MESSENGER SUCKS, Venus rocks, the moon is still dark and nasty
Brad Guth
taboo/nondisclosure event.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/flyby_movies.html
The onboard CCD cameras have extremely if not enormous contrast and/or
range of accommodating the extra illumination of Earthshine within the
very same frame as accommodating stars (even the sun can be safely
accommodated without entirely eliminating other significant stars),
especially that illuminating prospect of easily including Venus and
that of our moon as being within the same frame as Earth, whereas
another shot of Earth along with our moon plus perfectly capable of
incorporating the likes of capturing Mercury near the sun, but not so
much so near as to have kept the camera from recording all three, as
should have been doable, yet clearly star removals were performed upon
each and every one of the publicly offered MESSENGER images.
Thus the grand old MI6/NSA~NASA/Apollo cold-war ruse/sting of the
century continues.
They's avoiding getting our moon into the same frame as Earth because,
it'll only show us as yet another matter of fact of just how gosh darn
dark and nasty the albedo and terrain of our moon really is.
There are online orbital simulators of our solar system that'll prove
that I'm sufficiently right, and other resources upon the capability of
those CCD cameras and optics that'll support the vast range and/or
depth of brightness and extreme contrast, that which these days isn't
even CCD rocket science.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
Jim Phillips
> It seems their August 26th flyby of Earth was yet another
> taboo/nondisclosure event.
> http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/flyby_movies.html
> The onboard CCD cameras have extremely if not enormous contrast and/or
> range of accommodating the extra illumination of Earthshine within the
> very same frame as accommodating stars (even the sun can be safely
> accommodated without entirely eliminating other significant stars),
What makes you think the onboard CCD camera could handle having the
Sun in the same field of view as the Earth?
And why would you *want* to have the Sun in the same field of view?
> especially that illuminating prospect of easily including Venus and
> that of our moon as being within the same frame as Earth, whereas
> another shot of Earth along with our moon plus perfectly capable of
> incorporating the likes of capturing Mercury near the sun, but not so
> much so near as to have kept the camera from recording all three, as
> should have been doable, yet clearly star removals were performed upon
> each and every one of the publicly offered MESSENGER images.
>
> Thus the grand old MI6/NSA~NASA/Apollo cold-war ruse/sting of the
> century continues.
>
> They's avoiding getting our moon into the same frame as Earth because,
> it'll only show us as yet another matter of fact of just how gosh darn
> dark and nasty the albedo and terrain of our moon really is.
>
> There are online orbital simulators of our solar system that'll prove
> that I'm sufficiently right, and other resources upon the capability of
> those CCD cameras and optics that'll support the vast range and/or
> depth of brightness and extreme contrast, that which these days isn't
> even CCD rocket science.
Does anyone have a "Kookspeak-to-English" dictionary so I can
translate what this gobbledygook is supposed to mean?
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
Brad Guth
>What makes you think the onboard CCD camera could handle having the
>Sun in the same field of view as the Earth?
>And why would you *want* to have the Sun in the same field of view?
that included the sun and Venus off to the side, the sun plus Venus and
of our moon, the sun and Earth, thus silly me, I'd assumed the much
newer MESSENGER CCDs incorporated as good as if not somewhat better
capability. TRACE offers us an old but good example of what a CCD with
appropriate optics and filters can tolerate, with at least a ten fold
improvement since way back then.
Secondly, because of the location of our moon at the time of flyby and
that of either Venus or Mercury could have easily been framed without
involving the sun, possibly even Earth, moon and Venus or another view
of involving Earth, moon and Mercury as a threesome should have been
doable. Thus if at all possible I certainly wouldn't have specifically
wanted the sun involved, whereas I just stipulated that if it had to be
involved it wouldn't have entirely washed our the likes of our
0.33~0.36 Earth or even that of our extremely dark 0.11~0.12 albedo
moon, plus certain bright stars and especially the likes of Venus
simply shouldn't have been lost in space.
It seems that external to our atmosphere is where a good many stars
offer the unfiltered CCD eye their UV-a and near-UV photons to work
with, thus sharing many times brighter illumination upon a CCD that's
rather sensitive to such spectrums unless having been intentionally
filtered so as to diminish and/or entirely eliminate those vibrant
spectrums.
Obviously by your "Kookspeak-to-English" closing statement informs the
rest of us village idiots that your intent to snooker via infomercial
spin and dog-wagging hype at whatever the cost, and without a stitch of
remorse is exactly what suits your ulterior status quo motives and
hidden agendas that sucks and blows, as otherwise you would have easily
posted the available flyby angles of view plus CCD camera and optic
specs that could have proven me wrong.
jack.h...@gmail.com
Jim Phillips wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2005, Brad Guth wrote:
> Does anyone have a "Kookspeak-to-English" dictionary so I can
> translate what this gobbledygook is supposed to mean?
>
> --
> Jim Phillips
Don't have such a dictionary, but around 120 words without a full stop
(by Brad Guth) is always going to damn difficult to understand.
Jack
Brad Guth
Usually it's the MI6/NSA spooks with their solid block of words method
that needs decryption. Reading their damage-control works is always
difficult when you know damn good and well that it's nothing but
another pack of lies and/or disinformation, of which evidence exclusion
has been one of their blood-sucking standards from the very get-go.
Of course, as long as you're focused upon going for whatever can be
taken out of context, then all that you'll need is your "so what's the
difference" brown-nosed dictionary of "high standards and
accountability" that sucks and blows at the same time.
John Carruthers
>>because,
it'll only show us as yet another matter of fact of just how gosh darn
dark and nasty the albedo and terrain of our moon really is.<<
You might try an experiment Brad, image Jupiter with a CCD and see if
the
moons show up, I know it can be done but I've never managed it.
jc
Brad Guth
Apparently, you don't have even a basic PC solar simulator utility to
work with?
I believe good ones allow you to establish the spacecraft trajectory
and/or orbital factors, and as to place yourself upon the actual
spacecraft, thereby taking a virtual second by second look-see at
exactly whatever the CCD and optics would have had to work with, thus
you can set up each of those shots well enough in advance.
Why are you blocking on behalf of the grand ruse/sting of the century?
Why are you afraid to share and share alike as to the extremely dark
and nasty albedo as well as deep/rich colors of the moon?
John Carruthers
jc
spac...@att.net
Brad Guth wrote:
> Try using a dyslexic Klingon dictionary.
I take it that is what you use?
> Usually it's the MI6/NSA spooks with their solid block of words method
> that needs decryption.
Nope...no one can make heads nor tails out what you write, either.
> Of course, as long as you're focused upon going for whatever can be
> taken out of context, then all that you'll need is your "so what's the
> difference" brown-nosed dictionary of "high standards and
> accountability" that sucks and blows at the same time.
There has to be some context before something can be taken out of it.
R
John Carruthers
and nasty albedo as well as deep/rich colors of the moon?<<
At visual wavelengths our Moon's average albedo is 0.12. quite dark,
and you're still a loony.
jc
Brad Guth
until them Apollo cows and flying DoD pigs come home. Apparently the
moon that you and our NASA/Apollo wizards know of is nothing but a vast
pastel of nearly a white-out moon that's 55+% albedo, and non-reactive
to boot. Would you like pictures?
On another moon related topic;
Usenet member "tomcat" has provided us with this perfectly terrific
though somewhat outdated link
<http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture25.pdf>(meaning as of
October 31, 2001) as to what's been publicly available for years, which
isn't worth hardly 10% of what was actually being accomplished in
top-secret facilities at the same time.
Helium-3 Fusion Energy (He3/fusion) is here and it does work, with the
minor exception that there's damn little natural He3 to be found upon
Earth. In spite of the spendy and energy consuming process of
artificially creating He3, I'm certain that by now there's full scale
units in the process of final testing or going into full power in the
very near future.
Besides Helium-3 as Fusion Energy (He3/deuterium) elements that should
be available within the moon (near the surface if not just within the
extremely dusty surface composits of iron, carbon and titanium),
there's also radioactive elements as well as many other potentially
valuable raw minerals to being had (such as for making a few megatonnes
of aluminum), especially interesting since our icy proto-moon was NOT
made of Earth. There's also a likely geothermal core if not having a
bit thermal nuclear induced amount of core energy, which is entirely
better off than what the much older and nearly sub-frozen to the core
of Mars has to work with, except for the likely aspects that Mars
should have a greater mass of sequestered raw ice below the deck.
Brad Guth
>There has to be some context before something can be taken out of it.
Not half bad humor for such an incest cloned borg that's brown-nosed
certified on behalf of oral fornacating in the White House.
spac...@att.net
Brad Guth wrote:
> And apparently you're still deep into a space-toilet mindset of denial
> until them Apollo cows and flying DoD pigs come home. Apparently the
> moon that you and our NASA/Apollo wizards know of is nothing but a vast
> pastel of nearly a white-out moon that's 55+% albedo, and non-reactive
> to boot. Would you like pictures?
Wherever do you get your information? According to NASA "...[next to
the sun] the full moon is the brightest object in the heavens. However,
its surface is rough and brownish and reflects light very poorly. In
fact, the moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system. The
moon relects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it, so the albedo
is 0.07."
RM
John Carruthers
>>to
work with?<<
I have access to several but I prefer to use the real one, you know,
out here in the real 3D world ?
(where the real people live ?)
jc
Jim Phillips
> Jim Phillips;
> >What makes you think the onboard CCD camera could handle having the
> >Sun in the same field of view as the Earth?
> >And why would you *want* to have the Sun in the same field of view?
> I've seem examples of much older CCD images that involved a look-see
> that included the sun and Venus off to the side, the sun plus Venus and
> of our moon, the sun and Earth, thus silly me, I'd assumed the much
> newer MESSENGER CCDs incorporated as good as if not somewhat better
> capability.
Did the CCD camera that took a shot of the Sun have a filter on it,
possibly a filter that's not on the MESSENGER CCD?
> TRACE offers us an old but good example of what a CCD with
> appropriate optics and filters can tolerate, with at least a ten fold
> improvement since way back then.
What part of "appropriate optics and filters" rules out MESSENGER
not having the "appropriate optics and filters" for solar observation?
Why would MESSENGER *have* solar filters for its cameras? Weight on any
interplanetary probe is at a premium, so if they didn't intend to observe
the Sun, they wouldn't bother including a solar filter.
> Secondly, because of the location of our moon at the time of flyby and
> that of either Venus or Mercury could have easily been framed without
> involving the sun, possibly even Earth, moon and Venus or another view
> of involving Earth, moon and Mercury as a threesome should have been
> doable.
I'm sure it was, but if you watch the movie, you'll notice that
the Earth takes up a big part of the image. To bother to include other
objects, you'd have to have a smaller image of the Earth. Since this was
an Earth flyby, why bother getting images of other objects?
Thus if at all possible I certainly wouldn't have specifically
> wanted the sun involved, whereas I just stipulated that if it had to be
> involved it wouldn't have entirely washed our the likes of our
> 0.33~0.36 Earth or even that of our extremely dark 0.11~0.12 albedo
> moon, plus certain bright stars and especially the likes of Venus
> simply shouldn't have been lost in space.
Again, why *bother* to include those objects in a flyby of the
Earth?
> It seems that external to our atmosphere is where a good many stars
> offer the unfiltered CCD eye their UV-a and near-UV photons to work
> with, thus sharing many times brighter illumination upon a CCD that's
> rather sensitive to such spectrums unless having been intentionally
> filtered so as to diminish and/or entirely eliminate those vibrant
> spectrums.
That's why there are astronomical satellites.
>
> Obviously by your "Kookspeak-to-English" closing statement informs the
> rest of us village idiots that your intent to snooker via infomercial
> spin and dog-wagging hype at whatever the cost, and without a stitch of
> remorse is exactly what suits your ulterior status quo motives and
> hidden agendas that sucks and blows, as otherwise you would have easily
> posted the available flyby angles of view plus CCD camera and optic
> specs that could have proven me wrong.
No, it's because I couldn't understand what you were saying. I
do appreciate that your response to me was couched in English.
And just to be clear, the reason I assumed you were a kook is
based on your sig file:
> Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
> The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
> Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
> War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
> the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
> been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
Looks pretty kooky to me.
Jim Phillips
> And apparently you're still deep into a space-toilet mindset of denial
> until them Apollo cows and flying DoD pigs come home. Apparently the
> moon that you and our NASA/Apollo wizards know of is nothing but a vast
> pastel of nearly a white-out moon that's 55+% albedo, and non-reactive
> to boot. Would you like pictures?
Oh, you're an Apollo denier--*now* your weirdness about albedo
makes sense (in a nonsensical way, of course). It's still kooky, but at
least I understand where the kookiness of your post came from.
Brad Guth
Very good to know, that the real honest to God environment that's 3D if
not 4D is as good if not better than software.
BTW; I was wondering when MESSENGER gets into orbiting Mercury, that if
the same level of cloak and dagger protocol of it's CCD and optics will
be as limited(taboo) into focusing strictly upon the surface of Mercury
without ever once obtaining a simultaneous look-see at the likes of
Venus or perhaps even by mistake upon good old mother Earth and of it's
albedo-dark moon?
Brad Guth
There's nothing to deny about the NASA/Apollo ruse/sting of the century
because, we did manage to orbit somewhat nearby (supposedly 100+ km
worth) and robotically having obtained some terrific images that
unfortunately do not in any way shape or form match up to their
supposed fly-by-rocket lander and EVA/moonsuit Kodak moments. Thus by
far having outperformed the USSR by more than 10:1. Of course, we'd
spent more than 10:1 in order to have obtained as much as we did
(dollar per dollar it's probably actually taken a toll of 100:1 more
overall investment on our part, especially the subsequent
damage-control part).
Thus per our part in performing a mutually perpetrated cold-war that we
supposedly won by the damn near WW-III thin skin of our teeth, we're
still way ahead of those dirty rotten Russians. Now we'll need to
actually get at least viable robotics onto the lunar surface before
Russia, China, India or whomever else comes along. Got any ideas?
Brad Guth
Thanks once again for the terrific feedback. However, why are you
remaining so entirely focused upon the sun, and/or of avoiding the sun?
I only suggested that even the sun was a relatively non-issue for the
most recent of CCDs that have such an improved range of intensity and
contrast to accommodate.
Why are you doing such a damn fine brown-nosed job of infomercial
damage-control?
Whom exactly is paying or otherwise benefiting because of your fine
wag-the-dog services?
It's not the "why bother" aspects of MESSENGER including our moon
and/or just as easily having included either Venus or Mercury is of any
mission requirement, as much as it's another one of those why the hell
not include the moon and if at all possible having either Mercury of
Venus in the same shot that's another mystery as to why the spendy
photo-op of getting the most PR bang for the almighty buck was ignored
(again and again).
Once again, you certainly could have provided the specific info as to
the CCD and optics of whatever your MESSENGER craft has to work with,
yet lo and behold you've elected to employ yet another wall of
need-to-know evidence exclusion because of the obvious damage-control
aspects such provides the likes of whatever your pagan NASA and that of
our resident warlord(GW Bush) must continually utilize as thy butt
protectors.
>Looks pretty kooky to me.
Thanks anyway but, this should equally apply to your spendy MESSENGER
probe that's apparently incapable of including more than one item of
observation at any one time, especially if it's star like, moon like
and/or Venus like.
~
Brad Guth
>The moon relects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it, so
>the albedo is 0.07."
believe the overall average is 0.11~0.12 depending upon whom is
specifying whatever. At any rate the nearly coal black and rather
dark-brownish and of a few other deeply tinted terrain of a great deal
of the moon surface isn't anything like what the unfiltered Kodak
moments supposedly obtained from the surface, thus many including
myself can't accept those images for that reason alone, plus a good
dozen other perfectly rational reasons as based upon the regular laws
of physics.
Thus it's no freaking wonder that our cloak and dagger MI6/NSA~NASA
spookology doesn't want any side by side look-see at any possible frame
of Earth & moon because, unless those are first PhotoShop modified,
it'll only demonstrate just how gosh darn dark and nasty the moon
really is.
As to your "its surface is rough and brownish" is exactly what their
own official telephoto images as obtained from 100+km orbit had
recorded, then further verified from other satellite missions as having
applied the correct degree of color and illumination balance into those
images as including Earth and even those of Earth plus the sun in the
same frame. There's even a few having the moon, Venus and sun in full
view, and that CCD performance was accomplished as of some time ago.
There's also this nifty terrestrial contribution as to depicting the
natural raw elements of moon color.
Our Colorful Moon :
http://www.rc-astro.com/img/moon_colors_2005-04-18.jpg
All images and site content are Copyright ©2002-2005 by Russell
Croman.
© 2005 Russell Croman, www.rc-astro.com
http://www.rc-astro.com/contact.htm
The colors in the Moon image are real, in a sense, Croman explained.
"To bring out the differences between the various regions, the color
saturation has been greatly enhanced," he explained. "The hues are
correct."
"Differences in color on the lunar surface indicate different ages and
types of materials."
Giving this image a PhotoShop 50% boost in contrast is worth doing, as
that'll get the albedo a bit closer to reality. There are many other
official color images of the moon as having been obtained from orbit
that are considerably darker while fully solar illuminated.
I have to shutdown and reboot once again due to the latest new and
improved MI6/NSA spermware/malware that has infected my PC.
Jim Phillips
> Jim Phillips,
> There's nothing to deny about the NASA/Apollo ruse/sting of the century
> because, we did manage to orbit somewhat nearby (supposedly 100+ km
> worth) and robotically having obtained some terrific images that
> unfortunately do not in any way shape or form match up to their
> supposed fly-by-rocket lander and EVA/moonsuit Kodak moments. Thus by
> far having outperformed the USSR by more than 10:1. Of course, we'd
> spent more than 10:1 in order to have obtained as much as we did
> (dollar per dollar it's probably actually taken a toll of 100:1 more
> overall investment on our part, especially the subsequent
> damage-control part).
>
> Thus per our part in performing a mutually perpetrated cold-war that we
> supposedly won by the damn near WW-III thin skin of our teeth, we're
> still way ahead of those dirty rotten Russians. Now we'll need to
> actually get at least viable robotics onto the lunar surface before
> Russia, China, India or whomever else comes along. Got any ideas?
Yeah--you're a kook. That's more of a conclusion than an idea.
Jim Phillips
> Jim Phillips,
> Thanks once again for the terrific feedback. However, why are you
> remaining so entirely focused upon the sun, and/or of avoiding the sun?
Because you need a really strong filter to view it through a CCD.
> I only suggested that even the sun was a relatively non-issue for the
> most recent of CCDs that have such an improved range of intensity and
> contrast to accommodate.
Have you actually spoken to CCD manufacturers?
> Why are you doing such a damn fine brown-nosed job of infomercial
> damage-control?
Oh dear--I'm a net disinformation agent, right?
> Whom exactly is paying or otherwise benefiting because of your fine
> wag-the-dog services?
I don't know--who should I send my timesheet to?
> It's not the "why bother" aspects of MESSENGER including our moon
> and/or just as easily having included either Venus or Mercury is of any
> mission requirement, as much as it's another one of those why the hell
> not include the moon and if at all possible having either Mercury of
> Venus in the same shot that's another mystery as to why the spendy
> photo-op of getting the most PR bang for the almighty buck was ignored
> (again and again).
Because a wide-angle shot that would include the Earth and the Moon
(or Venus or Mercury) would show a small Earth and a tiny ball or point of
light. That's not very exciting.
> Once again, you certainly could have provided the specific info as to
> the CCD and optics of whatever your MESSENGER craft has to work with,
Why did I need to? Can't you provide that info?
> yet lo and behold you've elected to employ yet another wall of
> need-to-know evidence exclusion
All I did was ask a few obvious questions; as to a "wall" that
blocks you off from the evidence, have you even tried to find the info on
what kind of CCD camera(s) and filters are onboard MESSENGER?
because of the obvious damage-control
> aspects such provides the likes of whatever your pagan NASA and that of
> our resident warlord(GW Bush) must continually utilize as thy butt
> protectors.
No, I'm just pointing out that your kooky konspiracy theories
aren't making much sense. "Pagan" NASA? Damn, I think of myself as
imaginative but I couldn't come up with kookiness like that...
> >Looks pretty kooky to me.
> Thanks anyway but, this should equally apply to your spendy MESSENGER
> probe that's apparently incapable of including more than one item of
> observation at any one time, especially if it's star like, moon like
> and/or Venus like.
At least you understand that taking a picture of the Earth and of
the Sun at the same time doesn't make much sense. Why did you think it
would be easy, anyway?
Why take a picture of a tiny Earth and an even tinier Moon, let
alone a tiny Earth and a point of light, when you can get a nice picture
of Earth by itself?
Jonathan Silverlight
spac...@att.net writes
Ron (and others) is it really worth responding to this paranoid loon ?
(NSA spyware, yet :-)
Uk.sci.astronomy trimmed.
--
Boycott Yahoo!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
Brad Guth
kookbusters),
What a total bunch of phony baloney though otherwise incest cloned
borgs you hang with, so gosh darn brown-nosed that ordinary LLPOF is
just another subroutene of their status quo that's fully automatic, as
in runing amuck from their left butt-cheek brain to their right
butt-cheek brain and back again, a closed loop of disinformation-R-us
and as much evidence exclusions as their brown-nosed brains can muster,
and it's as though they actually think anyone with half a brain doesn't
notice when their pants are absolutely chuck full of the usual
mainstream worth of hype, disinformation and MOS damage-control
crapolla of evidence exclusions.
I do believe that MESSENGER's MDIS/CCD and spendy optics w/filters
should actually have included a few stars in them thar flyby images of
mother Earth, easily have otherwise delivered some Earth/moon shots,
Earth/moon+Venus shots, Earth/moon+Mercury shots, with each of those
hosting a few stars, and then some because, it seems that any halfassed
12 bit A/D converter offers 4096 gray levels or an overall per
individual scan brightness range of 4095:1, and that's not even taking
into account any applied Photochromic Image-Plane Filter that only
capably extends the dynamic range of most any CCD, that plus the
FWC/FBC(full bucket capacity) of such modern CCDs are rather good while
having far less noise to contend with.
I haven't located upon the specific MESSENGER CCD dynamic photonic
range or FWC/FBC as per pixel bucket capacity, but I can't hardly
imagne it as being all that pittiful, such as much less than a FWC of
80,000. Matching that with an unusually high noise factor of 8 is still
a DR of 10,000:1, although a more than likely S/N of 4 represents a DR
of 20,000:1 if not 25,000:1 for using a CCD FWC/FBC worth of 100,000 is
what I'd place good odds upon what the MESSENGER CCD/MDIS has to work
with.
Here's a brief list of other CCDs, whereas the larger FWC/FBC being
associated with those of larger micron sized pixels and even better S/N
makes their DR(dynamic range) far superior to what the smaller of pixel
microns can deliver. Thus the bigger the chip the better all around
do-everything performance, with the only significant drwback being a
requirement for larger optics in order to match the same magnification
and resolution factors.
CCD 47-20 FWC/FBC = 120,000
Kodak KAF 1300 FWC/FBC = 150,000
SITe 003A FWC/FBC = 300,000
SBIG ST-2000XM CCD Camera FWC(Binned) Kodak KAI-2000M + Texas
Instruments TC-211 FWC/FBC = 90,000
1600 x 1200 pixels @11.8 x 8.9 mm @7.4 x 7.4 microns and a DR of 8182
http://btc.montana.edu/messenger/instruments/mdis.htm
Both of the MDIS cameras have 1024 pixels in each column and 1020 in
each row, for a total of over a million pixels per image. The wide
angle camera takes pictures with a larger field of view, but with less
detail. This camera employs 12 different filters to better define the
light that enters it over a range of different wavelengths.
Of course, since my PC overfloweth with Usenet Spermware, thanks to
MI6/NSA and freelance spook efforts at stalking and bashing whatever's
the truth and nothing but the truth, as a result it's taking myself a
we bit longer to research and report what I've discovered as being
nothing but another pack of incest cloned mainstream status quo
butt-sucking liars that have been lying to the rest of us village
idiots from the very get-go.
Pat Flannery
Jim Phillips wrote:
> No, I'm just pointing out that your kooky konspiracy theories
>aren't making much sense. "Pagan" NASA? Damn, I think of myself as
>imaginative but I couldn't come up with kookiness like that...
>
>
>
You haven't met the cyclopian-eyed green Venusian Cather lizards yet,
have you?
He's in a league of his own.
Pat
Brad Guth
snookered fool among fools),
Once again, you've nicely avoided all of the topic specifics. For that
pathetic effort I'll repeat what I'd contributed before, and since you
have no apparent intentions of ever sharing the truth and nothing but
the truth, as such I'll not even expect another MOS damage-control
reply.
BTW Sir fool on the hill; MESSENGER's flyby of Earth and obviously that
of our moon wasn't any "picture of a tiny Earth and an even tinier
Moon, let alone a tiny Earth and a point of light" as being either the
likeness of Venus or Mercury.
It seems of what's MOS disinformation-R-us and simply another butt-load
of mainstream crapolla damage-control that sucks and blows at the same
time, as such here's MOS of my usual dyslexic lose-cannon though honest
Klingon PGP encrypted context as to what my outside-the-box
favor-return thinking is getting myself, my topics and my PC summarily
stalked, bashed and/or banished because apparently I'm a little too
right as rain and others simply are not. At least "Kasper Vreeland" has
been providing us with his "Disinformation Agents" growing list of all
those warm and fuzzy Usenet folks being the bad-guys and the extremely
short listing as to those of us few and far between souls as being the
good-guys, perhaps in as much as others can help the few of us
good-guys to interpret for ourselves for the benefit of humanity and
thereby for the rest of us unfortunate village idiots as being on the
"Disinformation Victims" endangered species list, as to simply
appreciate upon what this following related astronomy and science-truth
and nothing but the truth topic has to offer before it's too late, as
to explain why the heck the very best of modern CCDs apparently can't
under any circumstances manage to include a star along with the likes
of imaging upon Earth or even much less that of a dark albedo moon
shot, and seemingly so much less capable of any 10.5 degree field of
view as God forbid having both items as being within the same frame.
The following is merely a slightly revised copy of a small portion of
what I've recently contributed as to why "MESSENGER SUCKS, Venus rocks,
the moon is still dark and nasty"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.planetary/browse_frm/thread/1f2ba57f6141a6b0/bea4051f88f96044?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1&hl=en#bea4051f88f96044
Dear Jonathan Silverlight and Jim Phillips (aka brown-nosed
kookbusters),
What a total bunch of phony baloney though otherwise incest cloned
borgs you hang with, so gosh darn brown-nosed that ordinary LLPOF is
just another subroutene of their status quo that's fully automatic, as
in runing amuck from their left butt-cheek brain to their right
butt-cheek brain and back again, a closed loop of disinformation-R-us
and as much evidence exclusions as their brown-nosed brains can muster,
and it's as though they actually think anyone with half a brain doesn't
notice when their pants are absolutely chuck full of the usual
mainstream worth of hype, disinformation and MOS damage-control
crapolla of evidence exclusions.
I do believe that MESSENGER's MDIS/CCD and spendy optics (especially
those w/filters) should actually have included a few stars in them thar
Of course, since my PC overfloweth with your Usenet Spermware, thanks
to your MI6/NSA and freelance spook efforts at stalking and bashing
whatever's the truth and nothing but the truth, as a result it's taking
myself a we bit longer to research and report what I've discovered as
being nothing but another pack of incest cloned mainstream status quo
butt-sucking liars that have been lying to the rest of us village
idiots from the very get-go.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; War is war, thus "in war there are
Chuck Taylor
<nothing worth quoting>
Must be getting near Christmas again.
The fruitcakes are appearing.
Clear Skies
Chuck Taylor
*********************************************
Do you observe the moon? If so, try
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
If you enjoy optics, try
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/
*********************************************
Brad Guth
I've accomplished another look-see at the MESSENGER flyby, of taking
just one of the typical images of Earth. Although quite colorful, once
converted to a graytone scale it becomes fairly obvious that Earth
represents a rather pastel mix of colors and/or illuminations, of which
there's little trouble in accepting that there's a good 64 bits of
what's terrestrial as having painted a perfectly terrific image
quality. However, giving the fullest possible degree of benefit for
there being 96 bits worth of graytone levels to work with and lo and
behold, there seems to be another 4000 bits of missing image DR info.
At least that's what most any good 12 bit CCD conversion should have to
offer as 4096 image bits of dynamic range from whatever's pitch black
to that of whatever's considered as maximum brightness.
I know pretty much for certain that the MESSENGER FWC/FBC wasn't much
less than 100,000
I can't even imagine the S/N being worse off then 8, which yields a DR
factor of 12,500:1
So, since we're well within the 12 bit capability of obtaining those
4096 graytones of brightness; where's the beef (meaning them stars),
and/or especially that of Venus or Mercury?
Of course, the 10.5° optics is still a bit CCD telephoto and,
outfitted with a nifty selection of filters to boot, whereas team
MESSENGER should have had quit a bit of camera navigation difficulty
avoiding getting our moon within any shot, much less as having to avoid
Venus or Mercury like the worse known plague.
Otherwise, there was always the other camera as outfitted with
seriously telephoto optics of merely 1.5°, of more than full visual
spectrum capability above 395 nm, which apparently was having another
bad CCD day, or simply wasn't operational or otherwise being too much
to ask of that instrument if it had to include the moon or anything
other than Earth. That's perfectly understandable that not everything
works after being rocket launched into space, and even if it does
manage to function, chances are that the conditional laws of physics
that apply to whatever's not terrestrial are going to keep it's DR
performance within the nearest space-toilet.
Jim Phillips
> Dear Jim Phillips (aka rusemaster or just another out of context
> snookered fool among fools),
Let's see, I've pointed out that a flyby of Earth isn't the best
time to try and get a shot of Earth + other body (whether it be Moon, Venus
or Mercury). I've also pointed out that it's really difficult to get a CCD
image of Earth and the Sun in the same frame, let alone that it takes strong
filters to even image the Sun, and that such filters wouldn't be carried on
an interplanetary mission (where weight is at a premium). I've also pointed
out that getting the Earth and any other body in the same frame will almost
inevitably result in a small image of Earth and a much smaller (probably
point-like) image of the other body.
> Once again, you've nicely avoided all of the topic specifics.
You made some absurd statements about the recent MESSENGER flyby of
the Earth, and I called you on it. You posted an avalanche of info but you
never explained where my reasoning (i.e. that an image of Earth and another
body would be unimpressive at best) was wrong. Oh, and you're a kook who
thinks we didn't go to the Moon, apparently because you don't understand
some essentials of photography. That pretty much covers it for me.
For that
> pathetic effort I'll repeat what I'd contributed before, and since you
> have no apparent intentions of ever sharing the truth and nothing but
> the truth, as such I'll not even expect another MOS damage-control
> reply.
>
> BTW Sir fool on the hill; MESSENGER's flyby of Earth and obviously that
> of our moon
Do you think that it's easy to get an Earth/Moon picture? MESSENGER
came to within about 35,000 miles of the Earth. The Moon's average distance
from the Earth is about 238,000 miles. If MESSENGER was going to get a nice
image of the two, it would have had to do so long before the flyby.
> wasn't any "picture of a tiny Earth and an even tinier
> Moon, let alone a tiny Earth and a point of light" as being either the
> likeness of Venus or Mercury.
To get a picture of both Earth and any of those bodies, you'd need
a much wider field of view than if you were just observing the Earth. And
besides, why do you think they used those instruments during the flyby? Do
you think they maybe wanted to test out the imaging system? If you were
going to test the imaging system of a probe that was going to be observing
a single body, would you have it try to get images of several different
bodies? If so, why?
The MESSENGER team used the flyby of Earth to test their equipment
and got a nifty movie of the Earth in the process:
"The process is one-part test and one-part practice. On one hand, mission
scientists used the Earth flyby to calibrate MESSENGER’s instruments and
make sure they were in working order. But the flyby also gave researchers
their first opportunity to work with in-flight images – such as MDIS
photographs of Earth’s moon also taken during the rendezvous – that resemble
what they hope to see at Mercury."
(from http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050908_messenger_movie.html)
Kooky conspiracy buffs such as yourself cannot possibly imagine a scenario
that simple, so you try to weave it into your kooky conspiracy theories.
snip of kooky, mostly incoherent mutterings
> I do believe that MESSENGER's MDIS/CCD and spendy optics (especially
> those w/filters) should actually have included a few stars in them thar
> flyby images of mother Earth,
I honestly don't know whether stars would appear in exposures with
the Earth in the same field of view, but I suspect the filters necessary
to image a brightly-lit Earth would filter out dimmer starlight.
> easily have otherwise delivered some
> Earth/moon shots, Earth/moon+Venus shots, Earth/moon+Mercury shots,
Still no comprehension that such shots will show a tiny Earth and
even tinier other body (due to the size of field of view necessary).
> with each of those hosting a few stars, and then some because, it seems
> that any halfassed 12 bit A/D converter offers 4096 gray levels or an
> overall per individual scan brightness range of 4095:1, and that's not
> even taking into account any applied Photochromic Image-Plane Filter
> that only capably extends the dynamic range of most any CCD, that plus
> the FWC/FBC(full bucket capacity) of such modern CCDs are rather good
> while having far less noise to contend with.
Could you point me to images that such a setup would make of an
object as bright as the Earth and as dim as a background star? Perhaps
someone has taken shots of a full moon? I don't know photography, so an
example would greatly increase my understanding of the situation. Simply
saying "Of course it would image the stars" isn't an answer, it's an evasion
of the answer.
> I haven't located upon the specific MESSENGER CCD dynamic photonic
> range or FWC/FBC as per pixel bucket capacity,
So anything else you'd say is speculation on your part. I'll just
go ahead and snip it. If you want specific info about the MESSENGER CCDs,
contact someone at the MESSENGER website: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/. I'm
sure they'd be glad to answer your questions (except the paranoid, abusive
ones, so try to control yourself).
> Here's a brief list of other CCDs, whereas the larger FWC/FBC being
> associated with those of larger micron sized pixels and even better S/N
> makes their DR(dynamic range) far superior to what the smaller of pixel
> microns can deliver. Thus the bigger the chip the better all around
> do-everything performance, with the only significant drwback being a
> requirement for larger optics in order to match the same magnification
> and resolution factors.
>
> CCD 47-20 FWC/FBC = 120,000
> Kodak KAF 1300 FWC/FBC = 150,000
> SITe 003A FWC/FBC = 300,000
> SBIG ST-2000XM CCD Camera FWC(Binned) Kodak KAI-2000M + Texas
> Instruments TC-211 FWC/FBC = 90,000
> 1600 x 1200 pixels @11.8 x 8.9 mm @7.4 x 7.4 microns and a DR of 8182
>
> http://btc.montana.edu/messenger/instruments/mdis.htm
> Both of the MDIS cameras have 1024 pixels in each column and 1020 in
> each row, for a total of over a million pixels per image. The wide
> angle camera takes pictures with a larger field of view, but with less
> detail. This camera employs 12 different filters to better define the
> light that enters it over a range of different wavelengths.
A picture is worth a thousand words--where is there an example of
a CCD camera like this taking an image of an object as bright as the Earth
with objects as dim as background stars in the same image?
snip abusive kooky garbage
John Carruthers
hoping you might be a suitable operative. Sadly you obviously can't
keep even a simple secret like this. If you blab it over Usenet every
time you put 2 and 2 together we have no use for you.
jc
astro...@mailinator.com
Totally agree Brad, we never went.
Say, I wonder if I could ask your help on some homework questions
I've been set. I ask yourself in particular because you have an IQ
of 170 (some people dispute that but I believe you). Here are the
questions:
Are movie stars really spheres of gas powered by fusion?
Are Canadians really robots?
Should you read every spam message you receive?
Are the United States of America a monarchy ?
Is chemistry the study of how people fall in love?
Are computer monitors made of cheese?
Can I go to the moon on a balloon?
Are silicon chips good to eat?
Is being called a son of a bitch is complimentary ?
Will I die if I delete a spam message?
Do worms live in the clouds ?
Do paper clips taste good?
Does every person on planet Earth own a telescope?
Do most humans live more than 120 years?
Is the sun made out of sausages?
Can I purchase the Galileo spacecraft from JPL?
Is a guitar a type of automobile?
Did many important film directors have only one eye?
Do you score points in basketball by punching the referee ?
Have you ever smoked a crayon?
Do you like to lick cows?
Does all art appeal to all people?
Do you score points in basketball by walking on your hands ?
Have you ever dated a termite?
Should you always spit on your friends when you like them?
Is there anyone living on Mercury?
Would you like to live in a barrel full of eels?
Is a mountain an area of flat land?
Do cats use cellphones?
Have you ever wanted to chase a pickle?
Have you ever dreamed of using Windows CE on your birthday?
Have you ever wanted to marry a duck?
Is a credenza something good to eat?
Have you ever visited the star system Epsilon Eridani?
does feces tast like chocalate pie?
Are Klingons considered aquatic?
does hydrogen gas consist of shoes and water?
Is grey hair a sign of youth?
Is plastic a natural creation?
Can a human breath pizza?
do computers need food?
Is the American flag purple?
Are Humans processed into juice?
Would you pay $10,000 to have sex with Bill Gates?
Are balls square?
Is Washington, D.C. the capital of France?
Is Oregon a state near China?
is the earth a carnivore ?
Is it healthy for humans to drink only seawater?
Do gorillas use deodorant?
A human being has got 4 legs?
Is a Boeing 747 a kind of duck?
Are MAGIC 8 BALLS reliable?
Do you like to eat 100 kilos of spam every day?
Will the Hubble Space Telescope be used for housing homeless cats?
is teen wolf 2 the greatest movie ever made?
Brad Guth wrote:
> It seems their August 26th flyby of Earth was yet another
> taboo/nondisclosure event.
> http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/flyby_movies.html
> The onboard CCD cameras have extremely if not enormous contrast and/or
> range of accommodating the extra illumination of Earthshine within the
> very same frame as accommodating stars (even the sun can be safely
> accommodated without entirely eliminating other significant stars),
> especially that illuminating prospect of easily including Venus and
> that of our moon as being within the same frame as Earth, whereas
> another shot of Earth along with our moon plus perfectly capable of
> incorporating the likes of capturing Mercury near the sun, but not so
> much so near as to have kept the camera from recording all three, as
> should have been doable, yet clearly star removals were performed upon
> each and every one of the publicly offered MESSENGER images.
>
> Thus the grand old MI6/NSA~NASA/Apollo cold-war ruse/sting of the
> century continues.
>
> They's avoiding getting our moon into the same frame as Earth because,
> it'll only show us as yet another matter of fact of just how gosh darn
> dark and nasty the albedo and terrain of our moon really is.
>
> There are online orbital simulators of our solar system that'll prove
> that I'm sufficiently right, and other resources upon the capability of
> those CCD cameras and optics that'll support the vast range and/or
> depth of brightness and extreme contrast, that which these days isn't
> even CCD rocket science.
> ~
>
> Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
> The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
> Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Brad Guth
Lets see, I've pointed out that the Dynamic Range(DR) of the most
likely CCD being utilized (based upon a S/N of 8) is worth 12,500:1 and
that a 12 bit A/D conversion should be in the ballpark of delivering
4096 graytones worth of recorded levels of brightness.
Actually there are off-the shelf CCDs that'll deliver a DR of 20,000:1,
and a few CCDs of somewhat larger area format and thus larger pixel
microns worth better than 132,000:1, although Photochromic Image-Plane
Filters can easily push that past 256,000:1
An old (1990~1991) CCD image via relatively crapy optics easily
obtained views of the Earth and Moon as taken by the Galileo
spacecraft. Of course any such 1990 CCD these days wouldn't be used for
toilet paper, but even so the published Galileo images are not even of
the original raw CCD pixel files, but having been PhotoShop modified in
order to suit publication.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/gal_earthmo2_big.gif
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/images/earthmo2.gif
The Apollo obtained images of our dark albedo moon as seen and Kodak
moment recorded from orbit (either manned or robotically obtained)
still offers a better look-see than anything other we've got to work
with, even a few images with perfectly terrific verification of lunar
albedo by way of their having something of known reflectance within
frame. Would you like to see?
Your latest ploy or ruse of another excuse as to why MESSENGER with
vastly improved CCD's and greatly improved optics of either 10.5°
w/filters and/or the telephoto of 1.5° couldn't have managed squat
better is absolutely pathetic. It's not as though MESSENGER was
continually too damn close or not having a sufficient number of flyby
opportunities to work with, and it's not as though these shots couldn't
have been 100% pre-established and thus not purely happenstance of
whatever was within a fixed frame while zipping past Earth.
>an image of Earth and another body would be unimpressive at best
Interesting in that I never qualified upon the unimpressive/impressive
aspects of obtaining more than just mother Earth. Besides not offering
a view including our solar illuminated but relatively dark moon (moon
being roughly under a third to as little as a fourth the typical albedo
of Earth), whereas I believe that I'd mentioned something about stars
being nowhere to being seen, much less the absolute vibrance
(especially vibrant from outer space) of Venus or even a somewhat dim
look-see at including a point-source of Mercury that shouldn't have
fallen outside the CCD DR capability.
>Do you think that it's easy to get an Earth/Moon picture? MESSENGER
>came to within about 35,000 miles of the Earth. The Moon's average distance
>from the Earth is about 238,000 miles. If MESSENGER was going to get a nice
>image of the two, it would have had to do so long before the flyby.
Do you think that I'm an absolute idiot? I believe MESSENGER
eventually came to within 35,000 miles. Now then, I wonder how in the
heck it got there and, if according to your damage-control response,
I'm sort of wondering if it emerged itself out of nowhere and/or
subsequently fell off the edge of our solar system as it was leaving
Earth and our moon behind?
>To get a picture of both Earth and any of those bodies, you'd need
>a much wider field of view than if you were just observing the Earth.
I guess that I'm the sort of village idiot that simply can't appreciate
as to what the 10.5° optics that should have been just perfectly fine
and dandy yet otherwise failed or perhaps malfunctioned as to
photograph upon anything except Earth.
Are the MESSENGER cameras and optics going to remotely repair
themselves before going into orbiting Mercury?
Is the Dynamic Range portion of those CCDs going to start functioning
normally only upon orbiting Mercury?
>I honestly don't know whether stars would appear in exposures with
>the Earth in the same field of view, but I suspect the filters necessary
>to image a brightly-lit Earth would filter out dimmer starlight.
I honestly do know that a few stars not 1% the photon intensity of
Venus should have been easly obtained, even with an optional filter or
two, although there was technically no good reason to utilize any such
filter(s) other than perhaps a sharp UV cut-off of what's less than 375
nm (after all, there is a great deal of UV energy in space). Otherwise
there certanly shouldn't have been any IR spectrum overload to deal
with, at least none that would have moderated or otherwise impacted
those 100% mission optional images of Earth, therefore team MESSENGER
simply had nothing to lose, not optically, not CCD, and certainly not
otherwise impacting the intended mission if they'd including a little
something other than Just Earth.
>I don't know photography, so an example would greatly increase my
>understanding of the situation. Simply saying "Of course it would
>image the stars" isn't an answer, it's an evasion of the answer.
Now you're playing the poor little dumb soul that doesn't know squat
about photography or imaging anything from the vast expanse of a
crystal clear outer-space with obviously zilch worth of light
pollution, other than the millions of vibrant point-sources of
starlights and of the much brighter planets and moons that are nowhere
too bright as to bloom or overload past the CCD DR, and it's not as
though the pixel scan rate can't be altered to suit a perfectly
acceptable exposure compromise of having portions of Earth a wee bit
over exposed/saturated (such as snow and/or white clouds would have
represented no harm done) by those taking up the FWC/FBC worth of the
given CCD, thus leaving 4095 levels of dimmer illumination items to
have been nicely recorded. I'm still thinking that a solar illuminated
orb of mostly basalt having such dark carbon/soot, iron, titanium and
thus a brownish and even a few deep bluish portions of moon's 0.11~0.12
albedo should have qualified quite nicely. Of course, being that the
camera was external to Earth's atmosphere is why there would have been
a good amount of surrounding stars, that which a few might have
represented somewhat pesky bright spots (especially Sirius) unless
those spectrums were extensively filtered and/or subsequently PhotoShop
removed.
>A picture is worth a thousand words--where is there an example of a CCD
>camera like this taking an image of an object as bright as the Earth
>with objects as dim as background stars in the same image?
Firstly, Earth at 36% albedo and at 1AU is NOT a bright object, whereas
Venus at 75~80% albedo and of being so much closer to the sun is
receiving 2.65 kw/m2 that's actually an extremely bright object. Even
though Mercury is certainly receiving loads more than it's fair share
of solar illumination/m2, the Mercury albedo sucks compared to Venus.
But, since you can't seem to appreciate what having a raw DR of
12,500:1 represents (w/filters call it 50,000:1), as such I'll see what
else I can find that's got a few stars along with the intended object
in the same frame. Although silly me, it seems as though I've looked at
the GOOGLE images as posted of our moon, those of the regular solar
illuminated moon, of the earthshine illuminated moon and all of which
having been obtained through a nasty amount of light pollution due to
our relatively thick and polluted atmosphere plus having loads of
terrestrial artificial illumination to boot, yet low and gosh darn
behold, I keep seeing a few of them thar stars a bit dimly but
otherwise there's our moon along with good old Venus, Mars, even
Jupiter from time to time and, I'd bet that I could possibly find one
that included Mercury, yet the moon itself being as bright as it is
isn't beyond the saturation point of no return. Even the sorts of
solar/earthshine images as obtained from our atmospherically polluted
view are quite manageable in the same image, meaning as having been
recorded at the same CCD scan, which of course couldn't have been
managed much at all with plain old film that somewhat sucks at being DR
impaired.
Of course amateur CCD cameras and of their optics used upon obtaining
those moon photos were not of the vastly superior quality and extended
DR capable CCD that MESSENGER has to work with, not to mention the
rather significant advantage of what being within outer space has to
offer, rather than sequestered within the H2O, O2, N2 polluted and thus
photon reacting and otherwise spectrum filtering atmospheric soup that
surrounds Earth. In order to get that same pathetic affect from space
you'd damn near have to put the protective lens cap back on.
BTW; thanks much for the following links:
>If you want specific info about the MESSENGER CCDs,
>contact someone at the MESSENGER website: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050908_messenger_movie.html
I'll get back to some of the other crapolla another time. In the
meantime, have a nice day.
Don Freeman
<astro...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1129053193.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Totally agree Brad, we never went.
>
> Say, I wonder if I could ask your help on some homework questions
> I've been set. I ask yourself in particular because you have an IQ
> of 170 (some people dispute that but I believe you). Here are the
> questions:
>
> Are movie stars really spheres of gas powered by fusion?
> Are Canadians really robots?
> Should you read every spam message you receive?
> Are the United States of America a monarchy ?
> Is chemistry the study of how people fall in love?
> Are computer monitors made of cheese?
Hey that's no fair, you didn't print the answers.
Brad Guth
>If you blab it over Usenet every time you put 2 and 2 together we have no use for you.
Whom is "we"?
What's "K31"?
Doesn't 2+2 = 0 or just about anything except 4?
All that I'm badly saying is, of having any good side by side CCD
performed snapshot of mother Earth and that of our moon, especially if
there were a few dim stars and of those not so dim stars and planets of
either Venus or Mercury involved, as such folks would not only be a
whole lot more impressed but, folks might otherwise have a somewhat
better appreciation as to how gosh darn dark and nasty and even richly
colorful our moon really is, then perhaps realize my LSE-CM/ISS
wouldn't be such a bad idea after all (leaving the actual surface of
our moon for robots w/o DNA to deal with), even though it should cost
trillions to fully R&D and then perhaps merely 100 billion per year to
sustain and operate, although with at least a trillion+/year prospect
of payback seems like our hard earned money should be well spent, and
at least we village idiots (the lower 99.9% of humanity as representing
the apparent scum of the Earth) can all keep a close eye upon exactly
where our hard earned loot is getting spent.
In a few other dyslexic words of my limited wisdom;
If the payback is considerably more than the outlay; isn't that
representing a win-win for humanity?
If part of that payback comes in the form of He3/fusion; isn't this a
good thing for our environment?
If there's any possibility of locals or ETs toughing it out upon Venus;
isn't that another win-win for interplanetary science and perhaps even
the future salvation of humanity?
Thus in the case of your MESSENGER infomercial pictures that contain
only a butt-naked view of Earth (w/o moon, w/o stars, w/o sun and w/o
any other planets), it seems to have become the sheer lack of many
thousands of words that'll even begin to justify upon your further
snookering humanity for all it's worth. Gosh, perhaps enough is enough?
There's also been this nifty terrestrial enhanced contribution as a
best effort upon depicting the natural raw elements of the reasonably
deep and perhaps not quite so rich moon colors, of which imaging via
optical filters upon a solar illuminated moon as having been obtained
by an inferior CCD (certainly not the least bit FWC/FBC pixel
saturated) having not half the dynamic range of MESSENGER, and
obviously as having been sequestered under the photon filtering thick
and polluted atmosphere means that it wasn't all that capable of
including stars. Of course them pesky vibrant stars, especially to
their Apollo unfiltered Kodak eye that's rather sensitive to a good
portion of the typically available starlight spectrums that were so
much more vibrant in space, should have managed a better job, at least
by their 6th time around (perhaps better luck next time or, even if it
their "so what's the difference" first time).
Our Colorful Moon :
http://www.rc-astro.com/img/moon_colors_2005-04-18.jpg
All images and site content are Copyright ©2002-2005 by Russell
Croman.
© 2005 Russell Croman, www.rc-astro.com
http://www.rc-astro.com/contact.htm
The colors in the Moon image are real, in a sense, Croman explained.
"To bring out the differences between the various regions, the color
saturation has been greatly enhanced," he explained. "The hues are
correct."
"Differences in color on the lunar surface indicate different ages and
types of materials."
Giving this image a fair and balanced PhotoShop 50% boost in contrast
is well worth doing, as that'll get the albedo a bit closer to reality.
There are many other official color images of the moon as having been
obtained from satellite and even via the NASA/Apollo orbits, that are
depicting of a considerably darker and even somewhat nastier looking
surface while fully solar illuminated.
Via GOOGLE; Here's a few of so many amateur consumer-camera obtained
images of the moon + Mercury + Venus shots, whereas Mercury for its
size is sufficiently quite illuminating as per the solar illuminated
surface of the moon. In other words; an Earth, moon and Mercury frame
should have been doable as MESSENGER (depending upon the direction of
flyby) approached or was leaving the scene of the crime.
http://www.rylesprocket.com/MiscPics/New_Moon_Mercury.jpg
Here's a moon, Mercury and Venus shot (on film none the less), plus a
few of those pesky stars to boot.
Planetary Conjunction of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and the Crescent
Moon
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.w7ftt.net/conjunction2a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.w7ftt.net/conjunction2.html&h=818&w=650&sz=117&tbnid=I0xnGi5qyqEJ:&tbnh=143&tbnw=113&hl=en&start=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmoon%2Bmercury%2Bvenus%26start%3D80%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26newwindow%3D1%26sa%3DN
http://www.w7ftt.net/conjunction2a.jpg (probably phony because of being
JPL associated)
MOS except typically of CCD camera obtained.
http://www.weasner.com/etx/guests/2004/images/stankiewicz-moonvenusmercury042104.jpg
http://www.noexitrecords.com/zerobox/Moon-Venus-MercuryCrystalaire07.09.05.jpg
How about another one of Mars, moon, Venus Mercury
http://www.esas.org.uk/index_files/image3531.jpg
How about a partially earthshine illuminated moon w/Venus (seems pretty
freaking damn hard to miss that, especially from outer-space and most
certainly not easily avoided from the dark albedo lunar deck which
really ott to get walked upon some day before them Chinks or any of
them dirty rotten Russians beat us to the punch)
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/3.Wan%20Cres%20&%20Venus%2025398.jpg
Of course this following related page is simply chuck full of moon
shots with all of those freaking pesky stars getting involved. Even
shows the telescope w/camera using Kodak Royal 1000 film. Imagine
instead of being terrestrial sequestered and thus pollution filtered,
what if it were MESSENGER as having better DR to work with either of
its 1.5° telephoto or even of its semi-telephoto 10.5° lens being a
whole lot better throughput than f10.
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/noleen.htm
Jim Phillips
> Dear Jim Phillips (aka snip abusive kooky garbage),
> Lets see, I've pointed out that the Dynamic Range(DR) of the most
> likely CCD being utilized (based upon a S/N of 8) is worth 12,500:1 and
> that a 12 bit A/D conversion should be in the ballpark of delivering
> 4096 graytones worth of recorded levels of brightness.
What is the visual magnitude difference between the Earth and any
stars that might have been in the field of view of the MESSENGER's camera?
> Actually there are off-the shelf CCDs that'll deliver a DR of 20,000:1,
> and a few CCDs of somewhat larger area format and thus larger pixel
> microns worth better than 132,000:1, although Photochromic Image-Plane
> Filters can easily push that past 256,000:1
Are any of them space-rated?
According to my Starry Night, the current image of the Earth as seen
from the Moon has a magnitude of -15.6. That means that the Earth is over
1,000,000 times brighter than a magnitude 0 star (such as Vega) from the
Earth-Moon distance (keep in mind that MESSENGER got much closer than that).
Even with your most generous CCD above and being lucky enough to have a
really bright star in the same field of view as the Earth, you still
wouldn't be able to image the two.
> An old (1990~1991) CCD image via relatively crapy optics easily
> obtained views of the Earth and Moon as taken by the Galileo
> spacecraft.
Yes, it's really lovely--it was also taken at a *much* greater
distance than MESSENGER's flyby. MESSENGER was testing its instruments
during the flyby, so why waste the opportunity with a shot of the Earth and
Moon? Mercury doesn't have a moon, so there's no need to practice on
getting 2 objects in the same field of view for an extended period of time.
> Of course any such 1990 CCD these days wouldn't be used for
> toilet paper, but even so the published Galileo images are not even of
> the original raw CCD pixel files, but having been PhotoShop modified in
> order to suit publication.
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/gal_earthmo2_big.gif
> http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/images/earthmo2.gif
> The Apollo obtained images of our dark albedo moon as seen and Kodak
> moment recorded from orbit (either manned or robotically obtained)
> still offers a better look-see than anything other we've got to work
> with, even a few images with perfectly terrific verification of lunar
> albedo by way of their having something of known reflectance within
> frame. Would you like to see?
No, I've seen plenty of shots of the Apollo landings.
> Your latest ploy or ruse of another excuse as to why MESSENGER with
> vastly improved CCD's and greatly improved optics of either 10.5°
> w/filters and/or the telephoto of 1.5° couldn't have managed squat
> better is absolutely pathetic.
How likely was it that the Earth and Moon/Mercury/Venus would be
in the same field of view? Why would MESSENGER *bother* to get such an
image?
> It's not as though MESSENGER was
> continually too damn close or not having a sufficient number of flyby
> opportunities to work with, and it's not as though these shots couldn't
> have been 100% pre-established and thus not purely happenstance of
> whatever was within a fixed frame while zipping past Earth.
No, the science team wasn't interested in trying to convince a kook
like you, they had better things to do (like testing their spacecraft before
it gets to Mercury). Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble, but reality is
like that.
> >an image of Earth and another body would be unimpressive at best
> Interesting in that I never qualified upon the unimpressive/impressive
> aspects of obtaining more than just mother Earth.
You still haven't explained *why* MESSENGER should have taken those
images, you merely claimed that they'd be easy to do (without explaining why
they'd be easy to do). I can't think of a better reason--can you?
> Besides not offering
> a view including our solar illuminated but relatively dark moon (moon
> being roughly under a third to as little as a fourth the typical albedo
> of Earth), whereas I believe that I'd mentioned something about stars
> being nowhere to being seen, much less the absolute vibrance
> (especially vibrant from outer space) of Venus or even a somewhat dim
> look-see at including a point-source of Mercury that shouldn't have
> fallen outside the CCD DR capability.
Why do you think it would be easy for MESSENGER to have imaged both
the Earth and the Moon/Venus/Mercury? Why should the sciene team squander
the precious flyby time to get such an image? How easy do you think it is
to take such images?
> >Do you think that it's easy to get an Earth/Moon picture? MESSENGER
> >came to within about 35,000 miles of the Earth. The Moon's average
> distance >from the Earth is about 238,000 miles. If MESSENGER was going
> to get a nice >image of the two, it would have had to do so long before
> the flyby. Do you think that I'm an absolute idiot?
Yes I do, but I think you're an absolute idiot for claiming that
Apollo didn't land on the Moon. You're also an idiot for not being able to
understand why the Moon looks bright in the Apollo images and why there
weren't any stars.
> I believe MESSENGER
> eventually came to within 35,000 miles. Now then, I wonder how in the
> heck it got there and, if according to your damage-control response,
> I'm sort of wondering if it emerged itself out of nowhere and/or
> subsequently fell off the edge of our solar system as it was leaving
> Earth and our moon behind?
MESSENGER was imaging Earth during its flyby--it wasn't imaging
anything else. They wanted to test the imaging system to make sure that
they can point it while the probe is moving--why would they also want to
see if they can get a shot of the Moon? Anyone on Earth can get a shot
of the Moon--it's much harder to get a shot of the Earth (at least from
the vantage point of a flyby).
> >To get a picture of both Earth and any of those bodies, you'd need
> >a much wider field of view than if you were just observing the Earth.
> I guess that I'm the sort of village idiot that simply can't appreciate
> as to what the 10.5° optics that should have been just perfectly fine
> and dandy yet otherwise failed or perhaps malfunctioned as to
> photograph upon anything except Earth.
Assuming your 10.5 degree field of view is correct, where was the
Moon/Venus/Mercury during the MESSENGER flyby? You do realize that a 10.5
degree field of view is kinda small in a 360 degree sky, right? You also
realize that they can narrow that field of view if they want to look at
something interesting (like the Earth), right?
> Are the MESSENGER cameras and optics going to remotely repair
> themselves before going into orbiting Mercury?
Huh?
> Is the Dynamic Range portion of those CCDs going to start functioning
> normally only upon orbiting Mercury?
What's your point?
> >I honestly don't know whether stars would appear in exposures with
> >the Earth in the same field of view, but I suspect the filters necessary
> >to image a brightly-lit Earth would filter out dimmer starlight.
> I honestly do know that a few stars not 1% the photon intensity of
> Venus should have been easly obtained,
A star 1% the brightness of Venus would be around 1st magnitude.
Since the Earth from the Moon has a magnitude of -15.6, that's a brightness
ratio of several million to one.
even with an optional filter or
> two, although there was technically no good reason to utilize any such
> filter(s) other than perhaps a sharp UV cut-off of what's less than 375
> nm (after all, there is a great deal of UV energy in space).
Um, you only get "UV energy in space" if you point towards a source
of UV. Space itself isn't a strong source of UV.
> Otherwise
> there certanly shouldn't have been any IR spectrum overload to deal
> with, at least none that would have moderated or otherwise impacted
> those 100% mission optional images of Earth, therefore team MESSENGER
> simply had nothing to lose, not optically, not CCD, and certainly not
> otherwise impacting the intended mission if they'd including a little
> something other than Just Earth.
Nonsense--the team spent months programming the onboard computers
to observe the Earth during the flyby. You have *no* appreciation for how
hard that is to do. And you *still* haven't given a good reason for the
team, who only have a limited amount of time to test their spacecraft that
is going to be observing a planet, to waste that precious time observing
anything else except the Earth.
> >I don't know photography, so an example would greatly increase my
> >understanding of the situation. Simply saying "Of course it would
> >image the stars" isn't an answer, it's an evasion of the answer.
> Now you're playing the poor little dumb soul that doesn't know squat
> about photography or imaging
I took a moment to check what the visual magnitude of the Earth
as seen from the Moon would be, and found it to be millions of times
brighter than all but a small handful of stars. If you had done the
same, you would have noted that this ratio is *far* higher than even the
best CCD can handle. But you didn't. Why not?
> >A picture is worth a thousand words--where is there an example of a CCD
> >camera like this taking an image of an object as bright as the Earth
> >with objects as dim as background stars in the same image?
> Firstly, Earth at 36% albedo and at 1AU is NOT a bright object, whereas
> Venus at 75~80% albedo and of being so much closer to the sun is
> receiving 2.65 kw/m2 that's actually an extremely bright object.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with MESSENGER imaging Earth
and Venus during its flyby.
Even
> though Mercury is certainly receiving loads more than it's fair share
> of solar illumination/m2, the Mercury albedo sucks compared to Venus.
> But, since you can't seem to appreciate what having a raw DR of
> 12,500:1 represents (w/filters call it 50,000:1), as such I'll see what
> else I can find that's got a few stars along with the intended object
> in the same frame.
Do keep in mind that, during MESSENGER's flyby, the *lowest* ratio
between the Earth's brightness and that of a reasonably bright star is
several million to 1.
> Although silly me, it seems as though I've looked at
> the GOOGLE images as posted of our moon, those of the regular solar
> illuminated moon, of the earthshine illuminated moon and all of which
> having been obtained through a nasty amount of light pollution due to
> our relatively thick and polluted atmosphere plus having loads of
> terrestrial artificial illumination to boot, yet low and gosh darn
> behold, I keep seeing a few of them thar stars a bit dimly but
> otherwise there's our moon along with good old Venus, Mars, even
> Jupiter from time to time and, I'd bet that I could possibly find one
> that included Mercury, yet the moon itself being as bright as it is
> isn't beyond the saturation point of no return. Even the sorts of
> solar/earthshine images as obtained from our atmospherically polluted
> view are quite manageable in the same image, meaning as having been
> recorded at the same CCD scan, which of course couldn't have been
> managed much at all with plain old film that somewhat sucks at being DR
> impaired.
Full Moon magnitude: -12. Mercury magnitude: -1. That's about a
12,000:1 ratio. During the MESSENGER flyby, the Earth's *dimmest* magnitude
was -15.6, so the *best* ratio between the Earth and Mercury would be about
1,000,000:1 (at closest approach, multiply the ratio by 25 or so).
> Of course amateur CCD cameras and of their optics used upon obtaining
> those moon photos were not of the vastly superior quality and extended
> DR capable CCD that MESSENGER has to work with,
Since you have not yet found the specs on MESSENGER's CCD, the rest
is speculation.
> BTW; thanks much for the following links:
> >If you want specific info about the MESSENGER CCDs,
> >contact someone at the MESSENGER website: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/
> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050908_messenger_movie.html
>
> I'll get back to some of the other crapolla another time. In the
> meantime, have a nice day.
Don't forget to be polite when you ask about the CCD--remember, the
people who can answer your question have real jobs, so any time they spend
to answer your question is time they could be working.
Brad Guth
Sorry folks but, the first portion of your contribution is simply worth
way more than a thousand words.
I can't hardly believe it. I've given specific leads to several
terrestrial obtained images of our moon, as partially solar and as
otherwise mostly earthshine illuminated, as quite obviously including
planets and stars within the very same image, even though being
extremely filtered and thus photon spectrum limited (especially near-UV
and UV-a limited) by the polluted atmosphere of Earth none the less,
and as otherwise having been obtained by vastly inferior optics and
relatively piss poor DR methods at best. Yet wouldn't you just know
that such a perverted intellectual bigot like yourself would have to
exclude upon such evidence in order to suit your continuing ruse/sting
of the century.
I suppose that you've also got a spare cross; just in case Jesus Christ
returns?
I'll also take a perfectly wildass guess that you voted for GW Bush
and, that you'd have to be one of those souls that would do it allover
again.
If you should decide to stop being such an incest cloned borg of the
mainstream status quo collective, as then perhaps whatever you have to
say might become worth more than the current flow of intellectual
crapolla disinformation and hypeology infomercials that's spewing from
between your sanctimonious butt-cheeks.
For a person that supposedly knows so gosh darn little about
photography, you seem to brown-nose know a great deal about MESSENGER,
that is except for the CCD and optic specifications, or of the 12 bit
A/D converter or of the available spectrum filters that only further
extends the imaging DR.
Interesting how film having less than a tenth the DR managed to include
planets and stars along with our moon, a portion of which was getting
directly solar illuminated none the less, and of accomplishing this
with such comparatively piss poor optics and everything being photon
moderated so terribly by our atmosphere, that even so the film far
out-performs those horrifically spendy CCDs and superior optics onboard
MESSENGER. I guess these days our NASA moderated/scripted missions
have to make due with such absolute substandard imaging technology, so
much so that folks like yourself have to continually brown-nose on
behalf of PR damage-control and of soon creating all of those spendy
NOVA disinformation infomercials. Silly me, here I'd though we had at
least orbited our moon in person but, apparently we've not even
accomplished that much with such outdated technology, as having to make
all of those missions transpire almost exactly like the robotic
Apollo-9 managed, which by the way is still damn impressive by even
today's standards.
>No, I've seen plenty of shots of the Apollo landings.
You know damn good and well that I wasn't referencing as to any
supposed landings worth of Kodak moments, such as those of nearly
white-out zones for as far as their UNFILTERED Kodak eye could record
as being 55+% albedo, with several locations having exceeded 65% to
boot and never any hint of secondary/recoil photons at that. My focus
was upon those entirely believable images obtained from orbit,
especially of those frames having suitable reflective items of known
albedo in frame, and otherwise having to exclude a few of those rather
odd partial blue-screen exposures along the way.
BTW; just as soon as I get myself back into your GOOGLE disinformation
Usenet that sucks and blows, lo and behold my PC receives another fresh
dosage of your MI6/NSA spookology spermware/malware. Gee whiz boss, I
wonder why the heck that is?
Could it be that I'm actually right and nice folks like yourself are
not?
Could it be that you're in big trouble for the way you've responded to
this topic thus far?
Could it be that you're nothing but another brown-nosed minion of the
mainstream status quo?
Could it be that there's other life upon Venus and MESSENGER is simply
another portion of the ruse?
Could it be that the true and natural colors and deep albedo of our
moon would be a bit too revealing?
Any damn heathen fool on the hill could have selected sufficient
spectrum filters and, staying within the first portion a CCD's 12,500
DR could easily utilize as little as just the first 1% of that
capability so as to exclude all other items of lesser intensity,
obtaining the exact image quality as depicted with none the wiser
except for yourself and the likes of an outside village idiots such as
myself.
Do you not realize that your entire family plus close friends are now
at risk because of your actions?
>Why do you think it would be easy for MESSENGER to have imaged both
>the Earth and the Moon/Venus/Mercury? Why should the sciene team squander
>the precious flyby time to get such an image? How easy do you think it is
>to take such images?
This form of mainstream damage-control isn't working, at least not on
your behalf. Your plot that thickens isn't worth the used toilet-paper
it's written upon, as to deserve any effort as to respond to such utter
nonsense, and your certainly smart enough as to know that's the truth
and nothing but the truth. However, I'm thinking that without a great
deal of pre-planning of these MESSENGER shots it would have been
somewhat difficult to have kept the moon entirely out of frame, and if
using the full 12,500:1 DR (being more than ten fold better off than
film and from space is worth at least another 2:1) it certainly would
have been technically impossible to have excluded a good many stars and
perchance a another planet or two within the same frame because, from
the badly polluted vantage point of Earth is where even a relatively
dim Mars gets into being photo recorded via Kodak film along with our
moon, although Fuji film is perhaps half again as good but hardly any
match for a quality CCD and better optics as within MESSENGER that's
cruising in a relatively pollution-free and non-filtering environment
of space.
Speaking as one village idiot that's clearly outside the box, to
another incest cloned village idiot that's not only deep inside but so
freaking brown-nosed that everything that doesn't fit your pagan
NASA/Apollo bible looks like crapolla, whereas perhaps we can simply
agree to disagree, whereas I'll stick with hard-science and the regular
laws of physics while yourself and others of your collective exclude
evidence and use those conditional laws of physics as you go about
wagging the living crapolla out of another dog.
>Nonsense--the team spent months programming the onboard computers
>to observe the Earth during the flyby. You have *no* appreciation for how
>hard that is to do. And you *still* haven't given a good reason for the
>team, who only have a limited amount of time to test their spacecraft that
>is going to be observing a planet, to waste that precious time observing
>anything else except the Earth.
This statement self qualifies by more than proving my point, that
you're deeply in on these crimes against humanity, and clearly without
a stitch of remorse to boot. Sorry about all of that concern for
humanity and pesky remorse sneaking in. Starting the sequence imaging a
wee bit sooner and holding on a bit further after the flyby, along with
taking the fullest advantage of the terrific optics and CCD DR couldn't
have possibly impacted the mission testing one damn bit.
Since Earth wasn't any part of the science mission, other than for
getting MESSENGER safely on its way (I think we've already got a few
million extremely good images of Earth from space, with another
thousand or more coming in each day that are as good if not better),
therefore your point about team MESSENGER not wasting time with any
real test of the optics and fullest range capability of the CCD DR is
without valid astronomy or other scientific argument. In other words,
you and your MESSENGER suck.
Sorry that those real-world obtained images that included the moon
along with planets and a few stars was an overload of truth that blew
your stinking socks off. Next time use ductape.
BTW No.2
If the very best DR that MESSENGER can muster is 96 (roughly a tenth as
good as film), perhaps you should get a refund.
BTW No.3
Much of the time Einstine was into speculating his Jewish butt off,
making more than his fair share of mistakes along the way. Apparently
as of today by way of your high standards and accountability he'd be
summarily stalked, bashed and if possible exterminated on the spot.
Unfortunately, normal humans never stop speculating, but individuals
like yourself seem rather bent upon sequestering the truth at all cost.
Brad Guth
this Usenet that sucks and blows, I don't know all there is to know,
and I even make more than my fair share of mistakes. Of course, it
would certainly help if others that seemingly always insist that they
do know all there is to know, if those wizards would share and share
alike, while tossing out as little flak and none of their usual PC
intended spermware/malware that only proves that I'm more right than
I'd thought.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; War is war, thus "in war there are
Jim Phillips
> My freaking almighty Christ on a stick;
> Sorry folks but, the first portion of your contribution is simply worth
> way more than a thousand words.
I noticed you snipped out the part of my post where I demonstrated
that, using your own numbers for CCDs, MESSENGER would not have been able to
image the Earth and even the brightest star in the same image. I can only
assume that you concede my point.
> I can't hardly believe it. I've given specific leads to several
> terrestrial obtained images of our moon, as partially solar and as
> otherwise mostly earthshine illuminated, as quite obviously including
> planets and stars within the very same image, even though being
> extremely filtered and thus photon spectrum limited (especially near-UV
> and UV-a limited) by the polluted atmosphere of Earth none the less,
> and as otherwise having been obtained by vastly inferior optics and
> relatively piss poor DR methods at best. Yet wouldn't you just know
> that such a perverted intellectual bigot like yourself would have to
> exclude upon such evidence in order to suit your continuing ruse/sting
> of the century.
>
> I suppose that you've also got a spare cross; just in case Jesus Christ
> returns?
Why does he need to return? Didn't he get it right the first time?
> I'll also take a perfectly wildass guess that you voted for GW Bush
> and, that you'd have to be one of those souls that would do it allover
> again.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong.
> If you should decide to stop being such an incest cloned borg of the
> mainstream status quo collective, as then perhaps whatever you have to
> say might become worth more than the current flow of intellectual
> crapolla disinformation and hypeology infomercials that's spewing from
> between your sanctimonious butt-cheeks.
If you can't beat my arguments, you try to beat on me.
> For a person that supposedly knows so gosh darn little about
> photography, you seem to brown-nose know a great deal about MESSENGER,
> that is except for the CCD and optic specifications, or of the 12 bit
> A/D converter or of the available spectrum filters that only further
> extends the imaging DR.
I used *your* numbers for CCD and the magnitude scale to show that
you were wrong. Take it like a man.
> Interesting how film having less than a tenth the DR managed to include
> planets and stars along with our moon,
Let's go over the numbers again:
Full Moon magnitude: -12
Mercury magnitude (brightest possible): -1
Bright star magnitude: +0
The Moon is roughly 12,000 times brighter than Mercury at its
brightest and about 30,000 times brighter than a bright star, numbers
that are well within the range *you* provided for CCDs.
Earth's visual magnitude (at the time of MESSENGER's flyby): -16 to -21
Venus magnitude (at the time of MESSENGER's flyby): -5
Mercury magnitude (at the time of MESSENGER's flyby): 4
Bright star magnitude: 0
The Earth, at its *dimmest*, is 2,500,000 times brighter than a
bright star and 100,000,000 times brighter than Mercury was at the time
MESSENGER flew by Earth (not to mention that Mercury was 5 degrees from the
Sun, which is too close to risk the electronics). Now, Venus is well within
a reasonable CCD range at the time, so the question is, would Venus have
been in the narrow field of view that the Earth was taking up?
a portion of which was getting
> directly solar illuminated none the less, and of accomplishing this
> with such comparatively piss poor optics
You need to hang out with some amateur astronomers--they often have
top-of-the-line electronics, not "piss-poor optics".
> and everything being photon
> moderated so terribly by our atmosphere,
"Photon moderated"?
> that even so the film far
> out-performs those horrifically spendy CCDs and superior optics onboard
> MESSENGER.
Once again you speculate about MESSENGER's CCDs without having any
info on them. Have you not contacted folks at the MESSENGER website yet?
I guess these days our NASA moderated/scripted missions
> have to make due with such absolute substandard imaging technology, so
> much so that folks like yourself have to continually brown-nose on
> behalf of PR damage-control and of soon creating all of those spendy
> NOVA disinformation infomercials.
I used *your* numbers for top-of-the-line CCDs to demonstrate that
there's no way MESSENGER could have imaged the Earth and bright stars at
the time of the Earth flyby. Were you lying when you posted those numbers?
> Silly me, here I'd though we had at
> least orbited our moon in person but, apparently we've not even
> accomplished that much with such outdated technology, as having to make
> all of those missions transpire almost exactly like the robotic
> Apollo-9 managed, which by the way is still damn impressive by even
> today's standards.
If the Nixon administration managed to keep the Apollo "hoax" such
a secret, how is it that they bungled the Watergate break-ins, something
that would have been *far* easier to keep secret?
> >No, I've seen plenty of shots of the Apollo landings.
> You know damn good and well that I wasn't referencing as to any
> supposed landings worth of Kodak moments, such as those of nearly
> white-out zones for as far as their UNFILTERED Kodak eye could record
> as being 55+% albedo, with several locations having exceeded 65% to
> boot and never any hint of secondary/recoil photons at that. My focus
> was upon those entirely believable images obtained from orbit,
> especially of those frames having suitable reflective items of known
> albedo in frame, and otherwise having to exclude a few of those rather
> odd partial blue-screen exposures along the way.
>
> BTW; just as soon as I get myself back into your GOOGLE disinformation
> Usenet that sucks and blows, lo and behold my PC receives another fresh
> dosage of your MI6/NSA spookology spermware/malware. Gee whiz boss, I
> wonder why the heck that is?
You're paranoid?
> Could it be that I'm actually right and nice folks like yourself are
> not?
It's also possible that monkeys will fly out of your ass, but that
doesn't mean anyone has to take such an outlandish idea seriously.
> Could it be that you're in big trouble for the way you've responded to
> this topic thus far?
Big trouble? From who???
> Could it be that you're nothing but another brown-nosed minion of the
> mainstream status quo?
See above.
> Could it be that there's other life upon Venus and MESSENGER is simply
> another portion of the ruse?
I think it would be wonderful if there was life (not simply "other
life") on Venus, but I don't let that fact make me ignor reality.
> Could it be that the true and natural colors and deep albedo of our
> moon would be a bit too revealing?
Huh?
> Any damn heathen fool on the hill could have selected sufficient
> spectrum filters and, staying within the first portion a CCD's 12,500
> DR could easily utilize as little as just the first 1% of that
> capability so as to exclude all other items of lesser intensity,
> obtaining the exact image quality as depicted with none the wiser
> except for yourself and the likes of an outside village idiots such as
> myself.
See my numbers above.
> Do you not realize that your entire family plus close friends are now
> at risk because of your actions?
Since I'm not a paranoid conspiracy nut such as yourself, such risks
do not exist, so I don't have to worry.
> >Why do you think it would be easy for MESSENGER to have imaged both
> >the Earth and the Moon/Venus/Mercury? Why should the sciene team squander
> >the precious flyby time to get such an image? How easy do you think it is
> >to take such images?
> This form of mainstream damage-control isn't working, at least not on
> your behalf. Your plot that thickens isn't worth the used toilet-paper
> it's written upon, as to deserve any effort as to respond to such utter
> nonsense, and your certainly smart enough as to know that's the truth
> and nothing but the truth. However, I'm thinking that without a great
> deal of pre-planning of these MESSENGER shots it would have been
> somewhat difficult to have kept the moon entirely out of frame, and if
> using the full 12,500:1 DR (being more than ten fold better off than
> film and from space is worth at least another 2:1) it certainly would
> have been technically impossible to have excluded a good many stars and
> perchance a another planet or two within the same frame because, from
> the badly polluted vantage point of Earth is where even a relatively
> dim Mars gets into being photo recorded via Kodak film along with our
> moon, although Fuji film is perhaps half again as good but hardly any
> match for a quality CCD and better optics as within MESSENGER that's
> cruising in a relatively pollution-free and non-filtering environment
> of space.
See my numbers above.
> Speaking as one village idiot that's clearly outside the box, to
> another incest cloned village idiot that's not only deep inside but so
> freaking brown-nosed that everything that doesn't fit your pagan
> NASA/Apollo bible looks like crapolla, whereas perhaps we can simply
> agree to disagree, whereas I'll stick with hard-science and the regular
> laws of physics while yourself and others of your collective exclude
> evidence and use those conditional laws of physics as you go about
> wagging the living crapolla out of another dog.
I'm the one that's actually calculated the numbers, whereas you
apparently are desperately ignoring them, since they shoot down your goofy
claims about MESSENGER.
> >Nonsense--the team spent months programming the onboard computers
> >to observe the Earth during the flyby. You have *no* appreciation for how
> >hard that is to do. And you *still* haven't given a good reason for the
> >team, who only have a limited amount of time to test their spacecraft that
> >is going to be observing a planet, to waste that precious time observing
> >anything else except the Earth.
> This statement self qualifies by more than proving my point, that
> you're deeply in on these crimes against humanity, and clearly without
> a stitch of remorse to boot.
Go ahead and run away from the facts--it's no surprise.
Sorry about all of that concern for
> humanity and pesky remorse sneaking in. Starting the sequence imaging a
> wee bit sooner and holding on a bit further after the flyby, along with
> taking the fullest advantage of the terrific optics and CCD DR couldn't
> have possibly impacted the mission testing one damn bit.
Yes it could, your ignorance of the difficulty in programming a
spaceship notwithstanding.
> Since Earth wasn't any part of the science mission,
MESSENGER used Earth to assist it in reaching Mercury. The science
team also used Earth to test the instruments on MESSENGER (did you miss the
fact that they also used some instruments to observe the Moon?). There was
no good reason to also try to get images of other planets (let alone the
Sun), so such observations were not attempted. These facts do not go along
with your paranoid delusions, so you ignore them.
snip
Jim Phillips
> Unlike "astrono", possibly yourself and seemingly most others within
> this Usenet that sucks and blows, I don't know all there is to know,
> and I even make more than my fair share of mistakes. Of course, it
> would certainly help if others that seemingly always insist that they
> do know all there is to know, if those wizards would share and share
> alike, while tossing out as little flak and none of their usual PC
> intended spermware/malware that only proves that I'm more right than
> I'd thought.
This is the closest I've seen a conspiracy nut such as yourself
come to apologize--good for you.
David Williams
-> that, using your own numbers for CCDs, MESSENGER would not have been able to
-> image the Earth and even the brightest star in the same image. I can only
-> assume that you concede my point.
What you showed was that the two objects could not have been
simultaneously imaged *if all the light from the Earth had been
concentrated on a single pixel of the CCD*. But, in fact, Earth
occupied a substantial part of the sky as seen from Messenger at the
time. Its image occupied a large number of pixels on the CCD, each of
which received only an amount of light that was comparable to what
would be received from a star, which would occupy just one pixel.
dow
Brad Guth
Jim Phillips;
>I noticed you snipped out the part of my post where I demonstrated
>that, using your own numbers for CCDs, MESSENGER would not have been able to
>image the Earth and even the brightest star in the same image. I can only
>assume that you concede my point.
Do not assume squat because, I'm the only honest person on Earth that's
allowed to use deductive reasoning that so happens to coincide quite
nicely with well established hard-science and those regular laws of
physics.
As I'd said, any damn LLPOF fool on the hill can selectively utilize
the least portion of any given CCD's DR, not to mention in the case of
your MESSENGER having terrific optical filters available as to further
exclude whatever's not supposed to be there, and not to mention the
PhotoShop digital image conditioning/moderation prior to public release
and, that's not even to mention upon the rather terrific collective of
having their own brown-nosed incest cloned borgs like yourself, that'll
gladly infomercial hore on behalf saying whatever it takes, or else.
Speaking about "Christ on a stick";
>Why does he need to return? Didn't he get it right the first time?
Apparently he screwed up really bad the first time around. Firstly by
associating himself anywhere near Jews and secondly by not having
directed God to hit the total-reset button while the opportunity was at
hand. Although, I'm fairly certain that folks that'll so willingly hore
themselves for the good of their pagan mainstream status quo gipper, of
which is now getting to be an all-in-one disinformation-R-us fiasco of
NOVA/GOOGLE and MI6/NSA~NASA that's been further cloaking on behalf of
our Skull and Bones directing their perpetrated cold-wars and,
essentially being encharge of all the other "high standards and
accountability" that really sucks and blows at the same time, that is
if it weren't for your warm and fuzzy warlords's "so what's the
difference" policy that sucks and blows even harder.
I am however glad to hear that you're supposedly NOT a resident
warlord(GW Bush) supporter, just tolerating that SOB as long as your
energy investments and offshore bank account isn't plundered, or
another large aircraft isn't smashing itself into the building that
you're within, or being mistakenly taken out by another STINGER.
The only reason's why I'm returning the favor of bashing upon such nice
souls such as yourself, is because you're DEAD WRONG as hell. Of course
being dead wrong about WMD didn't manage to save us from the massive
collateral damage and on behalf of the tens of thousands of innocent
souls, nor having prevented blowing trillions dow the nearest
perpetrated cold-war and NASA/Apollo space-toilet of "so what's the
difference?".
>I used *your* numbers for CCD and the magnitude scale to show that
>you were wrong. Take it like a man.
OK, I give up. Obviously of those MESSENGER optics and of their
absolutely crapy CCDs with their pathetic 12-bit A/D are simply too
inferior and otherwise operated by the sorts of absolute idiot morons
that don't seem to realize that their cell-phones can take a sufficient
picture from Earth of the moon (especially in earthshine mode) along
with the likes of Venus and even a somewhat dim Mercury, thus I'd
suppose if MESSENGER were outfitted with such an 8-bit cell-phone
camera we'd have been able to easily image upon a Earth/moon w/Venus
shot, or possibly even an Earth/moon w/Mercury shot. Apparently the
dozens of amateur photographic examples (several of which severely
limited by the DR of film) are all nothing but a bloody pack of incest
cloned liars, as in bogus and totally phony baloney images by way your
high standards and accountability. Apparently being situated in space
is yet another strong deduction as for obtaining crispy images with
much better off than a DR of 128:1, which would certainly account for
the terrific quality images of Earth along with absolutely nothing else
to mention.
Folks like yourself have been either so awe-struck or well paganised by
our NASA/Apollo that they've failed to even appreciate the extremely
low albedo as well as the true/natural deep rich colors of our moon
being of such a dark/dirty (carbon/soot and iron) infused brown with a
few sizable areas or zones of deep bluish elements to boot, and
otherwise offering nothing much other that exceeds an albedo of 25%.
Earth's atmosphere reacts with such arriving photons, to the point
where the natural color as perceived by the human eye is shifted more
than 50 nm towards blue, and it also filters out the bulk worth of UV
spectrum energy while otherwise accepting (allowing through) a
disproportionate degree of the near-IR and IR. Of course in space none
of that spectrum shifting nor intensity moderation applies.
Most of the humanly visible stars as viewed from the surface of Earth
are not those of the near-IR or even all that reddish. However, from
space the numbers of stars visible to the naked eye are not only half
again as many and nearly everything is twice as bright, with those of
the near-UV are so much brighter by nearly 4:1 and, as perceived by the
unfiltered Kodak eye is where those of near-UV and UV-a worth of naked
starshine is rather super-intensified upon the most sensitive of the
three Kodak film emulsions, and of course unless specifically filtered
is where CCDs are even more sensitive to such spectrums that far
exceeds even the Kodak eye.
>From Earth is where the intensity of Mercury is a good magnitude better
illuminating than most of the stars, thus 2.5 fold brighter than most
stars (excluding Sirius) to the human and Kodak eye. Although from
space where a greater extent of the reflected near-UV and UV-a makes
Mercury only slightly (1 ~ 1.5) brighter than the surrounding stars
that could easily have been within frame, of stars that are a bit
hotter than our sun and thus shifted toward the green/blue end of the
spectrum.
However, since none of this means anything to the likes of snookered
fools or perhaps freelance incest cloned borgs like yourself, as such
there's no point in sharing further examples that'll only rock your
good ship LOLLIPOP. But just in case you're not entirely assimilated
into the mainstream collective that has to suck and blow until them
NASA/Apollo cows come home, I'll provide this last but old
consideration.
Of course there's no possible way that your MESSENGER could manage
anything as similar to the following, much less of accommodating such a
horrifically brighter Venus that would have only represented the lunar
albedo as somewhat darker yet, nor had there been any options
whatsoever of ever including any portion of mother Earth and that of
our moon within the same 10.5° frame, because obviously this would
only have made our solar illuminated moon nearly coal-brown dark and
nastier yet, thus any such image was simply just as IMPOSSIBLE to
obtain as were any of those LLPOF WMD;
Jupiter - Moon occultation, as taken by Becky Coretti with Bill
Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a Tom O Compact Platform, using a
rather pathetic ToUCam along with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
Apparently your conditional laws of physics applies to photon numbers
that'll suit the task at hand, as well as excluding upon ccd's with
12,500:1 DR to work with, just as it applies to why you'd never want to
share upon any image of Earth with it's extremely dark albedo moon
because?????
I suppose being that the moon was so relatively nearby and otherwise so
extremely dark as hell is why there was no point in your MESSENGER
wasting a few extra ms exposures from any extra distance (say starting
from as little as 1.5e6 km out) that would most certainly have easily
included Earth and moon as small items that would still have
represented a considerable number of target pixels and, as otherwise
having easily been interfered with by having another planet or two
along with a few of those pesky stars to boot. Sorry about all that,
you know, catching you lying your stinking butt off again and aging.
I suppose this mainstream infection of LLPOF is why your NOVA/GOOGLE
and MI6/NSA spooks with their spermware/malware have been accomplishing
their level best efforts as to interrupt if not terminate my Usenet
access, by way of infecting and if possible damaging my PC. Of course,
anyone including yourself can come by and actually see all of this
Usenet incoming PV flak and that of your damage-control crapolla for
themselves, thus I'm not fibbing, but you most certainly you are by way
using whole object brightness instead of pixel by pixel brightness,
plus then having imposed the utmost limited of DR usage imaginable.
Otherwise, nice borg-like cesspool disinformation try Sir damn fool.
Would you like me to post a few dozen amateur examples of film (like
those from JPL) or those of their relatively low quality CCD efforts?
Perhaps we could have an amateur contest, somewhat of a bounty hunt as
to see which moon shots might include the most other planets and stars
in spite of their low quality cameras of such limited DR and inferior
optics as being sequestered under such a polluted atmosphere, yet
pulling in those items as invisible to your MESSENGER as were all of
those WMD to anyone having and honest gram worth of morals and/or
remorse that you yourself haven't zilch to work with.
Brad Guth
Thanks for respecting that I'm unlike yourself, in that I'm not nearly
as all-knowing. Though otherwise you're still such a total certified
LLPOF of a brown-nosed borg that you simply must start sleeping between
Bush and Cheney.
Please check my previous contribution as listed above.
At least "David Williams" isn't entirely assimilated into your
mainstream status quo. Therefore, perhaps you should direct some of
your spermware/malware flak into his computer as long as your MI6/NSA
spooks are doing their level best to infect my PC.
I could get a bit more accurate about the required distance in order to
have mastered an Earth/moon shot, and even the Earth/moon w/Venus or
otherwise w/Mercury, although that would only further prove that I'm
right and that you're not worth so much as used toilet-paper.
Why are you so afraid of allowing the public to realize how extremely
dark and nasty our moon really is?
Brad Guth
wagging yet another dog to death while sequestering the truth.
At first I didn't catch "astrono's" ruse of a topic diversion. Sorry
about all that, whereas a result I'll have to repost quite a bit of the
good stuff.
For some cloak and dagger reason lord/rusemaster "astrono" thinks it's
SETI funny to have excluded and/or diverted viable contributions away
from his private club, so as the bulk of the originally posted topic
that includes all of the really good-stuff simply vanishes into less
than thin air (another typical Usenet disinformation ozone hole of
evidence exclusions). Thus for those following the rest of the story,
I'm having to inform others as to goto the following alt.sci.planetary
link:
MESSENGER SUCKS, Venus rocks, the moon is still dark and nasty
Onto another MESSENGER like sucking SETI/ETI sub-topic that's supposed
to rock your mainstream status-quo good ship LOLLIPOP. Consider this my
warm and fuzzy form of going Usenet postal with my lose cannon.
What say that it's been an ET game of HIDE and SEEK
This may be somewhat like "crop-circles", with the exception that
they're playing for real finders keepers. However, since we're so dumb
and dumber that we can't even find Osama bin Laden, nor do we realize
what a LLPOF SOB of a resident warlord(GW Bush) we have running us
amuck, thereby what chance in hell (perhaps literally) would we have of
uncovering even somewhat massive ET operations as having transpired
upon Venus?
I'll have to polish on this contribution, as I'm certain that I've
excluded some really nifty considerations, that which I'm pretty sure
others will either directly or indiirectly jog my three remaining
dyslexic brain cells into action.
If you were an ET that was out and about looking for a viable planet to
pillage and plunder, such as for obtaining rare minerals and especially
of atomic elements (thus you certainly wouldn't want an extremely old
planet), however per having an ample supply of ready-made
green/renewable energy at your disposal so that you didn't have to
deplete the onboard cash of energy that got yourself and whatever
motley crew into our solar system in the first place, and of those
choices become the threesome of Venus, Earth and Mars. Which one would
you pick?
Remember that you're already a space-traveling ET, thus if need be
could possibly make due on Titan, and you're not the least bit heathen
nor nearly as snookered and thus least dumbfounded, whereas chances are
that you and your crew actually know a little something extra about
applied physics and about the realistic limitations as to exactly how
much cold or hot and downright nastiness you can manage to survive upon
without your having to drag every last stitch of the entire expedition
along for the ride.
Remember that you'd want the least possible resistance from whatever
locals.
Remember that getting yourself to/from whatever orbit needs to be
energy manageable.
Remember that getting summarily pulverised out of nowhere isn't part of
your plan-A.
Remember about background and influx of lethal radiation that'll need
to remain as minimized.
Remember that you would not want yourself or montely crew getting
infected with lethal microbes.
Remember that even being space-traveling ETs, that you still have
biological and other limitations.
Remember that you'd like some privacy, keeping as much as possible out
of sight and thus out of mind.
Especially as much as possible out of the nearby heathen minds of such
absolute bigoted and arrogant fools that'll invent WMD just for another
perpetrated blood-sport and, as otherwise for the ruse of global energy
domination by way of taking the energy resources of what belongs to
others or, at least keeping such potentially affordable energy out of
the hands of competitive groups that might actually accomplish a few
too many good things.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
Jim Phillips
> Jim Phillips,
> Thanks for respecting that I'm unlike yourself, in that I'm not nearly
> as all-knowing. Though otherwise you're still such a total certified
> LLPOF of a brown-nosed borg that you simply must start sleeping between
> Bush and Cheney.
>
> Please check my previous contribution as listed above.
First of all, you snipped them out.
Second of all, you never actually answered my points about the
brightness of the Earth in comparison to the brightness of other bodies at
the time MESSENGER flew by Earth.
> At least "David Williams" isn't entirely assimilated into your
> mainstream status quo. Therefore, perhaps you should direct some of
> your spermware/malware flak into his computer as long as your MI6/NSA
> spooks are doing their level best to infect my PC.
Your paranoid fantasies have no effect on our discussion.
And if you're that paranoid about such things, buy a Mac.
> I could get a bit more accurate about the required distance in order to
> have mastered an Earth/moon shot, and even the Earth/moon w/Venus or
> otherwise w/Mercury, although that would only further prove that I'm
> right and that you're not worth so much as used toilet-paper.
I accept your surrender on this point.
> Why are you so afraid of allowing the public to realize how extremely
> dark and nasty our moon really is?
One of the more bizarre nonsequiturs I've seen. How do you construe
my questioning of your demonstrably wrong claims about MESSENGER somehow a
claim that the Moon isn't "dark and nasty"?
Jim Phillips
> Here's me running away.
>
> Jim Phillips;
> >I noticed you snipped out the part of my post where I demonstrated
> >that, using your own numbers for CCDs, MESSENGER would not have been able to
> >image the Earth and even the brightest star in the same image. I can only
> >assume that you concede my point.
> Do not assume squat because, I'm the only honest person on Earth that's
> allowed to use deductive reasoning that so happens to coincide quite
> nicely with well established hard-science and those regular laws of
> physics.
You're the only one who gets it right? Nice kooky "reasoning".
You still haven't replied to the numbers I put up beyond trying to
wave them away. Surrender accepted.
> >I used *your* numbers for CCD and the magnitude scale to show that
> >you were wrong. Take it like a man.
> OK, I give up. Obviously of those MESSENGER optics and of their
> absolutely crapy CCDs with their pathetic 12-bit A/D are simply too
> inferior
I only used *your* numbers for top-of-the-line CCDs to demonstrate
that MESSENGER, during its recent flyby, could not possibly have imaged the
Earth and a background star, let alone the Earth and Mercury. Continuing
to ignore numbers that were generated from basic facts is not going to win
you any supporters, but your bizarre conspiracy-laden rants are entertaining
to some extent.
> and otherwise operated by the sorts of absolute idiot morons
> that don't seem to realize that their cell-phones can take a sufficient
> picture from Earth of the moon (especially in earthshine mode) along
> with the likes of Venus and even a somewhat dim Mercury
Again, taking a picture of the Moon and another planet is easy to
do because the Moon is thousands of times dimmer than the Earth is from the
same distance. Run away from this fact all you want, it will still be
waiting for you no matter where you go.
, thus I'd
> suppose if MESSENGER were outfitted with such an 8-bit cell-phone
> camera we'd have been able to easily image upon a Earth/moon w/Venus
> shot,
I have conceded that it's likely that Venus would have been imaged
with the Earth during MESSENGER's Earth flyby *if* Venus had been in the
field of view. Where was Venus in the sky in comparison to the Earth when
MESSENGER did its flyby?
> or possibly even an Earth/moon w/Mercury shot.
Based on Mercury's visual magnitude at the time of MESSENGER's flyby
(which I posted in another message) it's quite impossible for it to have
been imaged
> Apparently the
> dozens of amateur photographic examples (several of which severely
> limited by the DR of film) are all nothing but a bloody pack of incest
> cloned liars,
Are you mathematically illiterate? That's the only conclusion I can
come to when you ignore the fact that the Earth's overwhelming brightness
during MESSENGER's flyby made it impossible to image background stars or the
planet Mercury. And this point doesn't even touch on the question of where
in the sky those bodies would have been during MESSENGER's flyby (i.e. they
would have to have been within a few degrees, at the least, of the Earth
from MESSENGER's viewpoint).
Wow, there's a nugget of actual information in your spew!
The magnitude scale is how astronomers measure the inherent
brightness of an object. This scale is a number, with the brightness
of an object increasing as the number decreases (so that a 2nd magnitude
star is less bright than a 0th magnitude star). The scale is set so that
a difference of 5 magnitudes is a factor of 100, so that a 1st magnitude
star is about 2.5 times as bright as a 2nd magnitude star. Did you not
actually understand what the magnitude scale meant?
Using the Earth and a relativley bright star (0th magnitude) as seen
by MESSENGER during its flyby, you can calculate that the Earth (magnitude
-16) would have been over 2 million times brighter than that star, which
*according to your numbers*, puts it beyond the ability of even the best
CCDs to image the two in the same field.
> Although from
> space where a greater extent of the reflected near-UV and UV-a makes
> Mercury only slightly (1 ~ 1.5) brighter than the surrounding stars
> that could easily have been within frame, of stars that are a bit
> hotter than our sun and thus shifted toward the green/blue end of the
> spectrum.
At the time of MESSENGER's flyby, Mercury's magnitude was 4.10 as
seen from Earth (an increase of 1-1.5 times that number would raise this
to 3.7 or so). The Earth's visual magnitude was about -16, which is about
20 magnitudes brighter. That difference in magnitude corresponds to a
difference in brightness of about 100 million. Does a CCD exist that could
image 2 different objects with such a difference in brightnesses?
And that's not even considering the geometry of the situation. At
the time, Mercury was about 5 degrees from the Sun. If you examine the
Earth images you can see that the Sun never got within 5 degrees of the
Earth as seen from MESSENGER.
> However, since none of this means anything to the likes of snookered
> fools or perhaps freelance incest cloned borgs like yourself, as such
> there's no point in sharing further examples that'll only rock your
> good ship LOLLIPOP.
Given the numbers I've posted, it's hard to explain how MESSENGER
could have imaged Mercury.
But just in case you're not entirely assimilated
> into the mainstream collective that has to suck and blow until them
> NASA/Apollo cows come home, I'll provide this last but old
> consideration.
>
> Of course there's no possible way that your MESSENGER could manage
> anything as similar to the following, much less of accommodating such a
> horrifically brighter Venus that would have only represented the lunar
> albedo as somewhat darker yet, nor had there been any options
> whatsoever of ever including any portion of mother Earth and that of
> our moon within the same 10.5° frame, because obviously this would
> only have made our solar illuminated moon nearly coal-brown dark and
> nastier yet, thus any such image was simply just as IMPOSSIBLE to
> obtain as were any of those LLPOF WMD;
> Jupiter - Moon occultation, as taken by Becky Coretti with Bill
> Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a Tom O Compact Platform, using a
> rather pathetic ToUCam along with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
> http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
Considering that the difference in brightness between the Moon and
Saturn is less than 10,000, this is not comparable to MESSENGER imaging
Mercury and the Earth.
> Apparently your conditional laws of physics applies to photon numbers
> that'll suit the task at hand, as well as excluding upon ccd's with
> 12,500:1 DR to work with, just as it applies to why you'd never want to
> share upon any image of Earth with it's extremely dark albedo moon
> because?????
If you had to test how well a probe's instruments function, why
would you try to get such a difficult shot in addition to all of the other
observations you wanted to make?
> I suppose being that the moon was so relatively nearby and otherwise so
> extremely dark as hell is why there was no point in your MESSENGER
> wasting a few extra ms exposures from any extra distance (say starting
> from as little as 1.5e6 km out) that would most certainly have easily
> included Earth and moon as small items that would still have
> represented a considerable number of target pixels and, as otherwise
> having easily been interfered with by having another planet or two
> along with a few of those pesky stars to boot. Sorry about all that,
> you know, catching you lying your stinking butt off again and aging.
You still haven't explained why the MESSENGER people would even
bother taking such an image. You simply do not appreciate how difficult
it is to plan a flyby mission, and that taking a shot of the Earth and Moon
takes valuable time away from planning imaging of the Earth, which the team
used to test the spacecraft's instruments. You'll probably continue to use
your ignorance of the process to spin increasingly bizarre conspiracy
theories, but that doesn't make them any less bizarre.
> Would you like me to post a few dozen amateur examples of film (like
> those from JPL) or those of their relatively low quality CCD efforts?
If you can find a single image that captures 2 objects that differ
by 20 magnitudes, I'd like to see it. But please simply post a URL--there's
no need to clutter up these groups with image files.
> Perhaps we could have an amateur contest, somewhat of a bounty hunt as
> to see which moon shots might include the most other planets and stars
> in spite of their low quality cameras of such limited DR and inferior
> optics as being sequestered under such a polluted atmosphere, yet
> pulling in those items as invisible to your MESSENGER as were all of
> those WMD to anyone having and honest gram worth of morals and/or
> remorse that you yourself haven't zilch to work with.
Again, if you can find a single image that includes the full Moon
(magnitude -12) and a dim star (magnitude 8), let me know. If you can't,
stop claiming that MESSENGER could have imaged the Earth and Mercury at
the same time.
Brad Guth
brown-nosed borg (ala Jim Phillips),
The moon is not only extremely dark and nasty, it's also extremely
reactive, and your MESSENGER did all they could to avoid getting an
image of that moon or of anything other than Earth by simply using
8-bit or less of the lowest portion of the CCD dynamic range (those
could have been limited to as little a 6-bit and have given us the
terrific 128:1 DR image of Earth). End of that discussion because all
that you intend to accomplish is MOS dog-wagging and damage-control as
based upon conditional physics and upon evidence exclusions.
Not that any self-respecting pro-NASA/Apollo individual is ever going
to accept the truth as to this notion that our NASA uses our solar
illuminated moon as their satellite instrument calibration of
hard-X-ray dosage but, if you ever bothered to accomplish the reverse
math upon what that alone represents as based upon the square of the
distance and lo and behold, the resulting near surface dosage
(especially of the solar illuminated deck) becomes real nasty.
There's roughly 376,284 km of surface to surface distance between the
two of us. A satellite or that of ISS at 400 km off the deck will bring
that down to 375, 884 km of least distance between their orbit and
closest distance from the lunar deck. Of course there's factors that'll
have to make the distance upon average a bit greater, thus for argument
sake of what's radiating hard-X-rays at us, lets give this distance a
factor of 380,000 km to work with.
If you'd like being ultra conservative (even though it's closer to a
millirem/day) give the measured secondary/recoil dosage that's
specifically of hard-X-rays as derived off the reactive moon as being
worth just one extra microrem (0.000001 rem) per day as measured by ISS
instruments.
Then because the Van Allen zone is such an expanse that represents a
significant shield or buffer worth a conservative factor of 100:1 makes
the first half distance basis of TBI dosage amount to 400e-6 rem/day at
190,000 km away from the solar illuminated deck of the moon, with the
remainder of the distance strictly a ratio of increased TBI dosage
increase as based upon the square of the distance.
380,000 km = 1e-6 rem/day
190,000 km = 400e-6 rem/day
95,000 km = 1600e-6 rem/day
47,500 km = 6400e-6 rem/day
23,750 km = 25.6e-3 rem/day
11,875 km = 102.4e-3 rem/day
5,938 km = 409.6e-3 rem/day
2,969 km = 1.638 rem/day
1,485 km = 6.552 rem/day
742.5 km = 26.2 rem/day
371.3 km = 104.8 rem/day
185.6 km = 419.2 rem/day
Thus even at 1 microrem/day that's impacting ISS or any other satellite
as having derived hard-X-rays off the solar reactive moon, and if going
into orbiting mode within 1r (1738 km) off the lunar deck is worth
nearly 6 rem/day. Even dividing that dosage in half because of your
orbiting the moon makes it worth 3 rem per day while orbiting 1738 km
off the deck. Of course, since this is almost entirely solar influx
generated and the sun itself is anything but a constant, thus if the
starting point of this measurement was actually based upon the extra
millirem/day instead of the extra microrem/day, as such you're now
looking at the orbiting dosage of 3,000 rem or 30 Sv/day that's of
hard-X-rays being external to your spacecraft as derived upon average
off the reactive moon.
Naturally our NASA/Apollo missions were so much closer than 1738 km off
the deck, and for those supposedly upon the deck were obviously getting
TBI nailed real good. Of course that's not possible if you'd take the
NASA/Apollo bible into account because, we're only off by a few
thousand to one.
Of course the lunar nighttime and the actual substance of the moon
itself is going to contribute it's fair share of background and
reactive cosmic sourced worth of hard-X-rays that shouldn't contribute
1% of what the solar impacted side has to offer, of which from such an
extreme orbit of 1738 km off the deck should be all that testy.
Although actually being on the nighttime/earthshine illuminated deck
it's going to be worth several rads/day if not per hour, which isn't a
problem for robotics w/o DNA.
Though as per usual, each and every day it's getting worse off, as I
seem to have gotten more than my fair share of the GOOGLE/NOVA V-Chip
spermware/malware gauntlet that's specifically associated specifically
with my MI6/NSA Usenet interactions, thus nearly always I'm having to
frequently reboot because of their ongoing efforts as to damage and/or
eliminate my existence as far as having any public Usenet access or
even so much as a working PC. This is the absolute truth and nothing
but the truth that's easily 100% provable, which only further
demonstrates that I'm essentially right about most everything, thus
worth targeting on behalf of damage-control. The excuses that it's all
my fault and that GOOGLE/NOVA and their partners MI6/NSA in crimes
against humanity can't possibly avoid nor track a given source of
spermware/malware, much less block it is another LLPOF proof-positive
that I'm right.
BTW; using a MAC isn't offering any form of buffer or other worthy
shield against the vast expertise and gauntlet of spermware/malware
generated by GOOGLE/NOVA and their MI6/NSA partners in crimes against
humanity.
Brad Guth
getting any such unfortunate images of that dark moon or of anything
other than Earth by simply using a closeup and 8-bit or less capability
of the lowest DR portion and by merely using the fastest possible scan
of their CCD dynamic range (those efforts could easily have been
limited to as little as 6-bit as having given us the same terrific
128:1 DR quality images of Earth). End of that discussion because, all
that the MESSENGER supporters ever intend to accomplish is MOS
dog-wagging, infomercial spin, hype and subsequent damage-control as
based upon MOS conditional laws of physics, as well as upon
implementing as much evidence exclusion as it takes.
shield against the vast expertise and gauntlet of formal
spermware/malware generated and delivered by way of GOOGLE/NOVA and
their MI6/NSA disinformation partners in crimes against humanity.
Jim Phillips
> Dear Mr. pro warlord(GW Bush) and otherwise LLPOF incest cloned
> brown-nosed borg (ala Jim Phillips),
> The moon is not only extremely dark and nasty, it's also extremely
> reactive, and your MESSENGER did all they could to avoid getting an
> image of that moon or of anything other than Earth
What a ridiculous statement!
In what way is the Moon "reactive"?
by simply using
> 8-bit or less of the lowest portion of the CCD dynamic range (those
> could have been limited to as little a 6-bit and have given us the
> terrific 128:1 DR image of Earth). End of that discussion because all
> that you intend to accomplish is MOS dog-wagging and damage-control as
> based upon conditional physics and upon evidence exclusions.
And you *still* haven't explained why the MESSENGER people would
bother (or even need) to image the Earth and Moon. They tested their
instruments on the Earth to make sure they work. They didn't "avoid"
getting an image of the Earth and Moon, they didn't waste the precious flyby
time with a dumbass idea like that.
> Not that any self-respecting pro-NASA/Apollo individual is ever going
> to accept the truth as to this notion that our NASA uses our solar
> illuminated moon as their satellite instrument calibration of
> hard-X-ray dosage but, if you ever bothered to accomplish the reverse
> math upon what that alone represents as based upon the square of the
> distance and lo and behold, the resulting near surface dosage
> (especially of the solar illuminated deck) becomes real nasty.
Are you saying that x-rays from the Moon are dangerous???
> There's roughly 376,284 km of surface to surface distance between the
> two of us. A satellite or that of ISS at 400 km off the deck will bring
> that down to 375, 884 km of least distance between their orbit and
> closest distance from the lunar deck. Of course there's factors that'll
> have to make the distance upon average a bit greater, thus for argument
> sake of what's radiating hard-X-rays at us, lets give this distance a
> factor of 380,000 km to work with.
I reject your premise that the Moon is "radiating hard-X-rays at us"
without some evidence beyond your say-so, since your say-so on other matters
has proven to be way off.
big snip
Brad Guth
in moderation status quo, or simply didn't arrive in the first place
because of the gauntlet of ongoing spermware/malware I'm up against.
No surrender, I just do not give a tinkers crapolla about every last
LLPOF word you've had to say.
BTW; whatever happened to news.admin.net-abuse.sightings "David
Williams"?
>I only used *your* numbers for top-of-the-line CCDs to demonstrate
>that MESSENGER, during its recent flyby, could not possibly have imaged the
>Earth and a background star
That's really too gosh darn bad about how poorly the MESSENGER CCDs and
their optics is working.
What did you think about ductaping a cell-phone camera to MESSENGER,
whereas at least that would have worked a whole lot better. There's
still nothing the least bit difficult of what the 10.5° look-see could
have easily managed on the incoming or outgoing perspective.
>Again, taking a picture of the Moon and another planet is easy to
>do because the Moon is thousands of times dimmer than the Earth is from the
>same distance. Run away from this fact all you want, it will still be
>waiting for you no matter where you go.
Can I quote you on this astounding "Moon is thousands of times dimmer
than the Earth is from the same distance"?
I've always known the moon was extremely dark but, I never realized it
was pixel/pixel thousands of times darker?
>Where was Venus in the sky in comparison to the Earth when
>MESSENGER did its flyby?
Exactly where the MESSENGER software said it was, and thame goes of the
location of Mercury and obviously that of our apparently invisible moon
because of being "thousands of times dimmer than the Earth".
>You still haven't explained why the MESSENGER people would even
>bother taking such an image. You simply do not appreciate how difficult
>it is to plan a flyby mission, and that taking a shot of the Earth and Moon
>takes valuable time ...
Whatever a little extra time as starting the sequence a bit early and
ending late have to do with much of anything?
What does using the fullest DR capability (12,500:1) of the CCD have to
do with anything?
Using a longer scan or greater over-exposure from being situated a bit
further away wouldn't have busted either of their CCDs. Filling the
FWC/FBC to the absolute max or even over-filling would only have
bloomed the white clouds and of whatever's ice and snow.
Therefore I see nearly zero as extra imaging cost and, less than zero
as for any complications. What complications or extra frame by frame
imaging net cost are we talking about?
>If you can find a single image that captures 2 objects that differ
>by 20 magnitudes, I'd like to see it. But please simply post a URL--there's
>no need to clutter up these groups with image files.
What 20 magnitudes worth of absolute total pixel crapolla are you
talking about, I've already done that and been there you Fing
sanctimonious moron, and besides, if you weren't such a brown-nosed
incest cloned borg you could just as easily accomplish a search for
yourself. In fact, there's so many images of an earthshine and partial
solar illuminated moon along with a few stars and certainly planets
within the same frame (as recorded upon limited DR film none the less)
that there's too many to pick from.
It seems that your Usenet that sucks is quite busy these days,
extracting whatever gives my side of the argument any support
whatsoever. Guess what else: it seems that your math is wrong, thus
your pathetic excuses have been dead wrong and team MESSENGER actually
does suck and blow big-time. Your partner "David Williams" that has
since pulled his contribution and/or perhaps been recently exterminated
by those MI6/NSA Usenet MEN-in-BLACK, hasn't exactly giving your
argument all that much to work with. At least your "John Carruthers"
knows when to pull the life-support plug and get the hell out of town.
There's more than good reason for MESSENGER to have avoided our moon
because, that moon is not only extremely dark and nasty as all get-out,
it's also extremely solar and cosmic reactive, and the MESSENGER team
most certainly did all they could in order to avoid getting any such
unfortunate images of that dark moon or of anything other than Earth by
simply using a closeup and 8-bit or less capability of the lowest DR
portion by merely using the fastest appropriate scan of their CCD
dynamic range (those efforts could easily have been limited to as
little as 6-bit as having given us the same terrific 128:1 DR quality
images of Earth). End of that discussion because, all that the
MESSENGER supporters ever intend to accomplish is MOS dog-wagging,
infomercial spin, hype and subsequent damage-control as based upon MOS
conditional laws of physics, as well as upon implementing as much
evidence exclusion as it takes.
Not that any self-respecting pro-NASA/Apollo individual is ever going
to accept the truth as to this notion that our NASA uses our solar
illuminated moon as their satellite instrument calibration of
hard-X-ray dosage but, if you ever bothered to accomplish the reverse
math upon what that alone represents as based upon the square of the
distance and lo and behold, the resulting near surface dosage
(especially of the solar illuminated deck) becomes real nasty.
There's roughly 376,284 km of surface to surface distance between the
two of us. A satellite or that of ISS at 400 km off the deck will bring
that down to 375, 884 km of least distance between their orbit and
closest distance from the lunar deck. Of course there's factors that'll
have to make the distance upon average a bit greater, thus for argument
sake of what's radiating hard-X-rays at us, lets give this distance a
factor of 380,000 km to work with.
If you'd like being ultra conservative (even though it's closer to a
David Williams
-> by MESSENGER during its flyby, you can calculate that the Earth (magnitude
-> -16) would have been over 2 million times brighter than that star, which
-> *according to your numbers*, puts it beyond the ability of even the best
-> CCDs to image the two in the same field.
Nonsense. CCDs have millions of pixels. If the image of the Earth
occupied 2 million pixels, and the star's light was focussed onto just
one pixel, then the star's pixel would receive just as much light as
the average for the pixels in the image of the Earth. The CCD could
perfectly easily handle them both at the same time.
You are getting confused between the *total* brightnesses of objects
and their *brightness densities* - i.e. the amount of light *per
steradian* (or whatever solid angle unit) that they produce. The
capabilities of CCDs depend on brightness densities, *not* on total
brightnesses. As seen from Messenger at the time the image was taken,
the brightness densities of the star and the Earth were more or less
the same.
dow
Brad Guth
Here's a Jupiter - Moon occultation
Taken by Becky Coretti with Bill Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a
Tom O Compact Platform. A ToUCam was used with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
I think this was via a fairly crapy CCD of only a moderate DR worth of
a digital camera compared to MESSENGER, though obviously terrific
magnification. At least the dark color of the moon is getting somewhat
realistic. Actually, it has obviously been published at a much greater
factor of illumination (possibly 2:1 brighter) than what Jupiter really
is, thus the moon is actually considerably darker and a bit more
brownish if the brightness level of Jupiter was reset to what it should
be.
David Williams
-> a digital camera compared to MESSENGER, though obviously terrific
-> magnification. At least the dark color of the moon is getting somewhat
-> realistic. Actually, it has obviously been published at a much greater
-> factor of illumination (possibly 2:1 brighter) than what Jupiter really
-> is, thus the moon is actually considerably darker and a bit more
-> brownish if the brightness level of Jupiter was reset to what it should
-> be.
Remember that Jupiter is about five times further from the sun than the
Earth-moon system, so it is illuminated only about 1/25 as strongly. If
Jupiter's albedo is 0.7, which I think is about right, then its surface
brightness would "match" that of the moon if the moon's albedo is only
0.028 (i.e. 0.7/25). This value, 2 or 3 percent, is the accepted albedo
of the moon, although it varies somewhat with the angles of
illumination and the viewpoint.
dow
Brad Guth
I've certainly made way more than my fair share. Such as your using the
entire nearby object of Earth or the moon as though either represents
an insurmountable spot-source of horrific brightness as opposed to that
of an obviously smaller speck of illumination of what's comming off the
75+% albedo of Venus that's actually pixel per pixel even considerably
brigher than our moon, if not nearly as bright as much of what Earth
reflects. Even the available pixel/pixel illumination of Mercury should
not have been below the DR of those terrific CCDs having such a
FBC(full bucket capacity) worth of 100,000 along with such impressive
optics to boot. I believe the full DR worth of 12,500:1 was
impressively there to behold in 12-bit groups of 4095:1.
Obviously you have it in for the likes of myself simply because my
mindset does't worship the NASA/Apollo ruse/sting of our perpetrated
cold-war century like you do, though actually pulling even that much
off is still damn impressive by my standards. Even orbiting that nasty
reactive moon from 100+km is pushing well past the red-line of what the
regular laws of physics has to say, thus I'm certainly even more
impressed if those orbits were accomplished in person, although if
robotically accomplished is still damn impressive by my standards
because, none others have even managed that much.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
David Williams
-> came to within about 35,000 miles of the Earth. The Moon's average distance
-> from the Earth is about 238,000 miles. If MESSENGER was going to get a nice
-> image of the two, it would have had to do so long before the flyby.
I have seen Mercury and Jupiter in the same binocular-field. How can
that be possible? Mercury is much closer to the sun than Earth is, and
Jupiter is much further away.
Figure that one out, and you'll also have the answer to how it was
possible for Messenger to see the Earth and moon at the same time.
dow
Jonathan Silverlight
<david.w...@bayman.org> writes
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls :-)
--
Boycott Yahoo!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
Ra
Brad Guth
Thanks so much for your better words and correctness, whereas I totally
agree that it's as you say;
>Nonsense. CCDs have millions of pixels. If the image of the Earth
>occupied 2 million pixels, and the star's light was focussed onto just
>one pixel, then the star's pixel would receive just as much light as
>the average for the pixels in the image of the Earth. The CCD could
>perfectly easily handle them both at the same time.
I'll also fully concur,
>You are getting confused between the *total* brightnesses of objects
>and their *brightness densities* - i.e. the amount of light *per
>steradian* (or whatever solid angle unit) that they produce. The
>capabilities of CCDs depend on brightness densities, *not* on total
>brightnesses. As seen from Messenger at the time the image was taken,
>the brightness densities of the star and the Earth were more or less
>the same.
At least you and I know darn good and well that throughout the
MESSENGER flyby of Earth was a perfectly good opportunity to have
started their imaging sequence a bit early and ended a bit late, thus
with the 10.5° optics and the absolutely terrific CCD/DR at hand (not
to mention those nifty optical filters), as such it would normally have
been impossible to have excluded our moon and that of Venus while going
through in one direction and even that of obtaining a look-see at
including Mercury while going in the other direction. Of any flyby
coming or going task there shouldn't have been any mission related
complications nor added burden to have included a portion if not the
entire moon, as easily included within the initial frames as
approaching Earth and of the final frames as leaving town.
It's that simple, and team MESSENGER as well as the likes of Jim
Phillips are either seriously dumb and dumber or they're just lying
their sanctimonious brown-noses and stinking butts off as usual. In
other words, there's no "getting confused" if you're intentionally
being another LLPOF rusemaster and status quo damage-control
minion/borg like Jim Phillips.
If anything, it took damn careful navigating and obviously sequence
timing so as to intentionally exclude our dark and nasty moon from that
flyby observation of Earth. Of course, PhotoShop could have easily
accomplish the similar removal task, especially since the selected
bottom FBC(full bucket capacity) portion and perhaps even limited to
6-bits was utilized instead of allowing the maximum FBC and 12-bit
conversion, which would certainly have provided an absolutely terrific
sequence of Earth images without making stars vanish, thus obviously a
dark and nasty moon certainly would have been recorded at the 0.11~0.12
albedo, as having been nicely recorded within the same frames
containing a 0.33~0.36 albedo Earth. Good grief almighty folks, that's
only a 3:1 ratio.
Of course, in addition to the brown-nosed spookology and thus
disinformation-R-us mindset of Jim Phillips, it seems that I have
attracted another one of those off-topic contributions by
lord/rusemaster Jonathan Silverlight acting as Usenet MEN-in-BLACK
damage-control cop.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; War is War, thus "in war there are
Brad Guth
>In what way is the Moon "reactive"?
Any mass (including air or even H2) creates secondary/recoil photons.
The greater the density of a raw naked mass becomes the greater worth
of secondary/recoil photons generated. I believe it would take perhaps
30t/m2 worth of solid lead(Amu 207) in order to accomplish as much
attenuation as 10t/m2 of atmosphere(Amu 29).
Even Aluminum has an Amu value of 27
This next hot-link gets a wee bit confusing as to whatever your
aluminum craft shielding aspects of secondary TBI amounts to. However,
with some effort you can safely extrapolate as to what's necessary out
of this NASA official set of charts, though due to the usual
hocus-pocus scientific encryptions, I'd advise that you carefully read
through the fine print several times before coming to any conclusions:
http://conxproject.gsfc.nasa.gov/radiation/docs/con_x_dose1.pdf
>Are you saying that x-rays from the Moon are dangerous???
Only to DNA/RNA, but otherwise you'd be just a bit roasting but
otherwise fine and dandy, that is unless something such as a spec of
sand or even dust-bunny arrives upon your moonsuit at 3+km/s, much less
30+km/s.
>And you *still* haven't explained why the MESSENGER people would
>bother (or even need) to image the Earth and Moon. They tested their
>instruments on the Earth to make sure they work. They didn't "avoid"
>getting an image of the Earth and Moon, they didn't waste the precious flyby
>time with a dumbass idea like that.
See "David Williams" and my reply to his perfectly honest
contributions.
>I reject your premise that the Moon is "radiating hard-X-rays at us"
>without some evidence beyond your say-so, since your say-so on other matters
>has proven to be way off.
OK, reject all you want, reject your own mother for all I care, as then
you're rejecting that NASA and our AirForce uses our moon all the time
as a point-source of their radiation instrument calibration, which I do
believe at good altitude a full moon is worth more than contributing an
extra mr/day, and obviously there's more yet if you're situated in LEO,
whereas ISS is only 50% of the time being exposed. I do not know what
the maximum secondary influx dosage is worth but, I'd have to think
that coming off a full-moon as having a truly bad and nasty solar day
is when 100 mr/day becomes possible. In which case the solar
illuminated lunar deck itself is good for all of a few minutes of
moonsuit exposure before even having that cash of banked bone marrow
can't save the day.
Obviously an extra whopping 100 mr/day as having been contributed by a
moon is reduced by the ISS shielding to levels that are not short-term
lethal. It takes 0.7"(18 mm) of pure lead to cut hard-X-ray dosage by
50%. Fortunately for the likes of ISS, 50% of the time they have the
entire Earth plus a bit of it's atmosphere as blocking. Fortunately
there are few of those bad solar days, as well as most often there
isn't always a full moon to deal with. So, there's lots of good things
going on behalf of surviving within ISS, that is as long as they manage
to stay clear of the SAA, or didn't you realize there was a perfectly
lethal reason why ISS can't safely cruise much greater than 375 km (it
seems the sky is essentially falling, and that's because the
magnetosphere energy level is falling like never previously recorded).
Because of folks like yourself is why I've elected to use the
microrem/day as a calibration starting off point for estimating the
near surface environment of the solar illuminated moon, which is still
way too damn TBI for my body and soul, not to mention a little tough on
my DNA/RNA.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; War is War, thus "in war there are
David Williams
-> MESSENGER flyby of Earth was a perfectly good opportunity to have
-> started their imaging sequence a bit early and ended a bit late, thus
-> with the 10.5° optics and the absolutely terrific CCD/DR at hand (not
-> to mention those nifty optical filters), as such it would normally have
-> been impossible to have excluded our moon and that of Venus while going
-> through in one direction and even that of obtaining a look-see at
-> including Mercury while going in the other direction. Of any flyby
-> coming or going task there shouldn't have been any mission related
-> complications nor added burden to have included a portion if not the
-> entire moon, as easily included within the initial frames as
-> approaching Earth and of the final frames as leaving town.
Why would they waste time during the Earth flyby to image Venus and
Mercury, or even the moon? Venus will be best imaged when Messenger
flies-by close to it, and Mercury is the target of the mission, and
will (if all goes well) be orbited by Messenger for an indefinite
period after its arrival. And as for the moon, many spacecraft have
taken far better images of it than Messenger could have done, including
the ESA's Smart craft which is currently in orbit around the moon.
The purpose of taking any images from Messenger as it flew past Earth
was to test the cameras that are designed for detailed study of a
nearby planet. Looking at distant objects was irrelevant.
dow
P.S. Mercury is always close to the sun in the sky, and at the time of
the flyby Venus was too. Pointing the cameras toward them would have
been risky.
Brad Guth
Thanks much. I'd first noticed the moon/Jupiter images as having been
properly reproduced in the April, 2005 SKY & Telescope publication (p
132), thus wanted to share those with the likes of "Jim Phillips" that
thinks his MESSENGER can't possibly have recorded the likes of our
moon, a few stars and Venus or much less Mercury as being anywhere in
frame throughout any portion of that controlled flyby.
Apparently their camera was broken, as in malfunctioning and simply
couldn't be started soon enough nor kept running much getting itself
past Earth, and they could only utilize the dreags of their FWC/FBC and
perhaps as little as 6 bit image processing to boot.
Brad Guth
Nicely scripted (save thy butt) response.
What happened to our moon and, what happened to yourself?
Did those Skull and Bones MEN-in-BLACK show up?
>P.S. Mercury is always close to the sun in the sky, and at the time of
>the flyby Venus was too. Pointing the cameras toward them would have
>been risky.
Yet another mainstream status quo butt-save, as in big-time LLPOF
buttology and lo and behold, with a half-assed solar-simulator I or any
other village idiot can prove it.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Brad Guth
the "Please Do Not Feed The Trolls :-)" submitted by (Usenet rusemaster
and damage control cop) Jonathan Silverlight.
Our moon and Venus are each nearest but remain as topic taboo. You
can't even so much as discuss the complex lunar atmosphere which is
actually rather extensive at extending past 14,000 km off the deck,
thus nearest the surface having a likely Radon plus other complex
elements worth of a thin but viable atmospheric environment. Which of
course means that our moon is in fact reactive and perhaps fairly
newish in terms of having a cash of Radium to work with. Wherever
there's such raw elements of salts(sodium), iron, titanium and
carbon/soot plus a slew of elements contained within raw basalt there's
got to be fairly extensive amounts of Argon and even Oxygen to being
had. Thus whatever's physically albedo dark and nasty about our moon
isn't to be discussed if that should in any way involve questions as to
why our Lunar Surveyors or Apollo EVA lunar expeditions transpired on
some other moon, as neither of which amounted to anything as having
been obtained from orbit or even by the most recent terrestrial
observations about our moon.
Too bad life as we know it, thus astronomy and just about everything
else these day's sucks (especially if you're a Muslim caught sitting on
an oily rock), such as whenever the regular laws of physics and of
hard-science as evidence are continually excluded on behalf of
extremely brown-nosed folks sustaining their mainstream LLPOF status
quo. It's no wonder the terrific imaging resolution and quality of
color spectrum renderings which were supposedly so capable as derived
from MESSENGER had to avoid imaging our moon, especially in any
relationship along with Earth or any other target of albedo and of
color spectrum reference at all cost. Apparently there are
insider/nondisclosure rules about such things.
Basically, I'd started this "MESSENGER" topic out on a positive note of
simply explaining that there was no good technical reasons for the
MESSENGER team to have excluded our extremely dark brownish and low but
easily recorded albedo of a moon within their recent Earth flyby, as
nothing the least bit special or unusual would have been required. But
then it seems only fair that with such a terrific quality CCD and
custom optics, in that a few stars and certainly the likes of Venus and
even that of Mercury should also have been in a few frames worth of
their infomercial movie, yet lo and behold, it seems our Earth was
naked w/o moon, w/o stars and w/o other planets, even w/o sun which
could have been safely managed without fuss nor muss.
In fact, the nearby planets besides Venus and Mercury, such as Mars and
Jupiter and certainly that of a few stars that were within the dynamic
range of their being easily recorded along with most everything else,
which goes to prove that the Messenger images and movie of Earth were
in fact PhotoShop moderated to death in order to have excluded all such
potential distractions.
Therefore, the ongoing NASA/Apollo "high standards and accountability"
as to supporting their ruse/sting of the century continues as we speak,
and the brown-nosed status quo of their infomercial sucking and blowing
continues as well. That's too bad that we can't even trust such
infomercials and dog-wagging spin and hype from another rather pathetic
(so what's the difference?) yet spendy as all get out mission to
Mercury, which only makes myself wonder all the more as to what else
we're being excluded from knowing about.
There's not enough of "David Williams" types to go around, although I
see by his latest butt-saving contribution that arrived shortly after
these two following tidbits, that the MI6/NSA MEN-in-BLACK have
moderated down upon even the kind words of "David Williams", as to his
polite and proper corrections applied to what rusemaster "Jim Phillips"
was spouting is now suddenly in close (scripted) agreement. Though just
in case others are interested, I'll repost David's previous statements
for good measure.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.planetary/browse_frm/thread/1f2ba57f6141a6b0/fecf4345e127c4a3?lnk=st&q=David+Williams+messenger&rnum=5&hl=en#fecf4345e127c4a3
18. David Williams Oct 15, 3:46 pm
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: david.willi...@bayman.org (David Williams) - Find messages by
this author
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:46:07 -0500
Local: Sat, Oct 15 2005 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: MESSENGER SUCKS, Venus rocks, the moon is still dark and
nasty
-> Using the Earth and a relativley bright star (0th magnitude) as
seen
-> by MESSENGER during its flyby, you can calculate that the Earth
(magnitude
-> -16) would have been over 2 million times brighter than that star,
which
-> *according to your numbers*, puts it beyond the ability of even the
best
-> CCDs to image the two in the same field.
Nonsense. CCDs have millions of pixels. If the image of the Earth
occupied 2 million pixels, and the star's light was focussed onto just
one pixel, then the star's pixel would receive just as much light as
the average for the pixels in the image of the Earth. The CCD could
perfectly easily handle them both at the same time.
You are getting confused between the *total* brightnesses of objects
and their *brightness densities* - i.e. the amount of light *per
steradian* (or whatever solid angle unit) that they produce. The
capabilities of CCDs depend on brightness densities, *not* on total
brightnesses. As seen from Messenger at the time the image was taken,
the brightness densities of the star and the Earth were more or less
the same.
20. David Williams Oct 17, 8:19 am
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: david.willi...@bayman.org (David Williams) - Find messages by
this author
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:19:07 -0500
Local: Mon, Oct 17 2005 8:19 am
Subject: Re: MESSENGER SUCKS, Venus rocks, the moon is still dark and
nasty
-> Do you think that it's easy to get an Earth/Moon picture?
MESSENGER
-> came to within about 35,000 miles of the Earth. The Moon's average
distance
-> from the Earth is about 238,000 miles. If MESSENGER was going to
get a nice
-> image of the two, it would have had to do so long before the flyby.
I have seen Mercury and Jupiter in the same binocular-field. How can
that be possible? Mercury is much closer to the sun than Earth is, and
Jupiter is much further away.
Figure that one out, and you'll also have the answer to how it was
possible for Messenger to see the Earth and moon at the same time.
-
BTW; Besides those other images I'd offered that proved the moon could
have been imaged with stars and certainly along with other planets, I'd
first noticed the moon/Jupiter images as having been properly
reproduced in the April, 2005 SKY & Telescope publication (p 132), thus
wanted to share those examples with the likes of "Jim Phillips" that
thinks his MESSENGER can't possibly have recorded the likes of our
moon, a few stars and Venus or much less Mercury as being anywhere in
frame throughout any portion of that controlled flyby. If our moon and
Jupiter are merely 3:1 less sharing of photons/pixel than Earth, thus
obviously even a pathetic 6-bit processing of using the very dreags of
the FBC(full bucket capacity) of that CCD as having a 12,500:1 DR and
the option of utilizing the full 12-bit processing (4095:1 worth of DR)
should have knocked our socks off, and then some.
Apparently their spendy and otherwise high performance camera was
broken, as in malfunctioning and simply couldn't be started soon enough
nor kept running much after getting itself past Earth, and furthermore,
it seems as though they could only utilize the mere CCD basement/dreags
of their FBC and perhaps as little as applying 6 bit image processing
to boot, while otherwise doing everything PhotoShop possible in order
to exclude the likes of pesky stars and other planets, and especially
avoiding our dark and nasty moon like the worse possible plague.
Brad Guth
brown-nosed minions that have motives, means and loads of opportunity
as to continue with their grand ruse/sting of the century.
Unfortunately, that's a well established matter of wide spread
collateral damage and of the carnage of innocent humanity that goes
back into that warm and fuzzy realm of winner-take-all last year worth
of WWII.
In other words, you (mostly white) folks seriously suck and blow at the
same time. You've lied your collective borg butts off so much that's
there's no longer a difference between being a certified liar and of
whatever lies beget MOS lies. Physics and hard-science as related to
our moon and of anything Venus is essentially sequestered within an
extremely spendy space-toilet, and the whole dumbfounded world (other
than as known better by Muslims) has been at your disposal.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; War is war, thus "in war there are
Brad Guth
moon is still dark and nasty", at least team MESSENGER seems
sufficiently brown-nosed to the point where breathing via thy nose is
no longer advisable.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.planetary/browse_frm/thread/1f2ba57f6141a6b0/8dbad78ec3732c70?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=5&hl=en#8dbad78ec3732c70
MESSENGER flyby Aug 02 ~ Aug 03 2005
See an absolutely naked Earth for yourself. Although of a perfectly
terrific PR quality for the general public, offering somewhat pastels
(meaning limited depth of contrast) due to their utilizing the extreme
low end of their CCD FBC(full bucket capacity), thus essentially way
under-exposed as having utilized the least portion of their DR(dynamic
range) and, perhaps even as having been limited to 6 bits worth of A/D
processing at that, then having PhotoShop processed as w/o stars, w/o
other planets and even w/o moon easily accomplished by simply waiting
until the moon was just outside of the 10.5° field of view and
otherwise cutting the sequence off so that our moon simply wouldn't
come into view. You might as well notice that Earth is also w/o an
extremely bright and shiny ISS that should have been at least half
again to twice as vibrant (star like) of a point-source of an item that
would have been sacrificed in order to have auto-excluded all other
point-source illuminations from being recorded.
OOPS! seems that for a while I've upset/broken a few of their flyby
movie links: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/flyby/ and
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/ and
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/flyby/index.html : "The page cannot be
displayed"
http://www.planetary.org/news/2005/messenger_photo_earth_0602.html
The images clearly show a cloudy Earth -- and, to scientists' surprise,
the Moon as well. Earth and Moon captured on May 11, 2005 "moon
brightness enhanced for visibility".
BTW; what possible "surprise", as I've seen cell-phone cameras that are
capable of offering as much detail and certainly offering a whole lot
better DR(dynamic range).
It seems that NASA's PhotoShop solutions can provide whatever you'd
like, from as much as greatly improving each and every image so as to
infomercial knock your socks off, to that of auto-filtering and thus
excluding just about whatever you'd like. Frame by frame the image
processing allows only the desired target(s), while otherwise easily
having auto-excluded items that are pixel per pixel either too bright
or those of any given/selected spectrum as to being easily removed on
the fly if need be. Thus MESSENGER is offering us a terrific example of
the power of such image moderation that has no limits as to what can be
artificially manipulated on the go as well as manually compensated
(extracted and/or added) shortly after the fact.
Even though pixel per pixel is where a few stars and certainly if any
nearby planets such as Mercury, Venus, Mars and even Jupiter would have
been every bit as recordable as per our moon, that which our moon pixel
per pixel was merely upon average 3:1 darker then those average pixels
of our Earth, thus hardly a DR stretch for such capable CCDs and of
their 12 bit A/D conversions.
Seems rather gosh darn odd that MESSENGER's greater resolution and
supposedly super terrific DR was stuck in the usual space-toilet mode,
of brown-nose nondisclosure sucking and blowing so poorly that it
hardly managed to obtain sufficient pixels worth of Earth.
TPS: Images from the August 2, 2005 MESSENGER Flyby of Earth
http://www.planetary.org/news/2005/messenger_flyby_movie_0826.html
http://satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2005/0293.html
>One of the highlights of the returned images is a movie, comprised of
>hundreds of color images taken over a 24-hour period, showing one full
>rotation of the Earth.
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=3938653
The spacecraft was 40,761 miles above South America when the camera
started rolling on Aug. 2.
It was 270,847 miles away from earth - farther than the moon's orbit -
when it snapped the last image on Aug. 3.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/flyby/index.html
Obviously the imaging sequence could have been started a bit earlier
and just as easily terminated upon getting much further away (if need
be at tacking as few as one frame per hour would have been sufficient),
in both instances their 10.5° of incoming and then outgoing look-see
could have easily involved that of a portion of our moon and certainly
of any other planets that might easily have been within the background.
If using the full 12 bit worth of 4095:1 for the dynamic range is only
the tip of their CCD iceberg capability, especially since the FWC/FBC
of that raw CCD was capable of offering a DR of 12,500:1 per scan. Thus
a longer scan/exposure would have given the long shots a somewhat
over-exposed and unavoidably softer focus of an image or extremely
slight smear look-see of our Earth, but otherwise an absolute swarm of
vibrant stars and certainly of any planets caught with in the same
frame would have been crisply recorded as well as per recording upon
the background of dimmer spot-sources of many vibrant stars (especially
of those hotter stars of near-blue and near-UV).
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; War is War, thus "in war there are
Brad Guth
Guess I killed off this topic real good. Sorry about that. I should
have artificially caved on a few issues, as then I'd be just like most
all the other LLPOF usenet guys that suck and blow.
These folks (namely Jim Phillips) even got those MI6/NSA~CIA E-men in
black to nail "David Williams" as of Oct 19.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Brad Guth
Thanks once again for this honest reply of yours before those E-men in
BLACK showed up. And as always this reply goes out to your rusemaster
puppeteer Jim Phillips that now has his hand firmly up your butt, and
not that their team MESSENGER has anything further to hide, but just in
case. Here's another warm and fuzzy conspiracy thought that's either
happening or about to happen.
Gees Louise! GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA = MI6/NSA~CIA
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/aa255ff8a8168483/36a21414f2cb3687#36a21414f2cb3687
Gees freaking Louise folks, I guess there's supposedly no viable
conflict of interest going on here. TECH BRIEFTS Vol 29 No.11, pg.10
"UpFront". If this isn't seriously big-time and extremely brown-nosed
sucking and blowing, then obviously I don't know what is.
All of the sudden there's no replies and few if any topic contributions
imposing those typical "what if" questions.
Doing a 'Search For' anything of "GOOGLE and NASA" or "NASA and GOOGLE"
comes up rather empty handed. It's as though the big hammer has
dropped, and that's all she wrote. That is except for all of those PGP
encrypted files.
Now all they have to accomplish is to buy out Kodak and accidently nuke
anyone that's going anywhere near our moon or even setting up camp
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone, of which a good ABL test firing should
accomplish that task just fine and dandy.
NYTr] Google Under Scrutiny for Alleged Tax Dodge
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.activism.progressive/browse_frm/thread/cdb9611125dce889/1bf0f0d414550c66?lnk=st&q=%22google+and+nasa%22&rnum=2#1bf0f0d414550c66
That's rather odd; for such a perfectly terrific topic and yet there's
not a peep out of anyone sharing a damn thing about this wag-the-dog
and extremely brown-nosed tax avoidance situation.
Is GOOGLE a wee bit if not entirely Jewish?
BTW folks; just as soon as I've managed to get myself back into this
GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA usenet connection is when my poor old PC heads
directly for the nearest space-toilet, meaning that the fresh loads of
their brown-nosed MI6/NSA~CIA usenet crapolla and spermware kicks into
high gear, just so as to disrupt my efforts as much as possible. This
is no freaking lie folks, as please do stop by for an impressive show,
as it only goes to further prove that I'm sufficiently right about a
bit more than my fair share of whatever's been going down the
perpetrated cold-war tubes for decades. Right about now is when my data
throughput of whatever's getting to/from this usenet that summarily
sucks and blows gets down to hardly even functioning, as well as my
mouse has been going postal. Gee whiz kind folks, I can't but wonder
what their pathetic wag-the-dog of another infomercials, spin and
mainstream hype problem is with sharing the truth this time around.
Jesus Christ almighty upon another stick. Just when I'd thought the
intellectual cesspool of their incest cloning more of those brown-nosed
spooks couldn't possibly get any worse off, it's become another case of
those perpetrated cold-war rusemasters tossing tonnes of gasoline on
the fire.
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
like.
Brad Guth
-
I thought that I'd share in the latest info that a few of our warm and
fuzzy MI6/NSA~CIA spooks are now into using popular celebrity names as
another soild measure of their usenet ruse, such as using "Bill Snyder"
as one their cloaks in order to carry out their brown-nosed sucking and
blowing plan of action as to their new and improved levels of incest
cloned borgism, of delivering MOS wag-the-dog and simply as per
continuing MOS LLPOF worth of their ongoing disinformation
infomercials.
Why the heck do you suppose that their Third Reich(Skull and Bones)
MI6/NSA~CIA E-Men in BLACK of this warm and fuzzy GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
mainstream status quo serviced and moderated to death usenet that
summarily sucks and blows big-time is still (no freaking lie folks)
hard at their brown-nosed agenda of each and every day after day
accomplishing their collective workmanship of specifically targeting
and thus delivering their very best malware/spermware into my PC?
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).