Guy Macon on whether the Apollo moon landing was a hoax:
Guy Macon
Guy Macon on whether the Apollo moon landing was a hoax:
An impartial examination of the evidence shows
that the US really did land on the moon in 1969.
A laser ranging retroreflector was positioned on the moon
by the Apollo 11 astronauts so as to reflect laser pulses
from the earth. The laser reflector consists of 100ea.
3.8cm diameter fused silica corner cubes mounted on a 46cm
aluminum panel. An identical reflector was placed by Apollo
14, and a 300-cube reflector was was placed by Apollo 15.
No known unmanned probes have landed at the Apollo 11/14/15
sites, but the Russian Lunakhod 2 unmanned lander also left
a corner reflector.
Observatories that have ranged these reflectors include the
McDonald Observatory in Texas, the Haleakala High Altitude
Observatory on Maui (Hawaii), the Grasse observatory in
France, the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, the
Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton in California, and the
Laser Ranging Observatory in Wettzell, Germany. I believe
that there are amateur astronomers have been invited to set
up next to the big telescope/laser and see the light for
themselves. Can anyone confirm this?
All this has been pointed out several times, and yet the
usual conspiracists still hasn't explained how "they"
got all those astronomers in all those countries to all
tell lies about getting reflections back from lunar corner
cube retroreflectors. One would think that at least *one*
of them would spill the beans...
Also see:
Bad Astonomy: Moon Hoax?
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Did we land on the moon?
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm
The Straight Dope: Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1758/was-the-apollo-moon-landing-a-hoax
Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
(As always with Wikipedia, the real evidence is in the links and
the logic of the article, not the authoritativeness of Wikipedia.)
"The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is
round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have
more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
-- Ferdinand Magellan (1470-1521)
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
BradGuth
>
> Did we land on the moon?http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm
>
> The Straight Dope: Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax?http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1758/was-the-apollo-moon-lan...
>
> Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_lan...
>
> Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
>
> (As always with Wikipedia, the real evidence is in the links and
> the logic of the article, not the authoritativeness of Wikipedia.)
What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
humans having walked on the moon?
~ BG
Starman
No known unmanned probes have landed at the Apollo 11/14/15 sites
thats where the reflectors are placed, do you think they moved there by themself
?
-snip
Johnny Borborigmi
>
> > Did we land on the moon?http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm
>
> > The Straight Dope: Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax?http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1758/was-the-apollo-moon-lan...
>
> > Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_lan...
>
> > Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
>
> > (As always with Wikipedia, the real evidence is in the links and
> > the logic of the article, not the authoritativeness of Wikipedia.)
>
> What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
> that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
> humans having walked on the moon?
>
> ~ BG
Fuck you Brad, you're freakin' insain. No one cares about your
bullshit.
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
>that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
>humans having walked on the moon?
Unless they grew naturally, someone put them there, each on
a site where I say humans landed, showing up at the time when
I say humans landed there. The retroreflectors are there,
and you have no explanation as to how they got there other
than someone hopping out of a lunar lander and setting one up.
--
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Timberwoof
<9df4d729-660d-44df...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
> that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
> humans having walked on the moon?
It doesn't need alignment, but it needs being put on the moon.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
BradGuth
>
> Did we land on the moon?http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm
>
> The Straight Dope: Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax?http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1758/was-the-apollo-moon-lan...
>
> Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_lan...
>
>
> (As always with Wikipedia, the real evidence is in the links and
> the logic of the article, not the authoritativeness of Wikipedia.)
>
> "The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is
> round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have
> more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
> -- Ferdinand Magellan (1470-1521)
>
> --
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Watch as all the usual DARPA damage-control goons start showing up. I
think it's mostly genetic, like why killer bees swarm.
~ BG
Ian Parker
deposited laser reflectors. There is however a truth behind the
conspiracy theory and it is this. Saturn 5 worked, Ares does not. One
would have thought that with the advances in technology that have
occured in the last 40 years Ares would be easy (relatively at least)
to build. I have indeed on occaision posted that it would be far
cheaper to dig out the old Saturn drawings rather than develop Ares.
I have a conspiracy theory behing conspiracy theories. To admit that
Saturn worked and took astronauts to the Moon almost 40 yesrs ago, and
(apparantly at least) no one in NASA today understands stability
theory is something that certain people are not prepared to do.
- Ian Parker
RMOLLISE
LOL...NASA understands perfectly well how to build a booster. They
just do not always understand how to generate public sentiment for it
or to get the government to fund it.
You're saying that NASA FAKED THE SATURN LAUNCHES, TOO, AND NOT JUST
THE LANDINGS?! What was that big tall thing with fire on its rear
people, lots of people saw, then?
Truth is, even if NASA put the doubters in a spacecraft, flew them to
the Moon, and showed them the Apollo hardware left on the Moon, THEY
STILL WOULDN'T BELIEVE.
The situation is analogous to the the clergyman who refused to look
through Galileo's telescope--his mind was made up, he didn't have to
look through no dang telescope.
lal_truckee
>
> Truth is, even if NASA put the doubters in a spacecraft, flew them to
> the Moon, and showed them the Apollo hardware left on the Moon, THEY
> STILL WOULDN'T BELIEVE.
Hell, Rod - didn't you know? When NASA decided to fake the landings they
looked around for who could do the film and seeing rushes of Kubrick's
work on _2001_ signed him to fake the moon landing film.
Stanley Kubrick of course, true to form, insisted on filming on location...
The movie sets are still there.
The so-called laser corner reflector is just a Kleig light accidentally
left at a reflective angle.
So - no moon landings, no Apollo hardware left on the Moon, just a movie
crew and their abandoned gear.
P.S. I wonder if the Gaffer's tape survived - it's supposed to be better
than duct tape which is nearly indestructible.
Chris L Peterson
<rmol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You're saying that NASA FAKED THE SATURN LAUNCHES, TOO, AND NOT JUST
>THE LANDINGS?! What was that big tall thing with fire on its rear
>people, lots of people saw, then?
They faked the people as well. Not very many people alive today actually
saw a Saturn take off, and those that make this claim are simply part of
the conspiracy. Obvious, isn't it? <g>
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Disneygeek
I have always said, find me an electric car. They were very popular at
the turn of the (last) century only losing out to internal combustion
because gas was cheap and IC had a better range. So, it should be very
easy to find or build an electric car, and yet, it took YEARS for a
new model of an electric car to be developed.
Thus it is with the Apollo program. What was available in the 60s
isn't anymore and has to be redesigned and rebuilt.
As far as just rebuilding Saturns, I understand the astronauts who
went claimed that they got "lucky" more than they had the right to
expect. Some things, bordering on catestrophic (sp) went wrong and had
to be fixed on site. Given their current track record, NASA's probably
not counting on "luck" anymore.
BradGuth
>
> Did we land on the moon?http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm
>
> The Straight Dope: Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax?http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1758/was-the-apollo-moon-lan...
>
> Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_lan...
>
>
> (As always with Wikipedia, the real evidence is in the links and
> the logic of the article, not the authoritativeness of Wikipedia.)
>
> "The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is
> round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have
> more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
> -- Ferdinand Magellan (1470-1521)
>
Perhaps you DARPA and NASA/Apollo folks should become a little more
aware of what the tone of your replies to this topic has been telling
us about yourself and others of your status quo or bust kind of take-
it or leave-it mindset.
As far as I can recall, I never once said that the USSR and those our
crack DARPA wizards didn’t honestly try to accomplish the daunting
feat of landing humans upon and safely returning from our physically
dark as coal Selene/moon. Of whatever portion was accomplished was
however extremely impressive none the less, at least as good as if not
substantially better than our mutually perpetrated cold-war tango
dance partner achieved. Lets call this one a technological wash,
whereas this * Dancing With The Warlords * as a continuing cold-war
saga continues to play out.
I’m not nearly as anti-NASA or even opposed to our having fully
utilized and otherwise having protected the best of Hitlers’ Zionist/
Nazi physics and science smart wizards as you’d like to think, for
their having accomplished as much as the best available technology and
of whatever our frail human physiology could muster.
A short to/from trip with one extremely brief orbit of our physically
dark moon was technically doable for a human crew of three, as most of
us can believe having been accomplished by Apollo 13. A much longer
mission stint of an orbital stay or much less of their having landed
upon and safely returning was not quite as doable, or that of any sane
notion to do considering that our fly-by-rocket landers were hardly
anything safely usable for that task.
Btw, my laws of physics don’t seem to be nearly as flexible or as
nearly political and otherwise faith-based conditional as those of
yours, and I do not go around topic/author stalking and excluding or
banishing of evidence and otherwise having publicly funded by point of
view or interpretation as representing the one and only story that
gets into our mainstream media, science journals and textbooks.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Ian Parker
>
> You're saying that NASA FAKED THE SATURN LAUNCHES, TOO, AND NOT JUST
> THE LANDINGS?! What was that big tall thing with fire on its rear
> people, lots of people saw, then?
>
decline in capability. I DID say get the Saturn drawings out. If I
believed they would not work I would not have said that - would I?
Perhaps public enthusiasm is a valid point. There is also public
enthusiasm for Science. In 1969 the stock of Science was high. NASA
had good people. All the evidence is that NASA no longer has good
people.
This is an interesting thread. Note in particular the contribution of
Tom Roberts where any theories of the risk of Black Holes is
dispelled. Tom effectives gives the process for Hawking Radiation
Why do people say these things? I think they are anti science. Adam,
Eve and the creationalist shrub appear to be running Ares. I think it
would be idle to argue anything else. The CERN BH is something that is
raised by people who are against Science for other reasons.
There is far far more risk involved in keeping the smallpox virus in
existence and continuing research on things like Antrax than ever
there is with CERN. Homeland Insecurity witters about an Al Qaeda
attack, but the only attack that has ever taken place came from Dr.
Ivins.
> Truth is, even if NASA put the doubters in a spacecraft, flew them to
> the Moon, and showed them the Apollo hardware left on the Moon, THEY
> STILL WOULDN'T BELIEVE.
I do not know how conspiracy theories start. As I said anyone who
understands just a little Quantum Mechanics can appreciate Tom
Roberts' and my arguments that swallowing and Hawking Radiation is
very much the same thing. Again if you look at the arguments on the
Theory of Relativity, there again there is nothing which seemingly.
will convince the skeptics.
How do conspiracy theories start? Various ways. There is however
evidence that in the case of the UFO conspiracies the CIA acually used
imaginary aliens to cover up very real black flight. A stealth
aircraft flew over Phoenix and in an attempt to discredit eyewitnesses
the US military stirred up the alien pot.
>
> The situation is analogous to the the clergyman who refused to look
> through Galileo's telescope--his mind was made up, he didn't have to
> look through no dang telescope.
Did they believe it themselves or was it political. The Pope in fact
wanted to get at the Medicis and Galileo was a convenient target.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
Don't forget all of those moonsuit butt-plugs and those buckets of
foul BO deodorant. One moonsuit wet fart and you're about done for.
~ BG
RMOLLISE
Hi Lal:
LOL! I'm stealin this one.
;-)
Andrew Smallshaw
> I an NOT saying that. What I am saying is that there has been a
> decline in capability. I DID say get the Saturn drawings out. If I
> believed they would not work I would not have said that - would I?
ISTR hearing a rumour that Congress demanded the Saturn 5 designs
were destroyed when they approved funding for the space shuttle
programme. Apparently they figured that they'd save money that
way since NASA would be unable to come back to them asking for more
money for another programme based on Saturn 5. Not too sure how
much credence I give the idea but it is a hell of a lot more
belivable than most of the conspiracies on this group.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
John Baker
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
>that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
>humans having walked on the moon?
Brad, even you can't be that stupid.
>
> ~ BG
Tim Miller
You must be new here.
BradGuth
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:03:32 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>
>
> >What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
> >that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
> >humans having walked on the moon?
>
> Brad, even you can't be that stupid.
>
>
>
> > ~ BG
What's stupid about a fully robotic placement of a given retro-
reflector. Supposedly them dirty rotten Russians did it and most of
everything else at not 10% as spendy. Are you saying the USSR was
that much better at robotics than us?
~ BG
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Nice bit of handwaving there, but you still haven't explained how
those retroreflectors got there. How about a straight answer?
HardySpicer
Don't be rediculus! How do you think the space shuttle launch
maintains stability? Not only do we understand control (stability)
theory, we understand it even more than we did then.
Hardy
ps yes we landed on the moon! Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>John Baker wrote:
>
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>
>> >What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
>> >that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
>> >humans having walked on the moon?
>>
>> Brad, even you can't be that stupid.
>
>What's stupid about a fully robotic placement of a given retro-
>reflector. Supposedly them dirty rotten Russians did it and most of
>everything else at not 10% as spendy. Are you saying the USSR was
>that much better at robotics than us?
So your theory is that someone launched robotic landers on the
sites where I say men walked on the moon, got them there on the
dates when I say men walked on the moon, and had the robots set
up retroreflectors just in case someone like me might someday
want hard evidence that men walked on the moon? And nobody
noticed that every time we saw a bunch of astronauts get on
top of a Saturn-5 and blast off there was another rocket going
up to place the retroreflectors? Got times and places for any
of these alleged robotic probe launches?
Government Shill #2
wrote:
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG doesn't do straight answers.
Not in English anyway.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG writes in Babblese. Babel Fish
is no help.
--
Shill #2
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman
Ian Parker
>
> Don't be rediculus! How do you think the space shuttle launch
> maintains stability? Not only do we understand control (stability)
> theory, we understand it even more than we did then.
>
I don't think you understand what I mean by stability theory. You are
just talking about tri axis stability. Ares in fact oscillates.
Acceleration causes more fuel to go into the engines which then start
to reduce power. stability theory is basically an eigenvalue problem.
BTW - The maths of the Stock Exchange is exactly the same. Short
selling produces poles that induce oscillation. This is in fact
infinitely more serious than Ares. Stock market commetators seem to
say there is no cure. Bollocks - A bit of basic maths would benefit
Wall St. just as much as NASA. All Bush seems to want is the $700e9
baleout. No questions asked about what got the Stock Market into the
state it is. To me if Wall St. capitalists demand Govt. money they are
no longer capitalists. They are failures at capitalism.
> Hardy
> ps yes we landed on the moon! Only an idiot would suggest otherwise.
Agreed.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
Ian Parker
>
> > I am not questioning that the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon and
> > deposited laser reflectors. There is however a truth behind the
> > conspiracy theory and it is this. Saturn 5 worked, Ares does not. One
> > would have thought that with the advances in technology that have
> > occured in the last 40 years Ares would be easy (relatively at least)
> > to build. I have indeed on occaision posted that it would be far
> > cheaper to dig out the old Saturn drawings rather than develop Ares.
>
> > I have a conspiracy theory behing conspiracy theories. To admit that
> > Saturn worked and took astronauts to the Moon almost 40 yesrs ago, and
> > (apparantly at least) no one in NASA today understands stability
> > theory is something that certain people are not prepared to do.
>
> > - Ian Parker
>
> I have always said, find me an electric car. They were very popular at
> the turn of the (last) century only losing out to internal combustion
> because gas was cheap and IC had a better range. So, it should be very
> easy to find or build an electric car, and yet, it took YEARS for a
> new model of an electric car to be developed.
>
acid) vehicles around in the shape of wheelchairs and power assisted
bicycles. We want something of higher performance. A fuel cell (at the
moment) seems the most promising route to satisfactory performance at
an affordable price.
Is ares of higher performance than Saturn? Only marginally. The
Shuttle was supposed to promote cheap spaceflight but the cost/Kg in
LEO has tended to rise as the years have gone by.
> Thus it is with the Apollo program. What was available in the 60s
> isn't anymore and has to be redesigned and rebuilt.
> As far as just rebuilding Saturns, I understand the astronauts who
> went claimed that they got "lucky" more than they had the right to
> expect. Some things, bordering on catestrophic (sp) went wrong and had
> to be fixed on site. Given their current track record, NASA's probably
> not counting on "luck" anymore.
There was indeed a lot of luck. None of the astronauts who visited the
Moon had to contend with a solar flare for example. However the "luck"
was in the Lunar modult and Apollo capsule rather than in the launch
vehicle.
The Shuttle was originally designed as a more or less completely
reusable spacecraft. The military then increased the weight and
complexity. In the end it failed to do eith a military of civil job.
The military are increasingly putting their payloads up in expendible
rockets.
As far as Sauturn not being available is concerned, this quite simply
is not true. All the drawings are still there. It is a matter of
transferring them to a modern CAD/CAM system.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
Oddly the USSR/Russians also have no hard objective notions of their
proof positive as to how the hell they’d managed to get their retro-
reflectors safely onto the moon, so how would I know.
Everything of our DARPA~NASA/Apollo and of them Russian efforts are
down to the absolute dregs of their hocus-pocus subjective (take-it or
leave-it) notions, as otherwise each missing all of their critical R&D
of complex fly-by-rocket process that supposedly took place,
supposedly having once been fully documented and for the most part
worked like a freaking charm, exactly as publicly hyped and ever since
scripted even though nothing can be demonstrated.
Perhaps they each used magic, and then much like “Mission Impossible”
they burned all of their mission related files and otherwise made damn
certain that not a soul on either side would ever so much as dare
spill a bean. The very real fear of nondisclosure enforcement via
certain death or worse than, as such would have done the trick for me.
You do perchance realize that we’re not talking about one little
potential error or fly in their ointment, don’t you?
Do you think the cold-war was real or mutually perpetrated as I’ve
told it?
Btw, exactly what’s with your usenet/newsgroup “Invalid profile”?
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
BradGuth wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> Nice bit of handwaving there, but you still haven't explained how
>> those retroreflectors got there. How about a straight answer?
>
>...how would I know.
>
>...nothing can be demonstrated.
>
>...Perhaps they each used magic,
Got it. You have no reasonable explanation. You can go back to
your handwaving now.
>Btw, exactly what’s with your usenet/newsgroup “Invalid profile”?
Usenet newsgroups don't have profiles. If you are referring to
what the groups.google.com website says *about* Usenet newsgroups,
you would have to ask them why they do things the way they do.
Cerumen
"Tim Miller" <replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gbejho$2ms$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
So am I but I'm fully aware of how stupid Brad is and never download his
garbage.
--
Chris,
Abandon hope all ye who push enter key here.
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>The average lunar albedo of 0.11 is nearly the same as a
>terrestrial open-pit coal mine.
Which kind of albedo? Bond albedo? Lambert albedo? Visual
Normal albedo? What spectrum? Solar spectrum?
Visual spectrum?
The average Bond albedo across the lunar surface is 0.12 (12%).
Being off-axis reduces this by around 30%. Compare this with
Venus, with a Bond albedo albedo of 0.65 (65%), Earth at 0.37
(37%) and Mars at 0.15 (15%). Coal has a Bond albedo of about
0.05 (5%), well over twice as dark as the moon.
That being said, the albedo of the Moon strongly directional and
non-Lambertian, so the Bond albedo does not tell us how bright
it would be compared to a luna-sized lump of coal in the same
location in space. For that, the best measurement is the visual
normal albedo at 5% phase angle. In addition, the human eye does
not average the brightness of a surface, but instead tends to
estimate brightness as the brightness of the brightest features,
as long as they aren't so small that the eye doesn't consider
them to be representitive of the entire surface.
Some visual normal lunar albedo figures are:
Coal: 0.05 (5%)
Darkest lunar areas: 0.09 (9%)
Plato's floor: 0.10 (10%)
Ptolemaeus floor: 0.13 (13%)
Aristarchus: 0.2 (20%)
Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 0.30 (30%)
So a conservative estimate would be that the moon is three times
brighter to four times brighter than a moon-sized sphere of coal
in lunar orbit would be.
Disneygeek
>
> > Did we land on the moon?http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm
>
> > The Straight Dope: Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax?http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1758/was-the-apollo-moon-lan...
>
> > Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_lan...
>
> > Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
>
> > (As always with Wikipedia, the real evidence is in the links and
> > the logic of the article, not the authoritativeness of Wikipedia.)
>
> > "The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is
> > round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have
> > more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
> > -- Ferdinand Magellan (1470-1521)
>
> Perhaps you DARPA and NASA/Apollo folks should become a little more
> aware of what the tone of your replies to this topic has been telling
> us about yourself and others of your status quo or bust kind of take-
> it or leave-it mindset.
I "googled" DARPA. I found two references that have nothing to do with
government or space travel so I have to ask. What the heck are you
referring to with your constant use of the term "DARPA?"
Painius
news:a3c99fea-ebb5-4460...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I "googled" DARPA. I found two references that have nothing to do with
> government or space travel so I have to ask. What the heck are you
> referring to with your constant use of the term "DARPA?"
It refers to the DOD agency in the US...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa
hth
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!
P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net
Ian Parker
> "Disneygeek" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> news:a3c99fea-ebb5-4460...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I "googled" DARPA. I found two references that have nothing to do with
> > government or space travel so I have to ask. What the heck are you
> > referring to with your constant use of the term "DARPA?"
>
> It refers to the DOD agency in the US...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa
>
> hth
>
is GALE language research. The research is very much declassified and
there is a great deal of stuff (like an Arabic dictionary) available
as open source. A great deal is indeed sub contracted to various
universities. A great deal of the research like the "Grand Challenge
(cars)" is applicable in non military areas. The "all seeing"
battlefield is very relevant to civil policing.
Brad is I think confusing DARPA with the CIA which does conduct highly
classified research of its own. There is one legitimate fear about
DARPA dual use research and that is that the military will dominate
requirements and may well classify major areas at some later point.
Civil researchers, the motor industry for example, should be doing
research of their own.
- Ian Parker
John Baker
I'm no stranger to Brad and his looniness, but still, there *must* be
a limit to how stupid someone can be and still manage to function.
Then again, maybe Einstein was right.. <G>
John Baker
I've been familiar with Brad for years. Just when you think he's said
the dumbest thing possible, he turns around and outdoes himself. <G>
Cerumen
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:39qud4l89d0n4juss...@4ax.com...
after many years he must be very good at that at least.
--
Chris,
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter
concinnatur!
Bryan Olson
> Tim Miller wrote:
>> John Baker wrote:
>>>> What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
>>>> that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
>>>> humans having walked on the moon?
>>>
>>> Brad, even you can't be that stupid.
>>>
>> You must be new here.
>
> I'm no stranger to Brad and his looniness, but still, there *must* be
> a limit to how stupid someone can be and still manage to function.
Only the most dedicated readers of kookery (which is mostly a waste of
time as I learned the the hard way) grasp the extent of Brad's
"looniness". He's not just an ordinary Moon-walk-was-hoax kook. He says
we could not possibly have put a man on the Moon, yet argues the ease
and benefits of his own idea to *relocate* the Moon; we should move it
to Earth's L1.
Why do his ideas amount to nothing? Brad blames a Zionist conspiracy.
Yup, he's one of those too.
> Then again, maybe Einstein was right.. <G>
Einstein was right about a whole bunch of stuff. Still, he wasn't really
a kookologist, and Brad may be off Albert's scale
We who people this planet share the experience of looking up at the Moon
in wonder and awe. Next time you do, contemplate Brad: the one guy
bitterly shaking his fist at the Moon being there, where it is, and
blaming the Jews.
Really. Google the obvious terms. I could not make this stuff up if I tried.
--
--Bryan
BradGuth
Why is this clearly bogus topic even here, much less getting replied
to by those of your silly dumbfounded kind?
What exactly are you folks so deathly afraid of?
The Selene/moon is actually upon average somewhat darker than coal,
especially as photographed by way of a polarized optical element.
Average or typical terrestrial coal has an albedo of 0.1 (10%), such
as if you viewed an open pit coal mine and otherwise used a
photographic whiteboard of perhaps 0.9 as your reflective albedo
reference. Trust me, it's not hardly rocket science.
Diffused photographic whiteboard of either low 0.1 emissivity or high
albedo that’s similar to a fresh/new snow or frost of 0.9, as also
similar to those intentionally reflective moonsuits as having white/
reflective brighteners added to their suit material.
Because the moon surface is highly textured and otherwise mostly
electrostatic charged and obviously of dark meteorite deposits and
otherwise secondary shard covered, along with an otherwise
electrostatic attracted carbon/soot like crystal dry powder is why the
average albedo of .07 can be understood, which is darker than most
terrestrial coal and would thereby be a correct observationology
interpretation.
BradGuth
Take a basic 5th grade class in photographics-101, then report back.
btw, there are countless published examples of our physically dark
moon along with other planets within the same FOV, even a few from our
NASA. I'd say, get a fresh grip on your private parts.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "Disneygeek" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> news:a3c99fea-ebb5-4460...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I "googled" DARPA. I found two references that have nothing to do with
> > government or space travel so I have to ask. What the heck are you
> > referring to with your constant use of the term "DARPA?"
>
> It refers to the DOD agency in the US...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa
It's also where we hid and protected all of those physics and science
smart Zionist/Nazis that supposedly got us safely to/from our moon,
but rather oddly having managed to lose track of everything mission
critical.
~ BG
BradGuth
The DARPA of today has few if any of its ordinal darkside cast of
those Zionist/Nazi wizards, and as such could have been accomplishing
far greater good than it has been allowed to accomplish.
Our CIA as extensively run by MI5 is also another good part of our
ongoing cloak and dagger truth-lag, and responsible for any number of
dastardly things that have been known to come back and bite us.
There have been few if any public motivated controls on either of
these rogue agencies that operate somewhat like our Skull and Bones
cult has functioned for decades.
~ BG
Painius
in message news:JmMDk.1904$D32...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> John Baker wrote:
>>
>> . . . Then again, maybe Einstein was right.. <G>
>
> Einstein was right about a whole bunch of stuff. Still, he wasn't really a
"The difference between genius and stupidity is
that genius has its limits."
“Two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the the former.”
> Albert Einstein (unsourced)
(Both of these are unsourced quotes, meaning that
they are to be treated with skepticism. Einstein is
attributed with saying many things that he never
really said.)
BDK
fakea...@nowhere.org says...
The great Guthball is a multitasking loon, he has the ability to run
parallel lines of madness simultaneously.
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
John Baker
<fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>John Baker wrote:
>> Tim Miller wrote:
>>> John Baker wrote:
>>>> BradGuth wrote:
>>>>> What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
>>>>> that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
>>>>> humans having walked on the moon?
>>>>
>>>> Brad, even you can't be that stupid.
>>>>
>>> You must be new here.
>>
>> I'm no stranger to Brad and his looniness, but still, there *must* be
>> a limit to how stupid someone can be and still manage to function.
>
>Only the most dedicated readers of kookery (which is mostly a waste of
>time as I learned the the hard way) grasp the extent of Brad's
>"looniness". He's not just an ordinary Moon-walk-was-hoax kook. He says
>we could not possibly have put a man on the Moon, yet argues the ease
>and benefits of his own idea to *relocate* the Moon; we should move it
>to Earth's L1.
>
>Why do his ideas amount to nothing? Brad blames a Zionist conspiracy.
>Yup, he's one of those too.
>
>> Then again, maybe Einstein was right.. <G>
>
>Einstein was right about a whole bunch of stuff. Still, he wasn't really
>a kookologist, and Brad may be off Albert's scale
I was referring to the famous Einstein quote about how only two things
he knew of were infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and Albert
allowed that he wasn't sure about the universe. <G>
>
>We who people this planet share the experience of looking up at the Moon
>in wonder and awe. Next time you do, contemplate Brad: the one guy
>bitterly shaking his fist at the Moon being there, where it is, and
>blaming the Jews.
>
>Really. Google the obvious terms. I could not make this stuff up if I tried.
I know. Brad's rants about life on Venus have to be seen to be
believed. The guy is a total fruitcake.
Guy Macon
Bryan Olson wrote:
>
>Only the most dedicated readers of kookery (which is mostly a waste of
>time as I learned the the hard way) grasp the extent of Brad's
>"looniness". He's not just an ordinary Moon-walk-was-hoax kook. He says
>we could not possibly have put a man on the Moon, yet argues the ease
>and benefits of his own idea to *relocate* the Moon; we should move it
>to Earth's L1.
>
>Why do his ideas amount to nothing? Brad blames a Zionist conspiracy.
>Yup, he's one of those too.
>We who people this planet share the experience of looking up at the Moon
>in wonder and awe. Next time you do, contemplate Brad: the one guy
>bitterly shaking his fist at the Moon being there, where it is, and
>blaming the Jews.
>
>Really. Google the obvious terms. I could not make this stuff up if I tried.
It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid that is. Stupid as
a stone that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that we
have traveled far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new
dimension of stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid
stupid. Stupid collapsed to a singularity where even the stupons
have collapsed into stuponium. Stupid so dense that no intelligence
can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot summer day on Mercury
stupid. This emits more stupid in one minute than our entire
galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot be possible that
anything in our universe can really be this stupid. This is a
primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure
extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond
the laws of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is
my epiphany of stupid. Duh.
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>Average or typical terrestrial coal has an albedo of 0.1 (10%),
"Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>
>> >Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>> >> Nice bit of handwaving there, but you still haven't explained how
>> >> those retroreflectors got there. How about a straight answer?
>>
>> >...how would I know.
>>
>> >...nothing can be demonstrated.
>>
>> >...Perhaps they each used magic,
>>
>> Got it. You have no reasonable explanation. You can go back to
>> your handwaving now.
>
>Take a basic 5th grade class in photographics-101, then report back.
>
>btw, there are countless published examples of our physically dark
>moon along with other planets within the same FOV, even a few from our
>NASA. I'd say, get a fresh grip on your private parts.
You *still* haven't explained how those retroreflectors got there.
How about a straight answer? It couldn't have been an unmanned
launch; no such launches occured at the times of the manned lunar
flights. Each landing site started retroreflecting laser beams
on the day that the astronauts say they set up the retroreflectors.
So how did those retroreflectors got there if not placed by astronauts?
Odysseus
Bryan Olson <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Why do his ideas amount to nothing? Brad blames a Zionist conspiracy.
Zionist/Nazi, actually.
> Yup, he's one of those too.
Representing an uncommon subspecies, however.
--
Odysseus
BradGuth
> "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote...
>
> in messagenews:JmMDk.1904$D32...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> > John Baker wrote:
>
> >> . . . Then again, maybe Einstein was right.. <G>
>
> > Einstein was right about a whole bunch of stuff. Still, he wasn't really a
> > kookologist, and Brad may be off Albert's scale . . .
>
> "The difference between genius and stupidity is
> that genius has its limits."
>
> “Two things are infinite, the universe and human
> stupidity, and I'm not sure about the the former.”
>
> > Albert Einstein (unsourced)
>
> (Both of these are unsourced quotes, meaning that
> they are to be treated with skepticism. Einstein is
> attributed with saying many things that he never
> really said.)
>
> hth
Einstein was also never given sufficient credit for essentially having
plagiarized his way through life, with his Zionist/Nazi puppet masters
seeing to it that their favorite puppet Einstein was going to look
good no matters what sorts of systematic defrauding or demise came to
others.
~ BG
BradGuth
How shallow and otherwise sad your pathetic little lives of perpetual
denial have become.
~ BG
BradGuth
Lampblack is roughly worth 0.03 (3% +/-1%), whereas coal is seldom if
ever that dark unless having been ground into a fine powder.
A carbon nanotube version of sooty lampblack is supposedly capable of
less than 0.0005 albdeo (0.05%).
Those dusty old moons of Mars are somewhat darker than our moon. The
core of a comet can be every bit as dark as lampblack.
Our extra white Apollo moonsuits were worth roughly 0.85 (85% +/- 5%
depending on the specific clothing or other synthetic item), and most
of those suits were reactive to UV photons.
~ BG
BradGuth
Ask those honest Russians that you keep telling us, they too landed
robotic technology as having retro-reflectors on our physically dark
as coal Selene/moon.
If them Russians don't know of how to get such retro-reflectors
planted on our moon, then I sure as hell don't.
~ BG
Painius
news:mJGdnTQCK9H...@giganews.com...
Forgive my Guy, but that post sounded really stupid.
<g>
Painius
news:odysseus1479-at-5C...@news.telus.net...
> In article <JmMDk.1904$D32...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> Bryan Olson <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Why do his ideas amount to nothing? Brad blames a Zionist conspiracy.
>
> Zionist/Nazi, actually.
Their pubs are listed in the manifesto written by
Ox E. Moron.
>> Yup, he's one of those too.
>
> Representing an uncommon subspecies, however.
>
> --
> Odysseus
Homo sapiens headuphisassis?
BradGuth
I'll second that motion. What's up with some of these mainstream
status quo or bust nuts? (are they all bipolar crazy?)
~ BG
BDK
f38039...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
> On Sep 28, 9:08 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> > "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote...
> >
> > in messagenews:JmMDk.1904$D32...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> >
> > > John Baker wrote:
> >
> > >> . . . Then again, maybe Einstein was right.. <G>
> >
> > > Einstein was right about a whole bunch of stuff. Still, he wasn't really a
> > > kookologist, and Brad may be off Albert's scale . . .
> >
> > "The difference between genius and stupidity is
> > that genius has its limits."
> >
> > stupidity, and I'm not sure about the the former.=3F
> >
> > > Albert Einstein (unsourced)
> >
> > (Both of these are unsourced quotes, meaning that
> > they are to be treated with skepticism. Einstein is
> > attributed with saying many things that he never
> > really said.)
> >
> > hth
>
> Einstein was also never given sufficient credit for essentially having
> plagiarized his way through life, with his Zionist/Nazi puppet masters
> seeing to it that their favorite puppet Einstein was going to look
> good no matters what sorts of systematic defrauding or demise came to
> others.
>
> ~ BG
>
>
BWHAHAHAA! It appears your kooktardism is affecting you in more ways
then expected...
BradGuth
Remember folks, there’s magnesium oxide as well as the low density
mineral of sodium within and upon the otherwise relatively dark basalt
crust of our moon, that’s also an extremely electrostatic charged
environment and thus having been thick dusted with the likes of a
carbon lampblack substance, whereas once this surface dust gets
disturbed by an Apollo mission impact could in fact reveal an
extremely bright/reflective crater that’s quite worthy of reflecting
those green photons. Otherwise, the physically dark as coal moon
itself is roughly offering 0.33 albedo in the IR spectrum, and only
better yet at the mid to far IR spectrum.
So what’s the big freaking deal about getting those few and far
between photons out of the trillions transmitted, to bounce off the
moon without any retro-reflector benefits?
~ BG
Charles Manoras
"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote
> "The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is
> round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have
> more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
> -- Ferdinand Magellan (1470-1521)
I seriously doubt that the (presumably Catholic) Church
could have maintained in the 15th/16th centuries that the
earth was flat.
The sphericity of the earth is a fact that was well
established then (and since Antiquity).
This alleged quote from Magellan must surely be
apocryphal.
Painius
news:cIednSMTiajN_33V...@comcast.com...
"In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue."
I have read that most of Columbus' crews of the
Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria were so scared
that they would fall off the edge of the Earth, they
threatened ol' Chris, saying they would kill him if
land wasn't found in, i think it was, three days, yes
three days. Fortunately, land was found in time.
The Earth as a sphere and not flat may very well
have been well established, but it was not yet well
believed. Not in Europe, anyway.
http://www.teachingheart.net/columbus.htm
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> BradGuth wrote:
>> >Average or typical terrestrial coal has an albedo of 0.1 (10%),
>>
>> "Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
>
>Lampblack is roughly worth 0.03 (3% +/-1%), whereas coal is seldom
>if ever that dark unless having been ground into a fine powder.
So which is it? Does coal have an albedo of 0.1 as you claim,
or 0.05, as Encyclopedia Britannica claims?
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>If them Russians don't know of how to get such retro-reflectors
>planted on our moon, then I sure as hell don't.
So the only explanation left is that they were placed by astronauts.
Guy Macon
Charles Manoras wrote:
>This alleged quote from Magellan must surely be
>apocryphal.
You are correct. Please see my recent post titled "Bogus Ferdinand
Magellan Quote" where I detail the actual source of this myth.
Guy Macon
Painius wrote:
>I have read that most of Columbus' crews of the
>Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria were so scared
>that they would fall off the edge of the Earth, they
>threatened ol' Chris, saying they would kill him if
>land wasn't found in, i think it was, three days, yes
>three days. Fortunately, land was found in time.
>
>The Earth as a sphere and not flat may very well
>have been well established, but it was not yet well
>believed. Not in Europe, anyway.
>
> http://www.teachingheart.net/columbus.htm
It turns out that this is a myth. Everybody knew that the
earth was a sphere. there was no common belief in a flat
earth even among the uneducated.
Columbus' crews were afraid of going past the point where
they had enough food and water to turn around and get back.
Columbus calculated that they had enough to go around the
globe and hit the East Indies. He was wrong. If not for
the Americas being there they would have died before making
land.
See my recent post titled "Bogus Ferdinand Magellan Quote"
for more details.
BradGuth
Give me a break, as in good grief you are mindset pathetic beyond all
possible measure. Try thinking outside the box, because it's fun and
it's the best available truth to boot.
Most of everything via NASA has been systematically altered in order
to suit their ruse/sting of our mutually perpetrated cold-war
century. However, there are still a few good photographic examples
where they didn't catch it in time prior to publishing or having
posted such natural looking images for public internet review.
The Selene/moon is in fact darker than the albedo of Jupiter or Mars,
whereas those moons of Mars are somewhat darker yet, and even the
planet Mercury isn’t exactly a reflective orb. Venus being roughly
better than twice as albedo reflective as Earth, as such isn’t a
vanishing stellar point-source of illumination, but cruising rather
nearby at times and fully capable of looking very good in a full
visual spectrum (unfiltered) Kodak moment, especially above the
physically dark lunar horizon or even next to Earth that isn’t half as
bright.
If you want to see real PhotoShoping as damage-control in action, take
an honest forensic kind of look-see at those pathetic HDTV JAXA/Selene
images. It's embarrassing as all get-out that our DARPA/NASA has JAXA
so firmly by their private parts. Apparently Japan caves in at the
slightest squeeze, so we don’t even have to resort to our usual
testicular electrocution and waterboarding methods.
I certainly hope we are not talking about albedo via glare, whereas
half of any given view of our solar illuminated Selene/moon is
essentially glare enhanced albedo, and not of the true 0.07 albedo
that’s as dark as coal. Those Apollo cameras each had a neutral full
hue/color spectrum bandpass polarized optical element, that which by
rights and those pesky laws of physics should have diminished such
surface glare by 50%, if not better, and those pure white moonsuits
were in fact still worthy of 0.85 or better, as well as their being UV
reactive (as should have been much of the lunar surface).
Remember folks, in addition to various complex minerals there’s also
deposits of magnesium oxide as well as the low density mineral of
sodium within and upon the otherwise relatively dark basalt crust of
our moon, that’s also offering an extremely electrostatic charged
environment and thus having collected a fairly thick amount of solar
and cosmic mineral deposits of a carbon lampblack substance, whereas
once this layer of absolutely crystal dry surface dust gets
artificially disturbed by an Apollo mission impact, in addition to
whatever becomes vaporized aluminum that would likely happen, whereas
this impact or hard landing method could in fact reveal an extremely
bright/reflective little crater that’s quite worthy of reflecting
those green photons.
Otherwise, the physically dark as coal moon itself is roughly offering
a 0.33 albedo in the IR spectrum, and it’s only better reflective yet
at the mid to far IR spectrum. So what’s the big freaking deal about
getting those few and far between photons out of the trillions
transmitted, to bounce off the moon without any retro-reflector
benefits?
Btw, because of our moon and solar worth of whole terrestrial body
tides that manage to flex or undulate the entire body and thin crust
of Earth about our equator by 55 cm, and even at times as much as +/-
32 cm, is reason enough to honestly interpret that there’s little
likelihood of an annual 3.8 cm recession can ever be made all that
precisely certain, whereas having a Earth-moon L1 platform of
instruments as set within the Selene/moon L1 could have better
established this kind of science and so much more at not 10% the cost
of one Apollo mission.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
BradGuth
0.1 is by far the most common albedo of raw terrestrial coal, as
viewed existing within a given open-bit coal mine that's fully solar
illuminated from above or behind your forever dumbfounded head. Raw
terrestrial basalt is often somewhat less than coal dark. Sorry about
that.
The Encyclopedia Britannica was not scripted by God. Sorry about that
too.
Not all of terrestrial coal is nearly as lampblack as 0.05, in fact
most terrestrial coal is not nearly as carbon sooty dark because of
surface moisture, impurities and factors of dimensional induced
glare. Only refined powder coal would manage to get that dark, as
otherwise there'd be an unavoidable glare factor.
~ BG
Disneygeek
> "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
>
> news:39qud4l89d0n4juss...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:27:20 +0100, "Cerumen"
> > <cerumen.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Tim Miller" <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:gbejho$2ms$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>> John Baker wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:03:32 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> >>>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
> >>>>> that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
> >>>>> humans having walked on the moon?
>
> >>>> Brad, even you can't be that stupid.
>
> >>> You must be new here.
>
> >>garbage.
>
> > I've been familiar with Brad for years. Just when you think he's said
> > the dumbest thing possible, he turns around and outdoes himself. <G>
>
> Well if he is a troll and people are still reading and/or responding to him
> after many years he must be very good at that at least.
First rule of trolls is, they don't respond. Brad usually responds.
His response might not make a lot of sense, or it might just be an
insulting dirade (sp), but he does respond.
Disneygeek
>
> - Show quoted text -
My God, that was practically Monty Python in its range and depth
("dead parrot" anyone?)
Disneygeek
You're projecting again, Brad.
Disneygeek
> BradGuth wrote:
> >If them Russians don't know of how to get such retro-reflectors
> >planted on our moon, then I sure as hell don't.
>
> So the only explanation left is that they were placed by astronauts.
I think what he's trying to say is that Russians managed to place some
without astronauts, why couldn't we?
I'm not saying he's right. I'm just trying to sort out the argument.
Disneygeek
I'm not saying Venus couldn't have been photographed. I'm saying they
didn't bother. Why should they? Who knew Brad Guth was going to come
along and claim the lack of Venus in any of the shots proved anything?
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> So which is it? Does coal have an albedo of 0.1 as you claim,
>> or 0.05, as Encyclopedia Britannica claims?
>
>0.1 is by far the most common albedo of raw terrestrial coal,
"Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
>The Encyclopedia Britannica was not scripted by God.
True, but it sure beats "because BradGuth says so" as a source
of evidence.
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
>My God,
You don't have to call me God. Guy will do. :)
>that was practically Monty Python in its range and depth
>("dead parrot" anyone?)
If you liked that, you will *love* this:
HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM
Guy Macon
We know the dates on which each of the retroreflectors started
retroreflecting. No unmanned rockets anywhere on earth were
launched on or near those dates. Only Saturn-5 manned moon
missions were.
Painius
news:1KWdnXxfPpF...@giganews.com...
Congratulations, you are both right and wrong...
"The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus is a novel
about Christopher Columbus written by Washington Irving
in 1838. While the book is often cited as a biography, it is
primarily a work of fiction. In this book, Irving writes that
the voyages of Columbus finally convinced Europeans of
his time that the Earth is not flat. In truth, no educated or
influential member of medieval society believed the Earth
to be flat. The idea of a spherical Earth had long been
espoused in the classical tradition and was inherited by
medieval academics."
It is also obvious that Irving was both right and wrong. He
was writing about the masses, who were in the majority at
the time, and who were UNeducated and UNinfluential
members of society in Europe. And guess who allowed the
myth to continue among the "unclean masses"? The Church.
Your Magellan quote, however, is almost certainly a gross
misattribution...
"It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had
individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his
own convictions, — some one who had the grandeur to say
his say. I believe it was Magellan who said, 'The Church
says the earth is flat, but I have seen its shadow on the
moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than
in the Church.' On the prow of his ship were disobedience,
defiance, scorn, and success."
> Robert G. Ingersoll in his essay, "Individuality"
That's the earliest known attribution.
BradGuth
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:27:20 +0100, "Cerumen"
>
>
>
> <cerumen.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Tim Miller" <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:gbejho$2ms$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >> John Baker wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:03:32 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>
> >>>> What exactly does a "laser ranging retroreflector" of corner cubes
> >>>> that simply do not require much if any alignment, have to do with
> >>>> humans having walked on the moon?
>
> >>> Brad, even you can't be that stupid.
>
> >> You must be new here.
>
> >garbage.
>
> I've been familiar with Brad for years. Just when you think he's said
> the dumbest thing possible, he turns around and outdoes himself. <G>
I do seem to have more than my fair share of loose cannons, though
once in a while I do manage to hit the intended private parts of those
I least admirer.
~ BG
BradGuth
Trust me, I make more than my fair share of honest mistakes. However,
this is not one of them. I didn't invent the average albedo of
terrestrial coal for the sake of winning this argument.
Silly me, I'd thought we were comparing terrestrial apples with moon
apples.
~ BG
BradGuth
They'd have to work hard at not getting Venus in a given FOV that
included any portion of our physically dark as coal moon, and/or that
of Earth.
~ BG
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Painius wrote:
> "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus is a novel
> about Christopher Columbus written by Washington Irving
> in 1838. While the book is often cited as a biography, it is
> primarily a work of fiction. In this book, Irving writes that
> the voyages of Columbus finally convinced Europeans of
> his time that the Earth is not flat. In truth, no educated or
> influential member of medieval society believed the Earth
> to be flat. The idea of a spherical Earth had long been
> espoused in the classical tradition and was inherited by
> medieval academics."
>
>It is also obvious that Irving was both right and wrong. He
>was writing about the masses, who were in the majority at
>the time, and who were UNeducated and UNinfluential
>members of society in Europe. And guess who allowed the
>myth to continue among the "unclean masses"? The Church.
I am having trouble with the "it is also obvious" bit.
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that a significant
portion of the uneducated masses believed in a flat earth?
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the Church
encouraged this alleged common belief?
>Your Magellan quote, however, is almost certainly a gross
>misattribution...
>
> "It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had
> individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his
> own convictions, — some one who had the grandeur to say
> his say. I believe it was Magellan who said, 'The Church
> says the earth is flat, but I have seen its shadow on the
> moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than
> in the Church.' On the prow of his ship were disobedience,
> defiance, scorn, and success."
> > Robert G. Ingersoll in his essay, "Individuality"
>
>That's the earliest known attribution.
Thanks!
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>
>> >Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>> >> So which is it? Does coal have an albedo of 0.1 as you claim,
>> >> or 0.05, as Encyclopedia Britannica claims?
>>
>> >0.1 is by far the most common albedo of raw terrestrial coal,
>>
>> "Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
>>
>> >The Encyclopedia Britannica was not scripted by God.
>>
>> True, but it sure beats "because BradGuth says so" as a source
>> of evidence.
>
>Trust me, I make more than my fair share of honest mistakes. However,
>this is not one of them. I didn't invent the average albedo of
>terrestrial coal for the sake of winning this argument.
Then you should have no trouble citing the source where you got
your numbers.
"because BradGuth says that some unnamed source says so" isn't
any better than "because BradGuth says so" as a source of evidence.
Disneygeek
Well, since Venus would be pretty close to the Sun and since they were
trying hard NOT to include the Sun in any of their photos, then not
including Venus would be a given. (One mission, the astronaut in
charge of the video camera pointed it at the Sun by accident and
burned it out!)
Painius
in message news:FoWdnXwLg-s...@giganews.com...
> Painius wrote:
>>
>> "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus is a novel
>> about Christopher Columbus written by Washington Irving
>> in 1838. While the book is often cited as a biography, it is
>> primarily a work of fiction. In this book, Irving writes that
>> the voyages of Columbus finally convinced Europeans of
>> his time that the Earth is not flat. In truth, no educated or
>> influential member of medieval society believed the Earth
>> to be flat. The idea of a spherical Earth had long been
>> espoused in the classical tradition and was inherited by
>> medieval academics."
>>
>> It is also obvious that Irving was both right and wrong. He
>> was writing about the masses, who were in the majority at
>> the time, and who were UNeducated and UNinfluential
>> members of society in Europe. And guess who allowed the
>> myth to continue among the "unclean masses"? The Church.
>
> I am having trouble with the "it is also obvious" bit.
>
> Do you have any evidence to support the claim that a significant
> portion of the uneducated masses believed in a flat earth?
Literature is filled with such claims, not the least of
which was Irving's account. Doesn't the "In truth, no
educated or influential member of medieval society
believed the Earth to be flat," strongly *imply* that
the uneducated and uninfluential did (when they
thought about it, which may very well have been
never or infrequently) believe the Earth to be flat?
> Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the Church
> encouraged this alleged common belief?
Lack of a specific passage of such evidence will by no
means detract from the fact that the Church is well
known for its perpetration and sustenance of myth.
>> Your Magellan quote, however, is almost certainly a gross
>> misattribution...
>>
>> "It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had
>> individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his
>> own convictions, — some one who had the grandeur to say
>> his say. I believe it was Magellan who said, 'The Church
>> says the earth is flat, but I have seen its shadow on the
>> moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than
>> in the Church.' On the prow of his ship were disobedience,
>> defiance, scorn, and success."
>> > Robert G. Ingersoll in his essay, "Individuality"
>>
>> That's the earliest known attribution.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
You're very welcome, Guy!
Guy Macon
Painius wrote:
>
>"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>
I did a bit of searching and could not find any such claims
prior to the late 18th century. It could be a myth created
centuries later. Most myths are plausible, so being plausible
is no help.
>> Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the Church
>> encouraged this alleged common belief?
>
>Lack of a specific passage of such evidence will by no
>means detract from the fact that the Church is well
>known for its perpetration and sustenance of myth.
True, but that tells us nothing about whether they perpetrated
this specific myth.
Ian Parker
>
> I did a bit of searching and could not find any such claims
> prior to the late 18th century. It could be a myth created
> centuries later. Most myths are plausible, so being plausible
> is no help.
>
> >> Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the Church
> >> encouraged this alleged common belief?
>
> >Lack of a specific passage of such evidence will by no
> >means detract from the fact that the Church is well
> >known for its perpetration and sustenance of myth.
>
> True, but that tells us nothing about whether they perpetrated
> this specific myth.
>
was made by Erasthenes in about 200 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Posidonus made a less accurate measurent, some years later.
http://geography.about.com/od/historyofgeography/a/eratosthenes.htm
>A few decades later, the Greek geographer Posidonius thought Eratosthenes' circumference was too large. He calculated the circumference on his own and obtained 18,000 miles, 7,000 miles too short. During the middle ages, most scholars accepted Eratosthenes' circumference though Christopher Columbus used Posidonius' circumference to convince his supporters that he could quickly reach Asia by sailing west from Europe.
Columbus is addition assumed that the distance of China east of Europe
was greater than it actually was. He increased Marco Polo's distances.
Here you have authoritative references on what scholars actually
believed in the Middle Ages. They were right Columbus should have
starved.
There is one further point. Columbus by being wrong (and the majority
opinion of medieval scholarship right) did discover America. At the
time money was given for a route to China but not to discover America.
In fact the logical thing to have done would have been to have sailed
for Vinland (round about New York) discovered by the Vikings. However
there were no funds for the logical course.
This gives us pause for thought. We naturally assume you will discover
things by being right and logical, but this is not always the case.
Columbus believed he was in China all the time, he did not, for
example go to Lief Erikson's position when he was out of the clutches
of Ferdinand and Isabella.
- Ian Parker
Disneygeek
I've been asking Brad where his numbers come from for years!
Disneygeek
Why? Venus doesn't take up a lot of space in the sky. Venus is also
between the Earth/Moon and the Sun. If they were facing the Eath and
shooting it in full view, than the Sun (and Venus) would be behind
them. If Venus were close to Earth/Moon, it would be presenting its
"dark side" to us.
EARTH MOON VENUS MERCURY SUN
If it were presenting its "bright side" to us, it would have to be on
the other side of the Sun and would then be very far away and would be
an even smaller point.
EARTH MOON
MERCURY SUN VENUS
In short, Venus is not a big thing seen from the Earth/Moon no matter
how bright it is and would be close to the Sun at any rate. Why would
they shoot it?
Disneygeek
> If it were presenting its "bright side" to us, it would have to be on
> the other side of the Sun and would then be very far away and would be
> an even smaller point.
>
> EARTH MOON
> MERCURY SUN VENUS
>
> In short, Venus is not a big thing seen from the Earth/Moon no matter
> how bright it is and would be close to the Sun at any rate. Why would
> they shoot it?
Sorry about that, the line break messed up the order. Let's see if
this is better.
EARTH MOON MERCURY SUN VENUS
I'm trying to show that there would be a gap between the Earth/Moon
and Mercury with Venus on the other side of the sun.
BradGuth
Most of the numbers do not come from your pretend-Atheist Apollo bible
or Qur’an, although you’d be surprised at how much our DARPA and NASA
has managed to trip itself up.
What's your best swag as to the albedo of those extra white moonsuits?
Why were those red, white and blue American flags along with
everything else so nicely xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, instead
of raw solar illuminated?
You folks do know about a certain terrestrial guano island that’s
rather nicely isolated and was otherwise entirely secluded and
private, don’t you? (interesting how that little squat of a spent
guano island became a certified member of the United Nations shortly
after our first Apollo mission of supposedly having landed and walked
on that rather unusually reflective and xenon arc lamp spectrum
illuminated moon).
~ BG
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
BradGuth wrote:
> Disneygeek wrote:
>
>> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>> BradGuth wrote:
>>>
>>>> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BradGuth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So which is it? Does coal have an albedo of 0.1 as
>>>>>>> you claim, or 0.05, as Encyclopedia Britannica claims?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0.1 is by far the most common albedo of raw
>>>>>> terrestrial coal,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Coal has an albedo of about 0.05."
>>>>> ~Encyclopedia Britannica
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Encyclopedia Britannica was not scripted by God.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but it sure beats "because BradGuth says so" as
>>>>> a source of evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Trust me, I make more than my fair share of honest mistakes.
>>>> However, this is not one of them. I didn't invent the
>>>> average albedo of terrestrial coal for the sake of winning
>>>> this argument.
>>>>
>>> Then you should have no trouble citing the source where
>>> you got your numbers.
>>>
>>> "because BradGuth says that some unnamed source says so" isn't
>>> any better than "because BradGuth says so" as a source of evidence.
>>>
>> I've been asking Brad where his numbers come from for years!
>
> Most of the numbers do not come from your pretend-Atheist
> Apollo bible or Qur’an, although you’d be surprised at how
> much our DARPA and NASA has managed to trip itself up.
Evasion noted.
So, to summarize your argument, you claim that
Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong and you are right,
you claim not to have invented the numbers you use
but refuse to say what your source is, and you expect
everybody to believe you and not the encyclopedia
because you say so.
Feel free to jump in at this point and provide the
source that you say is more trustworthy than Britannica.
What's that you say? You can't? Well, how about that.
What a shocker! Nobody saw *THAT* one coming...
"Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
--
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
BradGuth
> Guy Macon on whether the Apollo moon landing was a hoax:
>
> An impartial examination of the evidence shows
> that the US really did land on the moon in 1969.
>
> A laser ranging retroreflector was positioned on the moon
> by the Apollo 11 astronauts so as to reflect laser pulses
> from the earth. The laser reflector consists of 100ea.
> 3.8cm diameter fused silica corner cubes mounted on a 46cm
> aluminum panel. An identical reflector was placed by Apollo
> 14, and a 300-cube reflector was was placed by Apollo 15.
> No known unmanned probes have landed at the Apollo 11/14/15
> sites, but the Russian Lunakhod 2 unmanned lander also left
> a corner reflector.
>
> Observatories that have ranged these reflectors include the
> McDonald Observatory in Texas, the Haleakala High Altitude
> Observatory on Maui (Hawaii), the Grasse observatory in
> France, the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, the
> Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton in California, and the
> Laser Ranging Observatory in Wettzell, Germany. I believe
> that there are amateur astronomers have been invited to set
> up next to the big telescope/laser and see the light for
> themselves. Can anyone confirm this?
>
> All this has been pointed out several times, and yet the
> usual conspiracists still hasn't explained how "they"
> got all those astronomers in all those countries to all
> tell lies about getting reflections back from lunar corner
> cube retroreflectors. One would think that at least *one*
> of them would spill the beans...
>
> Also see:
>
> Bad Astonomy: Moon Hoax?http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.htmlhttp://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
>
> Did we land on the moon?http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm
>
> The Straight Dope: Was the Apollo moon landing a hoax?http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1758/was-the-apollo-moon-lan...
>
> Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_lan...
>
> Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
>
> (As always with Wikipedia, the real evidence is in the links and
> the logic of the article, not the authoritativeness of Wikipedia.)
>
> "The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is
> round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have
> more faith in a shadow than in the Church."
> -- Ferdinand Magellan (1470-1521)
>
> --
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
You silly folks of MI5/CIA, DARPA and whatever smart 5th graders do
realize that our physically dark as coal moon does offer a fairly
complex mineralogy of surface hues or colors, don’t you?
Here’s one eye-candy example with its contrast and color or hue
saturation cranked way up, but otherwise it’s not having been
artificially colored.
http://www.coronaborealis.org/images/full_moon_color.png
A somewhat less contrast and hue saturated example.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060216.html
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0602/Mooncolor060110schedler_35.jpg
And there are may other honest amateur/private obtained examples that
can be peer replicated as often as you like, of our mineral color/hue
rich and otherwise physically dark as coal Selene/moon to pick from,
though usually not nearly as having been so contrast and hue
saturation pushed. Of course these terrestrial obtained images are
not having nearly as good of unobstructed look-see as for the HDTV
images from the JAXA/Selene mission, or from any number of equally or
better color imaging technology satellites and otherwise of those
previous Kodak color film methods with the ultimate best of optics
that our NASA/Apollo has always had at their disposal.
Oddly those JAXA/KAGUYA Selene images are being continually PhotoShop
processed in order to remove all signs of the natural mineral color/
hue saturation of our physically dark as coal moon. Them Japs as NASA
puppets and brown-nosed minions must think we’re all really
dumbfounded past the point of no return.
BradGuth
Shall I post another link to that gamma bandpass image of our Selene/
moon?
~ BG
m...@privacy.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
None of which refutes or even addresses Mr. Macon's excellent argument.
He just proved that men walked on the moon. Deal with it.
m...@privacy.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
BradGuth wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>
>>> Disneygeek wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been asking Brad where his numbers come from for years!
>>>
>>> Most of the numbers do not come from your pretend-Atheist
>>> Apollo bible or Qur’an, although you’d be surprised at how
>>> much our DARPA and NASA has managed to trip itself up.
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>>
>> So, to summarize your argument, you claim that
>> Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong and you are right,
>> you claim not to have invented the numbers you use
>> but refuse to say what your source is, and you expect
>> everybody to believe you and not the encyclopedia
>> because you say so.
>>
>> Feel free to jump in at this point and provide the
>> source that you say is more trustworthy than Britannica.
>> What's that you say? You can't? Well, how about that.
>> What a shocker! Nobody saw *THAT* one coming...
>>
>> "Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
>>
>> --
>> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
>> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
>> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
>> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
>
>Shall I post another link to that gamma bandpass image of our Selene/
>moon?
Does the link lead to a reputable source that gives an albedo
number that differs from the one in Encyclopedia Britannica?
Didn't think so.
You pulled your albedo numbers out of your ass, and someone
called you on it with numbers from a standard reference book.
BUSTED!!!
Disneygeek
Which would prove what exactly?
BradGuth
To a born-again Zionist/Nazi like yourself, nothing of anything real
or otherwise peer replicated as the best available truth proves
anything against your incest perverted mindset. So why do you so
bother to topic/author stalk and bash as though it’s the only game in
town?
~ BG
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com>:
>On Oct 12, 10:56 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 4:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> > Shall I post another link to that gamma bandpass image of our Selene/
>> > moon?
>> Which would prove what exactly?
>To a born-again Zionist/Nazi like yourself, nothing of anything real
>or otherwise peer replicated as the best available truth proves
>anything against your incest perverted mindset. So why do you so
>bother to topic/author stalk and bash as though it’s the only game in
>town?
Translation: "Nothing. But I can post irrelevant bigoted
insults! And you're picking on me!!!"
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
BradGuth
formulated mindset of yours, and Hitler certainly would not have
wanted it any other way. Without the brown-nosed minion likes of
yourself and other remorseless Zionist/Nazis, warlords and religious
cults of global domination would have been screwed from their very get-
go. No wonder those warlords and their faith-based puppet masters
accomplished so much collateral damage and carnage of the innocent
with such limited resources.
Btw, they only had to fake their actual controlled downrange soft
landings and EVAs, though fortunately without an independent witness
anywhere in sight, as well as their not having to provide one shred of
objective (meaning irrefutable) evidence to boot. Other than that
minor detail, most everything else went pretty much according to plan.
No amount of evidence nor context of words or math will ever in a
million years revise what a cultivated and infomercial polluted mind
has to deal with. Once again, Hitler or for that matter GW Bush
wouldn’t have wanted it any other way. The only thing that matters to
your perverted mindset is the continual mainstream status quo of
pillaging, plundering and raping of humanity and mother Earth for all
it’s worth, and then some, as obviously a highly raciest and/or bigot
motivated mindset would best understand. It’s actually a wonder we’re
not in the thick soup of our having to survive your WWIII.
On the other hand, when I encounter objective evidence that’s peer
replicated so as to exclude any possibility of forgery, hocus-pocus
magic or intellectual bias is when I tend to believe in whatever I’m
seeing or being informed of. (silly me, if that’s what you call
“pathological deniers of reality“, then so be it)
There’s a good reason why Hitler committed suicide, and perhaps you
and others of your kind should give it some serious consideration,
because death is about the only thing that’ll change your mind, and
I’m not even absolutely certain about that.
~ BG
> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1758/was-the-apollo-moon-landing-a-hoax
>
> Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
>
> Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations
Bob Casanova
>...incest formulated mindset...Hitler...brown-nosed minion...
>Zionist/Nazis, warlords and religious cults of global domination...
>faith-based puppet masters...infomercial polluted mind...
>Hitler...GW Bush......perverted mindset...highly raciest
["raciest" again? Better check the Inigo List, Brad]
>bigot motivated mindset...WWIII...hocus-pocus magic...Hitler...
<snip>
BradGuth
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:53:30 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>
> >...incest formulated mindset...Hitler...brown-nosed minion...
> >Zionist/Nazis, warlords and religious cults of global domination...
> >faith-based puppet masters...infomercial polluted mind...
> >Hitler...GW Bush......perverted mindset...highly raciest
>
> ["raciest" again? Better check the Inigo List, Brad]
>
> >bigot motivated mindset...WWIII...hocus-pocus magic...Hitler...
>
> <snip>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
Unlike yourself and others of your silly kind, it seems I do not like
them bad guys.
Since you clearly do no't believe in observationology of any kind,
does this mean you are Muslim?
~ BG
BradGuth
Who would have thunk; subjective evidence = objective proof?
btw, those JAXA/Selene images are bogus, as in PhotoShop revised to
suit. Would you like to have a real piss-off on the matter of those
bogus HDTV images as having the lunar surface color/hue removed?
What's the matter with the JAXA/Selene dynamic range and color/hue
saturation that's only missing for the physically dark surface of the
moon?
~ BG