🚀 go-pugleaf

As per usual, you are a liar, and a Third Reich collaborating minion
that's as brown-nosed as they come.  In fact, what an absolute
certified and/or born-again pack of liars, liars and butt-loads of
pants on fire of such brown-nosed borgs you folks are (incest cloned
none the less).

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

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

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

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

Here's a nifty moon phase simulator link (recently contributed by Ami
Silberman), and for otherwise having A-17 at roughly 30°E is making it
look as though they had gotten that artificial image of Earth
sufficiently correct, even though it's still a xenon illuminated moon
that's very guano and otherwise portland cement like.
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/animations/lps.swf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-134-20384.jpg

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

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

As for my being incorrect as to the illuminated phase of Earth as
viewed by their A-17 mission, whereas having supposedly landed roughly
30 degrees East would have seen Earth as slightly greater than half
phase illuminated for their first EVA (I hadn't realized how far East
the supposed landing site was situated on that passive guano and
portland cement moon of their's).
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-134-20387-cropped.jpg
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_6.html
Apollo 17 being 30° E (46 hours 18 minutes)
    * Landing: 113.00 GET
    * EVA-1
          o Start: 117.00 GET, 15.3 deg.
          o Finis: 124.25 GET, 19.0 deg.
    * EVA-2
          o Start: 140.50 GET, 27.3 deg.
          o Finis: 148.25 GET, 31.2 deg.
    * EVA-3
          o Start: 163.50 GET, 39.0 deg.
          o Finis: 170.75 GET, 42.6 deg.
At 75 lunar surface hours of having unavoidably received worse than Van
Allen TBI gamma and hard-X-ray that's not even the least bit attenuated
while in those 75 orbits (148 hours worth of somewhat spacecraft
shielded dosage), seems a neat trick all by itself.

However, the rather unusually slim crescent of Earth as depicted from
Apollo-14 seems a bit of a reciprocal or inverse stretch of the
imagination, even if having waited to the very last moment of their
second EVA should have shown a greater illuminated phase worth of
Earth.  As it stands, it's looking as though having been an extra day's
worth of phase rotation past their last EVA.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/20149603.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-66-9329
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-66-9331
A-14 being 17° W (28 hours 17 minutes)
    * Landing: 108.25 GET
    * EVA-1
          o Start: 113.50 GET, 13.0 deg.
          o Finis: 118.50 GET, 15.5 deg.
    * EVA-2
          o Start: 131.25 GET, 22.0 deg.
          o Finis: 135.75 GET, 24.3 deg.
At 33.5 lunar surface hours of unavoidably receiving worse than Van
Allen TBI gamma and hard-X-ray that's not the least bit attenuated
while in those 34 orbits (66.5 hours worth of somewhat spacecraft
shielded dosage) is still representing another neat trick.

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

There are however a few of those believable images from orbit, of Earth
and of the somewhat dark golden/brownish orb that looks as though a
rather mineral/element rich moon that's not all that reflective.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?46
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?47
Apollo 12
    * Landing: 110.50 GET
    * EVA-1
          o Start: 115.25 GET, 7.5 deg.
          o Finis: 119.25 GET, 9.5 deg.
    * EVA-2
          o Start: 131.50 GET, 15.8 deg.
          o Finis: 135.50 GET, 17.8 deg.

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

Here's a good collection of their guano island moon shots, of what's
typically of 0.55 to 0.65 albedo (reference moonsuit being 0.85 Albedo)
for as far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, and we're talking
of 10+ km worth in all directions, and of being well past 45 degrees of
sunrise to boot, which exceeds their EVA-3.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?117
Notice how the raw UV-a and near-UV spectrum of our sun is nowhere to
being found.

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

I hadn't realize they'd painted the nearly paper thin aluminum of their
Apollo-11 lander such a dark gray or flat black (they must have needed
the extra heat).
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_195.html

Here are a few more of those somewhat corrected color and proper
saturation images of Earth and our physically dark moon, plus a little
something star like.
http://www.permanent.com/t-index.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/6550.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo08_earthrise.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/gal_earth_moon.jpg
http://www.spaceshots.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/b2103.jpg
http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/images/planets/moon/earthr2.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020127.html

Here's a few other pesky examples of Venus and our moon
http://www.dustbunny.com/afk/planets/earth/moon.html
http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/NS102_2006/Lectures/Lecture9/Moon-venus-sm.jpg
http://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/events/carrizoDec05/moonVenus.jpg
http://www.starfirestudios.com/LUNAR/venus-moon.html
http://www.myastroshop.com.au/news/venus-moon.asp
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/noleen.htm
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/3.Wan%20Cres%20&%20Venus%2025398.jpg
(notice how the saturation of Venus is nearly as great as the moon,
even though extensively filtered by Earth's atmosphere)

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

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

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


Robert Weldon wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1153941903.172180.10580@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > How typically pathetic, totally arrogant and otherwise bigoted of
> > yourself.
>
> How typically insane of you.
>
> >
> > Robert Weldon wrote:
> >> "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1153865156.052199.249200@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Unlike yourself, at least Ed Conrad and I'm certainly not the ones that
> >> > are into rejecting the regular laws of physics, nor have I been
> >> > excluding as to various replicated hard-science in order to accommodate
> >> > some ulterior motives or hidden agenda.  And I sure as hell do not
> >> > approve of our perpetrated cold-war past (including that bloody 6-Day
> >> > war) or of what's present day or of the global warming and horrifically
> >> > extra Muslim bloody future, in so much as we're being taken to the
> >> > cleaners on behalf of sustaining your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)
> >> > as representing the ultimate born-again bigotry and arrogance of a
> >> > Third Reich minion as based upon his clear intent as to dominate over
> >> > the remaining global energy markets before our magnetosphere goes
> >> > red-line, and subsequently we all get to an early grave because we
> >> > can't afford the necessary extra-spendy energy and shielding, nor
> >> > otherwise the protected environment that's getting reserved extensively
> >> > for accommodating the upper most 0.1% of humanity.
> >>
> >> Rejecting regular laws of physics? you make up your own.  And nice word
> >> salad in your rant, only the best loons can pull that off.
> > Obviously you can't be specific without calling yourself a liar, or
> > something far worse.
>
> No, you rants are to demented to deal with in specifics, as there isn't
> anything specific there.
>
> >>
> >> > At least so far, we humans don't eat jellyfish.
> >>
> >> Ok, you completely lost me here
> > That's OK, because you're a lost cause to start with.
>
> And you are a loon.
> >
> >> > How about yourself?  Where exactly do you stand?
> >> On my two legs.
> >
> >> > What's your expertice or best available swag that's related to this
> >> > topic?
> >>
> >> To this topic, why, that you and Ed are complete loons.  At least Ed is
> >> funny, you are apparently completely insane.
> > In other words, you consider the truth as being loon worthy.
>
> No, I consider what you say is the truth as being loon worthy.
>
>
> >
> >> > What's your naysay/yaysay as to Venusian ETs or of any other
> >> > intelligent ETs?
> >>
> >> Until I see hard evidence of any ETs, I am reserving judgement.  By the
> >> way,
> >> nothing you have posted do I consider hard evidence.
> > Since you obviously don't believe in pictures nor in the regular laws
> > of physics, nor even in replicated science, therefore what exactly
> > would you consider as "hard evidence"?
>
> I do accept actual pictures and regular laws of physics, however I don't
> accept your twisted perversions of either, your version of the laws of
> physics bear absolutely no resemblance to the real world.  You have
> presented nothing that remotely fits reality.
>
>
> >
> >> > BTW;  In case you're Jewish.  I have also used the words/names
> >> > "Catholic", "Islamic", "Muslim" and "Cathar" for way more than my fair
> >> > share.  So what?  Have I left out your brown-nosed religion or
> >> > political basis of whatever logic of infomercial-science or
> >> > disinformation that floats your boat?
> >
> >> No problem, the closest description of my leanings is atheist.
> >> >
> >> > What's your personal knowledge or best swag as to those NASA/Apollo
> >> > missions that never transpired according to what we've all been told?
> >
> >> The evidence shows that they did occur.
> > Since there's no believable photographs or even a viable fly-by-rocket
> > lander to go by;  please specify whatever it is that you've accepted as
> > "evidence".
>
> The actual photographs, the telemetry of the radio transmissions, etc.
> There is not arguement about the moon missions having occurred, except by
> the lunatic fringe conspiracy loons such as yourself.  You are aware that
> they left a reflector on the moon, aren't you, it is still being used to
> measure earth-moon distances.
> 
> 
> > -
> > Brad Guth
> >