On Apr 22, 9:56*am, BradGuth wrote:
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?

None of your ****ing business.


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

On Apr 22, 9:28*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:04 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

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...msg/d787a05160

1...

BTW, our naked moon is unavoidably reactive because it's made of such
a hard density worth of matter, instead of a vapor/gas that's far less
reactive, thus our physically dark and nasty moon is contributing it's
secondary/recoil anticathode worth of gamma and hard-X-rays, like none
other.

Each and every one of those Apollo miisions to/from the moon were
essentially a two-part series of their unmanned orbital missions that
went onward from the moon's L1, into lunar orbiting and as best could
deploying technology up until each of their hard/impact landings. *At
least that's pretty much the best we can manage to pull off as of
today.
. - Brad Guth

Whatever you say guthball.

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?

None of your ****ing business.


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

***********************************
I went through all this stuff with Guth about 6 months ago - I calculated
the size of a telescope that would be needed to even to show a single pixel
variation from background albedo - its about ten times larger than the
current resolving ability of terrestrial/LEO telescopes. When shown to be
wrong, he called me a Jew and started spouting abuse.

Not that this is in any way directly relevant to whether the Apollo missions
were a fake - nobody would bother using the world's largest telescopes to
look for a single pixel variation in lunar albedo to try and prove that the
Apollo landings happened. It would be like chartering a long range aircraft
to fly around the world to prove the earth isn't flat.

He is simply a crank. No point in discussing the issue with him; when proved
wrong he will simply change the subject, rather than changing his position.

On Apr 22, 6:14 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
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?

None of your ****ing business.

Why are you speaking for Eric Gisse?


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

***********************************
I went through all this stuff with Guth about 6 months ago - I calculated
the size of a telescope that would be needed to even to show a single pixel
variation from background albedo - its about ten times larger than the
current resolving ability of terrestrial/LEO telescopes. When shown to be
wrong, he called me a Jew and started spouting abuse.

Not that this is in any way directly relevant to whether the Apollo missions
were a fake - nobody would bother using the world's largest telescopes to
look for a single pixel variation in lunar albedo to try and prove that the
Apollo landings happened. It would be like chartering a long range aircraft
to fly around the world to prove the earth isn't flat.

He is simply a crank. No point in discussing the issue with him; when proved
wrong he will simply change the subject, rather than changing his position.

Are we being silly?

Why would a bright and shiny Apollo item as set upon a physically dark
moon not yield a noticeably brighter than average pixel?
.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 21, 7:42 pm, wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:10 am, BradGuth 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/

Is this another bogus topic?

Besides all the JAXA images (plus the other 99.99% of them we're not
even being shown) that so far do not support our NASA/Apollo ruse,
seems as though you haven't taken hardly anything other into account,
that which clearly proves we have not walked on our moon.

This post is "more" evidence, not the entire case. Over the years I've
posted various factoids proving the case for the Apollo Hoax. Included
were photographic evidence, circumstantial facts, physics analysis and
the basic math of parallel shadows and distant light-sources.

No matter how factual the case may be, most people (especially those
who claim to be educated in physics/math) simply won't consider it.
These people are simply weak-minded and only want to believe what
makes them happy. Like a child foolishly insisting that the tooth
fairy really exists when confronted with a pantheon of objective
reality.

They are brown-nosed minions of their Third Reich kind, and for the
most part Semitic to boot. Continued lies and exclusion of evidence
is what makes them happy campers. It's all very MI5/CIA cloak and
dagger.


The intent of my posts here are to help future analysis understand
true ignorance. Of course, they (and myself) know that is not my posts
which serve to demonstrate this phenomenon, it's most of the resulting
responses.

Their responses are either officially limited or scripted.
.. - Brad Guth

On Apr 22, 8:13*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 21, 7:42 pm, wrote:



On Apr 22, 9:10 am, BradGuth 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/

Is this another bogus topic?

Besides all the JAXA images (plus the other 99.99% of them we're not
even being shown) that so far do not support our NASA/Apollo ruse,
seems as though you haven't taken hardly anything other into account,
that which clearly proves we have not walked on our moon.

This post is "more" evidence, not the entire case. Over the years I've
posted various factoids proving the case for the Apollo Hoax. Included
were photographic evidence, circumstantial facts, physics analysis and
the basic math of parallel shadows and distant light-sources.

No matter how factual the case may be, most people (especially those
who claim to be educated in physics/math) simply won't consider it.
These *people are simply weak-minded and only want to believe what
makes them happy. Like a child foolishly insisting that the tooth
fairy really exists when confronted with a pantheon of objective
reality.

They are brown-nosed minions of their Third Reich kind, and for the
most part Semitic to boot. *Continued lies and exclusion of evidence
is what makes them happy campers. *It's all very MI5/CIA cloak and
dagger.



The intent of my posts here are to help future analysis understand
true ignorance. Of course, they (and myself) know that is not my posts
which serve to demonstrate this phenomenon, it's most of the resulting
responses.

Their responses are either officially limited or scripted.
. - Brad Guth

Paranoid delusions are so fun to watch from a distance.

On Apr 21, 7:53 pm, 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.

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....

Even those JAXA/Selene images are not what they should be. It seems
those trusty MIB of our NASA damage-control got into the works of
JAXA, just in time to have insured JAXA would eliminate most of the
color hue saturation that's related to our physically dark but mineral
rich moon.

Even at that, the JAXA moon looks nothing like our NASA/Apollo moon.
.. - Brad Guth

BradGuth's bogeymen are no whimps..
they're like Hitler, Einstein and James Bond rolled into one.

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 6:14 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
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?

None of your ****ing business.

Why are you speaking for Eric Gisse?


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

***********************************
I went through all this stuff with Guth about 6 months ago - I calculated
the size of a telescope that would be needed to even to show a single
pixel
variation from background albedo - its about ten times larger than the
current resolving ability of terrestrial/LEO telescopes. When shown to be
wrong, he called me a Jew and started spouting abuse.

Not that this is in any way directly relevant to whether the Apollo
missions
were a fake - nobody would bother using the world's largest telescopes to
look for a single pixel variation in lunar albedo to try and prove that
the
Apollo landings happened. It would be like chartering a long range
aircraft
to fly around the world to prove the earth isn't flat.

He is simply a crank. No point in discussing the issue with him; when
proved
wrong he will simply change the subject, rather than changing his
position.

Are we being silly?


Not "we". Just you.


Why would a bright and shiny Apollo item as set upon a physically dark
moon not yield a noticeably brighter than average pixel?

We went through this before.

The best resolution of terrestrial telescopes results in a pixel area of
about 100 sq metres. The bit of the LEM left on the moon is perhaps 10 sq
metres. Its likely to have a dust coating, and it throws a shadow (also part
of the pixel). So you might (back of an envelope) assume that this 10 sq
metres is twice as bright as the other 90 sqm in the pixel. This would give
you - at a generous estimate - about a 10% brighter pixel than you would
expect. However, its very obvious that the variations between pixels varies
by far, far more than 10%, as the natural topography of the lunar surface
means that some areas are more brightly lit than others (as some are
directly facing the sun, but others are at an angle and hence receive less
incident light). You can confirm this with a cheap pair of binoculars.

So the variation from having the remainder of the LEM still on the moon is
orders of magnitude less than the natural variation in the apparent
brightness of different patches of the ground, and hence would be impossible
to extract from this "noise" deriving from other topographic differences.

Got it this time?



. - Brad Guth

On Apr 22, 9:14*pm, wrote:
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

typo: contested=contended

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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -