NASA insiders expose Apollo Hoax
schoenf...@gmail.com
Apollo Hoax.
Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
Paul Cardinale
Idiot. The crosshairs are not behind the objects in the scene. They
are simply washed out by overexposure due to bright objects in the
scene.
Paul Cardinale
Sam Wormley
Is Schoenfeld so stooopid as to believe those are original images?
schoenf...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is pixel detail of the occluded object where the crosshairs
should be. You are a historical laughing stock.
> Paul Cardinale
schoenf...@gmail.com
Denying reality is an insufficient condition for falsifying reality.
Those images are a knock-out blow to your landing-believer religion.
Paul Cardinale
That's JPEG noise you idiot.
Paul Cardinale
Sam Wormley
There is a pattern....
1. Schoenfeld posts something, often trying to discredit scientists
2. Schoenfeld is shown to lack critical thinking and integrity
3. Repeat 1-3
schoenf...@gmail.com
Lossy compression does not add detail to the scene.
Interestingly if you zoom in on the pixel detail around the vehicle on
the left, you can clearly see crude blending of the original vehicle
background with the lunar background.
Even that sci.physics poster who forged his diploma did a better job
than that!
> Paul Cardinale
T Wake
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172369710.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Are you really this stupid?
Scratch that. You are.
kilian heckrodt
Besides this is kinda off topic in #math.
Art Deco
Brad Guth stupid.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
Brad Guth
news:1172368078.1...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
Unlike "Bill Snyder", Paul Cardinale, Sam Wormley and "T Wake", a few of
us honest souls know the truth isn't contained within the NASA/Apollo
holy grail.
In addition to those downright iffy crosshairs, while supposedly
trekking about our naked moon that simply had to have been awash in
gamma and hard-X-rays, and otherwise unavoidably many fold worse off
than any portion of the Van Allen belts, plus sharing somewhat extra
amounts of near-UV and otherwise absolute photographic overloads worth
of UV-a photons (thereby having created secondary/recoil photons of
near-blue as becoming available from anything the least bit reactive),
whereas it seems those Kodak moments simply had to have recorded other
planets besides Earth, and even of the point-source of the bluish Sirius
star system should have been well within a few of those the FOVs, as
well as entirely within the DR of what those unfiltered EVA photo
opportunities had to offer, and that goes especially of those Kodak
recorded images obtained from orbit, as they should have unavoidably
included a few accessory items of sufficient photon bling besides Earth.
>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.
Besides continually having to point out their artificial xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated moon, that was so often reacting as though guano
island like reflective, and otherwise offering a terrain nearly free of
meteorites or secondary impact shards, whereas perhaps we should just
keep asking these fools; where's Venus as of those NASA/Apollo missions
A11, A14 and A16?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
T Wake
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:240220072140487404%er...@caballista.org...
>T Wake <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
>><schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1172369710.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 25, 12:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> > Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
>>>> > Apollo Hoax.
>>>>
>>>> > Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>>>>
>>>> >http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Is Schoenfeld so stooopid as to believe those are original images?
>>>
>>> Denying reality is an insufficient condition for falsifying reality.
>>>
>>> Those images are a knock-out blow to your landing-believer religion.
>>>
>>
>>Are you really this stupid?
>>
>>Scratch that. You are.
>
> Brad Guth stupid.
The SI Unit of stupidity...
schoenf...@gmail.com
Compare my posts with yours. I offer data, physics and mathematics to
support my claims. You offer innuendo and the occasional insult but no
data, physics or math.
Now, I showed you two photos from the official Apollo record. They
have serious problems including
[1] camera cross hairs behind objects in the scene
[2] obvious image blending errors around border of vehicle
Either you can account for that or you cannot.
Michael Moroney
>In addition to those downright iffy crosshairs, while supposedly
>trekking about our naked moon that simply had to have been awash in
>gamma and hard-X-rays, and otherwise unavoidably many fold worse off
>than any portion of the Van Allen belts, plus sharing somewhat extra
>amounts of near-UV and otherwise absolute photographic overloads worth
>of UV-a photons (thereby having created secondary/recoil photons of
>near-blue as becoming available from anything the least bit reactive),
>whereas it seems those Kodak moments simply had to have recorded other
>planets besides Earth, and even of the point-source of the bluish Sirius
>star system should have been well within a few of those the FOVs, as
>well as entirely within the DR of what those unfiltered EVA photo
>opportunities had to offer, and that goes especially of those Kodak
>recorded images obtained from orbit, as they should have unavoidably
>included a few accessory items of sufficient photon bling besides Earth.
That one sentence was a bit long.
But: Why would the moon be "awash in gamma and hard X-rays"? The moon is
geologically old so there isn't any more radioactivity than on Earth.
There is cosmic radiation plus the portion of solar radiation normally
blocked by Earth's atmosphere, but hardly "awashed".
And why wouldn't the cameras have UV filters? NASA surely knew there was
plenty of UV there.
>Besides continually having to point out their artificial xenon lamp
>spectrum illuminated moon,
Evidence? Or is this an empty claim?
>island like reflective, and otherwise offering a terrain nearly free of
>meteorites or secondary impact shards,
There seems to be plenty of craters on the moon!
Remember, all meteors striking the moon will strike at about full solar
orbital velocity. No atmosphere to slow them down to leave a pretty rock.
whereas perhaps we should just
>keep asking these fools; where's Venus as of those NASA/Apollo missions
>A11, A14 and A16?
Was observation of Venus a mission goal? Unlikely. Where would Venus be
in the sky during those missions? Close to the sun? Remember, they
didn't want the cameras pointed at the naked sun, it would ruin them. I
believe one TV camera was ruined that way.
As to the crosshairs, an Earth-bound camera would have crosshairs in the
foreground exactly the same as one on the moon. The lack of crosshairs
in the foreground of bright objects in the photos is proof of .... what?
Not proof the cameras weren't on the moon. How much bleed of the bright
objects spilled over to the adjacent darker background?
OG
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172406323.7...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 12:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Feb 25, 12:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> >> schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
>> >>> Apollo Hoax.
>> >>> Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>> >>>http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>> >> Is Schoenfeld so stooopid as to believe those are original images?
>>
>> > Denying reality is an insufficient condition for falsifying reality.
>>
>> > Those images are a knock-out blow to your landing-believer religion.
>>
>> There is a pattern....
>> 1. Schoenfeld posts something, often trying to discredit scientists
>> 2. Schoenfeld is shown to lack critical thinking and integrity
>> 3. Repeat 1-3
>
> Compare my posts with yours. I offer data, physics and mathematics to
> support my claims.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
>You offer innuendo and the occasional insult but no
> data, physics or math.
>
> Now, I showed you two photos from the official Apollo record. They
> have serious problems including
> [1] camera cross hairs behind objects in the scene
> [2] obvious image blending errors around border of vehicle
>
> Either you can account for that or you cannot.
But you can't bear to consider the obvious
[1] bleed
[2] edge effects on compressed images.
Also total lack of consistent supporting evidence.
malibu
wrote:
Settle it.
Train the space telescope on all
that stuff left behind, and the tracks in the
lunar dust. Gotta be there- for aeons to come.
John
Sam Wormley
> Train the space telescope on all
> that stuff left behind, and the tracks in the
> lunar dust. Gotta be there- for aeons to come.
> John
>
Space telescope doesn't have enough angular resolution, John.
malibu
OK, how many satellites are circling the moon?
Do we not have the capacity to image
the lunar landing site?
But we could go there in 1966?
John
Sam Wormley
>
> OK, how many satellites are circling the moon?
> Do we not have the capacity to image
> the lunar landing site?
>
>
Let's say that there was a spacecraft currently in lunar orbit.
Of what scientific importance would there be to deviate from the
planned mission to photograph old Apollo craft?
There are already thousands of images from those sites.
David L. Burkhead
Lunar orbits also tend to be rather unstable and don't last very long.
Thus, the answer to the question "how many satellites are circling the moon"
my answer would be "I don't know, but 'none' is entirely likely."
--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dbur...@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> malibu wrote:
>>> OK, how many satellites are circling the moon?
>>> Do we not have the capacity to image
>>> the lunar landing site?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>> Let's say that there was a spacecraft currently in lunar orbit.
>> Of what scientific importance would there be to deviate from the
>> planned mission to photograph old Apollo craft?
>>
>> There are already thousands of images from those sites.
>
> Lunar orbits also tend to be rather unstable and don't last very long.
> Thus, the answer to the question "how many satellites are circling the moon"
> my answer would be "I don't know, but 'none' is entirely likely."
>
Further information: Bizarre Lunar Orbits
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06nov_loworbit.htm
Brad Guth
news:ers90o$qo5$1...@pcls4.std.com
> But: Why would the moon be "awash in gamma and hard X-rays"? The moon is
> geologically old so there isn't any more radioactivity than on Earth.
> There is cosmic radiation plus the portion of solar radiation normally
> blocked by Earth's atmosphere, but hardly "awashed".
Why would our moon not recieve as much as and otherwise hold onto tonnes
more of whatever our wussy magnetosphere gets to deal with?
Those gamma and hard-X-ray spectrum obtained images were as such
obtained as having to look through the full 70,000 km worth of
everything that's nasty and/or lethal aspect of what our Van Allen belts
has to share, and yet that moon was recorded as absolutely glowing
vibrant with such gamma and hard-X-rays.
That moon is nearly naked, thus unavoidably reacts exactly as it should
to such raw solar and cosmic influx, thereby unavoidably giving birth to
those secondary/recoil nasty photons of gamma and hard-X-rays. At least
that's what the regular laws of physics has to say.
> And why wouldn't the cameras have UV filters? NASA surely knew there was
> plenty of UV there.
As I've specified such deep or sharp spectrum cut-off filters before,
they absolutely should have, but lo and behold they didn't. (go figure)
> Evidence? Or is this an empty claim?
Silly boy or gal. Go directly to Kodak Corporate central, or to most
any other film product and of their disclosing as to what their
unfiltered film actually does with such a wash of spare near-UV and UV-a
photons.
Obviously you silly folks are pretending that you don't honestly know
squat about film.
> There seems to be plenty of craters on the moon!
>
> Remember, all meteors striking the moon will strike at about full solar
> orbital velocity. No atmosphere to slow them down to leave a pretty rock.
Good 10X telephoto images as supposedly having been obtained from orbit
of our physically dark moon simply do NOT appear to be anything like
those highly reflective and relatively smooth and essentially meteorite
free zones of such EVA missions that look more guan island like and
otherwise xenon lamp spectrum illuminated than not. Where exactly on
the moon is that nasty terrain offering such a vast expance of km after
km worth of 0.55~0.65 or even brighter albedo?
Do you folks even know what cosmic and solar soot looks like, especially
of that which reacted upon impact rather badly with all of that local
basalt that's in most places depicted from orbit as being nearly as dark
as coal?
> Was observation of Venus a mission goal?
It was simply unavoidable as of missions A11, A14 and A16 (especially
from orbit), not to mention a few other pesky items that should have
recorded no matters what.
> Where would Venus be in the sky during those missions?
Any interactive 3D simulator worth its salt puts Venus within those
three EVA views, so that makes you a certified born-again and big-time
sucker of private parts liar, doesn't it.
Close to the sun?
That's absolute liar, liar, as in pants on fire.
> Remember, they didn't want the cameras pointed at the naked sun
LLPOF once again, as they did just that on more than a frame or two, and
with actually rather impressive if not hocus-pocus remarkable fill-in
lighting to boot, as for either that or perhaps that Kodak film had
another 8 db cache of better than normal DR to work with.
> As to the crosshairs, an Earth-bound camera would have crosshairs in the
> foreground exactly the same as one on the moon. The lack of crosshairs
> in the foreground of bright objects in the photos is proof of .... what?
> Not proof the cameras weren't on the moon. How much bleed of the bright
> objects spilled over to the adjacent darker background?
That's nothing but double extra LLPOF.
Show us each of those original frames of film (under fully independent
observation, such as via myself and otherwise expertly proven as for
such being of the original film), as having been digital scanned to the
absolute maximum of easily depicting each and every stinking grain by
grain of that film, or shut your fuckology infomercial spewing face up.
(or should I have said Third Reich minion face?)
Brad Guth
news:1172368078.1...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
If these folks accept the notions that our warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo
can manage to photograph our moon's physically dark terrain along with
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
(similar enough as to the moon itself), whereas the absolute impressive
and somewhat blue/violet peak spectrum 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 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, as
though such significant items 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 view of at
least those three missions (always within each command module's orbital
view), and I might as well further add, that we have those free
cellphone cameras with 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 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 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
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 the continual thermal trauma of their
having to survive those double IR/FIR spectrums that also existed, as
coming at your 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, 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 loads 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 of 3.14e6 m2 that's
contributing the full secondary spectrum gauntlet of whatever's
downright nasty if not lethal to your frail DNA, as well as continually
impacting each and every 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, whereas instead of 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 factors that simply do not add up to what those pesky
regular laws of physics and of replicated science and of proven
technology has to say.
Sorry that the likes of "Wayne Throop" and myself as your pesky
historical revisionist and otherwise truth telling messengers from hell,
must continually piss on your silly hocus-pocus parade.
Brad Guth
news:mKiEh.4812$u93.2983@attbi_s21
That's absolute "Sam Wormley" bullshit. A soft modified KECK can easily
accomplish better than one meter/pixel resolution projections.
rick_...@hotmail.com
How can you seriously believe anything that NASA says now, knowing
they hoaxed
going to the moon?
Their credibility is ziltch. Zero. Nada.
And if you know anything at all about physics, or even just have a
modicum,
of common sense and rationality, you will see that American astronauts
in the Apollo program, did not set foot on the moon.
A vehicle, lets say a dune buggy, going over a bump on earth, would
bounce. On the moon, you would bounce 6 times as high.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxdPP7DdieI
Looks like a set to me, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
You can actually see them being suspended in some shots,
by the guy wires, making them look like puppets from
the Thunderbirds TV show.
The evidence is overwhelming, and there is even a whistleblower
tape in circulation that shows them in near earth orbit,
saying they were 130,000 miles out, trying to fudge a shot
of earth, using the window in the capsule to make it look like
the earth was farther away and you can even hear the prompter,
telling them when to speak, so as to fake a delay.
Do the math.
They lied.
And Neil Armstrong, have you ever seen a man hide his guilt worse
than this???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwiKg9ICy5M
Standing there, apologist for your own self.
Truth's protective layers, you say.
There are no protective layers, just those who feel it is ok,
to let the world believe you were the first man to walk on the moon,
and those like Gus.
Don't you get it man?
America is not the flag, it is not the president, it is the people.
How many times did you look a young boy in the face when
he asked for your autograph, and told you, he wanted to be just
like you Neil.
Just like you.
How many young people, of impressionable age, will see the truth
as was so plainly outlined, in these moon hoax clips and say,
oh.
No this isn't just another well I used to believe in Santa Claus too,
no this isn't well I wanted to be a scientist too,
this is Newton, this Descartes, this is Madame Curie,
shoveling radium Neil, while she was dying, don't you get it man,
(falling onto knees and weeping openly now)
We trusted you.
And the children, trusted you.
And you let us down man.
You let humanity down.
Gus, and Lenny, and the rest.
This is not just another I used to believe in Santa Claus too,
this is Newton dammit, and Copernicus, and Madame Curie,
shoveling radium with her bare hands as she was dying Neil.
And you too Buzz. How could you,
How could you???
Thats right I wasn't there.
I was that kid, on the ground Neil, with his toy rocket under his arm,
and his 'I want to be an astronaut' cap, making a fist till my
knuckles
turned white, and then later, watching you there, make that step.
That giant leap, that giant leap right into the biggest pile of horse-
sh*t,
this side of the West Pacos, but you know what? You know what Neil,
Worse than that, you preempted I love Lucy. You preempted I Love Lucy,
for that.
Yeah we care, we care a lot.
Don't kid yourself.
Brad Guth
Bullshit liar, as we have no such Apollo landing site images that are
worth crap, not even as obtained from their very own high resolution 10X
telephoto obtained images as taken at times from less than 100 km, that
which passed dozens of such orbital times directly over their respective
landing site, none the less.
Sam Wormley
>
> How can you seriously believe anything that NASA says now, knowing
> they hoaxed going to the moon?
I don't know where you where, but in 1969 I was overseas with microwave
equipment that allowed us to *directly* intercept, demodulated and watch
the Apollo 11 landing coming from the moon. And watch it we did!
rick_...@hotmail.com
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Gives new meaning to the words Mass Con doesn't it?
Brad Guth
news:1172434127.9...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com
> How can you seriously believe anything that NASA says now, knowing
> they hoaxed going to the moon?
> Their credibility is ziltch. Zero. Nada.
No, it's actually worth somewhat far less than "zilch, zero, nada". I
think used toilet paper offers us more truthworthy and/or trustworthy
values than most anything NASA/Apollo.
> Do the math.
>
> They lied.
Not really lied, because they simply utilized those highly conditional
laws of physics, and otherwise having excluded whatever evidence suited
the cloak on behalf their ulterior motives and hidden agendas, that
which collectively is what simply works absolute hocus-pocus wonders for
their cloak and dagger and black as hell souls, when we're otherwise so
freaking deep into pulling off our mutually perpetrated cold-war of the
century.
> There are no protective layers, just those who feel it is ok,
> to let the world believe you were the first man to walk on the moon,
> and those like Gus.
But incest cloned borgs of MI/NSA spooks and moles they each are, and
otherwise Skull and Bones (aka Third Reich) until death do they part us.
> Worse than that, you preempted I love Lucy. You preempted I Love Lucy,
> for that.
Now you're getting down to the really good point of their having
"preempted I love Lucy". What absolute incest cloned bastards, them
all.
Brad Guth
> Gives new meaning to the words Mass Con doesn't it?
Yep! just like their good old buttology Third Reich days, and of their
Old Testament fuckology that's summarily trashing our environment as
well as screwing humanity (including their own kind) for all it was
worth, and then some for good measure.
Brad Guth
> I don't know where you where, but in 1969 I was overseas with microwave
> equipment that allowed us to *directly* intercept, demodulated and watch
> the Apollo 11 landing coming from the moon. And watch it we did!
You're now saying that perhaps you were snookered and subsequently made
as dumbfounded as the rest of us?
Do tell us about the NASA/Apollo "chapel bell" aspects of those mostly
orchestrated hocus-pocus missions.
rick_...@hotmail.com
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:memEh.5079$u93.834@attbi_s21
>
> > I don't know where you where, but in 1969 I was overseas with microwave
> > equipment that allowed us to *directly* intercept, demodulated and watch
> > the Apollo 11 landing coming from the moon. And watch it we did!
>
> You're now saying that perhaps you were snookered and subsequently made
> as dumbfounded as the rest of us?
>
> Do tell us about the NASA/Apollo "chapel bell" aspects of those mostly
> orchestrated hocus-pocus missions.
> -
For get the summer of 69, thats a blemish, a stain on the history of
mankind now.
Give me 1963, before the earth had lost its innocence to these con
men,
these space grifters. Family values, and all that wholesome honesty,
and personal integrity, 1963, when Puff the Magic Dragon was a hit
song,
and they sang it with feeling too.
And everyone knew, that it was, the end of the world, as we knew it.
But not because of some crazy nukes no, because the bar, was being
lowered,
and rules like 'you don't shoot a nun in the back' were being thrown
out the window,
by fast talking aluminum salesmen, who would just as soon steal your
wallet
as look at you.
rick_...@hotmail.com
Well the right and decent thing to do, is for them to hold a joint new
conference,
and make their confession to the people.
The ESA has sent missions to the moon, Russia, has sent missions to
the moon, must they too be implicated, in this fraud?
China is going there, India, is going there next February.
India is going to take some very high resolution images, they are
mapping,
the surface of the moon, the ESA used a camera with a resolution of
40 meters. Clementine 200 meters, but we know, that was just the
public
statement and you could read a license plate from space, 30 years ago,
via satellite.
And what does that say for astronomy in general, how easily they were
fooled,
how incompetent, the lot of them are, so as to not see through this
charade.
And did they speak out?
Yes, some did.
But too few.
It is a sad day for science, and a sadder day, for America.
But it will be sadder still, when evidence is presented, and they
pitifully
continue to pretend, they were heroes.
Brad Guth
> It is a sad day for science, and a sadder day, for America.
>
> But it will be sadder still, when evidence is presented, and they
> pitifully
> continue to pretend, they were heroes.
Our "heroes" are apparently the very best goddam liars on Earth, and for
all of that hocus-pocus, it seems we've got less than "the right squat"
to show for it all.
It seems the truth simply isn't to be known, at least not over many dead
bodies.
Such as what David Sereda identified (as terrific ideas and viable
notions of UV energy usage, that first had to be obtained after being
forcibly extracted away from NASA the hard way); for best impact on this
one, you really need to obtain a copy of his books or video tapes:
http://www.ufonasa.com
My ongoing moon L1 research is just another pesky tip of our global
melting iceberg, of such honest topics getting nailed by such horrific
liars telling us lies upon lies, as that's the only good reasons for
such folks hammering my LSE-CM/ISS and tether dipole element to death.
But then there's also of what I've discovered about Venus to deal with,
as I've interpreted Venus as being very much alive and kicking (possibly
of ET kinckings), as do a few others that had previously been stalked
and summarily bashed into Usenet naysay land, and of other forums such
as NASA's official uplink.space.com forum that has been delivering their
almighty form of topic/author banishment.
These NASA/Apollo borgs and of their brown-nosed minion freaks are
therefore as bad off as it gets, for using whatever social/political
face or faith based cultism ruse that suits their ulterior motives and
hidden agendas, is simply the ongoing orchestrated status quo of what
summarily sucks and blows about America, as well as involving those
sucking up to us, or in the case of the USSR/Russia playing along for
the very same perpetrated cloak and dagger goal, of essentially their
cold-war partnership ripping off their own kind of humanity and mother
Earth for all it's worth, and then some.
We're talking about a multi-decade grand ruse/sting that's worth
$trillions per decade, and having set the potential advancement of
humanity back by at least a good century.
(what's a good century and a few million extra dead bodies, +/- a few
needless wars, worth these days?)
Brad Guth
> There is pixel detail of the occluded object where the crosshairs
> should be. You are a historical laughing stock.
>
> > Paul Cardinale
You are 100% correct, although you're still looking at picture contents,
rather than looking at the entire image.
Stop with all the obviously physical details that are skewed, and just
focus upon the entire picture, that for many fundamental reasons simply
is not right for accommodating whatever is within their FOV.
Brad Guth
> Even that sci.physics poster who forged his diploma did a better job
> than that!
You're talking about our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) again, arnt
you.
rick_...@hotmail.com
> "schoenfeld.one" <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
Where does it end I wonder?
If the moon rocks were not brought back from the moon,
maybe they were negotiated from Russia, but if not,
then that data has been falsified, and all the reports
based on that data, invalid, all the other moon missions,
unable to disclose anything which would blatantly prove
the mission didn't happen, such as actual radiation levels
between the earth and moon, etc.
What I am hearing is that people do not so much as agree,
on the level of radiation, within the Van Allen belts.
And if it is high as some say, then the mission couldn't
have happened because the levels of radiation would be deadly.
And do then what?
Has all the radiation data collected on the Van Allen belts
been tampered with?
And all data of harmful rays, UV all the spectrum, all
the missions to gather data, what has been tampered with,
and what is true scientific data?
Throw them in the clink. The damage they have done
is in itself astronomical.
Who would fund such an organization ever again?
What science have they done, that we can honestly say,
is based on fact and not on some agenda or based on some lie,
to hide some other lie?
rick_...@hotmail.com
I will tell you this.
The moon has no magnetosphere.
It has no Van Allen belts to protect it from any solar radiation,
or cosmic rays from anywhere else.
It gets directly hit, constantly.
Now can we all agree, that without our own Van Allen belts
we would be dead in a very short time?
I think so.
Days, weeks months, SPF 200?
Without our ozone layer, we would all be dead, never mind
the Van Allen belts.
rick_...@hotmail.com
And of course as luck would have it, 1969 was around the peak
of the 11 year solar cycle, when the flares are the worst.
So, I just think it is silly to try and maintain this charade,
because real science is laughing at it right now.
And every time someone collects data, it gets worse.
How on earth America managed to get the Russians
to go along with all this, it must have cost them a fortune,
to keep them quiet.
And the ESA?
Are there no real scientists among us?
How silly this all is.
What about China, and India, will they too say nothing, and
just do their own science, and not release their results
and just smile, and say diplomatic nothings?
Science is the big loser in all of this.
Archie Leach
>
>"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
>news:240220072140487404%er...@caballista.org...
>>T Wake <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>>
>>><schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1172369710.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 25, 12:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>> schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> > Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
>>>>> > Apollo Hoax.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>>>>>
>>>>> >http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Schoenfeld so stooopid as to believe those are original images?
>>>>
>>>> Denying reality is an insufficient condition for falsifying reality.
>>>>
>>>> Those images are a knock-out blow to your landing-believer religion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you really this stupid?
>>>
>>>Scratch that. You are.
>>
>> Brad Guth stupid.
>
>The SI Unit of stupidity...
>
A K00k-award winning level of st00pid, indeed.
=====================================================
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> Nations under LORD Almighty GOD
> like the U.S. practice no deceit:
JanPB
> Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> Apollo Hoax.
>
> Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>
> http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
There is just no end to this idiocy.
--
Jan Bielawski
Brad Guth
> If the moon rocks were not brought back from the moon,
> maybe they were negotiated from Russia, but if not,
> then that data has been falsified, and all the reports
> based on that data, invalid, all the other moon missions,
> unable to disclose anything which would blatantly prove
> the mission didn't happen, such as actual radiation levels
> between the earth and moon, etc.
Moon rocks are to be found all over mother Earth, yet they are not from
Earth (if you know what I mean).
Not all of the NASA/Apollo science had to be hocus-pocus, whereas
robotic orbital and lunar impact missions did manage to obtain some
perfectly good remote or impact related science, of what I'd call soft
science.
> What I am hearing is that people do not so much as agree,
> on the level of radiation, within the Van Allen belts.
>
> And if it is high as some say, then the mission couldn't
> have happened because the levels of radiation would be deadly.
A few hours of to/from Van Allen belt exposure is certainly capable of
being bad enough, however it's actually worse off as for what's coming
from that gamma and hard-X-ray moon of ours, all of which reacting
rather badly with whatever local mass of mostly aluminum shielding,
which subsequently generates the lethal sorts of secondary/recoil dosage
to go along with whatever's directly impacting your frail DNA.
The Van Allen zones of death are somewhat hocus-pocus or need-to-know
sort of speak, thus you tend to get entirely different information from
most every report you'd care to review.
The TRW/Raytheon Space Data Report was actually very specific of having
specified their GSO standard environment as being worth 2e3 SV/year
(that's merely 200,000 rem/year) while shielded by 2 g/cm2 (that's
roughly 5/16" worth of 5086 aluminum). Do the math on that for the
hourly dosage, and you should get roughly 23 rem/hr. (the moon itself is
much worse)
> Has all the radiation data collected on the Van Allen belts
> been tampered with?
Just kept as need-to-know as possible, and apparently we outsiders don't
need to know such things. Although, I do happen have another
"con_x_dose1.pdf" report that's rather interesting about space radiation
and required shielding. (MI/NSA had it pulled from the internet, but not
before I'd gotten a good copy)
You do realize that our Dr. Van Allen was actually very much opposed to
maned space expeditions, including those missions to our moon. His
mindset pretty much foiled his advancement, thus having to die as
relatively poor and unworthy soul as far as NASA was concerned.
> And all data of harmful rays, UV all the spectrum, all
> the missions to gather data, what has been tampered with,
> and what is true scientific data?
Besides such piss poor radiation spectrum data, imagine that we also
don't have a stitch of hard science upon plain old ice, as any knowledge
basis for such ice surviving or coexisting in LEO space, much less that
of for how long a cubic meter of ice would otherwise survive within the
moon's L1, as being nearly continually solar illuminated as well as
getting secondary IR/FIR roasted most of the time. (not one soul seems
to have a freaking clue about raw ice in space)
It seems those supposed Apollo missions with their extremely low
radiation dosage is what set the future stage for any and all subsequent
science related data, as to moderating upon whatever's of potentially
lethal energy, thus all such data has been badly skewed or simply
excluded entirely.
> Who would fund such an organization ever again?
The Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones). Of course they never pay for
anything without making us taxpayers and consumers pick up the entire
tab, along with a little something extra to boot for stuffing into their
offshore bank accounts.
> What science have they done, that we can honestly say,
> is based on fact and not on some agenda or based on some lie,
> to hide some other lie?
Not all that much, especially when it comes down to our moon that's so
unusually large and downright massive by such a huge factor, whereas no
other moon/planet ratio comes even remotely close to what Earth has to
put up with.
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172471014....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You've got that right, what kind of idiot divides by zero?
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c -- Fuckhead Einstein.
A-A is not zero - Fuckhead Bilewacky.
An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or
something equally trivial." -- Fuckhead Bielawski.
It's WAY too simple-minded.-- Fuckhead Bielawski.
Brad Guth
> Now can we all agree, that without our own Van Allen belts
> we would be dead in a very short time?
>
> I think so.
>
> Days, weeks months, SPF 200?
>
> Without our ozone layer, we would all be dead, never mind
> the Van Allen belts.
Try SPF 1000, whereas the sufficiently rich would still be living the
good life outside by night, otherwise mostly underground or under
sufficient water by day, as our thin atmosphere would eventually be
getting somewhat Mars like. In other words, we'd be lucky as to holding
onto 0.1 bar. The good news is, even without much terrestrial polar or
Greenland ice remaining, our oceans would be shrinking as they manage to
evaporate into less than thin air.
BTW; Earth's magnetophere has in fact been going away at the rate of
0.05%/year.
So, perhaps 90% of humanity would not have survived once our
magnetosphere is sufficiently dead and gone (say worth less than 10% of
what is currently is).
Brad Guth
> How on earth America managed to get the Russians
> to go along with all this, it must have cost them a fortune,
> to keep them quiet.
Our mutually perpetrated cold-war was nothing but a win-win for each of
our governments.
Nothing was paid to the USSR or Russia, as well as Russia paid us
nothing in return.
> And the ESA?
>
> Are there no real scientists among us?
Apparently there's not an honest ESA soul to behold. After all, ESA is
simply an extension of MI.
> How silly this all is.
Quite silly, quite spendy and quite lethal if they don't happen to like
whatever it is that you're doing.
> What about China, and India, will they too say nothing, and
> just do their own science, and not release their results
> and just smile, and say diplomatic nothings?
China and possibly India should kick serious ass, but they too have
ulterior motives and hidden agendas that are perhaps even more
need-to-know.
> Science is the big loser in all of this.
The environment and of the lower 99.9% of humanity sequestered upon this
badly pillaged, raped and polluted Earth are the biggest losers, many
having paid with their lives, with no apparent end to all the collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent in sight.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> Apollo Hoax.
>
> Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
That's known from sniper rifle tech why that happens, though.
Which is really why we even invented digital photography.
to get of idiots like CBS, NASA, The Navy, and Kubrick.
>
> http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
Paul Cardinale
> On Feb 25, 12:18 pm, "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 25, 11:59 am, "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> > > > > Apollo Hoax.
>
> > > > > Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>
>
> > > > Idiot. The crosshairs are not behind the objects in the scene. They
> > > > are simply washed out by overexposure due to bright objects in the
> > > > scene.
>
> > > There is pixel detail of the occluded object where the crosshairs
> > > should be. You are a historical laughing stock.
>
>
> Lossy compression does not add detail to the scene.
>
> Interestingly if you zoom in on the pixel detail around the vehicle on
> the left, you can clearly see crude blending of the original vehicle
> background with the lunar background.
>
No, you see only aliasing and JPEG noise the imbeciles misinterpret as
image detail.
Paul Cardinale
JanPB
wrote:
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172471014....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 24, 5:47 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> >> Apollo Hoax.
>
> >> Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>
> >>http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>
> > There is just no end to this idiocy.
>
> You've got that right, what kind of idiot divides by zero?
Actually, I was talking about the Moon-hoax-idiocy :-)
--
Jan Bielawski
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172525269.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
There is just no end to idiocy that is equally trivial, is there, fuckhead?
Of course you have to snip because you are embarrassed by your
stupidity and are not man enough to admit your fuck-up.
I was talking about the Newtonian Mechanics-hoax-idiocy
that Einstein spread. :-)
What kind of idiot divides by zero?
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c -- Fuckhead Einstein.
A-A is not zero - Fuckhead Bilewacky.
An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or
something equally trivial." -- Fuckhead Bielawski.
It's WAY too simple-minded.-- Fuckhead Bielawski.
"No creature smarts so little as a fool." -- Alexander Pope
JanPB
wrote:
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172525269.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 25, 11:40 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172471014....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Feb 24, 5:47 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> >> >> Apollo Hoax.
>
> >> >> Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>
> >> >>http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>
> >> > There is just no end to this idiocy.
>
> >> You've got that right, what kind of idiot divides by zero?
>
> > Actually, I was talking about the Moon-hoax-idiocy :-)
>
> There is just no end to idiocy that is equally trivial, is there, fuckhead?
>
> Of course you have to snip because you are embarrassed by your
> stupidity and are not man enough to admit your fuck-up.
I snip just to keep the relevant parts.
> I was talking about the Newtonian Mechanics-hoax-idiocy
> that Einstein spread. :-)
>
> What kind of idiot divides by zero?
Don't know.
> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c -- Fuckhead Einstein.
That's not a division by zero.
> A-A is not zero - Fuckhead Bilewacky.
This is a misquotation. I said the length of a path from A to A is not
necessarily zero (it obviously depends on the path). The photon goes
from the light source and back so it obviously travels from A to A
along the distance 2*(light source to mirror separation).
> An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or
> something equally trivial." -- Fuckhead Bielawski.
I said an error in the 1905 *special* relativity derivation "would
be...<etc.>".
> It's WAY too simple-minded.-- Fuckhead Bielawski.
> "No creature smarts so little as a fool." -- Alexander Pope
--
Jan Bielawski
G=EMC^2 Glazier
pocketed the deference A NASA depend was used to go non stop by car
from Texas to Florida Bert
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172532667.1...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 1:40 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172525269.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 25, 11:40 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172471014....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Feb 24, 5:47 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
>> >> >> Apollo Hoax.
>>
>> >> >> Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>>
>> >> >>http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>>
>> >> > There is just no end to this idiocy.
>>
>> >> You've got that right, what kind of idiot divides by zero?
>>
>> > Actually, I was talking about the Moon-hoax-idiocy :-)
>>
>> There is just no end to idiocy that is equally trivial, is there, fuckhead?
>>
>> Of course you have to snip because you are embarrassed by your
>> stupidity and are not man enough to admit your fuck-up.
>
> I snip just to keep the relevant parts.
Fucking liar, you snip what embarrasses you..
>
>> I was talking about the Newtonian Mechanics-hoax-idiocy
>> that Einstein spread. :-)
>>
>> What kind of idiot divides by zero?
>
> Don't know.
Of course you don't, you are an idiot.
>
>> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c -- Fuckhead Einstein.
>
> That's not a division by zero.
Yes it is, tB is not mentioned and velocities are not two-way, fuckhead.
[Snip irrelevant part]
>
>> A-A is not zero - Fuckhead Bilewacky.
>
> This is a misquotation.
It is a shorthand translation of
"Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story." - Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A<> 0 Bilewacky the fuckin' liar.
I'm having all the fun, we are at the nitty-gritty of the set of all real
numbers <> 0 that are equal to A-A, aka the empty set.
>> An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or
>> something equally trivial." -- Fuckhead Bielawski.
>
> I said an error in the 1905 *special* relativity derivation "would
> be...<etc.>".
That's what we have, an error in *special* relativity exactly like Albert Einstein dividing by zero or something equally vacuous, you stupid troll.
"Cassini had observed the moons of Jupiter between 1666 and 1668, and discovered discrepancies in his measurements that, at first, he attributed to light having a finite speed." -Wackypedia.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity" - Albert "Fuckhead" Einstein, 1905.
There is just no end to idiocy that is equally vacuous, is there, dumbfuck?
OG
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oLQEh.28166$HO5....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>[Snip irrelevant part]
>
>
>>> An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero
>>> or
>>> something equally trivial." -- Fuckhead Bielawski.
>>
>> I said an error in the 1905 *special* relativity derivation "would
>> be...<etc.>".
>
>That's what we have, an error in *special* relativity exactly like Albert
>Einstein dividing by zero or something equally vacuous, >you stupid troll.
>
>"Cassini had observed the moons of Jupiter between 1666 and 1668, and
>discovered discrepancies in his measurements that, >at first, he attributed
>to light having a finite speed." -Wackypedia.
>
>"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
>infinitely great velocity" - Albert "Fuckhead" Einstein, 1905.
The morphing, trolling stalking, snipping Androcles can't quote straight.
"the greater the value of v, the greater the shortening. For v=c all moving
objects--viewed from the ``stationary'' system--shrivel up into plane
figures. For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity."
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Brad Guth
news:1172368078.1...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
Any of you nice and apparently all-knowing folks (MI/NSA spooks and
moles included) ever heard of those nifty NASA/Apollo "chapel bell"
(S-Band transponders)?
Once again, as to the benefit of 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.
schoenf...@gmail.com
> "schoenfeld.one" <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172369227....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
>
> > There is pixel detail of the occluded object where the crosshairs
> > should be. You are a historical laughing stock.
>
> > > Paul Cardinale
>
> You are 100% correct, although you're still looking at picture contents,
> rather than looking at the entire image.
>
> Stop with all the obviously physical details that are skewed, and just
> focus upon the entire picture, that for many fundamental reasons simply
> is not right for accommodating whatever is within their FOV.
> -
> Brad Guth
Yes, indeed the background scenery and foreground object do even
match. What a joke the Apollo record, and it's believers, have become.
schoenf...@gmail.com
Yes, indeed the background scenery and foreground object do not even
schoenf...@gmail.com
Your landing-believer religion suffers empirical falsification.
Autymn D. C.
> Yes, indeed the background scenery and foreground object do even
> match. What a joke the Apollo record, and it's believers, have become.
what scenery? what "it is believers"?!
Brad Guth
> Yes, indeed the background scenery and foreground object do even
> match. What a joke the Apollo record, and it's believers, have become.
Otherwise not such a bad looking guano island, as getting rather nicely
passive xenon lamp spectrum illuminated to boot.
That means without hardly any UV energy to speak of (very terrestrial
sea level filtered like illumination spectrum).
JanPB
Who put the laser reflector on the Moon at the Apollo landing site
then? You know, the one that's used for lunar ranging. It's probably
used every day to this day. Who put it there? Yogi Bear? The Pink
Panther?
--
Jan Bielawski
The_Man
> On Feb 25, 8:01 pm, "Brad Guth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "schoenfeld.one" <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Brad Guth
>
> > --
In you and Brad Guth being given the high doses of Thorzaine you both
so desperately need?
>
> If the moon rocks were not brought back from the moon,
but they were. The Russian Zond missions brought back moon rocks ALSO,
and the rocks are geologically equivalent to those brought back by
Apollo.
> maybe they were negotiated from Russia, but if not,
but they weren't.
> then that data has been falsified, and all the reports
are genuine, but your ravings aren't
> based on that data, invalid, all the other moon missions,
> unable to disclose anything which would blatantly prove
> the mission didn't happen, such as actual radiation levels
> between the earth and moon, etc.
>
> What I am hearing is that people do not so much as agree,
> on the level of radiation, within the Van Allen belts.
They "don't agree" because people like you and Brad Guth SIMPLY LIE.
Dr. Van Allen HIMSELF was asked if the belts discovered by him made
lunar missions impossible. He SAID NO - they WEREN'T impossible.
having heard from the discoverer himself, shouldn't you jerk-offs SHUT
THE FUCK UP?
>
> And if it is high as some say, then the mission couldn't
> have happened because the levels of radiation would be deadly.
But they WEREN'T deadly, and AREN'T deadly. The only thing that is
deadly is the boredom I feel when listening to this bullshit.
Space travel is FUCKING DANGEROUS. I know that you and Brad Guth,
being PUSSIES, SISSIES, and ASSLICKERS, think that real MEN and
Readlwomen couldn't possibly be brave enough to do something fantastic
like that. But real men and women do courageous things every day,
while dicklickers like you and Brad Guth fellate each other and impune
others.
>
> And do then what?
Give Brad another hummer; you KNOW you want to.
> Has all the radiation data collected on the Van Allen belts
> been tampered with?
The only thing that had been "tampered with" is your brain chemistry.
>
> And all data of harmful rays, UV all the spectrum, all
> the missions to gather data, what has been tampered with,
> and what is true scientific data?
>
> Throw them in the clink. The damage they have done
> is in itself astronomical.
Throw you and Brad Guth in jail for lying?
>
> Who would fund such an organization ever again?
Everybody, since everybody who isn't a liar or a lunatic knows that
ALL the mssions, manned and unmanned, were undertaken at extreme risk,
while LOSERS like YOU and BRAD GUTH sit back and don't do shit.
Cowardly pieces of shit!
>
> What science have they done, that we can honestly say,
> is based on fact and not on some agenda or based on some lie,
> to hide some other lie?- Hide quoted text -
The only lies are those told by YOU.
>
> - Show quoted text -
The_Man
> Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> Apollo Hoax.
Give ONE name of an "insider" who will confirm this.
>
> Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
Behold a loser.
>
> http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1173120482....@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
Not the guy that doesn't know how far it is from A to A,
and I can promise you that the distance from A to B is
different to the distance from B to A when ranging to one
of those corner reflectors.
Why, I do believe the speed of a photon is |v-c| one way,
|v+c| the other, and that t'A-tB <> tB-tA.
Your Special Religion suffers from piss poor logic, fuckhead.
schoenf...@gmail.com
> On Mar 4, 7:56 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 4:23 pm, "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 5:47 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> > > > Apollo Hoax.
>
> > > > Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>
> > > >http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>
> > > There is just no end to this idiocy.
>
> > Your landing-believer religion suffers empirical falsification.
>
> Who put the laser reflector on the Moon at the Apollo landing site
> then?
Manned moon-missions are not necessary to deploy retroflectors, the
Russians proved that.
> --
> Jan Bielawski
JanPB
Have any mission besides the manned ones ever landed in the spots
where the reflectors are?
--
Jan Bielawski
schoenf...@gmail.com
Yes, where the Russian have their retroflectors.
Deployment of retroflectors does not require manned lunar missions,
JanPB
Sure but the question is: is it true that all reflector locations have
been visited by UN-manned missions?
--
Jan Bielawski
Paul B. Andersen
Are you claiming that there has been three unmanned missions
to the Moon which are unknown?
Paul
The_Man
What did they "prove"? You said yourself that the Russian were "in on"
the "hoax", too. You have to be consistently crazy for this game to
work.
The Russians have always been far more secretive than the Americans,
yet you believe the Russians WITHOUT the huge amounts of evidence
provided by the Americans (and the civilians in NASA uncoerced by the
KGB or NKVD). Interesting.
And as I pointed already (which you didn't seem to know), Russian
unmanned missions brought back moon rocks. So you say "aha! You don't
need manned missions to bring back rocks, etiher!" But for that to
work, you have to ASSUME that the Russian moon rocks are real, and
that the Russian unmanned missions were genuine.
You just undercut your whole lunatic argument. The American rocks are
IDENTICAL to the Russian rocks. And the US DIDN'T have any unmanned
missions that brought back rocks.
The Russians certainly thought that a manned lunar mission was
possible - the Zond mission was a preparation for a MANNED flight. But
for the disasterous failure of the "Proton" MANNED rocket, the
Russians would have attempted a moon landing in 1969. The Proton was
much too big for any mission smaller than a lunar mission, and its
additional testing was necessary to "man-rate" it. (prove that it was
sufficiently "safe" and reliable for humans). It was the knowledge
that the Russians were on the verge of a moon mission that caused NASA
to send Apollo 8 to the moon, taking great risk because the LEM wasn't
ready yet. If NASA wanted to fake a mission, it would have faked a
moon landing for Apollo 8 (Dec 1968).
So, other than having absolutely no evidence, and being completely
contrary to any logic at all, you idea is TOTALLY convincing.
Dolt.
>
>
>
> > --
> > Jan Bielawski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
schoenf...@gmail.com
<paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
> > Yes, where the Russian have their retroflectors.
>
> > Deployment of retroflectors does not require manned lunar missions,
> > the Russians proved that.
>
> Are you claiming that there has been three unmanned missions
> to the Moon which are unknown?
I am claiming
[1] Data reveals Apollo record is a fabrication.
[2] Data reveals unmanned moon missions can deploy retroflectors.
Therefore, notions that
[3] Retroflectors on the moon prove Apollo record authenticity
are falsified by [2]. No evidence of secret unmanned US missions are
required.
By the same logic, though, I cannot claim that
[4] NASA never landed on the moon
and I don't. I only claim [1] which strongly implies, but does not
prove, [4].
> Paul
Brad Guth
news:1173180733....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
What's good for the goose is good enough for the gander; Meaning that
the mutually perpetrated cold-war was in fact a win-win for either
gipper. However, them Russians knew damn good and well how downright
lethal our moon was, not to mention how fly-by-rocket iffy, and if not
to disregard whatever trauma to our frail human DNA, as to being nearly
impossible for the available technology of that day.
Speaking honestly about working together, such as for the greater good
of advancing science, humanity and/or of best salvaging whatever's left
of our badly failing environment.
My honest swag has been suggesting that in spite of the secondary tidal
forces at play, our moon is losing some of it's orbital velocity, thus
taking a touch longer than I've suggested per 12.3685 receding orbits,
of such having added merely 4.45e-4 second per year.
I still believe that our moon's L1 is what represents the absolute holy
grail of any space depot/gateway that you folks can possibly think of,
yet never the less it remains as taboo/nondisclosure, though only
because it blows a few too many of those lids off of our mutually
perpetrated cold-war(s), that which so happens to include our
NASA/Apollo fiasco.
The LSE-CM/ISS (tethered Clarke Station), as our do-everything space
depot/gateway is technically doable, and that's even better suited if
our moon becomes relocated to Earth's L1, and as such the LSE-CM/ISS
directly benefits not only our near future but that of moderating our
global warming environment, and thereby benefits the vast majority of
all life upon Earth.
We have actually needed a fully robotic science platform as situated
within the moon's L1 for decades, as being the only good way of our
knowing for certain how fast we're all moving about, including as to how
much our moon is receding from us, and as to better understanding those
complex forces at play. We also need to configure a viable future
method of relocating our moon to Earth's L1, that is unless the promise
of fusion energy pays the piper and thereby we all get access to a
surplus of such affordably clean and safe energy.
Instead, we have nothing but hocus-pocus problems, as well as the
ongoing trauma of an energy starved future, and otherwise damn little
interactive hard science to show for it all. Don't kid yourself, as
it's all about the money, and otherwise under the borg like lordship
command of our faith-based Old Testament agenda, of a few powerful
individuals pulling most all of those all important strings. In other
words, there's a lot of serious faith-based crap (including those of
pagan and the anti-intelligent design faith) that's going down, that'll
keep making life difficult and as spendy as the rest of us know it, into
a living need-to-know hell on this Earth.
Will the moon crash into Earth: no way, not in a million years unless
it's impacted just so by the likes of Sedna.
Is there other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus: you bet
(I've got a good picture of what's highly artificial looking, and
besides why the hell not?)
Did our moon emerge itself from within Earth: not likely
Have we walked upon our physically dark and nasty moon: no way
Can we ever walk upon our moon: most certainly we can, once we've got a
viable fly-by-rocket lander that can also pack along enough shielding.
Is there more truth to behold about the Sirius star system that's ice
age related and possibly even a little planet and moon related: You
bet, because all such things orbit something (other than a few spare
photons, nothing out there is in willy-nilly mode, not black holes and
not so much as a microgram of dust), and as such we're unavoidably in
orbit about the massive and otherwise powerful Sirius star/solar system,
that comes along with its massive Oort cloud of icy proto-moon sized
debris.
Is human space travel lethal: in more ways than you can imagine (just
read the private works of Dr. Van Allen and a few others that should
know), though Earth's very own terrestrial populated web of satellites
is nearly going postal, thereby leaving from or reentering to Earth
could soon enough impose some of the most physically lethal sapects to
our future space travels.
Is Earth losing its magnetosphere: that's certainly a big yes, and you
can bet that bottom dollar (-.05%/year)
Should our moon get relocated into Earth's L1: you bet it should (Earth
could use less tidal forced planetology trauma, and we could certainly
use the shade)
Isn't excluding evidence the exact same as telling a lie: you bet it is
Does our government lie to us: you bet they do, as in nearly all the
time
Does religion lie to us: you can safely bet that most have and still
do, from the very beginnings of their recorded time has been one
distortion or lie after another
Should we focus our limited resources and talent upon whatever directly
benefits our environment and otherwise sustains or improves the quality
of life as we know it: absolutely
Does that include deeper space missions: not hardly unless there's
something specifically tangible for the lower 99.9% of humanity to
behold, especially since most deep space related science can be obtained
at a fraction the overall cost and environmental impact from utilizing
the moon's L1, especially when combined along with whatever Earth and
our moon has to offer, not to forget Venus that has most everything
imaginable to offer as it orbits every 19 months to within 100 fold the
distance of our moon.
And so forth, as it seems to go on and on, for simply far too many
counts to count.
Brad Guth
> Deployment of retroflectors does not require manned lunar missions,
> the Russians proved that.
I totally agree, that proven methods of accomplishing robotic
hard-landings or simply impact/explosive deployments on behalf of
reflective substances (including certain semi-retro-reflective
substances) was entirely doable, just as it is today.
tj Frazir
Address:http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/SatBytes/MoonCommsat.html
Changed:8:57 PM on Friday, October 3, 2003
Biult by global.
The_Man
> "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173180733....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
>
> What's good for the goose is good enough for the gander;
Keep those cliches coming.
> Meaning that
> the mutually perpetrated cold-war was in fact a win-win for either
> gipper. However, them Russians knew damn good and well how downright
> lethal our moon was, not to mention how fly-by-rocket iffy, and if not
That is why the cream of their space program was killed from the
launch test failure of a rocket to do exactly what you say was
impossible.
> to disregard whatever trauma to our frail human DNA, as to being nearly
> impossible for the available technology of that day.
The Russians killed millions in labor camps (the Gulag Archipelago),
and got 22 million of their citizens killed in a war with Nazi Germany
to maintain the Soviet empire. What's a few astronauts here or there
for the greater glory of scientific socialism?
>
> Speaking honestly
Why would you start now?
> about working together, such as for the greater good
> of advancing science, humanity and/or of best salvaging whatever's left
> of our badly failing environment.
This isn't even a complete sentence.
>
> My honest swag
NOTHING about you is honest.
>
has been suggesting that in spite of the secondary tidal
> forces at play, our moon is losing some of it's orbital velocity, thus
> taking a touch longer than I've suggested per 12.3685 receding orbits,
> of such having added merely 4.45e-4 second per year.
>
<snipped complete and utter bullshit>
> Instead, we have nothing but hocus-pocus problems, as well as the
> ongoing trauma of an energy starved future, and otherwise damn little
> interactive hard science to show for it all. Don't kid yourself, as
> it's all about the money, and otherwise under the borg like lordship
> command of our faith-based Old Testament
aka "Jewish"
> agenda, of a few powerful
> individuals pulling most all of those all important strings. In other
> words, there's a lot of serious faith-based crap (including those of
> pagan and the anti-intelligent design faith) that's going down, that'll
> keep making life difficult and as spendy as the rest of us know it, into
> a living need-to-know hell on this Earth.
I would have thought you were going to claim that the manned space
program was another sign of the "International Jewish Conspiracy" to
take over the moon, now that "they" "own" the earth.
>
> Will the moon crash into Earth: no way, not in a million years unless
> it's impacted just so by the likes of Sedna.
>
> Is there other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus: you bet
> (I've got a good picture of what's highly artificial looking, and
> besides why the hell not?)
So the MOON is too dangerous for manned flight, but VENUS is perfectly
safe. You really need to up the dosage.
>
> Did our moon emerge itself from within Earth: not likely
So THAT is a conspiracy too.
>
> Have we walked upon our physically dark and nasty moon: no way
"Dark and nasty" - talking about URANUS again?
>
<snipped more insane rambling>
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
either the astronauts used a UV-filter
to get the blackandwhite photos, or
they simply reduced the exposure
to include the UV -- to get a faster one.
so, how could you tell the difference, if
the brightest object happens
to be The Suit?... The Man made some
good hits, but they were buried
at teh end of his posting; I forgot!
those were some beautiful exposures
of Venus and Luna from Earth, but I have to ask,
about that (BIG) one from Clementine -- is it possible?
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clem_collect/hi_res/venusbw5.tif
http://eder.csillagaszat.hu/digital/venus_fedes/Ven_fed.html
http://www.pbase.com/image/23675921
http://www.astronomy.no/venus080604/venusocc/images.html
http://www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/astrophotos/moonplanets/moon+venus.jpg
http://www.mightywebdesigns.ca/telescope-photos/moon-saturn-jupiter-test-0001.jpg
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
> I totally agree, that proven methods of accomplishing robotic
> hard-landings or simply impact/explosive deployments on behalf of
> reflective substances (including certain semi-retro-reflective
> substances) was entirely doable, just as it is today.
--Bernard "BORAT" Lewis wants you in Sudan!
Harry Potter PS#1 has you in Iraq!
http://laroucehpub.com
The_Man
> "schoenfeld.one" <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173145846.8...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>
> > Deployment of retroflectors does not require manned lunar missions,
> > the Russians proved that.
>
> I totally agree,
Who cares?
> that proven
"Proven" how? They were "proven" by the same methods that you say are
unreliable and "Old Testament" with respedct to the moon landings.
> methods of accomplishing robotic
> hard-landings or simply impact/explosive deployments on behalf of
> reflective substances (including certain semi-retro-reflective
> substances) was entirely doable, just as it is today.
How would YOU know what the fuck is doable, or not? I hear that your
mother is QUITE doable, but that is beside the point.
Remind us, what is your Ph.D. in? Or M.S. ? Or M.A.? O.K., what is
your B.A. ? Do you at least have an associate's degree? Did you at
least graduate from HIGH SCHOOL?
Got your GED from James Madison High School (online). I see....
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
oh, my darling, satellite?
> either the astronauts used a UV-filter
> to get the blackandwhite photos, or
> they simply reduced the exposure
> to include the UV -- to get a faster one.
> about that (BIG) one from Clementine -- is it possible?
> http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clem_collect/hi_res/venusbw5.tif
> http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
--LbernardBORATlewis WANTS YOU in sudan;
no collrgr deferments; either -- dystance learning?
Brad Guth
news:1173205975.6...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
> there are two possibilities:
> either the astronauts used a UV-filter
> to get the blackandwhite photos, or
> they simply reduced the exposure
> to include the UV -- to get a faster one.
Other than standard lens coatings, there was no such optical UV or other
optical spectrum filters utilized.
There we have a third possibility, that we've been summarily lied to.
BTW; do you have that working prototype fly-by-rocket lander? (because
our NASA or even Russia doesn't)
> so, how could you tell the difference, if
> the brightest object happens
> to be The Suit?... The Man made some
> good hits, but they were buried
> at teh end of his posting; I forgot!
Taking a look-see at the red white and blue flag, in color or even in
B&W is what honestly tells us that their local spectrum of illumination
was in fact that of a xenon lamp spectrum, and not that of the nearly
point source of raw solar spectrum, that which our sun unavoidable
offers absolute butt loads or rather photon bucket loads of
near-UV(violet) and UV-a, as well as humanly nastier forms of photons,
plus getting nailed by those unavoidable local secondary/recoil photons
of gamma and hard-X-rays.
> those were some beautiful exposures
> of Venus and Luna from Earth, but I have to ask,
> about that (BIG) one from Clementine -- is it possible?
It wasn't a hocus-pocus composite. It was the real thing, just as Venus
should have looked as easily having been Kodak film recorded from the
naked surface of our physically dark and nasty moon, although obviously
of somewhat less DR(dynamic range) and having less telephoto impact.
Brad Guth
> On Mar 6, 12:39 pm, "Brad Guth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "schoenfeld.one" <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1173145846.8...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> >
> > > Deployment of retroflectors does not require manned lunar missions,
> > > the Russians proved that.
> >
> > I totally agree,
>
> Who cares?
Obviously liars like yourself don't care or otherwise have a speck of
remorse about anything. (just like Hitler and his Jewish friends, or
that of our resident LLPOF warlord)
BTW; there's also no such proof of those Russian robotic landers
accomplishing other than impact deployments of whatever. (at best a hard
landing is the most likely outcome)
> > that proven
>
> "Proven" how? They were "proven" by the same methods that you say are
> unreliable and "Old Testament" with respedct to the moon landings.
You and your silly naysay mindset lost me.
> How would YOU know what the fuck is doable, or not? I hear that your
> mother is QUITE doable, but that is beside the point.
>
> Remind us, what is your Ph.D. in? Or M.S. ? Or M.A.? O.K., what is
> your B.A. ? Do you at least have an associate's degree? Did you at
> least graduate from HIGH SCHOOL?
>
> Got your GED from James Madison High School (online). I see....
More of that silly jewspeak, we see. Everything has to be Old
Teastament worthy for it to fly in your pants, doen't it.
Brad Guth
news:21258-45E...@storefull-3212.bay.webtv.net
HGS-1 (to the moon and back)
http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/SatBytes/MoonCommsat.html
This proves that a orbital capture of something moon like is in fact
quite doable, although instead of an icy proto-moon having a rocket
engine for parking itself within the nearly GSO orbit, a little
aerobraking and/or glancing lithobraking effort should have accomplished
the task, along with that sucker having lost a few teratonnes of salty
ice as deposited upon Earth, and/or having spent whatever icy covering
(possibly as great as 262 km thick) into orbit.
The_Man
> "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173213164....@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Mar 6, 12:39 pm, "Brad Guth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "schoenfeld.one" <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1173145846.8...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > Deployment of retroflectors does not require manned lunar missions,
> > > > the Russians proved that.
>
> > > I totally agree,
>
> > Who cares?
>
> Obviously liars like yourself don't care or otherwise have a speck of
> remorse about anything. (just like Hitler and his Jewish friends, or
6 million of his "closest friends"?
> that of our resident LLPOF warlord)
>
> BTW; there's also no such proof of those Russian robotic landers
To you, there's no proof of anything, since you simply deny anything
that doesn't resonante with the voices in your head.
> accomplishing other than impact deployments of whatever. (at best a hard
> landing is the most likely outcome)
>
> > > that proven
>
> > "Proven" how? They were "proven" by the same methods that you say are
> > unreliable and "Old Testament" with respedct to the moon landings.
>
> You and your silly naysay mindset lost me.
>
> > How would YOU know what the fuck is doable, or not? I hear that your
> > mother is QUITE doable, but that is beside the point.
You let that one slide, so you must know just how doable your dear old
mom is.
>
> > Remind us, what is your Ph.D. in? Or M.S. ? Or M.A.? O.K., what is
> > your B.A. ? Do you at least have an associate's degree? Did you at
> > least graduate from HIGH SCHOOL?
No degree? No diploma? "Would you like fries with that?"
>
> > Got your GED from James Madison High School (online). I see....
>
> More of that silly jewspeak, we see. Everything has to be Old
> Teastament worthy for it to fly in your pants, doen't it.
"Jewspeak"???????
Miss the good old days, goose-stepping down the street?
Here's a quote you might enjoy (while mssing the irony):
"If a single British bomb falls on the Reich, you can call me Meyer!"
- Hermann Goering
mike3
> Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> Apollo Hoax.
>
> Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>
> http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
It's probably because the objects are so bright (notice it's only
"behind" the BRIGHT parts of objects), that it washes out the dim
crosshair.
It's a well-known film phenomenon, not a conspiracy. Sorry.
I'm still wondering why you would like to believe that we could
not have landed on the moon. What is so difficult to accept about
the idea that we _could_ have landed there and walked on it?
mike3
> On Feb 25, 11:59 am, "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> > > Apollo Hoax.
>
> > > Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>
> > >http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>
> > are simply washed out by overexposure due to bright objects in the
> > scene.
>
> There is pixel detail of the occluded object where the crosshairs
> should be. You are a historical laughing stock.
>
I don't see no "detail". The rez iz not sufficient to allow that --
anything there is just random noise.
mike3
> On Feb 25, 12:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> > > Apollo Hoax.
>
> > > Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>
> > >http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>
>
What?! You think he MODIFIED the picture instead of using
an original? It's not a film phenomenon, but a leg pull by
_him_?!
mike3
> "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
> >"Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message
> >news:240220072140487404%er...@caballista.org...> >>>news:1172369710.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On Feb 25, 12:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>>> schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> > Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> >>>>> > Apollo Hoax.
>
> >>>>> > Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
>
> >>>>> >http://users.erols.com/igoddard/croshair.jpg
>
> >>>>> Is Schoenfeld so stooopid as to believe those are original images?
>
>
> >>>> Those images are a knock-out blow to your landing-believer religion.
>
> >>>Are you really this stupid?
>
> >>>Scratch that. You are.
>
> >> Brad Guth stupid.
>
> >The SI Unit of stupidity...
>
> A K00k-award winning level of st00pid, indeed.
>
sci.physics, sci.math, alt.sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity,
sci.physics.particle should win an award for #1 level
of lack of civility, and just not caring about logic
or people's feelings, and more about calling people
stupid and hurting each other.
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
always given on a pass/no-fail basis (you can use the bathroom
at any time, but THE TEST IS OVER;
your assignment in the wastes of Sudan is ready!
so, again, given two sets of "data" in color and B&W,
what were the results of your putative spectral analysis?
how many strips of litmus?
> Other than standard lens coatings, there was no such optical UV or other
> optical spectrum filters utilized.
> Taking a look-see at the red white and blue flag, in color or even in
> B&W is what honestly tells us that their local spectrum of illumination
> was in fact that of a xenon lamp spectrum, and not that of the nearly
> point source of raw solar spectrum, that which our sun unavoidable
> offers absolute butt loads or rather photon bucket loads of
> near-UV(violet) and UV-a, as well as humanly nastier forms of photons,
> plus getting nailed by those unavoidable local secondary/recoil photons
> of gamma and hard-X-rays.
> > about that (BIG) one from Clementine -- is it?
--Harry Potter, like, magic;
Borat, like, Sudan.
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
when you're in them; even if
your crosshairs are on the crosshairs.
on the other hand,
it could be Actual Crosshairs, and
it's a good thing that The Director doesn't use them!
> > Behold camera crosshairs _BEHIND_ objects in the scene:
> It's a well-known film phenomenon, not a conspiracy. Sorry.
thus:
I meant, and a BS.
speaking of which, Darfur consists of Arabs and nonArabs,
news-item: there are too kinds of people -- two?
>> --LbernardBORATlewis WANTS YOU in SUDAN;
>> nocollegedeferments,either--dystancelearning?
>
>Wow, this is going to take some time. We don't use words the same way.
--Harry Potter IIX, ?The Ordeal of Oxford//Baghdad by Parachute!
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/3410caymans_hedges.html
The_Man
> On Feb 25, 12:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 25, 12:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > >> schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> Disgruntled NASA insiders deliberately glitched photos to expose the
> > >>> Apollo Hoax.
> > >> Is Schoenfeld so stooopid as to believe those are original images?
>
> > > Denying reality is an insufficient condition for falsifying reality.
>
> > > Those images are a knock-out blow to your landing-believer religion.
>
> > 1. Schoenfeld posts something, often trying to discredit scientists
> > 2. Schoenfeld is shown to lack critical thinking and integrity
> > 3. Repeat 1-3
>
> Compare my posts with yours. I offer data, physics and mathematics to
> support my claims. You offer innuendo and the occasional insult but no
> data, physics or math.
>
> Now, I showed you two photos from the official Apollo record. They
> have serious problems including
> [1] camera cross hairs behind objects in the scene
> [2] obvious image blending errors around border of vehicle
>
> Either you can account for that or you cannot.- Hide quoted text -
These phenomena have long been accounted for. The have to do with the
techniques to print photographs. If you knew even the first things
about photography, they would not surprise you at all.
You should not be casting doubt on moon landings, but on photography.
Before you can even begin to voice an intelligent opinbion on
something complicated like manned space travel, maybe you should learn
the basics about something SIMPLE, like photography. You can take
course in photography at an community college, or even high schools.
Brad Guth
> Give ONE name of an "insider" who will confirm this.
> Behold a loser.
Behold folks that would be summarily dead for their sharing squat worth
of the truth.
Where's Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16?
Got that sufficiently nearby, big old and extremely bright Venus within
any unfiltered FOV Kodak moment?
Brad Guth
news:1173383539.4...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com
> It's probably because the objects are so bright (notice it's only
> "behind" the BRIGHT parts of objects), that it washes out the dim
> crosshair.
>
> It's a well-known film phenomenon, not a conspiracy. Sorry.
I just like their xenon lamp spectrum of illumination, that's obviously
w/o UV.
Brad Guth
> it's not that easy to see crosshairs,
> when you're in them; even if
> your crosshairs are on the crosshairs.
>
> on the other hand,
> it could be Actual Crosshairs, and
> it's a good thing that The Director doesn't use them!
But don't you folks just love all of that xenon lamp spectrum, that's so
gosh darn terrestrial looking because it's without hardly any of that
pesky UV.
Brad Guth
> 6 million of his "closest friends"?
Not at all, just those few as willing to allow others putting one of
their own kind on a stick, thus keeping that blood money rolling in.
> To you, there's no proof of anything, since you simply deny anything
> that doesn't resonante with the voices in your head.
At least my somewhat dyslexic head is not chuck full of the sorts of
LLPOF collateral damage and the ongoing vast carnage of the innocent.
> > > Remind us, what is your Ph.D. in? Or M.S. ? Or M.A.? O.K., what is
> > > your B.A. ? Do you at least have an associate's degree? Did you at
> > > least graduate from HIGH SCHOOL?
>
> No degree? No diploma? "Would you like fries with that?"
Silly Jewboy, or are you and your kind pretending at being Amish today?
> "Jewspeak"???????
> Miss the good old days, goose-stepping down the street?
> Here's a quote you might enjoy (while mssing the irony):
>
> "If a single British bomb falls on the Reich, you can call me Meyer!"
> - Hermann Goering
That's very good infomercial spewed crapolla, just exactly like your
good old Jewish faith based Third Reich.
The_Man
> "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173122214.9...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com
>
> > Give ONE name of an "insider" who will confirm this.
> > Behold a loser.
>
> Behold folks that would be summarily dead for their sharing squat worth
> of the truth.
If they would "be summarily dead" for sharing "the truth", why would
they fucking tell a shithead piece of shit like YOU?
Similarly, why are YOU still alive???
>
> Where's Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16?
Only a moron (like YOU) would send a multi-billion dollar manned space
through the "instantly fatal" van Allen belts to photograph ...
Venus...
The_Man
> "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Usual netiquette requires showing that you snipped - you just take
sentences out of context. Says a lot about your integrity.
>
> Not at all, just those few as willing to allow others putting one of
> their own kind on a stick, thus keeping that blood money rolling in.
>
> > To you, there's no proof of anything, since you simply deny anything
> > that doesn't resonante with the voices in your head.
>
> At least my somewhat dyslexic head is not chuck full of the sorts of
> LLPOF collateral damage and the ongoing vast carnage of the innocent.
In other words, you simply deny anything that is told to you by the
psychotic voices in your head. Go back on you meds!
>
> > > > Remind us, what is your Ph.D. in? Or M.S. ? Or M.A.? O.K., what is
> > > > your B.A. ? Do you at least have an associate's degree? Did you at
> > > > least graduate from HIGH SCHOOL?
So, you are the usual uneducated rabble. How's live behind the deep
fryer at Mickey D's?
>
> > No degree? No diploma? "Would you like fries with that?"
>
> Silly Jewboy, or are you and your kind pretending at being Amish today?
"Jewboy" :-) No, actually no. But I'll convert if it will make you
feel better.
So you only suck cocks if they are uncircumsized.
>
> > "Jewspeak"???????
> > Miss the good old days, goose-stepping down the street?
Didn't answer.
> > Here's a quote you might enjoy (while mssing the irony):
>
> > "If a single British bomb falls on the Reich, you can call me Meyer!"
> > - Hermann Goering
>
> That's very good infomercial spewed crapolla, just exactly like your
> good old Jewish faith based Third Reich.
So we CAN call you "Meyer".
And you missed the irony.
Brad Guth
Wow! the Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones) is capable of going Usenet
postal, and still Jewish to boot.
Some times you join the wrong force, and really bad shit happens.
Covering thy butt from that point on is absolutely essential and without
so much as a speck of remorse, isn't it.
Brad Guth
> Only a moron (like YOU) would send a multi-billion dollar manned space
> through the "instantly fatal" van Allen belts to photograph ...
> Venus...
Where the hell did any of that come from?
If you go fast enough (say 20~25 km/s) and thereby spend little time
within the Van Allen zone of death, as such your frail DNA will not
suffer past the point of no return.
Having banked bone marrow should save the day, that is as long as you
haven't actually extensively close orbited or much less having walked
upon that physically dark and absolutely TBI nasty moon of ours, as
there are certain limits as to how many hundred rads or units of Sv your
entire body and soul can take.
The_Man
> "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Skull and Bones is the Third Reich? Can't be. You LOVE the Third
Reich, but you DON'T like Skull and Bones. Apparently, not only are
you too stupid to understand photography OR physics, but you seem to
think Yale is in Berlin.
Arschloech.
> is capable of going Usenet
> postal, and still Jewish to boot.
"Jewish" is the worst insult you can imagine. That is why it doesn't
bother you that you are STUPID and COWARDLY.
>
> Some times you join the wrong force, and really bad shit
Quite the anal fixation!
> happens.
To wit - Nuremburg. 'Tis a pity you are too much of a coward to act on
your impulses;it would be great to see you slowly strangle like your
idols did. "Tod durch den Strang" is almost too good for you, but it
will have to do.
> Covering thy butt
Butts are something you are quite interested in, obviously.
> from that point on
the top of your head?
> is absolutely essential and without
intelligence?
> so much as a speck of remorse,
Re Morse code?