New Apollo landing site photos

On Oct 2, 1:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
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

So, when is Kodak going to officially authenticate their original
Apollo mission images as recorded on all of that ad-hard and thermal
extreme tolerant film that no independent science or forensics has any
access to?

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

kodak is declaring bankruptcy, so they wouldnt have the bucks to do
anything

On Oct 2, 11:14*am, bob haller wrote:
On Oct 2, 1:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

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

So, when is Kodak going to officially authenticate their original
Apollo mission images as recorded on all of that ad-hard and thermal
extreme tolerant film that no independent science or forensics has any
access to?

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

kodak is declaring bankruptcy, so they wouldnt have the bucks to do
anything

They also have not one frame of that original film, so there's still
no forensics possible.

In fact, there's still nothing of those original Apollo missions that
supposedly spent any time on that physically dark and naked/reactive
surface that has been independently forensic investigated.

I have several paramagnetic basalt moon rocks that are way better than
any of those Apollo certified rocks, and yet the mainstream status-quo
simply can't comply to our request, much less demonstrate any stable
and reasonably failsafe fly-by-rocker lander of that era.

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

Obviously our wise old William Mook and most others (including our
DARPA and NASA) still do not have any working fly-by-rocket capability
as their prototype man-rated lander as based upon that primitive
Apollo era technology, and yet most have chosen to 100% believe each
and every word of those with all the “right stuff” as working always
behind closed doors while having told us only the whole truth and
nothing but the truth (perhaps some day that could actually happen).
And yet they as well as you still can not answer any of my serious
questions. Gee whiz, you'd think they and especially yourself could
at least get Kodak to authenticate via independent forensics as to
their own damn film that supposedly never once recorded any X-ray or
gamma hits, as well couldn’t record any UV secondary/recoil photons
and was also immune to whatever thermal extremes. (modern CCDs having
to be well shielded, optically bandpass filtered, thermally regulated
within a narrow range and always having each frame cleared prior to
whatever optical exposure in order to alleviate those pesky issues
plus avoiding whatever stray X-ray and gamma hits)

BTW; with such terrific Kodak dynamic range (as clearly demonstrated
by way of their own pictures) and using nothing but the very best
camera optics on Earth, and yet how the hell did they manage to always
hide the extremely nearby and always vibrant planet Venus?

Why was their Apollo moon always looking so unusually eroded, as a
rolling soft terrain and only that of a pastel off-white as well as
kept so nicely UV inert for as far as their unfiltered cameras could
see?

Are there any such locations of extensive lunar terrain reflecting
above 0.5 albedo as having been independent astronomy recorded, much
less of their .65+ up to 0.75 albedo required for most of those Apollo
landing sites? (our full moon averaging at .07 doesn’t exactly suggest
that it’s on average very reflective, but then obviously we outsiders
don’t have the same “right stuff”.

You do realize that a fully earthshine illuminated moon is getting 50+
fold better illuminated than Earth ever gets from moonshine. So, why
not go with a whole lot less contrasty and way less glare prone
mission, not to mention considerably cooler as well as their having
considerably less X-ray dosage (though roughly stuck with the same
gamma dosage)?

What about all of that surrounding ionized sodium they’d somehow
entirely missed out on?

Are you saying that such a considerable surround of ionized molecular
sodium vapor came from someplace other than the moon itself?

Have you actually looked at any of those Apollo mission images,
including their own metric mapping that doesn't seem to offer the
likes of soft eroded and pastel light-gray terrain, looking as
anything obtained from that unusually smooth, light pastel gray and UV
inert surface via those Apollo landings?

What the hell ever happened to all those physically dark, paramagnetic
basalt and multiple minerals of its metallicity bedrock and meteor/
asteroid deposits that should have existed as razor sharp and
physically dark?

Are you suggesting our naked moon is actually covered with a layer of
guano that only looks dark and measurably having such a deficient
albedo when viewed from Earth or even from orbit?

The JAXA version from their initial camera format was rather correctly
bluish from all of that UV reactive amount of secondary/recoil moon
light, because at least at first they kind of forgot to optically
narrow bandpass filter it and/or didn’t bother to subsequently
PhotoShop the blue out. Shame on them, though at least they returned
good science of the moon plasmasphere.
http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/en/communi...#NEW_20071214A
http://www.jaxa.jp/topics/2007/img/t...20071031_e.pdf
Those initial bluish images are stacked half way down the page.

Here’s those somewhat more natural mineral/metallicity color images as
having been properly PhotoShop filtered in order to remove that pesky
UV secondary/recoil of such a bluish tint.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancie...s_Galileo.html

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancie...e_01.html#15th
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancie..._Lunar_03.html

And only because I'm always such a nice guy, we have this following
contribution by our very own "kT"

"Japan First Back To The Moon!" / kT
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...8a85929879b6a0
I believe that topic intro is absolutely right on the money, at least
Japan being of the first other than Russian or those of our various
lunar orbital missions, however China is not exactly sitting on their
extremely wise old butts, are they.

Here's the latest HDTV images, except having those moon surface
saturations of somewhat badly skewed color fully removed. In other
words, our moon is getting depicted as entirely color blocked, as
artificially limited to gray-scale, and otherwise only Earth is
getting artificially accommodated in full living color.
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img...kaguya_01l.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img...kaguya_02l.jpg

Here's those unfiltered original images of their off-color saturation
imposed tint, via all of that pesky secondary or recoil worth of such
a bluish/violet hue look-see at our naked moon (images 01 ~ 13 are
kind of true blue moon):
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/20071021_kaguya_e.pdf
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_01.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_03.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_05.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_10.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_11.jpg

Besides the matter of JAXA/NHK having only turned on their HDTV color
pixels as accommodating those color pixels of Earth (by adjusting your
gamma to 4x alone gives us that sort of proof, or otherwise by simply
replacing their image black with most any other color), though it's
still every bit worth an as-is look-see for taking notice as to how
extremely dark and otherwise somewhat of an average coal like 0.11
albedo or actually
of a slightly sooty darker kind of dusty deep soft lunar terrain of
such minimal albedo, meaning that it's very poorly reflective of the
visible spectrum, as otherwise correctly representing that which our
extremely cosmic dusty and electrostatic charged moon really is, as
well as for having been so clearly HVTV imaged w/o those pesky color
saturations except for their accommodating within the very same HDTV
FOV as hosting a very colorful Earth, as having been illuminated by
the very same raw solar spectrum that has unavoidably skewed the moon
itself by the unfiltered and subsequent excess amounts of those violet
and UV photons, of which CCDs are by rights extremely sensitive to.

Now then, and I'm quite honestly serious about this next part; do we
see anything of that naked lunar terrain that's looking as though
being the least bit NASA/Apollo (65%~75% reflective) 0.65~0.075 albedo
worthy, looking as though much like a certain guano island as having
been xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated and otherwise physically
modified in order to suit their supposed moon look, spinning
everything rather nicely on behalf of those hocus-pocus Apollo
landings? (silly question, as I didn't think so)

Now try to further imagine how much brighter than Earth those little
violet color skewed pixels worth of Venus are going to look. Actually,
with the HDTV's far better than Kodak film DR(dynamic range) is why
the likes of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn should also become part of those
future JAXA/KAGUYA(SELENE) obtained images, along with a few of those
most bright of background stars such as Sirius, that is unless having
been intentionally spectrum filtered out or subsequently PhotoShop
removed.

With using a proper optical spectrum filter (of which KAGUYA may not
have had to work with) is where we'll get to see the true deep golden
brownish color of our moon, along with certain other raw secondary/
recoil photons of those cosmic and local deposited mineral elements
which should become downright interesting, even though color skewed
unless illuminated via the extremely bluish earthshine because,
there's such a great deal of secondary/recoil UV that'll always tend
to saturate most everything into giving us that somewhat purple/bluish
or violet hue or weird tint.

And to further think that there's should be much more of truth to come
via JAXA/KAGUYA(SELENE) once those full color spectrum images of the
moon have been properly adjusted for their more natural color/hue
saturations, plus those other instruments start reporting their new
science data, as well as from whatever China can uncover and share is
just around the very next corner.
--

Are we still having to accept that the physics and science of
photographic contrast and color/hue saturation simply doesn't apply
here?

Did our sun manage to stop producing UV for each of those Apollo
missions?

Did the absolutely vibrant and bluish earthshine also get turned off?

Of course our Mook has openly admitted as to having absolutely no
observationology expertise or any way of otherwise deductively
interpreting one image of anything from any other, so other than
having blindly and totally dumbfounded accepted everything as to
whatever the cloak and dagger mainstream status-quo of our mutually
perpetrated cold-war era has to say, you can't even be the least bit
certain any of those unfiltered Kodak moments were ever obtained from
that naked lunar surface to begin with.

Do try to remember that I’ve never stipulated that some portions of
our Apollo mission stuff didn’t make it to that surface, because
technically that capability had existed for accommodating one-way but
only somewhat controlled soft landings.

How is it that all of those NASA/Apollo mission photos via those
unfiltered Kodak moments that even Kodak will not forensic
authenticate as supposedly 100% truthworthy, and yet those of the NASA/
Magellan mission looking at Venus still can’t be trusted?

Why yes indeed, it seems as though they totally screwed us and did a
really good job of covered their butts at the same time. The entire
mutually perpetrated cold-war that was public-funded as well as bogus
as WMD and otherwise very profitable for those above the top 0.1%, so
they and those Russian oligarchs obviously dumbfounded and snookered
us and perhaps especially yourself beyond the point of no return.

Even their LRO mission can't reconcile the relative mineral or
metallicity darkness of that paramagnetic basalt moon with what those
Apollo missions and their Kodak film reported.

Perhaps next time when they actually set foot on that naked moon is
when they'll return only after having placed enduring infrastructure
and interactive science that we can all learn and grow from.

Meanwhile the best science remains as remote via orbit, because thus
far everything placed on that surface has been inert and otherwise
passive.

Do you have any fly-by-rocket lander of that technology era that
actually works?

Do you or can anyone not at LLPOF risk, have direct access to any of
their original raw data?

Can you or anyone explain how Venus was always kept so invisible from
lunar orbit as well as from any FOV including that physically dark and
paramagnetic basalt surface?

It seems the mainstream status-quo isn’t required to know how analog
film works, any more so than understanding how camera optics work, or
how contrasty that physically dark lunar environment had to work, not
to mention its thermal extremes as well as for the unavoidable local,
solar and cosmic radiation that had to have been recorded by all (each
and every mm2) of their Kodak film.

Another totally predictable joke, as well as pathetic:
“NASA has begun drafting guidelines to protect the Apollo 11 and
Apollo 17 landing sites, listing them as off-limits, and including
ground-travel buffers and no-fly zones to avoid spraying rocket
exhaust or dust onto aging, but historic, equipment.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44994619.../#.TqI99WH-UY0
According to all of those NASA/Apollo era Kodak moments, that were
sufficiently rad-hard and immune to extreme thermal trauma, whereas
not even their own landing retro-thrust directly applied as their
purely fly-by-rocket controlled down-range and otherwise applied as
directly under each and every lander for several seconds prior to
their soft touchdowns, and yet somehow having never managed to
dislodge or blow away any significant volume of that crystal dry moon
with its oddly monochromatic pastel gray dust that always clumped
perfectly for terrific surface tension. In fact, none of the
physically dark basalt bedrock of the moon was ever exposed.

So, do tell, as in our supposedly trustworthy NASA needs to start
sharing as to how the hell any observational flyover, that’ll likely
be a km or higher off the deck, is going to possibly disturb any of
our precious Apollo squat?

Just because most if not all of it was robotic, with no outward signs
of human activity, is really not a very good enough reason to keep
hiding the truth by way of heaping one excuse after another as to why
no another soul or their technology can be allowed to get anywhere
near those abandoned landing sites.

From the physically dark lunar surface, the Earth is obviously
appearing as way bigger than the sun, and its vibrant bluish tint/hue
plus IR can’t be so immeasurable as suggested by all things NASA/
Apollo. So, why would all handheld as well as tripod situated cameras
be configured so as to always exclude anything other than the moon?

Was there always something obscuring any FOV including the planet
Venus?

At least there are a few independently honest folks doing the right
thing, by preparing for the near future that’s taking at least some of
us off-world. Of course only they get to use their true ID, whereas
most others here as ZNR certified redneck FUD-masters that are usually
devout Semites or some other faith-based cloaked as Atheists and
politically independent, seldom if ever use their true Ids, and yet
not one soul of their kind is ever caught policing a damn thing of
their own kind. It’s a wonder we’re not deep into WW3.

Bigelow Poofs and China could establish a moon base in record time:
http://www.space.com/13331-china-spa...low-ispcs.html

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

No question that such one-way deposits of that Apollo era had managed
to land or impact a few items on the moon, and supposedly Russia was
even able to get a return sample without any of our help.

Obviously our wise old William Mook and most others (including our
DARPA and of course everyone from NASA) still do not have any working
fly-by-rocket capability as their prototype man-rated lander based
upon that primitive Apollo era technology, and yet most folks have
chosen to 100% believe each and every last word of those with all the
“right stuff” as working always behind closed doors while having
supposedly told us only the whole truth and nothing but the truth (you
never know, perhaps some day that could actually happen). And yet
they as well as you still can not answer any of my serious questions.

Gee whiz, you'd think they and especially yourself could at least get
Kodak to authenticate via independent forensics as to their own damn
film that supposedly never once recorded any X-ray or gamma hits, as
well couldn’t record any UV secondary/recoil photons and was also
immune to whatever thermal extremes. (modern CCDs having to be well
shielded, optically bandpass filtered, thermally regulated within a
narrow range and always having each frame cleared prior to whatever
optical exposure in order to alleviate those pesky issues plus
avoiding whatever stray X-ray and gamma hits)

BTW; with such terrific Kodak dynamic range (as clearly demonstrated
by way of their own pictures that supposedly required no extra shadow
fill-in lighting) and using nothing but the very best camera optics on
Earth, and yet how the hell did they manage to always exclude or hide
the extremely nearby and always vibrant planet Venus?

Why was their Apollo moon always looking so unusually eroded and/or
weathered, as a rolling soft terrain and only offering that of a
pastel off-white as well as kept so nicely UV inert for as far as
their unfiltered cameras could see?

How the hell did most all of their local contrast get essentially
eliminated?

Are there any such locations of extensive lunar terrain reflecting
above 0.5 albedo as having been independent astronomy recorded and
otherwise authenticated, much less of their .65+ up to 0.75 albedo
required for most of those Apollo landing sites? (our full moon
averaging at .07 doesn’t exactly suggest that it’s on average very
reflective, but then obviously we outsiders don’t have anywhere near
the same “right stuff”.

You do realize that a fully earthshine illuminated moon is getting 50+
fold better illuminated than Earth ever gets from any similar phase of
moonshine. So, why not go with a whole lot less contrasty and way
less glare prone mission, not to mention considerably cooler as well
as their having considerably less X-ray dosage (though roughly stuck
with the same gamma dosage)?

What about all of that surrounding ionized sodium they’d somehow
entirely missed out on?

Are you saying that such a considerable surround of ionized molecular
sodium vapor came on later and from someplace other than the moon
itself?

Have you actually looked at any of those Apollo mission images,
including their own metric mapping that doesn't seem to offer the
likes of soft eroded and pastel light-gray terrain, looking as
anything obtained from that unusually smooth, light pastel gray and UV
inert surface via those Apollo landings?

What the hell ever happened to all those physically dark, paramagnetic
basalt and multiple minerals of its metallicity bedrock and shards of
meteor/asteroid deposits that should have existed as razor sharp and
physically dark items?

Are you suggesting our naked moon is actually covered with a pastel
layer of guano that only looks dark and measurably having such a
deficient albedo as only when viewed from Earth or even from orbit?

The JAXA version from their initial camera format was rather correctly
bluish from all of that UV reactive amount of secondary/recoil moon
light, because at least at first they kind of forgot to optically
narrow bandpass filter it and/or didn’t bother to subsequently
PhotoShop the blue saturation out. Shame on them, though at least
they returned good science of the moon plasmasphere that our NASA/
Apollo team entirely missed.
http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/en/communi...#NEW_20071214A
http://www.jaxa.jp/topics/2007/img/t...20071031_e.pdf
Those initial bluish images are stacked half way down the page.

Here’s those somewhat more natural mineral/metallicity color images as
having been properly PhotoShop filtered in order to remove that pesky
UV secondary/recoil of such a bluish tint.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancie...s_Galileo.html

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancie...e_01.html#15th
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancie..._Lunar_03.html

And only because I'm always such a nice guy that’s always willing to
play fair, we have this following contribution by our very own "kT"

"Japan First Back To The Moon!" / kT
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...8a85929879b6a0
I believe that topic intro is absolutely right on the money, at least
Japan being of the first other than Russian or those of our various
lunar orbital missions because we still do not have any reliable fly-
by-rocket landers, however China is not exactly sitting on their
extremely wise old butts, now are they.

Here's the latest HDTV images, except having those moon surface
saturations of somewhat badly skewed as deeply bluish color fully
removed. In other words, our moon is getting depicted as entirely
color blocked, as having been artificially limited to the
monochromatic gray-scale, and otherwise only Earth is getting
artificially accommodated in full living color.
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img...kaguya_01l.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img...kaguya_02l.jpg

Here's those unfiltered original images of their off-color saturation
imposed tint, via all of that pesky secondary or recoil worth of such
a bluish/violet hue look-see at our naked moon (images 01 ~ 13 are
kind of true blue moon):
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/20071021_kaguya_e.pdf
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_01.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_03.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_05.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_10.jpg
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img..._kaguya_11.jpg
Does anyone here seriously think that they’d screwed up or having
intentionally put a purple filter in front of that lens, do you?

Besides the matter of JAXA/NHK having only turned on their HDTV color
as for accommodating those color pixels of Earth (by adjusting your
gamma to 4x alone gives us that sort of proof, or otherwise by simply
replacing their image black with most any other color), though it's
still every bit worth another as-is look-see for taking notice as to
how extremely dark and otherwise somewhat of an average coal like 0.11
albedo or actually of a slightly sooty darker kind of dusty deep soft
lunar terrain of such minimal albedo (.07), meaning that on average
it's very poorly reflective of the visible spectrum and almost nothing
of UV reflected, as otherwise correctly representing that which our
extremely cosmic dusty and gamma electrostatic charged moon really is,
as well as for having been so clearly HVTV imaged w/o any of those
pesky color saturations except for their accommodating within the very
same HDTV FOV as hosting a very colorful Earth, as having been
illuminated by that very same raw solar spectrum that has unavoidably
skewed the moon itself by the unfiltered and subsequent excess amounts
of those violet and UV secondary bluish photons, of which CCDs are by
rights extremely sensitive to.

Now then, and I'm quite honestly serious about this next part; do we
see anything of that naked lunar terrain that's looking as though
being the least bit NASA/Apollo (65%~75% reflective) 0.65~0.075 albedo
worthy, looking as though reflecting much like a certain guano island
as having been xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated and otherwise
physically modified in order to suit their supposed pastel grayish
moon look, and thereby spinning everything rather nicely on behalf of
those hocus-pocus Apollo landings? (that’s kind of a silly loaded
question, as I didn't think so)

Now try to further imagine how much brighter than Earth those little
violet color skewed pixels worth of Venus are going to look. Actually,
with the HDTV's far better than Kodak film DR(dynamic range) is why
the likes of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn should also become part of those
future JAXA/KAGUYA(SELENE) obtained images, along with a few of those
most bright of background stars such as Sirius, that is unless having
been intentionally spectrum filtered out or subsequently PhotoShop
removed.

With using a proper optical spectrum filter (of which KAGUYA may not
have had to work with) is where we'll get to see the true deep golden
brownish color of our moon, along with certain other raw secondary/
recoil photons of those cosmic and local deposited mineral elements
which should become downright interesting, even though color skewed
unless illuminated via the extremely bluish earthshine because,
there's such a great deal of secondary/recoil UV that'll always tend
to saturate most everything into giving us that somewhat purple/bluish
or violet hue or weird tint.

And to further rethink that there should be much more of truth to come
via JAXA/KAGUYA(SELENE) once those full color spectrum images of the
moon have been properly adjusted for allowing their more natural
mineral color/hue saturations, plus those other instruments start
reporting their new science data, as well as from whatever China can
uncover and share is just around the very next corner.
--

Are we still having to accept that the physics and science of
photographic contrast and color/hue saturation simply doesn't apply
here?

Did our sun somehow manage to stop producing UV for each of those
Apollo missions?

Did the absolutely vibrant and bluish earthshine also get turned off?

Of course our Mook has openly admitted as to having absolutely no
observationology skills, expertise or any way of otherwise deductively
interpreting or comparing one image of anything from any other, so
other than having blindly and totally dumbfounded accepted everything
as to whatever the cloak and dagger mainstream status-quo of our
mutually perpetrated cold-war era has to say about our moon, you can't
even be the least bit certain any of those unfiltered Kodak moments
were ever obtained from that naked lunar surface to begin with.

How is it that some government agencies that force everyone to sign a
strictly enforced nondisclosure contract can be explicitly trusted,
and otherwise most other government agencies can’t be trusted as far
as anyone can safely spit into the wind?

Do try to remember that I’ve never stipulated that some portions of
our Apollo mission stuff didn’t make it to that surface, because
technically that capability had existed for accommodating one-way but
only somewhat controlled soft landings.

How is it that all of those NASA/Apollo mission photos via those
unfiltered Kodak moments that even Kodak will not forensic
authenticate as supposedly 100% truthworthy, and yet those of the NASA/
Magellan mission looking at Venus still can’t be trusted?

Why yes indeed, it seems as though they totally screwed us and did a
really good job of covered their butts at the same time. The entire
mutually perpetrated cold-war that was public-funded as well as bogus
as WMD and otherwise very profitable for those above the top 0.1%, so
they and those Russian oligarchs obviously dumbfounded and snookered
us and perhaps especially yourself beyond the point of no return.

Even their LRO mission can't reconcile the relative mineral or
metallicity darkness of that paramagnetic basalt moon with what those
Apollo missions and their Kodak film reported.

Perhaps next time when they actually set foot on that naked moon is
when they'll return only after having placed enduring infrastructure
and interactive science that we can all learn and grow from.

Meanwhile the best science remains as remote via orbit, because thus
far everything placed on that surface has been inert and otherwise
passive.

Do you have any fly-by-rocket lander of that technology era that
actually works?

Do you or can anyone not at LLPOF risk, have direct access to any of
their original raw data?

Can you or anyone explain how Venus was always kept so invisible from
lunar orbit as well as from any FOV including that physically dark and
paramagnetic basalt surface?

It seems the mainstream status-quo isn’t required to know how analog
film works, any more so than understanding how camera optics work, or
how contrasty that physically dark lunar environment had to work, not
to mention its thermal extremes as well as for the unavoidable local,
solar and cosmic radiation that had to have been recorded by all (each
and every mm2) of their Kodak film.

Another totally predictable joke, as well as pathetic:
“NASA has begun drafting guidelines to protect the Apollo 11 and
Apollo 17 landing sites, listing them as off-limits, and including
ground-travel buffers and no-fly zones to avoid spraying rocket
exhaust or dust onto aging, but historic, equipment.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44994619.../#.TqI99WH-UY0
According to all of those NASA/Apollo era Kodak moments, that were
sufficiently rad-hard and immune to extreme thermal trauma, whereas
not even their own landing retro-thrust directly applied as their
purely fly-by-rocket controlled down-range and otherwise applied as
directly under each and every lander for several seconds prior to
their soft touchdowns, and yet somehow having never managed to
dislodge or blow away any significant volume of that crystal dry moon
with its oddly monochromatic pastel gray dust that always clumped
perfectly for terrific surface tension. In fact, none of the
physically dark basalt bedrock of the moon was ever exposed.

So, do tell, as in our supposedly trustworthy NASA needs to start
sharing as to how the hell any observational flyover, that’ll likely
be a km or higher off the deck, is going to possibly disturb any of
our precious Apollo squat?

Just because most if not all of it was robotic, with no outward signs
of human activity, is really not a very good enough reason to keep
hiding the truth by way of heaping one excuse after another as to why
no another soul or their technology can be allowed to get anywhere
near those abandoned landing sites.

From the physically dark lunar surface, the Earth is obviously
appearing as way bigger than the sun, and its vibrant bluish tint/hue
plus IR can’t be so immeasurable as suggested by all things NASA/
Apollo. So, why would all handheld as well as tripod situated cameras
be configured so as to always exclude anything other than the moon?

Was there always something obscuring any FOV including the planet
Venus?

At least there are a few independently honest folks doing the right
thing, by preparing for the near future that’s taking at least some of
us off-world. Of course only they get to use their true ID, whereas
most others here as ZNR certified redneck FUD-masters that are usually
devout Semites or some other faith-based cloaked as Atheists and
politically independent, seldom if ever use their true Ids, and yet
not one soul of their kind is ever caught policing a damn thing of
their own kind. It’s a wonder we’re not deep into WW3.

Bigelow Poofs and China could establish a moon base in record time:
http://www.space.com/13331-china-spa...low-ispcs.html

On Oct 23, 7:09 am, William Mook wrote:
We're being raped todayhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSlJko-mP6w

With respect to your comment about Venus being visible, I think I
mentioned to you that the F-stop setting needed not to over-expose the
lunar surface makes the stars, and Venus invisible. I did this
calculation for you ten years ago. Do I need to do it again? How can
you forget?

Check out #10 HOW BRIGHT ARE NATURAL LIGHT SOURCES?

Maximum Brightness of Venus
-4.3 Stellar Magnitude = 1.4e-4 Lumens

Full Moon Overhead (at night on Earth!!)
-12.5 Stellar Magnitude = 0.267 Lumens

Full Daylight (not in direct sun)
-24 Stellar Magnitude = 10,000 Lumens

Direct Sunlight
-26.7 Stellar Magnitude = 130,000 Lumens

Brad! The light REFLECTED BY THE MOON TO EARTH is 2,500 TIMES AS
BRIGHT AS VENUS! A camera adjusted to take a picture of the moon
from Earth that wasn't over-exposed does not see any stars - including
Venus. Images that show the moon surrounded by stars are
photoshopped. They take the picture without the moon, and then a
picture of the moon, and put the two together.

Go out on a dark night and try to take a picture of the moon that is
not over-exposed that also shows stars.

YOU CAN'T DO IT!

If you do post it and let me know.

Now, if you can't take a picture of Venus and the moon at the same
time with the same camera and the same exposure, you can't do it on
the moon.

Because when you're on the moon its brighter! 10 MILLION TIMES
BRIGHTER!!

Now, there are no clouds on the moon, and the dark soils of the moon,
like dark Earth without vegetation for those who farm, or dark sands
on the beach of Tahiti, look pretty bright when that's all there is to
see.

The photometry of all the orbiting spacecraft is consistent with the
pictures brought back by Apollo.

As they used to say in Kentucky when I was a boy - That dawg won't
hunt son!
Here's one more better jab, for the revised record:
Your total lack of understanding Kodak film dynamic range(DR) plus
failing to appreciate the high quality of optics involved is noted, as
is your inability to deductively interpret any image because, you
obviously do not have that expertise, much less any trust for anyone
other than yourself.

Venus reflects at better than twice or actually offers nearly three
fold that of Earth because Venus gets to start off with 2650 w/m2, and
it most certainly wasn't an optically small point-source target to the
extremely fine grain of that Kodak film. You simply can not use the
whole Earth or whole moon area as reflected solar illumination as
justified overwhelming against those fewer pixels or film grains of
Venus, because that’s clearly an obvious case of LLPOF condition
physics and science cheating (aka intentional obfuscation). Also, the
average surface albedo of our whole physically dark moon being
accepted as 7% and otherwise by rights should have kept looking as
somewhat darker because of their polarized optical element that was
utilized, kind of adds further insult to injury. In other words, this
time you can't get away with your usual bipolar smarts and/or
conditional physics excuses forever, by pretending that you actually
know something from direct experience and personal expertise, because
clearly you do not know photographic squat, and no wonder you are
totally worthless in observationology because, you know even less
about SAR imaging.

You clearly do not know squat about traditional photography, much less
knowing anything about that Kodak film. Since you are totally
unqualified is why anything you have to say is clearly another sign of
your bogus ID and pretty much covering most of everything else you've
had to offer, as being at risk of disclosing exactly what a certified
FUD-master is paid to do. No wonder your actions demonstrate that you
can afford to care less about others.

I don't want to seem entirely ungrateful, but this time you are simply
overflowing yourself with butt-loads of mainstream status-quo
disinformation and systematic obfuscation, because you’ve just
demonstrated a total lack any photographic skills which has to include
direct and indirect illumination issues as well as color/hue
sensitivity (including B&W recorded images) that’s entirely different
for that film than what a human eye interprets. This time you have
gotten yourself so far off the mark that even dysfunctional 5th
graders can tell.

Have you even owned a traditional film camera, and if so would you
care to share copies of some of your best work?

BTW; any camera with its supposedly rad-hard film or thermally
stabilized CCD imager that can manage to record the darkest surface or
ocean areas of Earth along with any part of our physically dark lunar
surface within the same FOV, can’t possibly not manage to record the
likes of Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus and Mercury, nor even avoid the
likes of Sirius unless a sufficiently narrow bandpass optical filter
were utilized.

Other than the 8+r of ionized sodium vapor surrounding our physically
dark moon, it was a relatively naked environment and thus able to see
everything so much clearer and sharper, as well as the full gauntlet
of solar UV wasn’t getting filtered out or causing any weird
atmospheric issues because supposedly there was hardly any atmosphere
to interact with which could only make their surrounding terrain and
themselves extremely contrasty, as well as having hardly if any
electrostatic issues, and that moon soil/dust gave everything such
terrific clumping as nifty surface tension to literally boot. Also,
the moonsuit water cooling via sublime/evaporation (liquid to vapor
phase changing) that exited from around their boots never once kicked
up or bothered any speck of dust nor having caused any reactions
whatsoever. Obviously you do not have any problems with believing
each and every NASA/Apollo word on absolutely anything, so that they
must have been the one and only fully trustworthy government agency on
Earth that essentially disbanded and tossed away most of our public
funded R&D as well as having lost tract of much of their original
science (including how to make another Saturn-V or any fly-by-rocket
landers), and yet they’re coming absolutely unglued about getting one
messily camera back that was supposed to get discarded anyway.

Gee whiz, it’s almost as though they still have lots to hide and
perhaps even less to share. Good thing that your selective bipolarism
works for you, as kind of on demand obfuscation.

Notice those nifty mineral/metallicity colors of our moon: (why of
course you don’t)
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-of-ron-garan/
Did you by any chance notice them pesky stars over that nighttime
view of Earth and its greenish layer of atmosphe (why of course you
don’t, and obviously all those with the right stuff throughout our
entire Apollo era didn’t have any clue. Perhaps it’s a wonder they
were even potty trained.)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/11621415...04389172460674
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

I invite Brad to take a photo of the moon - and see if he can capture
any stars without over-exposing the moon. If he can, I invite him to
post it here.

On Oct 24, 10:39*pm, William Mook wrote:
I invite Brad to take a photo of the moon - and see if he can capture
any stars without over-exposing the moon. *If he can, I invite him to
post it here.

Now you're getting more pathetic than the usual gauntlet of ZNR FUD-
masters.

What's the matter this time? (doesn't your computer function for
internet searching?)

Doesn't your computer function on behalf of any of those links I've
already provided?

BTW; Venus isn't a star, nor is it any other kind of point-source
light. (oops, sorry about that, because I'm already talking way over
your head)

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

On Oct 24, 11:08*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 24, wrote:

I invite Brad to take a photo of the moon - and see if he can capture
any stars without over-exposing the moon. *If he can, I invite him to
post it here.

Now you're getting more pathetic than the usual gauntlet of ZNR FUD-
masters.

What's the matter this time? (doesn't your computer function for
internet searching?)

Doesn't your computer function on behalf of any of those links I've
already provided?

BTW; *Venus isn't a star, nor is it any other kind of point-source
light. (oops, sorry about that, because I'm already talking way over
your head)

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

Photos that have been double exposed or photoshopped don't count.

I've tried to take a picture of the moon with stars in the field,
without over-exposing it. I cannot. If you can, tell me how you did
it and when.

What are You Looking For?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKqdePEwEkc

Dry Weights
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...on_Weights.htm

S-II

Manufacturer North American
Country of origin USA
Rockets Saturn V (stage 2)

Size
Height 24.9 m (82 ft)
Diameter 10 m (33 ft)
Mass 480,900 kg (1,060,000 lb)
Empty 36,550 kg (80,560 lb)

Engine details

Engines 5 J-2 engine
Thrust 5,115 kN (1,150,000 lbf)
Burn time 367 seconds
Fuel LOX/LH2
Isp 422 seconds

Six of these S-II stages clustered together and fired in three steps
could place 655,000 pounds into LEO - with recovery of the stages.

Clustering a 'stretched' version to double the weight doubles the
payload to 1,310,000 pounds to LEO. The engine cluster in this case
must be increased as well. This is most easily achieved with an
aerospike engine built of 11 sections with 11 pumpsets.

A regular S-II sitting atop the cluster allows an additional 250,000
lbs of payload. The S-II would then become a 'wet habitat' flying on
to Mars or Venus or the Moon. To the Moon, one way. Ditto for
Venus. To Mars, using Zubrin's ideas for refueling, the S-II can be
used to return to Earth.

Wernher von Braun designed a space station based on fitting out of an
expended Saturn II stage in orbit on 24 November 1964.

The NERVA rocket program could have been completed and replaced the J2
Engines in the upper stage. Bimodal operation on one of the engines
would have provided electrical power in transit. This would have
resulted in the elimination of the oxygen tank, expansion of the
hydrogen tank, and an increase of payload from 250,000 pounds to
650,000 pounds! With an ability to and return from Mercury, Venus
orbit, Lunar Surface and Mars (without refueling) along with the
asteroid belt.

Its clear that had an additional $8 billion been spent on top of the
$22 billion spent previously, the USA would have given us early
mastery of the inner solar system.

On Oct 25, 4:54*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:08*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Oct 24, wrote:

I invite Brad to take a photo of the moon - and see if he can capture
any stars without over-exposing the moon. *If he can, I invite him to
post it here.

Now you're getting more pathetic than the usual gauntlet of ZNR FUD-
masters.

What's the matter this time? (doesn't your computer function for
internet searching?)

Doesn't your computer function on behalf of any of those links I've
already provided?

BTW; *Venus isn't a star, nor is it any other kind of point-source
light. (oops, sorry about that, because I'm already talking way over
your head)

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

Photos that have been double exposed or photoshopped don't count.

I've tried to take a picture of the moon with stars in the field,
without over-exposing it. *I cannot. *If you can, tell me how you did
it and when.

Venus is not a star.
Venus is not a star.
Venus is not a star.
Venus is not a star.

However, Mook is clearly an idiot.

Problem is, you have absolutely no deductive image interpreting
expertise whatsoever, or much less any first hand capability, so
anything you have to say is next to meaningless if not entirely
worthless. And because you never give an honest tinkers damn about
what anyone else has to say, is only further proof positive of your
FUD-master status.

You can't possibly claim anything objective about those NASA/Apollo
Kodak moment is exactly as only they get to interpret, as being the
one and only truth, and on the other hand get to disqualify a terrific
radar obtained image offering a composite derivative of 36 confirming
looks or scans per pixel as being untrustworthy. Good freaking Christ
almighty on a stick, not even Kodak can authenticate on behalf of any
of those moon surface obtained images. Are you actually smarter than
Kodak?

Obviously you can't even be bothered to look at whatever anyone other
than NASA/Apollo accomplished, which clearly makes you one of them and
certainly not as who you claim to be.

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

On Oct 26, 3:12*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 25, wrote:









On Oct 24, 11:08*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 24, wrote:

I invite Brad to take a photo of the moon - and see if he can capture
any stars without over-exposing the moon. *If he can, I invite him to
post it here.

Now you're getting more pathetic than the usual gauntlet of ZNR FUD-
masters.

What's the matter this time? (doesn't your computer function for
internet searching?)

Doesn't your computer function on behalf of any of those links I've
already provided?

BTW; *Venus isn't a star, nor is it any other kind of point-source
light. (oops, sorry about that, because I'm already talking way over
your head)

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

Photos that have been double exposed or photoshopped don't count.

I've tried to take a picture of the moon with stars in the field,
without over-exposing it. *I cannot. *If you can, tell me how you did
it and when.

Venus is not a star.
Venus is not a star.
Venus is not a star.
Venus is not a star.

haha - So you admit that its not possible. The only reason I said
star is because Venus so rarely lines up with the Moon. Last time I
saw it happen was Monday December 1, 2008. Here's a video someone
shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HctZvkU7jUw

Notice you can see Venus and Jupiter along with the moon. But notice
also, THE MOON IS OVEREXPOSED!!!!! If you stop the camera down so
that you can see features on the brightly lit moon, VENUS AND JUPITER
DISAPPEAR!!!

That's all I'm saying dude.

If you can't see Venus and the moon in the sky at the same time when
you set your camera up to take a picture of the moon, when you're
standing 240,000 miles away - how in the hell are you going to be able
to see Venus in the lunar sky when you've set your camera up to take
pictures of the lunar surface ON the lunar surface?

I've done the radiosity calculations. I can't see how the Apollo
astronauts could have done it.


However,Mookis clearly an idiot.

Only because I'm trying to educate you Brad on something relatively
simple.

Problem is, you have absolutely no deductive image interpreting
expertise

Yes, I refuse to get dragged into your feeble analysis of Venus based
on limited decades old data and support a detailed comprehensive
survey of Venus. Wouldn't you much rather have a comprehensive
detailed survey of all those sites you keep harping about? Why does
the prospect of new data scare you?

whatsoever, or much less any first hand capability, so
anything you have to say is next to meaningless if not entirely
worthless. *

Wait a minute. Who is the greater idiot? The man who says something
worthless and doesn't know it? Or the man who gets agitated and
comments on something he believes to be worthless?

hmm..

And because you never give an honest tinkers damn about
what anyone else has to say,

Nonsense.

is only further proof positive of your
FUD-master status.

Dude, I'm trying to save you from embarassment. Do a radiosity
calculation. Try to take a picture of the the moon and a star and see
how the moon is overexposed every time the star is visible. Check out
how bright the moon is in the night sky.

Don't take my word for it.

Go out look at the moon and the sky, and figure it out for yourself.

Then come back and thank me for saving you from embarassment.

You can't possibly claim anything objective about those NASA/Apollo
Kodak moment is exactly as only they get to interpret, as being the
one and only truth, and on the other hand get to disqualify a terrific
radar obtained image offering a composite derivative of 36 confirming
looks or scans per pixel as being untrustworthy. *Good freaking Christ
almighty on a stick, not even Kodak can authenticate on behalf of any
of those moon surface obtained images. *Are you actually smarter than
Kodak?

I don't know dude. If you showed you understood the basics of how
radiosity works and how to set a camera so it doesn't overexpose a
subject, if you had a clue about that, maybe people would listen to
you about the other stuff. But, out of the box, you're shooting
yourself in the foot by making statements that are just plain wrong.
Don't get mad at the people who are trying to educate you. Get mad at
yourself for being a stubborn fool.

Obviously you can't even be bothered to look at whatever anyone other
than NASA/Apollo accomplished, which clearly makes you one of them and
certainly not as who you claim to be.

I am sad to report that NASA is guilty of horrific criminal activity
and has been a cover to support criminal activities from the very
beginning.

Astro Turf
http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/Article406.phtml

Jack Parsons
http://technoccult.net/archives/2008...tist-of-satan/


Project Paperclip was the first CIA op after its formation following
Truman's signing of the National Security Act of 1947. The rocket
scientists in Project Paperclip were a cover for a deeper more
sinister transfer of IP from NAZI Germany. Namely, MK-ULTRA. The CIA
used Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, and NASA facilities after 1958, to carry out
a continuing program of mind control creating an army of mind
controlled sex slaves, criminals, and others by torturing and sexually
abusing children from families profiled by the CIA and cause them to
trauma bond with their handlers.

MK-ULTRA Paperclip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIr0_Mt6AXg

Ted Gunnerson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCOF2WmNHOk

Gunnerson/Bonacci
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mkO4y-MKD0

Cathy O'Brien
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6YU4XfYtBM

Cathy O'Brien
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x6CWs4mJ2s


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