If the moon rocks were not brought back from the moon,
maybe they were negotiated from Russia, but if not,
then that data has been falsified, and all the reports
based on that data, invalid, all the other moon missions,
unable to disclose anything which would blatantly prove
the mission didn't happen, such as actual radiation levels
between the earth and moon, etc.

What I am hearing is that people do not so much as agree,
on the level of radiation, within the Van Allen belts.

And if it is high as some say, then the mission couldn't
have happened because the levels of radiation would be deadly.

Has all the radiation data collected on the Van Allen belts
been tampered with?

And all data of harmful rays, UV all the spectrum, all
the missions to gather data, what has been tampered with,
and what is true scientific data?

Who would fund such an organization ever again?

What science have they done, that we can honestly say,
is based on fact and not on some agenda or based on some lie,
to hide some other lie?

On Feb 25, 8:01 pm, "Brad Guth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"schoenfeld.one" <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1172368078.122937.190570@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com

If these folks accept the notions that our warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo
can manage to photograph our moon's physically dark terrain along with
Earth as coexisting within the same FOV, and especially interesting is
of their Kodak film's DR(dynamic range) as having rather easily recorded
portions of our dark oceans that are worth an albedo of perhaps 0.1
(similar enough as to the moon itself), whereas the absolute impressive
and somewhat blue/violet peak spectrum vibrance of Venus should have
been unavoidably recorded as well. Especially well recorded via those
unfiltered optics that should otherwise have been nearly if not
overloaded with such a gauntlet of all those extra near-UV and UV-a
spectrums worth of photons as having reacted rather nicely with those
highly reflective clouds which offers us the visual albedo of 0.7~0.8 to
work with, whereas the actual peak solar spectrum energy and roughly
reflecting 75% of that 4 kw/m2 is what the naked and unfiltered Kodak
eye had to deal with.

Yet lo and behold, not even from orbit or from those supposed EVAs upon
the deck had there once been any sign of Venus, much less of any other
significant planets, as well as never once accommodating the
bluish-white vibrant speck of the Sirius star system, all of which were
well within the DR(dynamic range) of those unfiltered Kodak moments, as
though such significant items were never once to be seen (especially odd
as of those NASA/Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16).

As I've often stipulated before, that most any interactive 3D solar
system simulator puts Venus smack within good EVA obtained view of at
least those three missions (always within each command module's orbital
view), and I might as well further add, that we have those free
cellphone cameras with far better DR and of a wider spectrum capability
than what our newest MESSENGER mirror optics and spendy 14+db CCD could
apparently muster, as proof-positive via their flyby of Earth which only
provided a rather naked looking and otherwise somewhat pastel view of
Earth, w/o even so much as once accommodating our physically dark moon,
much less having shared upon any other significant planets or stars that
simply had to be there, yet all such other items were as
invisible/stealth as were all of those Muslim WMD.

Remember that starshine as well as earthshine upon the moon is
absolutely vibrant to the unfiltered Kodak eye that's far more sensitive
to having recorded such near-UV and UV-a spectrums than our human eye
can't hardly if even detect, not to mention those pesky gamma and
hard-X-ray spectrums of which that moon of our's is absolutely chuck
full of such TBI(total body irradiation) dosage that's simply much worse
off than any lethal hot zone within our Van Allen belts, and that's
still not even including upon the continual thermal trauma of their
having to survive those double IR/FIR spectrums that also existed, as
coming at your naked moonsuit from nearly all surrounding directions in
addition to whatever sol was directly contributing.

That physically dark and somewhat salty moon of ours is what's actually
a darn good IR/FIR reflector, and otherwise represents a rather *****
poor UV reflector because, UV energy often gets absorbed and/or
interacts as creating secondary/recoil photons of the [UV black light
generated] near-blue spectrum. Of course the solar and cosmic influx is
what also represents lethal loads of having generated those
secondary/recoil photons of gamma and hard-X-rays, with zilch worth of
any attenuation from all possible directions, meaning that your wussy
moonsuit is surrounded by an absolute minimum of 3.14e6 m2 that's
contributing the full secondary spectrum gauntlet of whatever's
downright nasty if not lethal to your frail DNA, as well as continually
impacting each and every role of all that sensitive Kodak film.

Wayne Throop:
If you substitute venus for earth, it'd show up in the shot.
Even if you move earth far away, it'd still show up, until it's so far
away its light is falling on less than a single grain of the photograph;
but as long as its idealized image is at least a single grain big, that
grain would still be exposed.

Instead, we see a somewhat naked guano island like reflective
environment, for as far as the human and unfiltered Kodak eyes could
see, in places having a thin and naturally terrestrial clumping 50/50
dusting of portland cement and cornmeal that was entirely xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated, whereas instead of having to deal with whatever
the raw and nearly point source of the extremely contrasty solar
spectrum should have had to offer, along with such raw influx having
unavoidably shared absolute extra loads worth of the near-UV and UV-a
energy. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing of such hocus-pocus
artificial content within such bogus images, or otherwise of mission
associated content, that's worth a freaking hoot, much less a scientific
hoot.

Of course there's many other iffy if not downright naysay worthy
fly-by-rocket factors that simply do not add up to what those pesky
regular laws of physics and of replicated science and of proven
technology has to say.

Sorry that the likes of "Wayne Throop" and myself as your pesky
historical revisionist and otherwise truth telling messengers from hell,
must continually ***** on your silly hocus-pocus parade.
-
Brad Guth

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server -http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Where does it end I wonder?

If the moon rocks were not brought back from the moon,

maybe they were negotiated from Russia, but if not,

then that data has been falsified, and all the reports

based on that data, invalid, all the other moon missions,
unable to disclose anything which would blatantly prove
the mission didn't happen, such as actual radiation levels
between the earth and moon, etc.

What I am hearing is that people do not so much as agree,
on the level of radiation, within the Van Allen belts.

And if it is high as some say, then the mission couldn't
have happened because the levels of radiation would be deadly.

And do then what?

Has all the radiation data collected on the Van Allen belts
been tampered with?

And all data of harmful rays, UV all the spectrum, all
the missions to gather data, what has been tampered with,
and what is true scientific data?

Throw them in the clink. The damage they have done
is in itself astronomical.

Who would fund such an organization ever again?

What science have they done, that we can honestly say,
is based on fact and not on some agenda or based on some lie,
to hide some other lie?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 25, 8:01 pm, "Brad Guth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"schoenfeld.one" <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1172368078.122937.190570@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com

If these folks accept the notions that our warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo
can manage to photograph our moon's physically dark terrain along with
Earth as coexisting within the same FOV, and especially interesting is
of their Kodak film's DR(dynamic range) as having rather easily recorded
portions of our dark oceans that are worth an albedo of perhaps 0.1
(similar enough as to the moon itself), whereas the absolute impressive
and somewhat blue/violet peak spectrum vibrance of Venus should have
been unavoidably recorded as well. Especially well recorded via those
unfiltered optics that should otherwise have been nearly if not
overloaded with such a gauntlet of all those extra near-UV and UV-a
spectrums worth of photons as having reacted rather nicely with those
highly reflective clouds which offers us the visual albedo of 0.7~0.8 to
work with, whereas the actual peak solar spectrum energy and roughly
reflecting 75% of that 4 kw/m2 is what the naked and unfiltered Kodak
eye had to deal with.

Yet lo and behold, not even from orbit or from those supposed EVAs upon
the deck had there once been any sign of Venus, much less of any other
significant planets, as well as never once accommodating the
bluish-white vibrant speck of the Sirius star system, all of which were
well within the DR(dynamic range) of those unfiltered Kodak moments, as
though such significant items were never once to be seen (especially odd
as of those NASA/Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16).

As I've often stipulated before, that most any interactive 3D solar
system simulator puts Venus smack within good EVA obtained view of at
least those three missions (always within each command module's orbital
view), and I might as well further add, that we have those free
cellphone cameras with far better DR and of a wider spectrum capability
than what our newest MESSENGER mirror optics and spendy 14+db CCD could
apparently muster, as proof-positive via their flyby of Earth which only
provided a rather naked looking and otherwise somewhat pastel view of
Earth, w/o even so much as once accommodating our physically dark moon,
much less having shared upon any other significant planets or stars that
simply had to be there, yet all such other items were as
invisible/stealth as were all of those Muslim WMD.

Remember that starshine as well as earthshine upon the moon is
absolutely vibrant to the unfiltered Kodak eye that's far more sensitive
to having recorded such near-UV and UV-a spectrums than our human eye
can't hardly if even detect, not to mention those pesky gamma and
hard-X-ray spectrums of which that moon of our's is absolutely chuck
full of such TBI(total body irradiation) dosage that's simply much worse
off than any lethal hot zone within our Van Allen belts, and that's
still not even including upon the continual thermal trauma of their
having to survive those double IR/FIR spectrums that also existed, as
coming at your naked moonsuit from nearly all surrounding directions in
addition to whatever sol was directly contributing.

That physically dark and somewhat salty moon of ours is what's actually
a darn good IR/FIR reflector, and otherwise represents a rather *****
poor UV reflector because, UV energy often gets absorbed and/or
interacts as creating secondary/recoil photons of the [UV black light
generated] near-blue spectrum. Of course the solar and cosmic influx is
what also represents lethal loads of having generated those
secondary/recoil photons of gamma and hard-X-rays, with zilch worth of
any attenuation from all possible directions, meaning that your wussy
moonsuit is surrounded by an absolute minimum of 3.14e6 m2 that's
contributing the full secondary spectrum gauntlet of whatever's
downright nasty if not lethal to your frail DNA, as well as continually
impacting each and every role of all that sensitive Kodak film.

Wayne Throop:
If you substitute venus for earth, it'd show up in the shot.
Even if you move earth far away, it'd still show up, until it's so far
away its light is falling on less than a single grain of the photograph;
but as long as its idealized image is at least a single grain big, that
grain would still be exposed.

Instead, we see a somewhat naked guano island like reflective
environment, for as far as the human and unfiltered Kodak eyes could
see, in places having a thin and naturally terrestrial clumping 50/50
dusting of portland cement and cornmeal that was entirely xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated, whereas instead of having to deal with whatever
the raw and nearly point source of the extremely contrasty solar
spectrum should have had to offer, along with such raw influx having
unavoidably shared absolute extra loads worth of the near-UV and UV-a
energy. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing of such hocus-pocus
artificial content within such bogus images, or otherwise of mission
associated content, that's worth a freaking hoot, much less a scientific
hoot.

Of course there's many other iffy if not downright naysay worthy
fly-by-rocket factors that simply do not add up to what those pesky
regular laws of physics and of replicated science and of proven
technology has to say.

Sorry that the likes of "Wayne Throop" and myself as your pesky
historical revisionist and otherwise truth telling messengers from hell,
must continually ***** on your silly hocus-pocus parade.
-
Brad Guth

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server -http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Where does it end I wonder?

If the moon rocks were not brought back from the moon,
maybe they were negotiated from Russia, but if not,
then that data has been falsified, and all the reports
based on that data, invalid, all the other moon missions,
unable to disclose anything which would blatantly prove
the mission didn't happen, such as actual radiation levels
between the earth and moon, etc.

What I am hearing is that people do not so much as agree,
on the level of radiation, within the Van Allen belts.

And if it is high as some say, then the mission couldn't
have happened because the levels of radiation would be deadly.

And do then what?
Has all the radiation data collected on the Van Allen belts
been tampered with?

And all data of harmful rays, UV all the spectrum, all
the missions to gather data, what has been tampered with,
and what is true scientific data?

Throw them in the clink. The damage they have done
is in itself astronomical.

Who would fund such an organization ever again?

What science have they done, that we can honestly say,
is based on fact and not on some agenda or based on some lie,
to hide some other lie?

But: Why would the moon be "awash in gamma and hard X-rays"? The moon is
geologically old so there isn't any more radioactivity than on Earth.
There is cosmic radiation plus the portion of solar radiation normally
blocked by Earth's atmosphere, but hardly "awashed".

And why wouldn't the cameras have UV filters? NASA surely knew there was
plenty of UV there.

Evidence? Or is this an empty claim?

There seems to be plenty of craters on the moon!

Remember, all meteors striking the moon will strike at about full solar
orbital velocity. No atmosphere to slow them down to leave a pretty rock.

Was observation of Venus a mission goal?

Where would Venus be in the sky during those missions?

Remember, they didn't want the cameras pointed at the naked sun

As to the crosshairs, an Earth-bound camera would have crosshairs in the
foreground exactly the same as one on the moon. The lack of crosshairs
in the foreground of bright objects in the photos is proof of .... what?
Not proof the cameras weren't on the moon. How much bleed of the bright
objects spilled over to the adjacent darker background?

"Brad Guth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> writes:

In addition to those downright iffy crosshairs, while supposedly
trekking about our naked moon that simply had to have been awash in
gamma and hard-X-rays, and otherwise unavoidably many fold worse off
than any portion of the Van Allen belts, plus sharing somewhat extra
amounts of near-UV and otherwise absolute photographic overloads worth
of UV-a photons (thereby having created secondary/recoil photons of
near-blue as becoming available from anything the least bit reactive),
whereas it seems those Kodak moments simply had to have recorded other
planets besides Earth, and even of the point-source of the bluish Sirius
star system should have been well within a few of those the FOVs, as
well as entirely within the DR of what those unfiltered EVA photo
opportunities had to offer, and that goes especially of those Kodak
recorded images obtained from orbit, as they should have unavoidably
included a few accessory items of sufficient photon bling besides Earth.

That one sentence was a bit long.

But: Why would the moon be "awash in gamma and hard X-rays"? The moon is
geologically old so there isn't any more radioactivity than on Earth.
There is cosmic radiation plus the portion of solar radiation normally
blocked by Earth's atmosphere, but hardly "awashed".

And why wouldn't the cameras have UV filters? NASA surely knew there was
plenty of UV there.

Besides continually having to point out their artificial xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated moon,

Evidence? Or is this an empty claim?

island like reflective, and otherwise offering a terrain nearly free of
meteorites or secondary impact shards,

There seems to be plenty of craters on the moon!

Remember, all meteors striking the moon will strike at about full solar
orbital velocity. No atmosphere to slow them down to leave a pretty rock.

whereas perhaps we should just

keep asking these fools; where's Venus as of those NASA/Apollo missions
A11, A14 and A16?

Was observation of Venus a mission goal? Unlikely. Where would Venus be
in the sky during those missions? Close to the sun? Remember, they
didn't want the cameras pointed at the naked sun, it would ruin them. I
believe one TV camera was ruined that way.

As to the crosshairs, an Earth-bound camera would have crosshairs in the
foreground exactly the same as one on the moon. The lack of crosshairs
in the foreground of bright objects in the photos is proof of .... what?
Not proof the cameras weren't on the moon. How much bleed of the bright
objects spilled over to the adjacent darker background?