Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:17:01 +0000, Prai Jei
wrote:

All the landing site images will prove, is that six spacecraft from the
1969-72 era did make soft landings on the moon at the designated sites.
Nobody disputes that. They weren't the first soft-landers. But would the
pictures be able to prove that those spacecraft were *manned*?

(I don't subscribe to the "hoax" camp myself, but let's keep an open mind
about it for now.)

What distance and angular resolution would be needed to see the footprints we
know would have to be there if Armstrong et al actually bounced around on the
moon?

---
David Cross
dcross1 AT shaw DOT ca

Prai Jei,
For God's sake, a 3~5% reflective index of a supposed landing sight,
radiating for several hundred meters in all direstions does NOT make
for a SOFT landing. Instead, that's exactly what an impact zone looks
like, or perhaps haven't you ever noticed what a recent crator impact
zone looks like?

What part of physics-101 didn't you understand?

Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS topics:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Dear incest cloned borg 'Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)',
I'm very much a liar on behalf of humanity, something that clearly
doesn't apply to yourself and the likes of our resident warlord(s)
that'll lie their stinking perpetrated cold-war butts of at the drop of
a hat, perhaps at the drop of a nuclear bomb, or in the case of GW Bush
at a drop of whatever oil that's apparently for our TAKING.

Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Brad Guth wrote:

Hi borg DW,
Of course that elevator floor thing is a wee bit of a problem,
especially when those folks that are so snookered are walking the
64,000 km worth of steps when they could be taking the ride of their
lives.

You do realize that other than my LSE-CM/ISS there's no viable
fly-by-rocket alternative on the books for safely getting so much as a
robotic instrument onto the moon, or do you know something our NASA and
their USSR/Russian spooks don't?



I know more than you do, as does anyone who has mastered high
school physics.

Check and mate, BadGut.

Dear incest cloned Borg [[The Commentator]], Bob Casanova and your
entire collective that sucks,
Why are you replying on behalf of 'Wally Anglesea™'?

I understand perfectly well that there's been no honest tit for tat
going on about the NASA/Apollo cold-war ruse/sting of the century, at
least not within this MI6/NSA spook topic and forum that sucks.

I understand that every time I've mentioned secondary/recoil photons in
relationship to near-blue photons and/or per hard-X-rays, that lights
keep going out.

I understand that discussing the Van Allen belts and/or AKA 'zone of
death' is another nondisclosure and/or need-to-know basis that includes
loads of your conditional physics in order to suit whatever supports
your pagan NASA/Apollo bible.

In fact, I understand there's still no hard-science as to raw ice
surviving within nearby space.

I understand that every time I bring anything up as to give and take
regarding the mutual gravity-well (nullification) zone that's between us
and the moon, or even the one between our solar system and Sirius, that
the lights go out.

I've noticed that every time I've asked about our much needed
fly-by-rocket lunar landers that due to all of the flak coming my way
that the lights go out.

In fact, it's getting so dark and nasty whenever I mention anything
related to our moon, Venus or about the Sirius star system that being a
Muslim hiding WMD and Osama bin Laden while sitting on an oily rock is
better off at receiving less flak.

I fully understand the perverted and without remorse perpetrated
cold-war is what yourself and your kind can't seem to get enough of the
collateral damage and carnage of the innocent.

I understand that instead of setting a good science, energy and
environmental example for the world, that America has become the biggest
LLPOF Borg collective of immoral souls in the universe, and that you're
absolutely damn proud of it.

In fact, you're three-faced and anti-everything upon whatever I have to
say, of which I'll gladly use that Borg mindset right back against
yourself and others until those Apollo cows come home.

I also understand that when you've had just about enough of my notions
that I get your GOOGLE V-Chip 'Oops, We're sorry, but we are unable to
display this page at this time' message.
~

The GUTH Venus township, bridge and ET Park-n-Ride tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The GUTH LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few hot & testy topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

"[[The Commentator]]" wrote in message


Brad Guth wrote:

Wally Anglesea™,
Thanks for the good feedback. However, I'll have to take exception to
the issue of Borgs not cloning upon one another, as I believe
intellectual as well as biological incestuous relationships is exactly
what Borgism is all about, either that or perhaps worse off being what
our 'Skull and Bones' cult is accomplishing as one better.

Since gender isn't all that important, whereas the mere gesture and
copulation of any two borgs is merely a programmed response, thus we'll
see little if any distinction between incest of their own kind or that
of any species of any other available life that's in need of a good
screwing over. Pure happenstance of screwing whatever and whomever
comes along is perhaps nearly 10/90 odds of their getting someone
impregnated with all of the necessary bad seeds of mutated DNA/RNA code
of a given borg.

However, since these Borgs have been thinking almost entirely with
their butts and peckers, therefore no requirement for hardly any actual
brains, which conserves a great deal of biological energy if you don't
have to bother actually having to think for yourself, much less involve
remorse.

Right about now our warm and fuzzy collective of mainstream status quo
Borgs is summarily screwing over them Muslims, especially of those we'd
care to lie about their hiding Osama bin Laden, WMD or just for so much
as their sitting upon an oily rock is obviously good enough just cause
for our resident commander and chief warlord(GW Bush) village idiot to
essentially take their lives, then rape and pillage whatever our
friendly-fire and collateral damage has left behind. It seems that
we're accomplishing this form of 'Skull and Bones' dog-wagging and
infomercial pretense because, it'll obviously keep our troops and
campers that are on any form of direct and/or indirect government based
income and/or of job security and retirement benefits as dumbfounded
and as happy that we're getting something back, which is somewhat
unfortunate since we started and sustained all of this perpetrated
cold-war crapolla decades ago, and I believe it isn't over until our
fat lady sings.

Of course, that orchestrated fat lady is supposedly on our side and, I
believe she's packing heat, as in thermal nuclear heat within her silo
sized bra as having been loaded with ICBMs, and otherwise we seem to
have those sneaky nuclear subs that keep running into big-ass mountains
whenever they're not chopping their way through private ships or just
running into one another as per their usual cloak and dagger war games
of skulking about somewhere and just about everywhere they're not
supposed to be.

Of course our latest resident warlord and best ever incest Borg plan of
action includes a few end-user friendly nukes-in-space, and of course a
few of those nifty Boeing/Raytheon/TRW (Phantom Works) ABLs packing
their 100 MW laser cannon of 0.5 milliradian beam which isn't just
intended as for lighting up those girl scout camp fires.
~

My GUTH Venus township, bridge and ET Park-n-Ride tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few other hot & testy topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

And you seem to not understand that he Borg are imaginary.

Seek professional help.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"[[The Commentator]]" wrote in news:42AE70E6.4EC22E01
@no.trolls:

Brad Guth wrote:

footnote-No.3
Here's another interesting link as to what's for real, suggesting as to
the hard-science capability of film over that of the best available
CCDs.

Chemistry of Photography
http://www.cheresources.com/photochem.pdf
Silver Halide Salts; the range is from less than 0.1 micron in slow
emulsions.

The silver halide grains in a paper emulsion seldom exceed 0.01 to 0.02
.....
thus 350 nm is twice as good as 700 nm, and the moon so happens to
receive lots more (at least 256 times more) of 350 nm photons than the
surface of Earth since there's so little atmosphere about the moon and,
.....

The film sensitivity isn't the question. The photons have to get to the
film. Most glasses absorbs 100 % of UV radiation.

You need special lenses if you want to take pictures with UV, or Near UV.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...es/photogralen
s/carlzeiss/carlzeiss.htm

http://las.perkinelmer.com/Content/R...pLambdaGOB.pdf
shows typical telecope camera lens cuts off below 360 nm. So not 350 nm
photons get through.

http://www.adphotonics.com/AD_2004_catalog.pdf

These transcripts make interesting reading.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/

It would cost much more to fake all this stuff than it cost to go there.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"[[The Commentator]]" wrote in news:42B094DB.25219DD2
@no.trolls:

Brad Guth wrote:

UV is not just UV. There's UV-a, UV-b and UV-c that are each entirely
different. Nocturnals and a few other animals see well into the UV-a
spectrum, as does Kodak film. The likes of 'bz' as dumbfounded and thus
an easily snookered fool that can't hardly tie his own shoe laces to
save his own soul.

It is comments like that that are the reason I no longer see anything Brad
posts. I won't read stuff written by people that have no respect for others.

I am well aware of the different UV bands (310nm-420nm) UVA, (280nm-330nm)
UVB, (200nm-290nm) UVC, and (100nm-200nm) VUV [vacuum UV].

A good portion of UV-a gets nicely through most any common lens
(especially the 375~400 nm worth) unless having been specifically
coated.

Most good lenses have coatings, but not all are coated specifically to
exclude UV-a

All of the near-UV up to the near-blue (400~465 nm) is
transmitted entirely through to the highly sensitive film unless a deep
amber/orange (spectrum cut-off) filter and/or multi coatings are
applied.

Most good lenses have multiple coating. Most are compounded from several
different glasses.

I'll offer no argument that UV-b and especially UV-c is stopped dead in
it's tracks by all but the most specialized lens.

So, we agree on something.

In fact the likes of
UV-c should be recorded via mirrors and thus excluding any sort of
crystal lens.

And shorter wavelengths won't even pass through the air.

Although of the Kodak moments is where I'm not even
suggesting much of anything below 350 nm and, only a bit of 375 nm as
being the case of what the unfiltered Kodak eye would have responded
to, though of a fairly intense energy/m2 at that which only gets worse
as the available raw intensity of spectrum heads towards 400 nm.
Certainly the near-blue photons created via the secondary/recoils of
the UV-a energy of such intensity/m2 would have been optically 100%
unfiltered and thus 100% recorded as such.

Why is there even any argument here?

The absorbance of typical camera lenses goes up as the wavelength gets
shorter, with total cutoff around 360. At 400 nm, it looks like the
transmission is only about 50% in at least one case.

Are you willing to suggest those Kodak moments having been obtained
from orbit (3844 times closer plus several using a 10X lens on top of
that), and those of a few other missions since are not representing the
real thing?

I think they are real. I think all the photos are real.

Obviously you and your incest cloned friends haven't posted squat
unless it's 100% NASA/Apollo certified.

I have nothing to do with NASA but the more of the transcripts on

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/


that I read, and the more picture I see, the more I wonder how anyone could
believe they are faked.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Dear 'bz',
Take notice how your comments are not being replied to, with the
exception of this one mistake. Isn't it at all clear that the
mainstream status quo cesspool outflow that you're swimming within is
focused upon nailing my butt, and could care less about whatever you
have to say?

Why are you being such absolute typical example of what an
intellectually incest cloned borg is all about?

It seems that you're still the one that's not allowing the light of day
into your indoors cesspool of butt-cheek intellectual mainstream
crapolla that'll just as soon exclude whatever evidence doesn't so
happen to suit whatever your pagan God of incest wants of yourself and
others to worship. Just like Jews instantly disqualify upon any
evidence suggesting that they even so much as pointed out Jesus Christ
to those nice Romans, and I believe it's been somewhat down-hill ever
since.

It is the hard-science and regular laws of physics, not to mention the
lack of any independent evidence to the contrary, of what stipulates
that our NASA/Apollo wizards at most orbited the moon, although even
going by their own technology having proved that portion could have
been 100% robotic, although I'll give the benefit of the doubt that at
least the phase of orbiting our moon was technically accomplished in
person.

Our NASA/Apollo teams (by the record) applied no specialized custom
optics of modified sharp cut-off or band-pass optical spectrum
filter(s). Why is there even any argument here?

Do you actually know of something about their camera and optics that
NASA/Apollo doesn't?

Are you willing to keep insisting those Kodak moments having been
obtained from orbit (3844 times closer plus several using a 10X lens on
top of that), and those of a few other missions since are not
representing the real thing?

I believe it's one way or the other, as you simply can't have it both
ways my friend, that is unless our moon actually has a whole lot more
of an atmosphere than reported by your lord almighty (NASA/Apollo)...

As per that risky and damn spendy effort was in fact getting their
cameras and optics 3,844 some odd times closer to the moon than by any
terrestrial observations, that plus a few frames having utilized a 10X
lens makes the magnification factor advantage of 38,440 fold somewhat
further improved, and that which recorded on essentially a format of
4096 X 4096 pixel Kodak film (better yet within the center of every
frame) and at least half again if not twice as good of resolution upon
B&W film. Thus even today there's nothing of the best of KECK-II that
comes close to what the terrific resolution having been obtained as of
nearly 4 decades ago by the NASA/Apollo efforts.

Quite oddly, none of their orbiting missions managed to capture what
should have been other than a typical artificial landing/impact zone
upon the moon. Even since then, the better optics and finest CCDs of
subsequent robotic orbiting missions recorded only what looked as 3~5%
albedo zones of recent impacts which NASA officially claimed as being
their Apollo landing sites. So, without ever questioning one damn thing
that's contained within a frame worth of those supposed moonsuit EVA
Kodak moments, it seems there remains a serious pot load of trouble in
River City, meaning those supposed landings really sucked to the point
of their becoming thoroughly vaporised into becoming lunar atmosphere
along with a few tonnes of the lunar surface itself. Since all
astronauts returned without so much as gaining another gray hair, odds
are fair good that those lander deployments were unmanned.

Of what I'm having to interpret has hard-science and by having applied
the regular laws of physics in order to explain as to how darn hot,
physically nasty and TBI worthy the fully solar illuminated lunar
surface is, this in of itself is not to mention the meters deep piles
of a composite dust that's anything but user-friendly, nor anything as
non-reactive as per what it would have taken to have recorded such
extremely low TBI dosage and thereby never having thermally impacted,
fogged nor even blue tinted a single photograph. In fact, all
photographs seemed extremely xenon lamp illuminated (terrestrial like),
with a moonscape that seemed to average 55% reflective and otherwise
nearly portland cement and cornmeal like at that. Many other web-sites
hosting their review of the frame by frame contents seems way more than
sufficient, although I could add a few comments as to what's been
unnoticed or under appreciated by the general viewing public.

I've already asked specific questions as to the whereabouts of our
fly-by-rocket lander R&D, Venus and the Sirius star system, as well as
a few questions pertaining to those unusually terrestrial/xenon
spectrum like Kodak moments, whereas your mainstream has elected to
exclude all such request by way of their bigotry and arrogance
entitlements for doing such, thus what more can I say?

Of course we need to ask ourselves, when has government NOT utilized
their golden "so what's the difference" rule of "high standards and
accountability" upon evidence exclusions whenever it wanted to win the
popular vote in spite of the truth?

Exactly how many examples of nondisclosure, evidence exclusions or just
more of the usual infomercials upon LLPOF dog-wagging, spin, hype and
disinformation-R-us would you and your pagan club of incest cloned
borgs care to get into?

I'm going to start toning this rant down to a dull roar, so that it'll
qualify for the likes of preschool and grade-school minds that are not
nearly as incest polluted and thus too far gone to matter. What do you
think about that?
~

This is about a basic Township, Bridge & Tarmac upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
China/Russian LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few alternative topics from wizard Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

I certainly like your skewed numbers:

"I am well aware of the different UV bands (310nm-420nm) UVA,
(280nm-330nm) UVB, (200nm-290nm) UVC, and (100nm-200nm) VUV [vacuum
UV]."

Especially the UV-a that's good for 420 nm, because that's even worse
off than I'd thought.
~

This is about your basic Township, Bridge & Tarmac upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
China/Russian LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few alternate topics from wizard Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Art Deco wrote in
:

Brad Guth wrote:

.....

It seems as though this and just about any other topic can get
cross-posted

Cross posting, and setting followups to off-topic-news-groups is a troll's
technique for getting flame wars going.

The right thing for Brad to do is to set followups whenever he posts.
Follow ups should be set to a single newsgroup that is 'on topic' for the
subject(s) under discussion. He can warn people that this is being done so
that they can go to that newsgroup to follow the discussion IF they find it
interesting. I set the follow ups on this to sci.physics because Brad is
discussing subjects related to physics.

, but selectively so that only a portion of the original
thread is made available to all forums (entirely excluding some of the
more interesting contributions that are simply too mainstream
boat-rocking), thus making it nearly impossible to follow for an
outsider checking to see whatever's interesting as being offered within
a given topic.

The way for Brad to avoid such problems is to keep his postings to a single
group where they are on topic.

Since the ruse or tactic has always been to divide and
conquer thy enemy

Paranoia is comforting because it makes the paranoid feed important.

(that enemy being the likes of myself or humanity in
general) is why there's no real effort at keeping this or any other
potentially testy topic on track, much less focused equally throughout
several forums

If Brad cross posts, he will never know what responses he will attract.

If he is not cross posting but he is annoying people, they will cross post
their answers to him to groups where he WILL get all kinds of reactions. A
good reason to keep one's posts civil.

that apparently have no real intentions as to share and
share alike (very ulterior motive and hidden agenda government like, or
exactly the Skull and Bones sort of method that has worked before).

Posting to multiple groups is bad manners, and the kind of thing that
trolls do.

This offers a perfectly good example of the usual divide and conquer
from sci.physics ( Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs ), whereas in other
usenet forums

Stick to posting in one group.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/.../thread/11e9f5
cdf027 a3da/96634157c43bf122#96634157c43bf122

It's obvious that the folks encharge of the perpetrated cold-war and of
sustaining their ruse/sting of the century remain intent upon NOT
allowing the light of day into their indoors

Anyone who posts a follow up can add or subtract groups and 'follow up to'
directives in his posting. The more people one annoys, the more likely that
is to happen.

.....
snipped because I don't like Brad's choice of language.

It is actually based upon the hard-science and regular laws of physics,
not to mention the lack of any independent evidence to the contrary, of
what stipulates that our NASA/Apollo wizards at most orbited the moon,
although even going by way of their own technology having proved even
that portion could have been 100% robotic, although I'll give the
benefit of doubt past whatever * tj Frazir * has to say, in that I
believe at least the phase of orbiting our moon was technically
accomplished in person. Until artificially terraformed, the moon may
remain as somewhat testy by solar illumination, though from a safer
distance of 100+km

The solar radiation at 100+km from the moon is essentially identical to
that on the surface of the moon.

Our NASA/Apollo teams (by the record) having applied no specialized
custom optics of modified sharp cut-off or band-pass optical spectrum
filter(s) on behalf of improving those supposed Kodak EVA moments. Why
is there even any argument here, unless it is that you perceive as to
actually know of something about their camera and optics that
NASA/Apollo doesn't?

I don't know something they don't.
I don't know everything they do,
I am sure that they know more than Brad.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs4.pdf

They have clearly given careful consideration to the photographic
conditions and know more about photography than Brad.

I would not be at all surprised if the reasu grid plate, at the focal plane
of the camera [puts the little crosses on the pictures] is also pretty good
at filtering out that pesky UV that seems to upset Brad so much.

Ask yourself if you are willing to keep insisting without remorse that
those Kodak moments having been obtained from orbit (3844 times closer
plus several of those having utilized a 10X lens on top of that), and
equally those of a few other missions since, are these OK or not
representing the real thing?

I don't see ANY NASA photos that I think are faked.

I believe it's got to be of one way or the other, as you simply can't
have it both ways my friend, that is unless our moon actually offers a
whole lot more of a spectrum filtering worth of atmosphere than
reported by your lord almighty (NASA/Apollo), and the likes of Kodak
photographic reactive physics functions entirely different upon the
moon than upon Earth...

[snip too much paranoid verbage]
I think NASA was smarter than Brad gives them credit for.

.....

Thus even today there's nothing available
from the very best of KECK-II that comes close to what the terrific
resolution having been obtained as of nearly 4 decades ago by the
NASA/Apollo efforts.

It is not surprising that it would be difficult to do better than the
orbital and surface pictures taken.

It should be noted that quite oddly, none of their orbiting missions
managed to capture what should have been none other than a typical
artificial landing/impact zone upon the moon.

Brad also claims that there are no corner reflectors on the moon and
ignores all the data that has been collected over the years using those
reflectors.

.....

Of what I'm having to interpret has hard-science and by way of having
applied the regular laws of physics in order to explain as to how darn
hot, physically impact nasty, dusty and TBI worthy the fully solar
illuminated lunar surface actually is

Brad has no conception of how the temperature of a black body [or some
object acting as a black body to some degree] absorbs and radiates energy
at the same time.

.....

Brad, stop ranting and look at the data on that web site I found.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs.htm
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.photechnqs4.pdf

I am reading the apollo 15 transcripts right, from the landing, right now.
Very interesting.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/

It takes a lot of time to read and after I finish with 15 I want to read
the others.

Read 'em. Tell me what YOU find in there that has got to be wrong.


Exactly how many examples of government sponsored nondisclosure,
evidence exclusions...

I don't need you to tell me that our current government has problems
keeping its versions of reality straight.

That has nothing to do with what happened on the moon. That was a different
government and the US had competition on the other side of the earth that
would have loved to catch the US in a lie. They had the means of detecting
if NASA were lying.

In the near future I'm going to start toning this rant down ....
What do you think about that?

I don't believe that Brad CAN tone down his rhetoric and speak politely to
people. If he can, that will be good because his ranting style does NOT add
to his credibility. I might even take him out of my kill file IF he stops
the insults and rants.

.....



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap