NASA uses LLPOF anti-flak to protect Apollo butts

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by bradguth, Jul 3, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bradguth Banned Banned

    "but some of the conspiracy claims are interesting, until you realize there is plenty of counterevidence:"

    Unfortunately, that "badastronomy" is all LLPOF(liar, liar, pants on fire), and otherwise chuck full of circumstantial smoke and mirrors, whereas none of it addresses the absolute total lack of color spectrum skew as should have been recorded by way of those KODAK moments. Thus why did the NASA/Apollo ruse of the cold-war century have to fake any of those photographs, as there's absolutely no way in holy hell, nor on the moon, that those images were of what we've been told, and I don't give a flying puck about what those "badastronomy" borgs have to say, as not mention there being numerous other issues and a few too many errors associated as to what was captured within said photos, that which them laws of physics and of astrophysics would forbid.

    Why wasn't there ever a single impact recorded from anything, not even a dust bunny worth?
    After all, the moon was making a horrific velocity of 30+km/s, and of that dark basalt surface (supposedly 11% reflective) was in fact fully exposed to absolutely whatever came along, plus being whatever further attracted by way of the 1.625 m/s/s worth of its own gravity influence, that's certainly not slowing down for anything.

    Again, it's LLPOF onto all of those incest cloned borgs, or snookered fools, that simply can't stop their lying as to save their own souls, much less any other soul.

    The moon has always been something all together different than we've been told, whereas there's loads of benefits in Earth sciences and of whatever the moon itself has to offer humanity:

    Except there's a wee bit of a testy problem with any honest notions of getting ourselves onto and back from the moon:

    Venus has also been offering something all together different, and at frequent times merely 110 fold further away than the moon:

    And there's lots more to share on the UPDATE page.
    Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    There was. EVERYTHING that they brought back showed signs of micro impacts.
    How often do we get meteor showers on earth? We are moving at about the same velocity and are even larger.
    That said, please detail where you think the badastronomy site
    1) lied
    2) was wrong
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. bradguth Banned Banned

    All that was supposedly brought back to Earth was Earth like, and/or easily modified as to look and test a bit unusual. You do know how NASA/NSA/DoD would have gone about modifying a few rocks don't you?

    Although, it's entirely possible that some robotic probe did a rock recovery mission, as that's possible if those Russian were helping because, we alone still can't manage that sort of task.

    Those damn fools even commissioned a super computer as to proving how that moon was made from Earth, even though the moon doesn't weigh nearly enough for even that to be the case.

    Besides, why the heck didn't they bother getting some real KODAK moment photographs of such, while they were there. BTW; Kodak yellow dye doesn't lie, and of receiving that much near-UV plus UV/a worth of absolutely raw/unfiltered illumination isn't the least bit favorable as for allowing the blue portion of the red, white and blue flag as recorded so subdued, exactly as if xenon spectrum illuminated. Check their photographic manifesto, there's no stinking deep yellow if not deep orange filter to being had. And, if the surface was reflecting anything more than the 11% average, that's another no way possible, at least not by any of those supposed soil samples that were not the least bit "retro-reflective" nor hardly offering anything of near-UV or UV/a reflective quality than of those white moon suits. In other words, as compared to photographing the moon from Earth, while instead from upon the actual lunar surface is where the course meteorite and shard strewn surface should have recorded such as somewhat darker by way of that soil reflecting less of the near-UV and UV/a portions of illumination, as in perfect relationship to the reference of those 80% reflective moon suits, whereas instead a good majority of surface index was 55%.

    Basically all photos should have been more contrasty as obtaining such illumination from a pinpoint of light, and otherwise heavily skewed into the blue spectrum, with any actual blue colored items absolutely ultra vibrant to say the least, as in over-exposed by a good factor of at least 16:1 if not 32:1, and of those white moon suits skewed towards bluish and of reflecting the near-UV and UV/a energy by at least 64:1 if not 128:1 as compared to any dark portion of moonscape or that darn red portion of our flag as offering yet another well known spectrum reference of reflective index.

    The likes of capturing Sirius within frame would have been exceptional, as well as otherwise for the likes of Venus.

    Those photos (absolutely none of them) were exposed to the huge amounts of near-UV and horrific levels of UV/a spectrum, of which the human eye doesn't see, but the yellow dye of that KODAK film was extremely sensitive to.

    99% of what's coming into Earth is either deflected and/or absorbed before it ever reaches the surface, and even what manages to reach the surface had the terminal velocity to deal with, thus the impact energy was hardly anything.

    Thus every stinking argument proposed by "badastronomy" is at risk, if not entirely bogus from the very get go. Although, up until a little over three years ago, I was 100% snookered, just like Walter Cronkite, and apparently you're still snookered.
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Please tell me how you simulate microimpacts all over the inside of a capsule.
    Have you ever attempted trying to practice logic? You said 'badastronomy lies'. Yet you haven't pointed out why. They've listed several other reasons people believe the landing was a hoax, and listed flaws in their logic. Unless you plan on pointing out why those flaws aren't flaws, your criticism is unfounded.

    Your film thing is completely seperate, and is a kook theory that the badastronomy site doesn't address.
    Funny... we can barely manage that with TODAYS communication and remote control equipment.
    You do realize that we still detect hese... right? It doesn't have to hit the ground for it to count.
  8. bradguth Banned Banned

    Sorry about the false link as to the independent pro-Apollo report offered by Case Wright:

    Don't tell me that you haven't heard of a particle accelerator, or of any other names for such extreme velocity capable deliveries, and guess whom had all the lock-box keys as to utilizing such equipment, securely out of sight thus out of mind within those facilities, anytime day or NIGHT.

    Don't try suggesting to me that "badastronomy" is one of the "good guys", as you've got to be kidding. Upon every anti-Apollo issue on record (there are dozens to pick from) they've done a real number on behalf of their mainstream status quo, though without a shred of independent evidence, and just as you've stated about this "film thing is completely seperate, and is a kook theory that the badastronomy site doesn't address". Guess what my fellow snookered fool, it's not being addressed because they're absolutely screwed, blued and tattooed.

    I believe that you utilized the term/phrase "kook theory" which is clearly making you into one of them, another incest cloned borg if there ever was, or are you suggesting that Kodak is full of it.

    I suppose that you're going to bring up those pathetic retro-reflectors; well guess what, even the most focused 2 km laser target zone of what plain old moon dirt that's reflecting white light at merely 11%, and of otherwise reflecting IR at something much better, offers at least a thousand fold more photons than all of those retro-reflectors combined. If you'll do the math, I think it's actually 3,141,593 m2 which is nearly a million times the area that's capable of reflecting an IR spectrum as great as 25%.

    At best our particle detection for Earth stops at perhaps one cubic centimeter (average mass of perhaps 4.5 grams), and of anything much below goes nearly unnoticed, unless it's caught at just the right time and lighting, or rather lack of lighting, and those items of the 2~5 mg dust-bunny class which are of the vast bulk of what out there, those are absolutely lethal at 30+km/s to a lunar EVA, whereas such for Earth is simply deflected and/or literally vanishes into our thin air.

    BTW; I've also provided a perfectly good link within my photo-entro page, to a very good and very independent pro-Apollo sort of web page, although I have to wonder about all of that 5% reflective debris zone associated about the supposed Apollo-15 landing sight. What do you make of that darkness, especially when there was no such dark debris clearing as photographed by any of those Apollo missions?
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2004
  9. bradguth Banned Banned

    As far as I can tell, and of what others such as yourself have to offer, we still can not manage to place even a relatively small robotic probe onto a lunar surface that's right nextdoor, and that's not saying that we can not accomplish such as of today, like that of deploying the much needed VLA-SAR aperture receiving module for obtaining those extreme astronomy observations of planetary surface details.

    It's just that as of right here and now, much less of the late 60's, as for our existing inventory of anything accomplishing such fly-by-wire and/or pilotted that could have managed a soft landing on the moon is zilch, and there's not the engineering nor a stitch worth of film in those archives to prove otherwise, much less of such having the extended down-range controlled flight capability without even a set of fairly massive airframe stabilizing gyros, and the necessary reserves for an extended stay while supporting a couple of profusely sweating astronauts, and of getting all of that investment in terms of astronauts back home along with another hundred or so pounds of lunar substances, plus a hundred or so roles of plastic film that was sensitive to the likes of excessive heat, extreme cold and loads of radiation, yet entirely unscaved.

    Orbiting and deploying certain experiments and even instruments from said orbit is doable, and that doesn't even require of such efforts being released by crew, although of whatever various instrument impacts, such would have been impressive to say the least, given their initial speed plus the 1.6 m/s/s of ever increasing velocity until impact, and there's plenty of official NASA/Apollo approved formula that'll clearly knock your socks off about exactly how horrific those sorts of impacts would become per initial kg. Obviously a robotic lander deployment was at hand, though unproven as anything humanly safe, and I'm absolutely certain that we'll discover all six of them nicely implanted in the locations as specified by NASA.

    Basically, of what I'm trying to offer is that, you can't go about deploying much of anything from orbit unless it's utilizing those fly-by-wire rockets as for considerable breaking and decent all the way to the surface, although I'm still working through a robust JAVELIN probe method that possibly could survive such a horrific delivery impact (at least mine could be fully tested as such prior to being delivered to the moon), and that is if the initial release or drop elevation wasn't too high nor as such having to break due to the sort of initial velocity as per those Apollo orbiting missions. In other words, of a much smaller robotic package that'll deploy dozens if not hundreds of relatively small javelin like instrument probes, designed as to impact and thereby implant into the lunar surface without self-destructing in the process;

    As for the amount of lunar reflected UV/a, is that there's almost nothing as compared to the visible spectrum and of the greater yet portion of the IR spectrum, and that's because most of that solar UV energy is absorbed into the relatively dark basalt rock and resulting soil of accummulated meteorites and impact related shards, plus a continual build of micro-meteorites that has been ongoing for billions of years, all of which remaining within the most ideal morgue as remaining physically sharp as a tack, and otherwise uncompacted, dry as a bone, with no detectable erosion factors and as such being least likely to clump, much less selectively retro-reflective as stipulated by those "apollohoax" borgs trying to spin and damage-control on those rather horrific illumination zones that certain look as though staged.

    The sunlight not being atmospherically diffracted nor filtered, means that they had essentially a pinpoint of source illumination giving no recognized way of creating hot-spots of illumination, nor least of all able to back-fill with any amount of illumination as for reducing the contrast, and of the 11% average reflective nature (nearly asphalt dark or basalt rock like) of the lunar terrain simply could not have been sufficient as for reflecting all that much other than the 11%.

    Of whatever UV/a energy being reflected off the lunar surface would most likely have created a near-UV spectrum of energy release, of which the human sees rather poorly, but of the yellow dye portion of Kodak film should have recorded as a bluish tint or haze, and/or that of imposing a color spectrum skew that would have nicely saturated all the way into the red spectrum, and of making anything that's already blue and especially of a blue fabric nearly fluorescent, and thus vibrantly over-exposed, or of at least capable of over saturating the spectrum sensitive yellow dye.

    Usage of a deep orange and/or deep amber lens filter would have been essential as to cutting down on a good portion of the 64 watt/m2 that's constitutes the near-UV and UV/a spectrum (325~425 nm) of what the raw solar influx has to offer from total energy influx of nearly 1400 watts/m2. Depending on the solar angle and lunar terrain, those exposed astronauts would have been receiving not only the full 1400 watts/m2, but also the amounts of surface reflected solar energy, whereas much of that would have been within the IR spectrum, making their moon-suit per m2 influx worth nearly 2 kw/m2, not to mention all of the hard X-Ray class exposure that coming from nearly all angles, and thereby into all body parts for the entire 36 hour duration.

    The peak spectrum sensitivity of Kodak yellow dye is shifted (as it needs to be for Earthly photography) roughly 100 nm from what the human eye perceives 507 nm as 1700 lumen/watt, whereas the yellow dye would thus be recording 407 nm at better than three fold that of the 507 nm, thus photographically recording as though humanly seeing at 5100 lumen/watt. And, since there are lots of those available watts/m2 and no atmospheric filtering going on, whereas on Earth that exposure upon the Kodak yellow dye is merely having to deal with 250 mw/m2, up to perhaps 500 mw/m2 if you're in a sufficiently elevated zone.

    Doing some math, based upon the relatively non-filtered exposures as acquired by those Apollo missions, clearly represents that of the near-UV and UV/a spectrum of available energy, that as such the amount of added exposure and spectrum shifted skew of such reflected photons becoming recorded as bluish would have been requiring a good reduction of four F-stops worth if not as deep as 6 in order to have prevented that yellow dye portion of the Kodak film from becoming fully saturated, as well as for preventing significant skew of all colors and of the likes of Sirius (375 nm) from otherwise being easily recorded. On the moon there's simply lots of UV to go around, thus lots of interaction from whatever that UV energy strikes.

    Of how they managed all the other factors of snookering the world is just a matter of applied technology, along with a few good mirrors and smoke, and the balls as to pulling it off, that plus an essentially unlimited budget along with the continual threat of death to anyone disclosing squat. Although in such cold-war there are absolutely no rules nor limitations, and you simply accomplish whatever it takes, as opposed to letting the other guy win simply wasn't an option (still isn't).

    And there's lots more to share throughout the UPDATE page.
    Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251)
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2004
  10. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Don't tell me you don't understand how a partifcle accelerator works... It's uncapable of producing micro impacts of this size... let alone microimpacts of this quantity.

    WE AE WES!
  11. bradguth Banned Banned

    Lunar reflective index stuff; Geology and Mineralogy through the LunarSat project

    Take notice of this Orbiter-2 view of the Copernicus crater, of how uniformly but of expectedly high contrast (point source) illuminated, and of such a downright rugged and textured scene this is, as similar to what KECK-II has imaged, and even the likes of Hubble having given us similar texture details and reflective index data, as compared to nearly any of those surface acquired (Kodak moment) Apollo images that are so nicely reflecting at better than four times any normal reflective index, and not the least bit spectrum skewed at that, and of those Apollo photos generally being less contrasting within whatever shadowed zones if not supposedly within some sort of a selective moon dirt that's retro-reflective as to their justifying those illumination hot-spots, of which I don't see any such "hot-spots" within any of the Orbiter-2 data, nor via any other satellite imagery, and certainly there's nothing retro-reflectively spotty coming out of the KECK-II team.

    BTFW; don't take that Apollo-17 image to heart, as I don't believe the sun is actually where it needs to be, and there's a rather noticeable amount of illumination zone that's at least twice as brightly illuminated as situated directly aligned with said shadow of EVA person, than of what's with the upper right that's not half as illuminated and clearly isn't terrain obstructed, not to mention the horizon having absolutely none of those vibrant UV/a stars to be seen. And, of what's so damn steep that's blocking the sunlight from reaching the lower right zone?

    All the other terrain seems to offer such unusually mild slopes that would be illuminated on the side facing away from the source of illumination, and since the lower right dark zone offers no sharp contrasting shadow, it isn't shade provided by the lander, so of whatever it is, it's something damn big and reasonably far away at that. At least this Apollo-17 image is suggesting perhaps 10% of the meteorite and shards as depicted on Mars, even though it should be the other way around since there's absolutely nothing to shield the moon from obtaining absolutely everything that comes along. And of them hills having been nicely erosion smoothed off to boot seems like yet another one of those nifty moon physics tricks.

    Basically I believe the terrain portion of the satellite image, and even though the Apollo-17 image is about as good as those Apollo images get into looking moon like, however by way of my using reasoning and logic, I obviously do not trust that Apollo-17 image.

    Here's a load of "Lunar Reflectance Spectroscopy" or moon reflectance spectra data that's believable:

    maximum lunar IR reflectance
    950~1000 nm = 15%
    1400 nm = 24%
    2000 nm = 30%
    2400 nm = 33%

    Whereas you can clearly identify that if a 2000 nm (IR) spectrum laser beam were illuminating a given 2 km target zone of 3,141,593 m2, that is capable of reflecting at 30% (worst case 20%) is one heck of a lot of them photons available as being reflected and subsequently detected upon Earth, as opposed to what all of perhaps 3 m2 worth of them Apollo retro-reflectors isn't even remotely a fair contest, and that's even if those retro-reflectors were 100% efficient, which of course they were not, nor even offering any specific spectrum band-pass worthy of being otherwise distinguished from what the raw lunar surface had to offer. Basically, we'd need a beam focus of not more than 0.01 milliradian just to narrow that illuminated zone down to a dull roar before there's any chance of acquiring those retro-reflected photons.
  12. bradguth Banned Banned

    Persol; I believe that you know exactly what I mean, in that there was way more than existing technology as to creating said "pits" into their capsule or any of those rocks, of which BTW of just getting to/from lunar orbit and of never setting foot on that stinking moon should have acquired all sorts of nasty pits. Is this another duh-101 thing with you?
    They probably could have and did circumnavigate about the moon, and obviously returned. As for merely orbiting Earth (near to but not within the Van Allen zone of death) would have given the sorts of radiation dosage as reported, but as such would not have accumulated 1% as upon including the potential of a fully lunar surface TBI dosage, nor even nearly as lethal as per adding in a double dosage of the Van Allen zone of death, plus their having to deal with the lunar secondary worth of hard X-Rays and incoming flak while essentially naked upon the lunar surface. And, by way of merely orbiting the moon and returning might have given the sort of reported dosage, that is if they only spent a couple of hours at most within the bad lands of the Van Allen zone (I guess I didn't realize they could travel that fast). As Saddam might have to say; why do you keep defending those dogs?

    A bit more summary refinement upon those lunar JAVELIN probes;

    1) they is relatively small/compact and javelin like (meaning just that)
    2) these are multi-tasking little javelins (meaning having more than one function)
    3) seismics, thermal, radiation and perhaps even a wee bit of acoustical data detection
    4) solar powered by way of integrated diatom like photon gathering prisms of robust silica
    5) remotely programmable as for cycle/run-time and otherwise for each reporting on schedule
    6) internal capacitor/battery for sustained (continuous) hour of data sample and feedback operation
    7) seismic, solar or other event triggered as per scientific programming or other needs
    8) two configurations as per size/mass of not more than one kg and 4 kg each
    9) respectfully capable of costing not more than $10,000 or $20,000 each javelin
    10) slow initial delivery orbit with breaking prior to final deployment/disbursement from not more than 10 km.
    11) main javelin delivery pod, once spent and perhaps not weighing more than 2000 kg, makes for a fly-by-wire soft impact, is also of instrument robotics, including cameras, powerful laser transponders of 0.05 milliradian, and of at least one SAR-Aperture image receiving function.
    12) perhaps as many as three such javelin deployments, spread over 2000 km.

    Essentially, we need to obtain those raw numbers of what the solar illuminated and earthshine environments represent, above and below ground level thermal data, plus a great deal of seismic recordings as taken via free gratis by way of natural and/or artificially induced impacts, as obtaining such data from three well separated disbursements so as to calculate upon the number and locations of underground channels/passages, and creating a 3D image of whatever geode like pockets and of whatever that toasty lunar core is doing at any given time.

    Once this data is within our archives, then some actual logic takes into account of exactly what the moon can accommodate in the way EVA safety and/or of necessary outfitting requirements for the task of establishing those LSE-CM/ISS lobbies, as having one such underground lobby of LSE infrastructure per tether anchor.

    The sheer numbers of said javelins and of their relatively robust nature of small size would help to insure a reasonable percentage of their long-term survival.
  13. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Lol, you go launch your $20,000 javelin to the Moon.

    Do you think you scare us? You have no chance Mr. Edwards.
  14. bradguth Banned Banned

    "Lol, you go launch your $20,000 javelin to the Moon."
    "Do you think you scare us? You have no chance Mr. Edwards"

    Obviously you've got absolutely nothing to work with, and thereby nothing to offer humanity that's within your nasty space toilet, as not even so much as to saving those NASA/Apollo folks, much less yourself.

    You're absolutely correct in that I "have no chance", whereas China, Russia and those damn ESA teams are having all the chances they'll need, and then some.

    You apparently do NOT intend to understand squat, in that as long as our all-knowing folks having all the right stuff were to be circumnavigating the moon (in person or not would have made little difference), that said landers (unmanned) were in fact released and/or deployed towards the lunar surface, whereas even if their robotic landings were sufficiently soft, at least the horrific amounts of direct and secondary TBI was not going to nail anyone, nor was any of that Kodak film having to be exposed to such, much less all of that having to survive extreme thermal issues and of surviving those continually impacting dust-bunny and of somewhat larger items making their entrance at 30+km/s.

    Again; such KODAK moments simply could NOT have transpired upon the moon as depicted, as those illumination spots could not have been the case, there should have been greater contrast from such a point-source of illumination, there should have been at least ten fold greater amounts of meteorites and strewn shards than Mars, the landing zones should have been nearly basalt black (as in perhaps 5% reflective), and above all else is that of everythting photographed should have at least been spectrum skewed to death, as in near-UV and UV/a bluish.

    Everything other is purely smoke and mirrors, though spendy smoke and mirrors.

    Our team NASA/Apollo had every cold-war means and certainly the cold-war motives to have done exactly what they did, and for the most part we already had sufficient knowledge of what the moon was all about as to snookering whomever, including the likes of Walter Cronkite (that's damn near snookering God), myself and obviously you're still snookered.

    Thus there remains that nasty little problem with any Kodak recorded notion of getting ourselves onto and back from the moon:

    So, instead of focusing upon positive issues, of what we can honestly accomplish with regard to our moon on behalf of humanity, such as the LSE-CM/ISS. Instead you're planning upon going to your grave, and taking as many others as possible just to protect the true bastards of humanity.

    BTFW; not only does that Kodak yellow dye NOT lie about what's being recorded under such an extreme illumination source of near-UV and UV/a, not to mention the horrific 375 nm visibility to that of Kodak film capturing the likes of Sirius and of numerous other stars that should have at least dimly recorded, and please don't forget about Venus, but of those javelin probes I've previously mentioned would in fact have survived their deployments, and as such, a few of those compact and robust probes might last 10 years before being sufficiently pulverised. Here again, you've got absolutely nothing in specifics as to add, except your absolute arrogance and "so what's the difference" plan of global domination as based upon liars spewing lies at the drop of a hat, and apparently without remorse, as you would not have had it any other way.

    Even though, everything photographically falls into place once you concede that we've been snookered, that is if you're still alive as to being snookered, whereas due to our perpetrated cold-wars, hundreds of thousands if not millions prematurely bought the farm due the collateral damage of what that cold-war fiasco represented and had subsequently inflicted upon humanity, upto including 9/11, and the bloody body count goes on and on. In other words, nearly everything America stands for is at risk, but you don't give a tinkers damn thanks to those incest cloned NSA/DoD borgs, of which you're taking their side without a shred of independent evidence as to supporting squat.

    I have a few dozen other perfectly good analogies to share, although those would be rather pointless, since clearly you'll believe absolutely anything printed on toilet paper, as long as it has that NASA DNA/stamp of approval.

    Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251)
  15. AD1 Registered Senior Member

    This thread should have been abducted by Venusians as soon as it was posted.
  16. bradguth Banned Banned

    AD1 and Persol, obviously two borgs of a kind.

    Lo and behold, the "mainstream status quo" has ranks.

    Tell me, were you personally cloned by Persol, or was it the other way around?

    God forbid now, and whatever you do, don't offer anything of specifics, nor even stipulate squat unless it's been moderated to death by NASA/Apollo.

    This topic is about those warm and fuzzy NASA butts, and if perchance you've got one of those to share, let it rip. Such as, would you care to inform us about Kodak film, and of how sensitive the yellow emulsion dye is, or perhaps isn't?
  17. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    I ttok issue with you calling the writer of the Badastronomy page a liar. I offere specifics in the for of links.

    You had no response and started talking about 'kodak moments'... which considering you just called a guy a liar for no reason, I'm not going to bother discussing it with you.

    It's much funnier to make fun of you.

  18. bradguth Banned Banned

    That's odd, it seems that I've over-responded. The entire issue or focus about those NASA/Apollo missions is nothing but a Kodak moment, although there's certainly a great deal as to being discussed about those impacting dust-bunny issues.

    As such I'd like to hear whatever some perfectly nice individual has to offer on the topic of lunar impacts, or on behalf of said Kodak film. Perhaps the fault is with Kodak lying their butts off, whereas all of that thermal stress and secondary TBI worth of hard X-Ray dosage somehow nullified their yellow dye, thus don't need any stinking deep amber or much of any other filter.

    Of course, a few of those original negatives being digital scanned (that's nondestructive) at perhaps 8192 dpi should do quite nicely.

    BTW; I had no idea that "AD1" was "badastronomy", and now that I know his cloak, in the future I'll respect that individual as a real person rather than another bogus spook.
  19. AD1 Registered Senior Member

    My only affiliation with Bad Astronomy is that I'm a member of the message board at the site. I didn't author the material debunking the Fox mockumentary nonsense, but I do endorse it. Persol never said that I had anything to do with Bad Astronomy, I don't know how you managed to infer such a thing from what he wrote.

    Why do you keep posting this all over the web, Brad? Don't you know that no one wants to hear it?
  20. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    You're an idiot. You called the badastronmy site "LLPOF", which evidently is the way 2 year olds call someone a liar.

    At the same time, you never actually said WHY. they you went off on a completely different issue about film which the badastronomy site doesn't address.

    If you're going to call someone a liar, at least ATTEMPT to back it up.

    We will now desigate you Kook 5 of 9.
  21. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    5 of 9,

    Since you seem to have a case of amnesia, here's the quote (by you) of where you called the badastronomy page a liar. Since a page can not actually be a liar, I'm guessing that you meant the author.
    Care to back this up. Which of their statements are they lying about?
  22. bradguth Banned Banned

    If you're honestly snookered, then obviously you're not a liar, just thoroughly dumbfounded, like I was as of a little over three years ago.

    However, when there's "proof positive" that those NASA/Apollo moon photos are bogus, and you and/or "badastronomy" persist in defending those dogs, I rest my case.

    This is not stipulating that the "badastronomy" is altogether bogus, as perhaps 99% of what they have to say is the truth and nothing but the truth, that is up until they start defending those dogs. Hells bells, if a good lawyer can get OJ off the hook, then perhaps NASA/Apollo needs that lawyer.

    BTW AD1, you havent offered one specific link or squat worth of anything on behalf of NASA/Apollo. What's the matter, isn't there an approved script for you to work from?

    I'm sure the NASA/Apollo bible has all the answerers, so why don't you pull another one of those out of their magic hat, so that you can respond to my research, or perhaps you should go for something within Kodak corporate?
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2004
  23. bradguth Banned Banned

    Besides all that's simply just not right about what's depicted within those photos, it's the damn film itself, and of what that yellow dye recorded, or actually failed to record that matters.

    NASA/Apollo might as well have gone for Mercury, as far as the available evidence that's verifiable by any other means other than by the chicken bloated fox that's been guarding the few remaining (nervous) chickens, there is none. All we seem to have are thousands of photos that are of no more spectrum skewed than if those scenes were xenon illuminated, plus a few artificially modified rocks, and moon dirt that simply doesn't clump on Earth where there's at least a million times more H20, nor is any of that moon dirt retro-reflective, but it most certainly should have been very reactive to whatever solar and cosmic influx there was.

    Though I'm confidant that your NASA/Apollo bible offers all the right answerers, so why don't you keep pulling one after another of those smoke and mirror answers out of their magic hat, so that you can respond to my research, or perhaps you'll still need to go for something within Kodak corporate?

    BTW; the LSE-CM/ISS is doable, the tether dipole element is even doable, those counter-rotating flywheels at ME-L1 are sure as hell doable, and if there's any He3 or 3He to being had, that too is doable once there's a viable method of efficiently getting that stuff plus whatever other off the surface and as such nicely exported towards Earth. Life being safely sustained within a 1e6 m3 abode situated within the primary CM is certainly doable. This is boring because some freaking much is doable as long as we're not have to R&D this out of some Apollo space toilet cesspool worth of phony baloney data that simply isn't the truth and nothing but the truth.

    Even though the moon is something altogether different than reported and published under the cloak and dagger nondisclosure standards of NASA/NSA/DoD, whereas in spite of the flak, there's loads of potential energy benefits, plus countless Earth sciences values, and of what the moon substance itself has to offer humanity:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page