Re: If the moon landing was faked...

There's no further if's, and's or but's about it. Here's some new and
improved numbers, and I've even fixed a few pesky words for the old
gipper that basically says that we haven't quite gotten ourselves
around to walking on that physically dark and nasty moon. Imagine (in
jest), that for the very first time in recorded history we've been lied
to by our government.

In the past and as of lately, others and I've posted multiple example
images that more than proves we're right, that the physics and science
of Kodak is 100% right, including the regular laws of physics such as
imposed by "photogrammetric rectification" are right, and that the
replicated hard-science as having been contributed from so many others
is absolute proof-positive that a good many Usenet folks and of their
kind have been nothing but a sorry borg like pack of incest born-again
liars, exactly like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

BTW; Venus is not a wussy pin-point of a star. Instead, Venus
represents many equivalent pixels worth of being an extremely vibrant
item that's nearly impossible to avoid if you're into accomplishing all
of those unfiltered Kodak moments from the physically dark and nasty
moon.

We see that folks here in Usenet naysay land of denials upon denials
are still into avoiding the replicated hard-science of this and most
any other original topic, as well as for the ongoing banishment as to
avoiding whatever's the NASA/Apollo justification of their somehow
having excluded Venus; why is that?

Even NASA's solar system simulators manage to avoid or rather
conveniently exclude the Apollo era of our viewing the lunar horizon
relationship of having a good simulated look-see at Venus and Earth as
would have been observed and easily photographed from the physically
dark surface of our moon, as rather oddly having such simulator
capability intentionally excluded in their otherwise spendy and
do-everything else simulators. Gee whiz folks, I wonder why?

The topic(s) as contributed by polaris431 (Elijah Rosenburg); "A
scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon -
photogrammetric rectification" is also getting unusually stalked and
bashed, and/or given the Usenet treatment of information banished
because of the truth and nothing but the truth that it clearly
represents.

In spite of all the incessant mainstream status quo flak, I believe
that we village idiots are actually right, in that we each in our own
way claim that our NASA could have easily proven damn near anything if
they'd so intended. The reason(s) why the hard-science that's fully
replicated as to "photogrammetric rectification", and that of my
limited though more than sufficient expertise being within the realm of
replicated observationology, as to the photographic spectrums and of
the various color saturation, such as based upon the very terrestrial
like spectrum of the xenon lamp rather than having the raw solar
illumination to work with, and of the various albedo and even starshine
issues of so many other items that should have been unavoidably
recorded by those unfiltered Kodak moments is all being rejected, is
perhaps because they each contribute more of the same absolute
proof-positive that we have not landed upon that moon, nor much less
having walked upon that unfortunately radioactive and otherwise
unavoidably reactive little naked moon of ours, that's actually
offering itself as a worse than lethal environment of TBI(total body
irradiation) gamma and hard-X-ray dosage than otherwise suggested by
any portion of what our Van Allen belts represent.

These warm and fuzzy Usenet folks, of seemingly mostly Jewish e-spooks
and/or e-moles that also like sharing as much of their PC
malware/fuckware as they can get away with, and certainly it's not been
otherwise by way of their honestly having shared in anything that's
NASA official that'll ever accommodate the likes of external science
(no matters how trustworthy or replicated) nor much lees that of my
expertise, are at least not within this status quo or bust Usenet from
hell as willing for sharing in anything that might tend to prove that
we've been lied to (AKA snookered by way of those of us having "the
right stuff").

BTW No.2; some of those Apollo EVA shadows seem to have indicated as
though they've gotten well past the 9:00 AM mark (past the quarter
lunar day). Considering their typical arrivals being shortly after
sunrise, and the extra length of a given lunar day; might we dare ask
if that's even possible as to having such unusually short shadows?

Since the moon itself has to be that of a rather physically dark
composite of mostly basalt plus whatever else had been solar and cosmic
deposited, and otherwise offering a relatively nonreflective surface
(of an especially lower albedo via sunrise and of a few days
thereafter), yet never once was there a sign of any secondary shadow
within a given solar generated shadow, of ever having offered any hint
whatsoever of an earthshine generated shadow. Considering the
relatively good DR(dynamic range) of what that unfiltered Kodak film
and of what the extremely good optics had to offer, and of how little
else was getting reflected off the physically dark lunar terrain; is
zero earthshine actually possible?

Of less than a half illuminated Earth is worth roughly 32 fold brighter
illumination of earthshine than is offered by a full moon as depicted
here on Earth, and if that bluish illumination source doesn't manage to
generate a worthy secondary shadow within a shadow, then I obviously
don't know of what else would.

From being situated on the moon, as in no matters what you simply can
not avoid having the best ever look-see at Venus, not even if you're
one of the all-knowing Gods of Apollo, or otherwise rated as smart
enough to being involved in most everything else that's connected with
our NASA (supposedly our NASA doesn't hire the likes of the dumb and
dumber).

According to various solar system simulators that all agree with one
another, at least three of those Apollo missions and especially of
Apollo 16 had the best ever viewing of a sufficiently nearby and
otherwise bright crescent Venus, such as being merely 0.578 AU nearby
and having been on their last day of EVA was I believe rather nicely
situated just above their lunar sunrise horizon, as being available at
nearly 30 degrees below the sun (2.5 days past sunrise). The Apollo 14
mission of February 5/6, 1972 is when a better than half illuminated
view of Venus was situated behind though I believe unavoidably showing
itself as just below Earth. As of their initial encounter of the July
20, 1969 timeline is when our supposed Apollo-11 landing was shortly
after sunrise and Venus was also representing a good crescent of being
somewhat less than looking half illuminated and unavoidably situated
quite a few degrees off center from Earth at roughly 44 away from the
sun, and if Earth was at nearly 90° = Venus at 46° away from Earth
and thereby nearly impossible to have photographically avoided from day
one (especially within most any wide angle shot). After all, folks,
that pesky vibrant orb of Venus is simply so much so unavoidably
brighter than Earth, and as for being such, isn't that representing the
best ever good news in town, or what?

In a few other dyslexic words; If you can manage to photograph the
extremely low albedo of that physically dark lunar terrain (especially
representing an even darker albedo of photographic saturation shortly
after sunrise), plus that of including the 0.36 albedo crescent Earth,
how absolutely simple could it have been to having included a
photographic shot or two that would have included Venus, or otherwise
how difficult as having to avoid that rather pesky 0.8 albedo of Venus.
After all, Venus isn't exactly representing itself as any less than
pin-point speck of some distant star, now is it.

According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Transit_diagram_angles.png
When Venus is passing nearby Earth and the moon is situated on the
opposite side, Venus as viewed from the moon is not likely ever going
to remain as entirely hidden by the large blocking disk area of Earth.

The Apollo 14 mission timeline of including February 4 is when Venus
was along side and otherwise just slightly below, whereas February 5,
1972 is when a silghtly greater than half illuminated view of Venus was
only 0.775 AU and situated as though behind though I believe
unavoidably showing itself as depicted in most any simulator edge-view
that'll depict Venus as residing just below Earth, and February 6
headed just to the other side and still hanging a bit low, whereas any
good solar simulator would put it exactly where it had to be and even
establish the proper albedo as a relative brightness of Venus in direct
relationship to that of our otherwise less than half the albedo worth
of Earth. Being days past lunar sunrise (sunrise = 12.2 solar
degrees/day) means that a crescent Earth would have been photographiced
as measurably depicted as being less than half illuminated.

Unlike yourself, I'm using the likes of free solar system simulators
and of otherwise taking advantage of whatever's online, whereas
yourself having access to that spendy CRAY supercomputer or of having
something better to work with, will have not only far better numbers
but also very realistic animation that's quite accurate.

BTW No.3; it's impossible that most others within the supposed know
(such as yourself) haven't known about all of this relationship of our
Apollo missions in association with our physically dark moon of 0.072
albedo and that of that unavoidable 0.8 albedo of Venus, as well as
Kodak couldn't possibly have not known about this entire part of our
perpetrated cold-war ruse/sting of the century from the very get go.

If those moon surface shadows are depicted as being properly quite long
(aka shortly after sunrise), whereas then you'd have to think a bright
crescent of Earth would have to be of somewhat less than half
illuminated and as being the expected norm, and for otherwise
representing a fairly good amount of earthshine.

In the well proven science of "photogrammetric rectification", how can
the Apollo view of Earth be represented as a given illuminated
percentage that's ever much greater than 1/2 Earth, as for offering
such a greater percentage of a solar illuminated orb, whereas the solar
generated shadows as having been indicated upon that moon as sometimes
having been depicted as being rather short, as though suggesting our
moon as having been well past the 1/2 phase as viewed from Earth? In
other words, how the heck did some of those Apollo EVA shadows get to
being so short?

Besides our moon being physically nearly dark as coal, and otherwise
getting itself instantly double IR hot by each minute of the day, and
otherwise a bit more than subfrozen by way of whatever's fully shaded
and especially by night, whereas our moon has also been quite
unavoidably worse off in sharing worthy amounts of gamma and of the
unavoidable secondary/recoil hard-X-ray dosage than any bad and lethal
zones identified within the Van Allen belts. Physically our moon has
been essentially offing itself as that of a solid form of a nasty Van
Allen zone, that's basically damn lethal as all get out.

Which means that folks are either more dumb and dumber than merely
pretending at their being dumbfounded, or otherwise as merely that of
absolute certified liars. Such as this following lie as offered by
"Scott Dorsey".
Scott Dorsey; Ektachrome doesn't even have the range to
capture sun-lit landscapes all by themselves...
Besides all of the hard-science proof that's easily replicated from
Kodak and from any number of other independent sources, whereas even
those phony NASA/Apollo EVA images is what more than proves this
pathetic "Scott Dorsey" statement about Ektachrome film is simply
another scripted from of their damage-control and outright lies upon
lies.

BTW No.4; There's also more than a sufficient number of peer qualified
astrophysics and/or of perfectly good orbital software (including those
offered by NASA) that'll prove that I'm sufficiently right as rain
about the location of Venus in relationship to that of our moon and
that of Earth, and that I'm right about more than a few other
interesting items that should have been unavoidably photo recorded. So
lo and behold, with a little expertise and a good simulator at hand, it
seems that we don't actually have to go there, now do we.

I've asked of the pro NASA/Apollo folks to take this next friendly
tidbit of info, and shove it!
Photoshop for Astrophotographers
http://www.astropix.com/PFA/SAMPLE1/SAMPLE1.HTM
Dynamic range is the amount of difference between the brightest and
darkest ... Kodak's Ektachrome 200 is an excellent choice for deepsky
because there will be more contrast, not only between faint parts of
the nebulosity, but also between the faint nebulosity and the sky
background.

In a few other words, the the 'D-Max" of Kodak Ektachrome offers far
better DR(dynamic range) than most any color print film that's good for
8 f-stops.

"Kodak's Kodachrome has a D-Max of about 3.7, which is almost twelve
stops"
I'd previously arrived at 11.7 ~ 12.96 stops, although that's somewhat
unavoidably limited by whatever the lens introduces, thus you might
count on roughly 7+ f/stops unless using the Carl Zeiss quality of lens
along with a polarised element, by which shouldn't have any difficulty
pushing and/or allowing that Ektachrome range of contrast to offering
better than 9 usable f/stops, 10 maximum upon being properly scanned =
1023:1, and if that were properly PhotoShop extended = 2047:1.

Bob Monaghan recently had this to say:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/ca278ccafdf6d316/82bbe950330f1dd4?lnk=st&q=%22Film+Film+Dmax%22&rnum=1&hl=en#82bbe950330f1dd4
Film Film Dmax Contrast [n.b. 4096:1 is 12 stops]
Vericolor 5072 (neg-pos) 3.9 D 8000:1
Kodachrome 25 3.8 D 6300:1
Kodachrome 64 3.7 D 5000:1
Ektachrome 64 3.7 D 5000:1
Ektachrome 100GX 3.8 D 6300:1
Ektachrome 100plus EPP 3.8 D 6300:1
Fuji Velvia 50 RVP 3.8 D 6300:1
Fuji Velvia 100 RVP100F 3.8 D 6300:1
Fujichrome EI 100 3.6 D 4000:1

in short, lots of us work with films which have 12 or more
stops of dynamic range.
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/vitale/digital-projection/

So, exactly whom's into kidding whom?
Which only means that you folks are either playing this game as though
dumbfounded or that you're actually certified liars (I think it's a
little of both), as well as for that of our incest cloned "Scott
Dorsey" that's into continually lying his mainstream status quo worth
of NASA's infomercial-science as based upon their own conditional laws
of physics, and of their otherwise mutually having accomplished
boat-loads of the usual disinformation sucking and blowing each of
their infomercial butts off.
Scott Dorsey; Ektachrome doesn't even have the range to
capture sun-lit landscapes all by themselves...
Besides all of the available hard-science proof that's easily
replicated from Kodak and otherwise obtained from any number of other
independent sources, whereas even those NASA/Apollo EVA images is
offering us more than what proves this statement of his is simply
another mainstream formulated damage-control lie, just like all of the
***-ugly lies of his close friend and resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

In addition to there being a few other items of somewhat keen
photographic interest that would only benefit the NASA/Apollo argument,
how about you folks show us an official NASA/Apollo image as having
included that of our physically dark moon, and if need be to include
the less than half crescent worth of mother Earth, along with that of
the good old unavoidable Venus as being situated somewhere in that
crystal clear blackness between Earth and otherwise above all of that
physically dark and nasty lunar terrain, or perhaps simply shut the
hell up.

Remember that modern solar system simulators can easily prove as to
exactly where the sun, Earth and Venus was located at the time, in
specific relationship to their camera being situated upon the moon, and
as for such as Venus being unavoidably viewable by those of our
rad-hard moonsuit astronauts as supposedly having been accomplishing
all of those unfiltered Kodak moments that were not only double IR
immune but fully rad-hard to boot, that which photographically should
not have had any problems whatsoever in their having quite nicely
recorded such Kodak moments as for those having an unobstructed
look-see at good old Venus.

Since a perfectly good view of Venus would have been so often
unavoidable, and otherwise rather easily included within frame of most
any given photo opportunity that was pointed as even half-ass in the
right direction, and thereby having extensively proven to a near
absolute matter of fact that we'd walked upon that moon; why the heck
do you folks suppose that our NASA intentionally erased/eliminated
Venus from each and every one those Apollo missions?
-
Brad Guth

.