The colorful elements of our moon and otherwise Venus, each havetheir issues

In spite of what our mainstream peers have been telling us to believe about our moon, its surface is on average quite physically dark, but it also isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert as our Apollo era discovered of so many areas of nearly off-white terrain with little or nothing all that much of physically dark stuff, much less offering any mineral/element colors (not even of any UV secondary/recoil hues) to speak of, as recorded by their unfiltered Kodak color film that couldn't even manage to record any planetshine because their local contrast issues were always so minimal.

William Mook:
"The moon has a few things to recommend it over the Earth. The first and foremost, especially for planet wide constructions, is the lack of geology on the scale of the Earth. The second, is the lack of an interfering biosphere. We can do many things on the moon that we would not want to do on Earth. The third aspect of the moon is its nearness in space. We can signal the Earth from the moon, and vice versa, and we can easily travel between Earth and moon with modest space vehicle technology."

As based upon exploiting just 0.1% of the lunar interior volume (2.2e16 m3 of easily enough TBM excavated lunar innards), whereas it seems like this mostly robotic tunneling excavation process is offering us more than a good enough volume of providing for a very failsafe habitat, and those easily extracted common and rare elements from the TBM spoils seems like it should hold us for many thousands of years worth of continued mass consumption and resource depletion, even with most everyone living large, not to mention processing those surface accumulations of loose rock, soil and dust for obtaining those rare and mostly valuable elements, including He3.

A century of industrial tunneling into the moon isn't even capable of reducing the mass of the moon by any measurable amount, not even if utilizing its material for creating the L1 and L2 elevators and of whatever rare elements that'll eventually get processed and exported back to Earth would be more than easily offset by the accumulating mass which is derived from Earth and otherwise via the continued influx of asteroids and dust attributed to lithobraking impacts and extensively held onto by the local gravity. In other words, a net mass exchange of remaining nearly equal to its original 7.348e22 kg even though large volumes of its helium, sodium and a few other vapors of sufficiently lofty elements are going to be continually leaking out or simply subliming because of the surface heat by day, its geothermal upwelling and its surface hard vacuum, thereby getting easily solar wind blown away unless we capture such for our own uses.

The physically heavy and offset core of our moon provides a nearly perpetual thermal energy bank of its residual heat plus offering numerous fission elements, and because of this highly insulated interior that's so nicely protected by its fused paramagnetic basalt crust and thereby hosting its core of geothermal energy as efficiency maintained better than the core energy of Earth, should take us at least thousands of years in order to 50% deplete, and of its accessibility as well as for mining of the raw solar influx worth 1.4 kw/m2 is going to become about as straightforward renewable energy and fully integrated with relative ease, especially once we reposition the moon as being station kept at Earth L1.

The mostly basalt crust that is physically dark and extensively paramagnet (unlike most any of our Apollo era samples of a medium-light monochromatic gray and of such relatively low composite density), instead offering 3.5+ g/cm3 density and likely loaded with numerous common heavy elements of more than sufficient value (including portions as carbonado that can be directly made into continuous fiber for tether applications), is going to represent yet another treasure trove for humanity and for accomplishing our future off-world exploitations of other planets and moons. Unlimited carbonado could even be rather easily commercial manufactured on the moon or at either tethered outpost/gateway/oasis.

Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to do so much better geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.
http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm
http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle...4_gasparri.jpg
http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html
As once again we get to see for ourselves, with the use of proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image layer stacking, and otherwise by using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even accomplished by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have done for us as of decades ago from such an unobstructed close lunar orbit along with their heat and radiation proof Kodak film, and otherwise especially as derived from their spendy LROC mission that's still mostly colorblind. None the less, and once again from an amateur is where we get a full visual spectrum with its color saturation merely cranked up, offers a very look-see at what seems to depict a surface treasure trove of common and rare elements worth mining.

Why minerals are colored:
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/acstalks/acs-colr.htm
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/learn/science4

So, indeed the moon is an extremely valuable item, not to mention the obvious geoengineering solution as to resolving our resource demanding GW+AGW issues right here on Earth by blocking up to 3.5% of the solar influx, as well as greatly reduced seismic triggering and fully regulated tidal considerations that'll accomplish far more good than harm, and when combined is worth well over ten trillion per year in 2115 dollars (possibly worth a trillion per month by 2115).

As is, our moon can be easily evaluated as worth over a trillion per year to us, in preventing damages caused to our global environment that's losing its essential cache of glacial ice faster than we can manage to upgrade and/or adapt our technology and social infrastructure.

Efforts by others to essentially hijack topics in order to harmlessly plagiarize and/or divert their focus or intent isn't always helping, and because Mook tends to provide too much information, although as of recently his topic feedback has become somewhat less naysay and more constructive. Indeed Mook has has proposed many off-world exploitation examples (some of which having included our moon), and for that I've taken his feedback talent and expertise as a serious contribution rather than topic hijacking with ulterior motives. However, to the new and/or easily intimidated reader or mainstream media in search of interesting material, it's unlikely that they would understand and exercise sufficiently selective reading in order to interpret such reply context as being helpful.

Our topic context stability needs to be given a greater focus, upon informing and educating the casual readers that may have accidentally manage to come into reading some of our topics and replies. Perhaps only a few of those are likely to be much better off than a typical 5th grader at understanding what we have to offer. Topics from William Mook and his replies to others are typically of those by far the most sophisticated and science/physics advanced beyond that of most graduate doctorate degree status, or in other words at least 10 years too far ahead of the average educated readers and otherwise seemingly 15 years above most of the regular Usenet/newsgroup contributors that have always been mainstream indoctrinated and/or snookered by their peers, instead of their being educated to deductively interpret and think for themselves.

How wet are those innards of our colorful moon?

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/06/ne...ans-deep-earth
Seems reasonable enough that this exact same analogy of geologically sequestered water should apply as for offering a significant cache of water existing within our moon.

After all, according to those of our NASA/Apollo era, our moon is made of nearly the exact same elements as Earth (including a great deal of oxygen, hydrogen and it's even producing more sodium and helium per mass than Earth, as well as offering a lot more accessible elements of great value on its naked, physically dark and paramagnetic surface of basalt and even carbonado worthy crust of 3.5 g/cm3.

Those natural surface mineral colors are not actually fake or having been PhotoShop added to the otherwise NASA/Apollo era of their monochromatic moon that was mostly inert and hardly even the least bit physically dark nor even all that dusty.

Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to accomplish so much better mineral fluorescent color geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL, and ASU has to offer, as even JAXA and our LROC mission have been totally color-blind and still as poorly dynamic range incapable as Kodak Film (so much so that they each must PhotoShop any color view of Earth along with their always monochromatic moon in the same frame of view(FOV), whereas any 5th grader can easily detect their ruse by simply replacing black with some other color or simply by using greater brightness of black more than does the trick.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pSYvqyzqGNI/maxresdefault.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...hmoon_crop.png
http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm
http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle...4_gasparri.jpg
http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html


On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:14:59 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
In spite of what our mainstream peers have been telling us to believe about our moon, its surface is on average quite physically dark, but it also isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert as our Apollo era discovered of so many areas of nearly off-white terrain with little or nothing all that much of physically dark stuff, much less offering any mineral/element colors (not even of any UV secondary/recoil hues) to speak of, as recorded by their unfiltered Kodak color film that couldn't even manage to record any planetshine because their local contrast issues were always so minimal.



William Mook:

"The moon has a few things to recommend it over the Earth. The first and foremost, especially for planet wide constructions, is the lack of geology on the scale of the Earth. The second, is the lack of an interfering biosphere. We can do many things on the moon that we would not want to do on Earth. The third aspect of the moon is its nearness in space. We can signal the Earth from the moon, and vice versa, and we can easily travel between Earth and moon with modest space vehicle technology."



As based upon exploiting just 0.1% of the lunar interior volume (2.2e16 m3 of easily enough TBM excavated lunar innards), whereas it seems like this mostly robotic tunneling excavation process is offering us more than a good enough volume of providing for a very failsafe habitat, and those easily extracted common and rare elements from the TBM spoils seems like it should hold us for many thousands of years worth of continued mass consumption and resource depletion, even with most everyone living large, not to mention processing those surface accumulations of loose rock, soil and dust for obtaining those rare and mostly valuable elements, including He3.



A century of industrial tunneling into the moon isn't even capable of reducing the mass of the moon by any measurable amount, not even if utilizing its material for creating the L1 and L2 elevators and of whatever rare elements that'll eventually get processed and exported back to Earth would be more than easily offset by the accumulating mass which is derived from Earth and otherwise via the continued influx of asteroids and dust attributed to lithobraking impacts and extensively held onto by the local gravity. In other words, a net mass exchange of remaining nearly equal to its original 7..348e22 kg even though large volumes of its helium, sodium and a few other vapors of sufficiently lofty elements are going to be continually leaking out or simply subliming because of the surface heat by day, its geothermal upwelling and its surface hard vacuum, thereby getting easily solar wind blown away unless we capture such for our own uses.



The physically heavy and offset core of our moon provides a nearly perpetual thermal energy bank of its residual heat plus offering numerous fission elements, and because of this highly insulated interior that's so nicely protected by its fused paramagnetic basalt crust and thereby hosting its core of geothermal energy as efficiency maintained better than the core energy of Earth, should take us at least thousands of years in order to 50% deplete, and of its accessibility as well as for mining of the raw solar influx worth 1.4 kw/m2 is going to become about as straightforward renewable energy and fully integrated with relative ease, especially once we reposition the moon as being station kept at Earth L1.



The mostly basalt crust that is physically dark and extensively paramagnet (unlike most any of our Apollo era samples of a medium-light monochromatic gray and of such relatively low composite density), instead offering 3.5+ g/cm3 density and likely loaded with numerous common heavy elements of more than sufficient value (including portions as carbonado that can be directly made into continuous fiber for tether applications), is going to represent yet another treasure trove for humanity and for accomplishing our future off-world exploitations of other planets and moons. Unlimited carbonado could even be rather easily commercial manufactured on the moon or at either tethered outpost/gateway/oasis.



Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to do so much better geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.

http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm

http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle...4_gasparri.jpg

http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html

As once again we get to see for ourselves, with the use of proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image layer stacking, and otherwise by using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even accomplished by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have done for us as of decades ago from such an unobstructed close lunar orbit along with their heat and radiation proof Kodak film, and otherwise especially as derived from their spendy LROC mission that's still mostly colorblind. None the less, and once again from an amateur is where we get a full visual spectrum with its color saturation merely cranked up, offers a very look-see at what seems to depict a surface treasure trove of common and rare elements worth mining.



Why minerals are colored:

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/acstalks/acs-colr.htm

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/learn/science4



So, indeed the moon is an extremely valuable item, not to mention the obvious geoengineering solution as to resolving our resource demanding GW+AGW issues right here on Earth by blocking up to 3.5% of the solar influx, as well as greatly reduced seismic triggering and fully regulated tidal considerations that'll accomplish far more good than harm, and when combined is worth well over ten trillion per year in 2115 dollars (possibly worth a trillion per month by 2115).



As is, our moon can be easily evaluated as worth over a trillion per year to us, in preventing damages caused to our global environment that's losing its essential cache of glacial ice faster than we can manage to upgrade and/or adapt our technology and social infrastructure.



Efforts by others to essentially hijack topics in order to harmlessly plagiarize and/or divert their focus or intent isn't always helping, and because Mook tends to provide too much information, although as of recently his topic feedback has become somewhat less naysay and more constructive. Indeed Mook has has proposed many off-world exploitation examples (some of which having included our moon), and for that I've taken his feedback talent and expertise as a serious contribution rather than topic hijacking with ulterior motives. However, to the new and/or easily intimidated reader or mainstream media in search of interesting material, it's unlikely that they would understand and exercise sufficiently selective reading in order to interpret such reply context as being helpful.



Our topic context stability needs to be given a greater focus, upon informing and educating the casual readers that may have accidentally manage to come into reading some of our topics and replies. Perhaps only a few of those are likely to be much better off than a typical 5th grader at understanding what we have to offer. Topics from William Mook and his replies to others are typically of those by far the most sophisticated and science/physics advanced beyond that of most graduate doctorate degree status, or in other words at least 10 years too far ahead of the average educated readers and otherwise seemingly 15 years above most of the regular Usenet/newsgroup contributors that have always been mainstream indoctrinated and/or snookered by their peers, instead of their being educated to deductively interpret and think for themselves.

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:17:17 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
How wet are those innards of our colorful moon?



http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/06/ne...ans-deep-earth

Seems reasonable enough that this exact same analogy of geologically sequestered water should apply as for offering a significant cache of water existing within our moon.



After all, according to those of our NASA/Apollo era, our moon is made of nearly the exact same elements as Earth (including a great deal of oxygen, hydrogen and it's even producing more sodium and helium per mass than Earth, as well as offering a lot more accessible elements of great value on its naked, physically dark and paramagnetic surface of basalt and even carbonado worthy crust of 3.5 g/cm3.



Those natural surface mineral colors are not actually fake or having been PhotoShop added to the otherwise NASA/Apollo era of their monochromatic moon that was mostly inert and hardly even the least bit physically dark nor even all that dusty.



Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to accomplish so much better mineral fluorescent color geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL, and ASU has to offer, as even JAXA and our LROC mission have been totally color-blind and still as poorly dynamic range incapable as Kodak Film (so much so that they each must PhotoShop any color view of Earth along with their always monochromatic moon in the same frame of view(FOV), whereas any 5th grader can easily detect their ruse by simply replacing black with some other color or simply by using greater brightness of black more than does the trick.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pSYvqyzqGNI/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...hmoon_crop.png

http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm

http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle...4_gasparri.jpg

http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html





On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:14:59 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

In spite of what our mainstream peers have been telling us to believe about our moon, its surface is on average quite physically dark, but it also isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert as our Apollo era discovered of so many areas of nearly off-white terrain with little or nothing all that much of physically dark stuff, much less offering any mineral/element colors (not even of any UV secondary/recoil hues) to speak of, as recorded by their unfiltered Kodak color film that couldn't even manage to record any planetshine because their local contrast issues were always so minimal.







William Mook:



"The moon has a few things to recommend it over the Earth. The first and foremost, especially for planet wide constructions, is the lack of geology on the scale of the Earth. The second, is the lack of an interfering biosphere. We can do many things on the moon that we would not want to do on Earth. The third aspect of the moon is its nearness in space. We can signal the Earth from the moon, and vice versa, and we can easily travel between Earth and moon with modest space vehicle technology."







As based upon exploiting just 0.1% of the lunar interior volume (2.2e16 m3 of easily enough TBM excavated lunar innards), whereas it seems like this mostly robotic tunneling excavation process is offering us more than a good enough volume of providing for a very failsafe habitat, and those easily extracted common and rare elements from the TBM spoils seems like it should hold us for many thousands of years worth of continued mass consumption and resource depletion, even with most everyone living large, not to mention processing those surface accumulations of loose rock, soil and dust for obtaining those rare and mostly valuable elements, including He3.







A century of industrial tunneling into the moon isn't even capable of reducing the mass of the moon by any measurable amount, not even if utilizing its material for creating the L1 and L2 elevators and of whatever rare elements that'll eventually get processed and exported back to Earth would be more than easily offset by the accumulating mass which is derived from Earth and otherwise via the continued influx of asteroids and dust attributed to lithobraking impacts and extensively held onto by the local gravity. In other words, a net mass exchange of remaining nearly equal to its original 7.348e22 kg even though large volumes of its helium, sodium and a few other vapors of sufficiently lofty elements are going to be continually leaking out or simply subliming because of the surface heat by day, its geothermal upwelling and its surface hard vacuum, thereby getting easily solar wind blown away unless we capture such for our own uses.







The physically heavy and offset core of our moon provides a nearly perpetual thermal energy bank of its residual heat plus offering numerous fission elements, and because of this highly insulated interior that's so nicely protected by its fused paramagnetic basalt crust and thereby hosting its core of geothermal energy as efficiency maintained better than the core energy of Earth, should take us at least thousands of years in order to 50% deplete, and of its accessibility as well as for mining of the raw solar influx worth 1.4 kw/m2 is going to become about as straightforward renewable energy and fully integrated with relative ease, especially once we reposition the moon as being station kept at Earth L1.







The mostly basalt crust that is physically dark and extensively paramagnet (unlike most any of our Apollo era samples of a medium-light monochromatic gray and of such relatively low composite density), instead offering 3.5+ g/cm3 density and likely loaded with numerous common heavy elements of more than sufficient value (including portions as carbonado that can be directly made into continuous fiber for tether applications), is going to represent yet another treasure trove for humanity and for accomplishing our future off-world exploitations of other planets and moons. Unlimited carbonado could even be rather easily commercial manufactured on the moon or at either tethered outpost/gateway/oasis.







Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to do so much better geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.



http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm



http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle...4_gasparri.jpg



http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html



As once again we get to see for ourselves, with the use of proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image layer stacking, and otherwise by using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even accomplished by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have done for us as of decades ago from such an unobstructed close lunar orbit along with their heat and radiation proof Kodak film, and otherwise especially as derived from their spendy LROC mission that's still mostly colorblind. None the less, and once again from an amateur is where we get a full visual spectrum with its color saturation merely cranked up, offers a very look-see at what seems to depict a surface treasure trove of common and rare elements worth mining.







Why minerals are colored:



https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/acstalks/acs-colr.htm



http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/learn/science4







So, indeed the moon is an extremely valuable item, not to mention the obvious geoengineering solution as to resolving our resource demanding GW+AGW issues right here on Earth by blocking up to 3.5% of the solar influx, as well as greatly reduced seismic triggering and fully regulated tidal considerations that'll accomplish far more good than harm, and when combined is worth well over ten trillion per year in 2115 dollars (possibly worth a trillion per month by 2115).







As is, our moon can be easily evaluated as worth over a trillion per year to us, in preventing damages caused to our global environment that's losing its essential cache of glacial ice faster than we can manage to upgrade and/or adapt our technology and social infrastructure.







Efforts by others to essentially hijack topics in order to harmlessly plagiarize and/or divert their focus or intent isn't always helping, and because Mook tends to provide too much information, although as of recently his topic feedback has become somewhat less naysay and more constructive. Indeed Mook has has proposed many off-world exploitation examples (some of which having included our moon), and for that I've taken his feedback talent and expertise as a serious contribution rather than topic hijacking with ulterior motives. However, to the new and/or easily intimidated reader or mainstream media in search of interesting material, it's unlikely that they would understand and exercise sufficiently selective reading in order to interpret such reply context as being helpful.







Our topic context stability needs to be given a greater focus, upon informing and educating the casual readers that may have accidentally manage to come into reading some of our topics and replies. Perhaps only a few of those are likely to be much better off than a typical 5th grader at understanding what we have to offer. Topics from William Mook and his replies to others are typically of those by far the most sophisticated and science/physics advanced beyond that of most graduate doctorate degree status, or in other words at least 10 years too far ahead of the average educated readers and otherwise seemingly 15 years above most of the regular Usenet/newsgroup contributors that have always been mainstream indoctrinated and/or snookered by their peers, instead of their being educated to deductively interpret and think for themselves.


NASA's new video that shows proof of Apollo 11 landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUcY...1H5gaB&index=1

Double-A

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 1:05:07 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:17:17 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

How wet are those innards of our colorful moon?







http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/06/ne...ans-deep-earth



Seems reasonable enough that this exact same analogy of geologically sequestered water should apply as for offering a significant cache of water existing within our moon.







After all, according to those of our NASA/Apollo era, our moon is made of nearly the exact same elements as Earth (including a great deal of oxygen, hydrogen and it's even producing more sodium and helium per mass than Earth, as well as offering a lot more accessible elements of great value on its naked, physically dark and paramagnetic surface of basalt and even carbonado worthy crust of 3.5 g/cm3.







Those natural surface mineral colors are not actually fake or having been PhotoShop added to the otherwise NASA/Apollo era of their monochromatic moon that was mostly inert and hardly even the least bit physically dark nor even all that dusty.







Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to accomplish so much better mineral fluorescent color geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL, and ASU has to offer, as even JAXA and our LROC mission have been totally color-blind and still as poorly dynamic range incapable as Kodak Film (so much so that they each must PhotoShop any color view of Earth along with their always monochromatic moon in the same frame of view(FOV), whereas any 5th grader can easily detect their ruse by simply replacing black with some other color or simply by using greater brightness of black more than does the trick.



http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pSYvqyzqGNI/maxresdefault.jpg



http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...hmoon_crop.png



http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm



http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle...4_gasparri.jpg



http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html











On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:14:59 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:



In spite of what our mainstream peers have been telling us to believe about our moon, its surface is on average quite physically dark, but it also isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert as our Apollo era discovered of so many areas of nearly off-white terrain with little or nothing all that much of physically dark stuff, much less offering any mineral/element colors (not even of any UV secondary/recoil hues) to speak of, as recorded by their unfiltered Kodak color film that couldn't even manage to record any planetshine because their local contrast issues were always so minimal.















William Mook:







"The moon has a few things to recommend it over the Earth. The first and foremost, especially for planet wide constructions, is the lack of geology on the scale of the Earth. The second, is the lack of an interfering biosphere. We can do many things on the moon that we would not want to do on Earth. The third aspect of the moon is its nearness in space. We can signal the Earth from the moon, and vice versa, and we can easily travel between Earth and moon with modest space vehicle technology."















As based upon exploiting just 0.1% of the lunar interior volume (2.2e16 m3 of easily enough TBM excavated lunar innards), whereas it seems like this mostly robotic tunneling excavation process is offering us more than a good enough volume of providing for a very failsafe habitat, and those easily extracted common and rare elements from the TBM spoils seems like it should hold us for many thousands of years worth of continued mass consumption and resource depletion, even with most everyone living large, not to mention processing those surface accumulations of loose rock, soil and dust for obtaining those rare and mostly valuable elements, including He3.















A century of industrial tunneling into the moon isn't even capable of reducing the mass of the moon by any measurable amount, not even if utilizing its material for creating the L1 and L2 elevators and of whatever rare elements that'll eventually get processed and exported back to Earth would be more than easily offset by the accumulating mass which is derived from Earth and otherwise via the continued influx of asteroids and dust attributed to lithobraking impacts and extensively held onto by the local gravity. In other words, a net mass exchange of remaining nearly equal to its original 7.348e22 kg even though large volumes of its helium, sodium and a few other vapors of sufficiently lofty elements are going to be continually leaking out or simply subliming because of the surface heat by day, its geothermal upwelling and its surface hard vacuum, thereby getting easily solar wind blown away unless we capture such for our own uses.















The physically heavy and offset core of our moon provides a nearly perpetual thermal energy bank of its residual heat plus offering numerous fission elements, and because of this highly insulated interior that's so nicely protected by its fused paramagnetic basalt crust and thereby hosting its core of geothermal energy as efficiency maintained better than the core energy of Earth, should take us at least thousands of years in order to 50% deplete, and of its accessibility as well as for mining of the raw solar influx worth 1.4 kw/m2 is going to become about as straightforward renewable energy and fully integrated with relative ease, especially once we reposition the moon as being station kept at Earth L1.















The mostly basalt crust that is physically dark and extensively paramagnet (unlike most any of our Apollo era samples of a medium-light monochromatic gray and of such relatively low composite density), instead offering 3.5+ g/cm3 density and likely loaded with numerous common heavy elements of more than sufficient value (including portions as carbonado that can be directly made into continuous fiber for tether applications), is going to represent yet another treasure trove for humanity and for accomplishing our future off-world exploitations of other planets and moons. Unlimited carbonado could even be rather easily commercial manufactured on the moon or at either tethered outpost/gateway/oasis.















Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to do so much better geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.







http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm







http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle..._gasparri..jpg







http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....or/index..html







As once again we get to see for ourselves, with the use of proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image layer stacking, and otherwise by using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even accomplished by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have done for us as of decades ago from such an unobstructed close lunar orbit along with their heat and radiation proof Kodak film, and otherwise especially as derived from their spendy LROC mission that's still mostly colorblind. None the less, and once again from an amateur is where we get a full visual spectrum with its color saturation merely cranked up, offers a very look-see at what seems to depict a surface treasure trove of common and rare elements worth mining.















Why minerals are colored:







https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/acstalks/acs-colr.htm







http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/learn/science4















So, indeed the moon is an extremely valuable item, not to mention the obvious geoengineering solution as to resolving our resource demanding GW+AGW issues right here on Earth by blocking up to 3.5% of the solar influx, as well as greatly reduced seismic triggering and fully regulated tidal considerations that'll accomplish far more good than harm, and when combined is worth well over ten trillion per year in 2115 dollars (possibly worth a trillion per month by 2115).















As is, our moon can be easily evaluated as worth over a trillion per year to us, in preventing damages caused to our global environment that's losing its essential cache of glacial ice faster than we can manage to upgrade and/or adapt our technology and social infrastructure.















Efforts by others to essentially hijack topics in order to harmlessly plagiarize and/or divert their focus or intent isn't always helping, and because Mook tends to provide too much information, although as of recently his topic feedback has become somewhat less naysay and more constructive. Indeed Mook has has proposed many off-world exploitation examples (some of which having included our moon), and for that I've taken his feedback talent and expertise as a serious contribution rather than topic hijacking with ulterior motives. However, to the new and/or easily intimidated reader or mainstream media in search of interesting material, it's unlikely that they would understand and exercise sufficiently selective reading in order to interpret such reply context as being helpful.















Our topic context stability needs to be given a greater focus, upon informing and educating the casual readers that may have accidentally manage to come into reading some of our topics and replies. Perhaps only a few of those are likely to be much better off than a typical 5th grader at understanding what we have to offer. Topics from William Mook and his replies to others are typically of those by far the most sophisticated and science/physics advanced beyond that of most graduate doctorate degree status, or in other words at least 10 years too far ahead of the average educated readers and otherwise seemingly 15 years above most of the regular Usenet/newsgroup contributors that have always been mainstream indoctrinated and/or snookered by their peers, instead of their being educated to deductively interpret and think for themselves.





NASA's new video that shows proof of Apollo 11 landing.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUcY...1H5gaB&index=1



Double-A

There has never been any question from my perspective that our Operation Paperclip of SS Nazi guys got numerous items of Apollo stuff onto the surface of our physically dark, colorful and paramagnetic lunar surface.

It's the unfiltered Kodak forensics and the supposed science from actually walking upon and driving upon the moon that still doesn't add up to what we're being told to accept, or else.

Are you still suggesting that our DARPA and NASA have never obfuscated or having otherwise lied to us?

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 1:23:42 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 1:05:07 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:17:17 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:



How wet are those innards of our colorful moon?















http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/06/ne...ans-deep-earth







Seems reasonable enough that this exact same analogy of geologically sequestered water should apply as for offering a significant cache of water existing within our moon.















After all, according to those of our NASA/Apollo era, our moon is made of nearly the exact same elements as Earth (including a great deal of oxygen, hydrogen and it's even producing more sodium and helium per mass than Earth, as well as offering a lot more accessible elements of great value on its naked, physically dark and paramagnetic surface of basalt and even carbonado worthy crust of 3.5 g/cm3.















Those natural surface mineral colors are not actually fake or having been PhotoShop added to the otherwise NASA/Apollo era of their monochromatic moon that was mostly inert and hardly even the least bit physically dark nor even all that dusty.















Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to accomplish so much better mineral fluorescent color geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL, and ASU has to offer, as even JAXA and our LROC mission have been totally color-blind and still as poorly dynamic range incapable as Kodak Film (so much so that they each must PhotoShop any color view of Earth along with their always monochromatic moon in the same frame of view(FOV), whereas any 5th grader can easily detect their ruse by simply replacing black with some other color or simply by using greater brightness of black more than does the trick.







http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pSYvqyzqGNI/maxresdefault.jpg







http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...hmoon_crop.png







http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm







http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle..._gasparri..jpg







http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....or/index..html























On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:14:59 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:







In spite of what our mainstream peers have been telling us to believe about our moon, its surface is on average quite physically dark, but it also isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert as our Apollo era discovered of so many areas of nearly off-white terrain with little or nothing all that much of physically dark stuff, much less offering any mineral/element colors (not even of any UV secondary/recoil hues) to speak of, as recorded by their unfiltered Kodak color film that couldn't even manage to record any planetshine because their local contrast issues were always so minimal.































William Mook:















"The moon has a few things to recommend it over the Earth. The first and foremost, especially for planet wide constructions, is the lack of geology on the scale of the Earth. The second, is the lack of an interfering biosphere. We can do many things on the moon that we would not want to do on Earth. The third aspect of the moon is its nearness in space. We can signal the Earth from the moon, and vice versa, and we can easily travel between Earth and moon with modest space vehicle technology."































As based upon exploiting just 0.1% of the lunar interior volume (2.2e16 m3 of easily enough TBM excavated lunar innards), whereas it seems like this mostly robotic tunneling excavation process is offering us more than a good enough volume of providing for a very failsafe habitat, and those easily extracted common and rare elements from the TBM spoils seems like it should hold us for many thousands of years worth of continued mass consumption and resource depletion, even with most everyone living large, not to mention processing those surface accumulations of loose rock, soil and dust for obtaining those rare and mostly valuable elements, including He3.































A century of industrial tunneling into the moon isn't even capable of reducing the mass of the moon by any measurable amount, not even if utilizing its material for creating the L1 and L2 elevators and of whatever rare elements that'll eventually get processed and exported back to Earth would be more than easily offset by the accumulating mass which is derived from Earth and otherwise via the continued influx of asteroids and dust attributed to lithobraking impacts and extensively held onto by the local gravity. In other words, a net mass exchange of remaining nearly equal to its original 7.348e22 kg even though large volumes of its helium, sodium and a few other vapors of sufficiently lofty elements are going to be continually leaking out or simply subliming because of the surface heat by day, its geothermal upwelling and its surface hard vacuum, thereby getting easily solar wind blown away unless we capture such for our own uses.































The physically heavy and offset core of our moon provides a nearly perpetual thermal energy bank of its residual heat plus offering numerous fission elements, and because of this highly insulated interior that's so nicely protected by its fused paramagnetic basalt crust and thereby hosting its core of geothermal energy as efficiency maintained better than the core energy of Earth, should take us at least thousands of years in order to 50% deplete, and of its accessibility as well as for mining of the raw solar influx worth 1.4 kw/m2 is going to become about as straightforward renewable energy and fully integrated with relative ease, especially once we reposition the moon as being station kept at Earth L1.































The mostly basalt crust that is physically dark and extensively paramagnet (unlike most any of our Apollo era samples of a medium-light monochromatic gray and of such relatively low composite density), instead offering 3.5+ g/cm3 density and likely loaded with numerous common heavy elements of more than sufficient value (including portions as carbonado that can be directly made into continuous fiber for tether applications), is going to represent yet another treasure trove for humanity and for accomplishing our future off-world exploitations of other planets and moons. Unlimited carbonado could even be rather easily commercial manufactured on the moon or at either tethered outpost/gateway/oasis.































Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to do so much better geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.















http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm















http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle...4_gasparri.jpg















http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html















As once again we get to see for ourselves, with the use of proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image layer stacking, and otherwise by using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even accomplished by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have done for us as of decades ago from such an unobstructed close lunar orbit along with their heat and radiation proof Kodak film, and otherwise especially as derived from their spendy LROC mission that's still mostly colorblind. None the less, and once again from an amateur is where we get a full visual spectrum with its color saturation merely cranked up, offers a very look-see at what seems to depict a surface treasure trove of common and rare elements worth mining.































Why minerals are colored:















https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/acstalks/acs-colr.htm















http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/learn/science4































So, indeed the moon is an extremely valuable item, not to mention the obvious geoengineering solution as to resolving our resource demanding GW+AGW issues right here on Earth by blocking up to 3.5% of the solar influx, as well as greatly reduced seismic triggering and fully regulated tidal considerations that'll accomplish far more good than harm, and when combined is worth well over ten trillion per year in 2115 dollars (possibly worth a trillion per month by 2115).































As is, our moon can be easily evaluated as worth over a trillion per year to us, in preventing damages caused to our global environment that's losing its essential cache of glacial ice faster than we can manage to upgrade and/or adapt our technology and social infrastructure.































Efforts by others to essentially hijack topics in order to harmlessly plagiarize and/or divert their focus or intent isn't always helping, and because Mook tends to provide too much information, although as of recently his topic feedback has become somewhat less naysay and more constructive. Indeed Mook has has proposed many off-world exploitation examples (some of which having included our moon), and for that I've taken his feedback talent and expertise as a serious contribution rather than topic hijacking with ulterior motives. However, to the new and/or easily intimidated reader or mainstream media in search of interesting material, it's unlikely that they would understand and exercise sufficiently selective reading in order to interpret such reply context as being helpful.































Our topic context stability needs to be given a greater focus, upon informing and educating the casual readers that may have accidentally manage to come into reading some of our topics and replies. Perhaps only a few of those are likely to be much better off than a typical 5th grader at understanding what we have to offer. Topics from William Mook and his replies to others are typically of those by far the most sophisticated and science/physics advanced beyond that of most graduate doctorate degree status, or in other words at least 10 years too far ahead of the average educated readers and otherwise seemingly 15 years above most of the regular Usenet/newsgroup contributors that have always been mainstream indoctrinated and/or snookered by their peers, instead of their being educated to deductively interpret and think for themselves.











NASA's new video that shows proof of Apollo 11 landing.







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUcY...1H5gaB&index=1







Double-A



There has never been any question from my perspective that our Operation Paperclip of SS Nazi guys got numerous items of Apollo stuff onto the surface of our physically dark, colorful and paramagnetic lunar surface.



It's the unfiltered Kodak forensics and the supposed science from actually walking upon and driving upon the moon that still doesn't add up to what we're being told to accept, or else.



Are you still suggesting that our DARPA and NASA have never obfuscated or having otherwise lied to us?


No, but isn't it interesting that since the old Nazi guys died they have not been able to get a man back to the Moon?

Double-A

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 2:16:36 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 1:23:42 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 1:05:07 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:



On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:17:17 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:







How wet are those innards of our colorful moon?































http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/06/ne...ans-deep-earth















Seems reasonable enough that this exact same analogy of geologically sequestered water should apply as for offering a significant cache of water existing within our moon.































After all, according to those of our NASA/Apollo era, our moon is made of nearly the exact same elements as Earth (including a great deal of oxygen, hydrogen and it's even producing more sodium and helium per mass than Earth, as well as offering a lot more accessible elements of great value on its naked, physically dark and paramagnetic surface of basalt and even carbonado worthy crust of 3.5 g/cm3.































Those natural surface mineral colors are not actually fake or having been PhotoShop added to the otherwise NASA/Apollo era of their monochromatic moon that was mostly inert and hardly even the least bit physically dark nor even all that dusty.































Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to accomplish so much better mineral fluorescent color geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL, and ASU has to offer, as even JAXA and our LROC mission have been totally color-blind and still as poorly dynamic range incapable as Kodak Film (so much so that they each must PhotoShop any color view of Earth along with their always monochromatic moon in the same frame of view(FOV), whereas any 5th grader can easily detect their ruse by simply replacing black with some other color or simply by using greater brightness of black more than does the trick.















http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pSYvqyzqGNI/maxresdefault.jpg















http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...hmoon_crop.png















http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm















http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle...4_gasparri.jpg















http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html















































On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:14:59 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:















In spite of what our mainstream peers have been telling us to believe about our moon, its surface is on average quite physically dark, but it also isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert as our Apollo era discovered of so many areas of nearly off-white terrain with little or nothing all that much of physically dark stuff, much less offering any mineral/element colors (not even of any UV secondary/recoil hues) to speak of, as recorded by their unfiltered Kodak color film that couldn't even manage to record any planetshine because their local contrast issues were always so minimal.































































William Mook:































"The moon has a few things to recommend it over the Earth. The first and foremost, especially for planet wide constructions, is the lack of geology on the scale of the Earth. The second, is the lack of an interfering biosphere. We can do many things on the moon that we would not want to do on Earth. The third aspect of the moon is its nearness in space. We can signal the Earth from the moon, and vice versa, and we can easily travel between Earth and moon with modest space vehicle technology."































































As based upon exploiting just 0.1% of the lunar interior volume (2.2e16 m3 of easily enough TBM excavated lunar innards), whereas it seems like this mostly robotic tunneling excavation process is offering us more than a good enough volume of providing for a very failsafe habitat, and those easily extracted common and rare elements from the TBM spoils seems like it should hold us for many thousands of years worth of continued mass consumption and resource depletion, even with most everyone living large, not to mention processing those surface accumulations of loose rock, soil and dust for obtaining those rare and mostly valuable elements, including He3.































































A century of industrial tunneling into the moon isn't even capable of reducing the mass of the moon by any measurable amount, not even if utilizing its material for creating the L1 and L2 elevators and of whatever rare elements that'll eventually get processed and exported back to Earth would be more than easily offset by the accumulating mass which is derived from Earth and otherwise via the continued influx of asteroids and dust attributed to lithobraking impacts and extensively held onto by the local gravity. In other words, a net mass exchange of remaining nearly equal to its original 7.348e22 kg even though large volumes of its helium, sodium and a few other vapors of sufficiently lofty elements are going to be continually leaking out or simply subliming because of the surface heat by day, its geothermal upwelling and its surface hard vacuum, thereby getting easily solar wind blown away unless we capture such for our own uses.































































The physically heavy and offset core of our moon provides a nearly perpetual thermal energy bank of its residual heat plus offering numerous fission elements, and because of this highly insulated interior that's so nicely protected by its fused paramagnetic basalt crust and thereby hosting its core of geothermal energy as efficiency maintained better than the core energy of Earth, should take us at least thousands of years in order to 50% deplete, and of its accessibility as well as for mining of the raw solar influx worth 1.4 kw/m2 is going to become about as straightforward renewable energy and fully integrated with relative ease, especially once we reposition the moon as being station kept at Earth L1.































































The mostly basalt crust that is physically dark and extensively paramagnet (unlike most any of our Apollo era samples of a medium-light monochromatic gray and of such relatively low composite density), instead offering 3.5+ g/cm3 density and likely loaded with numerous common heavy elements of more than sufficient value (including portions as carbonado that can be directly made into continuous fiber for tether applications), is going to represent yet another treasure trove for humanity and for accomplishing our future off-world exploitations of other planets and moons. Unlimited carbonado could even be rather easily commercial manufactured on the moon or at either tethered outpost/gateway/oasis.































































Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to do so much better geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.































http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm































http://www.danielegasparri.com/Ingle...4_gasparri.jpg































http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html































As once again we get to see for ourselves, with the use of proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image layer stacking, and otherwise by using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even accomplished by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have done for us as of decades ago from such an unobstructed close lunar orbit along with their heat and radiation proof Kodak film, and otherwise especially as derived from their spendy LROC mission that's still mostly colorblind. None the less, and once again from an amateur is where we get a full visual spectrum with its color saturation merely cranked up, offers a very look-see at what seems to depict a surface treasure trove of common and rare elements worth mining.































































Why minerals are colored:































https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/acstalks/acs-colr.htm































http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/learn/science4































































So, indeed the moon is an extremely valuable item, not to mention the obvious geoengineering solution as to resolving our resource demanding GW+AGW issues right here on Earth by blocking up to 3.5% of the solar influx, as well as greatly reduced seismic triggering and fully regulated tidal considerations that'll accomplish far more good than harm, and when combined is worth well over ten trillion per year in 2115 dollars (possibly worth a trillion per month by 2115).































































As is, our moon can be easily evaluated as worth over a trillion per year to us, in preventing damages caused to our global environment that's losing its essential cache of glacial ice faster than we can manage to upgrade and/or adapt our technology and social infrastructure.































































Efforts by others to essentially hijack topics in order to harmlessly plagiarize and/or divert their focus or intent isn't always helping, and because Mook tends to provide too much information, although as of recently his topic feedback has become somewhat less naysay and more constructive. Indeed Mook has has proposed many off-world exploitation examples (some of which having included our moon), and for that I've taken his feedback talent and expertise as a serious contribution rather than topic hijacking with ulterior motives. However, to the new and/or easily intimidated reader or mainstream media in search of interesting material, it's unlikely that they would understand and exercise sufficiently selective reading in order to interpret such reply context as being helpful.































































Our topic context stability needs to be given a greater focus, upon informing and educating the casual readers that may have accidentally manage to come into reading some of our topics and replies. Perhaps only a few of those are likely to be much better off than a typical 5th grader at understanding what we have to offer. Topics from William Mook and his replies to others are typically of those by far the most sophisticated and science/physics advanced beyond that of most graduate doctorate degree status, or in other words at least 10 years too far ahead of the average educated readers and otherwise seemingly 15 years above most of the regular Usenet/newsgroup contributors that have always been mainstream indoctrinated and/or snookered by their peers, instead of their being educated to deductively interpret and think for themselves.























NASA's new video that shows proof of Apollo 11 landing.















https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUcY...1H5gaB&index=1















Double-A







There has never been any question from my perspective that our Operation Paperclip of SS Nazi guys got numerous items of Apollo stuff onto the surface of our physically dark, colorful and paramagnetic lunar surface.







It's the unfiltered Kodak forensics and the supposed science from actually walking upon and driving upon the moon that still doesn't add up to what we're being told to accept, or else.







Are you still suggesting that our DARPA and NASA have never obfuscated or having otherwise lied to us?



No, but isn't it interesting that since the old Nazi guys died they have not been able to get a man back to the Moon?


Double-A

They haven't even been able to deploy any robotic rovers.

The most recent R&D of a viable fly-by-rocket lander that can be scaled to suit is what also kinda puts those Apollo era landers into further question as to their necessary fuels in order to have a surplus of mission fuel and payloads to spare, as strictly downrange pilot flown none the less, because flight computers and automated systems of that era were so primitive compared to the degree of complexity necessary as for accomplishing their most recent lander.

It would be nice to also know how all of that unfiltered Kodak film managed to deal so nicely with such a contrasty photographic environment, and yet never could put anything into any FOV above that physically dark lunar horizon other than Earth, and even of those images of our light-gray monochromatic moon w/Earth had to be doctored and/or subsequently PhotoShopped to suit.

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 2:16:36 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 1:23:42 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

There has never been any question from my perspective that our Operation Paperclip of SS Nazi guys got numerous items of Apollo stuff onto the surface of our physically dark, colorful and paramagnetic lunar surface.



It's the unfiltered Kodak forensics and the supposed science from actually walking upon and driving upon the moon that still doesn't add up to what we're being told to accept, or else.



Are you still suggesting that our DARPA and NASA have never obfuscated or having otherwise lied to us?


No, but isn't it interesting that since the old Nazi guys died they have not been able to get a man back to the Moon?

Double-A

Indeed, it's very interesting, especially when China recently demonstrated how precisely a purely robotic fly-by-rocket landing can be accomplished, and yet our guys with all of their right stuff haven't even been able to deploy any robotic rovers or even basic geology and space weather science instruments, other than remote sampling of our stuff impacting the surface.

The most recent R&D of a viable fly-by-rocket lander that can be scaled to suit is what also kinda puts those Apollo era landers into further question as to their necessary fuels in order to have a surplus of mission fuel and payloads to spare, as strictly downrange pilot flown none the less, because flight computers and automated systems of that era were so primitive compared to the degree of complexity necessary as for accomplishing their most recent lander.

It would be nice to also know how all of that unfiltered Kodak film managed to deal so nicely with such a contrasty photographic environment, and yet never could put anything into any FOV above that physically dark lunar horizon other than Earth, and even of those images of our light-gray monochromatic moon w/Earth had to be doctored and/or subsequently PhotoShopped to suit.

It's actually getting hard to find images from that era that haven't been doctored or PhotoShop revised to suit. Those large format metric mapping images obtained from their Apollo CM orbit are actually a lot more believable, because at least few if any of those look as having been doctored.

Their having to process film on the fly in order to minimize radiation fogging or any of those pesky gamma streaks is probably what degraded their photographic results a little worse than expected. Too bad none of their Apollo era film is ever accessible for independent forensics.

BTW; China also has those high-resolution CCD cameras with full color imagers that can operate at 400 K, so at least that's quite an improvement over anything our DARPA, NASA or Kodak has to offer.

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:47:31 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 2:16:36 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 1:23:42 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:



There has never been any question from my perspective that our Operation Paperclip of SS Nazi guys got numerous items of Apollo stuff onto the surface of our physically dark, colorful and paramagnetic lunar surface.







It's the unfiltered Kodak forensics and the supposed science from actually walking upon and driving upon the moon that still doesn't add up to what we're being told to accept, or else.







Are you still suggesting that our DARPA and NASA have never obfuscated or having otherwise lied to us?





No, but isn't it interesting that since the old Nazi guys died they have not been able to get a man back to the Moon?



Double-A



Indeed, it's very interesting, especially when China recently demonstrated how precisely a purely robotic fly-by-rocket landing can be accomplished, and yet our guys with all of their right stuff haven't even been able to deploy any robotic rovers or even basic geology and space weather science instruments, other than remote sampling of our stuff impacting the surface.



The most recent R&D of a viable fly-by-rocket lander that can be scaled to suit is what also kinda puts those Apollo era landers into further question as to their necessary fuels in order to have a surplus of mission fuel and payloads to spare, as strictly downrange pilot flown none the less, because flight computers and automated systems of that era were so primitive compared to the degree of complexity necessary as for accomplishing their most recent lander.



It would be nice to also know how all of that unfiltered Kodak film managed to deal so nicely with such a contrasty photographic environment, and yet never could put anything into any FOV above that physically dark lunar horizon other than Earth, and even of those images of our light-gray monochromatic moon w/Earth had to be doctored and/or subsequently PhotoShopped to suit.



It's actually getting hard to find images from that era that haven't been doctored or PhotoShop revised to suit. Those large format metric mapping images obtained from their Apollo CM orbit are actually a lot more believable, because at least few if any of those look as having been doctored.



Their having to process film on the fly in order to minimize radiation fogging or any of those pesky gamma streaks is probably what degraded their photographic results a little worse than expected. Too bad none of their Apollo era film is ever accessible for independent forensics.



BTW; China also has those high-resolution CCD cameras with full color imagers that can operate at 400 K, so at least that's quite an improvement over anything our DARPA, NASA or Kodak has to offer.


Sounds like it's China today that has the "right stuff"!

Double-A

On 7/21/2014 4:15 PM, Double-A wrote:

BTW; China also has those high-resolution CCD cameras with full color imagers that can operate at 400 K, so at least that's quite an improvement over anything our DARPA, NASA or Kodak has to offer.


Sounds like it's China today that has the "right stuff"!

Double-A


I wonder why the Chinamen aren't all over planet Venus as Goth
would like...



Imagine a Chinaman saying 'observationolgy' Lol


--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFobnv93AMM

On Monday, July 21, 2014 1:15:56 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:47:31 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 2:16:36 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:



On Sunday, July 20, 2014 1:23:42 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:







There has never been any question from my perspective that our Operation Paperclip of SS Nazi guys got numerous items of Apollo stuff onto the surface of our physically dark, colorful and paramagnetic lunar surface.















It's the unfiltered Kodak forensics and the supposed science from actually walking upon and driving upon the moon that still doesn't add up to what we're being told to accept, or else.















Are you still suggesting that our DARPA and NASA have never obfuscated or having otherwise lied to us?











No, but isn't it interesting that since the old Nazi guys died they have not been able to get a man back to the Moon?







Double-A







Indeed, it's very interesting, especially when China recently demonstrated how precisely a purely robotic fly-by-rocket landing can be accomplished, and yet our guys with all of their right stuff haven't even been able to deploy any robotic rovers or even basic geology and space weather science instruments, other than remote sampling of our stuff impacting the surface.







The most recent R&D of a viable fly-by-rocket lander that can be scaled to suit is what also kinda puts those Apollo era landers into further question as to their necessary fuels in order to have a surplus of mission fuel and payloads to spare, as strictly downrange pilot flown none the less, because flight computers and automated systems of that era were so primitive compared to the degree of complexity necessary as for accomplishing their most recent lander.







It would be nice to also know how all of that unfiltered Kodak film managed to deal so nicely with such a contrasty photographic environment, and yet never could put anything into any FOV above that physically dark lunar horizon other than Earth, and even of those images of our light-gray monochromatic moon w/Earth had to be doctored and/or subsequently PhotoShopped to suit.







It's actually getting hard to find images from that era that haven't been doctored or PhotoShop revised to suit. Those large format metric mapping images obtained from their Apollo CM orbit are actually a lot more believable, because at least few if any of those look as having been doctored.







Their having to process film on the fly in order to minimize radiation fogging or any of those pesky gamma streaks is probably what degraded their photographic results a little worse than expected. Too bad none of their Apollo era film is ever accessible for independent forensics.







BTW; China also has those high-resolution CCD cameras with full color imagers that can operate at 400 K, so at least that's quite an improvement over anything our DARPA, NASA or Kodak has to offer.





Sounds like it's China today that has the "right stuff"!



Double-A

Indeed, their fly-by-rocket landers and much of their scientific expertise is of the right stuff. Too bad they were not properly informed from our Apollo era, as to the tremendous heat and local radiation issues, as well as the extremely difficult surface that was simply physically dark as well as too crystal dry and dusty, as well as with insufficient surface tension for accommodating their rover to safely operate upon. They also needed a bit more plutonium for nighttime system heating and electrical energy since cryogenic lithium batteries can't hardly function.