On Apr 21, 9:21 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:32 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Apr 21, 12:02 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Apr 20, 9:22 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 20, 9:15 pm, wrote:

On Apr 21, 2:12 pm, john wrote:

On Apr 20, 10:08 pm, Richard Henry wrote:

On Apr 20, 9:04 pm, wrote:

Compare the the below authentic pictures of the Lunar surface with the
fake ones from the Apollo hoax.

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd....jpghttp://wms...

Find more at:

http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/

Oh.

When I read "More evidence..." I thought there would actually be some
evidence.

I want to see the flag

Didn't hear about these photos on the media did you? There is no flag,
there is no tracks, there are only retroflectors deployed via unmanned
craft.

The Apollo programme was a total hoax.

JAXA/Selene doesn't exist as far as American mainstream media (mostly
Jewish owned media, and otherwise government moderated)

Their 10 meter resolution of those crisp TC obtained images are more
than good enough to have shown us those NASA/Apollo landing sites.
With a good PhotoShop enlargement (plus image stacking where needed)
could make those 10m/pixel into nearly 1m/pixel.

Do you actually believe you can get a factor of ten increase in
resolution from photoshop?

I can accomplish 8X with reasonable results, a 5th grader should be
able to accomplish 4X right off the bat.

BTW, I'd said along with image stacking, although other than PhotoShop
(perhaps PhotoZoom) can accomplish a little better job of enlarging to
10X without distorting one damn thing. A digital stack of 10 frames
couldn't hurt. . - Brad Guth

Explain to me how you obtain information that is not there with
Photoshop. Image "stacking" doesn't remove the fact that the object in
question is still smaller than the pixel size.



It's only going to get better, as time will eventually have the JAXA/
Selene orbiting at merely 10 km, giving us a raw 1m/pixel look at
those supposed NASA/Apollo landing sites..
. - Brad Guth

China is planning on doing the same reduced orbital range, and thus
offering more than sufficient raw resolution.
. - Brad Guth

So, no matters how reliable the raw pixels are, and of no matters how
many images are stacked or having been properly resampled, you don't
believe in anything that's enlarged unless it's of inert eye-candy.
Are you also Muslim?

Of course 100% of all cosmic eye-candy pictures that are published for
public review are of those stacked, resampled and colorized to death,
whereas oddly that's perfectly OK by your hocus-pocus standards. How
interesting.
.. - Brad Guth