XPost: alt.politics, alt.politics.british, alt.politics.bush   
   XPost: alt.politics.clinton   
   From: Zionism@Exposed.com   
      
   I still have not explained why there is so much emphasis on defending   
   Apollo. In fact, today I received another e-mail from somebody telling me to   
   remove the Apollo material from my video commentary on Kay Griggs.   
      
   Why are there so many people telling me to stop talking about Apollo?   
   What makes Apollo such a sensitive topic?   
      
   Consider that the major difference between Apollo and the September 11   
   attack, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the assassination of President   
   Kennedy is that Apollo is considered an "technical achievement" but the   
   others are "crimes".   
      
   A crime requires "criminals". In the case of president Kennedy, Oswald was   
   the criminal.   
      
   In the case of the Oklahoma City bombing, Tim McVeigh and the "right wing   
   extremists" were the criminals. They also had a "John Doe #2" who would be   
   described as an Arab, perhaps as a spare patsy in case McVeigh failed to   
   work out, or perhaps in case they decided to bring the Arabs into it.   
      
   The September 11 attack was designed so that the blame would go to the   
   mysterious "Al Queda", and if that failed, the blame would fall on other   
   groups, such as Pakistan's ISI, or Saudi Arabia.   
      
   However, Apollo was never a "crime", so nobody was set up to take blame   
   for it. Therefore, if the Apollo moon landing is exposed, the criminals   
   themselves are exposed. There are no patsies to protect the people behind   
   the Apollo moon hoax.   
      
   http://www.erichufschmid.net/Axis_of_Perverts2.html   
   --   
   http://iamthewitness.com   
   http://www.truthtellers.org   
   http://www.globalresearch.ca   
   http://www.hugequestions.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)