Re: MOON HOAX "later that it was all a hoax"
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Jun 2005 20:39:34 -0700
MI5/NSA still remain as sucking as ever after all this time; perhaps
their NASA/Apollo cloak needs another new and improved intellectual
space toilet as their dagger, instead of their having to depend upon
the tooth ferry that goes a little postal from time to time. THE
BIGGEST STING OF ALL -- the Apollo moon flights may actually not be by
far the best of whatever's to come if we can focus, focus, focus
ourselves back upon the moon and then towards Venus that's merely 105
times further away.
Clementine High-Resolution Camera(HIRES) was delivering roughly 1/20th
as good as Apollo.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/moonexplore.htm
The clear aperature was 131 mm and the focal length was 1250 mm. Thus I
think that offering a 9.542:1 at closest point having obtained as good
as 5 meters/pixel, although 7~20 m/pixel was their typical resolution
resolution spread.
The Clementine orbit periselene was at the disadvantage of 400 km as
per nominal at 28 degrees south latitude during the first "month" of
lunar mapping and 28 degrees north latitude during the second "month"
of lunar mapping. Otherwise aposelene was getting itself out to 2900
km. Thus at the very best for the Clementine High-Resolution
Camera(HIRES) was at a 4:1 range disadvantage, along with only
accommodating a 288 x 384 pixel format having a 9.54X lens, as
compared to the absolutely impressive Apollo orbits at nearly 100 km
and of a color film pixel format offering at least 4096 x 4096 along
with a 10X telephoto lens (better yet 6144 x 6144 as recorded upon B&W
film) and still they hadn't managed to obtain a single frame out of six
missions that's worth anything conclusive of imaging their own multiple
landing sites, except for those frames offering indications of the
typical dark exposed lunar basalt as per whatever a typical lunar
impact zone might have to suggest.
Here's theit CLEMENTINE VIEW OF THE APOLLO 16 LANDING SITE (supposedly
this represents the absolute very best they've managed as of to date,
which obviously more than somewhat sucks).
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/clementine/a16_new1.gif
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/clementine/a16_new4.gif
Images obtained from the Apollo Command Service Module(CSM) offers four
times closer and thereby I'd have to suggest being capable of 20 fold
better raw pixel or lpmm resolution than Clementine. Accommodated by a
bit more telephoto magnification and certainly way better pixel/lpmm
density is what's suggesting 5/20 = 0.25 meter in raw Kodak resolution
without involving any PhotoShop that's usually been good for another
ten fold improvement if you're focused upon improving just a small
interesting portion of a given image, and that's actually quite doable
if the raw film were nondistructively scanned at merely 128 dpmm, not
to mention what a 256 dpmm should have safely extracted from the
greater resolution of their B&W frames.
Like the NASA/ESA SMART-1 nondisclosure mission, it seems our own Lunar
Prospector has wisely excluded upon the depth of radar surface
penitration, thus no official NASA suggestions as to the actual depths
and/or conposition of whatever's within said clumping moon-dirt, though
otherwise having offered quite interesting hard-science about a few of
the specific elements that you can take to the bank.
http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/project/overview.htm
http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/datavis/3ddata/javadata.htm
3D Data Maps Take a look at the moon as viewed through gravity,
hydrogen, thorium, potassium, and iron. Also see the moon using virtual
reality models.....
Several images of the Apollo 15 landing site from lunar orbit as
supposedly obtained by the Apollo 15 Command Service Module (CSM)
should have delivered 0.25 meter or better resolution of their own
Hadley Rille zone, instead of having to use that much newer image as
offered by the relatively piss poor Clementine resolution that sucks,
with credits to: KREVSLAVSKY & SHKURATOV 4
I've previously provided this perfectly good link within my
gv-photo-entro page, as to what I believe offers a reasonably
independent pro-Apollo sort of web page, although I'll have to wonder
about all of that 3~5% reflective debris zone associated about the
supposed Apollo-15 landing sight. What might your interpretation make
of all that impact like darkness, especially when there was never any
such dark debris zone of surface moon-dirt clearing as photographed by
way of any of those Apollo moonsuit EVAs?
http://homepage.mac.com/casewright/essays/apollo.html
I wonder what the heck their crowded CSM problem was within their very
own spendy command module, as such accommodated three sources of
flatulence along with such terrific high resolution medium format
cameras and 500 mm telephoto lens to boot?
~
The GUTH Venus Township, Bridge & cool ET Park-n-Ride tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The BradGuth LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few other somewhat nasty topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
- References:
- Re: MOON HOAX "later that it was all a hoax"
- From: Brad Guth
- Re: MOON HOAX "later that it was all a hoax"
- From: Brad Guth
- Re: MOON HOAX "later that it was all a hoax"
- From: Rusty
- Re: MOON HOAX "later that it was all a hoax"
- From: Brad Guth
- Re: MOON HOAX "later that it was all a hoax"
- Prev by Date: Re: Only Nixon's Approval Rating Was Lower
- Next by Date: Re: Only Nixon's Approval Rating Was Lower
- Previous by thread: Re: MOON HOAX "later that it was all a hoax"
- Next by thread: Re: MOON HOAX "later that it was all a hoax"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
