NASA uses LLPOF anti-flak to protect Apollo butts

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

Because you seem intent on bashing them.

Remember you can remove glare using a polarizing filter. But remember it only removes reflected light that is different in polarity. It's like looking through a pair of polarized sunglasses and still seeing everything....the filter doesn't care about the rest of the light (I agree with you there...I never said anything otherwise). Remember how a camera works. It receives wavelengths of light that are reflected from an object. Now you say the the yellow dye is sensitive to UV. So unless there was a lot of reflection off of a mirror like surface or they took a photo of the sun...then the film would hardly get much UV exposure at all. Think of it this way. If the average reflectivity of the moon is around 11% that means much of the sunlight is absorbed into the rocks and dust. And that is mostly of basaltic origin. So that means that most of the wavelengths (and yes even some IR) are absorbed. So the film picks up the light that wasn't absorbed. The lens blocks out the remaining reflected UV and you still get grey because that what color basalt IS. It wouldn't look any bluer because all you are getting is most of the visible spectrum of the scattered light which the UV would be absorbed thus not available to the camera because a camera only picks up the light reflected back.

P.S. The side lighting is the sun genius. Notice the shadows are legit. If the exposure was increased a little you get the same effect as the bright spot. You said it yourself; that there shouldn't be that much reflection from the background. But with a white suit nearby things would be a little brighter in the surrounding area.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hehe

http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean by that? Are you one of those moon hoax conspiracy theorists too?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What would be NASA's motivation for faking the moon landing in light of the extreme embarrassment if they were ever found out?

And if they did fake it, what did they do with all the money?

Why did witnesses see the rocket take off from Florida?

NASA is a huge bureaucracy, with civilian employees that live all around, and secrets are not easily kept-even the manhattan project was not a secret to the russians!

Your "evidence" about film is not credible, they certainly used filters, hell, there are movies of people jumping around on the moon! There are photos of many planets taken from probes, so that proves photography of space bodies is well within our capability. Some of the astronauts used their personal cameras, there are books full of snapshots. All the ones I remember are in black and white, so why all the fuss about color and UV? UV is easily blocked by filters.

And then there are the astronauts themselves, very credible and respectable people who would not lie about the greatest accomplishment of their lives. And furthermore, going to the moon was not, and is not beyond our technology, there is just no reason to fake it. We can go into orbit, and from there to the moon is just a matter of firing a rocket for the right length of time at the right strength, in the right direction. The physics are simple enough for Isaac Newton to understand.

Then, there is another credible reason not to believe that it was faked. The conspiracy theory is just too appealing to someone lacking the proper scientific backround to do real science. It can give one a feeling of being smarter than everyone else, being "in the know", it's a boost to your ego. No real scientists believe the US faked the moon landing, and consensus among free scientists is how we determine scientific truth.

 

Let look at it this way: if the USofA faked the moon landings they would have to trick the international community as well. Telemetry was done on the radio signals at all times by many countries including Russia, so a robotic probe would have had to fly there land, send back all the information simulating two men landing on the moon (the probe would also need to split up simulated the 3rd man left on the command module) then rehook up and fly back to earth, simulate the entire mission.

Also the rocks brought back were test by the international community and compared to the russian samples of moon rocks and soil brought back by their probes. So the USofA would have to have brought back rocks via probe, several hundred kg of rocks to be exact, the Russians with their sample return probes could only manage a few hundred grams. The rocks picked up by the Americans were big and would have needed to be picked up by a advance robotic arm perhaps rover as well.

All of this would at least require a functional Saturn 5 rocket to lunch such a massive sample return probe with all the equipment to simulate the manned mission, as well as hundreds of technicians to make and control the conspiracy probe, technology even more advance then what would be need for a manned mission, as well as hundreds of others to make the fake photos, data and all.

 

You don't get it WCF! It's a hoax! You've been fooled!

And to think I wanted brad mved to pseudoscience. You can't debate the above logic... it's just THAT good.

 

blackholesun;
Speaking about that "bigger fool than we all thought"

It's clear that you can't produce upon any other supposed natural formation(s) that has been SAR imaged on behalf of refuting against any portion of a large number of extremely interesting physical attributes that I'm claiming exist upon Venus, such as those depicted by the 12 looks/pixel composite worth of that Magellan acquired image of Venus. At first, I looked as hard as I could, for at least 6 months, and I asked of others to point out whatever. So far it's been "no cigar" for me, that is I have not uncovered nor learned about any other artificial looking items that were not in fact artificial, as in man made.

Besides your empty hands, and possibly your empty head, you can't point out even a link to any bank of SAR images of such unusually artificial looking anything that has been otherwise identified as purely natural, as in nothing bridge like, nothing complex reservoir like, nothing community of structures like, not even of one tarmac looking contribution that offers sub-bays and that of something situated on-deck, all of which neatly carved out of an otherwise rugged mountainous terrain having that deep rille/canyon trekking through town, and then obviously a few horizontal facing parabolics are out of the question, as well as you've got absolutely nothing on matching recessed rows of spherical looking tanks, or how about those side by side quarry sites, and so forth.

You also can't offer us a plausible excuse for those none-spectrum-skewed Apollo photos that should have been blued and tattooed with having that reasonably deep bluish cast of near-UV illuminations, of which any stinking "polarizing filter" should only have made worse off than not, especially since the likes of hard X-Ray radiation and of secondary emission light as photon energy is not the same as reflected light, of which the 11% lunar reflection index shouldn't have amounted to all that much reflected illumination anyway.

Near-UV reflects quite nicely, UV/a generally reflects less off of micro-shard like soil in it's raw form, although on Earth there's plently of perfectly good examples of UV/a being reflected and subsequently being recorded as such, as otherwise UV/a reacts with substances as to return a near-UV spectrum of deep blue. Thus you'll need to keep defending those dogs until them Apollo cows come home.

BTW; I don't believe Apollo-11 had the sun anywhere near the horizon. I believe I've been informed that it was more like 65 degrees.

So, why is there so much xenon like illumination spectrum in general coming off the lunar surface, or off those american flags?

And, while you're at it. Why are there so few and far between meteorites and strewn shards?

Where's the darker lunar basalt that should have been exposed from the down-range landing process, as shown from other satellite images of various impact zones, like the impact zone associated with the supposed Apollo-15 site?

STARS; since we're not talking about reflected photons, but as direct as such near-UV and UV/a influx of light sources ever gets, and without any deep orange and/or amber filter, where's them stinking stars (and don't give us any of that NASA/Apollo published crap, as that's like asking the fox to continue guarding the last chicken in town)?

Push comes down to shove, I'll even settle for some absolutely piss poor image of Venus along with an amount of moonscape.

I'm fairly sure that you don't believe in anything PhotoShop, thus you'll never stack anything like what team Hubble, team KECK-II and team every other astronomy group in the entire world accomplishes. Christ almighty, even an extended exposure is in fact the very essences of stacking photons upon photons in order to get a better look see, but since you seem to utilize a braille tablet for interpretation of such things, and your seeing eye dog is only capable of looking for the next biscuit, as such you and your dog can't see anything, although it sounds as though you approved of our going after those invisible WMD, even if it meant blowing up half of Iraq and of subsequently exterminating tens of thousands of difficult to understand and/or tolerate but, otherwise innocent folks.

Unlike yourself, I see a mortality issue or two, and a whole lot of remorse that's in the rears. I also believe the 2/3 of Earth's populous isn't exactly all that pleased with the beginnings nor of the outcome that's still ongoing.

As a result, our space research/exploration teams don't have ten cents on the dollar for what needs to be accomplished, and of what some of those teams desire to accomplish could cost us hundreds of billions if not trillions. Unfortunately, many of those goals could and should have been accomplished as of decades ago, and thus where should we have been by now?

Sorry about that series of rants on behalf of humanity, it's a nasty habit I seem to have of giving a puck about other folks (the lower 99% of Earths populous, or scum of the Earth according to NASA/NSA/DoD huggers), and about what's left of the environment of Earth.

BTW; as usual, you're intent upon snookering the world without remorse, and yet you still haven't offered anything specific in terms of numbers about spectrums nor photons, nor about much of anything else.

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

 

All praise Brad Guth... for he is the all knowing God.... even if he does have an empty head.

------------------------------------------

For a limited time, buy the new Brad Guth doll. Rub his tummy or pull his string and he'll say one of his 1 classic insults. "Borg!"

Call now and you'll receive a complementary "NAXA SUXORS" bumper sticker!

 

bradguth my argument next, please destroy it like you do others with your illogic, can I get a photo of me standing next to you, hope its not a hoax photo though.

 

You also can't offer us a plausible excuse for those none-spectrum-skewed Apollo photos that should have been blued and tattooed with having that reasonably deep bluish cast of near-UV illuminations, of which any stinking "polarizing filter" should only have made worse off than not, especially since the likes of hard X-Ray radiation and of secondary emission light as photon energy is not the same as reflected light, of which the 11% lunar reflection index shouldn't have amounted to all that much reflected illumination anyway.

No because a great deal would have been absorbed...it would have never even gotten to the camera. For it to be bluish would mean that a great deal of near UV would have made it to the camera and it would have looked more purple instead of your blue.

Brad you're wrong. I pointed out to you already that cameras and film don't work that way. You obviously don't care. You obviously see more then there is in Venus radar images as well. No one besides you thinks anything down there is man made....lava can make those flowing shapes you're bitching about. Notice I said flowing because they look like an old volcano lava flow...I see no bridge, no city, no artifical structures. Everyone else here agrees. Now lets get to the part where you can me a borg. I swear that if you didn't create such an elaborate story that'd you would be about as creative as a walnut in your insults. Frankly you telling me I'm a borg is about as exciting as someone asking me "you want fries with that".

 

Actually it would not change the color unless only the blue die on the film let in UV, the film would just get white. In the black and white pics it really would not seem to matter what spectra light was being used.

I would like to by a cyborg, please stop reminding me of what I am not

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Brad seems to think that if he spews out enough technical jargon that doing so will make him look like he knows what he is talking about and give credibility to his arguments.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to take apart that ridiculous nonsense. It sure would be fun though.

 

Having worked with several Russians when I worked in aerospace, I can categorically say they were NOT 'dirty rotten' so keep you uneducated commie bashing comments to yourself, it does your argument no good.

My question wasn't about 'this country' but about the Soviet Union, who had the capability (being equally as advanced as the USA, if not more so, in the space race) to make the USA look really stupid if they had lied about _any_ of this.

You have offered no reason or facts as to why the Soviets wouldn't have pressed this as a cold war coup, but merely offered allegory.

The moon shots were monitored from all over the planet, being as the earth rotates, and the USA wasn't in line of sight all the time. That said, many, many countries would have been complicit in the lie, and your pet conspiracy is becoming more difficult to arrange than a real moon landing.

 

phlogistician;
That "dirty rotten Russian" was a pun, as it was in fact what was being said about them folks durring the cold-war, of which we perpetrated upon humanity. Actually, I believe them Russians are nice folks, and did accomplish a great deal more than we're giving them credit for, and honestly at perhaps not 1% the cost of our phony baloney Apollo crap.

"The moon shots were monitored from all over the planet, being as the earth rotates, and the USA wasn't in line of sight all the time. That said, many, many countries would have been complicit in the lie, and your pet conspiracy is becoming more difficult to arrange than a real moon landing."

Then again, perhaps someone should have taken a few photos, as in those Kodak moments along with the expected spectrum skew, plus thereby film recorded levels of radiation and even a little thermal stress damage. After all, it was indeed hot and nasty on the moon, or otherwise sub-frozen to death, plus continually being impacted at 30+km/s, and so on.

spidergoat;
"NASA is a huge bureaucracy, with civilian employees that live all around, and secrets are not easily kept-even the manhattan project was not a secret to the russians!"

Here again, you're speaking kindly, as though them Russians bastards (speaking of the USSR government and thus their cold-war counterpart gang of cloak and dagger borgs) were the good guys, with never any intent as to defraud. Like that'll be the day.

BTW; if you took to heart in our "nondisclosure" agreement, in that such folks as yourself were required to sign and obey, under penalty of death, as for that warm and fuzzy thought certainly would have done the trick as for my keeping quiet.

Dear incest cloned borg "WellCookedFetus";
I never suggested that the vast bulk of the missions didn't manage to at least send off the lander portion into orbiting and subsequently impacting onto the moon, thus all signals and whatever you can possibly think of would have transpired exactly as planned.

A signal transponder was reasonably low technology back then, of which could have survived the lander impact, especially if independently deployed just prior to impact.

And, it's not that we didn't intend to get ourselves onto and back from the moon. Because, if that were actually accomplished there'd be all sorts of "proof positive" footage of the prototype landers with an astronaut as pilot, as practing right here on Earth, and all sorts of subsequent fly-by-wire robotic landers utilized ever since, and our moon would have subsequently had countless interactive probes on behalf of lunar and Earth science; http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-javelin-probes.htm

About those Earth like rocks. Perhaps someone should have taken actual pictures of them suckers (a Kodak moment), before bringing them back home. Don't you think?

BTW; we don't have anything more then the words of the USSR that their rock samples were from the moon, however I'd tend to believe them Russians before I'd believe anything NASA/Apollo, as their robotics are somewhat terrific as compared to anything we have, even though their initial space-station robotic missions were somewhat disastrous, and there wasn't even any of that nasty 1.625 m/s/s worth of gravity influence to deal with. None the less, those rocks were all quite Earth like, except for the artificial aging and influx of radiation, of which I'm assuming that you know for a fact couldn't possibly have been manipulated here on Earth. And secondly; how exactly does any of those rocks explain the density differential between Earth and the moon?

There's just a few other lunar questions;

Lunar meteorite and shard erosion (why is Mars less)?
Lunar meteorites are so much fewer than Mars?
Lunar foreground radiation?
Lunar background radiation?
Lunar earthshine environment?
Secondary hard X-Ray TBI values?
Receiving impacts per m2 per day?
Average depth of accumulated meteorites and shards?
3D image of interior from seismic probes?
Lunar geode like pockets?
How many hollow rilles?
Meteorites older than the moon?
Retro-Reflective moon dirt?
Bone dry "clumping moon dirt"?
Why those samples don't clump here on Earth?
Reflective index of 11% or 55% (which is it)?
Why is the Mars reflective index (as imaged from the surface) so much darker?
Secondary IR thermal radiation <33% = 1850 w/m2 upon a given moon-suit?

BTW; reflective index issues are in full respect to known samples, such as them moon-suits, all sorts of various portions of said landers and that American flag of red, white and the brightest BLUE you can imagine as photographed under the raw illumination skew of that damn hot and nasty sun.

-

WellCookedFetus;
"Actually it would not change the color unless only the blue die on the film let in UV, the film would just get white. In the black and white pics it really would not seem to matter what spectra light was being used."

You've got to learn a wee bit more about photography, or at least stop with all your lying.

-

Supposedly NASA/Apollo has established that of the lack of having a magnetosphere and thick atmosphere is apparently not all that important as for our surviving upon another globe, like Mars should be a bloody walk in the Park compared to our moon. And of course, we've thereby demonstrated our rocket powered landers that do function and deliver sizable and massive mission related technology, where parachutes and impact/crash balloons are not necessary?????

This must be why our next proposed lunar mission "Polar Night" is in fact going to utilize merely three javelin probes as impacting instead of placing anything other as a soft landing, of which I believe those javelin probes are a perfectly good and highly cost effective thing to have been doing as of 3 decades ago because, we had that level of expertise and technology long before then.

Unlike anything NASA/Apollo, my Lunar Space Elevator and GMDE notions are not the sort of joke that you're going to suggest; http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm

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

 

Is there some reason why only the official dog-wagging spin and damage control borgs are those taking interest in this topic?

 

Hey, we're all just members like you who think you're an idiot that's all.

I never suggested that the vast bulk of the missions didn't manage to at least send off the lander portion into orbiting and subsequently impacting onto the moon, thus all signals and whatever you can possibly think of would have transpired exactly as planned.

A signal transponder was reasonably low technology back then, of which could have survived the lander impact, especially if independently deployed just prior to impact.

Umm..think about it guthie. If you have an orbiter circling the moon then you lose contact with it for a certain period. With astronauts on the moon you get a constant signal to any of the stations on earth. A "transponder" wouldn't have worked because a little thing called "line of sight". And if you send a signal to the moon and back there is also a delay plus and a little thing called "doppler shift". Even such "primative" technology still had the math behind it to back it up and it would have been detected that there was hoaxing afoul.

And, it's not that we didn't intend to get ourselves onto and back from the moon. Because, if that were actually accomplished there'd be all sorts of "proof positive" footage of the prototype landers with an astronaut as pilot, as practing right here on Earth, and all sorts of subsequent fly-by-wire robotic landers utilized ever since, and our moon would have subsequently had countless interactive probes on behalf of lunar and Earth science; http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-javelin-probes.htm

How in any way can you back that statement up? We got to the moon, we won the race and before you know it American citizens and congress lost interest in Apollo. We had samples to work with and a lot of data (why don't you try looking it up for once instead of bitching that you don't have it) to go through. There was no economical reason to go back now...so we didn't. By the way, there have been to moon probes to visit since then plus ESA's Smart1 probe that will orbit the moon for a while. It's just like the US not going back to Mars for a while after both Viking missions. But finally there was enough interest for congress to finally make funds available for mars missions.

About those Earth like rocks. Perhaps someone should have taken actual pictures of them suckers (a Kodak moment), before bringing them back home. Don't you think?

Um...again you're an idiot. There are hundreds of pictures of collected moon rocks taken on the surface and here on earth. I just saw something on tv the other day showing a few geologists pull out a dozen or so rocks and showing the cameraman. It was on the Science Channel...and channel you need to watch since you never get your facts straight.

None the less, those rocks were all quite Earth like, except for the artificial aging and influx of radiation, of which I'm assuming that you know for a fact couldn't possibly have been manipulated here on Earth.

What? Do you know something about artificially aging rock that none of here know? Really, please do describe the process to us.

Supposedly NASA/Apollo has established that of the lack of having a magnetosphere and thick atmosphere is apparently not all that important as for our surviving upon another globe, like Mars should be a bloody walk in the Park compared to our moon. And of course, we've thereby demonstrated our rocket powered landers that do function and deliver sizable and massive mission related technology, where parachutes and impact/crash balloons are not necessary?????

So basically your saying here you're a dumbass and don't understand Newton's Laws.

This must be why our next proposed lunar mission "Polar Night" is in fact going to utilize merely three javelin probes as impacting instead of placing anything other as a soft landing, of which I believe those javelin probes are a perfectly good and highly cost effective thing to have been doing as of 3 decades ago because, we had that level of expertise and technology long before then.

They want a low-cost mission that will impact the moon the throw up a good deal of debris that they can take spectrometer readings here on earth. I like the simple concept.


Unlike anything NASA/Apollo, my Lunar Space Elevator and GMDE notions are not the sort of joke that you're going to suggest; http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm

Yeah, you've really convinced me of your concept.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll leave it to real engineers that know what they are talking about. And leave such statement below out of the technical reports.

And brad quotes:

"If you even had the right as to elect the sort of oversight you'd entrust with those laser cannons, whom would that be?

GW Bush?

The Pope?

Cathars?

Dogon tribe?

Palestinians?

Jewish folks?

Cloned Hitlers'?

Osama bin Laden?

Venus lizard folk?

Perchance yourself? "

 

Damn, venus lizard folk.... now THAT explains it.

 

That site responds to all the moon hoax theories in a very thoughtful and comprehensive way. In a way, you are saying you don't care what anyone has to say or what evidence may contradict your theories. They don't talk about color shift, because in my understanding black and white film was used. And although radiation on the moon would be greater than on earth, it was not so extreme as to affect their health, or the film.

How can 99% of what they say be true about the mission, but false about the people? That makes no sense.



P.S.
I'm voting for those nice Jewish folks to control my laser cannon, you can't trust those venus lizards to change a light bulb!

 

Actually they did have both black/white and color film cameras for picture taking. Oh, and the cloned Hitlers aren't going to like that spidergoat.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But regardless, the site doesn't talk about color shift because they probably haven't heard the complaint. It was a very targetted article pointing out what was incorrect in a Fox special (a task in itself).
They have nothing to do with this colorshifting argument he's brought up, but he's decided to call them liars anyhow because they explained why some specific reasons for believing the moon landing was a hoax are wrong. Not that he's actually been able to point out a lie, or that even if we didn't land that badastronomy would know about it.