NASA uses LLPOF anti-flak to protect Apollo butts

No. It's just that I've been involved with this debate with you before on different message boards. When you're thoroughly refuted on one message board, you simply ignore it, pack up and go to the next message board continuing on as if nothing ever happened.

So, what's the point in arguing further? It would have to be either a) to try to convince you otherwise, in which case you'll simply ignore it all later, or b) to convince others of the incorrectness of your arguments. But, you come across in such a manner as to make that unnecessary -- you are the perfect refutation to your own arguments.

May I also remind you that you haven't provided any substantial evidence of your own -- you've simply referenced nonsense from your own website and made a few unsupported, lying pronouncements about Apollo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You do realize that pointing out someone's mistakes of logic is not lying? Right?

That's all badastronomy was doing. So once again, point out where they were lying, or otherwise you are just another borg kook beating the dead horse of pseudoscience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you're honestly a snookered soul, then obviously by way of pointing out mistakes of others as based upon being snookered isn't making you a liar, just thoroughly dumbfounded, like I was as of a little over three years ago. Unfortunately for the likes of "badastronomy", they claim NOT being snookered, and instead they come off as "all knowing" about absolutely everything, much like yourself.

BTW AD1;
If you'd produce something of a positive statement, thereby conjuring up some specific numbers, as then we'd have something to argue about. Please check back through your own post and realize that you yourself have not contributed squat, though plenty of flak on behalf of protecting those dogs. Whereas I've given the links of Kodak data files, and of a short search for key words such as: KODAK UV Spectrum, those came up with dozens if not hundreds of perfectly good stuff.

If you were on my tail before, as I suspect it stands to reason, that there too you were using a phony name, thus folks like yourself do not count because, you don't really exist, or perhaps the name is being moderated by many that I have no way of knowing about (phony names seem to do those sorts of things).

Once again; it's not that I can so much prove or disprove upon what's to be seen as captured within the various moonscape and/or of whatever apollo related stuff, as it's the spectrum of color skew or shift that's entirely bogus.

And, it's not even about whatever manual corrections that could have been applied during the print (negative to paper or even from a positive transparency to internegative and then onto photo paper) process of creating said photos for the public to view. However, the amount of correction would not only have been easily detected but, as such the very need as to having to accommodate with such efforts would have been the absolute right sort of thing as for team NASA/Apollo to have shown the before and after correcting image, as with and without spectrum skew results.

These days, an actual digital scan (8192 dpi) file could be offered of the raw negative or transparency, in addition to offering those before and after correction prints.

Thus the "proof positive" indeed becomes the Kodak moment, that simply hasn't passed the test of such being originally recorded as upon the moon, whereas the raw solar amount of near-UV and UV/a as recorded by the Kodak yellow photo emulsion dye should have been greatly if not over-saturated to say the least, that is unless the other visible portions were significantly under-exposed, of which that simply wasn't the case.

And ever since NASA/Apollo have long proven their expertise in applied multiple interneagtives in order to assemble a bogus print, and re-prints as such, we can't trust those prints, and as such only the raw negatives will have to do.

Fore knowing the original spectrum of the red, white and blue flag elements is also offering "proof positive" as for that of any B&W film, of which said film is indeed highly sensitive to the near-UV and UV/a spectrums, of which the lunar environment affords lots of such spectrum as opposed to hardly any as provided from the likes of xenon illumination. Thus this time the damn glove fits, and case closed.

So, this is much like catching a very bloated fox with chicken feathers still sticking out of his mouth, and of all the remaining chickens cowering as far away from that fox as possible, as such it doesn't take the likes of Colonel Sanders in order to figure out what the hell just transpired.

KODAK UV Spectrum: B&W and Color Sensitivity and Spectral Sensitivity
Though I have some older B&W as well as color spectra data sets, offering original hard copy data that's similar if not identical to the most recent Kodak spectra info, I'm still reasonably confidant that your NASA/Apollo bible offers all the right answerers, so why don't you keep pulling out one after another of those smoke and mirror answers from their magic hat, so that you and others can respond to my research, or perhaps you'll still need to go for something within Kodak corporate?
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-apollohoax.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So I take it that means you have no factual reasons to call them liars, and are simply a dumbass?

 

If someone is intentionally utilizing bogus and/or disinformation, then claiming that they're not lying because of basing their stance upon such bogus intelligence, sorry folks, that's a perfectly good LLPOF if there ever was, exactly like those invisible WMD that's managed to get 2/3 of Earth pissed off at America, not to mention tens of thousands of innocent folks prematurely quite dead.

If you don't believe me, which obviously you don't, then goto the internet and search for a few keywords;

KODAK UV Spectrum

B&W Color Sensitivity

Film Spectral Sensitivity

and all sorts of other key sorts of words should also do the trick, as otherwise I could scan what I've got from KODAK and post that, or perhaps just knowing that you have no honest intentions of accomplishing anything on behalf of humanity, especially if that affects your incest borg relationship with NASA/Apollo, which clearly means "so what's the difference?"

For the benefit of apparently retarded folks like "Persol", that find absolutely nothing whatsoever correct about what near-UV and UV/a energy does to the Kodak yellow dye, that simply doesn't lie;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm

And something on behalf of Badastronomy.Com;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-badastronomy.htm

 

Here's something other (somewhat related) that was booted off the forum by God himself.

"How Many Forum Users Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb?"

Apparently, within this forum it takes far more members than all catagories combined as to change that light bulb, and it really doesn't matter because, they're all used to being in the dark, as in quite dumb and bumber, sort of happy campers, if not otherwise easily snookered and thereby dumfounded to boot.

Such as, if those usual billions upon billions that are going to be continually invested into what is frozen solid, and otherwise pulverised and TBI to death upon Mars, and of what further away (actually we seem to be talking about investing trillions as to accomplishing anything close to our surviving Mars, and of taking decades towards making that happen), you'd think those amounts need to directly benefit humanity, and you might think that such benefit must include something for the lower 99.9% of humanity and not just those of the upper 0.1% that clearly doesn't require any such benefits, nor are they the least bit willing to share with the lower 99.9% (scum of the Earth), other than for their going after more money as always extracted (directly and/or indirectly) from that lower 99.9% portion, and then we always have those warm and fuzzy 100 tonnes worth of artificial CO2 created per tonne that's being delivered towards the likes of Mars, and if that's not a booster shot for global warming, then I certainly don't know what is. And, don't forget about all those roasted shuttle astronauts that obviously could not change that light bulb either.

Thus far, throughout all of recorded history, there has been absolutely nothing Mars related, nor certainly of what's further away that humanity has ever benefited from in the past, nor is there anything on the books that'll provide even that penny of worth per billion dollars invested into anything that's Mars, much less of whatever is further away. Over the decades since those cold-war Apollo missions, we've actually invested trillions, causing others to invest hundreds of billions which they also could not afford.

If merely one tenth of that horrific investment (talent, energy resources and $) had been devoted into something a whole lot closer to home than Mars, and of such mostly invested into the sorts of goals which could have transpired specifically here upon Earth, with perhaps the likes of our moon coming online next and then Venus, lo and behold, all of the supposed spin-offs and/or secondary benefits would have been had long ago, though at not 10% the overall drain upon energy resources, and of not likely 1% the pollution to Earth because, some of that Earthly investment on behalf of humanity would have greatly improved upon the efficiently as to our human consumptions and/or resources of energy, and we'd most likely already have the LSE-CM/ISS along with all of those nifty lunar resources at our disposal, and BTW, the likes of 9/11 would never have happened, at least not over anything oil related.

For those of you that supposedly already know how to screw in a light bulb all by yourself;

The moon has always been something all together different, whereas there's loads of benefits in Earth sciences and of whatever the moon itself has to offer humanity:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm

Except there's a wee bit of a testy little problem with any notion of getting ourselves onto and back from the moon: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm

Venus has also been offering something all together different, and at frequent times merely 110 fold further away than the moon:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm.htm

And there's lots more to share throughout the UPDATE page.
Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

 

Hey dumbass... point out where the badastronomy site does this. Most of their explanations are pure logic and are straight forward. No 'disinformation' is needed.

 

As we've got Borg infiltrators, I think we need a level 10 containment field around this thread.

 

Moving it pseudo would help... but alas, no mods.

 

Off we go...

 

Obviously you folks have next to nothing to contribute. In fact, I can't find one item of specific numbers or even viable what-if conjectures that weren't focused upon further butt protecting.

Since all of the NASA/Apollo photos are at risk, and obviously the glove fits, then what more can I have to say.

When I get the extra time, I'll go back through some of my badastronomy notes and fulfill your commands upon other topics related to our moon and of Venus, in order to show how they utilized bogus data (quotes from the NASA bible), of which they damn well knew was bogus, so as to support their partners in crimes against humanity, namely NASA/Apollo and of their boss NSA/DoD.

 

So if it was a hoax, why did the Soviet Union also decide to be complicit in the conspiracy, and not expose the USA, and win a cold war propaganda victory?

 

Well duh brad. That was the whole point of what they wanted you to do. You have really offered nothing in evidence other than your obsession with Kodak film and one image.

Oh and btw read this. One thing that stuck in my mind was that glass lenses would block a lot of the UV from hitting the film. This site seems to confirm this not to mention other variables.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/uvfilms.html

and this http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/alsj-hass.html

and this http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/moon/1.htm

 

phlogistician;
You've got to be absolutely kidding. Now we're supposed to think that those dirty rotten Russians were honest folks, as in not the sort to be pulling off their own cold-war ruse?

How many times did this country sit back and knowingly watch, if not support, what some other nation was pulling off, that wasn't exactly the moral sort of thing to be doing? Or, how about the H2 disinformation, or perhaps the Russian SST fiasco, and we still have a few pesky complications with TWA flight-800, the USS LIBERTY tit-for-tat, the CHALLENGER and so forth into 9/11.

blackholesun;
"glass lenses would block a lot of the UV from hitting the film"

That is absolutely correct, as in blocking nearly all of 250 mw/m2 worth of UV energy from hitting the film, although even that much UV blockage isn't sufficient if you really wanted those negatives and/or transparency to record best of what the human eye sees as situated here on Earth, thus usually there's an additional filter applied, that is if you actually gave a damn, of which you obviously do not. On the moon there's perhaps 64 watts/m2 worth of UV/a and a good deal of greater near-UV to deal with, and a whole lot more so from solar spikes that are not buffered by any atmosphere.

Again; why are you defending those LLPOF dogs?

BTW; thanks for the links. Since you will not offer squat worth of specific numbers, I'll merely quote from official Kodak bible, and perhaps a few from Hasselblad to boot, as well as from the lens manufacturer of what supposedly went to the moon. Of course, you're going to have a few of those original negatives/transparencies to counter with?

 

No offense Brad but it seems to me that you just keep going off on a lot of nonsensical ramblings. What exactly is your point here?

 

That is absolutely correct, as in blocking nearly all of 250 mw/m2 worth of UV energy from hitting the film, although even that much UV blockage isn't sufficient if you really wanted those negatives and/or transparency to record best of what the human eye sees as situated here on Earth

Are you mental brad? You counter with what is in all accounts a double negative!

So it BLOCKS near ALL...so nearly all you're saying. But you go on to say that no...it doesn't block nearly all. Plus we don't see in UV anyhow so it doesn't matter if some reaches the film. It can be processed out later on.

On the moon there's perhaps 64 watts/m2 worth of UV/a and a good deal of greater near-UV to deal with, and a whole lot more so from solar spikes that are not buffered by any atmosphere.

And what's your point? Solar spikes didn't happen every time they went to take a picture plus even though the luminosity is a bit higher on the moon all you had to do is set shutter speed accordingly using this: http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/attm/a11.om.ap.1.html

Since you will not offer squat worth of specific numbers

What "numbers" do you want? The camera specifics were in the links.

nearly all of 250 mw/m2 worth of UV
On the moon there's perhaps 64 watts/m2 worth of UV/a

So which is it?

 

OK Mr. blackholesun "know it all" photographic expert;

How does this; "camera was fitted with a polarizing filter which could easily be detached." have anything to do with reduction of them intensified near-UV and even of the UV/a spectrum photons. I believe that a "polarizing filter" is relatively neutral, though adding another layer of glass should improve upon blocking the likes of UV/b, and perhaps somewhat slightly upon UV/a, although not worth squat with any respect to the near-UV (375~425 nm) that was intense to say the least.

BTW; without an atmosphere refracting sunlight, how does such a "polarizing filter" improve upon a given moonscape shot?

Or, wasn't it intended to improve upon anything?

I can understand the usage of spectrum blocking and/or band-pass filters, and even of what a "polarizing filter" accomplishes for refracted light.

Tell me again; why are you defending those LLPOF dogs?

As otherwise, every stinking negative/transparency should have been rather noticeably skewed, into being rather bluish, which of course could have been compensated upon printing (so where's the before and after prints), although not without such efforts being easily detected by way of good photo forensic, and/or best by having even a slight portion of any of the original shots (or that of a 8192 dpi scan), such as from any of those dozens of entirely useless exposures because they represented little if anything that wasn't supposedly better framed and of better focus/exposure, as otherwise contained in any number of alternative images that no one needs to ever touch, even though digital scanning wouldn't harm one stinking grain of emulsion.

http://groups.msn.com/AstronomySpac..._Message=298&LastModified=4675340280681345268

I very much like that over-exposed photo, very Apollo official and all of that, whereas the basalt and supposedly meteorite and impact shard strewn 11% reflective lunar surface is in this case quite highly illuminated as perhaps it should be, considering the amount of added film exposure, yet those direct photons via them near-UV and UV/a stars are still nowhere in sight. Perhaps that landing site location of this noticeably "over-exposed" photo, as depicted in the above link, was situated within one of those retro-reflective clumping-moon-dirt "white-out" zones.

Don't make me point out specific other photos, as there are too many, such as all of them, or perhaps this is another good place to utilize the GW Bush "so what's the difference?", because you are what you are.

Without those negatives/transparencies in hand, or how about even a leader/trailer portion of supposedly dead-exposure (other than TBI dosage factors and thermal stress issues), you haven't got squat on your side.

coolmacguy;
My point is that the basic reason(s) why our infamous NASA can't budge their sorry butts upon accomplishing what's relatively dirt cheap (in respect to most any other given mission investment), on behalf of making an honest to God effort at interplanetary communications, or for that matter of depositing the image receiving VLA-SAR aperture instrument upon the moon, is that they can't manage to accomplish such efforts without getting too much butt exposure that's associated with those darn cold-war Apollo missions that simply weren't accomplished exactly as documented.

Unlike those NASA/Apollo mission documents, and loads of photos of xenon illuminated scenes, the lunar environment simply is NOT any "walk in the park", as it's downright nasty to life as we know it, even under the influence of merely earthshine. Them 30+km/s dust-bunny impacts really don't care if it's day or night, and the secondary worth of hard X-Rays isn't exactly all that great for the likes of DNA or Kodak film; http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm

 

"Pseudoscience is a forum dedicated to Theories and Science that currently aren't scientifically proven and untested."

Ditto upon NASA/Apollo, unless official butt sucking has become the proven sicience of the day.

BTW; I can't help but noticing how the moderators of this forum have been intentionally moderating upon the number of topic "views", and I've even seen those numbers of "replies" being skewed. Why am I not surprised?

Phony individuals that post under cloaks of obscure names, some of which are actually functioning as borg incest collectives of individuals posting under the same phony name, whereas such individuals do NOT deserve any respect nor kindness whatsoever, as it's obvious what their true intentions are, which isn't anything moral nor of remorse.

Whereas nice folks with real names and real intentions on behalf of humanity are not likely to being bashed by way of my returning their flak. Though it's been relatively hard to identify such an honest soul on this internet, whereas 99.9% of said internet is smut, disinformation or far worse off, which leaves us with that 0.1% as perfectly good data.

And lo and behold, there's lots more (a bit far reaching) to share within my UPDATE page.
Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

 

BTW; without an atmosphere refracting sunlight, how does such a "polarizing filter" improve upon a given moonscape shot?

Or, wasn't it intended to improve upon anything?

Actually you answered your own question this time.

11% reflective lunar surface is in this case quite highly illuminated as perhaps it should be, considering the amount of added film exposure

As in "glare".


Don't make me point out specific other photos, as there are too many, such as all of them, or perhaps this is another good place to utilize the GW Bush "so what's the difference?", because you are what you are.

Try me.

 

blackholesun; As in "glare".

Very good, as in the surface of the moon being comprised of mostly dark lunar basalt and of in places meters deep worth of relatively dark meteorites and numerous shards strewn about (razor sharp as a tack none the less), well known to astronomy/science as to be reflecting upon average at roughly 11%, whereas that supposed reduction in "glare" would represent that the lunar surface should have recorded even somewhat darker than 11%, not to mention that of the near-UV, and especially of the UV/a energy as being mostly absorbed, and as such not reflected in its original form as of the near-IR spectrum, which thereby should also have skewed that already dark lunar surface into being Kodak/photo recorded much darker yet, or at least quite deeply bluish.

A simple search for the following official NASA/Apollo image: "Doble11.JPG"
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903.jpg

Besides the rather obvious superimposing of 2nd astronaut, and a third superimposing process of introducing Earth incorrectly as situated at 5 degrees off the horizon;

If that "Double11.JPG" is not good enough, there are plenty of other images having good old Earth depicted that isn't exactly being honest nor even true the laws of physics, not to mention loads of those illumination hot zones that simply are NOT as per clumping moon dirt that's become selectively retro-reflective. And, as usual you've entirely avoided the near-UV as well as for the UV/a exposures being almost identical to that of xenon, and otherwise hardly that of what the raw sun would have illuminated as a point-source of light containing a great deal more near-UV and UV/a to boot. And, what about all of that lunar terrain that oddly became so freaking reflective, as in 55+% reflective with honest respect to other well known references, such as those moon suits being of 80+% reflective.

Would have the raw, darkish and sharp as a tack lunar soil, along with an abundance of meteorites and subsequent shards, having such as selectively retro-reflecting the near-UV and that of the UV/a spectrum better off at reflecting them photons than an absolutely pure-white moon-suit?

How about the side lighting or of the background spot illumination, or the much brighter spot amount of illumination as depicted in the visor?

So, what the hell went so terribly wrong this time?

Tell me again; why are you defending those LLPOF dogs?