> isw wrote:

>>
>> A friend and I watched, in real time, video transmitted directly from
>> the antenna on the lunar rover during the Apollo 17 mission. My friend
>> was a ham operator, and he had a 12-foot parabolic dish in his back
>> yard; it was pointed directly at the moon. I contributed the video
>> expertise necessary to demodulate the signal. The image was very noisy,
>> but recognizable when we saw it some time later on a network broadcast.
>>

> That's a little fact that Moon hoax supporters will have trouble
> with...why were the signals coming from the Moon?

> On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw witzend.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> In article
>> <8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>

>> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>>>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
>>>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
>>>> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
>>>> etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose ...

> In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>

>> On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw witzend.com> wrote:

>>> In article
>>> <8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>

>>> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>>>>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
>>>>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who ...

> On Feb 14, 7:48 am, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
>> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

>

>>> On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw witzend.com> wrote:

>>>> In article
>>>> <8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>

>>>> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>>>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>>>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories, ...

> On Feb 13, 12:20 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>

>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
>>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
>>> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
>>> etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
>>> any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
>>> paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has ever come
>>> to light. ...

> On Feb 14, 3:12 am, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Feb 13, 12:20 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>

>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>> objective.  Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>>>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom  mission despite the Ranger probes
>>>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
>>>> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics, ...

> On Feb 14, 2:10 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Feb 14, 3:12 am, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Feb 13, 12:20 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>

>>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>

>>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>>>>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
>>>>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
>>>>> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics, ...

> On Feb 14, 7:16 am, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On Feb 14, 7:48 am, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>>> In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
>>> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...

>>

>>>> On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw witzend.com> wrote:

>>>>> In article
>>>>> <8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>>

>>>>> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>>>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>> ...

> On Feb 14, 4:48 am, BDK magicsteel.com> wrote:

>> In article <60bbf7be-0e21-4885-907b-dbda4dfe15b0
>> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, bradg...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>

>>> On Feb 13, 9:00 pm, isw witzend.com> wrote:

>>>> In article
>>>> <8f0a5661-4879-481c-9fb5-981ff45cd...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

>>

>>>> BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>>>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>>

>>>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories, ...

> On Feb 14, 3:12 am, Disneygeek hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On Feb 13, 12:20 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>>> On Feb 12, 11:19 am, Matt aol.com> wrote:

>>

>>>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>>>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>>>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>>

>>>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>>>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>>>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
>>>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
>>>> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
>>>> etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
>>>> any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO ...