Is the Moon *really* as dark as coal? -Guy Macon
Guy Macon
Painius wrote:
>
>"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>>
>> Minor quibble: the geometric albedo is the brightness as
>> seen from the light source. That does not describe the
>> astronauts' photos.
>
>So the Visual Normal, averaging perhaps 0.167 or
>less, must be a better description.
Remember, when deciding how bright something is, the human
eye/brain does not consider the average, but rather the
brightest areas, as long as they aren't too small.
>And if what I read about coal's albedo being 0.1, then
>the Moon still isn't all that much brighter than coal.
>If on the other hand, you are correct in that coal has
>a 0.05 albedo, then i see where that would lead to your
>"three times brighter" conclusion.
"Coal has an albedo of about 0.05"
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/teaching/1404_1.pdf
"Snow has an albedo of approximately 1 and coal an albedo
of about 0.05."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39730/asteroid/258992/Size-and-albedo
http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-258992/asteroid#515214.hook
"as black as coal (albedo ~ 0.04)"
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3750/ClassNotes/Class24/Class24.html
"a very dark object, almost like coal (its albedo being 0.04)"
http://www.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~wittmann/awittmann-Dateien/navbar-Dateien/HalleybyStruve.pdf
|
| Lunar Albedo
| by Jeff Medkeff
| http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm
|
| A lot of confusing statements are made about the albedo of the moon.
| The moon is, according to various accounts, "darker than blacktop"
| or "darker than a black sheet of construction paper." These are
| oversimplifications - neither blacktop or construction paper have
| the special characteristics of the moon. Besides, both materials can
| be found in colors that actually range from light gray to nearly
| black, so unless you specify a brand of construction paper, or a
| particular mile of highway, the assertion is next to meaningless
| even if it weren't untrue.
|
| Albedo is given in a variety of definitions, and the blacktop
| analogy is the result of the unwitting abuse of a couple of such
| definitions. Without knowing the definition that is used, its
| impossible to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. The
| simplest version of albedo is the Lambert albedo. A Lambert surface
| is one which scatters light isotropically - in other words, an equal
| intensity of light is scattered in all directions; it doesn't matter
| whether you measure it from directly above the surface or off to the
| side. The photometer will give you the same reading.
|
| For a lambert planetary surface, the illumination effects are
| entirely geometric. The brightest illumination is directly below the
| sun, and the amount of light reflected diminishes the farther you
| get from this point, simply because the sunlight is played along a
| greater arc of the surface. The illumination isophotes will be
| round. Unfortunately, the moon is not a Lambert surface.
|
| For one thing, the subsolar point does not provide the brightest
| reflection - the limb does. And the phase curve has a sharp peak in
| brightness during full moon - the moon is extra reflective at full
| compared to first quarter. Attempts were once made to explain this
| in terms of a Lambert surface with various kinds of topography, but
| this does not work out.
|
| It is now known that this departure from a Lambert surface is caused
| by the very porous first few millimeters of the lunar regolith.
| Sunlight can penetrate the surface and illuminate subsurface grains,
| the scattered light from which can make its way back out in any
| direction. At full phase, all such grains cover their own shadows;
| the dark shadows being covered by bright grains, the surface is
| brighter than normal.
|
| The picture is further complicated by the fact that the perfectly
| full moon is never visible from Earth (at such times, the moon is
| eclipsed). From the Apollo missions, we know that the exact subsolar
| point - in effect, the fullest possible moon - is some 30% brighter
| than the fullest moon seen from earth. It is thought that this is
| caused by glass beads formed by impact in the lunar regolith, which
| tend to reflect light in the direction from which it comes. This
| light is therefore reflected back toward the sun, bypassing earth.
|
| The original definition of albedo, proposed by Bond, is the ratio of
| total solar radiation scattered from a body to the radiation
| incident upon it. The Bond albedo of the moon is 11%. But limiting
| this figure to V-band radiation produces quite a different value.
| The average visual Bond albedo of the earth-facing side of the moon
| is 7.2%.
|
| This is what has led to the often repeated statement that the moon
| is blacker than even very black terrestrial materials. Flocked
| paper, often used in light traps and as telescope darkening
| material, has an albedo of about 6%, for example. But the low Bond
| albedo of 7.2% is the result of the porous upper layers, which cast
| shadows over a substantial percentage of the visible surface. No
| common terrestrial material has a similar layer, so it isn't useful
| for comparison purposes. So the black construction paper theory and
| the asphalt theory simply have to be abandoned.
|
| Another definition is the visual geometric albedo, which is the
| proportion of visible light received from an illuminated body at
| zero phase angle to that which would be received by a Lambert
| surface in the same position. For the moon, the full moon problem
| again intrudes. The visual geometric albedo of the full moon is
| 12.5%, but much less at other phases.
|
| Because it is very difficult to measure this value, the visual
| geometric albedo at 5% phase angle is often used instead. That
| should be self-explanatory; the value for the moon is about 8.4%.
| But it can't be used to compare with terrestrial materials for the
| same reason the Bond albedo cannot.
|
| Yet another definition - and by far the most useful for observers -
| is the visual normal albedo. This is the ratio between the
| brightness of a given area of an illuminated body at zero phase
| angle and oriented normal to the incident light, to that of a plane
| white Lambert surface similarly oriented. But normal incidence is
| never seen from earth (remember, the moon would be eclipsed), so
| they've introduced the "normal albedo at 5% phase angle" instead -
| which is a contradiction in terms, but I suppose we know what it is
| supposed to mean.
|
| The following is a list of the "visual normal albedo at 5% phase
| angle" of various lunar features. These numbers can be used to
| directly compare to terrestrial surfaces (reference cited below):
|
| Darkest areas: 8.6%
| Tranquillitatis south of Plinius: 9.1%
| Plato's floor: 9.6%
| Serenitatis east of Linne: 10%
| Imbrium south of Plato: 10.4%
| Nectaris: 11.4%
| Ptolemaeus floor: 13.1%
| Arzachel: 17%
| Tycho ejecta: 20%
| Aristarchus: 20%
| Aristarchus interior: 22%
| Bright spot in Deslandres: 24%
| Proclus E wall: 28%
| Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 30%
|
| These values are, as you can see, considerably higher than the other
| lunar albedos given. For comparison, the albedo of a green golf
| course is about 13%, roughly the same as that of the Cayley
| Formation which covers the floor of Ptolemaeus. So you see, the moon
| is not quite as dark as is often claimed - something about in the
| middle range of lunar brightnesses is just as bright as a grassy
| yard at noon.
|
| Ref: British Astronomical Association, Guide to Observing the Moon,
| Enslow 1986
|
| part of Jeff Medkeff's Notes on Lunar Features
| Jeff Medkeff's home page.
| Jeff's astronomy pages.
| Copyright (C) Jeff Medkeff, 2002, All Rights Reserved.
| http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm
|
--
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>wrote:
|
| https://the-moon.wikispaces.com/page/code/albedo
|
| =Albedo= (glossary entry)
|
| ==Description==
|
| The reflectance of a surface.
|
| In lunar studies this generally refers to the intensity of light
| reflected back towards a detector (eye or camera) expressed as a
| fraction relative to an idealized perfect reflector dispersing light
| "equally" in all directions. Albedos can be for a specific
| wavelength or averaged over a range of wavelengths. They can also
| refer to individual features or be averaged over larger areas.
| Variations in albedo cause areas to appear lighter (high albedo) or
| darker (low albedo).
|
| ==Additional Information==
|
| The overall albedo of the Moon is frequently quoted as being about
| 7%. This is actually the so-called Bond albedo at visible
| wavelengths, which refers to the fraction of the total energy
| impinging on a surface that is reflected in all directions. It is a
| concept which is useful in studies of planetary energy balance, but
| has little relevance to perceived brightness, which depend entirely
| on the intensity reflected in a specific direction. The NASA
| planetary factsheet gives the Bond albedo of the Moon (presumably
| averaged over the entire solar spectrum, including non-visible
| wavelengths) as 0.11.
| [ http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html ]
|
| A concept more closely related to the variations in the perceived
| brightness of planets due to variations in surface properties is the
| Geometric albedo, sometimes called the visual geometric albedo when
| referring specifically to the band of visible wavelengths. Geometric
| albedo is determined by comparing the light received from an entire
| spherical planet to that expected from an idealized "perfect"
| reflectance diffusing disk of the same same cross section, with a
| light source directly behind the detector. This is an indication,
| for example, of the total intensity of moonlight reflected back
| towards the Earth near Full Moon. The NASA planetary factsheet gives
| the visual geometric albedo of the Moon as 0.12. However this number
| probably doesn't include the opposition surge which can increase the
| reflectance of the lunar surface by 50% or more when the light
| source and detector are precisely aligned.
|
| A third concept is the normal albedo (or visual normal albedo) which
| is still more closely to the variation in in the perceived
| brightness of individual surface features due to variations in their
| reflectances. The word "normal" is used here to mean "with
| illumination perpendicular to the surface". Normal albedo is
| obtained by comparing a small sections of a planetary surface to
| what would be expected from a perfect diffusing reflector of the
| same area. Such a concept can be used to differentiate bright (high
| albedo) features, like the lunar highlands, from dark (low albedo)
| features, like the maria. However again, the retroreflectivity of
| many lunar materials makes it difficult to assign universally
| meaningful numbers. Unlike an ideal diffuser of a given reflectance,
| two lunar features that have equal reflectances when observed with
| the detector exactly aligned with the light source may be less
| similar when viewed at a different angle. Also the amount of
| brightening observed as the phase angle decreases varies with
| wavelength. A list of what are presumably visual normal albedo
| measurements can be found under _Brightness of Selected Features_,
| although it might be noted that only features near disk center are
| actually being evaluated at normal incidence near Full Moon.
|
| Spurce: https://the-moon.wikispaces.com/page/code/albedo
BradGuth
> Painius wrote:
>
> >"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>
> >> Minor quibble: the geometric albedo is the brightness as
> >> seen from the light source. That does not describe the
> >> astronauts' photos.
>
> >So the Visual Normal, averaging perhaps 0.167 or
> >less, must be a better description.
>
> Remember, when deciding how bright something is, the human
> eye/brain does not consider the average, but rather the
> brightest areas, as long as they aren't too small.
>
> >And if what I read about coal's albedo being 0.1, then
> >the Moon still isn't all that much brighter than coal.
> >If on the other hand, you are correct in that coal has
> >a 0.05 albedo, then i see where that would lead to your
> >"three times brighter" conclusion.
>
> "Coal has an albedo of about 0.05"http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/teaching/1404_1.pdf
>
> "Snow has an albedo of approximately 1 and coal an albedo
>
> "as black as coal (albedo ~ 0.04)"http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3750/ClassNotes/Class24/Class24.html
>
The moon is actually upon average somewhat darker than coal.
Average or typical terrestrial coal has an albedo of 0.1 (10%), such
as if you viewed an open pit coal mine and otherwise used a
photographic whiteboard of perhaps 0.9 as your reflective reference.
Trust me, it's not hardly rocket science.
Diffused photographic whiteboard albedo is similar to a fresh new snow
of 0.9, as also similar to those intentionally reflective moonsuits as
having white/reflective brighteners added to their suit material.
Because the moon surface is highly textured and otherwise mostly
electrostatic charged and obviously of dark meteorite deposit and
secondary shard covered along with an otherwise carbon/soot like
crystal dry powder is why the average of .07 albedo, which is darker
than most terrestrial coal, would be correct.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
BradGuth
you need to believe whatever makes yourself a happy camper.
~ BG
On Sep 27, 9:07 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>wrote:
>
>
>
> >Painius wrote:
>
> >>"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>
> >>> Minor quibble: the geometric albedo is the brightness as
> >>> seen from the light source. That does not describe the
> >>> astronauts' photos.
>
> >>So the Visual Normal, averaging perhaps 0.167 or
> >>less, must be a better description.
>
> >Remember, when deciding how bright something is, the human
> >eye/brain does not consider the average, but rather the
> >brightest areas, as long as they aren't too small.
>
> >>And if what I read about coal's albedo being 0.1, then
> >>the Moon still isn't all that much brighter than coal.
> >>If on the other hand, you are correct in that coal has
> >>a 0.05 albedo, then i see where that would lead to your
> >>"three times brighter" conclusion.
>
> >"Coal has an albedo of about 0.05"
> >http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/teaching/1404_1.pdf
>
> >"Snow has an albedo of approximately 1 and coal an albedo
> >of about 0.05."
> >http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39730/asteroid/258992/Size-...
> >http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-258992/asteroid#515214.hook
>
> >"as black as coal (albedo ~ 0.04)"
> >http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3750/ClassNotes/Class24/Class24.html
>
> >"a very dark object, almost like coal (its albedo being 0.04)"
> >http://www.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~wittmann/awittmann-Dateien/navbar-Dateien/...
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>Average or typical terrestrial coal has an albedo of 0.1 (10%)
"Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
>the moon surface [has an] average of .07 albedo
"Visual geometric albedo, Moon = 0.12
Bond albedo, Moon = 0.12" ~NASA Moon Fact Sheet
BradGuth
Good for you. Are you happy now?
Would you like other NASA quotes as pertaining to our moon albedo,
such as those of .07?
~ BG
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>
>>>Average or typical terrestrial coal has an albedo of 0.1 (10%)
>>
>>"Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
>
>Good for you. Are you happy now?
My mental state at the moment is detached bemusement as I
watch you post bogus albedo numbers again and again.
HardySpicer
> On Sep 27, 8:42 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Painius wrote:
>
> > >"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>
> > >> Minor quibble: the geometric albedo is the brightness as
> > >> seen from the light source. That does not describe the
> > >> astronauts' photos.
>
> > >So the Visual Normal, averaging perhaps 0.167 or
> > >less, must be a better description.
>
> > Remember, when deciding how bright something is, the human
> > eye/brain does not consider the average, but rather the
> > brightest areas, as long as they aren't too small.
>
> > >And if what I read about coal's albedo being 0.1, then
> > >the Moon still isn't all that much brighter than coal.
> > >If on the other hand, you are correct in that coal has
> > >a 0.05 albedo, then i see where that would lead to your
> > >"three times brighter" conclusion.
>
> > "Coal has an albedo of about 0.05"http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/teaching/1404_1.pdf
>
> > "Snow has an albedo of approximately 1 and coal an albedo
> > of about 0.05."http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39730/asteroid/258992/Size-...
>
The moon is made of cheese.
Hardy
BradGuth
Sooty lamp black reflects as much as 6%, although 3% +/1% is most
common. Just thought you might need to know that.
Powdered and sooty like coal can get a dark as 5%, but then the
average worth of our physically dark Selene/moon isn't much better on
average than 7%, and even at that it's highly UV reactive for offering
a rather nifty bluish hue. Sorry about that.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
http://z.about.com/d/space/1/7/c/e/earth_moon.jpg
Sam Wormley
Industrial One
> BradGuth wrote:
>
>>Average or typical terrestrial coal has an albedo of 0.1 (10%)
>
> "Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
>
>>the moon surface [has an] average of .07 albedo
>
> "Visual geometric albedo, Moon = 0.12
> Bond albedo, Moon = 0.12" ~NASA Moon Fact Sheet
If you don't stop feeding the troll I'm going to plonk you in teh ass you
homofag
BradGuth
> Direct comparison of the Earth and Moon in Sunlight
> http://z.about.com/d/space/1/7/P/e/pia02441.jpg
Nice PhotoShop altered image. Would you or others of your Zionist/
Nazi kind like to try once again?
~ BG
BradGuth
> Direct comparison of the Earth and Moon in Sunlight
> http://z.about.com/d/space/1/7/c/e/earth_moon.jpg
If you don't so terribly mind, I'll have to use this last one as proof-
positive, as to the ongoing ruse/sting of the century. Of course JAXA/
Selene as of lately has been doing worse things.
Say, why don’t you use those better quality images from our Messenger,
as looking back at Earth and our physically dark moon as it was headed
towards Venus and Mercury?
Oddly our NASA Apollo archives has offered even better examples of the
dark golden brownish surface of our moon along with Earth over the
horizon, that puts the true albedo of a band-pass filtered hue
saturation and the dynamic contrast into proper perspective, as
otherwise our moon tends to naturally photograph as having a rather
deep bluish tint.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
Except that the angle of view of the moon surface could be a factor
in the Apollo earth rise images.
Guy Macon
Industrial One wrote:
>I'm going to plonk you in teh ass you homofag
"The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in
exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect
toward homosexual individuals.
"Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35)
and a group of non-homophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned
to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia
(WW Hudson & WA Ricketts, 1980).
"The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli
consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian
videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored.
They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (AH. Buss &
M Perry, 1992).
"Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the
heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic
men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual
stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
"Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal
that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."
"Latent homosexuality can be defined as homosexual arousal which
the individual is either unaware of or denies. Psychoanalysts
use the concept of repressed or latent homosexuality to explain
the emotional malaise and irrational attitudes displayed by some
individuals who feel guilty about their erotic interests and
struggle to deny and repress homosexual impulses. When placed
in a situation that threatens to excite their own unwanted
homosexual thoughts, they overreact with panic or anger.
"Anxiety about homosexuality typically does not occur in
individuals who are same-sex oriented, but it usually involves
individuals who are ostensibly heterosexual and have difficulty
integrating their homosexual feelings or activity."
Source: _Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?_ by
Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany
A. Lohr, University of Georgia, published in Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
*PLONK*
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Direct comparison of the Earth and Moon in Sunlight
> http://z.about.com/d/space/1/7/c/e/earth_moon.jpg
Are you sure this is a direct comparison? Unless the intent of the image
was to compare the brightness, I'd expect that this image was typically
processed, meaning a gamma curve or other transfer function was applied,
making an accurate comparison of albedos impossible.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Sam Wormley
These don't seem much different. My own photography indicates
the moon is about one stop darker than 18% gray.
http://images.google.com/images?sa=N&tab=ni&q=Earthrise
BradGuth
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:38:45 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
Most of everything via NASA has been altered in order to suit their
ruse/sting of our mutually perpetrated cold-war century. However,
there are still a few good examples where they didn't catch it in time
prior to publishing or having posted such natural looking images for
public internet view.
The Selene/moon is darker than the albedo of Jupiter or Mars, whereas
the moons of Mars are somewhat darker yet.
If you want to see real PhotoShoping in action, take a forensic kind
of look-see at those pathetic HDTV JAXA/Selene images. It's
embarrassing as all get-out that our DARPA/NASA has JAXA so firmly by
their private parts.
I hope we are not talking about glare, whereas half of any given view
of our solar illuminated Selene/moon is essentially glare enhanced
albedo, and not of the true 0.07 albedo that’s as dark as coal. Those
Apollo cameras each had a neutral full hue/color spectrum bandpass
polarized optical element, that which by rights should have diminished
such surface glare by 50%, if not better, and those pure white
moonsuits were in fact still worthy of 0.85 or better, as well as
being UV reactive.
Remember folks, in addition to various minerals there’s also deposits
of magnesium oxide as well as the low density mineral of sodium within
and upon the otherwise relatively dark basalt crust of our moon,
that’s also offering an extremely electrostatic charged environment
and thus having collected a fairly thick amount of solar and cosmic
mineral likes of a carbon lampblack substance, whereas once this layer
of crystal dry surface dust gets artificially disturbed by an Apollo
mission impact, in addition to whatever vaporized aluminum that would
happen, whereas this method could in fact reveal an extremely bright/
reflective little crater that’s quite worthy of reflecting those green
photons.
Otherwise, the physically dark as coal moon itself is roughly offering
a 0.33 albedo in the IR spectrum, and only better reflective yet at
the mid to far IR spectrum.
So what’s the big freaking deal about getting those few and far
between photons out of the trillions transmitted, to bounce off the
moon without any retro-reflector benefits?
Btw, because of our moon and solar worth of whole terrestrial body
tides that manage to flex or undulate the entire body and thin crust
of Earth about our equator by 55 cm, and even at times as much as +/-
32 cm, is reason to interpret that there’s little likelihood of an
annual 3.8 cm recession can ever be made all that certain, whereas
having a Earth-moon L1 platform of instruments as set within the
Selene/moon L1 could have better established this kind of science and
so much more at not 10% the cost of one Apollo mission.
Glenifer Benifer
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:GmWDk.308861$TT4.248335@attbi_s22...
> Direct comparison of the Earth and Moon in Sunlight
> http://z.about.com/d/space/1/7/P/e/pia02441.jpg
The moon is much more distant in that image it looks like or its a crop of
some kind, either way it is no telling at all.
BradGuth
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
It's a DARPA PhotoShop version.
~ BG
BradGuth
Albedo boosted via surface glare is one thing, however PhotoShop seems
most likely.
Show us those superior Messenger images of Earth and our physically
dark moon within the same FOV and CCD scan.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
I don't think PhotoShop existed when these Earthrise images were published
in print form... of which I have many.
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>...our physically dark moon...
Change from claiming "our physically dark as coal moon"
to claiming "our physically dark moon" noted with approval.
It *is* rather dark, even if it isn't as dark as coal.
Cat_in_awe
>
> So what’s the big freaking deal about getting those few and far
> between photons out of the trillions transmitted, to bounce off the
> moon without any retro-reflector benefits?
>
Without retroreflectors the laser beams would NEVER be seen coming directly
back to their source on Earth. However, that is exactly what happens.
Sure, photons can bounce off the surface of the moon, but not directly back
to the source.
Disneygeek
Apparently dark cheese! :)
Disneygeek
So, what's stopping YOU from providing these images?
Tim Miller
The Zionist/DARPA/MI5/Evil Joos have denied him access to
their images until he apologizes.
Paul Schlyter
Disneygeek <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 11:28=A0pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 8:04 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > BradGuth wrote:
>> > > On Sep 28, 6:38 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> > >> Direct comparison of the Earth and Moon in Sunlight
>> > >>http://z.about.com/d/space/1/7/c/e/earth_moon.jpg
>> > >>http://z.about.com/d/space/1/7/P/e/pia02441.jpg
>>
>f-
>> > > positive, as to the ongoing ruse/sting of the century. =A0Of course J=
>AXA/
>> > > Selene as of lately has been doing worse things.
>>
>er,
>> > > as looking back at Earth and our physically dark moon as it was heade=
>d
>> > > towards Venus and Mercury?
>>
>e
>> > > dark golden brownish surface of our moon along with Earth over the
>> > > horizon, that puts the true albedo of a band-pass filtered hue
>> > > saturation and the dynamic contrast into proper perspective, as
>> > > otherwise our moon tends to naturally photograph as having a rather
>> > > deep bluish tint.
>>
>>
>> > =A0 =A0Except that the angle of view of the moon surface could be a fac=
>tor
>> > =A0 =A0in the Apollo earth rise images.
>>
>> Albedo boosted via surface glare is one thing, however PhotoShop seems
>> most likely.
>>
>> Show us those superior Messenger images of Earth and our physically
>> dark moon within the same FOV and CCD scan.
>
>So, what's stopping YOU from providing these images?
Probably his skill .... or lack of skill .... <g>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Paul Schlyter
SOME of the photons bounce directly back to the source - or else the Moon
would suddenly get very dark at full moon (outside of a lunar eclipse).
Painius
in message news:gbthaf$lcj$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Hah! That'll be the day.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!
P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com>:
Evidence, please. And no, your opinion that it's been
massaged because it doesn't agree with your opinion isn't
evidence.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Guy Macon
Disneygeek wrote:
>Apparently dark cheese! :)
222 lines of quoted text -- including sigs -- with three
words tacked on to the end...
How do I quote correctly in usenet?
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html
Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
http://www.xs4all.nl/%7ewijnands/nnq/nquote.html
How do I quote correctly in Usenet? - Quoting and Answering
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
Common Mistakes in Usenet Postings and How to Avoid Them
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/mail-news-errors.html
Quoting and Answering
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/
BradGuth
Funny word games you play.
~ BG
BradGuth
NASA has a well published Apollo image that even they admit to their
having doctored, so well done that experts from the photographic
forensics aspect could not have otherwise detected this published
image as bogus if based upon the photographic grains, color
saturations or dynamic contrast factors, because our DARPA was in fact
that good at creating as many believable yet bogus Kodak moments as
you'd like.
~ BG
BradGuth
We fully appreciate your conditional laws of physics, for a good laugh
at least.
Lest us compare via math, as what a relatively bright crater of say 1
km in diameter as having an albedo of 0.75 has to offer (surrounded by
the average 0.07~0.12 albedo), over that of a very small area retro-
reflector that's extremely dusty (especially by now).
~ BG
BradGuth
A black moldy cheese is usually bad for your health, as is the
physically dark as coal surface of our Selene/moon.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:21:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>
> >On Sep 29, 11:04 am, "Glenifer Benifer" <G...@telstar.com> wrote:
> >> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:GmWDk.308861$TT4.248335@attbi_s22...
>
> >> > Direct comparison of the Earth and Moon in Sunlight
> >> > http://z.about.com/d/space/1/7/P/e/pia02441.jpg
>
> >> The moon is much more distant in that image it looks like or its a crop of
> >> some kind, either way it is no telling at all.
>
> >It's a DARPA PhotoShop version.
>
> Evidence, please. And no, your opinion that it's been
> massaged because it doesn't agree with your opinion isn't
> evidence.
> --
>
> Bob C.
I've given countless amounts of evidence. Go fish.
Besides any number of tainted NASA/Apollo images that smell like
rotting fish, take a good look at the bogus JAXA/Selene images as
further evidence, as even a failing 5th grader can tell via most any
free photographic software that such has been intentionally altered in
order to suit the commands of our DARPA.
Why on Earth would JAXA be told to do such PhotoShop to their own
Selene mission images, and to otherwise exclude public access to each
and every one of their original raw image files.
Are you saying that you're not a smart as a 5th grader?
~ BG
BradGuth
> In article <gbtfcf$75...@registered.motzarella.org>,
Thank you, as I couldn't have said it any better.
Obviously off-world physics works entirely different for those of the
DARPA and NASA/ Apollo mindset.
~ BG
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>On Sep 30, 1:35 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:21:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>> <bradg...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Sep 29, 11:04 am, "Glenifer Benifer" <G...@telstar.com> wrote:
>> >> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:GmWDk.308861$TT4.248335@attbi_s22...
>>
>> >> > Direct comparison of the Earth and Moon in Sunlight
>> >> > http://z.about.com/d/space/1/7/P/e/pia02441.jpg
>>
>> >> The moon is much more distant in that image it looks like or its a crop of
>> >> some kind, either way it is no telling at all.
>>
>> >It's a DARPA PhotoShop version.
>>
>> Evidence, please. And no, your opinion that it's been
>> massaged because it doesn't agree with your opinion isn't
>> evidence.
>I've given countless amounts of evidence. Go fish.
You have given zero evidence that this image is
Photoshopped. Go pound sand.
<snip rambling rant>
Sam Wormley
> On Sep 30, 1:35 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> Evidence, please. And no, your opinion that it's been
>> massaged because it doesn't agree with your opinion isn't
>> evidence.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>
> I've given countless amounts of evidence. Go fish.
>
"countless" = "zero" in this case.
BradGuth
Two DARPA farts in a row do not make good enough mainstream science.
You silly old farts just want little old me to post whatever I'd
posted many years ago, just so that you can continually bash and
exclude whatever rocks your good ship LOLLIPOP.
~ BG
Peter Webb
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02da6ac1-1cdf-463a...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 2:52 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>
>> >Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>> >> BradGuth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Good for you. Are you happy now?
>>
>> My mental state at the moment is detached bemusement as I
>> watch you post bogus albedo numbers again and again.> Sooty lamp black reflects as much as 6%, although 3% +/1% is most
> common. Just thought you might need to know that.
>
> Powdered and sooty like coal can get a dark as 5%, but then the
> average worth of our physically dark Selene/moon isn't much better on
> average than 7%, and even at that it's highly UV reactive for offering
> a rather nifty bluish hue. Sorry about that.
>
> ~ BG
You keep saying that, but Mr Macon keeps providing actual albedo figures
from reputable sources that proves you wrong.
Peter Webb
Weren't you the guy who said it was as "dark as coal" ?
How does showing this statement of yours to be wrong constitute "word play"
?
Government Shill #2
~ BG has his own bozone layer.
--
Shill #2
Bozone (n.):
The substance surrounding stupid people that stop bright ideas from
penetrating.
The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the
near future.
BradGuth
wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Our Selene/moon is in matter of absolute peer replicated fact
(independent as well as mainstream status quo) proven as being
absolutely every bit as dark as coal.
0.07 is actually an average albedo that's somewhat darker than the
average version of terrestrial coal.
Play all the silly word and number games you like. Even those
modified JAXA/Selene mission images are proof positive that we're
still being snookered and otherwise continually dumbfounded by those
of our own kind.
If our moon wasn't as dark as col, we'd all be blinded by the light.
If Venus were close enough as to being the observed size of our moon
is what kind of albedo it would have taken for those Apollo Kodak
moments to have turned out as having such a highly reflective surface
that went on and on for as far as their unfiltered camera eyes could
see.
In some of those nicely xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated shots,
their 0.85 albedo moonsuits were only 15%~20% brighter than the
surrounding surface that looked a whole lot more like a recently
modified (ground and dusted smooth) terrestrial guano island, rather
than anything of a physically dark Selene/moon like environment.
Where exactly on the moon is there such a vast expanse of terrain
offering this 65%~75% albedo?
And don't forget that I'm 100% right about their xenon arc lamp
spectrum.
Guy Macon
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
BradGuth wrote:
As usual. you are missing the point. When you shine a very bright
industrial laser at a random spot on the moon, any returning light
is far too dim to see. When you shine it on tranquility base, you
see a very bright spot exactly where NASA says the astronauts walked
on the moon. Period. End of story. That's all you need to know
to determine that the retroreflector is there.
That being said, here is the *REAL* math, showing that the returned
light from the retroreflector is 368.4 times brighter than the
returned light from tranqility base without a retroreflector:
Assume Tranquility base Albedo of 0.073
Distance to Moon = 3.6x10^8 Meters
Laser Pulse Energy = 1500x10^-3 Joules
Laser Pulse Duration = 200x10^-12 Seconds
Laser Pulse Rate = 10 Hz
Laser Pulse Power = 7.5x10^9 Watts
Average Laser Power Output = 15 Watts
Diameter of Laser Spot on Moon = 7 Kilometers
Diameter of Retroreflector Spot on Earth = 20 Kilometers
Collecting Area of Telescope = 0.37 Square Meters
(~0.75 meter diameter mirror obstructed by a 15cm secondary)
Optical Path Efficiency = 90%
Collecting Area of Retroreflector = 0.42 Square Meters
Retroreflector Efficiency = 90%
WITHOUT RETROREFLECTOR
Loss because of 90% efficiency transmitting optics:
15 Watts * 0.9 = 13.5 Watts
Loss becease of Albedo of the Moon
13.5 * 0.073 = 0.9 Watts
Area of illumination reaching the Earth's distance:
2 * Pi * (3.6x10^8)^2 ~= 8.1x10^17 Square Meters (half sphere)
Collecting area of receiving telescope:
0.34 Square Meters
Ratio of collected light to total light:
0.34 / 8.1x10^17 ~= 4.2x10^-19
Optical Power entering the scope:
0.9 * 4.2x10^-19 ~= 3.8x10^-19 Watts
WITH RETROREFLECTOR
Area of illuminated spot on the Moon:
Pi * 3500^2 ~= 3.8x10^7 Square Meters
Ratio of the retroreflector area to total illuminated spot area:
0.42 / 3.8x10^7 ~= 1.1x10^-8
Power of laser light collected by retroreflector:
13.5 Watts * 1.1x10^-8 = 1.5x10^-7 Watts
After loss because of 90% efficient reflector:
1.5x10^-7 * 0.9 ~= 1.3x10^-7 Watts
Area of the retroreflected spot on the Earth:
Pi * 10000^2 ~= 3.1x10^8 Square Meters
Collecting area of receiving telescope:
0.34 Square Meters
Ratio of collected light to total light:
0.34 / 3.1x10^8 ~= 1.1x10^-9 [from 11.]
Optical Power entering the scope:
1.3x10^-7 * 1.1x10^-9 ~= 1.4x10^-16 Watts
Optical Power entering the scope without retroreflector:
0.9 * 4.2x10^-19 ~= 3.8x10^-19 Watts
Optical Power entering the scope with retroreflector:
1.3x10^-7 * 1.1x10^-9 ~= 1.4x10^-16 Watts
Ratio of retrorefector to lunar surface brightness:
368.4
Ratio of lunar surface to retrorefector brightness:
0.002714
Effective Albedo of retroreflector:
0.073 * 368.4 = 26.9
Source for above figures:
http://home.austin.rr.com/broadb/chris/Using_Lunar_Retroreflectors.html
BradGuth
wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Shown what?
You've got something or anything from the JAXA/Selene mission, such as
from either their telephoto HDTV or TC camera that proves otherwise?
Oddly JAXA hasn't provided squat that'll honestly and thereby
objectively support anything DARPA, NASA or Apollo, other than
PhotoShop modified images to suit whatever they're being paid and/or
told to provide.
It seems even Hitler was a better liar than yourself, although our
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) is clearly right up there with the
best you guys.
~ BG
Disneygeek
> Disneygeek wrote:
> >Apparently dark cheese! :)
>
> 222 lines of quoted text -- including sigs -- with three
> words tacked on to the end...
Sorry, I thought I'd snipped that!
Disneygeek
That's why they had sealed spacesuits to wear while standing on it!
Painius
news:1rqdnW6qD4l...@giganews.com...
All that interesting stuff notwithstanding, Guy (i'm sure
you spent an enjoyable time gathering it all), how can
the albedo be greater than one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net
Disneygeek
Notice he said "some." You would still need the reflector if you were
going to do anything precise with a laser.
BradGuth
The average return of photons from the same exact reflective little
crater of exposed moon minerals plus whatever artificial deposited
elements or dust (such as aluminum that vaporized upon impact) will
do just nicely, because you can still pick and chose which relected
photons you'd care to count, just like they do anyway.
~ BG
Guy Macon
BradGuth wrote:
>0.07 is actually an average albedo that's somewhat darker than the
>average version of terrestrial coal.
"Coal has an albedo of about 0.05." ~Encyclopedia Britannica
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
BradGuth
Apparently those basic laws of physics work entirely different while
on our dark as coal moon. Go figure, apparently the local coal as
dark basalt and nearly lampblack carbon soot that's covering most of
our Selene/moon looks exactly like a certain terrestrial guano island
that's xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated none the less.
Oddly nothing bright and shiny as situated upon our otherwise
physically dark Selene/moon has shown itself to the JAXA/Selene TC
imaging, that has absolutely terrific DR to work with, as for making
any of their 10 meter/pixel resolution look anything the least bit
brighter or otherwise skewed or as being the the least bit weird.
~ BG
Guy Macon
Painius wrote:
>
>"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>> Effective Albedo of retroreflector: 26.9
>All that interesting stuff notwithstanding, Guy (i'm sure
>you spent an enjoyable time gathering it all), how can
>the albedo be greater than one?
EFFECTIVE Albedo. Albedo is a measure of diffues light
sent in all directions. The retroreflector sends the
light right back at the light source, making the
effective Albedo *at the light source* 26.9. at other
angles virtually no light is sent back, and if you
average all the light sent in all directions, you get a
figure that is less that 1.
BradGuth
The albedo/m2 of a robotic placed retro-retroflector is in fact going
to look terrific if not better than 27 fold better than the
surrounding coal like surface, especially if there were say 32 large
area retro-reflecting corner cubes situated within that m2, and every
corner cube was always squeaky clean.
So what, because the 2+ km illuminated target diameter still has way
more green photons to spare, even if working at the albedo of 0.1/m2,
though imagine what a small impact and artificially made reflective
crater of 0.7 albedo would do. Too bad those reflectors were gold
plated for IR instead of aluminum for the best visual spectrum.
Those of their initial IR laser illuminated target diameter had a 20
km diameter portion of that IR reflective moon to draw upon.
Do the math.
~ BG
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
Translation: "What evidence?"
Painius
I don't understand. How does this compare, say, with
what the albedo of the Sun would be if it had one, i.e.,
if the Sun were a reflecting object, and still as bright as
it is, what would be its albedo?
And what would be the usefulness of such an "effective
albedo" figure? Is what you're saying that the surface
retroreflector reflects 26.9 times as much light as a
purely white object with an albedo of one?
Guy Macon
Painius wrote:
>
>"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>
>> Painius wrote:
>>
>>>"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>>>>
>>>> Effective Albedo of retroreflector: 26.9
>>>
>>> All that interesting stuff notwithstanding, Guy (i'm sure
>>> you spent an enjoyable time gathering it all), how can
>>> the albedo be greater than one?
>>
>> EFFECTIVE Albedo. Albedo is a measure of diffues light
>> sent in all directions. The retroreflector sends the
>> light right back at the light source, making the
>> effective Albedo *at the light source* 26.9. at other
>> angles virtually no light is sent back, and if you
>> average all the light sent in all directions, you get a
>> figure that is less that 1.
>
>I don't understand. How does this compare, say, with
>what the albedo of the Sun would be if it had one, i.e.,
>if the Sun were a reflecting object, and still as bright as
>it is, what would be its albedo?
Albedo? Unmeasurable unless you illuminate it with a light
that is bright enough to swamp the light from it. A Quasar
in Pluto's orbit should do the job.
Effective Albedo? Arbitrarily large. Want a bigger number?
make your illuminator dimmer and the light from the sun will
have a higher ratio.
>And what would be the usefulness of such an "effective
>albedo" figure?
I find "the amount of light that my detector recieves"
(effective albedo) to be more useful than "the amount
of light that a half-sphere big enough to wrap around
the moon recieves (albedo)."
>Is what you're saying that the surface
>retroreflector reflects 26.9 times as much light as a
>purely white object with an albedo of one?
Close. the surface retroreflector reflects 26.9 times
as much light *to the source* as a purely white object
with an albedo of one. At a large angle it would be
far less. Think laser pointer vs. light bulb. With
the laser pointer direction matters -- a lot.
BradGuth
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:07:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>
>
>
> >On Oct 1, 2:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> BradGuth wrote:
> >> > On Sep 30, 1:35 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> Evidence, please. And no, your opinion that it's been
> >> >> massaged because it doesn't agree with your opinion isn't
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >> --
>
> >> >> Bob C.
>
> >> > I've given countless amounts of evidence. Go fish.
>
> >> "countless" = "zero" in this case.
>
> >Two DARPA farts in a row do not make good enough mainstream science.
>
> >You silly old farts just want little old me to post whatever I'd
> >posted many years ago, just so that you can continually bash and
> >exclude whatever rocks your good ship LOLLIPOP.
>
> Translation: "What evidence?"
See what I mean. You've once again spoken like a good little Zionist/
Nazi.
~ BG
Painius
Thank you, Guy, that's pretty cool. I wondered how
the retroreflectors were able to offer so much more
precision when deducing the various parameters.
You've explained it very nicely, thank you.
Ralph
What planet is this job from?
pa-dum pum..
"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message
news:1KWdnX9fPpF...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> Industrial One wrote:
>
>>I'm going to plonk you in teh ass you homofag
>
> "The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in
> exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect
> toward homosexual individuals.
>
> "Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35)
> and a group of non-homophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned
> to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia
> (WW Hudson & WA Ricketts, 1980).
>
> "The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli
> consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian
> videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored.
> They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (AH. Buss &
> M Perry, 1992).
>
> "Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the
> heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic
> men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual
> stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
>
> "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal
> that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."
>
> "Latent homosexuality can be defined as homosexual arousal which
> the individual is either unaware of or denies. Psychoanalysts
> use the concept of repressed or latent homosexuality to explain
> the emotional malaise and irrational attitudes displayed by some
> individuals who feel guilty about their erotic interests and
> struggle to deny and repress homosexual impulses. When placed
> in a situation that threatens to excite their own unwanted
> homosexual thoughts, they overreact with panic or anger.
>
> "Anxiety about homosexuality typically does not occur in
> individuals who are same-sex oriented, but it usually involves
> individuals who are ostensibly heterosexual and have difficulty
> integrating their homosexual feelings or activity."
>
> Source: _Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?_ by
> Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany
> A. Lohr, University of Georgia, published in Journal of Abnormal
> Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
>
> *PLONK*
>
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
Zionist/Nazis (whatever that may mean; is that like
Misogynist/Feminists?) insisted on evidence? Strange, I
thought the Nazis made proclamations of "Truth", somewhat
like your proclamation that you already cited the evidence
you're so reluctant to provide.
BradGuth
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:07:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>
>
>
> >On Oct 1, 2:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> BradGuth wrote:
> >> > On Sep 30, 1:35 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> Evidence, please. And no, your opinion that it's been
> >> >> massaged because it doesn't agree with your opinion isn't
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >> --
>
> >> >> Bob C.
>
> >> > I've given countless amounts of evidence. Go fish.
>
> >> "countless" = "zero" in this case.
>
> >Two DARPA farts in a row do not make good enough mainstream science.
>
> >You silly old farts just want little old me to post whatever I'd
> >posted many years ago, just so that you can continually bash and
> >exclude whatever rocks your good ship LOLLIPOP.
>
> Translation: "What evidence?"
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
Besides the supposedly terrific gamma spectrometry form of geophysics
in planetology imaging that should detect those sorts of complex
surface deposits, and to some extent of what the crust of Mercury
contains, why exactly is the Messenger image quality of the visible
spectrum that’s offered for public review so unusually deprived of
dynamic range, and otherwise offering only extremely pastel color/hue
saturation?
Are they still having to insist that other planets such as Venus,
Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, even Mars and that of our darker than coal
Selene/moon can’t possibly be included within any FOV(frame of view)
that’s pointed in the right direction, while having included the
otherwise nearly dark as coal and element/mineral rich surface of
Mercury?
How about the vibrant and rather unavoidably bluish and UV hue
saturation of Sirius, as a sufficient little point-source speck of
pesky photons that should by rights rather easily fall within the wide
spectrum bandpass and DR(dynamic range) of what either Messenger
camera with it’s superior mirror optics should accommodate?
Disneygeek
Oh no. I've been reading this guy for years. He give countless amounts
of evidence. He just doesn't verify it or state its source so we can
vouch for its legitimacy.
Disneygeek
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow. You seem to know a lot less about actual applied (or even
general) research than I thought you did.
Disneygeek
Apparently the basic laws of physics work differently in Brad's world
than they do here on Earth where it would be difficult to get guano
dust on a terrestrial island to behave as if it were in a vacuum. It
would also be difficult to get the flag(s) from any of the missions to
sit there passively (sp?) while people in suits jumped around them
kicking up all sorts of breezes.
But no, no. They didn't take pictures of the stars or of Venus and
they won't take Brad seriously when he suggests there's some sort of
intelligence there or at least some reason to risk the caustic
atmosperes and killing pressures of trying to explore Venus so it's
all a lie!
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>On Oct 2, 3:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:07:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>> <bradg...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 1, 2:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> >> BradGuth wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 30, 1:35 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> Evidence, please. And no, your opinion that it's been
>> >> >> massaged because it doesn't agree with your opinion isn't
>> >> >> evidence.
>> >> >> --
>>
>> >> >> Bob C.
>>
>> >> > I've given countless amounts of evidence. Go fish.
>>
>> >> "countless" = "zero" in this case.
>>
>> >Two DARPA farts in a row do not make good enough mainstream science.
>>
>> >You silly old farts just want little old me to post whatever I'd
>> >posted many years ago, just so that you can continually bash and
>> >exclude whatever rocks your good ship LOLLIPOP.
>>
>> Translation: "What evidence?"
>Besides the supposedly terrific gamma spectrometry form of geophysics
>in planetology imaging that should detect those sorts of complex
>surface deposits
Two points: First, you need to cite references to support
this claim ("should detect"). Second, you need to cite a
reference for these alleged "complex surface deposits".
>, and to some extent of what the crust of Mercury
>contains, why exactly is the Messenger image quality of the visible
>spectrum that’s offered for public review so unusually deprived of
>dynamic range, and otherwise offering only extremely pastel color/hue
>saturation?
Cite the published equipment specifications, please. *Then*
you can argue whether the published images (to which you
also need to cite references) don't match them.
>Are they still having to insist that other planets such as Venus,
>Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, even Mars and that of our darker than coal
>Selene/moon can’t possibly be included within any FOV(frame of view)
>that’s pointed in the right direction, while having included the
>otherwise nearly dark as coal and element/mineral rich surface of
>Mercury?
I don't know; are "they"? Who, and where's the information
supporting this (implied) claim?
>How about the vibrant and rather unavoidably bluish and UV hue
>saturation of Sirius, as a sufficient little point-source speck of
>pesky photons that should by rights rather easily fall within the wide
>spectrum bandpass and DR(dynamic range) of what either Messenger
>camera with it’s superior mirror optics should accommodate?
The cite you provide for the equipment specifications will
also cover this; then you can cite a reference to the
published images which supports your implied claim that
those images don't match the equipment capabilities (if
that's what you're claiming; it's sometimes difficult to
extract *what* your claim is).
BradGuth
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:02:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
I've more than accomplished my research, starting as of 8+ years ago,
as well as having decades of experience, training and first hand
applications that most haven't a clue about accomplishing, and nothing
since has made any fundamental revisions to what I've stipulated.
Our Selene/moon is upon average physically dark as coal. End of
argument, unless you've got some new and improved science proving
otherwise.
If you had good science or documentation proving otherwise, you'd have
utilized it against me. Obviously you haven't squat outside of your
DARPA/Apollo bible.
You don't even know how to run an image through PhotoShop, much less
of how to obtain that image in the first place. You act as though our
NASA is privately funded and having paid their fair share of tax on
their private club as having a recreational sport or hobby that the
public has no rights to know anything about.
~ BG
BradGuth
Nice try, but no cigar.
~ BG
BradGuth
Spoken like a good little Zionist/Nazi that you are.
~ BG
BradGuth
NASA's own supercomputer driven simulators also prove that I'm right.
A 5th grader should be able to figure this one out.
~ BG
Disneygeek
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:02:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
I have almost never seen Brad Guth cite a reference. I'm not prepared
for the "end times" should he start citing verifiable information now!
Disneygeek
That's OK, I don't smoke! So, Brad, how did they make "guano dust"
behave as if it were in a vacuum? How did they keep the flag from
fluttering?
Disneygeek
Spoken like the true Brad Guth who can't ever back up any of his
claims with verifiable sources.
Disneygeek
In what? You make lots of claims and I'm not totally certain which one
this is in relation to. So you wouldn't mind providing a cite to an
authoritative source that will back up ANYTHING you say would you?
BradGuth
Not a problem, except for NEO TC3 that's about to encounter Earth.
If we manage to survive this rather sudden coming event as of October
7, I'll see what I can do about citing the works and technology of
others.
Any idea as to what the mass of TC3 is?
~ BG
BradGuth
You have so little faith in movie magic, and apparently you can't even
count frames per second. You're next to hopeless.
~ BG
BradGuth
Are you now claiming as being new to this kind of topic?
~ BG
BradGuth
Almost never is at least a whole lot better off than never, isn't it.
~ BG
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>I've more than accomplished my research, starting as of 8+ years ago,
>as well as having decades of experience, training and first hand
>applications that most haven't a clue about accomplishing, and nothing
>since has made any fundamental revisions to what I've stipulated.
>
>Our Selene/moon is upon average physically dark as coal. End of
>argument, unless you've got some new and improved science proving
>otherwise.
>
>If you had good science or documentation proving otherwise, you'd have
>utilized it against me. Obviously you haven't squat outside of your
>DARPA/Apollo bible.
>
>You don't even know how to run an image through PhotoShop, much less
>of how to obtain that image in the first place. You act as though our
>NASA is privately funded and having paid their fair share of tax on
>their private club as having a recreational sport or hobby that the
>public has no rights to know anything about.
Thanks for confirming that you have no cites to any data,
and thus no evidence.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Disneygeek
<edrh...@hotmail.com>:
No, and he didn't this time, either. Sort of makes you
wonder where he got the idea that assertions without
referents are evidence.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>On Oct 6, 12:23 pm, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> I have almost never seen Brad Guth cite a reference. I'm not prepared
>> for the "end times" should he start citing verifiable information now!
>Almost never is at least a whole lot better off than never, isn't it.
Not much. Care to give a reference to any verifiable cite to
supporting data you've actually provided? Unless you're a
"neat freak" it should be in your newsreader's "Sent"
folder, and amenable to search.
Waiting, but not holding my breath.
BradGuth
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>
> >On Oct 6, 12:23 pm, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I have almost never seen Brad Guth cite a reference. I'm not prepared
> >> for the "end times" should he start citing verifiable information now!
> >Almost never is at least a whole lot better off than never, isn't it.
>
> Not much. Care to give a reference to any verifiable cite to
> supporting data you've actually provided? Unless you're a
> "neat freak" it should be in your newsreader's "Sent"
> folder, and amenable to search.
>
> Waiting, but not holding my breath.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
Yes, "the Moon *really* as dark as coal" is worth citing from any
number of peer replicated sources, along with loads of outsider
obtained images that proves the exact same thing.
How many combined years have you been within Usenet or any part of
uplink.space.com?
~ BG
BDK
@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, brad...@gmail.com says...
> On Oct 6, 12:25 pm, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 2:27 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 5, 12:04 pm, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Oct 2, 2:08 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Oct 2, 10:22 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Oct 1, 1:49 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Sep 30, 9:14 am, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > In article <gbtfcf$75...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> >
> > > > > > > > Cat_in_awe <rl3166...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >BradGuth wrote:
> >
Not the topic, just your particular type of insanity.
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
And the fact that this was refuted several times in this
thread, *with references*, means nothing to you? OK.
>How many combined years have you been within Usenet or any part of
>uplink.space.com?
About 15. Why is this relevant to the fact that your claim
was refuted?
BradGuth
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:56:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>
>
>
> >On Oct 6, 2:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
> >> <bradg...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> >On Oct 6, 12:23 pm, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
By way of independent and multiple peer replicated matter of fact that
a 5th grader knows best, our physically dark Selene/moon is upon
average nearly if not somewhat darker than terrestrial coal.
There are published amateur images of our solar illuminated moon and
that of the same FOV having Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and of course Venus
that's terribly bright (better than 2x the albedo of Earth). There
are even a few NASA published images that proves how physically dark
our moon is in relation to other planets, including the darkest
portions of Earth that are actually brighter than our moon, such as
our ocean albedo records as brighter than our moon. When Messenger
using the ultimate best of any camera and mirror optics imaged Earth
from Venus, our large enough moon was essentially invisible (clearly
as dark or darker than coal) because it was obviously darker than any
albedo portion of Earth.
Good grief you are a dumb one, and obviously dumbfounded to boot.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>On Oct 7, 2:22 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:56:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>> <bradg...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 6, 2:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>> >> <bradg...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 6, 12:23 pm, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> >> I have almost never seenBradGuthcite a reference. I'm not prepared
>> >> >> for the "end times" should he start citing verifiable information now!
>> >> >Almost never is at least a whole lot better off than never, isn't it.
>>
>> >> Not much. Care to give a reference to any verifiable cite to
>> >> supporting data you've actually provided? Unless you're a
>> >> "neat freak" it should be in your newsreader's "Sent"
>> >> folder, and amenable to search.
>>
>> >> Waiting, but not holding my breath.
>> >Yes, "the Moon *really* as dark as coal" is worth citing from any
>> >number of peer replicated sources, along with loads of outsider
>> >obtained images that proves the exact same thing.
>> And the fact that this was refuted several times in this
>> thread, *with references*, means nothing to you? OK.
Apparently it doesn't.
>> >How many combined years have you been within Usenet or any part of
>> >uplink.space.com?
>> About 15. Why is this relevant to the fact that your claim
>> was refuted?
No answer. No surprise...
>By way of independent and multiple peer replicated matter of fact that
>a 5th grader knows best, our physically dark Selene/moon is upon
>average nearly if not somewhat darker than terrestrial coal.
>
>There are published amateur images of our solar illuminated moon and
>that of the same FOV having Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and of course Venus
>that's terribly bright (better than 2x the albedo of Earth). There
>are even a few NASA published images that proves how physically dark
>our moon is in relation to other planets, including the darkest
>portions of Earth that are actually brighter than our moon, such as
>our ocean albedo records as brighter than our moon. When Messenger
>using the ultimate best of any camera and mirror optics imaged Earth
>from Venus, our large enough moon was essentially invisible (clearly
>as dark or darker than coal) because it was obviously darker than any
>albedo portion of Earth.
And the fact that this was refuted several times in this
thread, *with references*, means nothing to you? OK.
>Good grief you are a dumb one, and obviously dumbfounded to boot.
Perhaps, although refusing to accept unsupported claims as
fact seems to point the other way; when I'm asked for cites
I provide them, or say why I can't. And the "dumbfounded"
one is the one who makes no attempt to provide cites to the
claims he makes:
"Upon being asked to support his claims, the conspiracy
theorist was dumbfounded and wouldn't, or more likely
couldn't, reply other than by making additional unsupported
assertions."
Sound familiar? It should.
BradGuth
> Painius wrote:
>
> >"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
>
> >> Minor quibble: the geometric albedo is the brightness as
> >> seen from the light source. That does not describe the
> >> astronauts' photos.
>
> >So the Visual Normal, averaging perhaps 0.167 or
> >less, must be a better description.
>
> Remember, when deciding how bright something is, the human
> eye/brain does not consider the average, but rather the
> brightest areas, as long as they aren't too small.
>
> >And if what I read about coal's albedo being 0.1, then
> >the Moon still isn't all that much brighter than coal.
> >If on the other hand, you are correct in that coal has
> >a 0.05 albedo, then i see where that would lead to your
> >"three times brighter" conclusion.
>
> "Coal has an albedo of about 0.05"http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/teaching/1404_1.pdf
>
> "Snow has an albedo of approximately 1 and coal an albedo
> of about 0.05."http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39730/asteroid/258992/Size-...http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-258992/asteroid#515214.hook
>
> "as black as coal (albedo ~ 0.04)"http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3750/ClassNotes/Class24/Class24.html
>
> "a very dark object, almost like coal (its albedo being 0.04)"http://www.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~wittmann/awittmann-Dateien/navbar-Dateien/...
>
> |
> | Lunar Albedo
> | by Jeff Medkeff
> |http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm
> |
> | A lot of confusing statements are made about the albedo of the moon.
> | The moon is, according to various accounts, "darker than blacktop"
> | or "darker than a black sheet of construction paper." These are
> | oversimplifications - neither blacktop or construction paper have
> | the special characteristics of the moon. Besides, both materials can
> | be found in colors that actually range from light gray to nearly
> | black, so unless you specify a brand of construction paper, or a
> | particular mile of highway, the assertion is next to meaningless
> | even if it weren't untrue.
> |
> | Albedo is given in a variety of definitions, and the blacktop
> | analogy is the result of the unwitting abuse of a couple of such
> | definitions. Without knowing the definition that is used, its
> | impossible to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. The
> | simplest version of albedo is the Lambert albedo. A Lambert surface
> | is one which scatters light isotropically - in other words, an equal
> | intensity of light is scattered in all directions; it doesn't matter
> | whether you measure it from directly above the surface or off to the
> | side. The photometer will give you the same reading.
> |
> | For a lambert planetary surface, the illumination effects are
> | entirely geometric. The brightest illumination is directly below the
> | sun, and the amount of light reflected diminishes the farther you
> | get from this point, simply because the sunlight is played along a
> | greater arc of the surface. The illumination isophotes will be
> | round. Unfortunately, the moon is not a Lambert surface.
> |
> | For one thing, the subsolar point does not provide the brightest
> | reflection - the limb does. And the phase curve has a sharp peak in
> | brightness during full moon - the moon is extra reflective at full
> | compared to first quarter. Attempts were once made to explain this
> | in terms of a Lambert surface with various kinds of topography, but
> | this does not work out.
> |
> | It is now known that this departure from a Lambert surface is caused
> | by the very porous first few millimeters of the lunar regolith.
> | Sunlight can penetrate the surface and illuminate subsurface grains,
> | the scattered light from which can make its way back out in any
> | direction. At full phase, all such grains cover their own shadows;
> | the dark shadows being covered by bright grains, the surface is
> | brighter than normal.
> |
> | The picture is further complicated by the fact that the perfectly
> | full moon is never visible from Earth (at such times, the moon is
> | eclipsed). From the Apollo missions, we know that the exact subsolar
> | point - in effect, the fullest possible moon - is some 30% brighter
> | than the fullest moon seen from earth. It is thought that this is
> | caused by glass beads formed by impact in the lunar regolith, which
> | tend to reflect light in the direction from which it comes. This
> | light is therefore reflected back toward the sun, bypassing earth.
> |
> | The original definition of albedo, proposed by Bond, is the ratio of
> | total solar radiation scattered from a body to the radiation
> | incident upon it. The Bond albedo of the moon is 11%. But limiting
> | this figure to V-band radiation produces quite a different value.
> | The average visual Bond albedo of the earth-facing side of the moon
> | is 7.2%.
> |
> | This is what has led to the often repeated statement that the moon
> | is blacker than even very black terrestrial materials. Flocked
> | paper, often used in light traps and as telescope darkening
> | material, has an albedo of about 6%, for example. But the low Bond
> | albedo of 7.2% is the result of the porous upper layers, which cast
> | shadows over a substantial percentage of the visible surface. No
> | common terrestrial material has a similar layer, so it isn't useful
> | for comparison purposes. So the black construction paper theory and
> | the asphalt theory simply have to be abandoned.
> |
> | Another definition is the visual geometric albedo, which is the
> | proportion of visible light received from an illuminated body at
> | zero phase angle to that which would be received by a Lambert
> | surface in the same position. For the moon, the full moon problem
> | again intrudes. The visual geometric albedo of the full moon is
> | 12.5%, but much less at other phases.
> |
> | Because it is very difficult to measure this value, the visual
> | geometric albedo at 5% phase angle is often used instead. That
> | should be self-explanatory; the value for the moon is about 8.4%.
> | But it can't be used to compare with terrestrial materials for the
> | same reason the Bond albedo cannot.
> |
> | Yet another definition - and by far the most useful for observers -
> | is the visual normal albedo. This is the ratio between the
> | brightness of a given area of an illuminated body at zero phase
> | angle and oriented normal to the incident light, to that of a plane
> | white Lambert surface similarly oriented. But normal incidence is
> | never seen from earth (remember, the moon would be eclipsed), so
> | they've introduced the "normal albedo at 5% phase angle" instead -
> | which is a contradiction in terms, but I suppose we know what it is
> | supposed to mean.
> |
> | The following is a list of the "visual normal albedo at 5% phase
> | angle" of various lunar features. These numbers can be used to
> | directly compare to terrestrial surfaces (reference cited below):
> |
> | Darkest areas: 8.6%
> | Tranquillitatis south of Plinius: 9.1%
> | Plato's floor: 9.6%
> | Serenitatis east of Linne: 10%
> | Imbrium south of Plato: 10.4%
> | Nectaris: 11.4%
> | Ptolemaeus floor: 13.1%
> | Arzachel: 17%
> | Tycho ejecta: 20%
> | Aristarchus: 20%
> | Aristarchus interior: 22%
> | Bright spot in Deslandres: 24%
> | Proclus E wall: 28%
> | Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 30%
> |
> | These values are, as you can see, considerably higher than the other
> | lunar albedos given. For comparison, the albedo of a green golf
> | course is about 13%, roughly the same as that of the Cayley
> | Formation which covers the floor of Ptolemaeus. So you see, the moon
> | is not quite as dark as is often claimed - something about in the
> | middle range of lunar brightnesses is just as bright as a grassy
> | yard at noon.
> |
> | Ref: British Astronomical Association, Guide to Observing the Moon,
> | Enslow 1986
> |
> | part of Jeff Medkeff's Notes on Lunar Features
> | Jeff Medkeff's home page.
> | Jeff's astronomy pages.
> | Copyright (C) Jeff Medkeff, 2002, All Rights Reserved.
> |http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm
> |
>
> --
> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
You silly folks and whatever 5th graders do realize that our
physically dark as coal moon does offer a fairly complex mineralogy of
surface hues or colors, don’t you?
Here’s one eye-candy example with its contrast and color or hue
saturation cranked way up, but otherwise it’s not having been
artificially colored.
http://www.coronaborealis.org/images/full_moon_color.png
A somewhat less contrast and hue saturated example.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060216.html
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0602/Mooncolor060110schedler_35.jpg
And there are may other honest amateur/private examples that can be
peer replicated as often as you like, of our mineral color/hue rich
and otherwise physically dark as coal Selene/moon to pick from, though
usually not nearly as having been so contrast and hue saturation
pushed. Of course these terrestrial obtained images are not having
nearly as good of unobstructed look-see as for the HDTV images from
the JAXA/Selene mission, or from any number of equally or better color
imaging technology satellites and otherwise of those previous Kodak
color film methods with the ultimate best of optics that our NASA/
Apollo has always had at their disposal.
Oddly those JAXA/Selene images are being continually PhotoShop
processed in order to remove all signs of the natural mineral color/
hue saturation of our physically dark as coal moon. Them Japs as NASA
puppets must think we’re all really dumbfounded past the point of no
return.
Disneygeek
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>
> >On Oct 6, 12:23 pm, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I have almost never seen Brad Guth cite a reference. I'm not prepared
> >> for the "end times" should he start citing verifiable information now!
> >Almost never is at least a whole lot better off than never, isn't it.
>
> Not much. Care to give a reference to any verifiable cite to
> supporting data you've actually provided? Unless you're a
> "neat freak" it should be in your newsreader's "Sent"
> folder, and amenable to search.
>
> Waiting, but not holding my breath.
I think there was one time when he actually referenced data from a
NASA webiste and gave references to it. That was the only time and
it's why I made the claim "almost never."
Disneygeek
I think we should pull this back on track and ask WHY is this
important to you? I will grant the Moon does not reflect as much light
as Venus. This does not mean that Venus (which may well have been in
the sky and within their FOV) was anywhere within their camera's
sight. Your big claim has been "we didn't go because Venus doesn't
show up in any of the pictures." without ever explaining WHY they
would want to take a picture of Venus which would be in close prximity
to the Sun whereever it was in the sky and as such wouldn't be a
likely choice to photograph no matter HOW bright it was.
Disneygeek
...and you didn't answer the question. (24 frames per second, which
means what exactly?)
"Movie magic" is difficult to work at best, certainly not "on the fly"
as it would have to have been with this sort of situration and also
out in the wild as opposed to being on a soundstage. Even on a
soundstage, there are problems. Let's not forget the moment in "2001 -
A Space Oddesy" (sp) where the shuttle is supposed to be in zero
gravity but the passengers juice drops down the straw back into the
cup!
Even under the strictest controls, nature can screw you up. In one of
the Sinbad movies, the wizard is supposed to be leading his dragon out
onto the beach. The filmmakers used actual fauna for the set design
and during the tedious stop motion work, one of the flowers on the set
bloomed. In real life, this took quite a while and no one noticed, in
running the dailies the next day, someone piped up; "Hey! Look at the
magic flower!" as the flower popped open on the hill behind the
dragon. They had to go back and refilm the entire sequence!
I know "movie magic." I know it far better than you do.
Disneygeek
No. I'm claiming to be the guy who's been following the topic for
years and have almost NEVER seen you verify even ONE of your claims!
(You did once offer stuff and said it was from a NASA website, so I
can't really say "never," but "almost never" is pretty damn close!
BradGuth
I sort of gave up posting those obvious links that any damn fool could
find, even if they were not half as smart as a 5th grader. You didn't
bother to read then, and you're not bothering to read now (except in a
purely negative interpretive way), so what's the point?
~ BG
BradGuth
Obviously you don not know, because there's any number of peer
qualified examples, whereas any one of which kind of spills the DARPA
and NASA/Apollo beans.
~ BG
BradGuth
Now you are grasping at straws and otherwise playing within the
shadows.
How many all-inclusive orbital and EVA obtained frames of Kodak
moments are we speaking of? (at least tens of thousands, if not
hundreds of thousands if you'd care to include their movie film and UV/
IR spectrum sensitive video).
~ BG
Government Shill #2
wrote:
How about answering his question? Why they would want to take a picture of
Venus which would be in close proximity to the Sun?
--
Shill #2
America: [305] million wankers living in a country with no word for wanker.
Jeremy Clarkson
BradGuth
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 11, 7:29 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 6, 7:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 2:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> > > appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
> >> > > <bradg...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> > > >On Oct 6, 12:23 pm, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > <snip>
>
> >> > > >> I have almost never seen Brad Guth cite a reference. I'm not prepared
> >> > > >> for the "end times" should he start citing verifiable information now!
> >> > > >Almost never is at least a whole lot better off than never, isn't it.
>
> >> > > Not much. Care to give a reference to any verifiable cite to
> >> > > supporting data you've actually provided? Unless you're a
> >> > > "neat freak" it should be in your newsreader's "Sent"
> >> > > folder, and amenable to search.
>
> >> > > Waiting, but not holding my breath.
> >> > > --
>
> >> > > Bob C.
>
> >> > > "Evidence confirming an observation is
> >> > > evidence that the observation is wrong."
> >> > > - McNameless
>
> >> > number of peer replicated sources, along with loads of outsider
> >> > obtained images that proves the exact same thing.
>
> >> > How many combined years have you been within Usenet or any part of
> >> > uplink.space.com?
>
> >> I think we should pull this back on track and ask WHY is this
> >> as Venus. This does not mean that Venus (which may well have been in
> >> the sky and within their FOV) was anywhere within their camera's
> >> sight. Your big claim has been "we didn't go because Venus doesn't
> >> show up in any of the pictures." without ever explaining WHY they
> >> would want to take a picture of Venus which would be in close prximity
> >> to the Sun whereever it was in the sky and as such wouldn't be a
> >> likely choice to photograph no matter HOW bright it was.
>
> >Now you are grasping at straws and otherwise playing within the
> >shadows.
>
> >How many all-inclusive orbital and EVA obtained frames of Kodak
> >moments are we speaking of? (at least tens of thousands, if not
> >hundreds of thousands if you'd care to include their movie film and UV/
> >IR spectrum sensitive video).
>
> How about answering his question? Why they would want to take a picture of
> Venus which would be in close proximity to the Sun?
Because it wasn't always parked that close to the sun, but instead
between the physically dark as coal lunar horizon and Earth on at
least three good missions, and it was otherwise extremely bright and
even relatively large enough to fully appreciate. That kind of easily
obtained image including Venus and some portion of our moon or Earth
would also have proven where the camera was situated at the time of
exposing that rad-hard Kodak film.
~ BG
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Disneygeek
<edrh...@hotmail.com>:
OK. Even Brad's entitled to one error. ;-)