Lunar Mascons cleverness

On Jan 14, 1:53*am, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:04:45 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth



wrote:
. . .
Usenet has managed to lose and/or exclude my previous two replies, so
here goes again.

And yet they did edit/modify and even assemble those images to suit,
perhaps because they really didn't care about the spendy public-funded
science or physics, unless it had something to do with improving their
job security and better benefits for themselves.

Clearly the mainstream objective has been to make our moon seem as
inert and monochromatic grayish as possible, so that others don’t get
any notions as to its physically dark metallicity and its otherwise
extremely contrasty nature.

Unlike yourself and most others here, I’ve actually done conventional
camera photographics, including film processing, editing and printing
to suit, so I know what Kodak film can and can not do, as well as I
know what optics and filters can do. *I also understand lighting
limitations and issues of contrast and dynamic range that’s way less
than ideal for such high contrast situations.

You seem photographically inexperienced or even dysfunctional. *Did
you even learn how to properly load film into a camera?

As is, the best of Kodak film simply doesn’t have sufficient dynamic
range for the sorts of images related to those Apollo missions, at
least not without extensive dodging, burning and re-mastering (aka
doctoring/PhotoShop).

Where the hell did all that mystery white or xenon arch lamp spectrum
of illumination in shadows come from?

What ever happened to all the raw solar UV illumination, and/or why
was everything natural and artificial UV inert?

What about the enormous flood of bluish planetshine? (how the hell did
their Kodak color film manage to miss that?)

Of course they never could manage to record Venus within any FOV that
included our physically dark moon or Earth, so perhaps all of that
sodium atmosphere they didn’t know about is what filtered out the
vibrance of such a nearby Venus.

BTW; *if so much as one thing is found wrong with those images, then
everything of NASA/Apollo is at risk. *Others and myself have found
multiple things wrong, and not even Kodak has independently
authenticated any of those surface obtained images.

I believe I finally see your problem, Brad...

They must've used Fuji film!

--
Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"The important thing is not to stop questioning."

At least that could have given us an extra db(F-stop) worth of dynamic
range, although at the time there wasn’t that option.

BTW; they had on-the-fly film developing and digital scanners way
back then, or at least our USAF, DARPA and the NSA had them for their
cloak and dagger missions of spying via satellite.

You've probably never accomplished any truly nighttime images as
having but one primary source of illumination, because if you had
you'd have realized how terribly contrasty it gets, and so much worse
if the average surrounding albedo was only worth 12%, plus it only
gets worse yet if that illumination angle was something like 45
degrees or less.

So, instead of truly scientific images that are not modified, we got
only secondary or third generation eyecandy images that were
individually dodged, burned and even stacked and re-mastered to suit,
as well as never any independent photographic forensics allowed of
their originals (not even of a nearly worthless frame or one of any
duplicated FOV, of which there were hundreds of those).

With so many items of known albedo and color to go by, makes it kind
of hard to figure out how so much of our naked moon got such a highly
reflective surface, not to mention so extensively eroded and only
depicting soft rolling hills with hardly any meteorites in sight, and
never any hint of the physically dark and likely paramagnetic basalt
bedrock that should have been exposed and razor sharp, especially
since there was only that thin layer of clumping soil that offered
such terrific surface tension..

Even a few items well within the dynamic range and optical resolution,
such as Venus were systematically excluded and/or subsequently removed
from any frame of view that included the lunar horizon and/or Earth.
Actually the bluish bright point-source vibrance of Sirius should have
been next to impossible to avoid, especially from orbit.

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

On Jan 12, 1:36*pm, palsing wrote:
... Once in
the scanned digital or even analog format, almost anything becomes
doable, however manually dodging, burning and stack re-mastering was
well developed and there's terrific proof of that expertise in the
image Doble11.JPG (which of course they've tried to pull or suppress
most other copies on the internet)
*http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Doble11.JPG

Well, Brad, I kinda doubt they are trying to suppress this picture, go
to this NASA site...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...sj.funpix.html

... where it says... "The following creations show the fun side of
being an Apollo enthusiast. Many of the offerings use Apollo images
and scenes as a basis, but with unexpected additions. Some show
members of the ALSJ/AFJ team having Apollo-like adventures here on
Planet Earth. And still other offerings make use of Apollo material
for various artistic purposes. Enjoy!."

Scroll down almost all the way to the bottom and look for "Apollo 11
Double Vision". If you can find fault with this picture, well, good
for you. But there is nothing 'Official' about it, it is just
someone's idea of fun, like the other pictures on this page, they are
ALL, admittedly, fakes.

\Paul A

Here another image that's not doctored or PhotoShop edited.

Moon and Jupiter
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...separation.jpg

Guess what; Venus is a whole lot brighter than Jupiter.

On Jan 13, 6:09*pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Brad Guth writes:
On Jan 13, 12:12=A0pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
I just told you the two astronaut image is doctored. I know some
of the things to look for.
You seriously don't know squat, much less from any first-hand
expertise, and you're avoiding the obvious errors besides their
photographic content that such modified images represent.

OK, so tell us, what are the "obvious errors" in the photo Wormley
referred to?
Do the PhotoShop edit, as I instructed. If that's still not possible,
let a 5th grader do it for you. The image doctoring becomes way more
than obvious.


Now I know you know perfectly the albedo of the moon's surface is about
12%, and the cameras would be configured for that and full sunlight.
Crank in 45 degrees worth of a singular spot source illumination, and
that physically dark surface gets a whole lot darker.

What does that mean? The cameras were preset for the amount of light
expected. They knew how bright the sun was and the albedo of the surface.
It seems to be to be slightly overexposed. (I once read they did that
on purpose)
As I said before, you don't know squat about photography, its dynamic
range or color saturations, much less anything about primary or
secondary reflected lighting.


Are you suggesting those moon suits were not ultra-white?

Never suggested anything of the sort, esp. once they got that clingy
moon dust all over them. =A0Must be the voices you're hearing, not me.
Why would I ever expect yourself, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Kissinger or
Hitler to ever change their closed mindsets? *Now that would be
clinically insane.

Sounds like the voices in your head are yelling like a football stadium
after the home team scores a touchdown.

So, you want the rest of us village idiots

So you finally admit to your position in life.

(regardless of our first-hand expertise,

Oh, so you are an expert at lunar photography? *Tell us more!
I already have, so obviously you also have a reading comprehension
dysfunction.


that the moon is actually a very monochromatic terrain of off-whites,
minimal contrast issues and soft eroded hills for as far as the eye
can see, without any exposed dark basalt bedrock or offering any
significant metallicity nor much less paramagnetic whatsoever. *Is
that about right?

What I see from Apollo photos matches what I see when I look up at night.
How absolutely pathetic, and further proof that you're an idiot that's
totally photo dysfunctional.


Exactly how long have you been colorblind?

No colorblindness, just that the moon is mostly a rather boring color.
The Apollo astronauts did come across regions of colored rock/soil.

From this distance, any disk or orb of coal would look pretty much the
same, offering all colors combined which becomes equal to off-white or
pastel grays regardless of its metallicity or deep mineral colors
available to those walking on that moon.

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

Brad Guth writes:

On Jan 13, 6:09 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
You seriously don't know squat, much less from any first-hand
expertise, and you're avoiding the obvious errors besides their
photographic content that such modified images represent.

OK, so tell us, what are the "obvious errors" in the photo Wormley
referred to?
Do the PhotoShop edit, as I instructed. If that's still not possible,
let a 5th grader do it for you. The image doctoring becomes way more
than obvious.

You haven't specified any error or fakery. Continuing to whine "NASA could
have photoshopped it!!!" doesn't count.

You call Wormley's image a fake and you still can't provide evidence for
that claim even though both he and I called you on it.

What does that mean? The cameras were preset for the amount of light
expected. They knew how bright the sun was and the albedo of the surface.
It seems to be to be slightly overexposed. (I once read they did that
on purpose)

As I said before, you don't know squat about photography, its dynamic
range or color saturations, much less anything about primary or
secondary reflected lighting.

You are babbling nonsense here. The film, exposure etc. were set to the
amount of light you'd expect for full unfiltered sunlight illuminating a
dark object. Light in shadows was from reflection of sunlit areas. Plus
NASA would have the best film Kodak (or any other film co. of the time)
had to offer.

Oh, so you are an expert at lunar photography? Tell us more!
I already have, so obviously you also have a reading comprehension
dysfunction.

No, let's here something actual, like what you'd put on a resume (below
the "park bench mumbler" entry). You think burning or dodging photos adds
content that wasn't there before. (say you want to examine a bright rock
and also see what's in its shadow. You'd make a copy with the lit surface
underexposed and the shadow overexposed to see more. No info added)

that the moon is actually a very monochromatic terrain of off-whites,
minimal contrast issues and soft eroded hills for as far as the eye
can see, without any exposed dark basalt bedrock or offering any
significant metallicity nor much less paramagnetic whatsoever. Is
that about right?

What I see from Apollo photos matches what I see when I look up at night.
How absolutely pathetic, and further proof that you're an idiot that's
totally photo dysfunctional.

What, you expect bright pink rocks with green polkadots or something?

Exactly how long have you been colorblind?

No colorblindness, just that the moon is mostly a rather boring color.
The Apollo astronauts did come across regions of colored rock/soil.

From this distance, any disk or orb of coal would look pretty much the
same, offering all colors combined which becomes equal to off-white or
pastel grays regardless of its metallicity or deep mineral colors
available to those walking on that moon.

They did find some colored rocks. Remember the dust would be from meteor
impacts all over and mixed up by now, even if from different colors
originally, it'd be mixed up after four billion years.

On Jan 14, 9:28*pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Brad Guth writes:
On Jan 13, 6:09 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
You seriously don't know squat, much less from any first-hand
expertise, and you're avoiding the obvious errors besides their
photographic content that such modified images represent.

OK, so tell us, what are the "obvious errors" in the photo Wormley
referred to?
Do the PhotoShop edit, as I instructed. *If that's still not possible,
let a 5th grader do it for you. *The image doctoring becomes way more
than obvious.

You haven't specified any error or fakery. Continuing to whine "NASA could
have photoshopped it!!!" doesn't count.

You call Wormley's image a fake and you still can't provide evidence for
that claim even though both he and I called you on it.

What does that mean? The cameras were preset for the amount of light
expected. They knew how bright the sun was and the albedo of the surface.
It seems to be to be slightly overexposed. (I once read they did that
on purpose)
As I said before, you don't know squat about photography, its dynamic
range or color saturations, much less anything about primary or
secondary reflected lighting.

You are babbling nonsense here. *The film, exposure etc. were set to the
amount of light you'd expect for full unfiltered sunlight illuminating a
dark object. *Light in shadows was from reflection of sunlit areas. Plus
NASA would have the best film Kodak (or any other film co. of the time)
had to offer.

Oh, so you are an expert at lunar photography? *Tell us more!
I already have, so obviously you also have a reading comprehension
dysfunction.

No, let's here something actual, like what you'd put on a resume (below
the "park bench mumbler" entry). *You think burning or dodging photos adds
content that wasn't there before. *(say you want to examine a bright rock
and also see what's in its shadow. You'd make a copy with the lit surface
underexposed and the shadow overexposed to see more. No info added)

that the moon is actually a very monochromatic terrain of off-whites,
minimal contrast issues and soft eroded hills for as far as the eye
can see, without any exposed dark basalt bedrock or offering any
significant metallicity nor much less paramagnetic whatsoever. *Is
that about right?

What I see from Apollo photos matches what I see when I look up at night.
How absolutely pathetic, and further proof that you're an idiot that's
totally photo dysfunctional.

What, you expect bright pink rocks with green polkadots or something?

Exactly how long have you been colorblind?

No colorblindness, just that the moon is mostly a rather boring color.
The Apollo astronauts did come across regions of colored rock/soil.
From this distance, any disk or orb of coal would look pretty much the
same, offering all colors combined which becomes equal to off-white or
pastel grays regardless of its metallicity or deep mineral colors
available to those walking on that moon.

They did find some colored rocks. *Remember the dust would be from meteor
impacts all over and mixed up by now, even if from different colors
originally, it'd be mixed up after four billion years.

Just because you remain photographically dysfunctional, isn't my
fault.

If you insist upon believing that our government agencies have never
lied to us or having obfuscated a damn thing, then good for you.

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

In sci.physics Michael Moroney wrote:
Brad Guth writes:
....
As I said before, you don't know squat about photography, its dynamic
range or color saturations, much less anything about primary or
secondary reflected lighting.

You are babbling nonsense here. The film, exposure etc. were set to the
amount of light you'd expect for full unfiltered sunlight illuminating a
dark object. Light in shadows was from reflection of sunlit areas. Plus
NASA would have the best film Kodak (or any other film co. of the time)
had to offer.
....

At least the Haselblads (all 13 left on the moon) were special versions
that were "simplified" for lunar work. 2 exposures, 2 f-stops, and
3 preset focus choices.

When you look though the catalogs you can see for some scenes the guys
took the sme shot with several choices and sometimes none of them
worked.

With the limited functionality there's no wonder some back room enhancing
was needed from time to time, no matter the forgiving nature of the cambera
(depth of field == huge).

--
If you stood on the moon only two things would be visible -- the Great
Wall of China and the self-pity of Andrew Bolt.
-- Richard Flanagan

On Jan 14, 9:44*pm, wrote:
In sci.physics Michael Moroney wrote: Brad Guth writes:
...
As I said before, you don't know squat about photography, its dynamic
range or color saturations, much less anything about primary or
secondary reflected lighting.

You are babbling nonsense here. *The film, exposure etc. were set to the
amount of light you'd expect for full unfiltered sunlight illuminating a
dark object. *Light in shadows was from reflection of sunlit areas. Plus
NASA would have the best film Kodak (or any other film co. of the time)
had to offer.

...

At least the Haselblads (all 13 left on the moon) were special versions
that were "simplified" for lunar work. 2 exposures, 2 f-stops, and
3 preset focus choices.

When you look though the catalogs you can see for some scenes the guys
took the sme shot with several choices and sometimes none of them
worked.

With the limited functionality there's no wonder some back room enhancing
was needed from time to time, no matter the forgiving nature of the cambera
(depth of field == huge).

--
If you stood on the moon only two things would be visible -- the Great
Wall of China and the self-pity of Andrew Bolt.
-- Richard Flanagan

So, it's perfectly OK for NASA/Apollo to modify spendy science to
suit, but it's not OK for others to deductively interpret a damn
thing. Is that about right?

At least that's what GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Kissinger and Hitler would
have insisted.

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

On 1/15/12 8:56 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
So, it's perfectly OK for NASA/Apollo to modify spendy science to
suit, but it's not OK for others to deductively interpret a damn
thing. Is that about right?

Brad cannot show any "doctoring" of this image
http://moonpans.com/prints/Apollo_11.jpg

Yet, he blusters on and on about it, without any evidence.

On Jan 5, 10:25*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/5/12 12:04 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jan 5, 9:54 am, Sam *wrote:
On 1/5/12 11:31 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

The point is, for its size it seems to have loads of nifty metallicity
to spare (including iron), as well as having unlimited renewable
energy for processing and exporting.

* * Of what is this "unlimited renewable energy", you speak.

1.4 kw/m2

* *You don't need to go to the moon to find sunlight, Brad. Plenty
* *of satellite collect it from space.

However, as situated on the moon could easily accommodate 100 km2
worth of PVs per mining location, and/or directly utilize its
reflective and focused sunlight that could easily melt and process
that metallicity saturated basalt crust, processing it and exporting
as much bulk refined pure alloy back to Earth.

You do realize that paramagnetic basalt is rich in heavy elements,
plus there's obviously loads of sodium and most everything in between
that and iridium to be had, not to mention uranium, thorium and
radium.

Of course, with sufficient deep wells, hard-rock blasting and TBMs
digging their way through the crust of Earth would just as likely turn
up similar elements at roughly half to a third the density, and the
terrestrial energy required for accomplishing that sort of mining and
processing should only cost us a few extra trillion per year
(including wars and continued special black-ops plus false-flag
efforts for assassinating nuclear research staff in other nations so
that we further maximize our global hydrocarbon profits) plus
generating those maximum loads of terrestrial pollution that you and
others of your kind seem to find nothing wrong with that or its AGW
factors.

My method provides a truly significant surplus of raw elements,
millions of full-time jobs with terrific benefits, global economic
deflation, a reverse or surplus trade balance and no further need of
terrestrial wars, and only a fraction of global pollution as well as
subsequently a measurable reduction in AGW.

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

On Jan 15, 10:53*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/15/12 8:56 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

So, it's perfectly OK for NASA/Apollo to modify spendy science to
suit, but it's not OK for others to deductively interpret a damn
thing. *Is that about right?

* *Brad cannot show any "doctoring" of this image
* * *http://moonpans.com/prints/Apollo_11.jpg

* *Yet, he blusters on and on about it, without any evidence.

Sam still can't do PhotoShop or any other kind of photographic
software usage to demonstrate squat, so instead he continues to lie.

A dysfunctional 5th grader can easily prove that image has been
doctored, but that's obviously way above the FUD-master skill level of
Sam Wormley.

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