Re: Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>

From: Brad Guth (bradguth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:29:49 +0000 (UTC)

In spite of all the status quo warlords of this forum that summarily
sucks, such as the incest contributions of nothing specific from the
likes of 'DrPostman' and 'Bookman', I'll have to keep offering my honest
reply, in that I have no falts with a great many of NASA's assertions
about the lunar environment, or even of the 'assertions' of others
supportive of whatever's NASA/Apollo.

However, how much persay of those NASA/Apollo missions related to their
lunar surface EVAs were of 'assertions', and how much was of actual hard
science? Are we talking about 25%, 50%, 75% or perhaps 90% 'assertions?

>From orbit or from whatever remote observations, all is just fine and
dandy;

I've never once had problems with all the absolutely terrific images of
our moon obtained from orbit (still better resolution than anything
other as of today), such as obtained from anything Apollo while in
orbit, via Hubble or even the likes of KECK as they each managed to
depict a mostly basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as
3%(coal like) reflective, at best 25% reflecting within only extremely
few maximum lunar white-out zones. However, I still have some questions
as to the surface conditions that seem to defy all sorts of physics laws
as recorded by their unfiltered Kodak eye.

Once that Kodak/E6 eye was supposedly situated as nearly naked upon the
lunar surface, why was there so much of that mostly basalt dark lunar
terrain that was suddenly transformed into being 55+% reflective as
easily compared to those 85% reflective moonsuits?

Exactly how the heck is it that only selective portions of this already
oddly bright reflective lunar terrain (supposedly clumping yet hardly
offering a basalt rock nor meteorite related shard in sight), that there
were so many of those intensive retro-reflective zones surrounding a
given atronaut?

Would you folks like to see a good number of such specific illumination
examples?

Why was there's never an indication of having darker substances of raw
basalt exposed under and/or all about those undocumented fly-by-rocket
landers, as otherwise depicted from images obtained from orbit that
clearly indicated as contributing at 5% or less reflective index
wherever NASA/Apollo pointed out as being their official landing sites?

Why wasn't it so much hotter than reported while supposedly walking upon
the actual dark basalt lunar surface?

At 1.4 kw/m2 worth of continual and unobstructed influx, and therefore
doesn't any portion of IR energy reflect and thereby contribute?

Isn't the radiant influx along with the added portion of reflected IR
energy that's coming off the lunar surface technically far worse off
than conductive forms of heat that can be easily insulated against?

Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter that should have made the lunar surface photo record as
darker, certainly not lighter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase
in raw solar near-UV and UV/a energy?

Since there's no atmosphere for diffusing raw sunlight, shouldn't those
polarise filtered images have become recorded as extremely polarised?

Where the heck was the likes of the Sirius star system all of this time?

Shouldn't the tremendus intensity increase (at least 512 fold) of such a
spectrum shifted source of near-UV and UV/a spectrum of Sirius have
recorded nicely into a few of those Kodak moments?

Where was our good old blazing (80+% reflective) Venus all of this time?

Shouldn't Venus upon at least two of thse missions have been photo
recorded as nearly as bright as per those 85% reflective moonsuits?

Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' spectrum of our American flag so
unusually subdued?

How in the freaking photographic heck did the raw solar spectrum become
so nicely xenon like?

Why was the 3.1 g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier
substances so none-reactive?

As compared to all those terrific images obtained from orbit, where did
all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?

Why was there never so much as a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even
3 km/s?

Why is there still absolutely nothing of interactive of scientific
instrumentation deployed upon the moon?

Isn't there any functioning and thereby R&D documented AI/robotic lander
that'll at least manage a one-way lunar deployment, and if so, where's
the R&D progress documentation?

What's the secondary TBI X-Ray dosage difference between the fully
illuminated side of the moon as compared to the nighttime side and/or
earthshine environment, or didn't our command modules (on 8+ Apollo
occasions) and from numerous other robotic orbiting missions before and
after the fact ever once bother as to recording squat, as to obtaining
such raw surface emissions of thermal and radiation levels that should
have been rather easily obtaining such important data upon these sorts
of differentials, especially if those were from such a relatively low
(100+km) orbits?

In a little further related research retrospective;
Exactly how long does it require for a block of ice to vaporise in
space?

The same request goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per ccm or
per m3 into becoming vapor?

So, as it stands, there's still no consensus nor any apparent method of
pulling such a report together for that of establishing space radiation
data, we still don't know squat about plain old ice or even dry-ice in
space, we don't have a freaking clue as to the surface environment of IR
nor TBI differences between lunar day/night, we have no apparent science
upon a purely zero-orbit gravity drop and subsequent lunar impact data
as to the final velocity, thereby we still have zlich upon the available
kinetic energy release as per cratering the moon, and we still don't
have a single interactive surface instrument telling us squat about the
moon (not even the LUNAR-A form of impact intended probes), nor have we
anything from the perspective of the moon as to improving whatever Earth
science (unless you've got something better than a .05 milliradian blue
laser cannon, and one hell of a nifty tracking capability, those
supposed retro-reflectors are still a physics joke, as damn near a
RadioShack photo-strobe transponder would have been doable at 1% the
weight, probably 0.1% the cost, and by focusing a 1° beam of at least a
million times more detectable photons at that).

In spite of all the orchestrated flak imposed against my suggestions on
seriously accomplishing good and honorable intentions on behalf of ISS,
I also managed to create a few other related topics, several of which
are not specifically about our moon or Titan, though in more than a few
ways offering just about everything under the sun on behalf of improving
future space exploration and just plain old space travel bang for the
buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to folks utilizing our moon
as a rather necessary gravitational booster shot. Of such missions
passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't even been such a new
idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even better physics and
science logic and numerous other values of what the LSE-CM/ISS is good
for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly a task that's much easier said
than done, but at least it's something that's been doable. For the
benefit of salvaging our environment, extracting and exporting
helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just offering a little beneficial fusion
icing on the cake.

I'll soon offer another topic of "TRACE-->TRACE-II-->VL2" as having
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our moon, of which this will
only further prove my point that these forums summarily suck.

I really don't know for absolute certainty that my highly subjective
interpretations of the published information about our moon, that I find
oddly missing certain details or at least representing incomplete
science, are any different than of my highly subjective interpretations
of those images obtained by the Magellan mission, as persay representing
the one and only last word. As unlike our resident warlord, I could be
wrong, but at least my mistakes are not as such involving war crimes
against humanity.

Deductive reasoning has generally functioned just fine and dandy getting
myself this far in life without too much trouble, nor have I been
getting someone other killed in the process. Whereas I'm still not at
all convinced that our perpetrated cold-war administrations, and of all
those supporting such actions, can say the same.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm 

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

Relevant Pages
Quantcast