On Apr 22, 12:12 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
We intercepted the live broadcast from the Moon in 1969 when
I was in the Military.- Hide quoted text -

The astronauts were in low-earth orbit. That accounts for that signal.

No--The high gain antenna was tracking the moon for several hours.

No contradiction there. The astronauts were in low-earth orbit sending
live audio-stream and video-stream to base.

Bart Sibrel found a massive scene blunder where Earth is shown to be
"far-away" by actors on then for brief moment real Earth is seen close-
up on another window. The far-away depiction of Earth was a picture of
Earth over some cellophane.

The Apollo moon-landings were a total and complete fraud. The Japanese
satellite lunar photos already show significant divergence from NASA
movie-set photos. They lost all 700 boxes of original video, all moon
rock, all saturn plans. Apollo photos include massive blunders with
prop-set markings on sand, non-parallel shadows, spot-lights,
inconsistency in shoots. No explanation for van-allen belt. They can't
go back because they can't solve problems they supposedly solved 50
years ago in under a decade?

THE APOLLO MOON LANDINGS WERE FAKED

and the truth shall set you free....

On Apr 21, 6:09 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"JanPB" wrote in message

...
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.

Find more at:

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

| Same old idiocy.

Can't you get him a job changing light bulbs, like you?

In other words, you've got nothing outside of your NASA/Apollo Old
Testament Qur'an.

As of A-11, A-14 and A-16, where's Venus?
.. - Brad Guth

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

On Apr 21, 6:06 pm, JanPB wrote:

1. Who put the mirror lunar ranging equipment on the Moon? Little
green men?

The task could be achieved through unmanned missions not necessarily
short men painted green. shrug

2. Who was transmitting TV broadcast signals from the Moon at the time
of Apollo missions (as shown by recently declassified Soviet spy
antennas records)? Little green men?

What is the nonsense about the Soviet soy antenna records? Is that
where you got these little green men from?

How do you suppose these Apollo astronauts with 0.25g/cm^2 of shield
is going to come up totally unharmed after being bombarded with 3E-14
solar mass per year of energy? Little green men reported from
unclassified Soviet antenna spy whatever archive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

The higher energy particles would damage your DNA with higher
probability of causing some sorts of cancer in a few years. The lower-
energy ones would manifest shorter term illness. It is not advisable
to be bombarded with 3E-14 solar mass per year of energy at earth’s
orbit with just 0.25g/cm^2 of shielding from the command module.
shrug

Stop watching more useless films. Do the math yourself, film critic.

On Apr 21, 10:53*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:06 pm, JanPB wrote:

1. Who put the mirror lunar ranging equipment on the Moon? Little
green men?

The task could be achieved through unmanned missions not necessarily
short men painted green. *shrug

What "unmanned missions" ?


2. Who was transmitting TV broadcast signals from the Moon at the time
of Apollo missions (as shown by recently declassified Soviet spy
antennas records)? Little green men?

What is the nonsense about the Soviet soy antenna records? *Is that
where you got these little green men from?

How do you suppose these Apollo astronauts with 0.25g/cm^2 of shield
is going to come up totally unharmed after being bombarded with 3E-14
solar mass per year of energy? *Little green men reported from
unclassified Soviet antenna spy whatever archive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

The higher energy particles would damage your DNA with higher
probability of causing some sorts of cancer in a few years. *The lower-
energy ones would manifest shorter term illness. *It is not advisable
to be bombarded with 3E-14 solar mass per year of energy at earth’s
orbit with just 0.25g/cm^2 of shielding from the command module.
shrug

Oh this again? You were proven wrong with the actual ACE/SOHO
spacecraft data and here you are repeating the same **** again.


Stop watching more useless films. *Do the math yourself, film critic.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...5?dmode=source

wrote:
The astronauts were in low-earth orbit. That accounts for that signal.
In fact there was a massive blunder in one of the shoots where a fake
far-away earth could be seen in one window then the real close-earth
was briefly seen on another.

Bart Sibrel found that one. Google it and you'll probably find it.

Bart Sibrel found some blurry video of astronauts rehearsing for
a telecast, then made up a story about what it showed.

Sibrel is the guy that kept pestering astronauts. He'd ask them
to swear on the bible, saying they could end the controversy by
doing so. Some wanted nothing to do with him. Others clearly
stated that they walked on the Moon, but declined to participate
in his Bible-swearing stunt.

Eugene Cernan and Alan Bean did swear on the Bible. If you were
expecting Sibrel to be good to his word that doing so would end
his "controversy", you don't know Bart Sibrel.

Particularly funny is watching what a worm Sibrel is when Alan
Bean insists on telling the truth. Bean agrees that the tape of
him swearing on the bible could be used as a video deposition,
and will swear "under penalty of perjury". Then Sibrel adds
"treason" and Bean objects: "treason has nothing to do with it".
Bean is right: "under penalty of treason" would be false. He's
entirely willing to swear in various ways Sibrel suggest, but
only to the truth. Sibrel keeps demanding Bean swear "under
penalty of treason" even though Bean makes clear he believes it
would be false.


--
--Bryan

On Apr 22, 6:21*am, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
skrev:



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...tv_000_3_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_4_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_5_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_6_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_7_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_8_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_9_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...v_000_10_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_1_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_2_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_3_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_4_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_5_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_001_6_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_1_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_2_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_3_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_4_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_5_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_002_6_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_005_4_l.jpg
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_005_2_l.jpg

Find more at:

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

No stars?
Must be fakes! :-)

I have personally never contested the "no stars" argument. I have
found those who do use that argument are covert agents. That argument
appeals to the "conspiracy" people but does nothing for the
"debunking" people. That argument makes both crowds happy but
increases the argumentors credibility with the "conspiracy" crowd.
This is a common technique that cointelpro cowards use to infiltrate
and consequently subvert groups. Most people simply can't figure that
one out.

Eric Hufschmid is a case-point example of that. He used that argument
to gain credibility with Apollo Hoax exposers but it did nothing to
help the sheeple.



--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 11:38 am, "CWatters"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

wrote:
We intercepted the live broadcast from the Moon in 1969 when
I was in the Military.- Hide quoted text -
The astronauts were in low-earth orbit. That accounts for that signal.

No it doesn't.

1) There were several ground stations recieving signals at the same time.
2) The ground stations would have noticed if the signal wasn't coming
from
the general direction of the moon.
3) They astronaughts couldn't have stayed on a line between the recieving
station and the moon as there were multiple ground stations.

At the very least one geostationary sat would have been required per
ground
station.

Where is the moon's L1 ? (duh! general direction of the moon?)
. - Brad Guth

But the earth moon L1 isn't exactly "low earth orbit" now is it.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:SjdPj.130857$yE1.43950@attbi_s21...
wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:12 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:24 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
We intercepted the live broadcast from the Moon in 1969 when
I was in the Military.- Hide quoted text -
The astronauts were in low-earth orbit. That accounts for that signal.
No--The high gain antenna was tracking the moon for several hours.

No contradiction there. The astronauts were in low-earth orbit sending
live audio-stream and video-stream to base.


That would have added an additional 1.25-2.5 second delay that did
not exist!

Not to mention find a way of explaining why ground stations point in the
wrong direction and not at the moon.

wrote in message
...
I have personally never contested the "no stars" argument. I have
found those who do use that argument are covert agents.

LOL. Priceless.