|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!
"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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!
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 pseduos¹ you throw in your formulas.² -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!
"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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT!
"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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 22nd 04 08:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | History | 2 | May 22nd 04 02:06 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Policy | 0 | May 21st 04 08:00 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | UK Astronomy | 0 | May 21st 04 06:23 AM |