If the moon landing was faked...

You're the one that doesn't believe in using the regular laws of
physics, nor believing in the replicated hard-science that easily
proves we haven't walked on that salty and otherwise gamma plus extra
hard-X-ray by day worth of a physically dark and nasty moon.

The likes of my having provided such links dozens of times before
obviously doesn't mean squat to your infomercial-science based koran,
not even of those tidbits contributed from your pagan NASA or any other
official site are of meaning as long as such science information can
taint the almighty NASA/Apollo ruse of the century, or further suggest
the cold-war was in fact fully perpetrated (mostly by us).

The same can be said of the ongoing ESA fiasco, such as for regarding
their bogus "stuck mirror" onboard their Venus EXPRESS mission.

Obviously you're not looking for the truth, such as "If the moon
landing was faked...", whereas instead you're here as further
damage-control on behalf of your brown nose best shielding NASA naked
butt. You and "tomcat" are one of a kind, yet you sleep with the likes
of Art Deco.
-

"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth

"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust

"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Even Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree that; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason why honest
folks are having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been
playing by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) having invented WMD seems to come to mind.

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


wrote:
Notice my questions at the bottom of the post. You haven't provided
answer one to any of them, you've just repeated that the evidence is
there.

Believe it or not, you're the one who made the arguments, it's
therefore YOUR job to provide the actual evidence. Not to tell me to go
looking for it myself!

I am however impressed that you finally replied to a post. Even if it
was just to dodge the actual questions and simply repeat yourself.

Brad Guth wrote:
How about the proof-positive of Kodak physics and of the replicated
hard-science as to the visible spectrum, including the extra dosage of
near-UV and of UV-a photons which the human eye doesn't respond to, but
Kodak film does, and of how such photons tend to react and manage to
get recorded upon their Kodak film?

How about the regular laws of physics that simply do not add up to what
our NASA/Apollo wizards have been telling us?

How about NASA's very own gamma and hard-X-ray images of our moon?

Why is it that you're supposedly so smart but somehow unable to utilize
a GOOGLE or similar search engine?

BTW: those 85% reflective moonsuits and of the 80% reflective white of
our flags that blew in all of that wind are more than sufficient for
establishing the moonscape as being of 55+% reflective, plus having
multiple other artificial items of known albedo to work with seem fair.

What's a micron of dust per year worth afer a few million years? or
isn't our salty moon very old?

Dozens of other factors (including factors of radiation) have been
covered upon dozens of times, of which you're obviously too stupid
and/or dumbfounded as to locate for yourself. Why is that?

Now it seems that your own kind are telling you puck off. Why is that?

Why do you folks keep feeling the need as to put words in my mouth?

As per usual, this Usenet of e-spooks have been sharing as much
malware/****ware into my PC as their GOOGLE/Usenet can possibly
transfer without terminating itself.
-
Brad Guth


wrote:
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?

In article .com,
"Brad Guth" wrote:

You're the one that doesn't believe in using the regular laws of
physics, nor believing in the replicated hard-science that easily
proves we haven't walked on that salty and otherwise gamma plus extra
hard-X-ray by day worth of a physically dark and nasty moon.

Brad,

A word of advice:

Before you can cite the "regular laws of physics," you first must
understand them! Orbital mechanics and rocket propulsion are part of
these laws, too!

Just where in hell did the "salty moon" stuff come from?

Before you can cite the "regular laws of physics," you first must
understand them! Orbital mechanics and rocket propulsion are part of
these laws, too!
Orval Fairbairn,
I fully agree, thus how the heck did that massively inert slug of our
Saturn V plus having loads of unusable fuel tonnage and even a few
extra tonnes worth of ice manage what can't seem to get accomplished at
half the payload using the most new and improved composites of the very
best rocket-science upon Earth?

Just where in hell did the "salty moon" stuff come from?
From NASA, bless their little perpetrated cold-war hearts. However,
the thick icy proto-moon part was all me, though based upon other
accepted science that seems perfectly fine and dandy as long as such
icy moon science doesn't pertain to our moon, especially if it's salty
ice.

If the moon landing was faked...
As within that context; how exactly does one safely go about
accomplishing such an extensive deorbit and down-range past such pesky
mascons and supposedly land upon that absolutely dark and nasty moon
without having involved a good set of momentum reaction wheels, and
without a beforehand freaking clue as to programming those onboard
rad-hard CPUs for continually calculating their constantly shifting CG
as well as the free-fall potential and of their final velocity upon
whatever landing, or rather impact should one component out of tens of
thousands if not hundreds of thousands pitch a suckerpunch?

Free fall simulators or the available calculators for such are mostly
terrestrial, which is downright terribly odd since we've supposedly
been to and walked upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours,
and for that accomplishment you'll certainly need to know beforehand on
behalf of all of those pesky mascons and that of your untested and thus
unproven fly-by-rocket landers that didn't even have benefit og
momentum reaction wheels, of such a R&D testy suckers that you'd need
to realize beforehand of exactly whatever it is that you'll be dealing
with, yet the free fall of anything upon our moon is oddly limited to
at best infomercial-science and via easily fabricated video, that for
all sorts of good reasons simply don't even remotely look as though
having been situated upon our moon as raw solar illuminated.

Here's a good little free fall and graphic animation demo for those
NASA/Apollo video clips of stuff dropping from a meter above the lunar
deck.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/java/Freefall2.html
at 1.623 ms/s = 1.11 seconds, which is actually involving quite a few
video frames (33.3 to being exact) that which never once quite seemed
to record upon any slower action than whatever a 9.81 m/s/s environment
had to offer.

Solving Free-Fall Problems : this one's sufficiently good enough for
the task of dropping a javelin probe into that extremely dusty, salty
and otherwise gamma and hard-X-ray nasty moon of ours.
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/phys...l_problems.htm
Without getting my dyslexic self too technical, in other words a little
averaging and involving zilch worth of friction, whereas we're going to
start off by using the following examples as based upon this previous
link:

1000 second free fall as based upon 1.62 m/s/s
V(f) becomes 1000 * 1.62 = 1620 m/s
Distance traveled = 3.24 km

10,000 sec free fall as based upon using 1.6 m/s/s
V(f) becomes 16 km/s
Distance becomes 32 km (that's just using up 1.84% of 1r)

100,000 sec free fall as based upon the average of 1.25 m/s/s
V(f) becomes 125 km/s
Distance = 250 km (that's just having used up 14.4% of 1r)

1e6 sec free fall as based upon the average of 0.541 m/s/s
V(f) becomes worth 541 km/s
Distance = 1082 km (that's using up 62% of 1r)

Obviously it's worth a whole lot more complex set of calculations that
should be processed as second by second and meter per meter, whereas
otherwise you may change those numbers around in order to suit and/or
moderate whatever game plan you'd like to end up with. However, and no
matters what you'd like to ignore or exclude, if to be incoming as a
free-fall from the moon L-1 that's roughly 59,562 km above, as nearly
directly aligned with the moderating gravity influence of mother Earth,
whereas it's going to take considerable time and, upon arrival is where
that javelin probe is still going to be making damn good velocity,
especially since the starting point of L-1 represents a mere 163 m/s
worth of orbital velocity, and that orbital influence gets down to a
wussy 4.6264 m/s upon impact.

Even though folks here in Usenet naysay land have been doing all they
can to snooker if not fully assimilate the likes of myself, please go
right ahead and use the very most conservative numbers you can imagine,
as in no matters what, lo and behold it's still offering an impressive
V(f) worth of final velocity that we're having to deal with.

Even the volumes upon volumes of our official NASA web pages offers us
village idiots nothing, not even so much as an external link as to
calculating a free-falling object as pertaining specifically to that of
our moon, much less as having been deployed away from LL-1. Everything
is pretty much sequestered as being terrestrial related, exactly as
though they've never been to the moon (robotically nor in person).
-
Brad Guth

I've been watching the Shuttle (STS-121) in orbit and docked with the
ISS.
The astronauts have begun their space walk and I've noticed that in all

the video and still shots they are showing, there are no stars in the
background.


Why do you suppose that is ??

On 8 Jul 2006 12:17:51 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I've been watching the Shuttle (STS-121) in orbit and docked with the
ISS.
The astronauts have begun their space walk and I've noticed that in all
the video and still shots they are showing, there are no stars in the
background.

Why do you suppose that is ??

Well, duhhhh! They're obviously faking it on a movie set. With their
top-secret zero-gravity machine.

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

*From:* h (Rand Simberg)
*Date:* Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:26:15 GMT

On 8 Jul 2006 12:17:51 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I've been watching the Shuttle (STS-121) in orbit and docked with the
ISS.
The astronauts have begun their space walk and I've noticed that in
all
the video and still shots they are showing, there are no stars in the
background.

Why do you suppose that is ??

Well, duhhhh! They're obviously faking it on a movie set. With their
top-secret zero-gravity machine.


It's done in a pool of very clear water with no bubbles AT ALL !!!!!!!
:-)

Malcolm B

wrote:
I've been watching the Shuttle (STS-121) in orbit and docked with the
ISS.
The astronauts have begun their space walk and I've noticed that in all

the video and still shots they are showing, there are no stars in the
background.

Why do you suppose that is ??

Simple; would you folks like some internet posted examples, of film
and/or of CCD obtained images that unavoidably included our physically
dark moon along with a few other pesky items, such as Mars, Jupiter,
Venus and Mercury, plus even a few of those having included the
brighter of available stars?

Actually from the vantage of photographing from the actual lunar
surface it would have been impossible not to have included a few other
items, of at least one or two extras at a time none the less. Too bad
we can't get a terrestrial look-see at Sirius within frame as parked
next to the physically dark terrain of our gamma and hard-X-ray nasty
moon that's still a rather salty moon none the less.

That's rather odd, since the relatively **** poor DR of unfiltered
Kodak film has absolutely no problems in recording better than a dozen
other items (obviously not all at the same time) in addition to the
physically dark moon of 0.07 albedo, as being unavoidably within the
same frame. Of course, the MESSENGER mission further proves that you
can intentionally select the lower portion of any given CCD DR and/or
spectrum band-pass and thus easily filter out in order to suit whatever
you'd like to have depicted (a three year old kid should know how to
accomplish that much). The MESSENGER dynamic range was intentionally
set so freaking low that even the 0.07 albedo moon didn't record, thus
only of whatever was of 0.1 albedo or brighter could be recorded,
although extra special efforts were also made in order to avoid
including the likes of any other illuminated planets that would
otherwise have been recorded, especially including Venus as being out
of sight and thus out of mind.

Why are only Jewish Republicans as incest dumb and dumber perverts like
yourself?

What other part(s) of your mostly Jewish and thereby Republican incest
infomercial-science, that which simply can not be replicated unless
you're God or a member in good standing with your Third Reich, should
we believe in?

Please be absolutely specific, and I shall specifically reply as to
exactly whatever it is that you've got to offer.

Would you folks like another list of primary or of worthy sub-topics to
select from?
-

"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth

"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust

"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Even Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree that; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason why honest
folks are having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been
playing by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) having invented WMD seems to come to mind.

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Christ Brad, I just asked a simple question and then you start up with
all your incest clone crapola.

Simple; would you folks like some internet posted examples, of film
and/or of CCD obtained images that unavoidably included our physically
dark moon along with a few other pesky items, such as Mars, Jupiter,
Venus and Mercury, plus even a few of those having included the
brighter of available stars?

No, I just want an answer to my question, why are there no stars in the
background during the recent ISS/Shuttle space walk ??
I mean the cameras of today must be 10 thousand humdred million times
better than the cameras of Apollo, why no stars ??

"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."

You are the one who is not looking for the truth.

On 8 Jul 2006 14:13:20 -0700, "
wrote:

No, I just want an answer to my question, why are there no stars in the
background during the recent ISS/Shuttle space walk ??
I mean the cameras of today must be 10 thousand humdred million times
better than the cameras of Apollo, why no stars ??

The same reason that there aren't stars in the Apollo photographs. The
camera is set to photograph something pretty bright, and the stars are
very dim in comparison.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Jud McCranie wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006 14:13:20 -0700, "
wrote:

No, I just want an answer to my question, why are there no stars in the
background during the recent ISS/Shuttle space walk ??
I mean the cameras of today must be 10 thousand humdred million times
better than the cameras of Apollo, why no stars ??

The same reason that there aren't stars in the Apollo photographs. The
camera is set to photograph something pretty bright, and the stars are
very dim in comparison.
---

That old NASA/Apollo infomercial argument about "no stars" being the
norm wasn't valid in the beginning, and it certainly isn't valid now.

The dynamic range(DR) of their Kodak film was in fact sufficient to
have included a dozen or more items besides the moon and Earth, and of
those CCD images of today are offering a good 32 fold better yet at
having extended that DR capability that should knock our socks off with
having unavoidably included a few stars, with some of those best
performing CCDs being capable of offering better than a 100:1 improved
DR ratio.

Therefore, it is not the "10 thousand hundred million times better than
the cameras of Apollo" as stipulated by "Secret237", but none the less
it's an impressive improvement, though still offering somewhat less
pixel density or population per mm capability since the positive
transparency/slide film can be scanned down to something below a micron
which is typically 10 fold better off than what the average camera lens
can manage to transfer.

Without having involved a narrow visual spectrum bandpass and/or at
least that of a near-UV and UV cutoff applied to the lens, the likes of
the bluish Spica and especially the far-blue, violet, near-UV and the
considerable UV-a spectrum worth of those Sirius stars are going to be
unavoidably showing up in those unfiltered images. So, besides the
obvious planets that should have been available, such as in
relationship to the physically dark lunar horizon; where the heck were
the likes of Spica or Sirius throughout those NASA/Apollo missions?

Besides a number of such stars, Venus should have been downright pesky
in at least two of the Apollo missions, as unavoidably getting into
several of those unfiltered Kodak moments. Seems that you'd also have
wanted to have intentionally included the rather nearby impressive
likes of Venus as could only have been included as easily photographed
from the moon.

After all, the average terrain of our moon is worthy of something
similar to the likes of sooty coal, of 0.07 albedo and otherwise
typically being illuminated at something less than a 45 degree of that
raw solar influx (actually of most missions being accomplished shortly
after sunrise, thus perhaps as little as 10 degrees above the horizon),
of which unless looking towards the direction of the sun is going to
photograph at a much darker amount of surface reflected light, and as
only having been recorded as darker yet because of their having used a
polarised optical element, whereas earthshine that's capable of being
as illuminating as 76 fold greater intensity than moonshine should have
given a few faint but otherwise easily recorded shadows within those
primary solar shadows.

Those well published images via "moonpans" of a typically 55%
reflective lunar terrain that's rather similar to that of a guano
island that has been artificially dusted with the likes of portland
cement and cornmeal plus the available guano itself is not exactly what
our moon should have looked like. The red white and blue American
flags as having been Xenon lamp spectrum illuminated is yet another
rather obvious photographic error that shouldn't need any further
argument.

Moon and Spica (first magnitude of 0.98)
http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/j...051225_02.html
Date: December 25, 2005
Time: 6:35 a.m. MST
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Camera: Olympus OM-1 35mm SLR on fixed tripod
Film: Fuji Provia 100F slide
Focal length: 600 mm (200mm lens with 3X tele-extender
Apertu f/11 (effective f/32)
Exposure time: approximately 1/2 second
Scanner: Nikon Coolscan LS-2000 (cropped slightly)

Sirius at a visual and terrestrial atmospheric filtered magnitude of
-1.42 is essentially a humanly visual 2.44 magnitude brighter item than
Spica, and if that same look-see at Sirius were having been
photographed as from the physically dark lunar deck without optical
filters (as NASA/Apollo claimed) is where it would be easily have been
recorded as 10+ times again as vibrant as Spica would have recorded
upon the very same Kodak film exposure, that's actually relatively
sensitive to the near-UV and UV-a. Sirius being a G2V as opposed to
the somewhat wussy Spica and of it's B1V spectrum is once again where
that lack of an atmosphere and thus having absolutely no attenuated
near-UV or UV-a as photon filtering is a pretty damn hard factor to
ignore, which should therefore have offered a rather impressive
vibrance of Sirius to behold, and otherwise unavoidable as to keeping
such pesky bright stars continually out of frame. Although, it's only
so much worse off for the task of having to keep the likes of other
nearby planets and especially that of the 80+% albedo of Venus out of
each and every one of those frames, and I believe we're talking about
thousands upon thousands of such frames as being a rather neat trick.

You see, or rather it's of what you folks simply don't humanly see,
whereas the unfiltered Kodak eye does in fact perceive as it
photographically should have recorded upon that Kodak film, a wider
than human spectrum that's actually extremely sensitive to the near-UV
and UV-a part of the starshine spectrums (including that one of our own
star), as being of what really counts the most if taking those
unfiltered pictures from the naked moon. Of those bluish bright stars
like Spica and even the photographically brighter Sirius would each
have delivered quite the added illumination benefit if those items were
being photographed as optically unfiltered and from our physically dark
and atmospherically naked moon.

Would you folks like to see some other examples of our moon as having
been photographed along with other planets and stars, or would you care
to discuss the gamma and hard-X-ray aspects of our naked moon that's
offering worse off radiation dosage than what the worse of our Van
Allen belts have to offer?
-
Brad Guth