Our Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon

Sorry Paul - was trying to send you a URL for an interesting article. I seem
to have copied the entire pdf document on the back of my two-penn'orth
instead of its link.

Here it is again:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=11

Yes, out in space laser beams are an ideal medium for telemetry of all
kinds. The most recent searches for extraterrestrial life have been in the
visible spectrum (OSETI) in the expectation that other civilisations might
use high-energy lasers as rotating beacons to send out a welcome note.
Light photons travel on through space forever. That is how we can see
distant galaxies thousands of millions of light-years away. Visible red or
infrared types are ideal in the space environment, whilst for penetrating
cloudy atmospheres the longer infrared wavelengths are more effective.

Also see this article (5 years old now):

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=11

"TeaTime" wrote in message
news
Yes, out in space laser beams are an ideal medium for telemetry of all
kinds. The most recent searches for extraterrestrial life have been in the
visible spectrum (OSETI) in the expectation that other civilisations might
use high-energy lasers as rotating beacons to send out a welcome note.
Light photons travel on through space forever. That is how we can see
distant galaxies thousands of millions of light-years away. Visible red or
infrared types are ideal in the space environment, whilst for penetrating
cloudy atmospheres the longer infrared wavelengths are more effective.

Also see this article (5 years old now):

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=11

What do you think about using 450 nm or possibly 425 nm (+/- 25 nm as
the FM/quantum modulated binary bandwidth)?

Say using a 0.05 milliradian beam and perhaps 10 ms duration packets, at
perhaps as many as 10 such packets/sec? (although one such 10 ms quantum
binary packet/sec or even per minute is certainly more than good enough)
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:4ff055fc573139fc932ec7eb8fcaa85d.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
What do you think about using 450 nm or possibly 425 nm (+/- 25 nm as
the FM/quantum modulated binary bandwidth)?
Say using a 0.05 milliradian beam and perhaps 10 ms duration packets, at
perhaps as many as 10 such packets/sec? (although one such 10 ms quantum
binary packet/sec or even per minute is certainly more than good enough)
-
Brad Guth

Using wavelengths at the blue end of the spectrum yields certain benefits in
space-to-space communication in that the photon packet energy is
considerably higher for the same power output. However, space-to-ground
requires wavelengths that can penetrate cloud and dust layers and in that
respect you're better off with longer wavelengths (microwave always worked
rather well, as in the radar mapping of the venusian surface). I'd say
450nm (or shorter) for inter-satellite links and maybe 1100nm (or longer)
for downlinks.

As a guide, 0.05 millirad diversion will give you about a 700 mile diameter
circle on the earth from your moon's L1 position. Oops, I used miles again.
At that range, to stand a chance of reliable reception I think you'd need to
be looking at a lot tighter beam. The set-up they use to measure the
distance to the moon creates reflected spots about 2 miles across only and
it still requires a 3.5 metre reflector to pick it up the this end.
Atmospheric thermals and general turbulence adds some more divergence too.
As for data packets 10ms x 10 every second is a 10:1 duty cycle which is
pretty standard application.

TeaTime wrote:
Sorry Paul - was trying to send you a URL for an interesting article. I seem
to have copied the entire pdf document on the back of my two-penn'orth
instead of its link.

Here it is again:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=11

Thanks, most interesting reading. The University of Maryland document
rather less ambitiously talked about the possible space station having
four channels of HDTV-type bitrates at Ku-Band. That might be adequate
for shore-to-ship communications without the investment in those
through-atmosphere laser ground stations which sound kind of pricey.

Paul

"TeaTime" wrote in message


Using wavelengths at the blue end of the spectrum yields certain benefits in
space-to-space communication in that the photon packet energy is
considerably higher for the same power output. However, space-to-ground
requires wavelengths that can penetrate cloud and dust layers and in that
respect you're better off with longer wavelengths (microwave always worked
rather well, as in the radar mapping of the venusian surface). I'd say
450nm (or shorter) for inter-satellite links and maybe 1100nm (or longer)
for downlinks.

Extremely little if any 1100 nm gets through those thick clouds of
Venus, but 425 nm is actually relatively effective, especially at
getting through the S8 polluted atmosphere of Venus.

The human and much less nocturnal eye can't see 1100 nm, but it sees the
425 nm just fine and dandy, especially the nocturnal eye which might
perform best at 450 nm and otherwise can detect 350 nm.

450 nm or even 425 nm should not be any problem going betwween planets,
especially if at least one of those planets was utilizing a satellite or
moon based laser cannon.

As a guide, 0.05 millirad diversion will give you about a 700 mile diameter
circle on the earth from your moon's L1 position. Oops, I used miles again.
At that range, to stand a chance of reliable reception I think you'd need to
be looking at a lot tighter beam. The set-up they use to measure the
distance to the moon creates reflected spots about 2 miles across only and
it still requires a 3.5 metre reflector to pick it up the this end.
Atmospheric thermals and general turbulence adds some more divergence too.
As for data packets 10ms x 10 every second is a 10:1 duty cycle which is
pretty standard application.

You are a very easily dumbfounded soul. Therefore you'll believe in
absolutely anything that's in official print, even if such is printed on
used toilet-paper and otherwise can not be independently replicated,
such as the wussy 3 photons per minute that supposedly gets detected
from those supposedly human deployed retroreflectors upon our physically
dark moon. Trust me, you don't want to go there.

As you've stipulated, and the proof is well established, atmosphere and
other factors distorts a terrestrial laser beam, to the point that
pretty much regardless of how tight the original beam starts out, it's
target if without atmosphere and if situated at 384,000 km and using 550
nm becomes illuminated to roughly 2 km in diameter (3.14e6 m2), worse
yet (3+ km) if using IR.

Of course any little retroreflector bounce is downright next to
impossible at 1100 nm (at least it still can't be independently
replicated), because the moon itself is such a good IR reflector, and
secondly for getting what damn few retroreflected photons as possible
back through our polluted atmosphere is unlikely unless the
retroreflector itself were of 100 m2 and/or the photon detector was
KECK. However, even a mere joule of a 450 nm laser beam if generated
from the earthshine illuminated lunar surface and directed towards Earth
would have easily become visible to the naked eye, and certainly
otherwise fully detected via a small area photon sensor (such as the CCD
in a good camera) that was specifically focused upon the general
physical location of that laser signal, whereas a full frame of our moon
would be more than sufficient.

As photon detector way over-kill, a modified KECK instrument if
specifically utilized as a nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve
down to something better than one meter at 384,000 km by simply masking
off 99% of each primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror
as focused onto the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of
course that sort of image resolution would also show us more than we're
being allowed to know about our moon.

Our moon's L1 would clearly provide the nearly ideal platform for
establishing a laser communications link to/from Venus, as well as on
behalf of many other planets and of their moons (obviously including
Earth and our moon). The moon's L1 to whatever else is in space is
simply going to represent exceptional data throughput per given joule of
applied energy, and over exceptional distances at that because the given
divergence of a transmitted beam can be forced down to 0.005 mr, and
it'll retain that divergence.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" surprised me and wrote in message
news:20e0a2859f2a7526cf763d86906aac7f.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...

Extremely little if any 1100 nm gets through those thick clouds of
Venus, but 425 nm is actually relatively effective, especially at
getting through the S8 polluted atmosphere of Venus.

References please? (not disbelieving, but interested in facts and figures)

The human and much less nocturnal eye can't see 1100 nm, but it sees the
425 nm just fine and dandy, especially the nocturnal eye which might
perform best at 450 nm and otherwise can detect 350 nm.

An old geezer like me might struggle beyond 400nm, but why do we need to SEE
our laser signal?

450 nm or even 425 nm should not be any problem going betwween planets,
especially if at least one of those planets was utilizing a satellite or
moon based laser cannon.

Agreed.

As a guide, 0.05 millirad diversion will give you about a 700 mile
diameter
circle on the earth from your moon's L1 position. Oops, I used miles
again.
At that range, to stand a chance of reliable reception I think you'd need
to
be looking at a lot tighter beam. The set-up they use to measure the
distance to the moon creates reflected spots about 2 miles across only
and
it still requires a 3.5 metre reflector to pick it up the this end.
Atmospheric thermals and general turbulence adds some more divergence
too.
As for data packets 10ms x 10 every second is a 10:1 duty cycle which is
pretty standard application.

You are a very easily dumbfounded soul. Therefore you'll believe in
absolutely anything that's in official print, even if such is printed on
used toilet-paper and otherwise can not be independently replicated,
such as the wussy 3 photons per minute that supposedly gets detected
from those supposedly human deployed retroreflectors upon our physically
dark moon. Trust me, you don't want to go there.

What did I say above that exposes me as 'easily dumbfounded'? Allegedly,
the laser is bounced off not only the Apollo team's sheet reflector, but
also the 'suitcase reflectors' dropped by them darn Russkys' unmanned probe.
Allegedly, they compare readings and take averages.

As you've stipulated, and the proof is well established, atmosphere and
other factors distorts a terrestrial laser beam, to the point that
pretty much regardless of how tight the original beam starts out, it's
target if without atmosphere and if situated at 384,000 km and using 550
nm becomes illuminated to roughly 2 km in diameter (3.14e6 m2), worse
yet (3+ km) if using IR.

Agreed.

Of course any little retroreflector bounce is downright next to
impossible at 1100 nm (at least it still can't be independently
replicated), because the moon itself is such a good IR reflector, and
secondly for getting what damn few retroreflected photons as possible
back through our polluted atmosphere is unlikely unless the
retroreflector itself were of 100 m2 and/or the photon detector was
KECK. However, even a mere joule of a 450 nm laser beam if generated
from the earthshine illuminated lunar surface and directed towards Earth
would have easily become visible to the naked eye, and certainly
otherwise fully detected via a small area photon sensor (such as the CCD
in a good camera) that was specifically focused upon the general
physical location of that laser signal, whereas a full frame of our moon
would be more than sufficient.

What a shame they couldn't leave a laser in the Sea of Tranquility, giving a
hefty pulse once a month encoding a caesium clock time signal and marker
pulse. Solar powered, it would have been so ****ing useful for a whole host
of reasons.

As photon detector way over-kill, a modified KECK instrument if
specifically utilized as a nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve
down to something better than one meter at 384,000 km by simply masking
off 99% of each primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror
as focused onto the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of
course that sort of image resolution would also show us more than we're
being allowed to know about our moon.

There you go again with the conspiracy theory thing. Now I'd love to know
if that was all happening for real, but what real evidence is there for it?
And don't tell me I'm gullible, or deist, or all the rest of your
terminological libel - give us something to go on. Oh - and I spent hours
poring over those Venus lava flows and I have to say I can't see a damned
thing which is definitely and obviously artificial in that landscape.
Possible, yes. A done deal, no. Got something more defined to look at?

Our moon's L1 would clearly provide the nearly ideal platform for
establishing a laser communications link to/from Venus, as well as on
behalf of many other planets and of their moons (obviously including
Earth and our moon). The moon's L1 to whatever else is in space is
simply going to represent exceptional data throughput per given joule of
applied energy, and over exceptional distances at that because the given
divergence of a transmitted beam can be forced down to 0.005 mr, and
it'll retain that divergence.

Agreed.

Brad Guth

I'm running with ya, but whether we'll reach the touchline ...

Every freaking time I get into a fully constructive topic feedback loop,
low and behold, I get the pesky Mailgate/Usenet message "Status: Your
message has been refused."

"TeaTime" wrote in message


Extremely little if any 1100 nm gets through those thick clouds of
Venus, but 425 nm is actually relatively effective, especially at
getting through the S8 polluted atmosphere of Venus.

References please? (not disbelieving, but interested in facts and figures)

Besides the matter of multiple facts provided by Russian and those of
our NASA missions, as to the raw 2650 w/m2 of available spectrum, and of
that highly filtered sunlight that's still getting through, there's also
research from John Ackerman about the potential layer of S8 that's
rather taboo/nondisclosure because it's not supposed to exist. I also
have a little something else of what sorts of photons accomplish best at
getting through such a sulphur polluted medium, whereas 425~450 turns
out being the least attenuated.

The human and much less nocturnal eye can't see 1100 nm, but it sees the
425 nm just fine and dandy, especially the nocturnal eye which might
perform best at 450 nm and otherwise can detect 350 nm.

An old geezer like me might struggle beyond 400nm, but why do we need to SEE
our laser signal?

We don't, but perhaps they do, or at least it would be polite if we
started out with whatever's detectable by the Venusian eye, or via
whatever else they might biologically or instrument wise detect photons
with.

What did I say above that exposes me as 'easily dumbfounded'?

Try that pesky walking on the moon thing, or was that a joke?

Allegedly, the laser is bounced off not only the Apollo team's sheet
reflector, but also the 'suitcase reflectors' dropped by them darn
Russkys' unmanned probe.
Allegedly, they compare readings and take averages.

Allegedly there was a cold-war. Allegedly Iraq had lots of those Muslim
WMD. Allegedly Boeing 747 fuel tanks explode for no apparent reason and
somehow in spite of the laws of physics. Allegedly our government and
those of other governments never lie their butts off, and then some.
Allegedly the crew of Apollo 13 had managed to actually orbit the moon
once in person (I'd actually have to buy into that one as having been
doable). Allegedly a 60:1 rocket/payload ratio was perfectly doable way
back then, but oddly such impressive fly-by-rocket capability can't be
obtained as of today (not even close). Allegedly Venus was
stealth/invisible throughout A11, A14 and A16. Allegedly the their
highly conditional Kodak laws of photon and film physics had worked
entirely different while upon thir passive moon. Allegedly their
raw/naked moon was xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, and so forth for a
few dozen other allegedly interesting matters related to our apparently
guano island like moon that's allegedly entirely passive and with not
hardly 10% the meteorites as available on Mars (most Apollo EVA
locations were not even 1% as debris populated as Mars).

What a shame they couldn't leave a laser in the Sea of Tranquility, giving a
hefty pulse once a month encoding a caesium clock time signal and marker
pulse. Solar powered, it would have been so ****ing useful for a whole host
of reasons.

They allegedly had left much larger and complex instruments as left
behind that were good for nothing outside of the cloak and dagger reams
of whatever club NASA's O-ring collective of purely insider wizards
wanted to promote.

For roughly 10% the mass of one retroreflector (I believe less cost to
boot), and within the same or less volume, they could have easily
deployed a one degree or possibly two degree xenon strobe offering 10
joules, and perhaps by A16 or A17 could have managed to deploy a 100
joule strobe as a relatively simple and reliable transponder that should
have been technically doable, especially since small/portable lasers
weren't quite prime time technology that could have survived the IR/FIR
and other nasty environmental factors.

As photon detector way over-kill, a modified KECK instrument if
specifically utilized as a nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve
down to something better than one meter at 384,000 km by simply masking
off 99% of each primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror
as focused onto the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of
course that sort of image resolution would also show us more than we're
being allowed to know about our moon.

There you go again with the conspiracy theory thing. Now I'd love to know
if that was all happening for real, but what real evidence is there for it?

There's no such "conspiracy theory". It's simply a hard matter of
absolute and easily replicated fact, that a soft-modified KECK
instrument can resolve down to one meter unless your naysay mindset of
such a big and clearly dumbfounded head gets stuck in the way. If need
be, a quality 10X optical projection lens will help finish off the
demonstration of what KECK can accommodate if roughly 99% of each
primary mirror is masked off, and otherwise pulling out all the stops
(that's organ-speak for making an all out maximum effort).

And don't tell me I'm gullible, or deist, or all the rest of your
terminological libel - give us something to go on. Oh - and I spent hours
poring over those Venus lava flows and I have to say I can't see a damned
thing which is definitely and obviously artificial in that landscape.
Possible, yes. A done deal, no. Got something more defined to look at?

Your review of Venus can't hardly be accomplished via braille or that of
a broken glass eye, and perhaps you weren't even fondling the proper
image.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...115s095_1.html
If need be, I'll go extremely slow, as in step by step, or rather pixel
by pixel of the roughly 5% area that's most important. Trust me, it
isn't the least bit hocus-pocus, although it is 100% deductively
subjective to the eye and mindset of the beholder.
-
Brad Guth


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

Is there perhaps something that's taboo/nondisclosure (stealth
moderation worthy) about your message as posted below?

Every freaking time that I get into a fully constructive topic feedback
loop, lo and behold, I get the pesky Mailgate/Usenet message "Status:
Your message has been refused." Therefore, try as I may, I'm
technically banished, as in being unable to post a reply directly back
onto your original.

"TeaTime" wrote in message


Extremely little if any 1100 nm gets through those thick clouds of
Venus, but 425 nm is actually relatively effective, especially at
getting through the S8 polluted atmosphere of Venus.

References please? (not disbelieving, but interested in facts and figures)

Besides the matter of multiple facts provided by Russian and those of
our NASA missions, as to the raw 2650 w/m2 of available spectrum, and of
that highly filtered sunlight that's still getting through, there's also
research from John Ackerman about the potential layer of S8 that's
rather taboo/nondisclosure because it's not supposed to exist. I also
have a little something else of what sorts of photons accomplish best at
getting through such a sulphur polluted medium, whereas 425~450 turns
out being the least attenuated.

The human and much less nocturnal eye can't see 1100 nm, but it sees the
425 nm just fine and dandy, especially the nocturnal eye which might
perform best at 450 nm and otherwise can detect 350 nm.

An old geezer like me might struggle beyond 400nm, but why do we need to SEE
our laser signal?

We don't, but perhaps they do, or at least it would be polite if we
started out with whatever's detectable by the Venusian eye, or via
whatever else they might biologically or instrument wise detect photons
with.

What did I say above that exposes me as 'easily dumbfounded'?

Try that pesky walking on the moon thing, or was that a joke?

Allegedly, the laser is bounced off not only the Apollo team's sheet
reflector, but also the 'suitcase reflectors' dropped by them darn
Russkys' unmanned probe.
Allegedly, they compare readings and take averages.

Allegedly there was a cold-war. Allegedly Iraq had lots of those Muslim
WMD. Allegedly Boeing 747 fuel tanks explode for no apparent reason and
somehow in spite of the laws of physics. Allegedly our government and
those of other governments never lie their butts off, and then some.
Allegedly the crew of Apollo 13 had managed to actually orbit the moon
once in person (I'd actually have to buy into that one as having been
doable). Allegedly a 60:1 rocket/payload ratio was perfectly doable way
back then, but oddly such impressive fly-by-rocket capability can't be
obtained as of today (not even close). Allegedly Venus was
stealth/invisible throughout A11, A14 and A16. Allegedly the their
highly conditional Kodak laws of photon and film physics had worked
entirely different while upon thir passive moon. Allegedly their
raw/naked moon was xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, and so forth for a
few dozen other allegedly interesting matters related to our apparently
guano island like moon that's allegedly entirely passive and with not
hardly 10% the meteorites as available on Mars (most Apollo EVA
locations were not even 1% as debris populated as Mars).

What a shame they couldn't leave a laser in the Sea of Tranquility, giving a
hefty pulse once a month encoding a caesium clock time signal and marker
pulse. Solar powered, it would have been so ****ing useful for a whole host
of reasons.

They allegedly had left much larger and complex instruments as left
behind that were good for nothing outside of the cloak and dagger reams
of whatever club NASA's O-ring collective of purely insider wizards
wanted to promote.

For roughly 10% the mass of one retroreflector (I believe less cost to
boot), and within the same or less volume, they could have easily
deployed a one degree or possibly two degree xenon strobe offering 10
joules, and perhaps by A16 or A17 could have managed to deploy a 100
joule strobe as a relatively simple and reliable transponder that should
have been technically doable, especially since small/portable lasers
weren't quite prime time technology that could have survived the IR/FIR
and other nasty environmental factors.

As photon detector way over-kill, a modified KECK instrument if
specifically utilized as a nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve
down to something better than one meter at 384,000 km by simply masking
off 99% of each primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror
as focused onto the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of
course that sort of image resolution would also show us more than we're
being allowed to know about our moon.

There you go again with the conspiracy theory thing. Now I'd love to know
if that was all happening for real, but what real evidence is there for it?

There's no such "conspiracy theory". It's simply a hard matter of
absolute and easily replicated fact, that a soft-modified KECK
instrument can resolve down to one meter unless your naysay mindset of
such a big and clearly dumbfounded head gets stuck in the way. If need
be, a quality 10X optical projection lens will help finish off the
demonstration of what KECK can accommodate if roughly 99% of each
primary mirror is masked off, and otherwise pulling out all the stops
(that's organ-speak for making an all out maximum effort).

And don't tell me I'm gullible, or deist, or all the rest of your
terminological libel - give us something to go on. Oh - and I spent hours
poring over those Venus lava flows and I have to say I can't see a damned
thing which is definitely and obviously artificial in that landscape.
Possible, yes. A done deal, no. Got something more defined to look at?

Your review of Venus can't hardly be accomplished via braille or that of
a broken glass eye, and perhaps you weren't even fondling the proper
image.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...115s095_1.html
If need be, I'll go extremely slow, as in step by step, or rather pixel
by pixel of the roughly 5% area that's most important. Trust me, it
isn't the least bit hocus-pocus, although it is 100% deductively
subjective to the eye and mindset of the beholder.

I'm running with ya, but whether we'll reach the touchline ...

In that case, I'll share a few of my spare lose cannons, by which we
each might kick a few butts, that is as long as we're on the same set of
tracks and headed for that same "touchline".
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:30b24853aa81b51df06087e5ca70909f.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
Every freaking time I get into a fully constructive topic feedback loop,
low and behold, I get the pesky Mailgate/Usenet message "Status: Your
message has been refused."

Try getting a decent news server and/or decent ISP then?

Besides the matter of multiple facts provided by Russian and those of
our NASA missions, as to the raw 2650 w/m2 of available spectrum, and of
that highly filtered sunlight that's still getting through, there's also
research from John Ackerman about the potential layer of S8 that's
rather taboo/nondisclosure because it's not supposed to exist. I also
have a little something else of what sorts of photons accomplish best at
getting through such a sulphur polluted medium, whereas 425~450 turns
out being the least attenuated.

So where's the references that support the idea that shorter visible
wavelengths propagate through CO2, H2SO4 and S8 clouds more efficiently than
infra red?

The human and much less nocturnal eye can't see 1100 nm, but it sees
the
425 nm just fine and dandy, especially the nocturnal eye which might
perform best at 450 nm and otherwise can detect 350 nm.

We don't, but perhaps they do, or at least it would be polite if we
started out with whatever's detectable by the Venusian eye, or via
whatever else they might biologically or instrument wise detect photons
with.

What makes you think an alien's eye will be attuned to the same wavelengths
as ours? If they are used to conditions like those on Venus they more
likely peak in the reds than the greens and blues.

Try that pesky walking on the moon thing, or was that a joke?

I used the term 'allegedly' in referring to the placing of reflectors on the
moon. I also made reference to the Russians' unmanned probe which also
deployed a reflector there.

Allegedly there was a cold-war. Allegedly Iraq had lots of those Muslim
WMD. Allegedly Boeing 747 fuel tanks explode for no apparent reason and
somehow in spite of the laws of physics. Allegedly our government and
those of other governments never lie their butts off, and then some.

Off topic political whinging - not relevant to the discussion.

Allegedly the crew of Apollo 13 had managed to actually orbit the moon
once in person (I'd actually have to buy into that one as having been
doable). Allegedly a 60:1 rocket/payload ratio was perfectly doable way
back then, but oddly such impressive fly-by-rocket capability can't be
obtained as of today (not even close). Allegedly Venus was
stealth/invisible throughout A11, A14 and A16. Allegedly the their
highly conditional Kodak laws of photon and film physics had worked
entirely different while upon thir passive moon. Allegedly their
raw/naked moon was xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, and so forth for a
few dozen other allegedly interesting matters related to our apparently
guano island like moon that's allegedly entirely passive and with not
hardly 10% the meteorites as available on Mars (most Apollo EVA
locations were not even 1% as debris populated as Mars).

I don't think there are too many people around now who don't realise that
the moon landings videos were studio shot. There are just too many
anomalies that have never been satisfactorily answered. However, the
suit-mounted caneras they had would never have produced anything worth using
so of course the cold-war driven publicity requirement was for something
more 'Hollywood'. None of that says they did or didn't go there. I keep an
open mind on that issue.

They allegedly had left much larger and complex instruments as left
behind that were good for nothing outside of the cloak and dagger reams
of whatever club NASA's O-ring collective of purely insider wizards
wanted to promote.

Details of those instruments? references?

For roughly 10% the mass of one retroreflector (I believe less cost to
boot), and within the same or less volume, they could have easily
deployed a one degree or possibly two degree xenon strobe offering 10
joules, and perhaps by A16 or A17 could have managed to deploy a 100
joule strobe as a relatively simple and reliable transponder that should
have been technically doable, especially since small/portable lasers
weren't quite prime time technology that could have survived the IR/FIR
and other nasty environmental factors.

Agreed - that's why I said ' shame they couldn't ' .

As photon detector way over-kill, a modified KECK instrument if
specifically utilized as a nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve
down to something better than one meter at 384,000 km by simply masking
off 99% of each primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror
as focused onto the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of
course that sort of image resolution would also show us more than we're
being allowed to know about our moon.

Not being expert in optics at that level, I'd value outside opinion on that
one.

There's no such "conspiracy theory". It's simply a hard matter of
absolute and easily replicated fact, that a soft-modified KECK
instrument can resolve down to one meter unless your naysay mindset of
such a big and clearly dumbfounded head gets stuck in the way. If need
be, a quality 10X optical projection lens will help finish off the
demonstration of what KECK can accommodate if roughly 99% of each
primary mirror is masked off, and otherwise pulling out all the stops
(that's organ-speak for making an all out maximum effort).

Yes, I know what an organ-stop is. They come in various varieties like
diapaisons, flutes, foundations and condoms. I also know that a questioning
mind is not equal to a big dumbfounded head. It means I am not gullible
enough to simply believe anything someone tells me without satisfying myself
of the facts aforehand. I question your conspiracy scenaroes just as I
question whether man landed on the moon and a whole host of other things
stated as 'fact' by so many over the years.

Your review of Venus can't hardly be accomplished via braille or that of
a broken glass eye, and perhaps you weren't even fondling the proper
image.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...115s095_1.html
If need be, I'll go extremely slow, as in step by step, or rather pixel
by pixel of the roughly 5% area that's most important. Trust me, it
isn't the least bit hocus-pocus, although it is 100% deductively
subjective to the eye and mindset of the beholder.
-
Brad Guth

Yes - it is 100% deductively subjective to the eye and mindset of the
beholder. Personally, I'd LOVE to see something there - but I don't. The
resolution and range is nowhere good enough to differentiate between natural
features and what may be the remains of artificial structures. It just
looks like lava flows, canyons, rills, etc. Interesting topology granted,
but the high level of volcanism is well documented.