New Apollo landing site photos

On Sep 7, 12:20*pm, "GordonD" wrote:
"Val Kraut" wrote in message

...



Now, that really would have been some place to land a LM at; the view
from up there would have been something to see.

I've always thought that one of the public relations failures of Apollo
was they never went any place interesting enough to compete with the
Bonstell paintings that many of us were familiar with.

Trouble was, Bonestell (like everybody else) assumed that because there was
no weather on the Moon, it would have high, sharp mountain peaks. That
turned out not to be the case.
--

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Most of CB's classic illustrations were done in the '50s and early
'60s, when volcanism was thought to be the dominant force shaping the
lunar surface, with tectonic forces coming a far second. Both of these
on Earth tend to erode quickly into dramatic sharp-edged landforms.
Meteoric events were thought to be rare and again, using terrestrial
analogs, produce dramatic shapes. Only Urey really considered the
effect of a large ammount of meteoric dust, and he ended up vastly
over-estimating it. Also, the eroding effect of particles from the
solar wind was poorly understood.

The evidence for the over-eroded shapes was thought to be the lunar
shadows- people that should have been more careful failed to make the
proper corrections from sun angles. It worked both ways- I remember
hearing at one point that lunar mountains were so sharp-edged because
there no erosion to round them, and then ten years later, "the lunar
mountains are rounded because there's no erosion to carve them..."

The opposite mistake was made on Mars- as late as the early '60s,
there were claims that there were no mountains on Mars. Arthur
Clarke's The Sands of Mars uses this notion for a good dramatic effect.

On 9/8/2011 10:46 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

The basis of silicone is silicon, which has been advanced as an
alternative to carbon as a base for life. Therefore, I used the term
"silicon-based life forms."

Are you saying these women may be Hortas?

Pat

wrote in message
...
On Sep 7, 7:01 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/7/2011 1:51 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote:

So how are the moon landing conspiracy buffs going to try to refue
this ... claim that the photos were photoshopped?

I picture this midget rover coming out of the unmanned LM with Moon
Boots on the wheels to fake footprints... :-D

I love the poster that suggested that NASA launched a secret manned
mission to the moon to plant evidence that they had been to the moon.
I think that he was joking, but it does show how the conspiracists
think.


NASA didn't go themselves; they sent Andy Griffiths to do it.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

On 9/09/2011 6:16 PM, GordonD wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sep 7, 7:01 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/7/2011 1:51 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote:

So how are the moon landing conspiracy buffs going to try to refue
this ... claim that the photos were photoshopped?

I picture this midget rover coming out of the unmanned LM with Moon
Boots on the wheels to fake footprints... :-D

I love the poster that suggested that NASA launched a secret manned
mission to the moon to plant evidence that they had been to the moon.
I think that he was joking, but it does show how the conspiracists
think.


NASA didn't go themselves; they sent Andy Griffiths to do it.

Salvage 1 - great series!

On 9/8/2011 2:08 PM, wrote:

I love the poster that suggested that NASA launched a secret manned
mission to the moon to plant evidence that they had been to the moon.
I think that he was joking, but it does show how the conspiracists
think.

What I always thought would have been fun for NASA to do is mock up a
subscale LM and show a trained chimp coming out of it unto a simulated
lunar surface while wearing a pressure suit, picking up a few rocks and
climbing back into the lander. Film all this, stick it on a film reel
titled "Project Diana - Lunar B Plan" and leave it around somewhere
where the Apollo astronauts were sure to find it. :-)
Dwayne Day did have some fun with a fake concept like that for the Soviets:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...CmZ6hT455swXJA
Whats amusing is that if you did strip down a Soyuz orbital module to
the bare minimums required to sustain a cosmonaut's life on the way to
the Moon, a Ye-8 might well have the payload capacity to land him on the
Moon.

Pat

On 9/8/2011 8:14 PM, wrote:

The opposite mistake was made on Mars- as late as the early '60s,
there were claims that there were no mountains on Mars. Arthur
Clarke's The Sands of Mars uses this notion for a good dramatic effect.

Okay, they missed a Nebraska-sized volcano, but other than that...
I was re-reading a collection of articles about the Moon in a book
titled "Man and the Moon" by Robert Richardson and Chesley Bonestell
from 1961; in the book they state what really advanced the meteoric
theory for lunar craters over the volcanic one was in 1949 when Ralph B.
Baldwin showed that their proportions were very similar to those of
craters caused by aerial bombardment.
Besides the volcanic and meteoric theories, there were others including
that they were burst gas bubbles on the surface of the Moon when it was
still semi-molten, dents caused by impacts of other smaller moonlets
that once shared the Moon's orbit (that actually ties in rather well
with the latest theories about the Moon being formed by the rocks thrown
into orbit when a huge planetesimal impacted the proto-Earth and the
orbiting debris accreted into the Moon) and my favorite - that craters
were caused like sinkholes on the lunar surface when volcanic activity
melted a sub-surface ice layer, which sounds like something the Nazi
Welteislehre theory* would have in it.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre

Pat

On Sep 6, 5:14*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Some new LRO photos, showing landing sites, LM descent stages, and ALSEP
equipment:http://www.onorbit.com/node/3780
You can even see Surveyor-3.

Pat

Then you mainstreamers must also believe in the tooth fairy and a few
other fables of the same mainstream and faith-based closed mindset
that’s intent upon keeping the rest of us snookered and dumbfounded
past the point of no return. So why is our NASA of such supposed
honesty and trustworthy of having such vast leadership in all things
of advanced technology and expertise, so utterly dysfunctional and at
a loss for loot?

What I'm asking for is simply the 100% objective proof of what I too
saw on the tele and in multiple fancy eyecandy publications ever
since, of our guys with all of "the right stuff" supposedly walking
upon that moon which oddly didn't appear to be anything of physically
dark and nasty like it should have been.

I also want my 100% mission reliable fly-by-rocket lander and some of
that nifty rad-hard Kodak film that offered such exceptional dynamic
range.

I want to understand why our physically dark and naked moon was
actually quite reflective and apparently inert to boot, as well as
hardly the least bit dusty (what little dust there was happened to
clump rather nicely and offered terrific surface tension).

I want to understand why the nearby planet Venus and a few other items
easily within the DR of Kodak film and the optical resolution of those
cameras were instead always hidden or in some kind of stealth mode.

I want to better understand how such a location of terrific
metallicity (greater than Earth and paramagnetic to boot), laced with
locally radioactive elements plus 100% exposed to cosmic and solar
influx, was so freaking harmless.

No doubt our moon and even the extremely nearby planet Venus have been
commercially doable for quite some time, which of course would kinda
put an end to the public-funded NASA and their DARPA cesspool of
Zionist Nazis that were obtained from Hitler's gang, then having been
rehired and protected by those you obviously worship.

In other words, I want either my money's worth, or I want my money
back. Obviously once again, you could care less because you're set
for life unless WW3 puts a dent in your plans.

Because your quality of life depends entirely upon the interpretation
of history that you plan to die with, you elect to believe in
mainstream status-quo fables. Sadly, I do not have that luxury, or
the necessary lack of morals.

"A fable is a succinct fictional story, in prose or verse, that
features animals, mythical creatures, plants, inanimate objects, or
forces of nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities),
and that illustrates a moral lesson (a "moral"), which may at the end
be expressed explicitly in a pithy maxim."

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sep 6, 5:14*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Some new LRO photos, showing landing sites, LM descent stages, and ALSEP
equipment:http://www.onorbit.com/node/3780
You can even see Surveyor-3.

Pat

Many years ago I'd asked multiple questions that haven't to date been
answered or otherwise figured out, and the following is kind of
another summarized or edited recap of many of those same questions
that you and others of your mainstream status-quo kind haven't
answered.

I recall having asked the following, in addition to a few other pesky
questions:

Are you suggesting our NASA and their Apollo team of “right stuff”
didn’t have the proper motives, means and opportunity to look as good
as possible?

Are you suggesting that our DARPA and NASA didn’t have any PR staff or
expertise with publishing infomercials and cranking out terrific
eyecandy?

Could our mainstream media dare publish anything except whatever was
handed to them?

Are you suggesting that our NASA/Apollo teams of only the absolute
best kinds of "right stuff" (including their Kodak partners) could not
have accomplished any photographic illusions if they had to?

Are you actually suggesting that our NASA/Apollo teams hadn't taken
any high resolution images of the moon, as having been mapped down to
the square meter before each and every landing attempt?

Are you actually suggesting that our NASA/Apollo team of ARPA/DARPA
qualified rusemasters wasn't capable of orchestrating or accomplishing
any damage control in case each mission didn't pan out? (no plan-B?)

Are you suggesting that the LRO team isn't officially obligated in any
way of performing as requested by those in total dominate authority
over them?

Are you actually suggesting that them USSR/Russians were never any
better or even as good at those fly-by-rocket landings of robotic
missions than us?

Are you suggesting that Kodak film couldn’t have been processed on the
fly (so to speak) in order to avoid excessive radiation exposures,
then scanned and transmitted back to Earth.

Are you still suggesting that our NASA was and still is the one and
only trustworthy government agency that can always be explicitly
believed and trusted no matters what others might care to interpret
from the best available science?

Are you actually suggesting that our moon isn't physically dark and
isn't the least bit reactive to those UV photons, or that of bothered
by whatever radiation influx of any significant sort to ever worry
about?

Are you actually suggesting that our moon doesn't give off 1220 w/m2
by day?

Are you suggesting our moon isn't charged up to any gamma voltage
potential?

Are you actually suggesting that hot sodium wasn't detectable nor even
imposing any technical problem whatsoever?

Are you suggesting that moon dirt/dust which clumps rather nicely plus
offers terrific surface tension because it's kind of magical, or
perhaps magnetic and/or because there's hardly any of it?

Are you suggesting the laws of physics are either conditional or
simply work differently for our physically dark moon?

Where the hell was the extremely nearby planet Venus hiding itself,
not to mention multiple other items that should have been well within
the DR(dynamic range) of Kodak film?

Do you have any good excuses as to why there were so few meteorites,
secondary shards or much less dark ones? Perhaps an excuse such as;
they got blown away and/or bleached out by the sun so that they simply
didn't stand out?

At least 10% of those impacts as having created significant craters on
our moon, if instead having hit Earth could have terminated most any
level of complex life on Earth. Even the secondary displaced shards
from that terrific 2500 km crater (whereas upwards of two thirds of
which should have eventually landed on Earth) would have terminated
most all complex life on Earth. Considering the greater target area
and gravity of Earth might suggest that our Eden got summarily nailed
at least ten fold worse than the moon, not to mention whatever
secondary shards came directly from our physically dark and
paramagnetic moon. Does any of this sound about right?

Try to always remember that it's yourself and your public funded
friends that have proposed the fantastic (aka out of this world)
claims of our guys having multiple times walked on the moon and
returned each and every time with thousands of those perfection Kodak
moments (not even the least bit contrasty, among a few other dubious
issues), and otherwise their being unharmed and without a scratch (so
to speak), and yet you still can't demonstrate a reliable fly-by-
rocket lander of that applied technology era.

Try to also remember these were the exact same team of folks that
tortured and/or having biologically tormented others of their very own
Zionist kind by excessively over-radiated those 100,000 dark-skinned
Jewish kids, that which all suffered consequences and/or prematurely
died as a direct result. If those are still your kind of best friends
and fellow peers, then perhaps that alone explains a lot.

So, why don't you mainstream status-quo folks (the vast majority of
which have been public funded) go first by explaining everything to
us, especially since I'd been asking my questions as of years before
now.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sep 6, 5:14*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Some new LRO photos, showing landing sites, LM descent stages, and ALSEP
equipment:http://www.onorbit.com/node/3780
You can even see Surveyor-3.

Pat

If anyone here is really good at upwind ****ing and blaming that warm
yellow back-spray on Muslims or anyone other than themselves, it's our
faith-based government and those that'll worship anything they decide
is the only truth to behold. The often bipolar actions of pretend-
Atheists and those politically pretend-independents kind of proves
which side they're really on, and it further proves how typically FUD-
master worthy and/or goes to show how snookered and dumbfounded past
the point of no return they really are.

Either our government of many agencies that seldom collaborate or
unify and share their best talents and resources are 100% trustworthy,
or it isn’t. At this point in history, I’m not convinced we have any
agency that we can always 100% trust, much less one born of the
mutually perpetrated cold-war era that always had the motives, means
and opportunity to do pretty much as they please, and to otherwise
disregard whatever consequences.

Try to always remember that I've never stipulated that our NASA/Apollo
wizards of such “right stuff” didn't manage to place a few items on
the lunar surface. However, if they in fact did so in person, then it
was by far the absolute worse documented and least objective method(s)
of science ever accomplished by humanity, and then some, not to
mention a total waste of critical technology that could have been put
to many other good uses that could have made the whole NASA/Apollo
fiasco of tremendous risk and horrific expense into a highly
profitable investment.

In other words, as of today our NASA should have far exceeded the
wealth and authority of those Rothschilds and a few others combined,
and we’d all be sitting pretty because of it. Instead we have a
highly problematic world with a kind of dysfunctional NASA that’s all
PR hype of eyecandy and media spin rather than efficient and fully
functional.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
On Sep 8, 5:26 am, White Spirit wrote:
On 07/09/2011 23:40, Brad Guth wrote:

Your obviously bogus topic is noted. Though good try for a first-time
trainee FUD-master beginner.
The only naysay to LROC and Apollo that I can offer is the same as
always; where's the 100% objective image data, as unmodified and
taken from the raw initial data or from the original Kodak film?
Why does everything NASA/Apollo related always have to be so carefully
and secretly processed behind closed doors?

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

White Spirit has put together more than a few perfectly good arguments
that the mainstream status-quo would much prefer they vanish into thin
air, much like all of those Muslim WMD vanished and OBL that had to be
secretly executed and disposed of (perhaps because there has been so
many of them OBLs).

Most but not all of your arguments or interpretations I'll have to go
along with. However, there's actually a bit more to tell, as I
believe there’s somewhat better interpretations that could be applied
as to their motives, means and opportunity. My own deductive
investigative research has had a number of questions that our NASA/
Apollo cabal and their Kodak partners can’t seem to answer in any
convincing way.

No doubt our NASA/Apollo and DARPA "right stuff" still has some
serious explaining to do before they all die of being extremely well
compensated and otherwise taken care of, plus the ultimate excuse of
their expiring from old age.

I believe that most of our Apollo missions went according to plan,
though perhaps having to exclude their controlled soft landings,
walking effortlessly while taking thousands of Kodak recorded images
while situated upon that lunar surface, and their getting safely back
into a precise orbit with so many variables that even the most modern
of computer flown fly-by-rocket landers can’t achieve with any
significant reliability suitable for hauling humans. Trust me, that
using a pocket slide rule isn’t going to be sufficient for those
navigational, trajectory and variable thrust computations, especially
given the extremely short amount of time and the continually changing
mass as well as center of gravity, as well as their having no powerful
reaction momentum wheels to work anything against.

Mainstream ZNR redneck FUD-masters (perhaps Mafia to you, KKK to
others and otherwise known as Skull and Bones rusemasters) have a
rather nasty habit of forgetting history, especially of any history
other than their own interpretation. That way they get unlimited do-
overs and usually everything public funded to boot.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sep 6, 6:29*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
On 09/06/2011 07:38 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:

On 7/09/2011 10:14 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:
Some new LRO photos, showing landing sites, LM descent stages, and ALSEP
equipment:
http://www.onorbit.com/node/3780
You can even see Surveyor-3.

Pat

I wonder what Bar Sibrel's doing right about now....

If real photos from the surface didn't convince him, why would real
photos from orbit convince him? He's just going to claim they're faked too.

Since when has our government and its many agencies that feed entirely
off public loot been 100% trustworthy?

Are you suggesting that our NASA/Apollo missions had no plan B (such
as in case a controlled soft landing wasn't a viable option)?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”