That "SimplyMagic/TightFit.jpg" of "Chris Krolczyk, former Smithsonian
anthropologist (and anevolutionist, obviously) does his thing outside
National Museum of Natural History. Krolczyk has left the Smithsonian
to join a carnival" is impressive but otherwise a bit too much to ask
for.
However, the rest of your "RARE PHOTO OF FIRST MAN IN THE MOON -- FOX
NEWS EXCLUSIVE" topic is also sharing the truth and nothing but the
truth.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/e2b6d88aff57aa8e/1a86a2ae5fb3c491?hl=en#1a86a2ae5fb3c491
Your 280 million year old stuff goes right along with the sorts of
notions that I've had about the evolution of complex humans taking much
longer to have evolved, or perhaps as having somewhat recently
de-evolved if taking our GW Bush into account, than any timeline of
what Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution had suggested. Hundreds of
millions if not billions of years sounds about right, unless some ET 4H
efforts of creation had been fooling around with a little intelligent
design, and looking for a viable planet as their dumping/disposal form
of accomplishing their biohazard isolation so that we'd be technically
sequestered and thereby couldn't so easily contaminate other species
throughout this vast universe of truly intelligent life, or even so
easily get ourselves to other planets within our solar system.
But then no matters what, we still have to contend with the likes of
our extremely brown nosed NASA/Apollo suck-ups as "George Evans" and of
so many of his incest mutated kind that we have to deal with.
George Evans; "So even from the earth, Venus is harder
to spot than the moon. I would assume that holds true
when standing within 10 feet of the moon."
Your lordship "assume" wrong, especially pixel per pixel or
photographic film as grain per grain is where that vibrant speck of
Venus is obviously smaller but otherwise so much brighter than our dark
moon. Sorry about that.
I had only used such images of our moon as having other planets and a
few stars like Spica as examples of what can be obtained within the
same exposed frame that's having a look-see at that physically dark
moon of ours. There are even NASA/Apollo images from lunar orbit of
our moon and Earth within the same frame, and if you can see Earth
along with our physically golden dark and otherwise mineral rich moon
is what represents that the likes of having the much brighter though
obviously smaller item of Venus and most any other planet that's within
view is going to become unavoidably included, that is unless having
been PhotoShop removed, or in the case of certain vibrant bluish stars
as having been band-pass filtered out, or simply having been avoided at
all cost. Ektachrome film demonstrated as having more than sufficient
DR to work with (at least 9 f/stops worth), and those were unfiltered
camera and lens applications that would have recorded into the UV-a
spectrum. Therefore, you and others of your kind have no physics nor
scientific basis for your side of this argument, unless the physics and
science of either being dumbfounded or flat out lying counts.
I've already posted those terrestrial obtained image URLs and so much
more... Forget about those atmospherically filtered and otherwise
optically moderated terrestrial shots as having included our moon along
with other planets and of a few stars as being within the same frame.
I'd nicely asked of others, on multiple occasions none the less, as
I'll ask of yourself; as observed From the moon, where's Venus?
For an absolute certainty, on three of those Apollo missions it was
sufficiently nearby and situated somewhere above that physically dark
lunar horizon, and at the time of those three Apollo missions (11, 14
and 16) it was not ever entirely hidden by the moon or Earth, and
without a spectrum filtering atmosphere in between is why it was
especially damn bright to that unfiltered Kodak eye, by as much a three
fold brighter albedo than the spectrum of the albedo afforded by
earthshine which absorbs a good deal of that UV-a spectrum (making
Earth look as though somewhat bluish and Venus looking a bit violet),
and since there's hardly any moderation nor spectrum filtration
afforded by that wussy lunar atmosphere is exactly why the UV-a
reflected off Venus should have been absolutely impressive to those
unfiltered Kodak moments. As I'd stipulated before, Venus should have
been unavoidably included in at least three Apollo missions of such
extensive picture takings.
Obviously that guano moon that's dusted in portland cement and
representing such a 0.55 to 0.65 reflective/retroreflective surface is
simply not the real thing.
I know for an absolute matter of replicated hard-science and of physics
fact upon fact that Venus was not being nearly as stealth as were all
of those WMD that each of your remorseless naysay kind had otherwise
claimed existed. Of course if you'd dare, you folks could easily have
proven that I'm wrong, but obviously you can't afford to take that
chance or that risk of essentially proving that I'm right.
For certain, the truth and nothing but the truth is going rather nuts
these days, just like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has gone far
beyond nuts (more like 10+ trillion plus butt-loads of his collateral
damage and the nearly endless carnage of the innocent, insane).
With further regard to our seriously rad-hard Apollo astronauts having
easily and rather unavoidably photographed a few sufficiently bright
items other than the physically dark moon itself, and that of mother
Earth that isn't half as humanly albedo bright as Venus and not a third
as unfiltered Kodak moment bright, Brad Guth wrote:
: Eliminating atmospheric filtration, and the matter of fact that the
: unfiltered Kodak film was extremely sensitive to such blue, indigo,
: violet, near-UV and even a bit of UV-a, by which the likes of the
: Sirius star system has way more than it's fair share of such photons.
>kmmposting; Reference for that, please.
KODAK, NASA, ESA, team KECK and just about any other source that's
equally approved and replicated to death.
BTW; Where the heck is all of that hard-science of what should have
included moon sodium/salt and other tidbits of lead and the unavoidable
radium deposits from our supposed moon samples?
How can the likes of the moon's radium, lead and of so many other
fundamental heavy elements have vanished? (certainly not into thin air)
Why is having more gravity and of being such a much larger target of
Mars offer a good hundred fold more of those relatively dark surface
deposited meteorites per km2, plus having loads of secondary impact
shards to show us? In other words, how the heck did our moon according
to those NASA/Apollo EVA photographs get so devoid of meteorites and of
such few secondary shards?
Why are those few and far between meteorites and secondary impact
shards, that reside upon our passive guano and portand cement like
moon, of such low contrast (0.45~0.65 albedo), and otherwise w/o
mineral colors?
Why is that highly reflective if not selectively retroreflective
moon-dust that's affording such a nice amount of surface-tension as
offering such terrific physical support as such good clumping
compression capacity and/or simply robust, and otherwise so unusually
shallow, especially when much smaller moons are way more covered in
deep layers of their fluffy moon-dust?
Since the GSO of what our Van Allen belt can be worth 2e3 Sv/year, as
based upon being shielded by 5/16" worth of 5086 aluminum, and since
our naked moon has always been measurably worse off; How the heck did
they do it?
I had asked; "Where do you suppose all of that sodium/salt is coming
from?"
>KMM; eh?
KMM, You've got to be absolutely kidding, as even our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) isn't that dumbfounded. The well documented and even
photographed 900,000 km comet like trail of that solar wind extracted
element of sodium away from our moon isn't hardly a secret. In spite
of that NASA/Apollo koran you worship; that physically dark and double
IR roasted to death nasty moon of ours is still as salty as all get
out.
Though "KMM" has provided those nice infomercial-science links of what
we've all been informed of and thus knew about for decades, and
otherwise more of those unfiltered Kodak moments of that guano moon
that's so lightly dusted in such a thin layer of portland cement that's
so bone-dry clumping and/or selectively retroreflective under such
nifty xenon lamp illumination to boot. Thanks ever so much.
I'll ask again as to what's so complicated or otherwise
taboo/nondisclosure about honest folks sharing the truth and nothing
but the truth?
What's so unusable or otherwise taboo about the regular laws of physics
and of the sorts of hard-science that's fully replicated?
What's so unlikely about various individuals of wealth and power and/or
of their puppet governments as having made mistakes or simply having
been dishonest, greedy and highly bigoted?
What's your all-knowing expertise or best SWAG of an answer as to each
of those pesky "blue-screen" frames?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?73
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-73-10182
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?72
What's your all-knowing best answers to their having photographed a
greater than half illuminated Earth along with their highly reflective
moon as being well past sunrise, and otherwise that of having recorded
such an unusually slim crescent of Earth as photographed from the moon?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-134-20384.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-134-20387-cropped.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/20149603.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-66-9329
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-66-9331
Once again; WHERE's VENUS ?
On at least three Apollo missions of A-11, A-14, A-16, and especially
since you've all had access to the very best supercomputer and of the
fully interactive 3D solar system simulator that'll fully render a very
photographically realistic (AKA true to life) representation of nearly
all there is as viewed from anywhere at any date and time: Where's
Venus, as having been viewed from the moon?
While you're at it, utilizing that absolutely nifty supercomputer of
ours, and of using that fully interactive 3D capable rendering software
of what that absolutely nifty solar system simulator of ours can
accommodate; where's the likes of the super-bright and otherwise
extreem bluish/violet Sirius star system throughout all of those APOLLO
and of so many other robotic missions before and especially of those
after having at least an extra 4 db or 16 fold better worth of dynamic
range to offer (these days a few of the 16 db capable CCDs are
available as also having been in orbit and otherwise 100+% bought and
paid for by public dollars, as well as via tax-avoidance dollars
(thereby same as public dollars)?
I bet that you folks are not about to tell us village idiots what the
unfiltered Kodak photographic recorded difference is between that of
using a xenon lamp spectrum and that of having to deal with the raw
solar illumination spectrum. In that case I and Kodak or that of other
film manufactures will gladly share and share alike.
Here's another trick question;
With a view of Earth situated within the same frame as obtained from
orbit; Why is that moon of ours of such a deeply rich composite of
golden brown tinted or soot coated basalts and of various other dark
element deposits as having been viewed from orbit, and otherwise
entirely of such clean portland cement and of somewhat lighter
contrasting substances that's absolutely colorless and even somewhat
selectively retroreflective as having been viewed from the surface?
BTW No.2; Ed Conrad (http://www.edconrad.com/) has been saying all
along that man, or at least of something very human or perhaps ET like,
is at the very least as old as coal, and that we haven't yet walked on
that physically dark and nasty moon of ours. got it?
If walking upon that physically nasty and unavoidably dark mineral and
complex meteorite rich moon of ours (representing our best available
solar/cosmic morgue), besides that environment being extremely
electrostatic dusty as all get out (tens of meters in fluffy depth none
the less), I want you folks to think Van Allen belt and TBI dosage
nasty, as in GSO times ten = 2e4 Sv/year while shielded by 5/16" worth
of 5086 aluminum (~2 g/cm2). Gee whiz, folks, that's only worth 228
rads/hr. On a truly bad solar day you can go with that dosage being
another ten fold worse off, and if it's a totally passive solar day
there's no chance in hell of that surface environment offering less
than 23 rads/hr by day and perhaps at best 2.3 rads/hr by the gamma and
unavoidable secondary/recoil in hard-X-rays of the cosmic
nighttime/earthshine while shielded by that same 2 g/cm2. Either way,
you'd best have that personal cash of banked bone marrow standing by,
and perhaps a few of those vital spare body parts just in case things
get a little nastier than you'd planned on. Learn braille and get
yourself a good dog, especially since you could soon become blind.
-
Brad Guth
I totally agree that Darwin hasn't been the last word in evolution, nor
is NASA/Apollo the last word as to LL-1, our moon, Venus nor dozens of
other such topics and supposed benchmarks.
In spite of what this GOOGLE accommodated Usenet and of what their
mainstream status quo has had to say all of these decades, and that
includes each and every one of their mainstream publishing puppets and
otherwise infomercial-science for a buck of suck-ups like the
Smithsonian and NOVA, I happen to know exactly where Venus was at the
times that count, as basically residing above that Apollo lunar horizon
and unavoidably in the general direction of our sun, but Venus is not
always to the inside of Earth as viewed from that physically dark moon.
I also know that the GOOGLE/Usenet insider folks are still nothing but
a Jewish collaborating Third Reich LLPOF cultism, of an absolute pagan
and otherwise bastard minion collective that sucks and blows whenever
they get the opportunity. The regular laws of physics that'll suit
their Einstein, of orbital mechanics that never lies and of the
replicated hard-science of Kodak is what proves that I'm right and that
all others are not, just as it proves that such NASA/Apollo folks have
been the worse possible liars from their very perpetrated cold-war get
go. See you folks in court as we get around to publicly frying each of
your sorry bigoted asses, and of every associated other such ass
bastard of your incest mutated kind that we can get our hands on (and I
bet you folks had thought being Islamic was a bad idea).
In addition to all the other status quo of what's ongoing and of their
up-hill flowing crapolla from their Smithsonian and of their NOVA and
NASA/Apollo rusemasters of supposed wizards that we honest folks have
to continually deal with, it seems we're stuck with the all-knowing
likes of photographic wizard "George Evans" and as always that of lord
"David Knisely" and "Sam Wormley" that'll systematically avoid and/or
having excluded the truth at the drop of a typically Jewish hat.
That recent contribution by Ed Conrad of the "SimplyMagic/TightFit.jpg"
is certainly a good one of "Chris Krolczyk, former Smithsonian
anthropologist (and anevolutionist, obviously) does his thing outside
National Museum of Natural History. Krolczyk has left the Smithsonian
to join a carnival" is impressive but otherwise a bit too much to ask
for. Although, at each of their trials for crimes against humanity, we
might require that you folks perform that very same act as part of your
butt-ugly defense, because that's exactly where your incest bigoted
head would have had to have been for the past 4 decades and counting,
as your one and only viable defense.
However, the rest of Ed Conrad's "RARE PHOTO OF FIRST MAN IN THE MOON
-- FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE" topic is also sharing the truth and nothing but
the truth.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/e2b6d88aff57aa8e/1a86a2ae5fb3c491?hl=en#1a86a2ae5fb3c491
or offered by this "EXCLUSIVE PHOTO -- FIRST MAN IN THE MOON"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/d13e4f709535f68c/c2326bc56dc99e86?hl=en#c2326bc56dc99e86
Ed's 280 million year "old as coal" stuff goes right along with the
sorts of notions that I've had about the evolution of complex humans
taking much longer to having evolved, or perhaps as having somewhat
recently de-evolved if taking our dipshit warlord(GW Bush) into
account, thereby much longer than any timeline of what Charles Darwin's
Theory of Evolution had suggested. Hundreds of millions if not
billions of years sounds about right, unless we're dealing with some ET
4H efforts of creation that had been fooling around with a little
intelligent design of their own, and having located a viable
planet(Earth) as their dumping/disposal solution of accomplishing their
biohazard isolation, so that we'd be technically sequestered and
thereby couldn't so easily contaminate other species throughout this
vast universe of truly intelligent life, or even so easily get
ourselves to/from other planets within our solar system.
But then no matters what, we still have to contend with the perverted
sick mindset likes of our extremely brown nosed NASA/Apollo suck-ups as
"George Evans", "David Knisely", "Sam Wormley" and of so many of their
mutually incest mutated kind, that we'll simply have to one by one
round up and deal with.
George Evans; "So even from the earth, Venus is harder
to spot than the moon. I would assume that holds true
when standing within 10 feet of the moon."
Your lordship "assume" wrong, especially pixel per pixel or via
photographic film grain per grain is where that vibrant speck of a
crescent Venus is obviously smaller but otherwise so much brighter than
our physically dark moon. Sorry about that.
I had only used such images of our moon as having other planets and a
few stars like Spica as examples of what can be obtained within the
same exposed frame that's having a look-see at that physically dark
moon of ours. There are even NASA/Apollo images from lunar orbit of
our moon and Earth within the same frame, and if you can see Earth
along with our physically golden dark and otherwise mineral rich moon
is what represents that the likes of having the much brighter though
obviously smaller item of Venus and most any other planet that's within
view is going to become unavoidably included, that is unless having
been PhotoShop removed, or in the case of certain vibrant bluish stars
as having been band-pass filtered out, or simply having been avoided at
all cost. Ektachrome film demonstrated as having more than sufficient
DR to work with (at least 9 f/stops worth), and those were unfiltered
camera and lens applications that would have recorded into the UV-a
spectrum. Therefore, you and others of your kind have no physics nor
scientific basis for your side of this argument, unless the physics and
science of either being dumbfounded or flat out lying counts.
I've already posted those terrestrial obtained image URLs and so much
more... I say forget about those atmospherically spectrum filtered and
otherwise optically moderated terrestrial shots as having included our
moon along with other planets and of a few stars as being within the
same frame. I'd nicely asked of others, on multiple occasions none the
less, as I'll ask of yourself; as observed From the moon, where's
Venus?
For an absolute certainty, on three of those Apollo missions it was
sufficiently nearby and situated somewhere above that physically dark
lunar horizon, and at the time of those three Apollo missions
(11/14/16) it was not ever entirely hidden by the moon or Earth, and
without a spectrum filtering atmosphere between is also why Venus was
especially damn bright to that unfiltered Kodak eye, by as much a three
fold brighter albedo than the spectrum of the albedo afforded by
earthshine which absorbs a good deal of that UV-a spectrum (making
Earth look as though somewhat bluish and Venus looking a bit violet),
and since there's hardly any moderation nor spectrum filtration
afforded by that wussy lunar atmosphere is exactly why the UV-a
reflected off Venus should have been absolutely impressive to those
unfiltered Kodak moments. As I'd stipulated before, Venus should have
been unavoidably included in at least three Apollo missions of such
extensive picture takings.
Obviously that guano moon of their's that is dusted in portland cement
and representing such a 0.55 to 0.65 reflective/retroreflective surface
is simply not the real thing.
I know for an absolute matter of replicated hard-science and of physics
fact upon fact that Venus was not being nearly as stealth as were all
of those WMD that each of your remorseless naysay kind had otherwise
claimed existed. Of course, and only if you'd dare, you folks could
having depicted such few secondary shards?
Why are those few and far between meteorites and secondary impact
shards, that reside upon our passive guano and portand cement like
moon, offering such low contrast (0.45~0.65 albedo), and otherwise w/o
hardly any raw mineral colors?
Why is that highly reflective if not selectively retroreflective
moon-dust that's affording such a nice amount of surface-tension, as
offering such terrific physical support of such good clumping
compression capacity and/or simply robust, and otherwise so unusually
shallow, especially when much smaller moons are way more covered in
deep layers of their fluffy moon-dust that isn't the least bit
compacted.
Since the GSO environment of what our Van Allen belt can be worth 2e3
Sv/year, as based upon being shielded by 5/16" worth of 5086 aluminum,
and since our naked moon has always been measurably worse off; How the
heck did they do it?
I had asked; "Where do you suppose all of that sodium/salt is coming
from?"
>KMM; eh?
KMM, You've got to be absolutely kidding, as even our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) isn't that dumbfounded. The well documented and even
photographed 900,000 km comet like trail of that solar wind extracted
element of sodium away from our moon isn't hardly a secret. In spite
of that NASA/Apollo koran you worship; that physically dark and double
IR roasted to death nasty moon of ours is still as salty as all get
out.
Though "KMM" has provided those nice infomercial-science links of what
we've all been informed of and thus knew about for decades, and
otherwise more of those unfiltered Kodak moments of that guano moon
that's so lightly dusted in such a thin layer of portland cement that's
so bone-dry yet clumping and/or as having been selectively
retroreflective under such nifty xenon lamp illumination to boot.
Thanks ever so much.
I'll ask again as to what's so complicated or otherwise
taboo/nondisclosure about honest folks sharing the truth and nothing
but the truth?
What's so unusable or otherwise taboo about the regular laws of physics
and of the sorts of hard-science that's fully replicated?
What's so unlikely about various individuals of great wealth and power
and/or of their puppet governments as having made mistakes or simply
having been favorably dishonest, greedy and highly bigoted?
What's your all-knowing expertise or best SWAG of an answer as to each
of these pesky "blue-screen" frames?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?73
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-73-10182
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?72
What's your all-knowing best answers to their having photographed a
greater than half illuminated Earth along with their highly reflective
moon as having been well past sunrise, and otherwise that of having
If walking upon that physically nasty and unavoidably sooty dark
mineral and complex meteorite rich moon of ours (representing our best
available solar/cosmic morgue that has to include loads of dead
spores), besides that environment being extremely electrostatic dusty
as all get out (tens of meters in fluffy depth none the less), I want
you folks to think Van Allen belt and TBI dosage nasty, as in GSO times
ten = 2e4 Sv/year while having been shielded by 5/16" worth of 5086
aluminum (~2 g/cm2). Gee whiz, folks, that's only worth 228 rads/hr.
On a truly bad solar day you can go with that dosage being another ten
fold worse off, and if it's a rare but totally passive solar day
there's no chance in hell of that daytime surface environment offering
less than 23 rads/hr and perhaps at best 2.3 rads/hr by way of the
gamma and unavoidable secondary/recoil in hard-X-rays of the cosmic
nighttime/earthshine environment while shielded by that same 2 g/cm2.
Either way, I'm thinking that you'd best have that personal cash of
banked bone marrow standing by, and perhaps a few of those vital spare
body parts just in case things get a little nastier than you'd planned
on. I would also advise that you learn braille and get yourself a good