Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

On Sep 21, 1:58*pm, Matt wrote:
It's amazing there are still any of these people. We have pictures of the flags, the footprint trails, the rover trails, the rovers, the surface experiments, and the descent stages and surrounding surface scarred by the liftoff.... at some point, it becomes eaiser and cheaper to actually fly the mission than to carry the fakery to that level.

Hagar and other mainstream redneck Oligarch ZNRs, as our official FUD-
masters in charge of mainstream damage-control, can't seem to allow
any interpretations other than their own to surface. It's as though
they have something dark and scary to hide, and thereby fear whatever
any truly independent and deductive interpretations might have to
offer. The most basic of robotics within the capability of that
Apollo era most certainly could deploy passive retro-reflectors and
manage to accommodate other scientific instruments, but of course
going to/from our moon in person was apparently much easier
accomplished than any sort of deployed robotics of that era (but of
course you wouldn’t dare tell that fib to any Russian that objectively
knows better).

Those Apollo era years of a mutually perpetrated cold-war and other
proxy wars during and ever since, hasn’t quite gotten through to
generations of our K12s, perhaps because the whole truth and nothing
but the truth doesn’t seem to apply as long as our nation of Oligarchs
and rednecks can bully its way along.

Who the hell ever said (other than our resident doom and gloom
contributor Warhol) they never flew the missions or never had any
intentions of walking on the moon? (I certainly never did, other than
suggesting as to how easily their fly-by-rocket technology of that
mutually perpetrated cold-war era of cloak and dagger lies upon lies
could with orchestrated deceptions and all sorts of mainstream
published propaganda that was intended to deceive, never the less
could have safely gone to/from the Earth-moon L1, as well as having
orbited our moon and having deployed equipment to its surface, with
most of everything else easily enough filled in as Oligarch scripted
by their Kodak film and remote staging expertise of that era, whereas
the public perception was all that counts, and especially important
since the cold-war era had no actual basis other than government job
security and their military industrial complex in desperate need of a
perpetual public-funded lifeline after WW2).

I bet you and others of your perpetual redneck kind even think our
government agencies and their Oligarchs in charge of most everything,
had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their having caused
9/11. Well guess what; the mistakes of the past happened over and
over because the whole truth and nothing but the trust of the past has
not been mainstream published nor much less to be found in any of our
K12 history textbooks.

It's actually their extremely well controlled soft landings and return
to Earth without ever so much as any perceptible scratch, and as
otherwise having been documented by loads of all that Kodak film
unphased by virtually anything that any independent forensics can
detect, that remains somewhat problematic for some of us independent
investigative types that would like to exploit the commercial
capability of safely returning to/from our moon.

Not at all unlike my interpretations of utilizing our moon for
geoengineering solutions to our GW and AGW, as well as for oasis/
gateway outposts, renewable energy, mining and even habitation that’s
mostly underground, it seems others have been thinking along similar
lines of utilizing our physically dark and naked moon for the greater
good of future generations.

Why We Need a Supercomputer on the Moon / By Robert McMillan
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise...computer-moon/

Except too bad that our NASA/Apollo era accomplished such minimal
documentation, in that we can’t seem to duplicate by offering any
viable fly-by-rocket methods of getting ourselves safely to/from our
moon, much less with TBMs and other heavy technology that would be
necessary.

If we still can’t manage to deal honestly and openly with exploiting
our moon or the methods utilized for safely getting ourselves to/from
its naked, physically dark and mascon populated surface that’s
reactive to just about everything, then how is it ever going to be
possible to privately go after the exploitation of whatever the
extremely nearby likes of Venus or any other planet or moon has to
offer?

Having a moon L2 or L1 outpost as our commercial oasis/depot and
future exploration gateway would certainly be terrific, especially if
either of those options included a tethered elevator to/from the lunar
surface. But do tell, how exactly did our naked and physically dark
moon become so unusually monochromatic, as well as more reflective and
even UV inert to our NASA/Apollo missions?

The physically dark moon is not actually monochromatic nor UV inert:
Moon’s natural surface colors are those of all the perfectly natural
minerals as they unavoidably react to the visible and UV spectrum, as
only better viewed with having their natural color/hue saturation
cranked up, as otherwise there’s no false or artificial colors added
to either of these two examples.
http://spaceweather.com/submissions/...1346444660.jpg
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...4dnmol44vuaf43

Oddly the NASA/Apollo cold-war era and their nifty rad-hard Kodak
version of our physically dark and paramagnetic moon that’s giving off
considerable amounts of its sodium as well as helium and a few other
vapors, is apparently offering us the one and only off-world location
that becomes more inert as well as more reflective and oddly
monochromatic by the closer we get to it, and otherwise any planet
other than Earth simply can’t be recorded within the same FOV(frame of
view) as having the horizon of that naked moon included (regardless of
the FOV direction or use of any given lens, as well as not even
possible when using the world’s best film and optics along with a
polarized optical filter to reduce the local surface glare doesn’t
seem to help).

Carbonado Diamonds (which our NASA/Apollo era didn’t find any trace on
the moon)
http://www.crystalencounters.com.au/carbo.html
“A team of U.S. geologists have published evidence relating to a
different origin of these black diamonds: interstellar space. They
have found that black diamonds contain trace elements of nitrogen and
hydrogen which they claim are sure indicators of an extraterrestrial
origin.

The study published in 2006 by Stephen Haggerty and Jozsef Garai, of
Florida International University, analysed the hydrogen in black
diamond samples using infrared-detection instruments at the Brookhaven
National Laboratory.

The researchers found that the chemical properties of carbonado
indicated that the mineral formed in a supernova explosion that took
place prior to the formation of our Solar System. In this sense,
carbonado are theorized to be akin to carbon-rich cosmic dust, likely
having formed in an environment near carbon stars. The diamonds were
eventually incorporated into solid bodies that subsequently fell to
Earth as meteorites.”

-

In other words, such black diamond mineral as carbonado isn’t all that
likely terrestrial formed, so much as representing a deposited form of
a dense crystal and mineral that’s nearly pure carbon, and by rights
the physically dark moon should be extensively covered with this type
of deposit, and especially there to be found if the moon was created
from Earth in the mainstream accepted method because, there should be
hardly any depth to its surface dust that’s absolutely crystal dry yet
nicely clumps and offers surface tension way better than any desert
sand here on Earth.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dese...1181& bih=731
Of course the mostly basalt bedrock of our moon should also be
physically dark and paramagnetic (conceivably somewhat like that of
carbonado), and those mostly robotic TBMs(tunnel boring machines) of
the future shouldn’t have any insurmountable problems tunneling unless
the extremely thick and fully fused crust of the moon itself is
extensively carbonado (TBMs cutting through such tough carbon would
take at least ten times as much effort per meter of terrestrial basalt
bedrock). The amount of fused or crystallized carbon in lunar bedrock
still isn’t objectively known by other than terrestrial samples of
such paramagnetic basalt and carbonado deposits as commonly found
right here on Earth, which might further explain the unusual
shallowness of a typical crater by suggesting how unusually tough that
thick trust actually is.

A terrific 2500 km crater that’s 13 km deep, such as the South Pole
Aitken basin crater, should have created at the very least 1e17 m3 of
dust and shards, plus all them other craters and crater within crater
contributions bringing that volumetric deposit of dust and shards from
impact caused bedrock destruction (plus whatever volumetric mass of
impactors) up to a minimum of 1e18 m3, and yet there’s only 3.8e13 m2
of surface area. So, I’d like to know, where the hell did all that
dust and shards of mostly basalt bedrock and carbonado go?
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/July98/spa.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_P...93Aitken_basin
http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/blog/?cat=7

My estimate of full planetshine influx is worthy of perhaps
illuminating at 20.75 w/m2 of a mostly visible spectrum (equated to
our planet reflecting 1.5% of solar plus a little geothermal IR
energy), thereby creating roughly 125 K (100 k warmer than those deep
polar craters that offer only 26 K), represents that the nearside
nighttime on our moon as illuminated only by our planetshine isn’t
always so terribly nasty cold as we’d once considered (although –148 C
is still damn cold), much less being any too dim to work by when the
full earthshine of the mostly visible spectrum is worth roughly 50
times that of moonlight which is a derivative from a spectrum of 0.38
w/m2 of mostly IR and otherwise only contributing on average 20 mw/m2
worth of a visible spectrum upon reaching the atmospheric filtered
surface here on Earth (from LEO figure 30 mw/m2), whereas the naked
and physically dark moon has practically nothing attenuating the
bluish planetshine influx from reaching its surface.

In other words, while on the physically dark surface of our moon and
having to read small print in technical manuals or in diagrams by way
of planetshine/earthshine alone, will always be more than sufficient,
even if our bluish tinted Earth isn’t all that cloudy.

However, moonlight as perceived by instruments and a few better
adapted creatures other than us visually deficient humans here on
Earth, is actually quite vibrant in the IR spectrum. By removing the
built-in IR optical filter of those cameras offering such an option,
will give a nocturnal and mostly monochrome or night-vision
perspective of what we humans can’t see without applied technology.
For example, the old vidicon tube cameras that were quite sensitive to
IR would excessively bloom (aka over-expose or excessively over-
saturate) whenever pointed at the moon. Color plus IR derivative
geology is yet another realm of artificially expanding upon the
limited human visual spectrum, that’s also similar to using UV
secondary/recoil imaging in order to improve upon our deductive
observationology skills.
http://www.deep-sky.co.uk/imaging/dslr/moon.jpg
“The eclipsed Moon was quite dim in visible light but reasonably
bright in IR. I managed to grab 4 quadrant shots of the Moon at the
time of totality, mosaic them together and then overlay a DSLR colour
shot on to. In this way the IR provides the luminance information
while the DSLR shot provides colour. The result is an IR biased colour
shot of totality. As the IR signal was reasonably bright, the details
on the Moon could be imaged with a reasonable amount of sharpness.”
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/eclipse...42-natural.jpg

The moon is not actually monochromatic nor inert:
Moon’s natural surface colors are those of all the perfectly natural
minerals as they unavoidably react to the visible and UV spectrum, as
only better viewed with having their natural color/hue saturation
cranked up, as otherwise there’s no false or artificial colors added.
http://spaceweather.com/submissions/...1346444660.jpg
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...4dnmol44vuaf43

Of course our public-funded LRO wizards that are colorblind and
otherwise can’t be bothered with giving us their nighttime influx of
planetshine or its visible plus infrared emission illuminated surface
temperatures on the nearside of our physically dark moon, because
apparently such an enormous amount of planetshine/earthshine doesn’t
actually account for anything that we’ll ever need to know about, and
after all this time, effort and 100% public funded investments, it
seems we still have nothing interactively telling us what those
nearside lunar surface conditions are actually like.

On a related topic, notice how dusty and badly strewn with all sorts
of volcanic, impact and crater debris the planet Mars can look like.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/forschu.../planet001.jpg
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/parker/..._left_high.jpg
“"Twin Peaks" on the horizon of the Mars Pathfinder landing site. The
image was taken with the IMP camera, for which the Institute developed
and built the focal plane.”

Oddly our NASA/Apollo moon as recorded on 6+ missions worth of Kodak
film, offered no such indications of any significant surface dust with
any mix of strewn rock and of hardly offering any amount or dark
mineral or paramagnetic nature, so perhaps most of the crater
generated dust and rock had simply been blown away with the wind, and/
or having otherwise exceeded the escape velocity of the local gravity
(represents that such material would have been extensively attracted
to Earth). Craters tend to back-fill and/or up-well anywhere from
10~90% of their initial impact formation, which still leaves a great
deal of their initial geophysical trauma as unaccounted for.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 1:39:16 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:58*pm, Matt wrote:

It's amazing there are still any of these people. We have pictures of the flags, the footprint trails, the rover trails, the rovers, the surface experiments, and the descent stages and surrounding surface scarred by the liftoff.... at some point, it becomes eaiser and cheaper to actually fly the mission than to carry the fakery to that level.



Hagar and other mainstream redneck Oligarch ZNRs, as our official FUD-

masters in charge of mainstream damage-control, can't seem to allow

any interpretations other than their own to surface. It's as though

they have something dark and scary to hide, and thereby fear whatever

any truly independent and deductive interpretations might have to

offer. The most basic of robotics within the capability of that

Apollo era most certainly could deploy passive retro-reflectors and

manage to accommodate other scientific instruments, but of course

going to/from our moon in person was apparently much easier

accomplished than any sort of deployed robotics of that era (but of

course you wouldn’t dare tell that fib to any Russian that objectively

knows better).



Those Apollo era years of a mutually perpetrated cold-war and other

proxy wars during and ever since, hasn’t quite gotten through to

generations of our K12s, perhaps because the whole truth and nothing

but the truth doesn’t seem to apply as long as our nation of Oligarchs

and rednecks can bully its way along.



Who the hell ever said (other than our resident doom and gloom

contributor Warhol) they never flew the missions or never had any

intentions of walking on the moon? (I certainly never did, other than

suggesting as to how easily their fly-by-rocket technology of that

mutually perpetrated cold-war era of cloak and dagger lies upon lies

could with orchestrated deceptions and all sorts of mainstream

published propaganda that was intended to deceive, never the less

could have safely gone to/from the Earth-moon L1, as well as having

orbited our moon and having deployed equipment to its surface, with

most of everything else easily enough filled in as Oligarch scripted

by their Kodak film and remote staging expertise of that era, whereas

the public perception was all that counts, and especially important

since the cold-war era had no actual basis other than government job

security and their military industrial complex in desperate need of a

perpetual public-funded lifeline after WW2).



I bet you and others of your perpetual redneck kind even think our

government agencies and their Oligarchs in charge of most everything,

had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their having caused

9/11. Well guess what; the mistakes of the past happened over and

over because the whole truth and nothing but the trust of the past has

not been mainstream published nor much less to be found in any of our

K12 history textbooks.



It's actually their extremely well controlled soft landings and return

to Earth without ever so much as any perceptible scratch, and as

otherwise having been documented by loads of all that Kodak film

unphased by virtually anything that any independent forensics can

detect, that remains somewhat problematic for some of us independent

investigative types that would like to exploit the commercial

capability of safely returning to/from our moon.



Not at all unlike my interpretations of utilizing our moon for

geoengineering solutions to our GW and AGW, as well as for oasis/

gateway outposts, renewable energy, mining and even habitation that’s

mostly underground, it seems others have been thinking along similar

lines of utilizing our physically dark and naked moon for the greater

good of future generations.



Why We Need a Supercomputer on the Moon / By Robert McMillan

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise...computer-moon/



Except too bad that our NASA/Apollo era accomplished such minimal

documentation, in that we can’t seem to duplicate by offering any

viable fly-by-rocket methods of getting ourselves safely to/from our

moon, much less with TBMs and other heavy technology that would be

necessary.



If we still can’t manage to deal honestly and openly with exploiting

our moon or the methods utilized for safely getting ourselves to/from

its naked, physically dark and mascon populated surface that’s

reactive to just about everything, then how is it ever going to be

possible to privately go after the exploitation of whatever the

extremely nearby likes of Venus or any other planet or moon has to

offer?



Having a moon L2 or L1 outpost as our commercial oasis/depot and

future exploration gateway would certainly be terrific, especially if

either of those options included a tethered elevator to/from the lunar

surface. But do tell, how exactly did our naked and physically dark

moon become so unusually monochromatic, as well as more reflective and

even UV inert to our NASA/Apollo missions?



The physically dark moon is not actually monochromatic nor UV inert:

Moon’s natural surface colors are those of all the perfectly natural

minerals as they unavoidably react to the visible and UV spectrum, as

only better viewed with having their natural color/hue saturation

cranked up, as otherwise there’s no false or artificial colors added

to either of these two examples.

http://spaceweather.com/submissions/...1346444660.jpg

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...4dnmol44vuaf43



Oddly the NASA/Apollo cold-war era and their nifty rad-hard Kodak

version of our physically dark and paramagnetic moon that’s giving off

considerable amounts of its sodium as well as helium and a few other

vapors, is apparently offering us the one and only off-world location

that becomes more inert as well as more reflective and oddly

monochromatic by the closer we get to it, and otherwise any planet

other than Earth simply can’t be recorded within the same FOV(frame of

view) as having the horizon of that naked moon included (regardless of

the FOV direction or use of any given lens, as well as not even

possible when using the world’s best film and optics along with a

polarized optical filter to reduce the local surface glare doesn’t

seem to help).



Carbonado Diamonds (which our NASA/Apollo era didn’t find any trace on

the moon)

http://www.crystalencounters.com.au/carbo.html

“A team of U.S. geologists have published evidence relating to a

different origin of these black diamonds: interstellar space. They

have found that black diamonds contain trace elements of nitrogen and

hydrogen which they claim are sure indicators of an extraterrestrial

origin.



The study published in 2006 by Stephen Haggerty and Jozsef Garai, of

Florida International University, analysed the hydrogen in black

diamond samples using infrared-detection instruments at the Brookhaven

National Laboratory.



The researchers found that the chemical properties of carbonado

indicated that the mineral formed in a supernova explosion that took

place prior to the formation of our Solar System. In this sense,

carbonado are theorized to be akin to carbon-rich cosmic dust, likely

having formed in an environment near carbon stars. The diamonds were

eventually incorporated into solid bodies that subsequently fell to

Earth as meteorites.”



-



In other words, such black diamond mineral as carbonado isn’t all that

likely terrestrial formed, so much as representing a deposited form of

a dense crystal and mineral that’s nearly pure carbon, and by rights

the physically dark moon should be extensively covered with this type

of deposit, and especially there to be found if the moon was created

from Earth in the mainstream accepted method because, there should be

hardly any depth to its surface dust that’s absolutely crystal dry yet

nicely clumps and offers surface tension way better than any desert

sand here on Earth.



https://www.google.com/search?q=dese...1181& bih=731

Of course the mostly basalt bedrock of our moon should also be

physically dark and paramagnetic (conceivably somewhat like that of

carbonado), and those mostly robotic TBMs(tunnel boring machines) of

the future shouldn’t have any insurmountable problems tunneling unless

the extremely thick and fully fused crust of the moon itself is

extensively carbonado (TBMs cutting through such tough carbon would

take at least ten times as much effort per meter of terrestrial basalt

bedrock). The amount of fused or crystallized carbon in lunar bedrock

still isn’t objectively known by other than terrestrial samples of

such paramagnetic basalt and carbonado deposits as commonly found

right here on Earth, which might further explain the unusual

shallowness of a typical crater by suggesting how unusually tough that

thick trust actually is.



A terrific 2500 km crater that’s 13 km deep, such as the South Pole

Aitken basin crater, should have created at the very least 1e17 m3 of

dust and shards, plus all them other craters and crater within crater

contributions bringing that volumetric deposit of dust and shards from

impact caused bedrock destruction (plus whatever volumetric mass of

impactors) up to a minimum of 1e18 m3, and yet there’s only 3.8e13 m2

of surface area. So, I’d like to know, where the hell did all that

dust and shards of mostly basalt bedrock and carbonado go?

http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/July98/spa.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_P...93Aitken_basin

http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/blog/?cat=7



My estimate of full planetshine influx is worthy of perhaps

illuminating at 20.75 w/m2 of a mostly visible spectrum (equated to

our planet reflecting 1.5% of solar plus a little geothermal IR

energy), thereby creating roughly 125 K (100 k warmer than those deep

polar craters that offer only 26 K), represents that the nearside

nighttime on our moon as illuminated only by our planetshine isn’t

always so terribly nasty cold as we’d once considered (although –148 C

is still damn cold), much less being any too dim to work by when the

full earthshine of the mostly visible spectrum is worth roughly 50

times that of moonlight which is a derivative from a spectrum of 0.38

w/m2 of mostly IR and otherwise only contributing on average 20 mw/m2

worth of a visible spectrum upon reaching the atmospheric filtered

surface here on Earth (from LEO figure 30 mw/m2), whereas the naked

and physically dark moon has practically nothing attenuating the

bluish planetshine influx from reaching its surface.



In other words, while on the physically dark surface of our moon and

having to read small print in technical manuals or in diagrams by way

of planetshine/earthshine alone, will always be more than sufficient,

even if our bluish tinted Earth isn’t all that cloudy.



However, moonlight as perceived by instruments and a few better

adapted creatures other than us visually deficient humans here on

Earth, is actually quite vibrant in the IR spectrum. By removing the

built-in IR optical filter of those cameras offering such an option,

will give a nocturnal and mostly monochrome or night-vision

perspective of what we humans can’t see without applied technology.

For example, the old vidicon tube cameras that were quite sensitive to

IR would excessively bloom (aka over-expose or excessively over-

saturate) whenever pointed at the moon. Color plus IR derivative

geology is yet another realm of artificially expanding upon the

limited human visual spectrum, that’s also similar to using UV

secondary/recoil imaging in order to improve upon our deductive

observationology skills.

http://www.deep-sky.co.uk/imaging/dslr/moon.jpg

“The eclipsed Moon was quite dim in visible light but reasonably

bright in IR. I managed to grab 4 quadrant shots of the Moon at the

time of totality, mosaic them together and then overlay a DSLR colour

shot on to. In this way the IR provides the luminance information

while the DSLR shot provides colour. The result is an IR biased colour

shot of totality. As the IR signal was reasonably bright, the details

on the Moon could be imaged with a reasonable amount of sharpness.”

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/eclipse...42-natural.jpg



The moon is not actually monochromatic nor inert:

Moon’s natural surface colors are those of all the perfectly natural

minerals as they unavoidably react to the visible and UV spectrum, as

only better viewed with having their natural color/hue saturation

cranked up, as otherwise there’s no false or artificial colors added.

http://spaceweather.com/submissions/...1346444660.jpg

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...4dnmol44vuaf43



Of course our public-funded LRO wizards that are colorblind and

otherwise can’t be bothered with giving us their nighttime influx of

planetshine or its visible plus infrared emission illuminated surface

temperatures on the nearside of our physically dark moon, because

apparently such an enormous amount of planetshine/earthshine doesn’t

actually account for anything that we’ll ever need to know about, and

after all this time, effort and 100% public funded investments, it

seems we still have nothing interactively telling us what those

nearside lunar surface conditions are actually like.



On a related topic, notice how dusty and badly strewn with all sorts

of volcanic, impact and crater debris the planet Mars can look like.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/forschu.../planet001.jpg

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/parker/..._left_high.jpg

“"Twin Peaks" on the horizon of the Mars Pathfinder landing site. The

image was taken with the IMP camera, for which the Institute developed

and built the focal plane.”



Oddly our NASA/Apollo moon as recorded on 6+ missions worth of Kodak

film, offered no such indications of any significant surface dust with

any mix of strewn rock and of hardly offering any amount or dark

mineral or paramagnetic nature, so perhaps most of the crater

generated dust and rock had simply been blown away with the wind, and/

or having otherwise exceeded the escape velocity of the local gravity

(represents that such material would have been extensively attracted

to Earth). Craters tend to back-fill and/or up-well anywhere from

10~90% of their initial impact formation, which still leaves a great

deal of their initial geophysical trauma as unaccounted for.



http://groups.google.com/groups/search

http://translate.google.com/#

Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

Cut and pasted bull**** as usual.

On Sep 21, 1:58*pm, Matt wrote:
It's amazing there are still any of these people. We have pictures of the flags, the footprint trails, the rover trails, the rovers, the surface experiments, and the descent stages and surrounding surface scarred by the liftoff.... at some point, it becomes eaiser and cheaper to actually fly the mission than to carry the fakery to that level.

Some folks are still wondering why we haven’t been going back to our
moon, as having to accept this monstrous asteroid/planetoid as though
it’s nothing but a monochromatic wasted kind of inert place that’s
good for nothing. Of course for going seriously off-world and having
a nearby oasis/gateway that’s nicely provided by its L1 and L2 would
also make for establishing those elevators to/from its surface, as
offering a perfectly logical solution to the otherwise added
complexity of using fly-by-rocket landers that are sill in R&D
because, it seems nothing of the public-funded Apollo era is reliably
usable.

Hagar and other mainstream redneck Oligarch ZNRs, as our official FUD-
masters in charge of spewing mainstream hype and damage-control, can't
seem to allow any interpretations of science or history other than
their own to surface. It's as though they have something dark and
scary to hide, and thereby fear whatever any truly independent and
deductive interpretations might have to offer. The most basic of
robotics within the capability of that Apollo era most certainly could
deploy passive retro-reflectors and manage to accommodate other
scientific instruments, but of course going to/from our moon in person
was apparently much easier accomplished than any sort of deployed
robotics of that era (but of course you wouldn’t dare try tellung that
fib to any Russian that objectively knows better).

Those Apollo era years of a mutually perpetrated cold-war and other
proxy wars during and ever since, hasn’t quite gotten through to the
more recent generations of our K12s, perhaps because the whole truth
and nothing but the truth doesn’t seem to apply as long as our nation
of Oligarchs and rednecks can bully its way along and keeping the rest
of us in debt that’s costing us more than we can possibly afford.

Who the hell ever said (other than our resident doom and gloom
contributor Warhol) they never flew the missions or never had any
intentions of walking on the moon? (I certainly never did, other than
suggesting as to how easily their fly-by-rocket technology of that
mutually perpetrated cold-war era of cloak and dagger lies upon lies
could with orchestrated deceptions and all sorts of mainstream
published propaganda that was intended to deceive, never the less
could have safely gone to/from the Earth-moon L1, as well as having
orbited our moon and having deployed equipment to its surface, with
most of everything else easily enough filled in as Oligarch scripted
by their Kodak film and remote staging expertise of that era, whereas
the public perception was all that counts, and especially important
since the cold-war era had no actual basis other than government job
security and their military industrial complex in desperate need of a
perpetual public-funded lifeline after WW2).

I bet you and others of your perpetual redneck kind even think our
government agencies and their Oligarchs in charge of most everything,
had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their having caused and/
or allowed 9/11. Well guess what; the mistakes of the past happened
over and over because the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the
past has not been mainstream published nor much less to be found in
any of our K12 history textbooks.

It's actually their extremely well controlled soft landings and return
to Earth without ever so much as any perceptible scratch, and as
otherwise as having been documented by loads of all that Kodak film
unphased by virtually anything that any independent forensics can
detect, that remains somewhat problematic for some of us independent
investigative types that would like to exploit the commercial
capability of safely returning to/from our moon.

Not at all unlike my interpretations of utilizing our moon for
geoengineering solutions to our GW and AGW, as well as for oasis/
gateway outposts, renewable energy, mining and even habitation that’s
mostly underground, it seems others have been thinking along similar
lines of utilizing our physically dark and naked moon for the greater
good of future generations.

Why We Need a Supercomputer on the Moon / By Robert McMillan
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise...computer-moon/

Except too bad that our NASA/Apollo era accomplished such minimal
documentation, in that we can’t seem to duplicate by offering any
viable fly-by-rocket methods of getting ourselves safely to/from our
moon, much less with TBMs and other heavy technology that would be
necessary.

If we still can’t manage to deal honestly and openly with exploiting
our moon or the methods utilized for safely getting ourselves to/from
its naked, physically dark and mascon populated surface that’s
reactive to just about everything, then how is it ever going to be
possible to privately go after the exploitation of whatever the
extremely nearby likes of Venus or any other planet or moon has to
offer?

Having a moon L2 or L1 outpost as our commercial oasis/depot and
future exploration gateway would certainly be terrific, especially if
either of those options included a tethered elevator to/from the lunar
surface. But do tell, how exactly did our naked and physically dark
moon become so unusually monochromatic, as well as more reflective and
even UV inert to our NASA/Apollo missions?

The physically dark moon is not actually monochromatic nor UV inert:
Moon’s natural surface colors are those of all the perfectly natural
minerals as they unavoidably react to the visible and UV spectrum, as
only better viewed with having their natural color/hue saturation
cranked up, as otherwise there’s no false or artificial colors added
to either of these two examples.
http://spaceweather.com/submissions/...1346444660.jpg
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...4dnmol44vuaf43

Oddly the NASA/Apollo cold-war era and their nifty rad-hard Kodak
version of our physically dark and paramagnetic moon that’s giving off
considerable amounts of its sodium as well as helium and a few other
vapors, is apparently offering us the one and only off-world location
that becomes more inert as well as more reflective and oddly
monochromatic by the closer we get to it, and otherwise any planet
other than Earth simply can’t be recorded within the same FOV(frame of
view) as having the horizon of that naked moon included (regardless of
the FOV direction or use of any given lens, as well as not even
possible when using the world’s best film and optics along with a
polarized optical filter to reduce the local surface glare doesn’t
seem to help).

Carbonado Diamonds (which our NASA/Apollo era didn’t find any trace on
the moon)
http://www.crystalencounters.com.au/carbo.html
“A team of U.S. geologists have published evidence relating to a
different origin of these black diamonds: interstellar space. They
have found that black diamonds contain trace elements of nitrogen and
hydrogen which they claim are sure indicators of an extraterrestrial
origin.

The study published in 2006 by Stephen Haggerty and Jozsef Garai, of
Florida International University, analysed the hydrogen in black
diamond samples using infrared-detection instruments at the Brookhaven
National Laboratory.

The researchers found that the chemical properties of carbonado
indicated that the mineral formed in a supernova explosion that took
place prior to the formation of our Solar System. In this sense,
carbonado are theorized to be akin to carbon-rich cosmic dust, likely
having formed in an environment near carbon stars. The diamonds were
eventually incorporated into solid bodies that subsequently fell to
Earth as meteorites.”

-

In other words, such black diamond mineral as carbonado isn’t all that
likely terrestrial formed, so much as representing a deposited form of
a dense crystal and mineral that’s nearly pure carbon, and by rights
the physically dark moon should be extensively covered with this type
of deposit, and especially there to be found if the moon was created
from Earth in the mainstream accepted method because, there should be
hardly any depth to its surface dust that’s absolutely crystal dry yet
nicely clumps and offers surface tension way better than any desert
sand here on Earth.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dese...1181& bih=731
Of course the mostly basalt bedrock of our moon should also be
physically dark and paramagnetic (conceivably somewhat like that of
carbonado), and those mostly robotic TBMs(tunnel boring machines) of
the future shouldn’t have any insurmountable problems tunneling unless
the extremely thick and fully fused crust of the moon itself is
extensively carbonado (TBMs cutting through such tough carbon would
take at least ten times as much effort per meter of terrestrial basalt
bedrock). The amount of fused or crystallized carbon in lunar bedrock
still isn’t objectively known by other than terrestrial samples of
such paramagnetic basalt and carbonado deposits as commonly found
right here on Earth, which might further explain the unusual
shallowness of a typical crater by suggesting how unusually tough that
thick trust actually is.

A terrific 2500 km crater that’s 13 km deep, such as the South Pole
Aitken basin crater, should have created at the very least 1e17 m3 of
dust and shards, plus all them other craters and crater within crater
contributions bringing that volumetric deposit of dust and shards from
impact caused bedrock destruction (plus whatever volumetric mass of
impactors) up to a minimum of 1e18 m3, and yet there’s only 3.8e13 m2
of surface area. So, I’d like to know, where the hell did all that
dust and shards of mostly basalt bedrock and carbonado go?
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/July98/spa.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_P...93Aitken_basin
http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/blog/?cat=7

My estimate of full planetshine influx is worthy of perhaps
illuminating at 20.75 w/m2 of a mostly visible spectrum (equated to
our planet reflecting 1.5% of solar plus a little geothermal IR
energy), thereby creating roughly 125 K (100 k warmer than those deep
polar craters that offer only 26 K), represents that the nearside
nighttime on our moon as illuminated only by our planetshine isn’t
always so terribly nasty cold as we’d once considered (although –148 C
is still damn cold), much less being any too dim to work by when the
full earthshine of the mostly visible spectrum is worth roughly 50
times that of moonlight which is a derivative from a spectrum of 0.38
w/m2 of mostly IR and otherwise only contributing on average 20 mw/m2
worth of a visible spectrum upon reaching the atmospheric filtered
surface here on Earth (from LEO figure 30 mw/m2), whereas the naked
and physically dark moon has practically nothing attenuating the
bluish planetshine influx from reaching its surface.

In other words, while on the physically dark surface of our moon and
having to read small print in technical manuals or in diagrams by way
of planetshine/earthshine alone, will always be more than sufficient,
even if our bluish tinted Earth isn’t all that cloudy.

However, moonlight as perceived by instruments and a few better
adapted creatures other than us visually deficient humans here on
Earth, is actually quite vibrant in the IR spectrum. By removing the
built-in IR optical filter of those cameras offering such an option,
will give a nocturnal and mostly monochrome or night-vision
perspective of what we humans can’t see without applied technology.
For example, the old vidicon tube cameras that were quite sensitive to
IR would excessively bloom (aka over-expose or excessively over-
saturate) whenever pointed at the moon. Color plus IR derivative
geology is yet another realm of artificially expanding upon the
limited human visual spectrum, that’s also similar to using UV
secondary/recoil imaging in order to improve upon our deductive
observationology skills.
http://www.deep-sky.co.uk/imaging/dslr/moon.jpg
“The eclipsed Moon was quite dim in visible light but reasonably
bright in IR. I managed to grab 4 quadrant shots of the Moon at the
time of totality, mosaic them together and then overlay a DSLR colour
shot on to. In this way the IR provides the luminance information
while the DSLR shot provides colour. The result is an IR biased colour
shot of totality. As the IR signal was reasonably bright, the details
on the Moon could be imaged with a reasonable amount of sharpness.”
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/eclipse...42-natural.jpg

The moon is not actually monochromatic nor inert:
Moon’s natural surface colors are those of all the perfectly natural
minerals as they unavoidably react to the visible and UV spectrum, as
only better viewed with having their natural color/hue saturation
cranked up, as otherwise there’s no false or artificial colors added.
http://spaceweather.com/submissions/...1346444660.jpg
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...4dnmol44vuaf43

Of course our public-funded LRO wizards that are colorblind and
otherwise can’t be bothered with giving us their nighttime influx of
planetshine or its visible plus infrared emission illuminated surface
temperatures on the nearside of our physically dark moon, because
apparently such an enormous amount of planetshine/earthshine doesn’t
actually account for anything that we’ll ever need to know about, and
after all this time, effort and 100% public funded investments, it
seems we still have nothing interactively telling us what those
nearside lunar surface conditions are actually like.

On a related topic, notice how dusty and badly strewn with all sorts
of volcanic, impact and crater debris the planet Mars can look like.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/forschu.../planet001.jpg
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/parker/..._left_high.jpg
“"Twin Peaks" on the horizon of the Mars Pathfinder landing site. The
image was taken with the IMP camera, for which the Institute developed
and built the focal plane.”

Oddly our NASA/Apollo moon as recorded on 6+ missions worth of Kodak
film, offered no such indications of any significant surface dust with
any mix of strewn rock and of hardly offering any amount of dark
basalt minerals or paramagnetic nature, so perhaps most of the crater
generated dust and rock had simply been blown away with the wind, and/
or having otherwise exceeded the escape velocity of the local gravity
(represents that such material would have been extensively attracted
to Earth). Craters tend to back-fill and/or up-well anywhere from
10~90% of their initial impact formation, which still leaves a great
deal of their initial geophysical trauma as unaccounted for.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On Oct 3, 1:00*pm, Dean wrote:

Cut and pasted bull**** as usual.

I edit and repost often, because unlike yourself I'm not perfect, but
then I do actually care.

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 9:57:36 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 3, 1:00*pm, Dean wrote:



Cut and pasted bull**** as usual.



I edit and repost often, because unlike yourself I'm not perfect, but

then I do actually care.

No, I am not nearly perfect. But you on the other hand are merely cluttering what could be meaningful discussions by always including your racist paranoid conspiracy theory along with repeated statements that are non factual..

On Oct 4, 9:53*am, Dean wrote:
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 9:57:36 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 3, 1:00*pm, Dean wrote:

Cut and pasted bull**** as usual.

I edit and repost often, because unlike yourself I'm not perfect, but

then I do actually care.

No, I am not nearly perfect. *But you on the other hand are merely cluttering what could be meaningful discussions by always including your racist paranoid conspiracy theory along with repeated statements that are non factual.

It's a fact that folks from our NASA/Apollo era haven't been telling
us the whole truth and nothing but the truth for the past 4+ decades,
and you are good with that.

On Friday, September 21, 2012 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, Matt wrote:
It's amazing there are still any of these people.

....The sadder part is that if we never had a Moon, these ****tards would try to claim NASA destroyed it to cover up the fact that the Moon landings were a hoax.

Go figger.

OM

On Nov 12, 3:41*pm, wrote:
On Friday, September 21, 2012 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, Matt wrote:
It's amazing there are still any of these people.

...The sadder part is that if we never had a Moon, these ****tards would try to claim NASA destroyed it to cover up the fact that the Moon landings were a hoax.

Go figger.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OM

Nice FUD

On Nov 12, 3:41*pm, wrote:
On Friday, September 21, 2012 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, Matt wrote:
It's amazing there are still any of these people.

...The sadder part is that if we never had a Moon, these ****tards would try to claim NASA destroyed it to cover up the fact that the Moon landings were a hoax.

Go figger.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OM

Way back in November 1977, National Geographic ran a very small NASA
infomercial of “Let’s Go to the Moon”, with the closing line: “This
book is illustrated with official NASA photographs in full color”.

The little eyecandy image associated with this book promotion was that
of an inert colorless moon offering a considerably reflective albedo,
extensively dust free, with excellent surface clumping and/or surface
tension in order to nicely support everything without a hitch, all
recorded by way of using ordinary Kodak film in essentially an
ordinary but quality camera with only the very best unfiltered optics
that oddly had no harsh illumination contrast issues, no issues of any
excessive heat or any sort of local, cosmic or solar influx radiation
issues to contend with, and otherwise this continued NASA/Apollo hype
implying that they’d gotten themselves there using a poorly documented
fly-by-rocket lander that had less computer than a Casio watch, no
powerful momentum reaction gyros, and their having soft-landed this
spacecraft with a downrange controlled flight as having no stability
issues and otherwise fuel and payload to spare.

Published as of only 5 years after the Apollo 17 mission, there’s
still no mention of their fly-by-rocket lander technology, nor that of
its perfection performance and its one-off flawless piloting as of
day-1, though to be fair there’s still nothing that has been made
publicly accessible as to explaining such reliable capability of those
mostly manual piloted landers, nor offering rational explanations as
to their extremely good Kodak film, camera and lens results of such
photographics of minimal contrast that have never been achieved here
on Earth with any singular spotlight source of illumination. Oddly
those terrific cameras and their best available optics prevented their
Kodak film from ever recording the likes of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars,
Venus or Mercury, that which at one time or another had to have been
easily viewed above the physically dark horizon. Of course, even
Earth was imaged as a pastel kind of planet that was never all that
large or colorfully depicted.

Oddly when our naked moon gets photographed from Earth, amateurs have
managed to capture those natural mineral colors in their saturated
contrasty images of our moon, which look nothing like those pastel and
mostly monochromatic versions provided to us by way of those Apollo
missions that also gave independent scientists nothing of any
interactive instruments to work with. This means there are still a
great many unknowns about our physically dark and paramagnetic moon,
including its unavoidable photographic contrast issues, local plus
solar and cosmic radiation factors, considerable terminator
electrostatic considerations, physical dust and those pesky impacts
from encountering particles in addition to all the raw solar wind of
protons and electrons impacting and/or zooming past at 30+ km/sec, not
to mention those small meteor encounters that have nothing slowing any
of those down or especially for avoiding those encountering the
gravity boosted velocity adding 2.4 km/s to their already fast speed.

The considerable sodium and local gamma was never an issue to our NASA/
Apollo era, and our second moon Cruithne of 5+ km and 1.3e14 kg
(discovered October 10, 1986 and clearly orbital associated as bound
to Earth) of course this wasn’t even known at the time. No wonder
Sirius and even the nearby planet Venus were never spotted from lunar
orbit or from any of its physically dark surface.

So, there is no question that we’ll need to go to our moon in order to
exploit it and utilize its L1 for accomplishing other off-world
missions. Relocating our moon to Earth L1 can wait until 95% of
humanity is systematically culled or becomes naturally extinct due to
resource shortages, global famine and proxy wars due to AGW and the
12+ extra meters of ocean level that’ll drive the lower 95% to fight
for their survival that will be futile considering the depletion of
global resources, greed, hoarding and skulduggery by the upper most
0.1%.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus
“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146

On Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:15:03 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:41*pm, wrote:

On Friday, September 21, 2012 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, Matt wrote:

It's amazing there are still any of these people.



...The sadder part is that if we never had a Moon, these ****tards would try to claim NASA destroyed it to cover up the fact that the Moon landings were a hoax.



Go figger.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OM



Way back in November 1977, National Geographic ran a very small NASA

infomercial of “Let’s Go to the Moon”, with the closing line: “This

book is illustrated with official NASA photographs in full color”.



The little eyecandy image associated with this book promotion was that

of an inert colorless moon offering a considerably reflective albedo,

extensively dust free, with excellent surface clumping and/or surface

tension in order to nicely support everything without a hitch, all

recorded by way of using ordinary Kodak film in essentially an

ordinary but quality camera with only the very best unfiltered optics

that oddly had no harsh illumination contrast issues, no issues of any

excessive heat or any sort of local, cosmic or solar influx radiation

issues to contend with, and otherwise this continued NASA/Apollo hype

implying that they’d gotten themselves there using a poorly documented

fly-by-rocket lander that had less computer than a Casio watch, no

powerful momentum reaction gyros, and their having soft-landed this

spacecraft with a downrange controlled flight as having no stability

issues and otherwise fuel and payload to spare.



Published as of only 5 years after the Apollo 17 mission, there’s

still no mention of their fly-by-rocket lander technology, nor that of

its perfection performance and its one-off flawless piloting as of

day-1, though to be fair there’s still nothing that has been made

publicly accessible as to explaining such reliable capability of those

mostly manual piloted landers, nor offering rational explanations as

to their extremely good Kodak film, camera and lens results of such

photographics of minimal contrast that have never been achieved here

on Earth with any singular spotlight source of illumination. Oddly

those terrific cameras and their best available optics prevented their

Kodak film from ever recording the likes of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars,

Venus or Mercury, that which at one time or another had to have been

easily viewed above the physically dark horizon. Of course, even

Earth was imaged as a pastel kind of planet that was never all that

large or colorfully depicted.



Oddly when our naked moon gets photographed from Earth, amateurs have

managed to capture those natural mineral colors in their saturated

contrasty images of our moon, which look nothing like those pastel and

mostly monochromatic versions provided to us by way of those Apollo

missions that also gave independent scientists nothing of any

interactive instruments to work with. This means there are still a

great many unknowns about our physically dark and paramagnetic moon,

including its unavoidable photographic contrast issues, local plus

solar and cosmic radiation factors, considerable terminator

electrostatic considerations, physical dust and those pesky impacts

from encountering particles in addition to all the raw solar wind of

protons and electrons impacting and/or zooming past at 30+ km/sec, not

to mention those small meteor encounters that have nothing slowing any

of those down or especially for avoiding those encountering the

gravity boosted velocity adding 2.4 km/s to their already fast speed.



The considerable sodium and local gamma was never an issue to our NASA/

Apollo era, and our second moon Cruithne of 5+ km and 1.3e14 kg

(discovered October 10, 1986 and clearly orbital associated as bound

to Earth) of course this wasn’t even known at the time. No wonder

Sirius and even the nearby planet Venus were never spotted from lunar

orbit or from any of its physically dark surface.



So, there is no question that we’ll need to go to our moon in order to

exploit it and utilize its L1 for accomplishing other off-world

missions. Relocating our moon to Earth L1 can wait until 95% of

humanity is systematically culled or becomes naturally extinct due to

resource shortages, global famine and proxy wars due to AGW and the

12+ extra meters of ocean level that’ll drive the lower 95% to fight

for their survival that will be futile considering the depletion of

global resources, greed, hoarding and skulduggery by the upper most

0.1%.



http://translate.google.com/#

Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth

Venus”,GuthVenus

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in

question:

https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146

LOL, you are clearly nucking futs.