Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

moon landings were a hoax

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 5:08:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.conspiracy.jfk (More info?)

NASA's rebuttal cancelled

In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED

More about : moon landings hoax

Anonymous
July 23, 2005 7:01:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.conspiracy.jfk (More info?)

In article <1122106115.805577.280910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<"moonlandinghoaxreligious@yahoo.com"> wrote:

> NASA's rebuttal cancelled
>
> In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
> publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
> the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
> decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
> felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.

Yeah, I remember when I had my first beer.
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 8:25:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.conspiracy.jfk (More info?)

Somebody lost their tin foil cap....those pesky rays are getting in.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 5:40:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.conspiracy.jfk (More info?)

Yeh they were faked by Elvis and the Roswell aliens - just after they shot
JFK.... ;-)

Guy


moonlandinghoaxreligious@yahoo.com wrote:
> NASA's rebuttal cancelled
>
> In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
> publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
> the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
> decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people
> who felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing
> skeptics.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 1:41:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.conspiracy.jfk (More info?)

What a tired discredited old topic this is!!!





<moonlandinghoaxreligious@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122106115.805577.280910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> NASA's rebuttal cancelled
>
> In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
> publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
> the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
> decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
> felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED
>
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:27:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.conspiracy.jfk (More info?)

Claims of an I.Q. higher than 50 by moon landing skeptics are a hoax.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:23:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,alt.conspiracy.jfk (More info?)

In article <42e22d00$0$29607$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"A Mate" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:

> What a tired discredited old topic this is!!!
>
>
> <moonlandinghoaxreligious@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1122106115.805577.280910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > NASA's rebuttal cancelled
> >
> > In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
> > publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
> > the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
> > decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
> > felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED

Yeah and wildly OT. For some reason rec.photo.digital attracts more than
its fair share of wackos.

--

Chas Right
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:23:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie,
You may not have noticed but that post was cross posted to
alt.conspiracy.jfk, I think the name says it all.
Paul

Charlie Right wrote:
> In article <42e22d00$0$29607$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> "A Mate" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What a tired discredited old topic this is!!!
>>
>>
>><moonlandinghoaxreligious@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1122106115.805577.280910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>NASA's rebuttal cancelled
>>>
>>>In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
>>>publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
>>>the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
>>>decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
>>>felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.
>>>
>>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED
>
>
> Yeah and wildly OT. For some reason rec.photo.digital attracts more than
> its fair share of wackos.
>
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:23:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Right <nospam@please.co.nz> wrote:


>Yeah and wildly OT. For some reason rec.photo.digital attracts more than
>its fair share of wackos.

Popularity. Digital photography is "hot stuff" right now, so the
group attracts all kinds of wackos looking for an audience.

Alt.Atlanta used to be a nice group for discussing local issues until
the city got to host the olympics, after which the group became
infested with nutcases. This lasted for several years afterward, and
it's only now beginning to get back to normal.

To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
!