Re: A scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon - photogrammetric rectification

Phil Wheeler wrote:
Don't be so silly Brad--Venus is not suitable for habitation.

But if Brad would like to check it out ...
As I've said before; technically it's not a problem for cruising a
composite rigid airship under those relatively cool nighttime clouds,
say 20~25 km might be a good enough altitude.

Trivia truth and consequences about our hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo
missions.

There was no need of accomplishing any full scale lunar orbit that
would have been unavoidably mission time comsuming and thereby extra
nasty and otherwise extremely lethal to human DNA unless being as well
shielded as were the robotic cameras taking all of those nifty images
from orbit.

At most we're talking about having accomplished a somewhat testy though
short stint within LL-1, and even that much wasn't necessarily the full
package or even on behalf of getting those Apollo missions fully into
the sweet-spot or nullification zone. Therefore the required energy
for retrothrust wasn't utilized for accomplishing the moon orbit and of
their subsequently breaking free of the moon's gravity. Only smaller
robotic probes orbited that physically dark and nasty moon of ours.

For accomplishing that much, they had loads of fuel to burn. Robotics
did however orbit the moon, and having nicely photographed that
physically dark orb, having then processed and transferring each of
those images while on the fly. Therefore, we have no such actual film
as ever having been returned to Earth for processing.

The nearly 30% inert GLOW and the nearly as good as 60:1 ratio of
rocket per payload make it perfectly clear, at least by the numbers and
regular laws of physics and of known rocket-science, that putting
nearly 50t into lunar orbit and so quickly never happened.

It seems that I've been requested by the almighty GOOGLE hosted Usenet
authority to "piss off".

Well folks, "piss off" is my point exactly, that nobody here within
this all-knowing "piss off" Usenet from hell cares about sharing the
truth, least not about humanity, history or about anything that
actually matters for the quality of life or even on behalf of sharing
the few remaining energy and food resources with the likes of Muslims
or any other non-Jewish folks, much less on behalf of defending mother
Earth that's currently going postal.

Obviously you folks either don't want to share and share alike, or else
you wouldn't so much as dare honestly discuss those NASA/Apollo A-11,
A-14 or A-16 missions as having that absolutely terrific and otherwise
unavoidable look-see at Venus. Why am I and many other honest folks
not the least bit surprised.

In that case of "piss off", here's a my latest suggestion to each of
those naysayers that typically suck and blow (such as most of these
Third Reich collaborating contributors to this topic, as in much like
yourself):
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/TightFit.jpg
"Chris Krolczyk, former Smithsonian anthropologist (and an
evolutionist, obviously), does his thing outside National
Museum of Natural History. Amazingly, Krolczyk reported
meeting Tony Blair, President Bush and Rush Limbaugh inside
the tunnel. Krolczyk has since left the Smithsonian to join
Monty Pyton's Flying Circus."

The rest of Ed Conrad's "RARE PHOTO OF FIRST MAN IN THE MOON -- FOX
NEWS EXCLUSIVE" topic has also been sharing a bit of the actual truth
and nothing but the truth.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/e2b6d88aff57aa8e/1a86a2ae5fb3c491?hl=en#1a86a2ae5fb3c491
or as otherwise offered by this tpoic: "EXCLUSIVE PHOTO -- FIRST MAN IN
THE MOON"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/d13e4f709535f68c/c2326bc56dc99e86?hl=en#c2326bc56dc99e86

Besides Ed Conrad's honest contributions to science and the best
available terrestrial truth about the extra age of humanity that's as
old if not older than coal; what do you folks have to say on behalf of
other intelligent life, as having been existing/coexisting on Venus.

What's technically and otherwise perhaps evolutionary as to being
within the realm of what's perfectly doable about Venus?

What's all that wrong about there being a massive fluid arch on such a
geothermally active Venus?

What's so impossible or unlikely about other life having
existed/coexisted on Venus?

What doesn't a newish planet like Venus have going for itself?
-
Brad Guth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Apollo Trivia Question
    ... Trivia truth and consequences about our NASA/Apollo missions. ... There was no need of any full scale lunar orbit that would have been ... Well folks, "piss off" is my point exactly, that nobody here within ... as having been existing/coexisting on Venus. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Physicist James Van Allen Dies at 91
    ... whiz, folks, why am I not the least bit surprised. ... in that I'm sharing the best available truth ... It seems that our naked and physically dark moon is simply unavoidably ... A-14 and A-16 each had unobstructed views of Venus as being above ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Request for Apollo 10 document location
    ... There was no need of any full scale lunar orbit that would have been ... Well folks, "piss off" is my point exactly, that nobody here within ... NEWS EXCLUSIVE" topic has also been sharing a bit of the actual truth ... as having been existing/coexisting on Venus. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Moon landing hoax
    ... These huge amounts of data and the small capacities of ... rusemasters avoiding and/or having banished the truth, ... about where the visual location of Venus was throughout those Apollo ... those unfiltered Kodak moments, whereas Venus would have photographed as ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites
    ... Venus is an inferior planet, ... black, salty Moon. ... dark and nasty like it should have been. ... Sorry if the whole truth and nothing but the truth is so upsetting to ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)