Re: If the moon landing was faked...

Here are some of my improvements to what I'd previously contributed.

Bond Albedo is only brighter because of having eliminated the visual
spectrum of photon moderation imposed by Earth's polluted atmosphere.
It is still a good 3 fold multiple times dimmer than Earth, and that's
twice again dimmer yet than Venus, which means that Venus is offering 6
fold greater visual photographic albedo plus a bit more of what the
unfiltered Kodak eye detects could make that orb record as though worth
8:1 brighter than the given average surface of that physically dark
moon, and even a touch more so yet if that's of a sunrise illuminated
moon that's otherwise not terribly efficient at reflecting UV-a.

kmmposting (AKA whomever that represents), isn't taking kindly to this
"photogrammetric rectification" topic, or that of most any other
similar tit for tat without offering a good mainstream status quo
fight. That's too bad because, otherwise there'd be a glimmer of hope
for humanity. Instead of dealing with and unavoidably benefiting from
knowing the truth, it seems we get to deal with our born-again resident
LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), and of what looks worthy of brewing up WW-III.

kmmposting; You keep saying that the moon's albedo is 7.2%.
That's "the average visual Bond albedo of the earth-facing side
of the moon" That may not apply if you're on the surface of the
moon.
That's perfectly true, whereas that supposed average implies that in
places it has to be a whole lot darker, as well as for considering the
NASA/Apollo typical low solar sunrise worth of illumination angle,
whereas it should by rights average at something less than 0.072, that
is unless you're looking directly towards the sunrise (+/- a couple of
degrees), and doing so w/o benefit of any polarised optical element.

Those somewhat brighter spots or reflective zones on the moon that can
get themselves to an albedo of 0.3 (I've even heard of one small zone
within a crater offering 0.5) were unfortunately situated nowhere near
any of our supposed Apollo sites or those of whatever supposed robotic
landing sites. Instead, sooty basalt and of extremely dirty mineral
elements of various salts should have been the norm.

kmmposting; These values are, as you can see, considerably higher
than the other lunar albedos given. For comparison, the albedo of a
green golf course is about 13%, roughly the same as that of the Cayley
Formation which covers the floor of Ptolemaeus. So you see, the moon
is not quite as dark as is often claimed - something about in the middle
range of lunar brightnesses is just as bright as a grassy yard at noon. "
Go external to our polluted atmosphere and bring that nearly
illumination point source of that sun down to 12 degrees above the
horison, and remember to eliminate most all secondary reflective
considerations, and lo and behold if it isn't looking a whole lot
darker, isn't it.

Sorry to learn that you're one of them, as otherwise you've been very
resourceful, even though you're having to use NASA's Apollo
infomercial-science that simply can't be replicated.

I agree (in jest) that the NASA/Apollo moon is rather nicely
reflective, as I realize those ultra-white moonsuits that should have
been UV reactive are worth 0.85, and the white of the American flag is
worth at least 0.8, which makes most of your guano moon that's dusted
in portland cement worthy of 0.55 or better ("moonpans"
<http://moonpans.co.uk> has much of our moon depicted as 0.65 or even a
whole lot better off for as far as that unfiltered Kodak eye could
see), and in spite of the regular laws of physics, there's no such
UV/black-light causing any secondary/recoil photons of near-blue nor is
there any hint of a bluish earthshine. In fact, the red, white and
rather dull blue of our American flag recorded on color and B&W film as
though being rather nicely xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, instead of
such an unfiltered Kodak moment having to respond to the raw solar
illumination as having such great amounts of the near-UV and UV-a to
work with, or is all that asking a bit too much?

Why are these shadows getting so short?
http://moonpans.com/posters/A15Poster.jpg
Why is one item offering a medium length shadow and the other item
nearly without shadow?
http://moonpans.com/prints/23a17sep.htm
http://moonpans.com/prints/23a17tracy.htm
Here's a couple as having items depicted as well past quarter moon-day
(perhaps 96 hours past sunrise), and of that guano like terrain of such
a near white-out zone on that guano and portland cement dusted moon.
http://moonpans.com/prints/23A16Lem.htm
http://moonpans.com/prints/23_a15sta10.htm

Here's an underexposed crescent Earth that simply doesn't look right.
What moon daytime would you say this represents?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/20149603.jpg

Here's where there's more than a half an illuminated Earth at their
disposal, thus unavoidably prior to lunar sunrise.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-134-20384.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-134-20387-cropped.jpg

Wouldn't you like other folks to see a few of those better raw
photographic examples?
At least the stuff obtained from orbit looks somewhat believable.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/

BTW; here's another of their pesky oops blue-screen frames:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?73
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-73-10182

A couple more of those mid-flim of those pesky blue-screens to share
and share alike:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?72

What the freaking sam hell are these depicting? (could this represent a
weird little crescent of Earth?)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-66-9329
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-66-9331

Here's a good sunrise illuminated shot, but since the camera was
directed a good 75+ degrees turned away from the sun, what's that other
pesky item in the sky?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-66-9302

I haven't bothered to use the official NASA/Apollo archives because, we
all know that you folks have the fullest and by far the quickest of
access to such, just as you also have always had full access to that
supercomputer and of it's fully interactive 3D renderings of a solar
system simular at any given time or place, such as having been observed
from any location that includes those actual Apollo landing sites,
along with every star and planet correctly situated and rendered
exactly as though it would have appeared to the human eye, as well as
to that unfiltered Kodak eye which sees into certain spectrums as more
sensitive than the human eye and even rather nicely into a portion of
the UV-a spectrum.

How may of those technically "impossible" photographs does it take in
order to prove that we'd been snookered by those having "the right
stuff"?
JUST ONE PHOTOGRAPH?
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM?
How much of Kodak's photon and film physics is not going to fly if
suggesting something different than what your NASA/Apollo koran has to
say?
How much hard-science and of what's replicated about "photogrammetric
rectification" are you folks going to continually exclude/reject?

Would yourself or anyone that you know of like to discuss that rather
unusually thin deposit of such locally reflective moon-dust that's
somhow not all that reflective from orbit?

Let us suggest upon an insignificant average of that moon receiving and
holding onto a mere micron of such solar and cosmic accumulation per
year, and then let us further assume that such dust within that wussy
1/6th gravity environment still manages to compact upon itself by 10:1,
thus every 10 million years we've got an extra meter of that magically
clumping moon-dust to work with, that's apparently 100% nonreactive and
otherwise totally passive, as though of portland cement having had an
atmosphere and magnetosphere protecting it from all of the solar and
cosmic influx that's otherwise capably as radioactive and/or as highly
energised as offering the worse sort of environment of whatever our Van
Allen belts have to offer.

BTW No.2; what's with all the taboo/nondisclosure of the voltage
differential that's existing between Earth and the moon? (or does that
horrific voltage differential slowly alternate as the moon orbits
Earth?). Seems we're talking about multiple teravolts and perhaps even
terajoules worth of available energy.

Speaking of such reflected photons and of what's worth noting;
NASA officially says via their Usenet spooks and moles like
"kmmposting", that regardless of however's big, nearby and extra
reflective about Venus, that no matters what it simply could not have
been photographed from that physically dark (0.072 albedo) surface of
our moon. However, even the darkest of terrestrial ocean color and of
the deepest contrasting worth of blue (0.03 albedo due to the
moderation afforded by the angle of solar influx, having a few of those
illumination blocking clouds and the somewhat polluted atmosphere of
Earth taking it's toll) never the less recorded as though being just
perfectly fine and dandy (with photons to spare), and I believe that's
pushing at roughly less than 4.5 f/stops worth that's still not having
by any means over-saturated their Kodak film by the 0.75 albedo of
whatever's snow and clouds (Ektachrome being good for nearly 9 f/stops,
and perhaps we should make that 10 f/stops if using a polarised optical
element).

Moon related, though somewhat off topic;
How many thousand tonnes, or perhaps mega tonnes worth of terrestrial
moon rock would you folks like?

Where else do we think some of the gigatonnes worth of moon rock, as
having been in part vaporised though otherwise physically displaced
clean away from each of those massive lunar surface impacts, as having
otherwise ended up?

What laws of physics or of whatever's the best available hard-science
makes any of us think Earth itself wasn't impacted by our salty moon
(as quite possibly having formed the Artic ocean basin), that which I
believe was once upon a time created by that of our foreign exchange
proto-moon, whereas at the time that proto-moon having been covered
with a good 262 km thick layer of salty ice.

Here's some absolutely terrific news, folks. Our resident
rusemaster/e-spook "kmmposting" on behalf of NASA is going to share
those hard-science numbers that pertain to the local gamma and
unavoidable hard-X-rays of what's so freaking DNA lethal about our
moon. However, I always wanted to understand as to how the heck our
naked moon according to everything that's NASA/Apollo accomplished
avoiding the very same cosmic and solar gauntlet of TBI capable dosage
of such absolutely nasty stuff, that otherwise gets easily collected
within our nasty Van Allen belts. (don't hold your breath)
-
Brad Guth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is sci. sceptic?
    ... A lunar form of 12% albedo as ... "The light from the full Earth as seen from the Moon is about 80 times ... w/m2) as having been extensively filtered/moderated by our atmosphere, ... walked upon had a Xenon spectrum illuminating sun, ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: NASA to reveal moon plan
    ... A lunar form of 12% albedo as ... "The light from the full Earth as seen from the Moon is about 80 times ... w/m2) as having been extensively filtered/moderated by our atmosphere, ... walked upon had a Xenon spectrum illuminating sun, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: If the moon landing was faked...
    ... surface of our moon are simply not the least bit real. ... Earth in the same shot is proof-positive that I'm right, ... include whatever represented less than of the 0.025 albedo portions of ... Since Venus would have unavoidably represented that of a brighter orb ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: If the moon landing was faked...
    ... This topic of "If the moon landing was faked..." ... it's shared along with links to their own NASA/Apollo stuff. ... I entered the apparently complicated technical search for: moon albedo ... NASA/Apollo American flag has a somewhat xenon spectrum that's worthy ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Moon landings were a hoax
    ... of their perpetrated cold-war worth of absolute crapolla. ... has Venus to do with the moon? ... photo/Kodak moment recorded is simply proof-positive that folks ... available hard-science that's been available about Venus, ...
    (rec.aviation.military)