Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!

No wonder GUTH Venus and the LSE-CM/ISS are still taboo/nondisclosure.

There's no further if's, and's or but's about it, that is our not
having landed upon that physically dark and nasty moon of our's.
Here's some new and improved numbers, and I've even fixed a few of
those pesky words for the old gipper that basically says that we
haven't quite gotten ourselves around to walking upon that physically
dark and nasty moon. Imagine (in jest), that for the very first time
in recorded history, that we've been lied to by our government.

In the past and as of lately, others and I've posted multiple example
images that more than proves we're right, that the physics and science
of Kodak is 100% right, including the regular laws of physics such as
imposed by "photogrammetric rectification" are right, and that the
replicated hard-science as having been contributed from so many others
is absolute proof-positive that a good many Usenet folks and of their
kind have been nothing but a sorry borg like pack of incest born-again
liars, exactly like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

BTW; Venus is not a wussy pin-point of a star. Instead, Venus
represents many equivalent pixels worth of being an extremely vibrant
item that's nearly impossible to avoid if you're into accomplishing all
of those unfiltered Kodak moments from the physically dark and nasty
moon.

We see that folks here in Usenet naysay land of denials upon denials
are still into avoiding the replicated hard-science of this and most
any other original topic, as well as for the ongoing banishment as to
avoiding whatever's the NASA/Apollo justification of their somehow
having excluded Venus; why is that?

Even NASA's solar system simulators manage to avoid or rather
conveniently exclude the Apollo era of our viewing the lunar horizon
relationship of having a good simulated look-see at Venus and Earth as
would have been observed and easily photographed from the physically
dark surface of our moon, as rather oddly having such simulator
capability intentionally excluded in their otherwise spendy and
do-everything else simulators. Gee whiz folks, I wonder why?

The topic(s) as contributed by polaris431 (Elijah Rosenburg); "A
scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon -
photogrammetric rectification" is also getting unusually stalked and
bashed, and/or given the Usenet treatment of information banished
because of the truth and nothing but the truth that it clearly
represents.

In spite of all the incessant mainstream status quo flak, I believe
that we village idiots are actually right, in that we each in our own
way claim that our NASA could have easily proven damn near anything if
they'd so intended. The reason(s) why the hard-science that's fully
replicated as to "photogrammetric rectification", and that of my
limited though more than sufficient expertise being within the realm of
replicated observationology, as to the photographic spectrums and of
the various color saturation, such as based upon the very terrestrial
like spectrum of the xenon lamp rather than having the raw solar
illumination to work with, and of the various albedo and even starshine
issues of so many other items that should have been unavoidably
recorded by those unfiltered Kodak moments is all being rejected, is
perhaps because they each contribute more of the same absolute
proof-positive that we have not landed upon that moon, nor much less
having walked upon that unfortunately radioactive and otherwise
unavoidably reactive little naked moon of ours, that's actually
offering itself as a worse than lethal environment of TBI(total body
irradiation) gamma and hard-X-ray dosage than otherwise suggested by
any portion of what our Van Allen belts represent.

These warm and fuzzy Usenet folks, of seemingly mostly Jewish e-spooks
and/or e-moles that also like sharing as much of their PC
malware/****ware as they can get away with, and certainly it's not been
otherwise by way of their honestly having shared in anything that's
NASA official that'll ever accommodate the likes of external science
(no matters how trustworthy or replicated) nor much lees that of my
expertise, are at least not within this status quo or bust Usenet from
hell as willing for sharing in anything that might tend to prove that
we've been lied to (AKA snookered by way of those of us having "the
right stuff").

BTW No.2; some of those Apollo EVA shadows seem to have indicated as
though they've gotten well past the 9:00 AM mark (past the quarter
lunar day). Considering their typical arrivals being shortly after
sunrise, and the extra length of a given lunar day; might we dare ask
if that's even possible as to having such unusually short shadows?

Since the moon itself has to be that of a rather physically dark
composite of mostly basalt plus whatever else had been solar and cosmic
deposited, and otherwise offering a relatively nonreflective surface
(of an especially lower albedo via sunrise and of a few days
thereafter), yet never once was there a sign of any secondary shadow
within a given solar generated shadow, of ever having offered any hint
whatsoever of an earthshine generated shadow. Considering the
relatively good DR(dynamic range) of what that unfiltered Kodak film
and of what the extremely good optics had to offer, and of how little
else was getting reflected off the physically dark lunar terrain; is
zero earthshine actually possible?

Of less than a half illuminated Earth is worth roughly 32 fold brighter
illumination of earthshine than is offered by a full moon as depicted
here on Earth, and if that bluish illumination source doesn't manage to
generate a worthy secondary shadow within a shadow, then I obviously
don't know of what else would.

From being situated on the moon, as in no matters what you simply can
not avoid having the best ever look-see at Venus, not even if you're
one of the all-knowing Gods of Apollo, or otherwise rated as smart
enough to being involved in most everything else that's connected with
our NASA (supposedly our NASA doesn't hire the likes of the dumb and
dumber).

According to various solar system simulators that all agree with one
another, at least three of those Apollo missions and especially of
Apollo 16 had the best ever viewing of a sufficiently nearby and
otherwise bright crescent Venus, such as being merely 0.578 AU nearby
and having been on their last day of EVA was I believe rather nicely
situated just above their lunar sunrise horizon, as being available at
nearly 30 degrees below the sun (2.5 days past sunrise). The Apollo 14
mission of February 5/6, 1972 is when a better than half illuminated
view of Venus was situated behind though I believe unavoidably showing
itself as just below Earth. As of their initial encounter of the July
20, 1969 timeline is when our supposed Apollo-11 landing was shortly
after sunrise and Venus was also representing a good crescent of being
somewhat less than looking half illuminated and unavoidably situated
quite a few degrees off center from Earth at roughly 44 away from the
sun, and if Earth was at nearly 90° = Venus at 46° away from Earth
and thereby nearly impossible to have photographically avoided from day
one (especially within most any wide angle shot). After all, folks,
that pesky vibrant orb of Venus is simply so much so unavoidably
brighter than Earth, and as for being such, isn't that representing the
best ever good news in town, or what?

In a few other dyslexic words; If you can manage to photograph the
extremely low albedo of that physically dark lunar terrain (especially
representing an even darker albedo of photographic saturation shortly
after sunrise), plus that of including the 0.36 albedo crescent Earth,
how absolutely simple could it have been to having included a
photographic shot or two that would have included Venus, or otherwise
how difficult as having to avoid that rather pesky 0.8 albedo of Venus.
After all, Venus isn't exactly representing itself as any less than
pin-point speck of some distant star, now is it.

According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...ram_angles.png
When Venus is passing nearby Earth and the moon is situated on the
opposite side, Venus as viewed from the moon is not likely ever going
to remain as entirely hidden by the large blocking disk area of Earth.

The Apollo 14 mission timeline of including February 4 is when Venus
was along side and otherwise just slightly below, whereas February 5,
1972 is when a silghtly greater than half illuminated view of Venus was
only 0.775 AU and situated as though behind though I believe
unavoidably showing itself as depicted in most any simulator edge-view
that'll depict Venus as residing just below Earth, and February 6
headed just to the other side and still hanging a bit low, whereas any
good solar simulator would put it exactly where it had to be and even
establish the proper albedo as a relative brightness of Venus in direct
relationship to that of our otherwise less than half the albedo worth
of Earth. Being days past lunar sunrise (sunrise = 12.2 solar
degrees/day) means that a crescent Earth would have been photographiced
as measurably depicted as being less than half illuminated.

Unlike yourself, I'm using the likes of free solar system simulators
and of otherwise taking advantage of whatever's online, whereas
yourself having access to that spendy CRAY supercomputer or of having
something better to work with, will have not only far better numbers
but also very realistic animation that's quite accurate.

BTW No.3; it's impossible that most others within the supposed know
(such as yourself) haven't known about all of this relationship of our
Apollo missions in association with our physically dark moon of 0.072
albedo and that of that unavoidable 0.8 albedo of Venus, as well as
Kodak couldn't possibly have not known about this entire part of our
perpetrated cold-war ruse/sting of the century from the very get go.

If those moon surface shadows are depicted as being properly quite long
(aka shortly after sunrise), whereas then you'd have to think a bright
crescent of Earth would have to be of somewhat less than half
illuminated and as being the expected norm, and for otherwise
representing a fairly good amount of earthshine.

In the well proven science of "photogrammetric rectification", how can
the Apollo view of Earth be represented as a given illuminated
percentage that's ever much greater than 1/2 Earth, as for offering
such a greater percentage of a solar illuminated orb, whereas the solar
generated shadows as having been indicated upon that moon as sometimes
having been depicted as being rather short, as though suggesting our
moon as having been well past the 1/2 phase as viewed from Earth? In
other words, how the heck did some of those Apollo EVA shadows get to
being so short?

Besides our moon being physically nearly dark as coal, and otherwise
getting itself instantly double IR hot by each minute of the day, and
otherwise a bit more than subfrozen by way of whatever's fully shaded
and especially by night, whereas our moon has also been quite
unavoidably worse off in sharing worthy amounts of gamma and of the
unavoidable secondary/recoil hard-X-ray dosage than any bad and lethal
zones identified within the Van Allen belts. Physically our moon has
been essentially offing itself as that of a solid form of a nasty Van
Allen zone, that's basically damn lethal as all get out.

Which means that folks are either more dumb and dumber than merely
pretending at their being dumbfounded, or otherwise as merely that of
absolute certified liars. Such as this following lie as offered by
"Scott Dorsey".
Scott Dorsey; Ektachrome doesn't even have the range to
capture sun-lit landscapes all by themselves...
Besides all of the hard-science proof that's easily replicated from
Kodak and from any number of other independent sources, whereas even
those phony NASA/Apollo EVA images is what more than proves this
pathetic "Scott Dorsey" statement about Ektachrome film is simply
another scripted from of their damage-control and outright lies upon
lies.

BTW No.4; There's also more than a sufficient number of peer qualified
astrophysics and/or of perfectly good orbital software (including those
offered by NASA) that'll prove that I'm sufficiently right as rain
about the location of Venus in relationship to that of our moon and
that of Earth, and that I'm right about more than a few other
interesting items that should have been unavoidably photo recorded. So
lo and behold, with a little expertise and a good simulator at hand, it
seems that we don't actually have to go there, now do we.

I've asked of the pro NASA/Apollo folks to take this next friendly
tidbit of info, and shove it!
Photoshop for Astrophotographers
http://www.astropix.com/PFA/SAMPLE1/SAMPLE1.HTM
Dynamic range is the amount of difference between the brightest and
darkest ... Kodak's Ektachrome 200 is an excellent choice for deepsky
because there will be more contrast, not only between faint parts of
the nebulosity, but also between the faint nebulosity and the sky
background.

In a few other words, the the 'D-Max" of Kodak Ektachrome offers far
better DR(dynamic range) than most any color print film that's good for
8 f-stops.

"Kodak's Kodachrome has a D-Max of about 3.7, which is almost twelve
stops"
I'd previously arrived at 11.7 ~ 12.96 stops, although that's somewhat
unavoidably limited by whatever the lens introduces, thus you might
count on roughly 7+ f/stops unless using the Carl Zeiss quality of lens
along with a polarised element, by which shouldn't have any difficulty
pushing and/or allowing that Ektachrome range of contrast to offering
better than 9 usable f/stops, 10 maximum upon being properly scanned =
1023:1, and if that were properly PhotoShop extended = 2047:1.

Bob Monaghan recently had this to say:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...bbe950330f1dd4
Film Film Dmax Contrast [n.b. 4096:1 is 12 stops]
Vericolor 5072 (neg-pos) 3.9 D 8000:1
Kodachrome 25 3.8 D 6300:1
Kodachrome 64 3.7 D 5000:1
Ektachrome 64 3.7 D 5000:1
Ektachrome 100GX 3.8 D 6300:1
Ektachrome 100plus EPP 3.8 D 6300:1
Fuji Velvia 50 RVP 3.8 D 6300:1
Fuji Velvia 100 RVP100F 3.8 D 6300:1
Fujichrome EI 100 3.6 D 4000:1

in short, lots of us work with films which have 12 or more
stops of dynamic range.
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byaut...al-projection/

So, exactly whom's into kidding whom?
Which only means that you folks are either playing this game as though
dumbfounded or that you're actually certified liars (I think it's a
little of both), as well as for that of our incest cloned "Scott
Dorsey" that's into continually lying his mainstream status quo worth
of NASA's infomercial-science as based upon their own conditional laws
of physics, and of their otherwise mutually having accomplished
boat-loads of the usual disinformation sucking and blowing each of
their infomercial butts off.
Scott Dorsey; Ektachrome doesn't even have the range to
capture sun-lit landscapes all by themselves...
Besides all of the available hard-science proof that's easily
replicated from Kodak and otherwise obtained from any number of other
independent sources, whereas even those NASA/Apollo EVA images is
offering us more than what proves this statement of his is simply
another mainstream formulated damage-control lie, just like all of the
butt-ugly lies of his close friend and resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

In addition to there being a few other items of somewhat keen
photographic interest that would only benefit the NASA/Apollo argument,
how about you folks show us an official NASA/Apollo image as having
included that of our physically dark moon, and if need be to include
the less than half crescent worth of mother Earth, along with that of
the good old unavoidable Venus as being situated somewhere in that
crystal clear blackness between Earth and otherwise above all of that
physically dark and nasty lunar terrain, or perhaps simply shut the
hell up.

Remember that modern solar system simulators can easily prove as to
exactly where the sun, Earth and Venus was located at the time, in
specific relationship to their camera being situated upon the moon, and
as for such as Venus being unavoidably viewable by those of our
rad-hard moonsuit astronauts as supposedly having been accomplishing
all of those unfiltered Kodak moments that were not only double IR
immune but fully rad-hard to boot, that which photographically should
not have had any problems whatsoever in their having quite nicely
recorded such Kodak moments as for those having an unobstructed
look-see at good old Venus.

Since a perfectly good view of Venus would have been so often
unavoidable, and otherwise rather easily included within frame of most
any given photo opportunity that was pointed as even half-ass in the
right direction, and thereby having extensively proven to a near
absolute matter of fact that we'd walked upon that moon; why the heck
do you folks suppose that our NASA intentionally erased/eliminated
Venus from each and every one those Apollo missions?
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
No wonder GUTH Venus and the LSE-CM/ISS are still taboo/nondisclosure.

Yeah, no wonder. Guthbot is mad and the LSE is a university in London.
Shocking isn't it?

Brad Guth wrote:

Since a perfectly good view of Venus would have been so often
unavoidable, and otherwise rather easily included within frame of most
any given photo opportunity that was pointed as even half-ass in the
right direction, and thereby having extensively proven to a near
absolute matter of fact that we'd walked upon that moon; why the heck
do you folks suppose that our NASA intentionally erased/eliminated
Venus from each and every one those Apollo missions?
-
Brad Guth


How far away (angle in the sky--elongation) from the Sun would Venus
have been during each of the Apollo landing, Brad?

Sam Wormley,
You have known all the right dates, and you also have had the world's
best solar system simulator at your disposal. Go fish, or go suck
another rotten egg for all I care.

This latest update effort has been corrected for those of us thinking
that we've been snookered, but good.

Sam Wormley; How far away (angle in the sky--elongation)
from the Sun would Venus have been during each of the Apollo
landing, Brad?
Just for your benefit, I've included some of those numbers within the
following wall of my newest and hopefully improved dyslexic words, as
having started those roughly half way down this contribution are of my
best estimates as to the angle of Venus from the sun, or from one
mission as having been nearly blocked by Earth. Of course, you folks
having access to nothing but the very best of solar system simulators
and of those spendy supercomputers that we'd bought just for you, thus
each and every one of you folks have always known the truth, didn't
you.

Unlike most others that have been pecking away that the NASA/Apollo
butt, I've never once insisted that our spendy Third Reich Apollo
missions hadn't gotten a little of something at least robotic into
orbiting and otherwise into having impacted that moon. I'm just having
my say that it didn't quite go down according to the extent and way
that we've been informed. Instead being almost exactly what many of us
outsiders have been saying all along. However, I actually tend to
believe that achieving LL-1 is what had been briefly accomplished in
person, although there are many arguments from others sharing their
expertise and thoughts that Apollo could not have gotten that far, and
having lived entirely unscaved as to be telling us about it.

Obviously this argument shall remain as an all or nothing fiasco, much
like our perpetrated cold-war(s), and now much like that absolute oily
and otherwise bloody mess of Iraq that has since gotten others (namely
Jews) back into their Muslim butt kicking mood. And here I'd though
WW-III was still years away.

Obviously the likes of our warm and fuzzy "George Evans" is another one
of those that doesn't believe in the regular laws of physics, nor in
the fully replicated science of others, and it seems that you folks
still can't make your PC/internet search for much of anything that even
George fully intends to either exclude or summarily trash anyway, that
is unless it 100+% supports by every possible interpretation as to suit
your status quo perverted mindset.

This next part is all about the no wonder that "GUTH Venus" and that of
my "LSE-CM/ISS" plus anything else the least bit related are still
officially taboo/nondisclosure, if not getting stalked and wherever
possible as banished topics. In which case, there's no further what
if's, and's or but's about it, that is pertaining to our not having
landed upon that physically dark and nasty moon of our's. Here's some
new and improved numbers, and I've even fixed a few more of those pesky
words and syntax for the old gipper that basically says that we haven't
quite gotten ourselves around to walking upon that physically dark and
nasty moon. Imagine (in jest), that for the very first and only time
in recorded history, that we've been lied to by our government.

In the past, and as of lately, others and I've posted multiple example
images that more than proves we're right, that the physics and
replicated science of Kodak is 100% right, including the regular laws
of physics as imposed by "photogrammetric rectification" are right, and
that the replicated hard-science as what has been contributed from so
many others is absolute proof-positive that a good many of the core
members of this Usenet and of their kind have been nothing but a sorry
borg like pack of incest born-again liars, exactly like our resident
LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

BTW; Venus is not a wussy pin-point of a star. Instead, Venus is
terribly bright and represents many equivalent pixels worth of being an
extremely vibrant item that's nearly impossible to avoid if you're into
accomplishing all of those unfiltered Kodak moments from that 0.072
albedo of such a physically dark and nasty moon.

We see that folks here in Usenet naysay land, of having been imposing
their denial upon denials, are still into avoiding the replicated
hard-science of this and most any other original topic, as well as for
the ongoing banishment as to avoiding whatever's the NASA/Apollo
justification of their somehow having excluded Venus; Can anyone
suggest as to why that is?

Even NASA's public solar system simulators manage to avoid or rather
conveniently exclude that Apollo era of our viewing the lunar horizon
relationship of folks having a good enough simulated look-see at Venus
and Earth as would have been observed and easily photographed from the
physically dark surface of our moon, as rather oddly having such
simulator capability intentionally moderated in their favor of what's
otherwise are spendy and do-everything else simulators. Gee whiz
folks, I wonder why?

The topic(s) as contributed by polaris431 (Elijah Rosenburg); "A
scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon -
photogrammetric rectification" is also getting rather unusually stalked
and bashed, and/or given the Usenet treatment of information banished
because of the truth and nothing but the truth that it clearly
represents.

In spite of all the incessant mainstream status quo flak, I believe
that we village idiots are actually right, in that we each in our own
way claim that our NASA could have easily proven damn near anything if
they'd so intended. The reason(s) why the hard-science that's fully
replicated as to "photogrammetric rectification", and that of my
limited though more than sufficient expertise being within the realm of
perfectly replicated observationology, as to the photographically
recorded spectrums and of the various color saturation, such as based
upon that very terrestrial like spectrum of xenon lamp rather than
having to deal with the raw solar illumination, and of the various
albedo and even starshine issues of so many other items that should
have been unavoidably recorded by those unfiltered Kodak moments is all
being rejected, is perhaps because they each contribute more of the
same absolute proof-positive that we have not landed upon that moon,
nor much less having walked upon that unfortunately radioactive and
otherwise unavoidably reactive little naked moon of ours, that's
actually offering itself as a worse than lethal environment of
TBI(total body irradiation) gamma and hard-X-ray dosage than otherwise
imposed by any portion of what our Van Allen belts represent.

The truth can not be told by these warm and fuzzy Usenet folks, of
seemingly mostly Jewish e-spooks and/or e-moles that like sharing as
much of their PC malware/****ware as they can get away with, and
certainly it has not been otherwise the least bit topic constructive by
way of their having shared in anything that's NASA official that'll
ever accommodate the likes of external science (no matters how
trustworthy or replicated) nor much less consider that of my expertise.
They are not within this status quo or bust Usenet from hell as
representing honest individuals willing to share and share alike in
anything that might tend to prove that we've been lied to (AKA
snookered by way of those of us having "the right stuff").

BTW No.2; some of those Apollo EVA shadows seem to indicate as though
they've gotten well past the 9:00 AM mark (well past the quarter lunar
day). Considering their typical arrivals being shortly after sunrise,
and the extra length of a given lunar day; might we dare to ask if
that's even possible as to having such unusually short shadows?

Since the moon itself has to be that of a rather physically dark
composite of mostly basalt plus whatever else had been solar and cosmic
deposited, and otherwise offering a relatively nonreflective surface
(of an especially lower albedo via sunrise and even of a few days
thereafter), yet never once was there a sign of any secondary shadows
within a given solar generated shadow, of ever having offered any hint
whatsoever of an earthshine generated shadow. Considering the
relatively good DR(dynamic range) of what that unfiltered Kodak film
and of what the extremely good optics had to offer, and of how little
else was getting reflected off the physically dark lunar terrain; is
zero earthshine actually possible?

Of less than a half illuminated Earth is worth roughly 32 fold brighter
illumination from that amount of earthshine than is offered by a full
moon as depicted here on Earth, and if that bluish illumination source
doesn't manage to generate a worthy secondary shadow within a deep
shadow, then I obviously don't know of what else would.

From being situated on the moon, as in no matters what, you simply can
not avoid having the best ever look-see at Venus, not even if you're
one of the all-knowing Gods and wizards of Apollo, or otherwise rated
as smart enough to being involved in most everything else that's
connected with our NASA (supposedly our NASA doesn't hire the likes of
the dumb and dumber, although we'd certainly elected one messed up
warlord).

According to various solar system simulators that all agree with one
another, at least three of those Apollo missions and especially of
Apollo 16 had the best ever viewing of a sufficiently nearby and
otherwise bright crescent Venus, such as being merely 0.578 AU nearby,
whereas Venus having been on their last day of EVA was I believe rather
nicely situated just above their lunar sunrise horizon, as being
available at nearly 30 degrees below the sun (2.5+ days past sunrise).
The Apollo 14 mission of February 5/6, 1971 is when a better than half
illuminated view of Venus was situated behind though I believe
unavoidably showing itself as just below Earth. As of their initial
encounter of the July 20, 1969 timeline is when our supposed Apollo-11
landing was shortly after sunrise and Venus was also representing a
good crescent of being somewhat less than looking half illuminated and
unavoidably situated quite a few degrees off center from Earth at
roughly 44 away from the sun, and if Earth was at nearly 90° = Venus
at 46° away from Earth, thereby nearly impossible to have
photographically avoided from day one (especially within most any wide
angle shot). After all, folks, that pesky vibrant orb of Venus is
simply so much so unavoidably brighter than Earth, and as for being
such, isn't that representing the best ever good news in town, or what?

In a few other dyslexic words; If you can manage to photograph the
extremely low albedo of that physically dark lunar terrain (especially
representing an even darker albedo of photographic saturation that has
to be the case if it's shortly after sunrise), plus that of including
the 0.36 albedo crescent Earth, how absolutely simple could it have
been to having included a photographic shot or two that would have
easily included Venus, or otherwise how difficult as having to avoid
that rather pesky 0.8 albedo of Venus. After all, albedo is albedo
because, an unfiltered look-see at Venus isn't exactly representing
itself as any less than pin-point speck of some distant star, now is
it.

According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...ram_angles.png
When Venus is passing nearby Earth and the moon is situated on the
opposite side, Venus as viewed from the moon is not likely ever going
to remain as entirely hidden by the large blocking disk area of Earth.

The Apollo 14 mission timeline of including February 4 is when Venus
was along side and otherwise just slightly below, whereas February 5,
1971 is when a silghtly greater than half illuminated view of Venus was
only 0.775 AU and situated as though behind though I believe
unavoidably showing itself as depicted in most any simulator edge-view
that'll depict Venus as residing just below Earth, and February 6
headed just to the other side and still hanging a bit low, whereas any
good solar simulator worth it's salt would put it exactly wherever it
had to be and even establish the proper albedo as a relative brightness
of Venus in direct relationship to that of our otherwise less than half
the albedo worth of Earth. Being days past lunar sunrise (sunrise =
12.2 solar degrees/day) means that a crescent Earth would have been
photographiced as measurably depicted as being less than half
illuminated.

Unlike yourself, I'm using the likes of free solar system simulators
and of otherwise taking advantage of whatever's online, whereas
yourself having access to that spendy CRAY supercomputer or of having
something better to work with, will have not only far better numbers
but also very realistic 3D animation that's quite accurate.

BTW No.3; it's impossible that most others within the supposed know
(such as yourself) haven't known about all of this relationship of our
Apollo missions in association with our physically dark moon of 0.072
albedo and that of that unavoidable 0.8 albedo of Venus, as well as
Kodak couldn't possibly have not known about this entire part of our
perpetrated cold-war as being the ultimate ruse/sting of the century
from the very get go.

If those moon surface shadows are depicted as being properly quite long
(shortly after sunrise), whereas then you'd have to think a bright
crescent of Earth would have to be offering somewhat less than being
half illuminated and as being the expected norm, and for otherwise
representing a fairly good amount of bluish earthshine.

Are short shadows even possible?
In the well proven science of "photogrammetric rectification", how can
the Apollo view of Earth be represented as a given illuminated
percentage that's ever of being anything but something less than 1/2
Earth, as for offering such a nicely solar illuminated crescent orb,
whereas those solar generated shadows upon the moon as having been
indicated as sometimes having been depicted as being rather short, as
though suggesting our moon as having gotten itself well past the 1/2
phase as viewed from Earth? In other words, how the heck did some of
those Apollo EVA shadows get to being so short?

Besides our moon being physically nearly sooty dark as coal, and
otherwise getting itself instantly double IR hot by each minute of the
day, and otherwise a bit more than subfrozen by way of whatever's fully
shaded and especially by night, whereas our moon has also been quite
unavoidably worse off in sharing worthy amounts of gamma and of the
unavoidable secondary/recoil hard-X-ray dosage than any of those bad
and lethal zones identified within the Van Allen belts. Physically our
moon has been essentially offing itself as that of a solid form of a
nasty Van Allen zone, that's basically naked and w/o magnetosphere and
thereby damn lethal as all get out.

Which means that far too many folks are either more dumb and dumber
than merely pretending at their being dumbfounded, or otherwise as
merely that of absolute certified liars. Such as this following
example lie as offered by "Scott Dorsey".
Scott Dorsey; Ektachrome doesn't even have the range to
capture sun-lit landscapes all by themselves...
Besides all of the hard-science proof that's easily replicated from
Kodak and from any number of other independent sources, whereas even
those phony NASA/Apollo EVA images is what more than proves this
pathetic "Scott Dorsey" statement about Ektachrome film is simply
another scripted from of their damage-control and outright lies upon
lies.

BTW No.4; There's also more than a sufficient number of peer qualified
astrophysics and/or of perfectly good orbital software (including those
offered by NASA) that'll prove that I'm sufficiently right as rain
about the location of Venus in relationship to that of our moon and
that of Earth, and that I'm right about more than a few other
interesting items that should have been unavoidably photo recorded. So
lo and behold, with a little expertise and a good simulator at hand, it
seems that we don't actually have to go there, now do we.

I've asked of the pro NASA/Apollo folks to take this next friendly
tidbit of info, and shove it!
Photoshop for Astrophotographers
http://www.astropix.com/PFA/SAMPLE1/SAMPLE1.HTM
Dynamic range is the amount of difference between the brightest and
darkest ... Kodak's Ektachrome 200 is an excellent choice for deepsky
because there will be more contrast, not only between faint parts of
the nebulosity, but also between the faint nebulosity and the sky
background.

In a few other words, the the 'D-Max" of Kodak Ektachrome offers far
better DR(dynamic range) than most any color print film that's good
enough for 8 f/stops.

"Kodak's Kodachrome has a D-Max of about 3.7, which is almost twelve
stops"
I'd previously arrived at 11.7 ~ 12.96 stops, although that's somewhat
unavoidably limited by whatever the lens introduces, thus you might
count on roughly 7+ f/stops unless using the Carl Zeiss quality of lens
along with a polarised element, by which shouldn't have any difficulty
pushing and/or allowing that Ektachrome range of contrast to offering
better than 9 usable f/stops, 10 maximum upon being properly scanned =
1023:1, and if that were properly PhotoShop extended = 2047:1.

Bob Monaghan recently had this to say:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...bbe950330f1dd4
Film Film Dmax Contrast [n.b. 4096:1 is 12 stops]
Vericolor 5072 (neg-pos) 3.9 D 8000:1
Kodachrome 25 3.8 D 6300:1
Kodachrome 64 3.7 D 5000:1
Ektachrome 64 3.7 D 5000:1
Ektachrome 100GX 3.8 D 6300:1
Ektachrome 100plus EPP 3.8 D 6300:1
Fuji Velvia 50 RVP 3.8 D 6300:1
Fuji Velvia 100 RVP100F 3.8 D 6300:1
Fujichrome EI 100 3.6 D 4000:1

in short, lots of us work with films which have 12 or more
stops of dynamic range.
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byaut...al-projection/

So, exactly whom's into kidding whom?
Which only means that you folks are either playing this game as though
dumbfounded or that you're actually certified liars (I think it's a
little of both), as well as for that of our incest cloned "Scott
Dorsey" that's into continually lying his mainstream status quo worth
of NASA's infomercial-science as based upon their own conditional laws
of physics, and of their otherwise mutually having accomplished
boat-loads of the usual disinformation sucking and blowing each of
their infomercial butts off.
Scott Dorsey; Ektachrome doesn't even have the range to
capture sun-lit landscapes all by themselves...
Besides all of the available hard-science proof that's easily
replicated from Kodak and otherwise obtained from any number of other
independent sources, whereas even those NASA/Apollo EVA images is
offering us more than what proves this statement of his is simply
another mainstream formulated damage-control lie, just like all of the
butt-ugly lies of his close friend and resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

In addition to there being a few other items of somewhat keen
photographic interest that would only benefit the NASA/Apollo argument,
how about you folks show us an official NASA/Apollo image as having
included that of our physically dark moon, and if need be to include
the less than half crescent worth of mother Earth, along with that of
the good old and unavoidable Venus as being situated somewhere in that
crystal clear blackness between Earth and otherwise above all of that
physically dark and nasty lunar terrain, or perhaps you can simply shut
the hell up.

Remember that modern solar system simulators that can run on a MAC or
PC can easily prove as to exactly where the sun, Earth and Venus was
located at any given time, in specific 3D relationship to any camera
being situated upon the moon, and as for such as Venus being
unavoidably viewable by those of our rad-hard moonsuit astronauts as
supposedly having been accomplishing all of those unfiltered Kodak
moments that were not only double IR immune but of fully rad-hard film
to boot, that which photographically should not have had any problems
whatsoever in their having quite nicely recorded such Kodak moments as
for those frames having an unobstructed look-see at good old Venus.

Since a perfectly good view of Venus would have been so often
unavoidable in at least three of those missions, and otherwise rather
easily included within frame and offering way more than sufficient
saturation for most any given photo opportunity that was pointed as
even half-ass in the right direction, and thereby having extensively
proven to a nearest absolute matter of fact that we'd walked upon that
moon. Therefore, why the heck do you folks suppose that our NASA which
badly needed credit for each and every positive worth of PR and science
achievement award, had instead intentionally avoided and/or having
erased/eliminated Venus from each and every one those Apollo missions?
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
Sam Wormley,
You have known all the right dates, and you also have had the world's
best solar system simulator at your disposal. Go fish, or go suck
another rotten egg for all I care.


Brad let me put you out of your pathetic misery--Venus doesn't
venture very far from the Sun in the lunar sky.

Brad Guth wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

Brad let me put you out of your pathetic misery--Venus doesn't
venture very far from the Sun in the lunar sky.


Sam Wormley,
Good christ almighty on another stick. You sorry naysay son of a
bitch. What a God damn F-ing liar, liar, pants on fire of an incest
cloned Third Reich collaborating bigot.

You are even worse than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), and he's
worse off than Hitler.

You have known all along, as in damn good and well that the vibrant
crescent of Venus would have been absolutely unavoidable, as do all
others of your kind know that we've been lied to by those having "the
right stuff", except that your actions have been far worse than they
have been.

What part of raping humanity for all it's worth is accepted and
promoted within your Jewish koran?
-
Brad Guth


I said that you, Brad, haven't the foggiest idea where Venus
is in the lunar sky... and that film used on the Apollo mission
doesn't have the dynamic range to capture sunlit landscape and
stars simultaneously. Which direction is Venus in the lunar sky,
Brad?

Sam Wormley wrote:
: I said that you, Brad, haven't the foggiest idea where Venus
: is in the lunar sky... and that film used on the Apollo mission
: doesn't have the dynamic range to capture sunlit landscape and
: stars simultaneously. Which direction is Venus in the lunar sky,
: Brad?

I know exactly where Venus was at the times that count, as basicially
above that lunar horizon and in the general direction of our sun, but
Venus is not always inside of Earth as viewed from the physically dark
moon, and I also know that you're still a Jewish collaborating Third
Reich LLPOF of an absolute pagan ******* minion that sucks and blows.
The regular laws of physics, of orbital mechanics and of the replicated
hard-science of Kodak proves that I'm right and that you're not, just
as it proves that you folks have been the worse possible liars from the
very perpetrated cold-war get go. See you in court as we get to
publicly fry your sorry bigoted ass, and of every associated other ass
******* of your incest mutated kind that we can get our hands on (and I
bet you thought being a Muslim was a bad idea).

In addition to all the other status quo crapolla of those Smithsonian
and NASA/Apollo rusemasters and supposed wizards that we honest folks
have to continually deal with, we have the all-knowing likes of
photographic wizard "George Evans" and always that of lord "David
Knisely" and "Sam Wormley" that'll avoid and/or having excluded the
truth at the drop of a typically Jewish hat.

That recent contribution by Ed Conrad of the "SimplyMagic/TightFit.jpg"
is certainly a good one of "Chris Krolczyk, former Smithsonian
anthropologist (and anevolutionist, obviously) does his thing outside
National Museum of Natural History. Krolczyk has left the Smithsonian
to join a carnival" is impressive but otherwise a bit too much to ask
for. Although, at your trial for crimes against humanity, we might
require that you folks perform that very same act as part of your
butt-ugly defense, because that's exactly where your incest bigoted
head would have to have been for the past 4 decades and counting.

However, the rest of Ed Conrad's "RARE PHOTO OF FIRST MAN IN THE MOON
-- FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE" topic is also sharing the truth and nothing but
the truth.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...86a2ae5fb3c491
Ed's 280 million year old stuff goes right along with the sorts of
notions that I've had about the evolution of complex humans taking much
longer to having evolved, or perhaps as having somewhat recently
de-evolved if taking our dip**** GW Bush into account, thereby much
longer than any timeline of what Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution
had suggested. Hundreds of millions if not billions of years sounds
about right, unless we're dealing with some ET 4H efforts of creation
that had been fooling around with a little intelligent design of their
own, and having located a viable planet(Earth) as their
dumping/disposal solution of accomplishing their biohazard isolation,
so that we'd be technically sequestered and thereby couldn't so easily
contaminate other species throughout this vast universe of truly
intelligent life, or even so easily get ourselves to/from other planets
within our solar system.

But then no matters what, we still have to contend with the perverted
mindset likes of our extremely brown nosed NASA/Apollo suck-ups as
"George Evans", "Sam Wormley" and of so many of their mutually incest
mutated kind, that we'll simply have to one by one round up and deal
with.

George Evans; "So even from the earth, Venus is harder
to spot than the moon. I would assume that holds true
when standing within 10 feet of the moon."

Your lordship "assume" wrong, especially pixel per pixel or
photographic film grain per grain is where that vibrant speck of a
crescent Venus is obviously smaller but otherwise so much brighter than
our dark moon. Sorry about that.

I had only used such images of our moon as having other planets and a
few stars like Spica as examples of what can be obtained within the
same exposed frame that's having a look-see at that physically dark
moon of ours. There are even NASA/Apollo images from lunar orbit of
our moon and Earth within the same frame, and if you can see Earth
along with our physically golden dark and otherwise mineral rich moon
is what represents that the likes of having the much brighter though
obviously smaller item of Venus and most any other planet that's within
view is going to become unavoidably included, that is unless having
been PhotoShop removed, or in the case of certain vibrant bluish stars
as having been band-pass filtered out, or simply having been avoided at
all cost. Ektachrome film demonstrated as having more than sufficient
DR to work with (at least 9 f/stops worth), and those were unfiltered
camera and lens applications that would have recorded into the UV-a
spectrum. Therefore, you and others of your kind have no physics nor
scientific basis for your side of this argument, unless the physics and
science of either being dumbfounded or flat out lying counts.

I've already posted those terrestrial obtained image URLs and so much
more... Forget about those atmospherically filtered and otherwise
optically moderated terrestrial shots as having included our moon along
with other planets and of a few stars as being within the same frame.
I'd nicely asked of others, on multiple occasions none the less, as
I'll ask of yourself; as observed From the moon, where's Venus?

For an absolute certainty, on three of those Apollo missions it was
sufficiently nearby and situated somewhere above that physically dark
lunar horizon, and at the time of those three Apollo missions (11, 14
and 16) it was not ever entirely hidden by the moon or Earth, and
without a spectrum filtering atmosphere in between is also why it was
especially damn bright to that unfiltered Kodak eye, by as much a three
fold brighter albedo than the spectrum of the albedo afforded by
earthshine which absorbs a good deal of that UV-a spectrum (making
Earth look as though somewhat bluish and Venus looking a bit violet),
and since there's hardly any moderation nor spectrum filtration
afforded by that wussy lunar atmosphere is exactly why the UV-a
reflected off Venus should have been absolutely impressive to those
unfiltered Kodak moments. As I'd stipulated before, Venus should have
been unavoidably included in at least three Apollo missions of such
extensive picture takings.

Obviously that guano moon that's dusted in portland cement and
representing such a 0.55 to 0.65 reflective/retroreflective surface is
simply not the real thing.

I know for an absolute matter of replicated hard-science and of physics
fact upon fact that Venus was not being nearly as stealth as were all
of those WMD that each of your remorseless naysay kind had otherwise
claimed existed. Of course if you'd dare, you folks could easily have
proven that I'm wrong, but obviously you can't afford to take that
chance or that risk of essentially proving that I'm right.

For certain, the truth and nothing but the truth is going rather nuts
these days, just like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has gone far
beyond nuts (more like 10+ trillion plus butt-loads of his collateral
damage and the nearly endless carnage of the innocent, insane).

With further regard to our seriously rad-hard Apollo astronauts having
easily and rather unavoidably photographed a few sufficiently bright
items other than the physically dark moon itself, and that of mother
Earth that isn't half as humanly albedo bright as Venus and not a third
as unfiltered Kodak moment bright, Brad Guth wrote:
: Eliminating atmospheric filtration, and the matter of fact that the
: unfiltered Kodak film was extremely sensitive to such blue, indigo,
: violet, near-UV and even a bit of UV-a, by which the likes of the
: Sirius star system has way more than it's fair share of such photons.

kmmposting; Reference for that, please.
KODAK, NASA, ESA, team KECK and just about any other source that's
equally approved and replicated to death.

BTW; Where the heck is all of that hard-science of what should have
included moon sodium/salt and other tidbits of lead and the unavoidable
radium deposits from our supposed moon samples?

How can the likes of the moon's radium, lead and of so many other
fundamental heavy elements have vanished? (certainly not into thin air)

Why is having more gravity and of being such a much larger target of
Mars offer a good hundred fold more of those relatively dark surface
deposited meteorites per km2, plus having loads of secondary impact
shards to show us? In other words, how the heck did our moon according
to those NASA/Apollo EVA photographs get so devoid of meteorites and of
such few secondary shards?

Why are those few and far between meteorites and secondary impact
shards, that reside upon our passive guano and portand cement like
moon, of such low contrast (0.45~0.65 albedo), and otherwise w/o
mineral colors?

Why is that highly reflective if not selectively retroreflective
moon-dust that's affording such a nice amount of surface-tension as
offering such terrific physical support as such good clumping
compression capacity and/or simply robust, and otherwise so unusually
shallow, especially when much smaller moons are way more covered in
deep layers of their fluffy moon-dust?

Since the GSO of what our Van Allen belt can be worth 2e3 Sv/year, as
based upon being shielded by 5/16" worth of 5086 aluminum, and since
our naked moon has always been measurably worse off; How the heck did
they do it?

I had asked; "Where do you suppose all of that sodium/salt is coming
from?"
KMM; eh?
KMM, You've got to be absolutely kidding, as even our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) isn't that dumbfounded. The well documented and even
photographed 900,000 km comet like trail of that solar wind extracted
element of sodium away from our moon isn't hardly a secret. In spite
of that NASA/Apollo koran you worship; that physically dark and double
IR roasted to death nasty moon of ours is still as salty as all get
out.

Though "KMM" has provided those nice infomercial-science links of what
we've all been informed of and thus knew about for decades, and
otherwise more of those unfiltered Kodak moments of that guano moon
that's so lightly dusted in such a thin layer of portland cement that's
so bone-dry clumping and/or selectively retroreflective under such
nifty xenon lamp illumination to boot. Thanks ever so much.

I'll ask again as to what's so complicated or otherwise
taboo/nondisclosure about honest folks sharing the truth and nothing
but the truth?

What's so unusable or otherwise taboo about the regular laws of physics
and of the sorts of hard-science that's fully replicated?

What's so unlikely about various individuals of wealth and power and/or
of their puppet governments as having made mistakes or simply having
been dishonest, greedy and highly bigoted?

What's your all-knowing expertise or best SWAG of an answer as to each
of those pesky "blue-screen" frames?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?73
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...?AS14-73-10182
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?72

What's your all-knowing best answers to their having photographed a
greater than half illuminated Earth along with their highly reflective
moon as being well past sunrise, and otherwise that of having recorded
such an unusually slim crescent of Earth as photographed from the moon?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-134-20384.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...87-cropped.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...4/20149603.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS14-66-9329
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS14-66-9331

Once again; WHERE's VENUS ?
On at least three Apollo missions of A-11, A-14, A-16, and especially
since you've all had access to the very best supercomputer and of the
fully interactive 3D solar system simulator that'll fully render a very
photographically realistic (AKA true to life) representation of nearly
all there is as viewed from anywhere at any date and time: Where's
Venus, as having been viewed from the moon?

While you're at it, utilizing that absolutely nifty supercomputer of
ours, and of using that fully interactive 3D capable rendering software
of what that absolutely nifty solar system simulator of ours can
accommodate; where's the likes of the super-bright and otherwise
extreem bluish/violet Sirius star system throughout all of those APOLLO
and of so many other robotic missions before and especially of those
after having at least an extra 4 db or 16 fold better worth of dynamic
range to offer (these days a few of the 16 db capable CCDs are
available as also having been in orbit and otherwise 100+% bought and
paid for by public dollars, as well as via tax-avoidance dollars
(thereby same as public dollars)?

I bet that you folks are not about to tell us village idiots what the
unfiltered Kodak photographic recorded difference is between that of
using a xenon lamp spectrum and that of having to deal with the raw
solar illumination spectrum. In that case I and Kodak or that of other
film manufactures will gladly share and share alike.

Here's another trick question;
With a view of Earth situated within the same frame as obtained from
orbit; Why is that moon of ours of such a deeply rich composite of
golden brown tinted or soot coated basalts and of various other dark
element deposits as having been viewed from orbit, and otherwise
entirely of such clean portland cement and of somewhat lighter
contrasting substances that's absolutely colorless and even somewhat
selectively retroreflective as having been viewed from the surface?

BTW No.2; Ed Conrad (http://www.edconrad.com/) has been saying all
along that man, or at least of something very human or perhaps ET like,
is at the very least as old as coal, and that we haven't yet walked on
that physically dark and nasty moon of ours. got it?

If walking upon that physically nasty and unavoidably dark mineral and
complex meteorite rich moon of ours (representing our best available
solar/cosmic morgue), besides that environment being extremely
electrostatic dusty as all get out (tens of meters in fluffy depth none
the less), I want you folks to think Van Allen belt and TBI dosage
nasty, as in GSO times ten = 2e4 Sv/year while shielded by 5/16" worth
of 5086 aluminum (~2 g/cm2). Gee whiz, folks, that's only worth 228
rads/hr. On a truly bad solar day you can go with that dosage being
another ten fold worse off, and if it's a totally passive solar day
there's no chance in hell of that surface environment offering less
than 23 rads/hr by day and perhaps at best 2.3 rads/hr by the gamma and
unavoidable secondary/recoil in hard-X-rays of the cosmic
nighttime/earthshine while shielded by that same 2 g/cm2. Either way,
you'd best have that personal cash of banked bone marrow standing by,
and perhaps a few of those vital spare body parts just in case things
get a little nastier than you'd planned on. Learn braille and get
yourself a good dog, especially since you could soon become blind.
-
Brad Guth

In article .com,
Brad Guth wrote:

Either way,
you'd best have that personal cash of banked bone marrow standing by,
and perhaps a few of those vital spare body parts just in case things
get a little nastier than you'd planned on. Learn braille and get
yourself a good dog, especially since you could soon become blind.
-
Brad Guth


All that typing gone to waste Brad. Its all ********.

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²

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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
snip nonsense

What a lot of effort to produce nothing of any value. You really are an
idiot. Do you go through keyboards quite often?

T Wake wrote:
: What a lot of effort to produce nothing of any value. You really
: are an idiot. Do you go through keyboards quite often?

Same keyboard for nearly the past decade. How about yourself?

Our resident snookered and somewhat impudent "tomcat" is getting around
to being close enough to the truth, although by season of day the
pressure is likely somewhat less than his jack-off report of 99 bar at
ground zero (perhaps as little as 92 bar), whereas by the season of
nighttime that same zero elevation might represent 96~100 bar.

Going into a Venusian death valley (-3 km) has got to represent itself
as more than a little interesting, as in geothermally hotter yet and
perhaps at times within the season of nighttime is when that valley
atmospheric pressure could become as great as 115 bar (that'll
certainly take a little getting used to).

Basically, on Venus there is no such thing as any local shortage of
easily available energy. Only the most dumbfounded of morons couldn't
manage to light their own farts on Venus (such as yourselves), much
less taking the easy way out of tapping into the 4+ bar/km and of that
nighttime of 10 K/km differential of mostly CO2 which ott to be worth
rather impressive energy that requires bringing nothing from Earth.

I hope this latest topic contribution as an improvement isn't too
imposing of myself.

In spite of what this Usenet and of their mainstream status quo has had
to say all of these decades, and that includes each and every one of
their mainstream publishing puppets and otherwise infomercial-science
for a buck such-ups like the Smithsonian and NOVA, I happen to know
exactly where Venus was at the times that count, as basicially residing
above that Apollo lunar horizon and unavoidably in the general
direction of our sun, but Venus is not always to the inside of Earth as
viewed from ththat physically dark moon. I also know that the
GOOGLE/Usenet insider folks are still nothing but a Jewish
collaborating Third Reich LLPOF cultism, of an absolute pagan and
otherwise ******* minion collective that sucks and blows whenever they
get the opportunity. The regular laws of physics that'll suit their
Einstein, of orbital mechanics that never lies and of the replicated
hard-science of Kodak is what proves that I'm right and that all others
are not, just as it proves that such NASA/Apollo folks have been the
worse possible liars from their very perpetrated cold-war get go. See
you folks in court as we get around to publicly frying each of your
sorry bigoted asses, and of every associated other such ass ******* of
your incest mutated kind that we can get our hands on (and I bet you
folks had thought being Islamic was a bad idea).

In addition to all the other status quo of what's ongoing and up-hill
flowing crapolla of those Smithsonian and of their NOVA and NASA/Apollo
rusemasters of supposed wizards that we honest folks have to
continually deal with, it seems we're stuck with the all-knowing likes
of photographic wizard "George Evans" and as always that of lord "David
Knisely" and "Sam Wormley" that'll systematically avoid and/or having
excluded the truth at the drop of a typically Jewish hat.

That recent contribution by Ed Conrad of the "SimplyMagic/TightFit.jpg"
is certainly a good one of "Chris Krolczyk, former Smithsonian
anthropologist (and anevolutionist, obviously) does his thing outside
National Museum of Natural History. Krolczyk has left the Smithsonian
to join a carnival" is impressive but otherwise a bit too much to ask
for. Although, at each of their trials for crimes against humanity, we
might require that you folks perform that very same act as part of your
butt-ugly defense, because that's exactly where your incest bigoted
head would have had to have been for the past 4 decades and counting,
as your one and only viable defense.

However, the rest of Ed Conrad's "RARE PHOTO OF FIRST MAN IN THE MOON
-- FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE" topic is also sharing the truth and nothing but
the truth.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...86a2ae5fb3c491
or offered by this "EXCLUSIVE PHOTO -- FIRST MAN IN THE MOON"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...326bc56dc99e86

Ed's 280 million year "old as coal" stuff goes right along with the
sorts of notions that I've had about the evolution of complex humans
taking much longer to having evolved, or perhaps as having somewhat
recently de-evolved if taking our dip**** GW Bush into account, thereby
much longer than any timeline of what Charles Darwin's Theory of
Evolution had suggested. Hundreds of millions if not billions of years
sounds about right, unless we're dealing with some ET 4H efforts of
creation that had been fooling around with a little intelligent design
of their own, and having located a viable planet(Earth) as their
dumping/disposal solution of accomplishing their biohazard isolation,
so that we'd be technically sequestered and thereby couldn't so easily
contaminate other species throughout this vast universe of truly
intelligent life, or even so easily get ourselves to/from other planets
within our solar system.

But then no matters what, we still have to contend with the perverted
sick mindset likes of our extremely brown nosed NASA/Apollo suck-ups as
"George Evans", "David Knisely", "Sam Wormley" and of so many of their
mutually incest mutated kind, that we'll simply have to one by one
round up and deal with.

George Evans; "So even from the earth, Venus is harder
to spot than the moon. I would assume that holds true
when standing within 10 feet of the moon."

Your lordship "assume" wrong, especially pixel per pixel or via
photographic film grain per grain is where that vibrant speck of a
crescent Venus is obviously smaller but otherwise so much brighter than
our physically dark moon. Sorry about that.

I had only used such images of our moon as having other planets and a
few stars like Spica as examples of what can be obtained within the
same exposed frame that's having a look-see at that physically dark
moon of ours. There are even NASA/Apollo images from lunar orbit of
our moon and Earth within the same frame, and if you can see Earth
along with our physically golden dark and otherwise mineral rich moon
is what represents that the likes of having the much brighter though
obviously smaller item of Venus and most any other planet that's within
view is going to become unavoidably included, that is unless having
been PhotoShop removed, or in the case of certain vibrant bluish stars
as having been band-pass filtered out, or simply having been avoided at
all cost. Ektachrome film demonstrated as having more than sufficient
DR to work with (at least 9 f/stops worth), and those were unfiltered
camera and lens applications that would have recorded into the UV-a
spectrum. Therefore, you and others of your kind have no physics nor
scientific basis for your side of this argument, unless the physics and
science of either being dumbfounded or flat out lying counts.

I've already posted those terrestrial obtained image URLs and so much
more... I say forget about those atmospherically spectrum filtered and
otherwise optically moderated terrestrial shots as having included our
moon along with other planets and of a few stars as being within the
same frame. I'd nicely asked of others, on multiple occasions none the
less, as I'll ask of yourself; as observed From the moon, where's
Venus?

For an absolute certainty, on three of those Apollo missions it was
sufficiently nearby and situated somewhere above that physically dark
lunar horizon, and at the time of those three Apollo missions
(11/14/16) it was not ever entirely hidden by the moon or Earth, and
without a spectrum filtering atmosphere between is also why Venus was
especially damn bright to that unfiltered Kodak eye, by as much a three
fold brighter albedo than the spectrum of the albedo afforded by
earthshine which absorbs a good deal of that UV-a spectrum (making
Earth look as though somewhat bluish and Venus looking a bit violet),
and since there's hardly any moderation nor spectrum filtration
afforded by that wussy lunar atmosphere is exactly why the UV-a
reflected off Venus should have been absolutely impressive to those
unfiltered Kodak moments. As I'd stipulated before, Venus should have
been unavoidably included in at least three Apollo missions of such
extensive picture takings.

Obviously that guano moon of their's that is dusted in portland cement
and representing such a 0.55 to 0.65 reflective/retroreflective surface
is simply not the real thing.

I know for an absolute matter of replicated hard-science and of physics
fact upon fact that Venus was not being nearly as stealth as were all
of those WMD that each of your remorseless naysay kind had otherwise
claimed existed. Of course, and only if you'd dare, you folks could
easily have proven that I'm wrong, but obviously you can't afford to
take that chance or that risk of essentially proving that I'm right.

For certain, the truth and nothing but the truth is going rather nuts
these days, just like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has gone far
beyond nuts (more like 10+ trillion plus butt-loads of his collateral
damage and the nearly endless carnage of the innocent, insane).

With further regard to our seriously rad-hard Apollo astronauts having
easily and rather unavoidably photographed a few sufficiently bright
items other than the physically dark moon itself, and that of mother
Earth that isn't half as humanly albedo bright as Venus and not a third
as unfiltered Kodak moment bright, Brad Guth wrote:
: Eliminating atmospheric filtration, and the matter of fact that the
: unfiltered Kodak film was extremely sensitive to such blue, indigo,
: violet, near-UV and even a bit of UV-a, by which the likes of the
: Sirius star system has way more than it's fair share of such photons.

kmmposting; Reference for that, please.
KODAK, NASA, ESA, team KECK and just about any other source that's
equally approved and replicated to death.

BTW; Where the heck is all of that hard-science of what should have
included moon sodium/salt and other tidbits of lead and the unavoidable
radium deposits from our supposed moon samples?

How can the likes of the moon's radium, lead and of so many other
fundamental heavy elements have vanished? (certainly not into thin air)

Why is having more gravity and of being such a much larger target of
Mars offer a good hundred fold more of those relatively dark surface
deposited meteorites per km2, plus having loads of secondary impact
shards to show us? In other words, how the heck did our moon according
to those NASA/Apollo EVA photographs get so devoid of meteorites and
having depicted such few secondary shards?

Why are those few and far between meteorites and secondary impact
shards, that reside upon our passive guano and portand cement like
moon, offering such low contrast (0.45~0.65 albedo), and otherwise w/o
hardly any raw mineral colors?

Why is that highly reflective if not selectively retroreflective
moon-dust that's affording such a nice amount of surface-tension, as
offering such terrific physical support of such good clumping
compression capacity and/or simply robust, and otherwise so unusually
shallow, especially when much smaller moons are way more covered in
deep layers of their fluffy moon-dust that isn't the least bit
compacted.

Since the GSO environment of what our Van Allen belt can be worth 2e3
Sv/year, as based upon being shielded by 5/16" worth of 5086 aluminum,
and since our naked moon has always been measurably worse off; How the
heck did they do it?

I had asked; "Where do you suppose all of that sodium/salt is coming
from?"
KMM; eh?
KMM, You've got to be absolutely kidding, as even our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) isn't that dumbfounded. The well documented and even
photographed 900,000 km comet like trail of that solar wind extracted
element of sodium away from our moon isn't hardly a secret. In spite
of that NASA/Apollo koran you worship; that physically dark and double
IR roasted to death nasty moon of ours is still as salty as all get
out.

Though "KMM" has provided those nice infomercial-science links of what
we've all been informed of and thus knew about for decades, and
otherwise more of those unfiltered Kodak moments of that guano moon
that's so lightly dusted in such a thin layer of portland cement that's
so bone-dry yet clumping and/or as having been selectively
retroreflective under such nifty xenon lamp illumination to boot.
Thanks ever so much.

I'll ask again as to what's so complicated or otherwise
taboo/nondisclosure about honest folks sharing the truth and nothing
but the truth?

What's so unusable or otherwise taboo about the regular laws of physics
and of the sorts of hard-science that's fully replicated?

What's so unlikely about various individuals of great wealth and power
and/or of their puppet governments as having made mistakes or simply
having been favorably dishonest, greedy and highly bigoted?

What's your all-knowing expertise or best SWAG of an answer as to each
of these pesky "blue-screen" frames?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?73
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...?AS14-73-10182
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?72

What's your all-knowing best answers to their having photographed a
greater than half illuminated Earth along with their highly reflective
moon as having been well past sunrise, and otherwise that of having
recorded such an unusually slim crescent of Earth as photographed from
the moon?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-134-20384.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...87-cropped.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...4/20149603.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS14-66-9329
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS14-66-9331

Once again; WHERE's VENUS ?
On at least three Apollo missions of A-11, A-14, A-16, and especially
since you've all had access to the very best supercomputer and of the
fully interactive 3D solar system simulator that'll fully render a very
photographically realistic (AKA true to life) representation of nearly
all there is as viewed from anywhere at any date and time: Where's
Venus, as having been viewed from the moon?

While you're at it, utilizing that absolutely nifty supercomputer of
ours, and of using that fully interactive 3D capable rendering software
of what that absolutely nifty solar system simulator of ours can
accommodate; where's the likes of the super-bright and otherwise
extreem bluish/violet Sirius star system throughout all of those APOLLO
and of so many other robotic missions before and especially of those
after having at least an extra 4 db or 16 fold better worth of dynamic
range to offer (these days a few of the 16 db capable CCDs are
available as also having been in orbit and otherwise 100+% bought and
paid for by public dollars, as well as via tax-avoidance dollars
(thereby same as public dollars)?

I bet that you folks are not about to tell us village idiots what the
unfiltered Kodak photographic recorded difference is between that of
using a xenon lamp spectrum and that of having to deal with the raw
solar illumination spectrum. In that case I and Kodak or that of other
film manufactures will gladly share and share alike.

Here's another trick question;
With a view of Earth situated within the same frame as obtained from
orbit; Why is that moon of ours of such a deeply rich composite of
golden brown tinted or soot coated basalts and of various other dark
element deposits as having been viewed from orbit, and otherwise
entirely of such clean portland cement and of somewhat lighter
contrasting substances that's absolutely colorless and even somewhat
selectively retroreflective as having been viewed from the surface?

BTW No.2; Ed Conrad (http://www.edconrad.com/) has been saying all
along that man, or at least of something very human or perhaps ET like,
is at the very least as old as coal, and that we haven't yet walked on
that physically dark and nasty moon of ours. got it?

If walking upon that physically nasty and unavoidably sooty dark
mineral and complex meteorite rich moon of ours (representing our best
available solar/cosmic morgue that has to include loads of dead
spores), besides that environment being extremely electrostatic dusty
as all get out (tens of meters in fluffy depth none the less), I want
you folks to think Van Allen belt and TBI dosage nasty, as in GSO times
ten = 2e4 Sv/year while having been shielded by 5/16" worth of 5086
aluminum (~2 g/cm2). Gee whiz, folks, that's only worth 228 rads/hr.
On a truly bad solar day you can go with that dosage being another ten
fold worse off, and if it's a rare but totally passive solar day
there's no chance in hell of that daytime surface environment offering
less than 23 rads/hr and perhaps at best 2.3 rads/hr by way of the
gamma and unavoidable secondary/recoil in hard-X-rays of the cosmic
nighttime/earthshine environment while shielded by that same 2 g/cm2.
Either way, I'm thinking that you'd best have that personal cash of
banked bone marrow standing by, and perhaps a few of those vital spare
body parts just in case things get a little nastier than you'd planned
on. I would also advise that you learn braille and get yourself a good
dog, especially since you could soon become blind.
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
ups.com...
T Wake wrote:
: What a lot of effort to produce nothing of any value. You really
: are an idiot. Do you go through keyboards quite often?

Same keyboard for nearly the past decade. How about yourself?


What brand is it, because based on your posts it must be able to tolerate
some serious usage. Can you still read all the keys?