of Mars is extremely payload
limited due to having such a slight atmosphere that's roughly 1% of
what Earth has to work with, and thus far it has been a 50/50 loaded
happenstance of somewhat ***** poor odds of even that much surviving.
The instruments supposedly deployed upon the moon were never made
interactive to the general scientific public, as everything had to be
channeled and thereby moderated through the NASA/Apollo 'need to know'
and 'nondisclosure' mills. As well as none of the original film, not
even a frame nor that of any portion of leader/trailer was ever allowed
outside of the inner realms of whatever was 100% NASA/Apollo. If there
were only one or even a few roles of film, as such even I could
understand their reluctance, however we're talking about more than a
hundred roles of said film and thereby thousands of individual frames,
of which at least 10% of those can't possibly be worth squat to their
official archives, that is unless they're attempting to preserve how
pathetically camera and lens incompetent and photographically mission
dumbfounded (meaning ignorant if not absolutely arrogant) our
astronauts were upon multiple occasions none the less.
As to those supposed retroreflectors are yet another physics-101 joke,
as there's far more of those IR laser photons being bounced off the
dark basalt surface at roughly a reflective index of 25% than off those
extremely limited surface areas of those relatively small and entirely
passive (20" x 20") retroreflectors that weren't even specifically
band-pass coated as to making those of any special signature that would
have been more likely detected as such. Only after a laser cannon
offering something better than 0.05 milliradian and of using near-UV
(400~450 nm), as that's a 675 m zone of roughly 358e3 m2), as otherwise
for any laser thus far involved as having creating such a much larger
illuminated zone would only be obtaining millions of times more likely
raw surface photons than from the extremely limited surface areas of
those supposed retroreflectors. Any physics arguments as to the
contrary are entirely bogus, as in LLPOF on steroids.
The available surface images as obtained from orbit are correctly
showing us the 11~12% index of what a mostly dark basalt and pulverised
moon surface looks like (a dark and forbidding ultimate cosmic morgue
of razor sharp and thereby nasty accumulations, plus loads strewn
impact related shards). However, not even those Apollo images of far
better than of any terrestrial or subsequent satellite resolution, as
obtained from their 100 km orbits within the command module offers
anything significant of their own supposed landing sights, and of the
subsequent newer satellite technology of sufficient CCD resolutions
showing us what NASA officially claimed as Apollo landing sites are
those being of an impact like 3~5% reflective zone of several hundred
meters worth of crater like soil and basalt displacements, looking
exactly like other recent impacts of what disrupted deeply into the
several meters thick moon-dirt of accumulations in order to have
exposed the raw lunar basalt that was of the expected 3~5% reflective
(coal like) index.
Unfortunately for team NASA/Apollo, there were none of their supposed
surface obtained Kodak moments providing us such indications of any
significant landing site depressions, nor having the slightest bit of
local area discolouration due to their fly-by-rocket usage down to the
very last second (even after the supposed fact of having supposedly
landed) of arriving upon the moon which should have easily exposed down
to whatever raw basalt, especially if the surface of their clumping
(portland cement and cornmeal like) moon-dirt was merely a few cm deep
instead of the more likely several meters worth of uncompacted
accumulations.
In addition to creating no measurable landing zone moon-dirt
disruptions as to depicting anything darker than their surroundings,
there was the rather unusual 55+% reflective index of that lunar
terrain to contend with, as well as for having damn few if any strewn
meteorite and moon basalt shards away from their landing sites
because????????
The 55% index remains as a rather easily established by their own
80~85% reflective index as derived off their moonsuits, and otherwise
by the white portions of our normal red, unusually xenon like
illuminated white and otherwise extremely subdued blue of our American
flags. Never once was there a spectrum skewed image of what the 256
fold greater UV energy influx should have represented, not to mention
of all the secondary(recoil) photons that should have provided a nicely
near-blue tinted result as being derived off many natural substances as
well as especially off artificial items, such as our American flag and
almost everything else that was along for the ride should have reacted
by way of offering a good number of those secondary(recoil) photons.
As to those polarise filtered cameras should have obtained photo
recorded terrain as having a somewhat darker surface (not lighter), and
of the contrast levels obtained from such a point-source of what the
raw solar influx represented simply wasn't the case. In fact, there
were somewhat oddly tapered and less sharp shadows indicating a
diffused lighting source that was much closer than the sun. Even though
earthshine was considerable, of it's position in relationship to what
was being photographed and of it's secondary illuminating capability
simply was not sufficiently overpowering the landscape, thus earthshine
simply wasn't offering a perceptible amount as compared to the raw
solar influx, and that of the moon's 12% surface reflected component
could not have back-filled to the degree as depicted.
The lack of including the near-UV and UV/a intensity of the Sirius star
system (Sirius becoming 512~1024 fold brighter to the unfiltered Kodak
eye), and even that of a horrifically intense Venus simply was more of
their same old evidence exclusions as necessary in order to sustain
their perpetrated cold-war ruse/sting of the century, as perpetrated
upon a highly snookered humanity being their dumbfounded suckers at
hand.
NASA/Apollo is simply nothing but LLPOF all the way, having only their
spendy and risky manned orbits of the moon to show for it, which is
still better science than what others have accomplished, but far from
the death-wish mark of our having man actually walking upon the fully
solar illuminated moon.
BTW; it would have been less than rocket-science playing around, as to
have deployed any number of viable signal transponders situated as
drifting within the ME-L1 nullification gravity-well zone (starting at
perhaps roughly 62,000 km from the moon, or at whatever the ME-L1 zone
represented at that time) as for accomplishing such efforts previously
and/or on their way towards orbiting the moon, thus technically
deploying relatively small slowly-drifting unit(s) were of no technical
problem whatsoever in fooling even the very best of those Russian
fools, and not that the USSR would even have offered all that much of
whatever discovery/disclosure anyway because, as their ongoing
ruse/sting portion of this mutually perpetrated cold-war was every bit
as corrupt and nearly as equally underhanded and despicable as was
ours, whereas our despicable cold-war for profit and the intent of
pillaging the resources of Earth as being cold-war cloak funded as
NASA/Apollo adventures were simply a tad bit better off than theirs,
and perhaps improved upon since we had been willing to spend at least
ten fold more in order to accomplish our part of this
cold-war/space-race ruse upon humanity.
Of course, before all of this got into play (past the point of no
return), it seems JFK wasn't about to permit such continued foolishness
and thereby chance killing off our potential national heroes as being
our astronauts, and/or starting WW-III over what had become a nearly
insurmountable and ever increasingly spendy and damn risky task of
getting man onto the moon would have meant really bad PR, especially if
we had freeze-dried astronauts pegged deeply into the moon, whereas
even today we'd be hard pressed as to accomplish so mush as for safely
deploying robotics for the first time. Thus lo and behold, the
orchestrated and/or possible happenstance of JFK being allowed to be
exterminated in a timely manner pretty much insured our 'cold-war for
profit' continuation of the task at hand, that which also further
insured that sufficiently dumbfounded and thereby snookered folks would
keep funding this absolutely grand cold-war ruse/sting of the century.
And lo and behold, eventually it worked.
I actually have more than my fair share of these warm and fuzzy
wall-of-words to contribute upon this subject, but for the relatively
short (2-sentence) attention span of the sorts of usual cloak and
dagger borg mindset mentality of most folks reading through, whereas
this is obviously what's making any viable topic continuation somewhat
meaningless. What's needed a an entire set of worthy topics as
reproduced into suitable volumes that can be digested individually,
somewhat like TIME Inc. managed to publish volumes upon several topics
that were related to one another (for example; TIME Science Library and
TIME Nature Library), whereas what's needed is yet another fine
collection as published by TIME or perhaps a Smithsonian certified
version of the 'Perpetrated Cold-War Library (that sucks)'.
Is Americanism and our quest for global energy domination dead; I think
not, just suffering somewhat of a temporary 9/11 setback or reset until
we can manage to surgically reattach our other foot and thereby proceed
to discover exactly where in hell our previous and current
administrations hid our remorse (probably in the same sort of place as
are those WMD so well hidden, and of where NASA/Apollo hid all of their
cows, by which Osama bin Laden is probably still riding off into the
sunset upon one of them cows).
Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon? nasa got earth wrong	17 Feb 2005 10:08:13 PM

In orbit of the moon Dec 21 1968.
Thats austrailia on the daylight line twards the tr side of the
horisen daylight line .
The south pole is in the dark and the north pole is lit all te way
past the north pole.
You can see japan and a pice of asia too.
You can measure the day of the year is june .
The problem is Nasa snapped the shot of the earth as it wet around the
moon on Dec 21 1868.
Google Image Result for
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/lg_earthrise_apollo8.gif
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/lg_earthrise_apollo8.gif&imgrefurl=http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951225.html&h=480&w=640&sz=92&tbnid=RgNsZmtgHR0J:&tbnh=101&tbnw=135&start=20&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dapollo%2B%2Bearth%2Bfrom%2Bmoon%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	17 Feb 2005 08:53:53 AM

Brad Guth <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear pro-NASA/Apollo incest cloned borg (aka Androcles).
You're dead wrong, you're even LLPOF qualified and much worse.
In space them stars are so much more near-UV and UV/a intensive and,
the Kodak eye was unfiltered and would have been recording at least
some of the significant stars such as Sirius, and don't forget Venus on
at least two of the missions would have been too bright to safely look
directly at.

The crackpot detector starts violently quivering; Venus too bright to
look at?

Since we're not talking about the human eye, but that of the Kodak eye
having zero atmosphere filtering squat.

Cutesy phrasing; crackpot detector reading increasing.

If those stars and Venus could has been recorded (as they should have
been at least dimly recorded), then also explain why was the 11%
average reflective index of the dark basalt covered moon shifted into
reflecting at 55%?
Why was the raw solar influx spectrum nearly identical to that of
artificial xenon illumination?
Why did NASA have to even bother with creating phony composite images
of astronauts upon the moon?
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Crackpot detector goes full scale.
*PLONK*
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	26 Feb 2005 07:36:59 PM

Dear borg 'j...@specsol-spam-sux.com',
As usual, another spendy space-toilet for brains can't even manage to
flush after each usage.
As usual, there's absolutely nothing specific nor of anything leading
to anything that's specific. Thus, your reply suits the traditional
incest cloned insecctoid borgs criteria to a freaking tee.
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	17 Feb 2005 11:56:51 AM

Yup. nasa has 50 images of te moon .
I saw them all. Why wount nasa show me 5000 images ?
Don't matter. The lander wount work .
nasa likes to play stupid. Telling the public on tv they can bounce a
laser off a target on the moon is what pissed me off.
Then the lander proved it.
Then nasa picks up the wrong rock.
Brings that wrong rock back.
I cant say yet why it is the wrong rock till I have a comparitor
identifie the rock.
Thats one rock brought back but locked up.
I bet dollars to donuts nasa lost the rock due theft. A big head must
have a rock.
he takes the rock home and hides the rock even thow he is the nasa
brass.
BUT the nasaa brass takes home a busted bombarted rock and thinks he
hid it.
wile a arizona medeorite hunter uses raidos to hunt for medeorites.
Show him the paper on a stack of 100s and I have a moble space rock
huner.
He drew and x on the rock.
Now we have a radio active rock on a back porch in wdc.
OH then it hit me.
The arow and C are not omvie props.
they are the wite house garden a b c d e f zones.
I found the rock there , gone ,,and back again but bombarted .
It still has the C on it.
nasa din't ***** up this time ..the white house staff did. They put the
rock back because it has
a C on it . So I found the missing magic rock.
I see it was not there for awile. It's a radio active rock . On the
back white house lawn .
That rock has a sister rock .
The rocks are river rocks used as walk rocks on military bases.
As long as they will be faimouse rocks the brass can say take my rock
and then they have a soveneer latter.
They had to remove the wite paint .
Bombart it and take images on the set.
Then its a moon rock. from garden aria C off the white house lawn .
They put the C on the rock after the paint is off. Then the staff
repained it and put it back.
Its still there !!!!!!!
Still radioactive and still painted white and still the same rock.
I can prove it was the presidets rock.
it has a sister rock from the same river.
It had its image taken befor. I found Hover was given the rock for the
white house lawn.
At the moment ,,that rock was usa largest stepping stone .
That rock came from under the boulder dam.
Thats the last rock from all the way down under the hover dam.
Hover went to get the rock too !!
nasa found he wrong rock ,, a magic rock set in place by a crane. For
some reason that roc came to have a simble amoung presidents .
having an image of hover and the last rock in the white house and the
presence of the rock out the window must make a strong historic
conection to the power of giant steps for man.
One Giant Step..
we will not remove the camera from the rock.
Thanks Hover.
I knew I knew that rock. I never forget a rock because im an indian
and an indian that navigated by rocks.
A geophysicis at that .
I never forget a rock.
Like a face .
But I have them cold.
I have them red handed with the hover rock.
Thats te Boulder boulder.
I thought ,,what the ***** is the boulder rock doing on the moon
=BF=BF=BF=BF=BF
When I was 5 or 6 I sat on that rock for an hour. it seamed like all
day .
the flags inside the building were so tall ,,well I never seen
anything like it.. i remember the stairs , the sounds inside the
biulding.
maybe I was 7. after church .
we went to a huge church .
So I pull out the pics and found me on that rock. And then started
to look to see if the rock is still there and like the flag it still is.
Now no one cn copy the rock and no one can move it. when people
remeber that rock and see that rock they will know .
what was the Hover boulder boulder doing on the moon ?

.

User: "James Kibo Parry"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	17 Feb 2005 06:20:18 PM

In sci.physics, tj Frazir (GravityPhysics@webtv.net) wrote:

Yup. nasa has 50 images of te moon .

And you have a 50 IQ. One of these two numbers is off by a factor of
a million. Guess which!

I saw them all. Why wount nasa show me 5000 images ?
Don't matter. The lander wount work .
nasa likes to play stupid. Telling the public on tv they can bounce a
laser off a target on the moon is what pissed me off.

Actually, you haven't been *****, you've been pissed on. That's
the real reason NASA did all those spacewalks. All the astronauts had
a little map showing where your house was so they could aim.

Then the lander proved it.
Then nasa picks up the wrong rock.
Brings that wrong rock back.
I cant say yet why it is the wrong rock till I have a comparitor
identifie the rock.
Thats one rock brought back but locked up.
I bet dollars to donuts nasa lost the rock due theft. A big head must
have a rock.

In your case, I think maybe you've got Ayers Rock in there. Do aborigines
consider your head sacred, or just dense?

he takes the rock home and hides the rock even thow he is the nasa
brass.
BUT the nasaa brass takes home a busted bombarted rock and thinks he
hid it.
wile a arizona medeorite hunter uses raidos to hunt for medeorites.
Show him the paper on a stack of 100s and I have a moble space rock
huner.
He drew and x on the rock.
Now we have a radio active rock on a back porch in wdc.
OH then it hit me.
The arow and C are not omvie props.
they are the wite house garden a b c d e f zones.
I found the rock there , gone ,,and back again but bombarted .

Please stop singing that song about Uncle Fester farting. It's very
undignified compared to the regular lyrics to that tune.

It still has the C on it.
nasa din't ***** up this time ..the white house staff did. They put the
rock back because it has
a C on it . So I found the missing magic rock.
I see it was not there for awile. It's a radio active rock . On the
back white house lawn .

Uh huh. That's the logical place for the government to hide radioactive
stuff. On the White House lawn. Right next to the crashed UFO that
nobody can see because of the green-tinted Saran Wrap over it.

That rock has a sister rock .
The rocks are river rocks used as walk rocks on military bases.
As long as they will be faimouse rocks the brass can say take my rock
and then they have a soveneer latter.
They had to remove the wite paint .
Bombart it and take images on the set.
Then its a moon rock. from garden aria C off the white house lawn .
They put the C on the rock after the paint is off. Then the staff
repained it and put it back.
Its still there !!!!!!!
Still radioactive and still painted white and still the same rock.
I can prove it was the presidets rock.

And please stop singing those Tom Lehrer songs about the Electoral College.

it has a sister rock from the same river.
It had its image taken befor. I found Hover was given the rock for the
white house lawn.
At the moment ,,that rock was usa largest stepping stone .
That rock came from under the boulder dam.
Thats the last rock from all the way down under the hover dam.

Wouldn't water go right under a hover dam? Also, what keeps the
dam from just blowing away in the wind -- bungee cords? Black magic?
Do you mean to tell me this is one those _magic_ hover dams and not
a regular hover dam?

Hover went to get the rock too !!
nasa found he wrong rock ,, a magic rock set in place by a crane. For
some reason that roc came to have a simble amoung presidents .
having an image of hover and the last rock in the white house and the
presence of the rock out the window must make a strong historic
conection to the power of giant steps for man.
One Giant Step..
we will not remove the camera from the rock.
Thanks Hover.
I knew I knew that rock. I never forget a rock because im an indian
and an indian that navigated by rocks.
A geophysicis at that .
I never forget a rock.
Like a face .
But I have them cold.

For breakfast? Eww. Please don't post your recipe for cold face omelets.
And by the way, you've got face all over your egg.

I have them red handed with the hover rock.
Thats te Boulder boulder.

Yes, but I have an even bolder Boulder boulder. Your turn.

I thought ,,what the ***** is the boulder rock doing on the moon
=BF=BF=BF=BF=BF
When I was 5 or 6 I sat on that rock for an hour. it seamed like all
day .
the flags inside the building were so tall ,,well I never seen
anything like it.. i remember the stairs , the sounds inside the
biulding.
maybe I was 7. after church .
we went to a huge church .
So I pull out the pics and found me on that rock. And then started
to look to see if the rock is still there and like the flag it still is.
Now no one cn copy the rock and no one can move it. when people
remeber that rock and see that rock they will know .
what was the Hover boulder boulder doing on the moon ?

Maybe your hover hover boulder boulder hovered so high it floated
up and jumped halfway over the Moon.
This requires further experimentation... Why don't you go take
a flying ***** at a hovering boulder? Why don't you go take a flying
***** at the Moon?
Or at least stop eating so many faces.
-- K.
The legs have better meat anyway.
Hey, have you heard about this
cool new thing called autocannibalism?
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: re:Men on the moon?	14 Feb 2005 12:25:30 AM

I just saw that moon hoax show on tv.
The anouncer was shure trying to make a sale and the hoax old dudes
were a few placed to make it look good.
No one got to the real sci .
No one showed us any fall rates.
They had rock with a letter C on it as if it was a movie prop. But no
real sci on the show.
LOOKed like a fucking snow job to me.
I think russia got a billion to keep quiet.
They dont want the thrusters mentioned.
They dont want the fact the side thruster is stupid or the fall speed
is not 1/6 .
I dont care about any of the other stuff.
They cant use a side thruster ,,it must point down and lift the side
because a push t the side would slid thier botom out and they would fall
over.
nasa dont want anyone to see it now.
I can no longer find the image of them using it.
But that old man did burn nasa good with a nasa pic with a rock that
was set in place.
Luna 17 ussr 120,000 images 20,000 G test.
11 months looking for nasa on the moon.
A rock cover like mars and lines behind rocks that skid to a stop.
The rock with C on it was in sand and yet no landing tracks ?
Cant have a wave in the sand and the san cant be there anyway because
the moon dont erode.
No rain no sand.
yet nasa is driving in sand.
Luna 17 coundnt find any sand.
No top soil ,,just a rock pile on rock.
No small grain sand.
it looked like a fucking beach where nasa said they landed. wheres
all the sand made from errosion come from ?????????????????

.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: re:Men on the moon?	14 Feb 2005 12:19:55 PM

I saw that rock with the letter C on it.
It has no dust on top and made no tracs where it landed.
Why are there no rock tracks ?
Besides the rock is a river rock round and with a slant twards its
other round smooth end.
That rock was worn down by water.
Sand would have made a dish in it and left the back side ragged.
None of the rocks look like there were just blasted out of the ground
and none of the rocks made any tracks to where they came to a stop.
The moon footprint chopped a 3 inch crator in 1/2 and smashed te dust
..
But he is 10 feet from where they landed.
That small 3 inch crator could not exsist after they landed a rocket
10 feet from it.
besides the fact I dont see any gagged rocks sharp pointed busted rock
..
I see smooth round rocks with no tracks and no dust on top.
With a letter C in black magic marker on it.
A granet rock from the river.
BUT to bust them good....
NO 1/2 rocks.
No rocks were busted .
all the rocks were placed.
The rock dint role t a stop and show a snow track or sand track.
and the top of te rock is clean.
why dont any rocks have small rocks on top of them ?
The moon images this geo physicsist sees is
is a con job from amitures.
I see too many eroded rocks .
I see no pointed rocks .
There is no way in hell thats the moon.
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: re:Men on the moon?	14 Feb 2005 07:26:44 PM

5Rakeemup.gif
Address:http://www.ulo.ucl.ac.uk/~diploma/year_one/arc_nasa/lunar/images/5Rakeemup.gif
Changed:5:43 AM on Wednesday, August 4, 2004
Thats not granit. Not iron .
its a river rock.
it got its shape blocking water.
It was set where you see it by a crane.
No rock tracks on the moon.
That rock sits on dust but has none on it.
the small rock behind breaks a few rules.
it is 1/2 cover of setiment.
No tracks but it rolled there.
It two was set there with crane so not to make any tracks.
It cant land on top of dust without moving the dust.
It cant role and not move dust .
enen if more dust falls you will still see the tracks.

.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: re:Men on the moon? rock from river on moon	14 Feb 2005 03:22:27 PM

5Rakeemup.gif
Address:http://www.ulo.ucl.ac.uk/~diploma/year_one/arc_nasa/lunar/images/5Rakeemup.gif
Changed:5:43 AM on Wednesday, August 4, 2004
This rock sits in the sediment dust but didn't make an impact or a
rolling track AND has none on it.
If the sedement feel first it should be on this rock. If the rock
fell,,rolled it would have made a track from rolling and nasa has no
rok tracks in any image from the moon.
THIS rock has NO sharp eges.
In fact it has been eroded.
The rock was set there with an over head crane.
That rock is clean . No peble on it no dust .
he is sticking the scoop in the soil.
See how soft it is .
The rock goot there on top of the sediment clean and without any impact
cracks in the sediment.
That rock has no sharp ege.
Rain and wind takes eges off rocks.
That rock is as smooth as a babys ***** and its so clean the rain must
have cleaned it.
OPPS ,,theres an arrow on the lower part of this rock pointing down in
black marker.
They bombarted the rock and sat it there with a crane.
.

User: "CNC Area"
Title: Men on the moon?	14 Feb 2005 07:57:31 PM

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C51301.B5D825C6
Content-Type: text/plain
Cant big scopes see the lander from earth? If not Hubble should for
sure.
-----Original Message-----
From:

(tj Frazir)
[mailto:

]
Posted At: Monday, February 14, 2005 4:22 PM
Posted To: physics
Conversation: Men on the moon?
Subject: Re: re:Men on the moon? rock from river on moon
5Rakeemup.gif
Address:http://www.ulo.ucl.ac.uk/~diploma/year_one/arc_nasa/lunar/images
/5Rakeemup.gif
Changed:5:43 AM on Wednesday, August 4, 2004
This rock sits in the sediment dust but didn't make an impact or a
rolling track AND has none on it.
If the sedement feel first it should be on this rock. If the rock
fell,,rolled it would have made a track from rolling and nasa has no
rok tracks in any image from the moon.
THIS rock has NO sharp eges.
In fact it has been eroded.
The rock was set there with an over head crane.
That rock is clean . No peble on it no dust .
he is sticking the scoop in the soil.
See how soft it is .
The rock goot there on top of the sediment clean and without any impact
cracks in the sediment.
That rock has no sharp ege.
Rain and wind takes eges off rocks.
That rock is as smooth as a babys ***** and its so clean the rain must
have cleaned it.
OPPS ,,theres an arrow on the lower part of this rock pointing down in
black marker.
They bombarted the rock and sat it there with a crane.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C51301.B5D825C6
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
 
Cant big scopes see the lander from earth? If not =
Hubble should for sure.
 -----Original Message-----
 From:

(tj Frazir)
 [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:

">mailto:

=
</A>]
 Posted At: Monday, February 14, 2005 4:22 PM
 Posted To: physics
 Conversation: Men on the moon?
 Subject: Re: re:Men on the moon? rock from river on =
moon

 
5Rakeemup.gif
 Address:<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.ulo.ucl.ac.uk/~diploma/year_one/arc_nasa/lunar/images=
/5Rakeemup.gif" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.ulo.ucl.ac.uk/~diploma/year_one/arc_nasa/lu=
nar/images/5Rakeemup.gif</A>
 Changed:5:43 AM on Wednesday, August 4, 2004
   This rock sits in the sediment dust but =
didn't  make an impact or a
 rolling track  AND has none on it.
   If the sedement feel first it should be on =
this rock.  If the rock
 fell,,rolled  it would have made a track from =
rolling and nasa has no
 rok tracks in any image from the moon.
   THIS rock has NO sharp eges.
 In fact it has been  eroded.
  The rock was set there with an over head =
crane.
    That rock is clean .  No peble on =
it no dust .
  he is sticking the scoop in the soil.
  See how soft it is .  
  The rock goot there on top of the sediment =
clean and without any impact
 cracks in the sediment.
   That rock has no sharp ege.
   Rain and wind takes eges off rocks.
 That rock is as smooth as a babys ***** and its so =
clean the rain must
 have cleaned it.
   OPPS ,,theres an arrow on the lower part of =
this rock pointing down in
 black marker.
   They bombarted the rock and sat it there with =
a crane.  

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C51301.B5D825C6--
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	15 Feb 2005 01:09:57 AM

That TV show was nasa attempt to cover it up.
It was bull *****.
]nasa limits the images to a few dozen.

If nasa dnt go to the moon I want a few heads for murder of 3 . nasa
killed a few to keep it quiet.
They stole billions.
That rocket did not move the dust under it when it landed, bull *****.
the curve on the horisen is not corect.
The horisen is not corect.
you can see too much curve.

.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon? lander image	15 Feb 2005 01:46:44 AM

ECN-1582.jpg
Address:http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/LLRV/Small/ECN-1582.jpg
Changed:9:30 AM on Friday, November 22, 2002
On each 45 1/2 way down fromthe top you see the laderal thrusers.
They point to the side and the other one beside it rotates .
2 sets of 4 thursters in case one set dont work.
BUT if ou are falling over you nead to push down.
Pushing to the side is stupid because the bottom will slide over and
you fall on your face.
This stupid fucking thing wount work.
a giro would make it worse.
stand on a surf board in water and lean over to fall and push off the
side of the dock.
YOU MUST put your hand on top of the dock and push down ,,pushing
against the side will put you in the water in an instant.
They have a vidio and use the side thrusters and you can see it fire
on the side .
Its hanging from a cable because this stupid thing is retarted.

Another fact is one nasa dint know yet.
Thats a 4200 pound thrust jet eng .
It will suck its own exhaust up big time.
and the first time a side thruster is used it will fall over and
burn.
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	15 Feb 2005 12:53:02 AM

There is no lander.
it used a laderal thruster.
ALL the thrusters must point down .
If your standing on a surf board and start to fall over and you push on
the side of a ship the board will slide out from under you.
YOU must put your hand on top of the dock and push down as to lift the
leaning side.

And te laser reflector they claim they use is smaller then a tv. The
earths magnetic field and gravity pervents them from hitting it .

look at the lander photos . forget the plume
but 10 feet from where they laded in dust is a 6 inch crator ,,he
stepped in it and smashed it.
That detail can not be there after a rocket landed. The dust is un
disturbed.
There is no way in hell that lander could work anyway .
LOOK around the moon ..where are the rock tracks ?
You cant st a rock that big on dust and not move any dust unless you
sat it there with a crane. The rock landed there in 4 inches of dust
and has none on it.
It dint role in the dust and come to a stop.
no tracks. It dint fall there from space and have 4 inches of dust stop
it.
That is a river rock not a fragment anyway.
You blast a hole in rock and all the rocks are sharp ege rocks. you get
erroded round rocks out of a river.
The rock in this nasa image moved no dust .
has none on it.
NONE of nasa images has a rock with another rock on it.
and rocks make tracks that never snow over and you should be able to
track some rocks.
there should be lines where rocks rolled evrywere.
Im not one of the moon hoax morons but ***** nasa didnt go to the moon.

.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: re:Men on the moon?	14 Feb 2005 07:38:54 PM

I saw the TV show and they bounce a laser ..
my ***** ..
it is a 14 x 14 inch target reflector on the moon.
You can not bounce a laser off it.
You cant find the target.
its too fucking small and gravity will bend the laser making it
imposible to ever find that 14 x 14 inches .
The laser reflector station should be looked at
you can see the target but cant force a laser on it.
Besides they showed the place on TV and its not able to be that
presice.
besides the fact they did it for the TV show
and you saw the date .
wrong time of the lunar day.
a lunar day is 31 days.
it was a 1/4 moon.
he lied and bounce a laser .
he lied anyway because gravity and the earths mag wount let you hit a
14 x 14 inch target.
.

User: "Brad Guth"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	17 Feb 2005 08:10:20 AM

tj Frazir,
You're absolutely correct.
Besides those phony baloney retro-reflectors that never existed because
that stuff was all vaporised upon impact, there's still NO lander R&D
documentation, especially nothing AI/robotic that worthy of any Russian
demo on behalf of safely delivering a pizza off a 3 story building.
There's not one of their Kodak moments on the supposed surface that
wasn't xenon illuminated, as per the unfiltered the Kodak eye would
have otherwise recorded the harsh and extremely intense near-UV and
UV/a energy, photo-recorded as casting a bluish tint and of secondary
near-blue blacklight photons that should also have existed.
Forget our supposed manned landers that offer almost zero R&D
documentation; just focus these pro-NASA/Apollo freaks upon those
supposed AI/robotic fly-by-rocket Russian landers, those which also
can't be demonstrated nor otherwise backed up with any documentation
upon their R&D step by step efforts.
Comparing aerodynamics as to something that's entirely 3D fly-by-rocket
isn't even within the same ballpark. Whatever fly-by-rocket
capabilities need to be doable right here upon Earth before being sent
off to some God forsaken moon. If such can't be configured for
flight-testing at the gravity of Earth, then full outfitted and loaded
with whatever needed to arrive upon the moon simply wasn't doable, at
least not as of 4 decades ago.
You must keep telling folks as to realize exactly how darn hot and
nasty the fully solar illuminated lunar surface of such dark basalt is,
and of how damn secondary hard-x-ray worthy at that.
You do realize that the lunar surface (besides being an ideal cosmic
geological morgue) remains highly reactive, more so than aluminum. Thus
hard-X-rays are in fact generated (at least as being derived from a
good 1e6 m2 worth of the surrounding lunar terrain, if not as much as a
thousand fold that much) are being created just about everywhere and
summarily arriving from every conceivable direction. Of course, the
all-knowing wizard Jay of 'apollohoax' seems to know for a fact that
our sun isn't a significant resource of anything that's the least bit
nasty. In fact, according to the likes of this all-knowing wizard, of
the earthshine lunar environment is just as bad off if not much worse
off than by sunlight (too bad other satellite instruments [including
those of NASA] don't agree with that).
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: re:Men on the moon?	13 Feb 2005 04:46:53 PM

Forget the stars .
Nasa states the speed of fall is 1/6.
32 feet per second.
32 feet per 6 seconds on the moon.
1 second in 5 feet.
armstrong is 6 foot and dropped the hammer
from 5 feet 1,2 seconds .
nasa says it takes 6 seconds from 32 feet.
They failed to replicate it in front of te cam.
In fact they got no where near either time and was wrong all together.
Time the drop your self.
the hamer fell 18 feet per second on the fim time that was " Live "
they got it wrong they said it was 1/6 and filmed 1/2
1/6 looked stupid on film .
Play the tapes so the fall rate is 1/6 and look at it.
Looks stupid because you jst saw him hop another speed 4 .
32 feet in 6 seconds is stupid.
10 feet in 2 seconds.

.

User: "tj Frazir"
Title: Re: re:Men on the moon?	13 Feb 2005 11:35:44 PM

Imagine 32 foot fall in 6 seconds.
1/6 the wieght is falling.
the wieght is not falling 1/6 the speed.
1/6 the distance is the orbit.
But a 5 foot fall 1.2 seconds was a timming error. 36 feet in 6
seconds is fucking nutz.
I saw sand at the wheels do 1 G speed 32 feet sec.
You should slow the tape so evrything falls the speed nasa said it
would.
I saw him fall . didnt you see him fall ?
it should have taken a second for him to fall over. He fell over
like he wieghed 70 pounds on earth with the pack on.
besides the fact a laderal thruster is putting your hand against the
dock instead of on top of the dock so the board they stood on slid out
from under them and nasa fell on thier faces.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: re:Men on the moon?	13 Feb 2005 06:10:36 PM

beast <beast@serbiancafe-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

No stars.... !

That's what bugs me about the lunar mission.... no stars.

Contrast and the dynamic limits of eyes and cameras.
Do you see stars at night in major cities or from an airliner at night
with the lights on inside?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.

User: "Morituri-\|-Max"
Title: Re: re:Men on the moon?	13 Feb 2005 06:19:43 PM

wrote:

beast <beast@serbiancafe-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

No stars.... !

That's what bugs me about the lunar mission.... no stars.

Contrast and the dynamic limits of eyes and cameras.

Do you see stars at night in major cities or from an airliner at night
with the lights on inside?

Or sitting in car in a dark field wth the inside light on looking out the
window.
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Men on the moon?	29 Jan 2005 03:57:15 AM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C505E8.E891D4B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Men on the moon?
Were you really born between you mother's legs?=20
I think its a stretch
Androcles.=20
"CNC Area" <CNCArea@sauder.com> wrote in message =
news:642A954DD517D411B20C00508BCF23B003552E5E@mail.sauder.com...
Mr Frazir,=20
Did the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.=20
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C505E8.E891D4B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Men on the moon?</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2149" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Were you really born between you =
mother's legs?=20
</DIV>
<DIV> I think its a =
stretch</DIV>
<DIV>Androcles. </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"CNC Area" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:CNCArea@sauder.com">CNCArea@sauder.com</A>> wrote in =
message=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:642A954DD517D411B20C00508BCF23B003552E5E@mail.sauder.com">ne=
ws:642A954DD517D411B20C00508BCF23B003552E5E@mail.sauder.com</A>...</DIV>
Mr Frazir, Did=20
the U.S. send men to the moon? I think it's a stretch.=20
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C505E8.E891D4B0--
.

Page 6 of 6

Post reply

MEN ON THE MOON -- Video Remembrance -- Death of Wally Schirra.
DRESS REHEARSAL -- First Men on the Moon
Dating Tips for Men.... Really Work!!!
God=G_uv GOD FOR REAL MEN
Hey, A jinn: check your server for some new "cow porn" The men of meow model for you, JINN>
How to find out the hidden men in the jungles?
ED CONRAD and the Men in White Coats -- Smithsonian Sleazeball Shenanigans
Of mice and men.

All The King's Men
Re: Was Christina Aguilara's husband in Men In Black?
men are dumb!
1 Trillion Energy Bond, Judges want Youth to learn Rule of Law, whereare the Christian Men ?
Doomsday Men: The Real Dr Strangelove and the Dream of the Superweapon
Re: Who are the richest men in world history?
Women are vastly superior to men

NEWER

pg.1173 pg.651 pg.361 pg.200 pg.111 pg.62 pg.35 pg.20 pg.12 pg.8 pg.6 pg.4 pg.2

OLDER