Re: Laser off the Moon
Dr M1N PhD
>Because I'm a Ham Radio operator, I know that I can bounce radio signals off
>the moon. Not knowing that much about lasers, I was wondering what would be
>the minimum strength and at what frequency would it take to reflect a laser
>beam off the mirror on the moon? Has anyone other than NASA accomplished
>this? Can an amateur do it? Thank you.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Oh, you must mean the different sets of laser reflecting
"corner cubes" which were placed on the Moon by unmanned
Soviet and US space missions, back in covered-wagon times...
Remember, because this particular evidence regarding the laser
reflectors (which are indisputably on the surface of the Moon)
has been repeatedly cited as "proof" that living human beings
have actually been to the Moon and back (i.e., only by badly-
educated cowards who were duped by NASA's propaganda machine),
but were in reality *unmanned* missions at best that occurred
nearly FOUR DECADES ago, I'll briefly address this issue one
more time for the benefit of conscientious lurkers out there:
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacecraft/lunakhod.html
"Lunokhod 1 was the first successful Soviet remote-
controlled moon rover that was carried to the Moon
by Luna 17. It was launched November 10, 1970. The
rover had eight wheels.
"The Luna 17 spacecraft landed on the moon on November
17, 1970. Lunokhod 1 weighed just under 2,000 pounds
and was designed to operate for 90 days while guided
by a 5-person team. Lunokhod 1 explored the Mare
Imbrium for 11 months and traveled 11km and relayed
television pictures and scientific data.
Lunokhod 2 moon rover was an improved version of
Lunokhod 1. It was carried to the moon on Luna 21
and landed on January 16, 1973. Lunokhod 2 was faster
and carried an additional television camera. It
travelled 37km in only 8 weeks." [end quote]
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Lunokhod1.htm
"Lunokhod 1 went to the Moon aboard Luna 17. Its
eight wire-mesh wheels each has its own electric
motor to allow manoeuvring in tight spaces, and so
failure of a single motor did not prevent it from
moving.
The lidded box at the left is a French-built laser
reflector. It was used to reflect back to Earth a
laser beam, making it possible to measure the
distance between the Earth and Moon to an accuracy
of twenty to thirty centimetres" [end quote]
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Lunokhod2.htm
"There is an additional high-level TV camera for
panoramic photography, and all lenses have
improved sunshades.
The small silver box between the front wheels is
an alpha particle emitter which can be lowered
onto the Moon to measure soil composition. Like
its predecessor, Lunokhod 2 carries a French
retro-reflector for use with a laser beam
transmitted from Earth. It allows the Earth-Moon
distance to be measured to an accuracy around 20
centimetres.
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Luna16.htm
"the cone-shaped antenna keeps communication with
Earth while the drill arm sits in its rest position
on the right. The sample will be taken by rotating
the drill head by one hundred and eighty degrees,
lowering the drill arm to the surface and extracting
a core sample.
On returning to the rest position, the sample is
transferred to the return capsule and sent back to
Earth" [end quote]
Therefore the Soviet Lunokhod I/II-Luna XVII/XXI missions
both successfully landed their unmanned remote-controlled
lunar-rovers a.k.a. dune-buggies on the Moon: in the same
time frame as the alleged "apollo" missions were supposed
to have occurred. These remote-controlled Russian buggies
placed French- made laser reflectors on the Moon! Another
Soviet unmanned mission, Luna XVI, landed on the Moon and
returned a soil sample to the Earth by September 24, 1970:
from the Moon, unmanned, programmed and remote-controlled.
So laser-reflecting corner prisms were placed on the Moon
by unmanned probes and a 100g x 35 cm soil sample drilled
out from the lunar surface was sent back to Earth by this
earlier of these unmanned missions all in the early 1970s.
This completely and absolutely destroys any argument that
lunar soil samples or lunar laser reflectors "prove" that
men were on the Moon. Rather, as with all other evidences
cited allegedly supporting of the "apollo" missions, upon
precise examination the same evidence proves at least the
"manned" portions of these apollo missions were definitely
hoaxed. Men NEVER went to the Moon, because men have NEVER
achieved and survived sustained altitudes much above about
five or six hundred miles above Earth's sea level. Got it?
Remember, the Moon is almost a quarter million miles away--
that's *HALF A MILLION MILES ROUND TRIP*! Get the picture?
By contrast, the Russians proved that they did send their
unmanned probes to the Moon to wit: the presence of laser
reflectors left thereon by the aforesaid Lunokhod buggies.
It could be argued that the lunar soil samples were faked
somehow, but laser reflecting corner cubes are irrefutable
evidence that unmanned robotic probes put them there. See?
At least, the demonstrable presence of the "apollo" laser
reflectors proves the American space program successfully
sent some UNMANNED probes to the Moon -and- has continued
to launch many unmanned instruments into space ever since.
All these missions are UNMANNED. Why? The Sun, that's why.
That's why they NEVER send men into outer space. Not once.
Otherwise, they'd fry to a crisp in the intense radiation.
_________________________________________________________
B-rate actors running along in their deflated monkeysuits,
obviously recorded on high-speed film, "moon boot" foot-
prints in undisturbed "moon dust" merely a few FEET from
the missing blast crater! (that alone proves irrefutably
that the Apollo "manned" propaganda was ineptly hoaxed),
but everybody--every *honest* person--knows this already...
It's a PROVEN FACT NASA's six allegedly-manned half-million
miles per round-trip(!) missions to the Moon (1969-72) were
at best unmanned flights in competition with the U.S.S.R.'s
contemporaneous Soviet Luna/Lunakhod unmanned Moon missions.
"They couldn't make it so they faked it." Thus, the "manned"
portions of the missions were actually filmed under the top-
secret, heavily-guarded domed soundstages in the high desert
of Area 51, NV, perhaps around Pine Gap, AUS and maybe other
remote and publicly-inaccessible locations around the world.
__________________________________________________
Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
buggies & actors running along in their deflated
monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
brazenly obvious backdrops that contrast sharply
against the nearby high-desert terrain ad nauseam!
__________________________________________________
The Moon is FAR BEYOND the reach of manned spacecraft, to wit:
ALTITUDE COMPARISON CHART
SHUTTLE VS. MOON & MANMADE SATELLITES
(not to scale)
x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| |
| |
| |
| |
~ ~214,000 MILES ~
~ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ~
| |
| |
| |
x------High-altitude orbit ~25,000+ miles altitude------x
| |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
x------JPL/NASA Space Shuttle orbit ~300 miles altitude-x
x------Intl. Space Station orbit ~220 miles altitude |
x------Earth's sea level -0- miles altitude-------------x
To give you an idea of the scale involved, if each hard line
break in the chart below equals roughly 10,000 miles, to wit:
x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| 230,000 |
| 220,000 |
| 210,000 |
| 200,000 |
| 190,000 |
| 180,000 |
| 170,000 |
| 160,000 |
| 150,000 |
| 140,000 |
| 130,000 |
| 120,000 |
| 110,000 |
| 100,000 |
| 90,000 |
| 80,000 |
| 70,000 |
| 60,000 |
| 50,000 |
| 40,000 |
| 30,000 |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
Thus the low-earth shuttle orbit would fit somewhere between
the center and baseline of the bottom 'x'--hardly visible at
all at this scale. And yet, that is the highest altitude any
manned flight has ever successfully sustained for any length
of time. But the "men to the moon" fairytale devotees don't
want to face up to these and other glaring facts in evidence:
*Altitude Comparison Chart of Shuttle vs. Moon & Manmade Satellites:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=A82FLEI03881...@anonymous.poster
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=A82FLEI038814.6969560185 <AT> anonymous.poster
*Apollo Moon Missions 1969-1972 Were At Best *Unmanned*:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VTKA4X1O3750...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VTKA4X1O37500.9704861111 <AT> Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Quasi-Uncensored Apollo Moon Hoax Bookmarks:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7RL5KJIX3749...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7RL5KJIX37499.1691435185 <AT> Gilgamesh-frog.org
______________________________________________________________
Merry Jesus-Christ-Is-LORD-Mass! & Io Saturnalia!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRXMDoZljD7YrHM/nEQIv6wCeL7u+fxoLsh10ax2LxLga4fchticAn1d6
B7H2Zn5SJ1wcILLgf6Wfj7Ma
=/VA9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Kunkel
"Dr M1N PhD" <free.astro...@gov.nasa.jp1> wrote in message
news:7dcb9b704f26ff99...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> Rather, as with all other evidences
> cited allegedly supporting of the "apollo" missions, upon
> precise examination the same evidence proves at least the
> "manned" portions of these apollo missions were definitely
> hoaxed. Men NEVER went to the Moon, because men have NEVER
> achieved and survived sustained altitudes much above about
> five or six hundred miles above Earth's sea level. Got it?
> Remember, the Moon is almost a quarter million miles away--
> that's *HALF A MILLION MILES ROUND TRIP*! Get the picture?
You, sir, need to adjust your meds.
Peter Twydell
<7dcb9b704f26ff99...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, Dr M1N
PhD <free.astro...@gov.nasa.jp1> writes
>"west" <rest...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Because I'm a Ham Radio operator, I know that I can bounce radio signals off
>>the moon. Not knowing that much about lasers, I was wondering what would be
>>the minimum strength and at what frequency would it take to reflect a laser
>>beam off the mirror on the moon? Has anyone other than NASA accomplished
>>this? Can an amateur do it? Thank you.
>>
>"corner cubes" which were placed on the Moon by unmanned
>Soviet and US space missions, back in covered-wagon times...
>
Oh FFS, not another one! Do you sad people never give up? Get a life,
get a grip, get stuffed.
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po!
Sorcerer
"John Kunkel" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:BdWdnXGkc7Vqq-7Y...@comcast.com...
If "Dr." Min has gained Ph.D. status it was from the Royal Outback of
Australia or similar well recognised institutions, possibly from one of the great
schools in the middle of the Sahara, the Gobi or the University of Antarctica.
Darrell D. Mobley
> Remember, the Moon is almost a quarter million miles away--
> that's *HALF A MILLION MILES ROUND TRIP*! Get the picture?
Just because Capital One wasn't in business then doesn't mean we
couldn't afford the frequent flier miles.
What's in your wallet?
--
Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!
Darrell D. Mobley
> If "Dr." Min has gained Ph.D. status it was from the Royal Outback of
> Australia or similar well recognised institutions, possibly from one of the great
> schools in the middle of the Sahara, the Gobi or the University of Antarctica.
As John Cato, Jr. used to point out, only those without a Ph.D. think
it's appropriate to use both Dr. and Ph.D. in their title.
Dan
Tou omitted "and get an education too."
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Eekamouse
news:7dcb9b704f26ff99...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> Men NEVER went to the Moon, because men have NEVER
> achieved and survived sustained altitudes much above about
> five or six hundred miles above Earth's sea level. Got it?
Oh my God... are you saying that the Apollo astronauts were all - WOMEN!?
Like in that old "Matt Helm" movie? Man, that Dean Martin could act...
Rand Simberg
"Eekamouse" <e...@mouse.not> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>"Dr M1N PhD" kook-d...@large.com wrote in message
>news:7dcb9b704f26ff99...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
>> Men NEVER went to the Moon, because men have NEVER
>> achieved and survived sustained altitudes much above about
>> five or six hundred miles above Earth's sea level. Got it?
>
>Oh my God... are you saying that the Apollo astronauts were all - WOMEN!?
Nahhh...it's like the old "untouched by human hands" thing with
manufacturing. They did it with monkeys.
PERSONALITY-FILLED MONKEYS!
<just testing Pat's defective sense of humor...>
Sorcerer
"Darrell D. Mobley" <dmo...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote in message news:irGdnY94HNULz-7Y...@comcast.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > If "Dr." Min has gained Ph.D. status it was from the Royal Outback of
| > Australia or similar well recognised institutions, possibly from one of the great
| > schools in the middle of the Sahara, the Gobi or the University of Antarctica.
|
| As John Cato, Jr. used to point out, only those without a Ph.D. think
Obviously. And those that do rarely disclose it in normal conversation.
Equally obviously, Min is a crank. But what to do with the insane?
I prefer to be seen as a crank at first glance to eliminate the challenge
before it happens, hence "Sorcerer".
Dean A. Markley
he was my namesake!
Hmm, I am always amazed at these conspiracy theory nutcases.....what do
they smoke to get that way?
Dean
Darrell D. Mobley
> Oh my God... are you saying that the Apollo astronauts were all - WOMEN!?
Worse. Pansies.
Orval Fairbairn
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote:
IIRC, it is the Sam Houston institute of Technology.
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
>Nahhh...it's like the old "untouched by human hands" thing with
>manufacturing. They did it with monkeys.
>
>PERSONALITY-FILLED MONKEYS!
>
><just testing Pat's defective sense of humor...>
>
>
http://seedsofdoubt.com/daoud/images/moon-monkey-debt.jpg
Pat
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
So, was the purpose of this post to refute, or confirm my
hypothesis...?
I know where my money is.
Steve Hix
"John Kunkel" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Every time he does, he just comes back.
Time to update the killfile. Again.
Steve Hix
Peter Twydell <pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
This is just Min under a new pseudonym, if not under new management.
Mitch...@aol.com
Dr M1N PhD wrote:
> Oh, you must mean the different sets of laser reflecting
> "corner cubes" which were placed on the Moon by unmanned
> Soviet and US space missions, back in covered-wagon times...
>
> Remember, because this particular evidence regarding the laser
> reflectors (which are indisputably on the surface of the Moon)
> has been repeatedly cited as "proof" that living human beings
> have actually been to the Moon and back (i.e., only by badly-
> educated cowards who were duped by NASA's propaganda machine),
> but were in reality *unmanned* missions at best that occurred
> nearly FOUR DECADES ago, I'll briefly address this issue one
> more time for the benefit of conscientious lurkers out there:
OK, so you want me to believe (because you say so) that we
simply cannot trust things we saw take place on live TV 40
years ago;
And that you still want us to bekieve in a miricle that took
place 2000 years ago with no actual observational evidence.
KLM
He's as popular as BritneySpears!
Martin Brown
Dr M1N PhD wrote:
> "west" <rest...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >Because I'm a Ham Radio operator, I know that I can bounce radio signals off
> >the moon. Not knowing that much about lasers, I was wondering what would be
> >the minimum strength and at what frequency would it take to reflect a laser
> >beam off the mirror on the moon? Has anyone other than NASA accomplished
> >this? Can an amateur do it? Thank you.
Plenty of labs around the world have the right equipment to do lunar
and satellite laser ranging, but unless you have an amateur 2m class
scope, exotic narrow band interference filters, detectors with
extermely low noise amplifiers and a fairly hefty precision laser you
are not going to get much back by way of signal to noise. A world map
showing sites with ILRS capability is fig 2 in the following document.
http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/cospar_paper_warsaw_final.pdf
To make useful ranging measurmenents requires determining very
accurately the round trip time. A somewhat harder task at low SNR than
just detecting a pulse returned after moon bounce delay.
Regards,
Martin Brown
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Oh, you must mean the different sets of laser reflecting
> "corner cubes" which were placed on the Moon by unmanned
> Soviet and US space missions, back in covered-wagon times...
>
> Remember, because this particular evidence regarding the laser
> reflectors (which are indisputably on the surface of the Moon)
WTF has the pathological liar dittohead Min escaped my killfile?
Dan
What amazes is this guy seems to think human space travel is a
function of altitude and unmanned space travel is a function of
ballistics. How is it unmanned vehicles can get to the moon and back but
manned ones can't? Is it a matter of duration? One of the Gemini
missions was an endurance shot. Gemini 7 spent two weeks in space with
Borman and Lovell aboard. It must have been a crashing bore after a day
or two. Longer durations have been made since Apollo. The Soviets had
several 6 month trips is space stations.
Pat Flannery
Dan wrote:
>
> What amazes is this guy seems to think human space travel is a
> function of altitude and unmanned space travel is a function of
> ballistics. How is it unmanned vehicles can get to the moon and back
> but manned ones can't? Is it a matter of duration? One of the Gemini
> missions was an endurance shot. Gemini 7 spent two weeks in space with
> Borman and Lovell aboard. It must have been a crashing bore after a
> day or two. Longer durations have been made since Apollo. The Soviets
> had several 6 month trips is space stations.
The Russians had one guy, Dr. Valery Polyakov, who was on Mir for 437.7
days on a single mission.
Pat, Airman Basic, Retired
Dan
Darn near killed him too, his bones were in sad shape.
The Rocket Scientist
It won't help. He refuses to take them. When he takes them he can't
hear the voices, and nobody else will talk to him.
Bill Sullivan
"Speed: It will turn you into your parents." - Frank Zappa
Jorge R. Frank
> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> What amazes is this guy seems to think human space travel is a
>>> function of altitude and unmanned space travel is a function of
>>> ballistics. How is it unmanned vehicles can get to the moon and back
>>> but manned ones can't? Is it a matter of duration? One of the Gemini
>>> missions was an endurance shot. Gemini 7 spent two weeks in space
>>> with Borman and Lovell aboard. It must have been a crashing bore
>>> after a day or two. Longer durations have been made since Apollo.
>>> The Soviets had several 6 month trips is space stations.
>>
>> The Russians had one guy, Dr. Valery Polyakov, who was on Mir for
>> 437.7 days on a single mission.
>
> Darn near killed him too, his bones were in sad shape.
Incorrect.
<http://www.bookrags.com/Valeri_Polyakov>
"Polyakov's capacity to endure a long period in space has significant
implications for future aerospace projects, including manned voyages to
Mars. Polyakov's successful experiments proved that humans could endure
a two- or three-year mission to Mars, and be able to function on the
planet after the long flight, estimated to be at least 160 days.
Polyakov maintained a strict exercise regimen, which ranged from 90
minutes to three hours daily. At the conclusion of his mission, the
52-year-old cosmonaut was in excellent condition. Remarkably, rather
than having to be carried from the ship as was often the case for those
returning from space, upon landing Polyakov was able to walk with help
to a chair a few feet from the spacecraft, and within one day he was
jogging."
<http://www.hitechealth.com/press.htm>
"The system was put to its greatest test during the record flight of Dr.
Polyakov, who lived aboard the MIR space station from January 8, 1994,
until March 22, 1995 -- 438 days. Amazingly, upon returning to earth, he
was able to walk off the spaceship without assistance, and was steady on
his feet, much to the surprise of the scientists and technicians who
welcomed him upon his return. As a result, CMD-Prognos was judged to be
an unqualified success."
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>Incorrect.
>
><http://www.bookrags.com/Valeri_Polyakov>
>
>"Polyakov's capacity to endure a long period in space has significant
>implications for future aerospace projects, including manned voyages to
>Mars. Polyakov's successful experiments proved that humans could endure
>a two- or three-year mission to Mars, and be able to function on the
>planet after the long flight, estimated to be at least 160 days.
>Polyakov maintained a strict exercise regimen, which ranged from 90
>minutes to three hours daily. At the conclusion of his mission, the
>52-year-old cosmonaut was in excellent condition. Remarkably, rather
>than having to be carried from the ship as was often the case for those
>returning from space, upon landing Polyakov was able to walk with help
>to a chair a few feet from the spacecraft, and within one day he was
>jogging."
>
"He was seen jogging from the scene of the murder of Dr Ryumin Besorski,
in inventor of the so-called 'penguin suit' space exercise apparatus on
which Cosmonaut Polyakov spent nearly 1000 hours exercising on during
the flight."
Pat
Frank Glover
Men NEVER went to the Moon, because men have NEVER
> achieved and survived sustained altitudes much above about
> five or six hundred miles above Earth's sea level. Got it?
> Remember, the Moon is almost a quarter million miles away--
> that's *HALF A MILLION MILES ROUND TRIP*! Get the picture?
Sigh.
Before Apollo 8, the altitude record was about 850 miles on an
Agena-assisted Gemini mission. Though we may do useful things at the
Lunat L1 point later, there's otherwise not much of interest to direct
human presence in between. Why bother with anything but going all the
way to the Moon?
Why is it so easy to believe machines can go this HALF A MILLION
MILE ROUND TRIP (Russian Zonds, for example, which were themselves
precursors to a human mission they never did), but the same can't be
done with people? Do you believe in railroad trains, but not passenger cars?
As I've said to this nonsense before, there are CARS with more
mileage than that.
And as I said to someone else in a different context, the answer to
'far away' is, as always, 'go faster.' That's not, as they say, rocket
science.
Oh, and what's Earth escape velocity? You can go only *so* slow,
anyway, or you never really leave Earth at all...
--
Frank
You know what to remove to reply...
Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm
"No matter how big or soft or warm your bed is, you still have to get
out of it."
- Grace Slick
Sorcerer
"Frank Glover" <star...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:Ad6dh.35031$zB4....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
| Dr M1N PhD wrote:
|
|
| Men NEVER went to the Moon, because men have NEVER
| > achieved and survived sustained altitudes much above about
| > five or six hundred miles above Earth's sea level. Got it?
| > Remember, the Moon is almost a quarter million miles away--
| > that's *HALF A MILLION MILES ROUND TRIP*! Get the picture?
|
| Sigh.
Yeah, but save your breath, Min is troll, all troll and nothing but the troll.
lal_truckee
>
> Oh, and what's Earth escape velocity? You can go only *so* slow,
> anyway, or you never really leave Earth at all...
Ah, you don't need to reach "escape velocity" - that's for ballistic orbits.
You CAN go as slow as you want and get there - sucks up lots of energy, tho.
Cesar Grossmann
>
> So laser-reflecting corner prisms were placed on the Moon
> by unmanned probes
And Lunokhod 1 was lost in the moon. Nobody can use the Lunokhod 1
mirror because nobody knows where it's placed exactly. A laser beam of
high quality starting with few milimeters of diameter (25,4mm = 1 inch)
"iluminates" a circle with diameter of 1km on the Moon. So, to use
effectively the mirrors that where left in the moon, you need to know
where it is, and be capable of pointing your high quality laser to them
with an max error of 0,5 km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1
Lunokhod 2 is used to measure distance from Earth to Moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_2
These are the mirrors placed by unmanned probes, using remotely
controled rovers.
> and a 100g x 35 cm soil sample drilled
> out from the lunar surface was sent back to Earth by this
> earlier of these unmanned missions all in the early 1970s.
No unmanned mission can bring back to Earth a rock of 10kg, or even
collect such a monster.
http://www.emu.edu.tr/~ace2000/MoonSt.htm
> This completely and absolutely destroys any argument that
> lunar soil samples or lunar laser reflectors "prove" that
> men were on the Moon.
No way. You will need to launch 3.000 unmanned missions to bring back
the 384kg of soil and moon rock samples. And no sample bigger than,
say, 100g.
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/index.cfm
"Between 1969 and 1972 six Apollo missions brought back 382 kilograms
(842 pounds) of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand and dust from
the lunar surface. The six space flights returned 2200 separate samples
from six different exploration sites on the Moon. In addition, three
automated Soviet spacecraft returned important samples totaling 300
grams (approximately 3/4 pound) from three other lunar sites."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
> By contrast, the Russians proved that they did send their
> unmanned probes to the Moon to wit: the presence of laser
> reflectors left thereon by the aforesaid Lunokhod buggies.
The same to the americans: they put 12 astronauts to the moon,
collected soil and rock samples, taked pictures, walked, played golf,
droped a hammer and a feather, drove a Lunar Jeep, made experiments,
left mirrors and seismographs, and have hours of talking, TV sequences,
and telemetry to prove it.
Heck, they even left a lonely astronaut on the Moon!
http://www.dangertheater.com/la.html
> It could be argued that the lunar soil samples were faked
> somehow,
There's no way you can fake lunar soil samples. Any attempt to produce
"faked" samples will have byproducts that will tip off the faking.
> but laser reflecting corner cubes are irrefutable
> evidence that unmanned robotic probes put them there. See?
Russians also acknowledged the success of the Apollo missions.
> Otherwise, they'd fry to a crisp in the intense radiation.
Nonsense. Or bulshit. Choose.
P.S.: Sorry for the "engrish".
[]s
--
Cesar A. K. Grossmann
Brad Guth
feedback on this nifty topic. Gee whiz, I wonder why not?
As a photon detector that's simply way over-kill, a soft-modified KECK
instrument if specifically utilized as performing on behalf of such a
nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve down to something better than
one meter/pixel at 384,000 km, by way of simply masking off 99% of each
primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror as focused onto
the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of course that sort
of image resolution would also beging to show us more than we're being
allowed to know about our extremely dusty and somewhat salty moon.
There's no such "conspiracy theory" that's running this askew. It's
simply a hard matter of absolute and easily replicated fact, that a
soft-modified KECK instrument can resolve down to one meter unless some
naysay mindset of such a big and clearly dumbfounded head gets stuck in
the way. If need be, a quality 10X optical projection lens will help
finish off the demonstration of what KECK can damn well accommodate if
roughly 99% of each primary mirror is masked off, and for otherwise
pulling out all the stops (that's organ-speak for making an all out
maximum effort).
Under the cloak of earthshine and having laser beam illuminated upon the
appropriate target area of roughly 3.14e6 m2 with a sufficiently
powerful 550 nm spectrum worth of photons should more than accomplish
the task, of allowing the soft-modified KECK instrument to eventually
obtain a digital stacked image of a relatively bright speck of photons
emerging as per a direct retroreflected result of having those supposed
retroreflectors, as placed upon that otherwise physically dark and
cosmic morge of a nasty surface, that's unavoidably there to work with.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Ulysses S. Grant
Back to recycling this tired, oft-scoffed at delusion, Brad?
--
Presidential Pests, Inc.
Brad Guth
news:071220061859004061%er...@psets.c0m
>Back to recycling this tired, oft-scoffed at delusion, Brad?
--
>Presidential Pests, Inc.
Are you the president's toilet-paper? or Are you more of a
presidential trojan?
Do you and our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) trade botox needles?
Brad Guth
news:7dcb9b704f26ff99...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net
I see that Mailgate/Usenet has made the topic "Laser off the Moon"
vanish into less than thin air, as another one of those "Mailgate:
Message not available".
It seems our our faith based scientists are simply paranoid about damn
near everything that rocks their status quo good ship LOLLIPOP,
including their own shadows. At least terraforming our moon or simply
digging into that salty sucker for obtaining a safe habitat is
technically doable from within our own back yard of known expertise and
resources, and best of all, we the badly bleeding taxpayers can keep a
close eye upon where each and every one of our hard earned dollar is
going.
The ongoing notions of utlizing our moon as one of the supposed
"Footsteps to Mars", sorry to say my ass, whereas I'm especially going
naysay postal on this one, especially since we can't seem to mange the
few and affordable steps on behalf of accomplishing our moon's L1, much
less those rather spendy and somewhat lethal steps upon our naked moon.
For your continuing entertainment, I've further edited and hopefully
improved upon the following rant as to what I and others should care the
most about:
Here's a little something extra special for Discovery Communications
and/or GOOGLE/NOVA to ponder their pay-per-infomercial spewing way
through. In other words, if I could pay as well as MI/NSA~NASA, they'd
gladly produce whatever as though it was the one and only truth on
Earth.
Instead of our going for the absolutely daunting and unavoidably time
comsuming as well as spendy task of our accomplishing the moon itself,
perhaps instead we or perhaps China should simply go for taking the
moon's L1 because, at least that's entirely doable and extremely
valuable as a space depot and science platform.
As I've often shared this one before:
If we're ever going to walk upon that physically dark and nasty moon of
ours that's via gravity tidal energy and a touch of IR/FIR keeping our
environment as so anti-ice-age extra warm, as such we'll need the
following basics for an earthshine illuminated mission that'll most
likely demand some banked bone marrow and possibly a few spare stem
cells in order to survive the mission gauntlet.
In order to accomplish the moon, and live to tell about it, as such
they'll need a fully mascon mapped moon, plus fully modulated (at least
8 bit computer fly-by-wire driven) set of those fuel consuming reaction
thrusters (besides their modulated rated thrusters, this should only
require butt loads of nifty sensors and a minimum of four extremely fast
rad-hard computers), plus incorporating a few (at least three) powerful
momentum reaction wheels, as well as having sufficient deorbit and
down-range energy reserves, and something a whole lot better off than a
wussy 60:1 ratio of primary rocket/payload that had nearly a 30% inert
GLOW to start off with (that's not even including whatever spare tonnes
of inital ice loading).
> Geoffrey A. Landis:
>Let me emphasize, the human lander is by far the hardest part of the
>Mars mission. A vehicle for getting down to the surface and back up
>again is the one piece that we have to develop from scratch.
>Everything else is, more or less, stuff we can put together from
>pieces that already have been developed.
You folks out there in Usenet's dumbfounded land of snookered fools and
village idiots do realize there's still no such proven fly-by-rocket
lander as pilot rated and certified as crew safe and sane for
accomplishing our extremely nearby moon, not even in R&D prototype
format. However, there's still time to get in on that NASA contest of
demonstrating the first such prototype fly-by-rocket lander.
Unfortunately, thus far every known and what-if trick in the book hasn't
worked out according to plan. Perhaps what they need are a few of those
smart Jewish Third Reich rocket scientists, just like they had to work
with way back in them good old mutually perpetrated cold-war days.
BTW; On behalf of a relatively short mission exposure worth of
defending their frail DNA and especially all of that radiation sensitive
Kodak film could have used a minimum of 50 g/cm2 worth of shielding,
though 100 g/cm2 would have been a whole lot safer for keeping their TBI
mission dosage under 50 rads. Their having a personal cache of banked
bone marrow back on Earth as their plan-B would also have been a damn
wise thing to do, especially since the hundreds of rads per EVA should
have been well past their bone marrow's point of no return.
BTW No.2; Since there's no possible argument as to the DR(dynamic
range) of their Kodak film having easily recorded Venus and our
physically dark moon within the same FOV, therefore in whatever's your
best 3D simulator format, where the heck is Venus as of missions A11,
A14 and A16? (from EVA or from orbit)
What if anything is stopping or in any way diverting the very same solar
and cosmic energy plus whatever's physical flak from collecting upon
and/or penetrating into the moon, as otherwise collects within our
magnetosphere's Van Allen belts?
Honest analogy; Shouldn't the gravity and robust substance of the moon
itself sort of outperform our magnetosphere's ability to collect and
hold onto such nasty solar and cosmic stuff?
In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right at you from as many as each of
those surrounding 3.14e8 m2, not to mention each of those square meters
having their fair share of those local gamma and pesky hard-X-rays via
secondary/recoil to share and share alike, and as for yourself in that
wussy moonsuit to deal with.
At any one time it was technically impossible for such lunar surface
EVAs to have not been continually surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6
m2, and of course from such a nearby orbit there's nothing but the
physically dark and TBI dosage nasty moon to look at for as far as the
DNA/RNA frail eye could see from being at 100+ km off the deck, and
that's one hell of a solar/cosmic plus unavoidably secondary/recoil
worth of TBI exposure to deal with, wouldn't you say?
-
NOM: "The level of cosmic radiation on the moon is barely different from
the radiation at the International Space Station. They seem to manage
space walks there OK."
From what I can learn, they/ISS actually do NOT manage very well at all,
whereas ISS EVAs tend to be relatively short and those EVAs still tend
to devour into their 50 rad per mission and subsequently impact upon
their career 500 rad dosage limits real fast, and at that they have to
avoid the SAA-05 contour like the worst known plague. The solar wind
that's extensively diverted by those nifty though lethal Van Allen belts
do accomplish a fairly good job of defending ISS from the otherwise L1
naked trauma of solar and cosmic influx, and besides the ISS itself
doesn't hardly represent significant density or any amount of
secondary/recoil square meters compared to the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2
that's existing for the moon landing and EVAs, along with easily
receiving as much as 3.14e8 m2 worth of exposure to all that's reactive
and/or radioactive as being entirely possible.
A deployed ISS/(Clarke Station) at our moon's L1 would actually be as
much as 97.6% solar and otherwise nearly 100% cosmic nailed, but instead
our existing ISS is nearly 50% shielded from whatever's solar or cosmic
via Earth and rather nicely protected by a substantial magnetosphere,
whereas because of Earth's thin but extensive enough atmosphere is
hardly the least bit reactive substance like our naked moon that's
covered in heavy meteorite debris and of it's own considerable density
that makes for producing secondary/recoil dosage that apparently isn't
the least bit moderated by way of an atmosphere.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf
This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's rather interesting
but otherwise a touch outdated, not to mention way under-shielded for
long term habitat unless incorporating 8+ meters of water plus having
somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or perhaps 16+ meters
of h2o if w/o magnetosphere that's necessary because it's parked within
58,000 km from our physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon
that's providing the not so DNA friendly TBI(total body irradiation)
dosage worth of gamma and hard-X-rays that are only a touch worse off by
lunar day, is simply a downright deficient document about sharing upon
all the positive science and habitat/depot considerations for others
utilizing the moon's L1/MEL1.
As for any mission command module orbiting our moon from 100 km isn't
exactly playing it DNA/RNA safe, nor more than half the time is it
representing a cool orbit or even all that mascon free of all those
pesky side to side and ups and downs because for its size the moon's
gravity is so irregular (possibly suggesting a badly distorted hallow
core).
There is however a fairly substantial sodium atmosphere that reaches out
past 9r (not to mention the comet like sodium trail of some 900,000 km),
but apparently it's not of sufficient density from 100 km down to the
deck as to significantly moderate the incoming or outgoing trauma of
gamma and hard-X-rays. Therefore, just the secondary IR/FIR has got to
be downright mission pesky to deal with, especially considering how
efficiently our moon reflects the IR and FIR spectrum, and the matter of
fact that it has to get rid of all of whatever it receives, which means
that a good 50% of the solar influx is getting returned to the same
sunny half side of space that a given mission orbiting its command
module has to survive while getting summarily roasted and otherwise TBI
traumatised from both directions, plus a little of whatever's earthshine
and of good old cosmic whatever else to boot.
On behalf of moderating whatever's incoming as well as unavoidably of
secondary/recoil outgoing radiation, what our naked moon environment
needs rather badly is an artificially forced atmosphere of almost any
sort, even if it's mostly co2 and a touch Radon toxic.
Brad Guth
news:103b789b6f86ee785a4...@mygate.mailgate.org
Apparently Venus as unavoidably within the FOV and of Kodak's unfiltered
DR(dynamic range) of having recorded missions A11, A14 and A16 was
simply too much to ask for.
The question is; How many other lies have we been told?
Brad Guth
Damn near any impact deployed substance of sufficiently reflective
material, that could have easily covered a radius of 50 meters, would
have accomplished at least ten fold better photon returns than any
little array of those silly retroreflectors.
Apparently Venus as unavoidably within the FOV(field of view), as well
as within Kodak's unfiltered DR(dynamic range), as having recorded
missions A11, A14 and A16 from EVAs and
otherwise from nearby orbit, was simply demanding too much truth to ask
for.
The big question of the day is; How many other lies have we been told?
The second question; What other information has been avoided, and/or is
still being at all cost excluded?
I have at the very least 98 other questions.
Art Deco
>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:103b789b6f86ee785a4...@mygate.mailgate.org
>
>Damn near any impact deployed substance of sufficiently reflective
>material, that could have easily covered a radius of 50 meters, would
>have accomplished at least ten fold better photon returns than any
>little array of those silly retroreflectors.
You knowledge of optics is just underwhelming, Brad.
>
>Apparently Venus as unavoidably within the FOV(field of view), as well
>as within Kodak's unfiltered DR(dynamic range), as having recorded
>missions A11, A14 and A16 from EVAs and
>otherwise from nearby orbit, was simply demanding too much truth to ask
>for.
>
>The big question of the day is; How many other lies have we been told?
>
>The second question; What other information has been avoided, and/or is
>still being at all cost excluded?
>
>I have at the very least 98 other questions.
Obviously you already know all the answers, no education is possible in
your case.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
Eekamouse
>
> I have at the very least 98 other questions.
...wow, you've got more questions than IQ points!
Brad Guth
news:GIqdnayXJ8TDTETY...@adelphia.com
Obviously I'm right, as otherwise you folks could have easily proven me
wrong.
BTW; where's Venus as of A11, A14 and A16?
Eekamouse
>> ...wow, you've got more questions than IQ points!
>
> Obviously I'm right, as otherwise you folks could have easily proven me
> wrong.
Nope, you're wrong. Except for the part about being easily proven wrong.
Next kook, please!!!
Art Deco
>"Eekamouse" <e...@amouse.not> wrote in message
>news:GIqdnayXJ8TDTETY...@adelphia.com
>
>> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1c178468987ae3b7715...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>> >
>> > I have at the very least 98 other questions.
>>
>> ...wow, you've got more questions than IQ points!
>
>Obviously I'm right, as otherwise you folks could have easily proven me
>wrong.
Your clueshields are impenetrable, Brad, there is no way you'll ever be
able to be educated.
>
>BTW; where's Venus as of A11, A14 and A16?
In solar orbit; was this a trick question?
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> >Obviously I'm right, as otherwise you folks could have easily proven me
> >wrong.
>
> Your clueshields are impenetrable, Brad, there is no way you'll ever be
> able to be educated.
> >
Short of trepanation, anyhow.
> >BTW; where's Venus as of A11, A14 and A16?
>
> In solar orbit; was this a trick question?
With Brad, every eggs a bird.
--
<-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
Art Deco
>In article <190220071222210423%er...@caballista.org>,
> Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>
>> >Obviously I'm right, as otherwise you folks could have easily proven me
>> >wrong.
>>
>> Your clueshields are impenetrable, Brad, there is no way you'll ever be
>> able to be educated.
>> >
>
>Short of trepanation, anyhow.
Hah! I had to go look that one up.
>
>> >BTW; where's Venus as of A11, A14 and A16?
>>
>> In solar orbit; was this a trick question?
>
>With Brad, every eggs a bird.
--
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <190220071222210423%er...@caballista.org>,
> > Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> >
> >> >Obviously I'm right, as otherwise you folks could have easily proven me
> >> >wrong.
> >>
> >> Your clueshields are impenetrable, Brad, there is no way you'll ever be
> >> able to be educated.
> >> >
> >
> >Short of trepanation, anyhow.
>
> Hah! I had to go look that one up.
Every time I read a BG post I think of a hole in the head '-)
Brad Guth
Once again, you folks could have posted that supposed hard scientific
evidence that had us safely fly-by-rocket (w/o momentum reaction wheels)
landing upon and walking on that moon of ours.
Obviously that's simply too much to ask for.
BTW; where's good old Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16?
Got that nifty 3D interactive simulator that proves me wrong? (didn't
think so)
Eekamouse
>> Next kook, please!!!
>
> Once again, you folks could have posted that supposed hard scientific
I'm sorry, your 5 minutes are up. If you want to keep on arguing, you'll have to pay.
Brad Guth
Sorry if you folks simply can't manage to prove squat on behalf of
anything NASA/Apollo. That's not my fault, now is it.
When if ever are are we going to establish something/anything
interactive as efficiently station-keeping within the moon's L1?
Art Deco
>"Eekamouse" <e...@amouse.not> wrote in message
>news:rYadnXXP8L2V5UfY...@adelphia.com
>
>> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fe7390837a38e6eedff...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>> >> Next kook, please!!!
>> >
>> > Once again, you folks could have posted that supposed hard scientific
>>
>> I'm sorry, your 5 minutes are up. If you want to keep on arguing, you'll
>> have to pay.
>
>Sorry if you folks simply can't manage to prove squat on behalf of
>anything NASA/Apollo. That's not my fault, now is it.
>
>When if ever are are we going to establish something/anything
>interactive as efficiently station-keeping within the moon's L1?
No one can penetrate your thick skull, Brad.
Brad Guth
news:1171946689.3...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
For some odd reason, the GOOGLE/Usenet topic index is pretty much stuck
forever on this reply of your's.
Of all the nifty and scientifically valuable sorts of trully nearby
places that we can affordably and safely reach with our existing
fly-by-rocket technology as of decades ago, Venus L2 is certainly a cool
enough place to be situated, with secondly being that of our
establishing a mostly if not entirely robotic science platform at our
moon's L2, that's really nearby us.
There's no actual need of our terraforming Venus, as a fairly newish
planetology it's doing just fine and dandy as is, along with having a
billion fold more raw energy to burn (sort of speak) than Iraq, and
better yet because Venus energy is 100% renewable and actually it's
relatively clean energy at that. With some of our best applied
technology, we could actually go there and perhaps visit directly with
whomever or whatever had accomplished those rather sizable
modifications. However, terraforming our moon may be of some local
interest, especially once having relocated that moon into Earth's L1
sweet spot for obtaining some badly needed shade, and having China
accomplish their LSE-CM/ISS is simply a solid win-win for the old
gipper.
However, are the few and far between likes of "Joann Evans" and "Martha
H Adams" dead and gone?
It seems as though, all that's left within this mostly Usenet brown-nose
land of unlimited butt-suckings are those MI/NSA~MIB spooks and moles,
doing their usual Old Testament thing of acting out and/or reacting
rather badly as though functioning exactly like the Jewish sorts of
Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones). Am I wrong?
Take to mentioning or otherwise sharing anything about intelligent other
life, or much less that of forbid any honest thoughts of sharing upon
intelligent design and of applied technology as utilized on behalf of
whatever we as well as ETs should be capable of, then sit back and watch
as all of Usenet status quo hell brakes lose, as though having gone
Mormon or perhaps Amish on us, and of otherwise going absolutely naysay
postal like a certain Pope did to those nice Cathars.
If I show folks a perfectly good picture (of better pixel truth worthy
image than offered by most any visual spectrum CCD format) of what's
offering us sufficient physical evidence as a perfectly deductive form
of reasonably interpreted proof, as to sharing in whatever's
existing/coexisting as intelligent other life upon Venus, and suddenly
it's WW-III, if not a whole lot worse.
Share most any honest thought pertaining to our extremely large and
nearby moon that's truly a one of a kind orb by way of its ratio to that
of the associated planet, and at best you've got yourself another nasty
all-or-nothing gauntlet, as having created another butt-load of causing
seriously big trouble in NASA's River City.
Contribute an honest thought as to resolving our ongoing lack of clean
or even dirty energy and of the partly human associated global warming
fiascos, then watch as faster than a speeding bullet you've got more
than your fair share of those big-energy and pro-government brown-noses
that start coming out of the wood, as well as emerging out of those
mainstream status quo cesspools, like so many infomercial butt-flapping
clowns popping out of those silly little cars.
It's literally an ongoing bloody joke, as to what we're continually
doing to ourselves and to that of our badly failing environment, yet
those silly mainstream clowns keep arriving as though having an endless
supply of those spendy little clown cars that realty have the world's
worse possible EMPG ratings, and of their total dependence upon nasty
oil and/or of spendy and otherwise polluting fuel alternatives that we
can imagine. Unfortunately, this is all decades old news, and in some
instances it's simply too far gone past the point of no return.
In spite of the best available truths, every effort has been made to
disqualify or otherwise stock, bash and to banish upon allowing any form
of local or private America establishing the best applied technology of
clean and renewable energy. It's as though they (big-energy and
bigger-government) want us to pay that $1/kwhr or the equal worth in
whatever other forms of energy, while further insuring we'll have
established zilch worth of local or private alternatives to fall back
upon.
Our ongoing avoidance of our nasty moon, of the moon's nifty L1, of
anything Venus or even that of establishing something/anything at VL2,
and especially that of our having avoided any chance of taking the
nearby Sirius star/solar system seriously, is absolutely and rather
insanely the most orchestrated taboo/nondisclosure form of intellectual
and scientific blockage via mainstream crapolla that simply shouldn't
exist, that is unless you're a happy camper for being stuck forever
within some kind of pagan form of heathen naysay mode of unlimited
denial.
If you've got any better insider clue(s) as to what's going on, please
do share.
Jeff Findley
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:200220072141114457%er...@caballista.org...
> Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>When if ever are are we going to establish something/anything
>>interactive as efficiently station-keeping within the moon's L1?
>
> No one can penetrate your thick skull, Brad.
Which is why he's in so many killfiles. Why not yours?
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Brad Guth
news:5263b$45dc9fb0$927a2cda$17...@FUSE.NET
> "Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
> news:200220072141114457%er...@caballista.org...
> > Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>When if ever are are we going to establish something/anything
> >>interactive as efficiently station-keeping within the moon's L1?
> >
> > No one can penetrate your thick skull, Brad.
>
> Which is why he's in so many killfiles. Why not yours?
>
> Jeff
Where's Venus as of those NASA/Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16?
Got that nifty 3D simulator of absolute proof-positive working yet?
Brad Guth
shutting down as much of my access to Mailgate/Usenet as possible, as
though somehow that's a viable tactic that's going to alter the truth
and nothing but the truth, and thus save thy infomercial spewing butts.
Keeping such hot topics off their publicly accessed index is also
another rather pathetic ruse, wouldn't you say.
In addition to all that's clearly ongoing as having been officially
MI/NSA orchestrated as taboo/nondisclosure (damage-control) about most
anything Venus, it seems there's still more bad news that we can all use
about our silly moon which hasn't quite been walked upon.
NASA insiders expose Apollo Hoax / banished from Mailgate
If these pro-NASA folks accept the fundamental notions that our warm and
fuzzy NASA/Apollo expertise have photographed our moon's physically dark
terrain along with mother Earth as coexisting within the same FOV, and
especially interesting is of their Kodak film's DR(dynamic range) as
having rather easily recorded portions of our dark oceans that are worth
an albedo of perhaps 0.1 (entirely similar enough as to the moon
itself), whereas the absolute impressive and somewhat blue/violet peak
spectrum as representing the vibrance of Venus should have been
unavoidably recorded as well. Especially well recorded via those
unfiltered optics that should otherwise have been nearly if not
overloaded with such a gauntlet of all those extra near-UV and UV-a
spectrums worth of photons as having reacted rather nicely with those
highly reflective clouds which offers us the visual albedo of 0.7~0.8 to
work with, whereas the actual peak solar spectrum energy and roughly
reflecting 75% of that 4 kw/m2 is what the naked and unfiltered Kodak
eye had to deal with.
Yet lo and behold, not even from orbit or otherwise from those supposed
EVAs upon the deck had there once been any sign of Venus, much less of
any other significant planets, as well as never once accommodating the
bluish-white vibrant speck of the Sirius star system, all of which were
well within the DR(dynamic range) of those unfiltered Kodak moments, yet
as though such entirely significant items that should have been easily
recorded were never once to be seen (especially odd as of those
NASA/Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16).
As I've often stipulated before, that most any interactive 3D solar
system simulator puts Venus smack within good EVA obtained views of at
least those three missions (always within each of their command module's
orbital view), and I might as well further add, that we have those free
cellphone cameras with apparently far better DR and of a wider spectrum
capability than what our newest MESSENGER mirror optics and spendy 14+db
CCD could apparently muster, as proof-positive via their flyby of Earth
which only provided us with a rather naked looking and otherwise
somewhat pastel view of Earth, w/o even so much as once accommodating
our physically dark moon, much less having shared upon any other
significant planets or stars that simply had to be there, yet all such
other items were getting artificially made as invisible/stealth as were
all of those Muslim WMD.
Remember that starshine as well as earthshine upon the moon is
absolutely vibrant to the unfiltered Kodak eye that's far more sensitive
to having recorded such near-UV and UV-a spectrums than our human eye,
which can't hardly if even detect, not to mention those pesky gamma and
hard-X-ray spectrums of which that moon of our's is absolutely chuck
full of such TBI(total body irradiation) dosage that's simply much worse
off than any lethal hot zone within our Van Allen belts, and that's
still not even including upon all of the continual thermal trauma of
their having to survive those double IR/FIR spectrums that also
coexisted, as coming at their naked moonsuit from nearly all surrounding
directions in addition to whatever sol was directly contributing.
That physically dark and somewhat salty moon of ours is what's actually
a darn good IR/FIR reflector, and otherwise represents a rather piss
poor UV reflector because, such UV energy often gets absorbed and/or
interacts as creating secondary/recoil photons of the [UV black light
generated] near-blue spectrum. Of course the solar and cosmic influx is
what also represents lethal buttloads of having generated those
secondary/recoil photons of gamma and hard-X-rays, with zilch worth of
any attenuation from all possible directions, meaning that your wussy
moonsuit is surrounded by an absolute minimum lethal gauntlet of 3.14e6
m2 that's contributing the full secondary spectrum worth of whatever's
downright nasty if not lethal to your frail DNA, as well as continually
impacting each and every physically more than boiling role of all that
sensitive Kodak film.
>Wayne Throop:
>If you substitute venus for earth, it'd show up in the shot.
>Even if you move earth far away, it'd still show up, until it's so far
>away its light is falling on less than a single grain of the photograph;
>but as long as its idealized image is at least a single grain big, that
>grain would still be exposed.
Instead, we see a somewhat naked guano island like reflective
environment, for as far as the human and unfiltered Kodak eyes could
see, in places having a thin and naturally terrestrial clumping 50/50
dusting of portland cement and cornmeal that was entirely xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated (meaning w/o UV), whereas instead of their having
to deal with whatever the raw and nearly point source of the extremely
contrasty solar spectrum should have had to offer, along with such raw
influx having unavoidably shared absolute extra loads worth of the
near-UV and UV-a energy. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing of such
hocus-pocus artificial content within such bogus images, or otherwise of
mission associated content, that's worth a freaking hoot, much less a
scientific hoot.
Of course there's many other iffy if not downright naysay worthy
fly-by-rocket and still unproven lunar lander factors that simply do not
add up to what those pesky regular laws of physics and of replicated
science and of otherwise proven lander technology has to say.
Sorry that the likes of "Wayne Throop", "rick_so" and myself as your
pesky historical revisionist team, and otherwise truth telling
messengers from hell, must continually piss on your silly hocus-pocus
parade.
-
Brad Guth
Of a similar topic that's worthy of open disclosure:
Velikovsky/Neocatastrophism Sources / banished from Mailgate
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/rec/rec.org.mensa/Pbb1h.956$CT5.551%40trnddc02?order=smart&p=1/469
Brad Guth
news:7dcb9b704f26ff99...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net
What many others, myself and Kodak along with that of most any good 3D
solar system simulator can easily prove beyond any questionable doubt,
is that we haven't quite gotten ourselves around to having taken those
unfiltered photos, video or as having obtained whatever Kodak moments
from the naked surface of our physically dark and otherwise highly
reactive moon.
I happen to like this digital composed result of the following image,
whereas Dave Smith's terrific image is perhaps more true to life as seen
by the human eye or by that of his camera's eye, whereas it simply needs
some tender loving PhotoShop in order to crank up the overall contrast.
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/occultation-composite-single_800.jpg
Dave Smith's more optically natural image, of having obtained the moon
and Saturn within the very same FOV and thereby having shared the same
exposure, is what actually shows us the truth of photographic exposure
best, as having further demonstrated that one of the sufficient specks
that should have been within the absolutely crystal clear and otherwise
black NASA/Apollo sky, as obtained by any number of their unfiltered EVA
Kodak moments, or otherwise especially accessible from their command
orbiter, should have been entirely capable of those unfiltered images
having included a look-see at having recorded the likes of Saturn,
Jupiter, Mars and especially that of Venus as coexisting somewhere above
that physically dark lunar horizon.
http://www.graviton.demon.co.uk/images/emerged_2270s.jpg
Jupiter/Moon occultation
Other than their having created an incorrect JPG image file name, as
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.
For some reason this image file got itself improperly named as
"moon.saturn.jpg", but otherwise properly published as being that of our
moon and Jupiter.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
Another perfectly good one as having Saturn and Jupiter along with our
moon, as nicely obtained within the very same FOV and exposure. Of
course from the sooty and basalt dark moon itself, and being without an
atmospheric filter or that of any spectrum lens filter means that a
great deal more of the near-UV and UV-a planetshine energy was
available, whereas the naked and physically dark moon itself offers its
naked self as an extremely poor UV reflector, but otherwise as being a
damn good gamma and hard-X-ray gauntlet, plus unavoidably double IR
thermally roasting itself to death by day.
http://www.mightywebdesigns.ca/telescope-photos/moon-saturn-jupiter-test-0001.jpg
Apparently a few good telephoto/telescope shots of our moon along with
Venus within the same FOV is asking a bit too much of NASA/Apollo types
because, after all, Venus is so freaking bright as for being associated
with our physically dark moon. Here's a few conjunctions of our moon
and Venus, though mostly other than Clementine being at the disadvantage
of their having to peer through our badly polluted and UV filtering
atmosphere.
http://www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/astrophotos/moonplanets/moon+venus.jpg
http://eder.csillagaszat.hu/digital/venus_fedes/Ven_fed.html (daytime)
http://www.astronomy.no/venus080604/venusocc/images.html (daytime)
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clem_collect/sunrise.html
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lune--19-2.jpg
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/G_MOON/050906A.HTM
http://www.pbase.com/image/23675921
http://www.fourmilab.ch/images/venus_daytime/
"It's also possible to photograph Venus in broad daylight. The photo at
the top was taken at 14:30 Pacific Standard Time on March 13th, 1988,
with Ektachrome 200 film through an 80mm Brandon apochromatic refractor
with the image projected onto the film plane of a Nikkormat camera by a
Brandon 20mm focal length wide-angle eyepiece. The shutter speed was
1/250 second. The slide from which the above image was scanned was taken
from Muir Beach, California (37°52'N 122°35'W)."
Those other photographs and of the last example are of what more than
proves those unfiltered EVA obtained Kodak moments (extremely photo/film
sensitive to the near-UV and UV-a spectrums) simply had to have easily
included Venus as a sufficiently bright crescent speck, unless using
their 250mm telephoto that would have made Venus a whole lot more item
worthy than a speck of planetshine, especially available as of those
NASA/Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16, not to mention of whatever their
orbiting command station had available to include within any number of
its FOVs. However, because there's no Venus to behold is why this also
proves that we've been summarily lied to from the very get-go.
As of missions A11, A14 and A16, Venus was in fact unavoidably within a
few of those EVA obtained FOVs, yet oddly it never once got recorded as
such. Other sufficient items including Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and even
the Sirius star system also should have recoded at some time or another
within a few of the vast numbers of such unfiltered Kodak moments that
offered a clear black sky above what should have been a physically dark
(basalt and soot like) lunar terrain that was getting anything but
passive xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, and much less for looking as
though guano island like.
-
Brad Guth