If the moon landing was faked...

Brad Guth wrote:
Tell me how they faked that and you might have a case.
edrho,
Obviously you're so brown-nosed and otherwise incest cloned that
yourself and all of your kind know absolutely nothing about 'blue
screen' photography nor of the massive vacuum chambers constructed in
order to test/verify various system plus obviously on behalf of live
moonsuit testing.

So the flag was superimposed on the screen? Or there was a HUGE vacuum
chamber designed to look like the moon? You are a clown.

Since you're so all-knowing, perhaps you might start off by telling us
how those Kodak moments were supposedly those of our moon via actual
EVAs that had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander to start with, that
were obtained without any hint of radiation, thermal stress nor being
been the least bit color spectrum skewed, and then I'll tell you how it
was accomplished upon a mostly guano island that was dusted with a thin
composite layer of what was 55+% albedo, somewhat the likes of portland
cement and cornmeal, while having been nicely xenon lamp illuminated.

If you're talking about the actual Apollo missions, they had the LEMs.
They were clunky, but they worked. Barely as it turns out, but they
worked.

If you're talking about some other "EVA" you'll have to be a little
more clear.


BTW; Kodak's film DR was more than sufficient to have recorded other
planets besides mother Earth, and even a few of those pesky stars
(especially of the near-UV spectrum likes of the Sirius star system)
would have been impossible to have excluded.
-
Brad Guth

I'm certain the film was sensitive enough. They had the exposure
clocked down to avoid washing everything out.

I'm sorry you have trouble grasping that. OTOH, I'm sorry you bother
posting this nonsense.

So the flag was superimposed on the screen? Or there was a HUGE vacuum
chamber designed to look like the moon? You are a clown.
edrho,
So you're into calling hard-science and the regular laws of physics as
bing "a clown"?

Apparently the hard-science as to lunar sodium/salt isn't real, any
more so than the gamma and hard-X-rays are not for real.

You obviously haven't a freaking clue as to how their unproven
fly-by-rocket landers even managed w/o momentum reaction wheels, as
well as still no documentation or demo R&D prototype whatsoever, much
less a clue about all of the gamma/x-ray dosage or of their Kodak
moments that couldn't possibly be those obtained while on our terribly
dark and nasty as well as reactive moon?

If you're talking about some other "EVA" you'll have to be a little
more clear.
All of them (you pick and I'll share my observationology expertise upon
any such image). How's that for being perfectly clear?

I'm certain the film was sensitive enough. They had the exposure
clocked down to avoid washing everything out.
Lens opening/shutter exposure has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with excessive IR, gamma or of hard-X-rays. The average moon albedo of
7% is getting damn near coal/soot like black and nasty, as well as for
being highly reactive and otherwise electrostatic charged to well above
millions of volts, not to mention all of that moon-dust getting tens of
meters deep in places.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
So the flag was superimposed on the screen? Or there was a HUGE vacuum
chamber designed to look like the moon? You are a clown.
edrho,
So you're into calling hard-science and the regular laws of physics as
bing "a clown"?

What laws of physics were violated? Specifically which and how.


Apparently the hard-science as to lunar sodium/salt isn't real, any
more so than the gamma and hard-X-rays are not for real.

You obviously haven't a freaking clue as to how their unproven
fly-by-rocket landers even managed w/o momentum reaction wheels, as
well as still no documentation or demo R&D prototype whatsoever, much
less a clue about all of the gamma/x-ray dosage or of their Kodak
moments that couldn't possibly be those obtained while on our terribly
dark and nasty as well as reactive moon?

If you're talking about some other "EVA" you'll have to be a little
more clear.
All of them (you pick and I'll share my observationology expertise upon
any such image). How's that for being perfectly clear?

I'm certain the film was sensitive enough. They had the exposure
clocked down to avoid washing everything out.
Lens opening/shutter exposure has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with excessive IR, gamma or of hard-X-rays.

Maybe not, but they would have a lot to do with why the stars and
planets weren't being shot by the astronauts. Which was your point that
I responded to. Typical of you to clip that part out so you could make
references to radiation which had nothing to do with the original
question.

The average moon albedo of
7% is getting damn near coal/soot like black and nasty, as well as for
being highly reactive and otherwise electrostatic charged to well above
millions of volts, not to mention all of that moon-dust getting tens of
meters deep in places.
-
Brad Guth

And once again I ask, where are you getting your numbers from? Did you
actually go to the moon and measure the radiation and the depth of the
dust?

I'll try this one again.
edrho; So the flag was superimposed on the screen? Or there was a
HUGE vacuum chamber designed to look like the moon? You are a clown.
So you're into calling hard-science and the regular laws of physics as
being "a clown"?

The conditional physics laws of your's don't believe in Kodak
blue-screen and of so many other proven methods of creating such false
images that'll look as real as you'd like, yet you'll accept upon
whatever the terrestrial movie industry has accomplished as matter of
fact of such imaging being quite doable.

You'll believe an infomercial image or movie that could just as easily
be faked as perfectly fine and dandy, and otherwise having rejected
upon the 36 look/pixel composite image that the Magellan radar imaging
method provides. Would you like to see a few of their official frames
of blue-screen OOPS images? Wouldn't you like to see an example of an
officially doctored image that got promoted on behalf of hyping their
Apollo efforts, of which proves they had fully accomplished all of the
image hocus-pocus capability expertise as necessary.

You'll obviously believe that our moon is actually one of a guano sort
of moon as having a 55+% average albedo that also has such a thin layer
of portland cement and cornmeal instead of having been meters deep in a
dust of iron, sodium, titanium, basalt and all of which coated
throughout with solar and cosmic carbon/soot and otherwise having to be
covered in absolute loads of secondary meteorite and local basalt
debris to at least a good ten fold of being worse off than Mars.

Apparently the hard-science via satellites and of terrestrial
remote-science as to lunar sodium/salt isn't sufficiently real enough,
any more so than the available hard-science of gamma and hard-X-rays
are not for real, even though each having the NASA stamp of approval.
Thus you'll obviously believe in whatever's infomercial-science over
that of hard-science or the laws of physics pertaining to whatever's
worthy of creating secondary/recoil radiation.

You're so snookered and summarily dumbfounded that you haven't even
noticed as to how carefully the official NASA words are getting
published, and how the old information is getting pulled from public
record so that a greater degree of damage control and of as much
butt-saving can be accomplished.

Why the recent $2 million contest for a viable fly-by-rocket lander,
especially if such rocket science was so much better off and even so
much more energy efficient in the grand old Saturn-V days?

Why is it taking all of a $750 million contract that'll likely be half
again if not double for the first replacement lander that'll have to be
100% AI/robotic?

You obviously still haven't a freaking clue as to how their unproven
fly-by-rocket landers w/o momentum reaction wheels even managed to deal
with those pesky lunar mascon issues, as well as still no documentation
or demo R&D prototype whatsoever, much less having a clue about all of
the nasty environment of gamma/x-ray dosage or of their Kodak moments
that couldn't possibly be those obtained while situated upon our
terribly dark and nasty as well as nearly naked and thus reactive moon.

If you're talking about some other "EVA" you'll have to be a little
more clear.
All of them (you pick any of their EVA images and I'll share my
observationology expertise upon any such image, including those
supposedly from robotic landers). How's that for being perfectly
clear?

Maybe not, but they would have a lot to do with why the stars and
planets weren't being shot by the astronauts. Which was your point that
I responded to. Typical of you to clip that part out so you could make
references to radiation which had nothing to do with the original
question.
There's plenty of posted images depicting our moon and of other planets
and even along with a few stars. Do the math yourself if you want the
hard proof that such Kodak film had sufficient DR, especially if that's
obtained within a crystal clear lunar terrain of having 7% albedo to
deal with.

Why haven't you selected upon something as having included the American
red, white and blue flag in the given frame, and/or that of having
included those nifty 85% albedo moonsuits. How about some frames of
those very terrestrial looking rocks as having those deep vertical
cracks, and oddly as such cracks having no apparent dust within? How
about offering a few of those of the rover without tracks? How about
images without a stitch of black-light (secondary/recoil near-blue)
affect from all of the intense UV-a?

I'm certain the film was sensitive enough. They had the exposure
clocked down to avoid washing everything out.
Once again, your conditional laws of physics comes to your dog wagging
rescue, whereas whatever lens opening/shutter of exposure has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with excessive IR, gamma or of
those nasty hard-X-rays. The average moon albedo of 7% is in fact
getting damn near coal/soot like black and nasty, as well as for also
being highly reactive and otherwise electrostatic charged to well above
millions of volts, not to mention all of that moon-dust getting tens of
meters deep in places. I believe that only of surfaces going
sufficiently vertical is there such a thin layer of dust that's not
anything like portland cement and cornmeal.

And once again I ask, where are you getting your numbers from? Did you
actually go to the moon and measure the radiation and the depth of the
dust?
Some of my numbers I'm getting directly out of your NASA files and from
related reports as having the NASA stamp of approval. Other
information comes from the research and subsequent results of what
others have accomplished, and of my best deductive reasoning as to
interpreting what little information we have that's obviously all of
remote science, especially since there's still no such US or Russian
deployed instrument of science as having given us those hard numbers of
direct environment and terrain information from the lunar surface. I
can find all sorts of references to the average 7+% albedo of our dark
and nasty moon, some of which as having image examples of our dark
lunar surface along with other planets and even a few of the brighter
stars in the same frame. I can show you Apollo and other satellite
images from orbit that'll give some extra leverage towards supporting
the 7% albedo.

Modern terrestrial based radar imaging of our moon can easily identify
the extent or depth of moon-dust. IR images can otherwise identify the
likely depth of such dust from the amount of time it takes for the
temperature shift from day to night. The same remote science that
works for detecting the amount of dust upon those moons of Mars will in
fact work on behalf of our's.

Obviously you don't believe in the photon laws of physics as pertaining
to that of film as having sufficient dynamic range(DR), as being
capable of easily having included a good many other items within the
same frame as that of a lunar terrain that's offering us that wussy 7%
average albedo (especially of having avoided those items having more of
their near-blue, near-UV and UV-a spectrum of secondary/recoil photons
to share, that which the unfiltered Kodak eye would have unavoidably
recorded). You and of your naysay mindset are still so intellectually
incest mutated that you can't believe that even the likes of Venus
which should have been easily and rather unavoidably recorded upon at
least two of those missions. You don't even believe that MESSENGER had
avoided including an image of our moon along with Earth, and that even
though having a 12 bit DR of 4096 with a CCD DR that was even greater,
whereas instead having utilized the lowest possible DR capability in
order to image our naked Earth w/o moon and w/o other planets or stars
is what seems perfectly normal to your perverted and/or dumbfounded
mindset.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
I'll try this one again.

Try it as many times as you like. Apparently you have more time at the
keyboard than you do actually providing documentation for your claims.

Your post pretty much says; "I have the proof." Do you provide a link?
No.

So I ask again.

Where do you get your numbers on the light reflecting capabilities of
the moon?
(And why would these numbers, presumbably generated from Earth, have
any bearing on someone actually standing on the surface of the moon?)

Where do you get your numbers on the moon giving off radiation?

Where do you get your number on the depth of the dust on the lunar
surface?

And finally, what makes you think the depth of the dust on the lunar
surface is even across the face of the moon?

edrho (aka NASA/Apollo Usenet spook of the moment),
This topic of "If the moon landing was faked..." isn't hardly getting
us anywhere because, there's simply too much brown-nosed status quo
within NASA's Apollo infomercial cesspool of lies upon lies.

For example;
Try it as many times as you like. Apparently you have more time at the
keyboard than you do actually providing documentation for your claims.
I'm still waiting for these folks and/or yourself to specify a given
upon image (Kodak moment) or that of any other supposed hard-science
which proves we've walked on the moon. This is important because
you've refused to accept upon anything that I've posted before, even if
it's shared along with links to their own NASA/Apollo stuff. Therefore
it's up to you and of the other NASA/Apollo clowns to post whatever's
your best shot, and I'll take it from there.

The ongoing excuse that yourself and others can't seem to locate upon
anything that I've said before is only providing further proof positive
that I'm becoming more often right. Oddly, it seems their internet
search engine is in some kind of stealth robo AI pro-NASA/Apollo mode
of automatically avoiding and/or having excluded whatever might become
questioned by the regular laws of physics and/or by way of other
science that's still begging for those hard-science answers as to the
lunar surface environment, and even of whatever's at LL-1.

I entered the apparently complicated technical search for: moon albedo
..07
Lo and behold there's all sorts of links to that 7% factor. Obviously
this amount of albedo is for the all around average and depends on the
angle of whatever's being solar illuminated, thus within places it's
offering nearly a coal/soot like blackness that's less than a percent,
and in other places it's perhaps averaging better than 21%. The
available links as having used the 7% factor are those backed up with
terrestrial science and otherwise mostly via satellite images of our
dark and nasty moon.

On the other hand, I've noticed official NASA words of wisdom as having
placed the average albedo of Venus at merely 65%, whereas many others
seem to have the Venus albedo established at or well above the 75%
mark, whereas NASA's Earth varies from 40% to 85%(depending on cloud
cover), when in fact the average albedo is actually of something less
than 40% and dropping due to our global pollution and subsequent
warming that's responsible for our Earth having even less snow and ice,
as well as less clouds by day (more clouds by night for the task of
accommodating more thermal energy retention) as well as for the
remaining snow and ice being somewhat measurably dirtier.

"Apollo astronauts reported that a true full Moon is about 30% (0.2
magnitudes) brighter than what we see here on Earth" is simply not at
all of what other satellites and especially of those having orbited our
moon were having to say. Other than for being outside of Earth's
polluted atmosphere is where the moon should actually be a good 50%
brighter, by which has absolutely nothing to do with the average
surface albedo. At certain spectrums the moonshine that we perceive
from the surface of Earth has been diminished by half, thus going
outside of our badly polluted atmosphere is where you might actually
obtain twice as much of that specific visual spectrum to work with,
which still has absolutely nothing to do with the actual surface albedo
of that otherwise dark and nasty basalt moon of ours that's not only
covered with primary and secondary shards worth of meteorites and all
the obvious impact debris that are usually items of a darkish color
and/or low specific albedo, but also as having been summarily coated in
the mineral likes of iron, titanium and just loads of being carbon/soot
coated, plus vast amounts of dirty salts, that which all together
should make for cleaning a typical chimney look like a relatively clean
job site.

http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/planeta...stem/moon.html
"The Moon shines only by reflected light. The albedo of the Moon is
0.07, which means it reflects only 7% of the light falling on it, (The
albedo of the Earth is 0.39)" is actually taken from an official
astronomy approved page that's not unlike so many others. Of course,
since those Australian brains are at the disadvantage of their having
to function upside down is perhaps the best reason why their moon
science doesn't agree with the likes of our NASA/Apollo moon that's
depicted via those unfiltered Kodak photon physics as representing
somewhat of a guano island like moon that's covered in a relatively
clean and otherwise unusually thin layer of all that nicely clumping
portland cement and cornmeal, of such reflective moon-dust that isn't
the least bit electrostatic nor otherwise reactive to the cosmic and
solar worth of gamma and hard-X-rays, nor even the least bit affected
by the excessive amounts of the raw UV-a influx, therefore being so
nonreactive that there's not even a trace of black-light affects of
ever once having created those pesky near-blue photons. Even the
NASA/Apollo American flag has a somewhat xenon spectrum that's worthy
of a deep terrestrial like visual saturation worth of flag blue, and of
a normal white along with a somewhat subdued saturation worth of red
(once again, as per photo-recorded as though very xenon lamp spectrum
like).

Just for the official NASA heck of it all;
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Academy/UNIVERSE/MOON.HTML
"The moon relects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it, so the
albedo is 0.07"

How's that for my providing a couple of those pesky links that your
all-knowing expertise and/or PC internet search engine couldn't
possibly locate?

I'll certainly have more to contribute about the local gamma,
hard-X-ray plus all of that fluffy but otherwise deep and nasty
moon-dust consideration. However, since you folks can't even manage to
resolve upon the xenon lamp illuminated spectrum worth of visual
photons and of their lack of being the least bit color or spectrum
saturation skewed, as having been photo-recorded by way of those
unfiltered Kodak moments; so what's the difference of going into all
the other discrepancies?
-
Brad Guth

wrote in message
ups.com...

Brad Guth wrote:
I'll try this one again.

Try it as many times as you like. Apparently you have more time at the
keyboard than you do actually providing documentation for your claims.

Him and so many others.

Your post pretty much says; "I have the proof." Do you provide a link?
No.

A *link* is not proof. A cite to an actual, existing, verifiable document is
proof. *Never* accept a website as proof of anything involving NASA; at
best, it would be a copy of an actual piece of paper, even if it were an
actual NASA website.

So I ask again.

*Please don't*. Go to Google and read his past posts before you respond to
anything else he says. You are incapable of asking a question involving Brad
that we haven't already thought of, and he's not going to give you an
answer, since your failure to instantly agree with everything he says is
proof that you are an incest Borged clone, and are therefore unworthy of
enlightenment.

You are ending up in killfiles because we killfiled him and don't want to
read what he has to say, or what anyone says in response to him.

A *link* is not proof. A cite to an actual, existing, verifiable document is
Nproof. *Never* accept a website as proof of anything involving NASA;
at
best, it would be a copy of an actual piece of paper, even if it were an
actual NASA website.
Scott Hedrick,
Now even a fully certified link to an official NASA page is getting the
moonboot kick in the butt, especially if there's anything the least bit
skewed or potentially capable of getting interpreted that doesen't
reinforce their NASA/Apollo ruse/sting of the century. Imagine that,
and why am I not the least bit surprised.

I suppose next they'll have to start their evidence excluding upon
their very own archives of most all of those NASA/Apollo Kodak moments,
including those more interesting ones of somewhat if not entirely of
better science as having been obtained from orbit.
-
Brad Guth

Scott Hedrick;
A *link* is not proof. A cite to an actual, existing, verifiable document
is proof. *Never* accept a website as proof of anything involving NASA;
at best, it would be a copy of an actual piece of paper, even if it were
an actual NASA website.
Scott Hedrick,
Now even a fully certified link to an official NASA page is getting the
Usenet moonboot kick in the butt, especially if there's anything the
least bit skewed or potentially capable of such getting interpreted
that doesn't reinforce their NASA/Apollo ruse/sting of the century.
Imagine that, and why am I not the least bit surprised.

I suppose next they'll have to start their evidence excluding upon
their very own archives of most all of those NASA/Apollo Kodak moments,
especially of all those EVA obtained images and perhaps even having to
include those more interesting ones of somewhat if not entirely of
better science as having been obtained robotically from orbit.

You are ending up in killfiles because we killfiled him and don't want to
read what he has to say, or what anyone says in response to him.
That's because I'm more often than not been sufficiently right about
most everything I've uncovered. Imagine that, they don't much care for
hearing the truth and nothing but the truth. Of course, neither did
their Hitler or GW Bush.

BTW; you don't have to agree with me if your best available swag has
anything that can be replicated as backing it up.
-
Brad Guth

On 15 May 2006 02:33:47 -0700, wrote:

So I ask again.

....No, you won't. Killfile Brad Guth *NOW* and put the willingly
molested ******* out of our misery. Enough is ****ing enough, Ed.
OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[