Home > Archive > Architecture > December 2005 > Apollo XIIIX hoax









You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

 

Author Apollo XIIIX hoax
Ken S. Tucker

2005-12-25, 4:21 pm

The Apollo 17 returned with an astounding 240#'s of moon
rocks, which of course necessitated leaving one of the
astronauts on the moon, although not for the cannibalistic
reasons widely circulated in the press. Indeed there is no
evidence to support the lunar cannibalism theory, that's a
"crackpot" notion.

In the "Zaputer Film" where only two astronauts were filmed
actually leaving the capsule, the third astronaut is "explained
away" as having parachuted down and pick-up earlier.
But his astronaut suit is "dry" as he is filmed later.

He was a near twin of the stranded astronaut, except for the
mole on his left cheek should have been on his elbow, and
that's the "smokin gun". NASA's explanation that he ate
a hot-dog and missed his mouth and left a piece of relish
on his cheek, does not explain the missing "elbow mole",
not evident in the film.

Additionally, NASA refuses to do a DNA analysis that would
PROVE he is the same person!

Astounding
SPACE AGE TRUTHS.

Richard Henry

2005-12-25, 4:21 pm


"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1135539026.233172.4510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The Apollo 17 returned with an astounding 240#'s of moon
> rocks, which of course necessitated leaving one of the
> astronauts on the moon, although not for the cannibalistic
> reasons widely circulated in the press. Indeed there is no
> evidence to support the lunar cannibalism theory, that's a
> "crackpot" notion.
>
> In the "Zaputer Film" where only two astronauts were filmed
> actually leaving the capsule, the third astronaut is "explained
> away" as having parachuted down and pick-up earlier.
> But his astronaut suit is "dry" as he is filmed later.
>
> He was a near twin of the stranded astronaut, except for the
> mole on his left cheek should have been on his elbow, and
> that's the "smokin gun". NASA's explanation that he ate
> a hot-dog and missed his mouth and left a piece of relish
> on his cheek, does not explain the missing "elbow mole",
> not evident in the film.
>
> Additionally, NASA refuses to do a DNA analysis that would
> PROVE he is the same person!
>
> Astounding
> SPACE AGE TRUTHS.


Do you really think that XIIIX is a Roman numeral for 17?




Syd Mead

2005-12-25, 4:21 pm

Does 'Nietzsche' start with an 'S' ?




"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:lJCrf.9315$xF6.1927@fed1read01
>


>
> Do you really think that XIIIX is a Roman numeral for 17?
>
>
>
>



Ken S. Tucker

2005-12-25, 4:21 pm


Richard Henry wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1135539026.233172.4510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Do you really think that XIIIX is a Roman numeral for 17?


Quite right, Mr. Henry, One astronaut is missing, it should
be XI?IX.

gruhn

2005-12-25, 5:21 pm

[pathetic amount of overquoting trimmed ruthlessly]

> Do you really think that XIIIX is a Roman numeral for 17?


Good to see you zooming in with keen intellect on the critical bits.


RicodJour

2005-12-25, 5:21 pm

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> The Apollo 17 returned with an astounding 240#'s of moon
> rocks,


If you had written mushrooms, I would have assumed you'd helped
yourself prior to posting. ;)

R

Ken S. Tucker

2005-12-25, 5:21 pm


RicodJour wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> If you had written mushrooms, I would have assumed you'd helped
> yourself prior to posting. ;)
>
> R


Mr. R, that did happen in the XVII and XIIIVV missions,
but was suppressed in the XVIIIV mission, for notational
reasons in MCMLX aka MXXXM.

That's the same year Christmas was spelt X-mass,!
and the same year the XIIX was launched, see that,
leaving out the other astronaut.

Richard Henry

2005-12-25, 6:21 pm


"gruhn" <gruhn@deletehwb.com> wrote in message
news:4iDrf.607$xo2.3004@news.uswest.net...
> [pathetic amount of overquoting trimmed ruthlessly]
>
>
> Good to see you zooming in with keen intellect on the critical bits.


What were the critical bits? Most of it looked like net humor.



RicodJour

2005-12-25, 6:21 pm

Richard Henry wrote:
> "gruhn" <gruhn@deletehwb.com> wrote in message
> news:4iDrf.607$xo2.3004@news.uswest.net...
>
> What were the critical bits? Most of it looked like net humor.


More of a negative net humor - in spreadsheet terms: (humor).

R

Mark Martin

2005-12-25, 7:21 pm


Richard Henry wrote:

> Do you really think that XIIIX is a Roman numeral for 17?


I find it unfathomable as to why people persist in using Roman
numerals for any purpose of any kind. Though I suppose it wouldn't be a
fun day at the movies without an unreadable copyright date.

-Mark Martin

Ken S. Tucker

2005-12-25, 7:21 pm


Mark Martin wrote:
> Richard Henry wrote:
>
>
> I find it unfathomable as to why people persist in using Roman
> numerals for any purpose of any kind. Though I suppose it wouldn't be a
> fun day at the movies without an unreadable copyright date.
>
> -Mark Martin


It goes with saying, sci.math guys know Roman Numerals,
except what they *mean*....

Richard Henry

2005-12-25, 8:21 pm


"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1135552410.999765.65650@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mark Martin wrote:
>
> It goes with saying, sci.math guys know Roman Numerals,
> except what they *mean*....


The first time I saw a movie with the line "Copyright CC" I didn't know what
it meant until I thought about it a while. It fell outside my experience
that all copyright dates began with "MCM..."



gruhn

2005-12-25, 8:21 pm

> I find it unfathomable as to why people persist in using Roman
> numerals for any purpose of any kind


Do most of the CA in your office?


Phil Holman

2005-12-25, 10:21 pm


"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135551199.084003.170610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Henry wrote:
>
>
> I find it unfathomable as to why people persist in using Roman
> numerals for any purpose of any kind. Though I suppose it wouldn't be
> a
> fun day at the movies without an unreadable copyright date.
>

Yes, a friend's nephew annouced he was reading a great book about world
war eleven.

Phil H


Mark Martin

2005-12-25, 10:21 pm


Phil Holman wrote:

> Yes, a friend's nephew annouced he was reading a great book about world
> war eleven.


On the other side of the coin, I remember ages ago, back in the late
'70s, when President Carter was introducing the crew of Apollo 11 at
their ten year anniversary party. As he read the prepared speach, he
uttered the words, "...the crew of Apollo two..."

-Mark Martin

mensanator@aol.compost

2005-12-25, 10:21 pm


Richard Henry wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1135552410.999765.65650@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> The first time I saw a movie with the line "Copyright CC" I didn't know what
> it meant


They had movies back then?

> until I thought about it a while. It fell outside my experience
> that all copyright dates began with "MCM..."


Richard Henry

2005-12-25, 11:21 pm


<mensanator@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135561404.175147.273230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Henry wrote:
be a[color=darkred]
what[color=darkred]
>
> They had movies back then?


Sorry - I menat "Copyright MM".

Too much eggnog.



donstockbauer@hotmail.com

2005-12-26, 10:21 am

> Yes, a friend's nephew annouced he was reading a great book about world
> war eleven.



WW 11? I thought that we were up to WW
Mcmlllllxvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

by now? Sheesh. Hate to miss a few good WW's!

Don

2005-12-26, 11:21 am

donstockbauer> wrote
>
> WW 11? I thought that we were up to WW
> Mcmlllllxvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
>
> by now? Sheesh. Hate to miss a few good WW's!


WWW = World War Bush


Dastardly Fiend

2005-12-27, 11:21 am


"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:lJCrf.9315$xF6.1927@fed1read01...
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1135539026.233172.4510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Do you really think that XIIIX is a Roman numeral for 17?


Cant be, XII+ IX = 21.
DF


Don

2005-12-27, 11:21 am

"Dastardly Fiend"> wrote
> Cant be, XII+ IX = 21.


And XI + IIX = 18.


Dastardly Fiend

2005-12-27, 5:21 pm


"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:kfcsf.10058$3Z.480@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Dastardly Fiend"> wrote
>
> And XI + IIX = 18.



IIX? Dunno that one.


Rick Bass

2005-12-28, 10:21 pm

IIX-IIX=0, but then, that does not take into acount WW11

Rick
Bass Players Drink Bass

jmorriss@idirect.com

2005-12-29, 3:21 am


Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Mark Martin wrote:
>
> It goes with saying, sci.math guys know Roman Numerals,
> except what they *mean*....


We don't need to know what they mean... We can use our calculator...

http://www.math.com/students/calcul...terromanvs.html

Boris

2005-12-29, 4:21 am

I'm late in the thread, so I dont know are you joking or not, all I know
real ancient Roman would write number 17 like this:

XVII


<jmorriss@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:1135837715.647701.263230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> We don't need to know what they mean... We can use our calculator...
>
> http://www.math.com/students/calcul...terromanvs.html
>



Dastardly Fiend

2005-12-29, 6:21 am


"Boris" <noname@hi.t-com.hr> wrote in message
news:dp04v3$plb$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
> I'm late in the thread, so I dont know are you joking or not, all I know
> real ancient Roman would write number 17 like this:
>
> XVII


<groan>
Dastardly Fiend.

>
> <jmorriss@idirect.com> wrote in message
> news:1135837715.647701.263230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>



Dastardly Fiend

2005-12-29, 6:21 am

Look everybody, we've got a professor of hard sums who doesn't
know if anyone is joking to tell us how to count on our fingers and
toes when in Rome.
Dastardly Fiend.


"Boris" <noname@hi.t-com.hr> wrote in message
news:dp04v3$plb$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
> I'm late in the thread, so I dont know are you joking or not, all I know
> real ancient Roman would write number 17 like this:
>
> XVII
>
>
> <jmorriss@idirect.com> wrote in message
> news:1135837715.647701.263230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>



LinkBot





Other archives available: Cellular phones topics archive | Web Design forum archive | Software help archive | Hardware reviews archive | Programming topics archive

Copyright 2004 - 2009 homeownerschat.com