Re: Moon landings were a hoax
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jul 2005 08:51:26 -0700
The MI5/NSA(MI6)~NASA rusemaster http://moon.google.com/ set of images
need to be greatly contrasted up or at least their brightness greatly
brought down a few notches so as to getting somewhat closer to the
average 11~12% albedo of a dark basalt if not nearly coal like surface,
as will as they should have at least been providing us the true overall
general color/hew as being a dark golden and perhaps even a bit
reddish/orange spectrum as contributed from all of the titanium, iron
and carbon (soot like) dust deposits upon a mostly basalt terrain. At
least that way the supposedly bright aluminum, gold foil and brightly
painted as white of most all those nifty Apollo items should have been
providing a few downright blinding if not at least vibrant pixel specks
as being 80~85+% reflective.
I wonder why the heck they didn't bother as to using their very own
close encounter images obtained via orbiting at roughly 100 km, as
obtained with a 10X telephoto lens no less, that's still offering far
better grain/pixel resolution than KECK or any other method of
observations to date. That 100 km advantage alone is worth 3,844:1
magnification, X10 (telephoto) = 38,440:1 as zoomed in upon the surface
details, and that's as close as our imaging technology has even
achieved, except for one of the Russian robotic missions that obtained
their one and only closeup image at 100+ meters off the nasty deck
before landing and thus summarily sinking out of sight and out of mind
well below meters worth of all that carbon, iron and titanium dust
that's otherwise chuck full of extremely sharp meteorite and basalt
shards, all of which being highly reactive and thus contributing loads
of secondary/recoil worth of near-blue and of those hard-X-ray photons.
Those rather spotty illuminations aren't but 1% of what's absolutely
dead stinking Kodak moment wrong, as to what those supposedly raw solar
spectrum illuminated worth of what all that artificial xenon spot-lamp
theatre lighting was all about, such as the rather high albedo factor
of the majority of their relatively dust and meteorite free lunar
terrain, along with their photos offering us a rather subdued blue as
perhaps due to the unusual lack of near-blue and absolutely zilch worth
of near-UV that should have been quite nicely recorded by their nearly
naked Kodak eye. None of their pro-NASA/Apollo arguments have addressed
this lack of color/spectrum shift and missing secondary/recoil worth of
the near-blue photons because, they simply can't resolve what's already
physics-101 as well as Kodak established as a matter of photo-chemical
fact, just like they can't explain as to where the heck the likes of
Sirius and Venus were hiding.
Of course the likes of independent and thus verifiable feedback from
Kodak Corporate, Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss is about as likely as our
seeing a few of those Apollo cows coming home or perhaps actually
discovering a few of those WMD.
Walking upon our moon remains as a real physics and science stretch of
the imagination, that which comes to us via lord and master NASA/Apollo
plus by way of those spendy NOVA infomercials without their once having
Venus nor Sirius as easily and unavoidably imaged from the ideal
perspective of a nearly coal like dusty terrain of darkness and,
otherwise upon a highly reactive (hard-X-ray generating) lunar surface,
not to mention there being a lack of any verifiable R&D/prototype
fly-by-rocket lander in addition to the rather highly unreasonable lack
of the otherwise unavoidable secondary/recoil photons of near-blue
plus, there's still absolutely zilch worth of near-UV getting photo
recorded as perfectly viable and reasonably intensive photons via their
own unfiltered Kodak moments, having but supposedly the raw solar
influx of 1.4 kw/m2 that's sharing a great deal more UV energy/m2
potential than upon Earth. As such there's a wee bit of an
insurmountable problem that's proving squat on behalf of those
Apollo/EVA missions.
However, it seems there's also been by way of my observationology and
via the common laws of physics as to offering perfectly good
indications of other life having been coexisting upon Venus, as having
absolute loads of vertical differentials as well as geothermal energy
to burn, even though as such will not actually burn within an O2
starved environment as having been hosting a perfectly rational
township of a fairly substantial community that so happens to include a
bridge and perhaps a few of your standard rigid airships plus
accommodating that rather nifty UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac as a mountainous
terrain of substantial modifications that's not exactly following
mother nature's standards.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The ESA Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Moon landings were a hoax
- From: The CO
- Re: Moon landings were a hoax
- References:
- Moon landings were a hoax
- From: moonlandinghoaxreligious@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Moon landings were a hoax
- From: W. D. Allen Sr.
- Re: Moon landings were a hoax
- From: Yeff
- Re: Moon landings were a hoax
- From: Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
- Moon landings were a hoax
- Prev by Date: Re: Pentagon to chop F/A-22s again?
- Next by Date: Re: Ancient phallus unearthed in cave
- Previous by thread: Re: Moon landings were a hoax
- Next by thread: Re: Moon landings were a hoax
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
