On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:57:34 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:47:16 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:



Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:03:29 -0500, "Bast"
wrote:

Perhaps he can still learn something, and let his hemorrhoids heal up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUZr0Wr0v-s

If you still miss the point hags,.....NASA faked Apollo

That is a lie. And I'm still waiting for your response to the
nagging radio signals to and from the moon which have become your
personal inconvient truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-laser-funding


snip


Another fail for you Bast.


Oh **** facepalm,....that even reads like a fairytale, or a harry potter
novel. Maybe Lord Voldemort helped them aim the antenna ??

I don't see you refuting anything, Bastie ..... Maybe if you didn't
live in a fantasy land?

You write a few lines of crap that you are virtually claining is verified
by SNOPES ?

Nope. Stop lying Bast.

You do realize that even if I swallow your version of events, you just made
my argument for me, don't you ?

I'll give you a little hint, Bastie: I know all about satellites.
But go on....

If you have a moving satellite (closer) or the moon (farther away)
Of course a signal from a satellite will keep requiring re-aiming, where the
moon farther away would not appear to move quickly from your reference point
on earth.

This is all simple enough to sort out.

Your claim is about a moving satellite in space.

The burden of proof is therefore on you to name, specifically, the
satellite(s) we have in orbit in 1969 which had the capabilities you
claim in your argument?

And be specific, Bast. All satellites are named and or numbered and
tracked.

I anxiously await your answer to my question.