A scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon - photogrammetric rectification

For anyone that is interested - it will take you about 15 minutes to
find out how wrong Guth is in these claims.

---- Guth wrote: ------------------------

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

------------------------------------------

I don't know what those blue frames are - HTML or photoshop artifacts,
printing errors, who knows. What ever they are, I don't see why they
don't mean much, if anything. And if indeed they were so damning and
indicative of a "conspiracy", do you really think they'd be displayed
so publicly? I mean, if the "conspiracy" is thorough enough to fool the
USSR and everyone else that was tracking flights to the moon with both
radio and optical methods, and fool every geologist and geochemist from
several countries who's been able to examine lunar samples at their
leisure since then using analytical methods that didn't even exist in
1969-1972.... don't you'd think they'd remember to hide their "blue
screens"?

---- Guth wrote: ------------------------

What's your all-knowing best answers to their having photographed a
greater than half Earth and of the highly reflective moon being well
past sun rise, and otherwise that of 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...-134-20387-cro...
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

---------------------------

I never claimed to be "all-knowing", I just have a little bit of common
sense, experience and a little bit of background in this stuff.

Anyone with a PC or Apple can download and install this freeware
(Celestia);

http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

You can simulate views from various places on and off the earth and if
you set your location and time for the moon for the relevant dates, you
can see that Brad is again mistaken when he claims the earth's phases
are wrong. Don't have to take my word for it - do it yourself.

As far as Guth's claim that the sun angles are to high - if you look at
the sun angles for the missions and their EVAs from

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...lsj/frame.html

you will find that they are consistent with the photos given reasonable
amounts of slope on a non-flat lunar surface.

"...In the following table, for each mission we list the landing time
and sun angle; and, then, for each EVA, the start time and sun
elevation and the ending time and sun elevation

Apollo 11

* Landing: 102.75 GET
* EVA
o Start: 109.00 GET, 14.0 deg.
o Finis: 111.75 GET, 15.4 deg.

Apollo 12

* Landing: 110.50 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 115.25 GET, 7.5 deg.
o Finis: 119.25 GET, 9.5 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 131.50 GET, 15.8 deg.
o Finis: 135.50 GET, 17.8 deg.

Apollo 14

* Landing: 108.25 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 113.50 GET, 13.0 deg.
o Finis: 118.50 GET, 15.5 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 131.25 GET, 22.0 deg.
o Finis: 135.75 GET, 24.3 deg.

Apollo 15

* Landing: 104.75 GET
* SEVA
o Start: 106.75 GET, 13.0 deg.
o Finis: 107.25 GET, 13.3 deg.
* EVA-1
o Start: 119.75 GET, 19.6 deg.
o Finis: 126.25 GET, 22.9 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 142.25 GET, 31.0 deg
o Finis: 149.50 GET, 34.7 deg.
* EVA-3
o Start: 163.25 GET, 41.7 deg.
o Finis: 168.25 GET, 44.3 deg.

Apollo 16

* Landing: 104.50 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 119.00 GET, 22.2 deg.
o Finis: 126.00, 25.7 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 142.50 GET, 34.1 deg.
o Finis: 150.00 GET, 37.9 deg.
* EVA-3
o Start: 165.50 GET, 45.8 deg.
o Finis: 171.25 GET, 48.7 deg.

Note: The Apollo 16 landing was delayed by a bit less than 6 hours. The
following are the data for the planned EVAs.

Apollo 16 (as planned)

* Landing: 98.75 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 102.25 GET, 13.7 deg.
o Finis: 109.25 GET, 17.2 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 124.75, 25.1 deg.
o Finis: 132.25, 28.9 deg.
* EVA-3
o Start: 152.50 GET, 39.2 deg.
o Finis: 158.25 GET, 42.1 deg.

Apollo 17

* Landing: 113.00 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 117.00 GET, 15.3 deg.
o Finis: 124.25 GET, 19.0 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 140.50 GET, 27.3 deg.
o Finis: 148.25 GET, 31.2 deg.
* EVA-3
o Start: 163.50 GET, 39.0 deg.
o Finis: 170.75 GET, 42.6 deg.

EVAs Sorted by Sun Angle at EVA Start

* Apollo 12 EVA-1 7.5 - 9.5
* Apollo 14 EVA-1 13.0 - 15.5
* Apollo 15 SEVA 13.0 - 13.3
* Apollo 11 EVA-1 14.0 - 15.4
* Apollo 17 EVA-1 15.3 - 19.0
* Apollo 12 EVA-2 15.8 - 17.8
* Apollo 15 EVA-1 19.6 - 22.9
* Apollo 14 EVA-2 22.0 - 24.3
* Apollo 16 EVA-1 22.1 - 25.7
* Apollo 17 EVA-2 27.3 - 31.2
* Apollo 15 EVA-2 31.0 - 34.7
* Apollo 16 EVA-2 34.1 - 37.9
* Apollo 17 EVA-3 39.0 - 42.6
* Apollo 15 EVA-3 41.7 - 44.2
* Apollo 16 EVA-3 45.8 - 48.7 "


--- Guth wrote: -----------------------------

Once again; WHERE's VENUS ?

------------------

Well, Venus has to be where the camera is pointed. The Apollo crews
were documenting geological field work while on the moon, not doing
astrophotography for the most part. And if you do have Venus in your
field of view, it still will take much longer exposure times than would
be used in anything like daylight settings to get a decent image of
Venus. For examples of photographs that do show venus, google "Venus
exposure time conjunction" and one of the first web sites you'll see
listed is one that features many decent photos of planetary
conjunctions. You will also see the needed exposure times:

http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/j...050708_09.html

Camera: Olympus OM-1 35mm SLR on fixed tripod
Film: Fuji Provia 100F slide
Focal length: 100 mm
Apertu f/4
Exposure time: 3 seconds

Venus & Jupiter

http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/j...050829_24.html

Camera: Olympus OM-1 35mm SLR on fixed tripod
Film: Fuji Provia 100F slide
Focal length: 40 mm
Apertu f/4
Exposure time: 4 seconds

Venus-Jupiter-Moon-Spica

http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/j...050906_02.html

Camera: Olympus OM-1 35mm SLR on fixed tripod
Film: Fuji Provia 100F slide
Focal length: 100 mm
Apertu f/4
Exposure time: 5 seconds

Many more at

http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/JoeMoon.html

and you'll note the use of multi-second exposure times - typical for
these kind of photographs. So even if Venus were 10 times brighter from
the moon's surface, you're still talking about very sizable fractions
of a second exposure times which would never be used to normal
situations, such as photographing anything that might be moving (like
an human) or pretty much anything that is not moving without a tripod.

As far as getting Sirius on film goes, see

"Photographing Stars" at
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...lsj/frame.html :

"....All of the photos taken while the crews were outside the LM were
taken at an exposure of 1/250th of a second at f/8 or f/11, excepting
some polarization pictures taken at 1/125th of a second. The two film
types were SO 368 Ektachrome MS color-reversal film ASA 64 and 2485
black and white film, ASA 6000.

Sky and Telescope Senior Editor Dennis di Cicco writes, "Sirius and a
few other bright stars might actually be bright enough to have recorded
on the exposures, but the images would be impossibly small and hard to
find on the original negatives. Furthermore, when such a negative was
printed to show the foreground properly, it certainly would not have
shown the star(s)" di Cicco notes that it would be easy to perform such
an experiment on Earth. "Go out at night with a similar setup used for
the lunar photos and take a similar exposure of bright stars. Develop
the film and see if you can find any star images. Then, have the
negative printed with an exposure that would be proper for a normally
exposed daylight negative. I am confident that you'll never, ever see a
star on the print!"

Journal Contributor Markus Mehring writes, "Just to follow up on this,
in theory, you'd have a better chance to spot stars on b/w photos than
on color photos, since the b/w film has a wider contrast range (which
was one reason why it was used so much, the other reason being its
superior sharpness). But Dennis is, of course, perfectly right; while
the light from a star would certainly suffice to have a chemical effect
on the film emulsion, you'd never be able to see this if the film is
developed regularly. If you wanted to see those stars, you'd need to
pull up the contrast so much during development of the film that the
objects of interest on the Moon - astronauts, rocks, mountains - would
be totally overexposed. And this is, of course, never done, since these
are the objects of interest in these photos." Science writer James
Oberg recently called my attention to an experiment he conducted in
1979, similar to the one di Ciccio describes above. Oberg writes, "Here
are two images I made in 1979 as an experiment in response to Bill
Kaysing's first book on the 'Apollo Hoax', where he asked about the
stars. I set up my camera on a tripod outside under a bright
streetlight, took one shot with an exposure to capture me (about 1/4
second), then took a second one with a 30-sec exposure to capture the
stars which had been behind me all the time, but simply hadn't
registered in the illuminated scene. Anybody can perform this
experiment and thereby get the answer to the phony question, 'Where are
the stars?......"

kmmpost,
Thanks for all the self-incriminating as well as NASA/Apollo
incriminating evidence, as it'll only further help my research and
future ability as to best convey the truth and nothing but the truth,
which obviously doesn't mean squat to the likes of yourself.

BTW; your GOOGLE/Usenet of disinformation from hell is right back on
it's knees again. At least my PC is being moderated or otherwise
banished to the fullest extent.

Obviously there's nothing you've contributed that's the least bit
independent of NASA, nor have you demonstrated by way of offering any
externally replicated scientific results from all that's available, in
proving that others and myself are the least bit wrong. In fact, those
terrestrial filtered and thus highly spectrum limited images of our
moon and Venus only goes to further prove that such a terrific degree
of photographic saturation was easily and unavoidably within the
photographic scope of that film, as well as for Venus and a few other
items being available to those unfiltered Kodak moments as supposedly
obtained from that absolutely naked but otherwise physically dark and
nasty moon of our's. Therefore, evidence exclusion and/or strict
avoidance of anything specific is still of what's at all cost your
middle name.

I guess that previous 1/2 second exposure at f/32+ doesn't count any
more so than invisible/stealth WMD counts for anything that's within
your koran/(old testament), or of the vast collateral damage and
ongoing carnage of the innocent, and of everything else that's busting
lose is obviously just as it should be.

Apparently your film DR sucks as though something nasty. GOT ACTUAL
APOLLO FILM? GOT ANY FILM FROM WITHIN THE VAN ALLEN EXPANSE OR BEYOND?

Here's a few of my suggestions and otherwise a few more of those pesky
questions of my very own.

Why the heck isn't your "soc.culture.jewish" collective involved in
this nifty topic?

Was it something that others and that I'd said? (such as the truth and
nothing but the truth)

You'll need to ask yourself; what's the least bit anti-Islam or
anti-Jewish about there being other intelligent life on Venus,
especially since they too could be Islamic or perhaps Jewish, or at the
very least Cathar for all we know.

Apparently most Jews are not actually smart enough or otherwise honest
enough as to realize that technically it only takes one such Kodak
moment as having been proven as being phony. How many hundreds of
those easily proven as phony (AKA hocus-pocus) Kodak moments of our
NASA/Apollo EVA fiasco would you folks like to review?

Obviously if you're into reading this, you're either one of them (AKA
the bad guys) or you're just as snookered and otherwise as dumbfounded
as I was 7+ years ago.

Isn't of what I've discovered and/or uncovered the least bit NOBEL
PRIZE worthy?

Why the heck can't I become the first Mennonite to win a Nobel?

From: Amanda Angelika
:But I don't think that proves they didn't do it. It just means it
:was difficult to fully document what they did with the photographic
:and video technology of 1969 and the 1970s. And of course these days
ractically everyone has some sort of Video Camera or video technology

:and are more aware of how such things work, so fakery becomes more
bvious to the public as time goes on.

In other words, yourself and others that most likely 100+% support all
that's NASA/Apollo have an acceptable level of LLPOF conditional
physics and of hocus-pocus science plus evidence exclusion, as long as
it lets yourself and of your kind pretend that we've been walking on
that physically dark and otherwise extremely nasty moon of ours.

Please list all the laws of physics that you folks do not believe in.

Please list all of the replicated hard-science that doesn't count.

I guess this means you folks also have an acceptable level of
collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, that's obviously on
behalf of supporting your perpetrated cold-war(s) and of whatever else
your mainstream status quo requires of it's little brown nosed minions.

There was nothing new about Kodak film back then or now that would
explain away those images that look as though so entirely phony as all
get out, and that's even as based upon their very own robotic obtained
images that were developed while on the fly and having been scanned and
digital/microwave transferred back to Earth, as for their having shown
us an entirely different and otherwise perfectly believable moon from
orbit than from the actual surface. Thus far, there is no actual
original film that we can review as derived back from being within the
Van Allen belts, or much less from whatever's beyond because, such well
shielded film (especially of being nearby that terribly gamma and
hard-X-ray moon of ours) simply had to be developed right then and
there, or else.

The Van Allen expanse is perhaps at most worth 10 db of radiation
moderation from what our moon has to offer, or possibly it represents
something slightly less than 7 DB. Either way, it's what's primarily
saving us from being radiated to death by our moon. Oddly, the
hard-science that pertains to our moon and of those Van Allen belts
from team ACE and of every other available robotic mission is moderated
to death and/or sequestered, remaining as though taboo/nondisclosure if
such science could have any impact upon the truthful knowledge that's
pertaining to our moon. Even team KECK and of more recently team
MESSENGER had avoided our moon, and so forth.

OOPS!, it seems at times I've broken GOOGLE's Usenet. Sorry about
that. Now it's as though whenever I've contributed my dyslexic
encrypted truth is when the entire access to this anti-think-tank of
this disinformation Usenet from hell comes to a near halt (I have
pigeons that are a whole lot faster at transferring packets, and
certainly as otherwise more trustworthy).

In spite of these all-know wizards, rusemasters and those members of
their Third Reich collaborating kind that can't seem to honestly
address their own Kodak documented issues of "photogrammetric
rectification", of a greater than half illuminated Earth while being
days past sunrise on the moon, of the extremely slight crescent of
Earth as supposedly obtained from the lunar deck of what's extensively
xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, nor as to any of those oops!
blue-screen images, or for that matter anything as having to do with
those fly-by-rocket landers or even the impressive task that can't be
replicated of getting nearly 50t into orbiting our moon so quickly,
along with those spare tonnes of reaction thrusting fuel (especially
fuel intensive since not having any momentum reaction wheels to work
with), plus loads of their essential retrothrust and other fuel tonnage
for returning home as entirely unscaved along with all of that Kodak
film that supposedly hadn't yet been developed, whereas I'm doing the
very best that I can to fix my words and to improve upon the syntax and
math.

Obviously the regular laws of physics and of the replicated science
truth is what's bothering these folks the most (unfortunately, knowing
an fo sharing the truth and having supposed friends of your own kind in
high places didn't do much good for Jesus Christ, nor had any of those
nice Cathars been spared that were simply being good folks that had
been extremely well educated and subsequently making the Pope look as
though a little greedy and arrogant). Sorry about that (go suck
another dozen rotten eggs), because once you're dead and gone is when
it really doesn't matter, does it.

Instead of our having a few good religions on Earth (assuming that
being Jewish qualifies), it seems we have dozens of extremely touchy if
not a few too many bad ones that are going postal from time to time, by
way of their having under/over reacted on just about anything you can
think of. I guess my having a Mennonite background of our folks being
those of a somewhat non blood thirsty (Cathar like) group of moderate
and considerate souls doesn't even count, especially these days when
it's all about having the most oil, coal and natural gas is the one and
only pagan God of politics on steroids that matters, whereas being a
certified born-again liar and Skull and Bones member in good standing
is what makes you president.
-
Brad Guth

KMM,
What an absolute born-again liar, as from such a topic avoidance
rusemaster that's hard at work defending your mainstream status quo.

:Well, Venus has to be where the camera is pointed. The Apollo crews
:were documenting geological field work while on the moon, not doing
:astrophotography for the most part. And if you do have Venus in your
:field of view, it still will take much longer exposure times than
would
:be used in anything like daylight settings to get a decent image of
:Venus. For examples of photographs that do show venus, google "Venus
:exposure time conjunction" and one of the first web sites you'll see
:listed is one that features many decent photos of planetary
:conjunctions. You will also see the needed exposure times:

Is that what the buttology of your Third Reich told you to say, or
else?

I've already posted that 1/2 second exposure at f/32+, and there are
many other examples. In other words, go to hell.

Being that Venus is only the second brightest item in the sky, lets see
what else can you lie to us about?
-
Brad Guth

Will this thread ever die? Between this thread, all of the Trolls and all of
the folks falling for the Troll bait, and Brad Gooth, this newsgroup is
really going down the tubes. :-(

kmmposting,
We see that yourself and that of our "Sam Warmley" are still every bit
as sucking and blowing at your usual status quo version of intellectual
disinformation or bust, as offering more of the same mainstream
infomercial flatulence as science that apparently doesn't have to go by
way of any stinking laws of physics, nor having to worry about
replicated science.

Sam Wormley wrote:
: Hmmmm... EV = log((32^2) / (1/2)) / log(2) = 11
:
: Pretty poor exposure for sunlit landscape or the night sky!
: http://www.google.com/search?q=log((32^2)/(1/2))/log2

Never the less, it worked perfectly fine and dandy, with photons to
spare.

Moon and Spica (first magnitude of 0.98)
http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/j...051225_02.html
Date: December 25, 2005
Time: 6:35 a.m. MST
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Camera: Olympus OM-1 35mm SLR on fixed tripod
Film: Fuji Provia 100F slide
Focal length: 600 mm (200mm lens with 3X tele-extender
Apertu f/11 (effective f/32)
Exposure time: approximately 1/2 second
Scanner: Nikon Coolscan LS-2000 (cropped slightly)

BTW - Venus is the 3rd brightest object in the sky.
Sun & moon are brighter.
Is not true, and it only proves that you're a liar.

Imagine how much brighter the full and unfiltered spectrum worth of
Venus would have been, as for having been unavoidably obtained as an
unfiltered Kodak moment from that physically dark (coal like) moon.
Too bad that it's nothing but the truth.

BTW - Venus by that of albedo and of having 2600+ w/m2 to work with is
by far the brightest of available targets, second only to the sun. If
it were made to look as large an item as our moon, as viewed from the
same distance as Venus was at the time, then how much brighter than
Earth or the moon would that whole portion of Venus represent itself?

In other words, making the illuminated portion of the otherwise
physically dark moon as cut down to the same observed size as Venus,
and there'd be no contest as to which target was the brighter of items
to be looking at, because we're talking about pixel per pixel or grain
per grain brightness and not as though the whole target is involved.

Guess what else; the closer you get yourself to that moon surface, the
darker that illuminated surface becomes as to what your spectrum
limited human eye perceives, as it sure as hell doen't get itself
brighter as having been depicted by those hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo EVA
photographs of that guano and portland cement and otherwise entirely
passive moon of their's. Oops! laws of physics and of replicated
hard-science again, sorry about that.

Obviously you don't have an actual photographic clue without having to
beg for the full brown-nosed support of your hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo
team of rusemasters.

Obviously by way of those better solar system simulators are proving
that I'm right about A-11, A-14 and A-16 as being unavoidably imposed
upon by the light of Venus, and of essentially every mission from orbit
as having an even better photo oppertunity to have included Venus and
unless specificlly bandpass filtered out, even a few of the brighter
stars along with that physically dark moon (guano and portland cement
doesn't count as being physically dark) should have done a perfectly
fine job, especially since any properly saturated image taking on that
moon would have demanded using at leas two less f/stops or as much as
four fold the amount exposure time, especially if looking sufficiently
away from the sun and a little more so from otherwise having been using
their polarised optical element might have to suggest even more.

BTW No.2; I believe there is no such Apollo or any other film of
whatever's original, that wasn't automatically processed on the fly,
and within at most a few minutes after having been exposed.
Undeveloped film can only take so much radiation without measurably
losing image quality. Therefore, the better shielded and the sooner
the better for processing that film because, aluminum is nearly a
transparent optical lens or window to hard-X-rays, and otherwise almost
entirely transparent to gamma, and of lead actually isn't much better
since it'll unavoidably generate more of the secondary/recoil worth of
those even nastier hard-X-rays in the process of moderating on behalf
of what 2.5+" worth of lead necessary for cutting the gamma dosage by
only 50%.

Venus greatest elongation / maximum is 47.8° from the sun, so
shooting it might be a problem if it's anywhere but just above
the horizon. Vensu may or may have not been in such a position
during an Apollo mission - I do not know, except for Apollo 17
when it was too close to the sun to photograph. You seem to think
I have some kind of super computer, but I don't. Anyone can use
Celestia and verify the moon phases as seen in photographs:
Why are you saying this, as though I haven't mentioned a damn word as
to which Apollo missions are of the most interest, and as though others
including yourself haven't accomplished the simulations which only
proves that I'm right?

Celestia is expandable. Celestia comes with a large catalog of
stars, galaxies, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and spacecraft.
If that's not enough, you can download dozens of easy to install
add-ons with more objects...."
Which only goes to prove that I'm right, because otherwise you'd have
run the Celestia simulator and thus having easily proven that I'm
wrong.

Also, when everyday people criticize you and you reply with
accusations of being a "rusemaster", "mole", "absolute born-again
liar", it just makes you look that much more nutty & paranoid.
Just a piece of friendly advice...
Folks that you obviously associate yourself with are supposedly
educated, and they've proven time and again as to how smart they are,
thus when I'm being stalked, bashed and/or banished because I'm the guy
that's stuck with using the regular laws of physics and of taking
hard-science that's replicated in good faith, is why I know for a
matter of fact when I'm being snookered (AKA lied to ) by those
claiming that we've walked on that gamma and hard-X-ray lethal moon of
ours, that which NASA/Apollo makes rather oddly look as though it's a
passive guano island that's dusted in a thin layer of portland cement,
where apparently the regular laws of physics and of astro physics or
even of orbital mechanics don't count, and of whatever replicated
hard-science goes out the nearest window.

If you want to keep excluding upon the replicated hard-science of
others, and even excluding your own NASA/Apollo evidence whenever it
suits your fancy, then no matters what you can't be helped, regardless
of the honest laws of physics or of whatever any "photogrammetric
rectification" or that of what plain old Kodak photographic proven
science has to behold.

You haven't a viable fly-by-rocket lander.
You haven't rad-hard astronauts nor film.
You haven't specifics as to the LL-1 zone.
You haven't samples from our moon, other than terrestrial.
You haven't a stitch of moon or Van Allen science from ACE.
You haven't even sufficient rocket-science as to manage getting nearly
50t into orbiting our moon.

The Saturn-5 had nearly a 30% worth of inert GLOW to deal with (perhaps
a bit worse if including ice loading), and yet somehow managed at
nearly a 60:1 ratio of rocket per playload for getting that tonnage so
quickly into orbiting our moon, which is damn odd when newer and far
more composite and thus much less inert mass worthy efforts that need
80:1 for just accomplishing a one-way ticket to GSO, much less capable
of going for any two-way ticket to/from the moon. Therefore, any one
as smart as yourself knows the truth and is thereby a born-again liar,
just like the Third Reich, or worse.

What got into orbit is a purely the robotic portion of their package,
that took nifty pictures from orbit and having processed those
exposures on the fly, scanned them on the fly and transferred those
images back to Earth, then having impacted the moon on command of
ground control, thus making a bright little crater that's sufficiently
covered in aluminum vapor and debris that's making a good enough
reflection target, that which all of 3 wussy extra photons per minute
can be derived back upon being illuminated such with a powerful laser
beam that's otherwise illuminating 3.14e6 m2 of that otherwise
physically dark moon.

Man has not walked on that moon, and lived to tell about it. Only a
one way ticket is currently doable if it involves the nasty surface of
that physically dark moon, as in being as physically dark as having
been proven by those NASA/Apollo images obtained from orbit, and by
various other independent methods ever since that more than proves as
to exactly how physically dark and mineral rich that sucker is.

BTW No.2; "everyday people" that criticize the likes of myself are not
your "everyday people". Instead, we're talking about top level
MI/NSA~NASA folks and otherwise the very best spooks and moles they've
got, and they're also doing all they can to terminate my PC as I type.
Thus once again, you're being the born-again liar and arrogant bigot
that sucks and blows.

Good Christ almighty on a stick; Do you folks even know what being
dumb and dumber and thereby snookered is? (apparently not)
-
Brad Guth

Have you ever looked at Venus? or the moon? Are you really saying that
from earth, Venus is brighter than the moon?

If so, you have some severe perception problems...

KMM

Brad Guth wrote:

BTW - Venus is the 3rd brightest object in the sky.
Sun & moon are brighter.
Is not true, and it only proves that you're a liar.

I may sometimes disagree with Sam but astronomically speaking I don't
especially since he can do the math and I can't.

Brad, I suggest that you go and see Col. Edwin Aldrin PhD and see what
he says.

Oh and I wouldn't push the man too terribly far...even though he is in
his 70's I hear he can still deliver a mean right hook.

wrote:
: Have you ever looked at Venus? or the moon? Are you really saying
that
: from earth, Venus is brighter than the moon?

I'm always talking as though I'm an unfiltered Kodak eye, and not that
of such a wussy evolutionary de-evolved spectrum limited human eye,
much less as atmospherically polluted and thus photon moderated to such
an extent. You can not use the whole target as any basis of
brightness, unless you're talking about distant stars that are of far
less than a given photographic grain or pixel. My god are you
pathetic, or what.

What an absolute certified and/or born-again pack of liars, liars and
butt-loads of pants on fire of such brown-nosed borgs you folks are
(incest cloned none the less).

If you as a rad-hard astronaut can manage to photograph the physically
dark moon, it's therefore technically impossible not to have
photographed Venus, and from time to time within the same frame as that
of the dark and nasty moon itself.

Christ almighty on another stick, there's even official NASA/Apollo
Ektachrome as having our sun and moon within the same frame. I guess
the DR of that film was even better off once having been extra
double-IR boiled and otherwise gamma and hard-X-ray irradiated to
death.

Your infomercial-science simply isn't worth crapolla, even if it's
flowing like gang busters up hill.
Therefore the variation in brightness between the surface of the Moon
and say Venus is over 15 Million times.
Whereas the variation in brightness between the surface of the Moon and
½ full Earth is about 10,000 times, a much easier photo.
Get rid of the atmospheric filtering and spectrum skew, eliminate any
optical filters (except for the polarised element that should have made
their guano and portland cement lunar surface darker) and try that math
once again, as to what the naked Kodak eye would have unavoidably
recorded. Grain per grain, or pixel per pixel (not of each whole
target), as such Venus simply would not have been 15 million times less
bright than the physically dark moon (we're talking nearly open pit
coal mine dark). Further proof that you're a liar, your "½ full
Earth" was not depicted as 10,000 times brighter than the moon (try 5
fold brighter). You can not use the whole target whenever you've got
more a full photographic grain or pixel worth of image to work with,
which proves that you're a liar because you claim being such an
all-knowing wizard.

Here's a nifty moon phase simulator link (recently contributed by Ami
Silberman), and for otherwise having A-17 at roughly 30°E is making it
look as though they had gotten that artificial image of Earth
sufficiently correct, even though it's still a xenon illuminated moon
that's very guano and otherwise portland cement like.
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/animations/lps.swf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-134-20384.jpg

However, I still don't agree with the roughly 10% phase of Earth as
being that of a sufficient amount for the A-14 mission as situated 17
degrees west.

So, basically you're saying that I'm right about Venus hiding along
with all of those WMD, Usama bin Laden and of a few other pesky items
of sufficient photons that should have been available to their
unfiltered Kodak eye that should have recorded more than any human
spectrum of whatever's within that otherwise crystal clear black sky,
especially within such EVAs of Apollo 11, 14 and 16 would have been
technically difficult if not impossible to have excluded such a bright
Venus.

As for my being incorrect as to the illuminated phase of Earth as
viewed by their A-17 mission, whereas having supposedly landed roughly
30 degrees East would have seen Earth as slightly greater than half
phase illuminated for their first EVA (I hadn't realized how far East
the supposed landing site was situated on that passive guano and
portland cement moon of their's).
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...87-cropped.jpg
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_6.html
Apollo 17 being 30° E (46 hours 18 minutes)
* Landing: 113.00 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 117.00 GET, 15.3 deg.
o Finis: 124.25 GET, 19.0 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 140.50 GET, 27.3 deg.
o Finis: 148.25 GET, 31.2 deg.
* EVA-3
o Start: 163.50 GET, 39.0 deg.
o Finis: 170.75 GET, 42.6 deg.
At 75 lunar surface hours of having unavoidably received worse than Van
Allen TBI gamma and hard-X-ray that's not even the least bit attenuated
while in those 75 orbits (148 hours worth of somewhat spacecraft
shielded dosage), seems a neat trick all by itself.

However, the rather unusually slim crescent of Earth as depicted from
Apollo-14 seems a bit of a reciprocal or inverse stretch of the
imagination, even if having waited to the very last moment of their
second EVA should have shown a greater illuminated phase worth of
Earth. As it stands, it's looking as though having been an extra day's
worth of phase rotation past their last EVA.
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
A-14 being 17° W (28 hours 17 minutes)
* Landing: 108.25 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 113.50 GET, 13.0 deg.
o Finis: 118.50 GET, 15.5 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 131.25 GET, 22.0 deg.
o Finis: 135.75 GET, 24.3 deg.
At 33.5 lunar surface hours of unavoidably receiving worse than Van
Allen TBI gamma and hard-X-ray that's not the least bit attenuated
while in those 34 orbits (66.5 hours worth of somewhat spacecraft
shielded dosage) is still representing another neat trick.

Here's a good amount of xenon spot illumination that's roughly 16 hours
past sunrise, and otherwise offering mostly way under exposed images,
except for those impressive dynamic range examples as having included
the xenon lamp array itself (don't pay any attention to the images as
having those pesky short shadows, simply because of their having moved
that xenon lamp a bit closer).
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-46-6789
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-46-6824
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-49-7225

There are however a few of those believable images from orbit, of Earth
and of the somewhat dark golden/brownish orb that looks as though a
rather mineral/element rich moon that's not all that reflective.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?46
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?47
Apollo 12
* Landing: 110.50 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 115.25 GET, 7.5 deg.
o Finis: 119.25 GET, 9.5 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 131.50 GET, 15.8 deg.
o Finis: 135.50 GET, 17.8 deg.

Once again, the impressive DR of that Kodak film is really something
extra special whenever the physically dark moon itself and the sun are
depicted within the same frame. Of course, their xenon lamp array as
simulating that sun is not nearly as intensive nor as spectrum skewed
as the raw unfiltered sun.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-47-6951
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-47-6997
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-49-7215
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-49-7245
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...?AS15-87-11745

Here's a good collection of their guano island moon shots, of what's
typically of 0.55 to 0.65 albedo (reference moonsuit being 0.85 Albedo)
for as far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, and we're talking
of 10+ km worth in all directions, and of being well past 45 degrees of
sunrise to boot, which exceeds their EVA-3.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../magazine/?117
Notice how the raw UV-a and near-UV spectrum of our sun is nowhere to
being found.

These images each look as though past 60 degrees of sunrise.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18849
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18850
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18827
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18828
Whomever had the job of scanning these images was also all over the
place with those color saturation settings. For the most part the
overall color saturation isn't even half of what that Ektachrome should
have had to offer, even though there's only so much you can do with
such a guano island and portland cement moon having a few good items of
known color and contrast for our reference.

I hadn't realize they'd painted the nearly paper thin aluminum of their
Apollo-11 lander such a dark gray or flat black (they must have needed
the extra heat).
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/image...ature_195.html

Here are a few more of those somewhat corrected color and proper
saturation images of Earth and our physically dark moon, plus a little
something star like.
http://www.permanent.com/t-index.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...hotos/6550.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla..._earthrise.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...earth_moon.jpg
http://www.spaceshots.com/Merchant2/...0001/b2103.jpg
http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/images/pl...n/earthr2.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020127.html

Here's a few other pesky examples of Venus and our moon
http://www.dustbunny.com/afk/planets/earth/moon.html
http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/N...n-venus-sm.jpg
http://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius.../moonVenus.jpg
http://www.starfirestudios.com/LUNAR/venus-moon.html
http://www.myastroshop.com.au/news/venus-moon.asp
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/noleen.htm
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/3.Wan%2...us%2025398.jpg
(notice how the saturation of Venus is nearly as great as the moon,
even though extensively filtered by Earth's atmosphere)

Venus (a long ways off compared to A-14 and A-16) and our moon via
earthshine as obtained from Clementine (notice the rather bluish
earthshine and of the violet spectrum of Venus without any polluted
atmospheric filter getting in the way).
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementi...t/sunrise.html
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementi...s/venusbw5.tif

Once external to our global warming and otherwise polluted atmosphere,
Venus becomes not only much brighter to the human exe but otherwise
unavoidably and somewhat extremely brighter plus a little color
saturation skewed towards violet as observed by the unfiltered Kodak
eye, as easily obtained by what that excellent DR worthy Ektachrome
film should have recorded, with loads of photons to spare. There is
simply no good excuse for A-11, A-14 and A-16 not having recorded the
absolute impressive vibrance of Venus, as obtained from such extensive
EVAs or for that matter from orbit as having the better of camera and
telephoto lens, plus nearly unlimited film to burn. Without
atmospheric filtration, stars of near-UV and UV-a, such as Sirius,
should have been burning holes in that unfiltered film.

Here's some of that vacuum boil-off of the sodium atmosphere that our
physically dark moon has to work with (I wonder why no sodium was ever
one of the elements returned as within a lunar sample, much less of any
radium or lead).
http://sirius.bu.edu/planetary/moon.html
-
Brad Guth

Mij Adyaw wrote:
: Will this thread ever die? Between this thread, all of the Trolls and
all of
: the folks falling for the Troll bait, and Brad Gooth, this newsgroup
is
: really going down the tubes. :-(

Then I'd suggest that "Mij Adyaw" should start holding your highly
bigoted and infomercial-science breath.

As per usual, you folks are each nothing but the worse possible liars,
and otherwise a Third Reich collaborating pack of minions that are as
brown-nosed as they come. In fact, what an absolute certified and/or
born-again pack of liars, liars and butt-loads of your pants on fire of
such brown-nosed borgs you folks are (incest cloned none the less).

Unlike these rusemasters, I'm always talking as though I'm viewing the
mmon and the likes of Venus as an unfiltered Kodak eye, and not that of
such a wussy evolutionary form of de-evolved species, and thus spectrum
limited as that of a human eye, much less as being atmospherically
polluted and thus photon moderated to such an extent. You folks stuck
in the NASA/Apollo box can not keep using the whole of targets as any
basis of comparing photographic brightness, unless you're talking about
the likes of distant stars that are each of something far less than a
given photographic grain or pixel. My god, are you folks pathetic, or
what.

If yourself as a sufficiently rad-hard astronaut can manage to
photograph the physically dark moon, it's therefore technically
impossible not to have photographed Venus, and from time to time within
the same frame as that of the dark and nasty moon itself.

Christ almighty on another stick, there's even official NASA/Apollo
Ektachrome as having our sun and moon within the same frame. I guess
the DR of that film was even better off once having been extra
double-IR boiled and otherwise gamma and hard-X-ray irradiated to
death.

Your infomercial-science simply isn't worth crapolla, even if it's
flowing like gang busters up hill (such as this following tidbit):
Therefore the variation in brightness between the surface of the Moon
and say Venus is over 15 Million times.
Whereas the variation in brightness between the surface of the Moon and
½ full Earth is about 10,000 times, a much easier photo.
Get rid of the atmospheric filtering and spectrum skew, eliminate any
optical filters (except for the polarised element that should have made
their guano and portland cement lunar surface darker) and try that math
once again, as to what the naked Kodak eye would have unavoidably
recorded. Grain per grain, or pixel per pixel (not of each whole
target), as such Venus simply would not have been 15 million times less
bright than the physically dark moon (we're talking nearly open pit
coal mine dark). Further proof that you're a liar, your "½ full
Earth" was not depicted as 10,000 times brighter than the moon (try 5
fold brighter). You can not use the whole target whenever you've got
more a full photographic grain or pixel worth of image to work with,
which proves that you're a liar because you claim being such an
all-knowing wizard.

Here's a nifty moon phase simulator link (recently contributed by Ami
Silberman), and for otherwise having A-17 at roughly 30°E is making it
look as though they had gotten that artificial image of Earth
sufficiently correct, even though it's still a xenon illuminated moon
that's very guano and otherwise portland cement like.
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/animations/lps.swf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-134-20384.jpg

However, I still don't agree with the roughly 10% phase of Earth as
being that of a sufficient amount for the A-14 mission as situated 17
degrees west.

So, basically you're saying that I'm right about Venus hiding along
with all of those WMD, Usama bin Laden and of a few other pesky items
of sufficient photons that should have been available to their
unfiltered Kodak eye that should have recorded more than any human
spectrum of whatever's within that otherwise crystal clear black sky,
especially within such EVAs of Apollo 11, 14 and 16 would have been
technically difficult if not impossible to have excluded such a bright
Venus.

As for my being incorrect as to the illuminated phase of Earth as
viewed by their A-17 mission, whereas having supposedly landed roughly
30 degrees East would have seen Earth as slightly greater than half
phase illuminated for their first EVA (I hadn't realized how far East
the supposed landing site was situated on that passive guano and
portland cement moon of their's).
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...87-cropped.jpg
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_6.html
Apollo 17 being 30° E (46 hours 18 minutes)
* Landing: 113.00 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 117.00 GET, 15.3 deg.
o Finis: 124.25 GET, 19.0 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 140.50 GET, 27.3 deg.
o Finis: 148.25 GET, 31.2 deg.
* EVA-3
o Start: 163.50 GET, 39.0 deg.
o Finis: 170.75 GET, 42.6 deg.
At 75 lunar surface hours of having unavoidably received worse than Van
Allen TBI gamma and hard-X-ray that's not even the least bit attenuated
while in those 75 orbits (148 hours worth of somewhat spacecraft
shielded dosage), seems a neat trick all by itself.

However, the rather unusually slim crescent of Earth as depicted from
Apollo-14 seems a bit of a reciprocal or inverse stretch of the
imagination, even if having waited to the very last moment of their
second EVA should have shown a greater illuminated phase worth of
Earth. As it stands, it's looking as though having been an extra day's
worth of phase rotation past their last EVA.
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
A-14 being 17° W (28 hours 17 minutes)
* Landing: 108.25 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 113.50 GET, 13.0 deg.
o Finis: 118.50 GET, 15.5 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 131.25 GET, 22.0 deg.
o Finis: 135.75 GET, 24.3 deg.
At 33.5 lunar surface hours of unavoidably receiving worse than Van
Allen TBI gamma and hard-X-ray that's not the least bit attenuated
while in those 34 orbits (66.5 hours worth of somewhat spacecraft
shielded dosage) is still representing another neat trick.

Here's a good amount of xenon spot illumination that's roughly 16 hours
past sunrise, and otherwise offering mostly way under exposed images,
except for those impressive dynamic range examples as having included
the xenon lamp array itself (don't pay any attention to the images as
having those pesky short shadows, simply because of their having moved
that xenon lamp a bit closer).
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-46-6789
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-46-6824
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-49-7225

There are however a few of those believable images from orbit, of Earth
and of the somewhat dark golden/brownish orb that looks as though a
rather mineral/element rich moon that's not all that reflective.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?46
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?47
Apollo 12
* Landing: 110.50 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 115.25 GET, 7.5 deg.
o Finis: 119.25 GET, 9.5 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 131.50 GET, 15.8 deg.
o Finis: 135.50 GET, 17.8 deg.

Once again, the impressive DR of that Kodak film is really something
extra special whenever the physically dark moon itself and the sun are
depicted within the same frame. Of course, their xenon lamp array as
simulating that sun is not nearly as intensive nor as spectrum skewed
as the raw unfiltered sun.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-47-6951
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-47-6997
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-49-7215
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-49-7245
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...?AS15-87-11745

Here's a good collection of their guano island moon shots, of what's
typically of 0.55 to 0.65 albedo (reference moonsuit being 0.85 Albedo)
for as far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, and we're talking
of 10+ km worth in all directions, and of being well past 45 degrees of
sunrise to boot, which exceeds their EVA-3.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../magazine/?117
Notice how the raw UV-a and near-UV spectrum of our sun is nowhere to
being found.

These images each look as though past 60 degrees of sunrise.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18849
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18850
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18827
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18828
Whomever had the job of scanning these images was also all over the
place with those color saturation settings. For the most part the
overall color saturation isn't even half of what that Ektachrome should
have had to offer, even though there's only so much you can do with
such a guano island and portland cement moon having a few good items of
known color and contrast for our reference.

I hadn't realize they'd painted the nearly paper thin aluminum of their
Apollo-11 lander such a dark gray or flat black (they must have needed
the extra heat).
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/image...ature_195.html

Here are a few more of those somewhat corrected color and proper
saturation images of Earth and our physically dark moon, plus a little
something star like.
http://www.permanent.com/t-index.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...hotos/6550.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla..._earthrise.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...earth_moon.jpg
http://www.spaceshots.com/Merchant2/...0001/b2103.jpg
http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/images/pl...n/earthr2.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020127.html

Here's a few other pesky examples of Venus and our moon
http://www.dustbunny.com/afk/planets/earth/moon.html
http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/N...n-venus-sm.jpg
http://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius.../moonVenus.jpg
http://www.starfirestudios.com/LUNAR/venus-moon.html
http://www.myastroshop.com.au/news/venus-moon.asp
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/noleen.htm
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/3.Wan%2...us%2025398.jpg
(notice how the saturation of Venus is nearly as great as the moon,
even though extensively filtered by Earth's atmosphere)

Venus (a long ways off compared to A-14 and A-16) and our moon via
earthshine as obtained from Clementine (notice the rather bluish
earthshine and of the violet spectrum of Venus without any polluted
atmospheric filter getting in the way).
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementi...t/sunrise.html
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementi...s/venusbw5.tif

Once external to our global warming and otherwise polluted atmosphere,
Venus becomes not only much brighter to the human exe but otherwise
unavoidably and somewhat extremely brighter plus a little color
saturation skewed towards violet as observed by the unfiltered Kodak
eye, as easily obtained by what that excellent DR worthy Ektachrome
film should have recorded, with loads of photons to spare. There is
simply no good excuse for A-11, A-14 and A-16 not having recorded the
absolute impressive vibrance of Venus, as obtained from such extensive
EVAs or for that matter from orbit as having the better of camera and
telephoto lens, plus nearly unlimited film to burn. Without
atmospheric filtration, stars of near-UV and UV-a, such as Sirius,
should have been burning holes in that unfiltered film.

Here's some of that vacuum boil-off of what's creating the sodium
atmosphere that our physically dark and nastier than any Van Allen
environment of a moon has had to work with (I wonder why no sodium was
ever one of the elements returned within a lunar sample, much less of
any radium or lead).
http://sirius.bu.edu/planetary/moon.html
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
I'm always talking as though I'm an unfiltered Kodak eye, and not that
of such a wussy evolutionary de-evolved spectrum limited human eye,
much less as atmospherically polluted and thus photon moderated to such
an extent. You can not use the whole target as any basis of
brightness, unless you're talking about distant stars that are of far
less than a given photographic grain or pixel. My god are you
pathetic, or what.

You seem to not know what absolute magnitude, apparent magnitude and
surface brightness mean. You're pulling numbers, phrases, terms,
measurements out of thin air without any regard whatsoever to their
proper context or use. In short, you really do not appear to know what
you are talking about and if I were a sadist, it would be fun to see
how much time you must waste typing all this meaningless junk.

BTW, some UV filtering in *any* camera is unavoidable since most
glasses are only partially transparent to UV. If you're going to claim
that everything is brighter in space on film, you have to at least have
a measure of what the Hasselblads / Biogen lense did or did not filter
in UV and other wavelengths. You've given no references to that kind of
information, just vague references to Kodak, NASA, ESA, blah blah
blah....

Brad Guth wrote
At 75 lunar surface hours of having unavoidably received worse than Van
Allen TBI gamma and hard-X-ray that's not even the least bit attenuated
while in those 75 orbits (148 hours worth of somewhat spacecraft
shielded dosage), seems a neat trick all by itself.

Where are you getting your dosage information about the radiation
environment outside of the Van Allen belt (which does not extend to the
moon)? Of course there can be lethal doses of solar produced radiation
at the moon's disatnce. Everyone has known that. But people like you
seem to assume that the highest levels recorded are *always* present.
Why? For anyone that is interested, here are some info on space
radiation:

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970228a.html

Fir further references here are two books that could help you as well.

NASA SP-3006 Bioastronautics Data Book, 2ed., is online - as a 1000
page pdf

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cab...entilation.pdf

and the more manageable NASA SP-368 The Biomedical Results of Apollo

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/cover.htm
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/APOLLO_TOC.CFM

In particular, these chapters are relevant:

RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

BIOSTACK-A STUDY OF THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HZE GALACTIC COSMIC
RADIATION

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S4ch1.htm

It is interesting to note that geosynchronous communication satellites
operate deep inside Van Allen Belts. What data did the aerospace
industry use to design these satellites? Yup - NASA data from the
Apollo era. The space radiation environment is also well known to the
USSR/Russia, chinese, european and japanese researchers. Don't you
think they'd say something about it - especially the USSR which had
flown several missions around the moon to measure the radiation
environment on their own, among other things, in preparation for their
own planned human flights to the moon?