Apollo moon landings : why is this Mailgate banished?

In sci.physics, funk420

wrote
on 23 Mar 2007 10:32:32 -0700
.com:
On Mar 23, 3:06 pm, wrote:
On Mar 23, 2:48 am, "funk420" wrote:



On Mar 23, 6:04 am, The Ghost In The Machine

wrote:
In sci.physics,funk420

wrote
on 22 Mar 2007 08:41:46 -0700
. com:

On Mar 21, 6:25 pm, wrote:
Too much of what's too easy to nail you on. Better infomercial
spewing luck next time around.

My old physics and replicated science stands as proof positive that we
haven't walked on that moon, and all that you've got is worth less
than the squat of others.

Do you also make good use of the NASA/Apollo used toilet paper?

If so, it's worth more than any moon rocks that were simply picked up
from the surface of Earth.

Untrue. "Moon rocks" (quotes for your benefit) show unusual noble gas
profiles, implanted with radiation, unlike Earth rocks which are
protected from the solar wind by Atmosphere and Magnetosphere. Ditto
with lunar return foils. They were not simply picked up from the
surface of the Earth. You'll need a more elaborate story to deal with
that one.

An interesting start, actually; I hadn't thought of the He3
angle. I'm also curious as to the crystalline structure;
presumably there are slight differences therein as the Moon
is completely waterless. Plus, I'm assuming we brought
some of the powdery gunk back as well, which presumably
was the result of micrometeorite bombardment and would show
some interesting shapes. Of course one problem with gases,
noble or otherwise, is that they tend to escape...and it's
been almost 40 years.

I don't know if there would be much point in mixing it
with water then comparing the result with an appropriate
consistency of river clay. One might dry out said clay
and compare it to moon dust, though, but clay does tend
to clump. ;-)

(No doubt such obvious stuff has already been carried out.)

One of the best ways to "prove" that these rocks, or better yet the
foils, were on the moon back then, is to compare the composition vs.
depth profiles (of noble gases and isotopes) with those of recent
solar wind return missions such as Genesis or maybe Stardust. As far
as I know, these profiles match fairly well, as they should if the
lunar foils were really up there sitting outside the Earth's
magnetosphere, but I haven't dedicated much time to reading the
appropriate papers. There are many issues with the slightly different
environment of the lunar surface vs. spacecraft in the solar wind, as
well as different surfaces and exposure times, contamination issues,
etc., but in theory the solar wind was not well sampled back then.
Even if they put the foils and "moon rocks" in front of an ion beam in
the lab to "fake it", they wouldn't have known exactly what intensity
and composition to use in the beam.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All can be simulated in a very terrestrial way.


Ah, but how can you simulate it - if you don't know what the levels
should be? They didn't know then what isotopes and relative energies
were present in the solar wind at implantation energies.

They can make good guesses. Observation of the aurora in particular
will give them order-of-magnitude approximations, presumably.
Given what we know about the atmosphere, we can also make flux
estimations regarding incoming pions.



I very much doubt we even have a suitable robotic fly-by-rocket lander
that'll accomplish our moon. I guess that's why Clarke Station and/or
my LSE-CM/ISS are so taboo/nondisclosure rated, as we can't even
accomplish our moon's L1.


Wait a minute.. what do you think about the voyagers? The
pathfinders, etc.?
It's not that hard in theory. There are some extremely reliable
thrusters available.

Reliable thrusters don't cut it; we need *powerful* thrusters, or at
least sufficiently powerful thrusters to overcome gravity and fuel
constraints.

Also, we need high exhaust velocity.

v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f)

But v_e doesn't matter if one can't get it off the ground. A two-stage
affair, however, works reasonably well; the first expensive stage has
the chemical rocket which has high force but low v_e, and the second
has the low force but high v_e and long duration burn.



There's also no Venus anywhere in sight of those naked Apollo
missions,
and a 60:1 rocket/payload ratio, as having a nearly 30%
inert GLOW is simply not fully mission doable as stipulated by the
NASA/Apollo koran, is it.
-

Sorry man, not sure what you're talking about here. Even if there
were a planet found in some forgotten apollo picture, would that make
you believe they really went? I doubt it. If you're interested, look
at the results of solar wind return analyses and compare them to lunar
foil analyses. That might convince you - or vindicate you.


The mere fact that NASA "forgot" to put the stars into the
pictures taken from the moon, when Star Trek's special
effects (which were themselves innovative for different
reasons) were easily putting stars surrounding a spacecraft
and planets, tells me something -- mostly that cameras
need to be improved. :-)

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector... v; for(int i = 0; i v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 25, 10:26 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

All can be simulated in a very terrestrial way.

Ah, but how can you simulate it - if you don't know what the levels
should be? They didn't know then what isotopes and relative energies
were present in the solar wind at implantation energies.

They can make good guesses. Observation of the aurora in particular
will give them order-of-magnitude approximations, presumably.
Given what we know about the atmosphere, we can also make flux
estimations regarding incoming pions.

There's no need to estimate or otherwise swag upon much of anything,
because there's simply nothing else independent in order to work that
hocus-pocus data against.


I very much doubt we even have a suitable robotic fly-by-rocket lander
that'll accomplish our moon. I guess that's why Clarke Station and/or
my LSE-CM/ISS are so taboo/nondisclosure rated, as we can't even
accomplish our moon's L1.

Wait a minute.. what do you think about the voyagers? The
pathfinders, etc.?
It's not that hard in theory. There are some extremely reliable
thrusters available.

Reliable thrusters don't cut it; we need *powerful* thrusters, or at
least sufficiently powerful thrusters to overcome gravity and fuel
constraints.

How much deorbit and down-range fuel (with a good safety reserve) per
tonne of a given fly-by-rocket lander do we actually need?

Say if arriving with a 60 tonne lander, that's roughly 10 tonnes at
100 km and obviously moving along at a fairly good velocity to start
off with.


Also, we need high exhaust velocity.

v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f)

But v_e doesn't matter if one can't get it off the ground. A two-stage
affair, however, works reasonably well; the first expensive stage has
the chemical rocket which has high force but low v_e, and the second
has the low force but high v_e and long duration burn.

Are you going towards or returning from the moon?

Going towards that moon should demand at least a three stage effort,
and/or having substanial LRBs added to the stack.

There's no such 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload as having a nearly 30%
inert GLOW, that can safely accomplish that degree of a do-everything
task, and having a crew that'll manage to live in order to tell us all
about it.


There's also no Venus anywhere in sight of those naked Apollo

The mere fact that NASA "forgot" to put the stars into the
pictures taken from the moon, when Star Trek's special
effects (which were themselves innovative for different
reasons) were easily putting stars surrounding a spacecraft
and planets, tells me something -- mostly that cameras
need to be improved. :-)

Venus is so much brighter than most any star (as well as most
certainly brighter than Earth), and unlike any wussy star, Venus would
have deposited its vibrant photons upon a great many grains of that
Kodak film.

Their ufiltered Kodak moments were simply more than good enough as is.

At most they only needed to place the likes of Sirius, plus any of a
half dozen other items such as Venus within a given FOV, that which
included their physically dark and nasty lunar horizon instead of
having been stuck with that silly guano island they'd used.

BTW; my poor old PC is getting summarily hit with another nasty tonne
of GOOGLE/Usenet spermware/****ware, as I manage to keep typing these
few words in spite of all their lethal intended flak.
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics,

wrote
on 25 Mar 2007 12:37:07 -0700
.com:
On Mar 25, 10:26 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

All can be simulated in a very terrestrial way.

Ah, but how can you simulate it - if you don't know what the levels
should be? They didn't know then what isotopes and relative energies
were present in the solar wind at implantation energies.

They can make good guesses. Observation of the aurora in particular
will give them order-of-magnitude approximations, presumably.
Given what we know about the atmosphere, we can also make flux
estimations regarding incoming pions.

There's no need to estimate or otherwise swag upon much of anything,
because there's simply nothing else independent in order to work that
hocus-pocus data against.


I very much doubt we even have a suitable robotic fly-by-rocket lander
that'll accomplish our moon. I guess that's why Clarke Station and/or
my LSE-CM/ISS are so taboo/nondisclosure rated, as we can't even
accomplish our moon's L1.

Wait a minute.. what do you think about the voyagers? The
pathfinders, etc.?
It's not that hard in theory. There are some extremely reliable
thrusters available.

Reliable thrusters don't cut it; we need *powerful* thrusters, or at
least sufficiently powerful thrusters to overcome gravity and fuel
constraints.

How much deorbit and down-range fuel (with a good safety reserve) per
tonne of a given fly-by-rocket lander do we actually need?

Depends on thrust and exhaust velocity. The v_e of a Saturn booster
was specced at 2500-3000 m/s.


Say if arriving with a 60 tonne lander, that's roughly 10 tonnes at
100 km and obviously moving along at a fairly good velocity to start
off with.

Not precise enough. From a standing start, the lander has
to be accelerated to 11.2 km/s to escape Earth's influence
(roughly speaking, as Earth never really lets go but
if v = 11.2 km/s, the launched payload will pursue a
hyperbolic orbit as opposed to a roughly elliptical one,
according to theorists).



Also, we need high exhaust velocity.

v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f)

But v_e doesn't matter if one can't get it off the ground. A two-stage
affair, however, works reasonably well; the first expensive stage has
the chemical rocket which has high force but low v_e, and the second
has the low force but high v_e and long duration burn.

Are you going towards or returning from the moon?

Neither. We've not even gotten close to the moon.


Going towards that moon should demand at least a three stage effort,
and/or having substanial LRBs added to the stack.

And that stack would be fried with radiation before it barely left LEO,
from the moon.


There's no such 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload as having a nearly 30%
inert GLOW, that can safely accomplish that degree of a do-everything
task, and having a crew that'll manage to live in order to tell us all
about it.

Exactly. Nothing living can land on the moon.

(Well, OK, there were these 12 or so guys who cooked
up a scheme or something to spend hundreds of billions
of taxpayer money. The odd thing is: they never really
got rich off that scheme.)



There's also no Venus anywhere in sight of those naked Apollo

The mere fact that NASA "forgot" to put the stars into the
pictures taken from the moon, when Star Trek's special
effects (which were themselves innovative for different
reasons) were easily putting stars surrounding a spacecraft
and planets, tells me something -- mostly that cameras
need to be improved. :-)

Venus is so much brighter than most any star (as well as most
certainly brighter than Earth), and unlike any wussy star, Venus would
have deposited its vibrant photons upon a great many grains of that
Kodak film.

That is correct. NASA is a bunch of incompetent something-or-others.
They somehow completely screwed up the shot, maybe in an attempt to
make it more interesting -- or just because they ran out of pinhole
cloth that day.


Their ufiltered Kodak moments were simply more than good enough as is.

At most they only needed to place the likes of Sirius, plus any of a
half dozen other items such as Venus within a given FOV, that which
included their physically dark and nasty lunar horizon instead of
having been stuck with that silly guano island they'd used.

No, not a guano island. It's a sound stage filmed in black and white.


BTW; my poor old PC is getting summarily hit with another nasty tonne
of GOOGLE/Usenet spermware/****ware, as I manage to keep typing these
few words in spite of all their lethal intended flak.

Side issue.

-
Brad Guth



--
#191,
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 25, 1:14 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics,

wrote

How much deorbit and down-range fuel (with a good safety reserve) per
tonne of any given fly-by-rocket lander do we actually need?

Depends on thrust and exhaust velocity. The v_e of a Saturn booster
was specced at 2500-3000 m/s.

In other words, much like our NASA/Apollo wizards that no longer have
their team of Jewish Third Reich expertise to draw upon, whereas you
also haven't a clue. In fact, all the official clues to most of
everything that matters are somewhat gone with the wind (sort of
speak).


Say if arriving with a 60 tonne lander, that's roughly 10 tonnes at
100 km and obviously moving along at a fairly good velocity to start
off with.

Not precise enough. From a standing start, the lander has
to be accelerated to 11.2 km/s to escape Earth's influence
(roughly speaking, as Earth never really lets go but
if v = 11.2 km/s, the launched payload will pursue a
hyperbolic orbit as opposed to a roughly elliptical one,
according to theorists).

I think you're just a little off the main set of tracks. But that's
still OK, as long as you're still headed in the right direction.


Also, we need high exhaust velocity.

v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f)

But v_e doesn't matter if one can't get it off the ground. A two-stage
affair, however, works reasonably well; the first expensive stage has
the chemical rocket which has high force but low v_e, and the second
has the low force but high v_e and long duration burn.

Are you going towards or returning from the moon?

Neither. We've not even gotten close to the moon.

I wouldn't go quite that far, as I do believe in a a brief half orbit
and get the freaking hell out of there method, as such was a
technically doable mission, within biological limits of getting thy
DNA nailed by only a few hundred rads, of which their banked bone
marrow would have saved the day.


Going towards that moon should demand at least a three stage effort,
and/or having substanial LRBs added to the stack.

And that stack would be fried with radiation before it barely left LEO,
from the moon.

Fried robotics are not such an insurmountable problem. Human DNA
getting fried is in fact quite another pesky thing.


There's no such 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload as having a nearly 30%
inert GLOW, that can safely accomplish that degree of a do-everything
task, and having a crew that'll manage to live in order to tell us all
about it.

Exactly. Nothing living can land on the moon.

(Well, OK, there were these 12 or so guys who cooked
up a scheme or something to spend hundreds of billions
of taxpayer money. The odd thing is: they never really
got rich off that scheme.)

I agree, except that via earthshine might eventually become doable,
especially once having the LSE-CM/ISS at our disposal.


Venus is so much brighter than most any star (as well as most
certainly brighter than Earth), and unlike any wussy star, Venus would
have deposited its vibrant photons upon a great many grains of that
Kodak film.

That is correct. NASA is a bunch of incompetent something-or-others.
They somehow completely screwed up the shot, maybe in an attempt to
make it more interesting -- or just because they ran out of pinhole
cloth that day.

It's actually so much worse off than represented by any lack of
"pinhole cloth".


Their ufiltered Kodak moments were simply more than good enough as is.

At most they only needed to place the likes of Sirius, plus any of a
half dozen other items such as Venus within a given FOV, that which
included their physically dark and nasty lunar horizon instead of
having been stuck with that silly guano island they'd used.

No, not a guano island. It's a sound stage filmed in black and white.

Now you're being a little extra silly, as not each and every frame was
"sound stage filmed in black and white".


BTW; my poor old PC is getting summarily hit with another nasty tonne
of GOOGLE/Usenet spermware/****ware, as I manage to keep typing these
few words in spite of all their lethal intended flak.

Side issue.

Not really. Though it's further proof that I'm right about most
everything.
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics,

wrote
on 26 Mar 2007 00:22:11 -0700
. com:
On Mar 25, 1:14 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics,

wrote

How much deorbit and down-range fuel (with a good safety reserve) per
tonne of any given fly-by-rocket lander do we actually need?

Depends on thrust and exhaust velocity. The v_e of a Saturn booster
was specced at 2500-3000 m/s.

In other words, much like our NASA/Apollo wizards that no longer have
their team of Jewish Third Reich expertise to draw upon, whereas you
also haven't a clue. In fact, all the official clues to most of
everything that matters are somewhat gone with the wind (sort of
speak).


Well, as far as I know most of them were removed just
prior to the first Gulf War in invisible large green UFOs.

(They needed a large repair crew.)


Say if arriving with a 60 tonne lander, that's roughly 10 tonnes at
100 km and obviously moving along at a fairly good velocity to start
off with.

Not precise enough. From a standing start, the lander has
to be accelerated to 11.2 km/s to escape Earth's influence
(roughly speaking, as Earth never really lets go but
if v = 11.2 km/s, the launched payload will pursue a
hyperbolic orbit as opposed to a roughly elliptical one,
according to theorists).

I think you're just a little off the main set of tracks. But that's
still OK, as long as you're still headed in the right direction.


Also, we need high exhaust velocity.

v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f)

But v_e doesn't matter if one can't get it off the ground. A two-stage
affair, however, works reasonably well; the first expensive stage has
the chemical rocket which has high force but low v_e, and the second
has the low force but high v_e and long duration burn.

Are you going towards or returning from the moon?

Neither. We've not even gotten close to the moon.

I wouldn't go quite that far, as I do believe in a a brief half orbit
and get the freaking hell out of there method, as such was a
technically doable mission, within biological limits of getting thy
DNA nailed by only a few hundred rads, of which their banked bone
marrow would have saved the day.


Going towards that moon should demand at least a three stage effort,
and/or having substanial LRBs added to the stack.

And that stack would be fried with radiation before it barely left LEO,
from the moon.

Fried robotics are not such an insurmountable problem. Human DNA
getting fried is in fact quite another pesky thing.


There's no such 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload as having a nearly 30%
inert GLOW, that can safely accomplish that degree of a do-everything
task, and having a crew that'll manage to live in order to tell us all
about it.

Exactly. Nothing living can land on the moon.

(Well, OK, there were these 12 or so guys who cooked
up a scheme or something to spend hundreds of billions
of taxpayer money. The odd thing is: they never really
got rich off that scheme.)

I agree, except that via earthshine might eventually become doable,
especially once having the LSE-CM/ISS at our disposal.

Earthshine is radiation, you know. (Electromagnetic and non-dangerous,
to be sure, but radiation nonetheless.)



Venus is so much brighter than most any star (as well as most
certainly brighter than Earth), and unlike any wussy star, Venus would
have deposited its vibrant photons upon a great many grains of that
Kodak film.

That is correct. NASA is a bunch of incompetent something-or-others.
They somehow completely screwed up the shot, maybe in an attempt to
make it more interesting -- or just because they ran out of pinhole
cloth that day.

It's actually so much worse off than represented by any lack of
"pinhole cloth".

Well *SOMEBODY* should have thought of putting the stars in there! :-)



Their ufiltered Kodak moments were simply more than good enough as is.

At most they only needed to place the likes of Sirius, plus any of a
half dozen other items such as Venus within a given FOV, that which
included their physically dark and nasty lunar horizon instead of
having been stuck with that silly guano island they'd used.

No, not a guano island. It's a sound stage filmed in black and white.

Now you're being a little extra silly, as not each and every frame was
"sound stage filmed in black and white".

True; some of them were post-processed afterwards.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...anSpaceflight/

The first picture is clearly a picture of a quarry, with a little
post-processing to put a marble in the background.

The second shows a larger version of that marble added to a couple of
plastic models. The models were probably photographed in front of a
green screen, and the marble photoshopped afterwards.

;-)



BTW; my poor old PC is getting summarily hit with another nasty tonne
of GOOGLE/Usenet spermware/****ware, as I manage to keep typing these
few words in spite of all their lethal intended flak.

Side issue.

Not really. Though it's further proof that I'm right about most
everything.
-
Brad Guth



--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(; ;

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 26, 7:19 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

Well *SOMEBODY* should have thought of putting the stars in there! :-)

Only a few stars, though especially that bluish one of Sirius should
have been there to behold, especially of any unfiltered Kodak moment.

From orbiting and/or from the deck, of a given NASA/Apollo mission,
where exactly should the Sirius star system have been? (X degrees
above horizon?)

Venus of course (for its optically obtained size) would have been
brighter than Earth. But lo and behold, where's Venus?
-
Brad Guth

Double extra shame on those having pulled our leg and still grasping
our private parts for all it's worth at the same time.

Why don't these silly folks and of whatever assorted "MythBusters"
merely explain to the rest of us village idiots, as to why that recent
MESSENGER flyby of Earth was cut a good 8 DB short from offering us a
full pixel/DR load of an image with a bit more than just a naked and
somewhat pastel Earth, of having otherwise easily demonstrated its
true dynamic range?

Why don't they explain as to why those NASA/Apollo unfiltered
photographic exposures of all that nifty Kodak film was oddly FOV
selectively limited above the horizon, as to such a pathetic dynamic
range of 4 DB or as possibly offering as much as 5 DB for whatever was
in the crystal clear black of space, except of course whenever that
FOV was including Earth didn't seem to matter how terribly **** poor
all other portions of that black sky was otherwise unable to hardly
accommodate 4 DB, because that's what it would have taken to have
nearly but not even entirely excluded the nearby vibrance of a
crescent Venus. Otherwise, of the same camera, same lens and same
film, while their FOV was focused upon the local terrain (looking more
guano island than not) and of various artificial items, like
astronauts or of their equipment as having clearly indicated an
impressive film DR of nearly 10+ DB, if not actually somewhat better
considering how well defined the given image accomplished such
terrific detail from within what should have been the near total
darkness of highly contrasting shade (suggesting they had a combined
Kodak film and lens DR of at least 12+ DB).

Secondly, do make an effort as to explain why their raw solar
illumination was essentially recording exactly that of a xenon lamp
spectrum, therefore having offered a very terrestrial looking spectrum
worth of color saturation without hardly if any UV to speak of.

Now that was some special AI kind of Kodak film, as essentially having
that nifty kind of photon artificial intelligence on behalf of each
given FOV, and otherwise selective spectrum sensitivity that was
offering some entirely weird kind of robo dynamic color saturation on
the fly, and of being near thermally indestructible and rad-hard to
boot.

How about they give us their very best interactive 3D simulator's
perspective view, of looking at whatever should have been easily seen
by the human eye, or far better by that of the more spectrum sensitive
naked/unfiltered Kodak eye as from the moon, given those very same
Apollo locations, FOV and of course using the very same mission dates
as going along by each EVA hour by hour. With just one of their
existing supercomputers and fancy as all get out 3D do-everything
simulator, that's all bought and paid for several times over, is why
this show and tell effort shouldn't represent any problem, delay or
added expense whatsoever.

BTW; The ongoing GOOGLE/Usenet gauntlet of sharing spermware/
****ware, as representing their official MI/NSA flak tossing that's
intended for terminating my poor old PC, as such is really getting
thick, and otherwise extra funny. Obviously it's another Jewish
thing, because they're the only ones having everything under the sun
that's orbiting their flat Earth has to lose. So once again it's not
even their fault because, they clarly do not police their own kind,
not even for having gotten one of their own on a Roman stick (I think
at the time they were licking frogs).
-
Brad Guth

Double extra shame on those having pulled our leg and still grasping
our private parts for all it's worth at the same time.

Why don't these silly folks and of whatever assorted "MythBusters"
merely explain to the rest of us village idiots, as to why that
somewhat recent MESSENGER flyby of Earth was cut a good 8 DB short
from offering us a full pixel/DR load of an image with a bit more than
just a naked and somewhat pastel Earth, of having otherwise easily
demonstrated its true dynamic range?

Why don't they explain as to why those NASA/Apollo unfiltered
photographic exposures of all that nifty Kodak film was oddly FOV
selectively limited above the horizon, as to such a pathetic dynamic
range of 4 DB or as possibly offering as much as 5 DB for whatever was
in the crystal clear black of space, except of course whenever that
FOV was including Earth didn't seem to matter how terribly **** poor
all other portions of that black sky was otherwise unable to hardly
accommodate 4 DB, because that's what it would have taken to have
nearly but not even entirely excluded the nearby vibrance of a
crescent Venus. Otherwise, of the same camera, same lens and same
film, while their FOV was focused upon the local terrain (looking more
guano island than not) and of various artificial items, like
astronauts or of their equipment as having clearly indicated an
impressive film DR of nearly 10+ DB, if not actually somewhat better
considering how well defined the given image accomplished such
terrific detail from within what should have been the near total
darkness of highly contrasting shade (suggesting they had a combined
Kodak film and lens DR of at least 12+ DB).

Secondly; please make an effort as to explain why their raw solar
illumination was essentially recording exactly that of a xenon lamp
spectrum, therefore having offered a very terrestrial looking spectrum
worth of color saturation without hardly if any UV to speak of.

Now that was some special AI kind of Kodak film, as essentially having
that nifty kind of photon artificial intelligence on behalf of each
given FOV, and otherwise selective spectrum sensitivity that was
offering some entirely weird kind of robo dynamic color saturation on
the fly, and of being near thermally indestructible and rad-hard to
boot.

How about they give us their very best interactive 3D simulator's
perspective view, of looking at whatever should have been easily seen
by the human eye, or far better by that of the more spectrum sensitive
naked/unfiltered Kodak eye as from the moon, given those very same
Apollo locations, FOV and of course using the very same mission dates
as going along by each EVA hour by hour. With just one of their
existing supercomputers and fancy as all get out 3D do-everything
simulator, that's all bought and paid for several times over, is why
this show and tell effort shouldn't represent any problem, delay or
added expense whatsoever.

BTW; The ongoing GOOGLE/Usenet gauntlet of sharing spermware/
****ware, as representing their official MI/NSA flak tossing that's
intended for terminating my poor old PC, as such is really getting
thick, and otherwise extra funny. Obviously it's another Jewish
thing, because they're the only ones having everything under the sun
that's orbiting their flat Earth has to lose. So once again it's not
even their fault because, they clarly do not police their own kind,
not even for having gotten one of their own on a Roman stick (I think
at the time they were licking frogs).
-
Brad Guth

Come on you silly folks; where's Venus as of any of those NASA/Apollo
missions?

There's not any Kodak film DR or unfiltered FOV problem here, is
there.

Any good 3D solar system simulator is simply more than good enough.
It's called 'put up or shut up'.

The regular laws of physics and of multiple replicated science has
been a done deal, more than proving that we simply have not walked
upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours.

Since we haven't actually waked on the moon; what else is a lie?
-
Brad Guth

Thanks to whomever for those nifty 5 stars. It wasn't me voting for
myself.

BTW if you wanted to read a seriously bigoted version of a UK/Usenet
site, or simply try out their skewed BBC board of disinformation
infomercial crapolla. Though actually, most of anything UK absolutely
sucks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/n..._culture.shtml
-
Brad Guth