|
|
|
date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:27:18 -0700 (PDT),
group: uk.sci.astronomy
back
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:09:35 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 23, 10:48 am, Government Shill #2 wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:44:36 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >On Sep 23, 7:38 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com"
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, BradGuth wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > btw, I've never excluded Apollo or USSR inert stuff from having been
> >> >> > hard-landed or impact deposited upon the surface of our moon.
> >>
> >> >> > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
> >>
> >> >> So there are 6 LEM lunar landing stages, several moon rovers and a ton
> >> >> of miscellaneous Apollo stuff on the moon, including flags, laser
> >> >> reflectors, etc, etc all "hard landed on the moon by NASA" over a
> >> >> period of almost 5 years at 6 widely different lunar sites at a cost
> >> >> of billions of $$US to perpetuate the hoax??
> >>
> >> >> And the moon rocks brought back by Apollo and studied by scientists
> >> >> all over the world are also a giant hoax?? And the Russians, at the
> >> >> peak of the Cold War, helped us with the hoax??
> >>
> >> >> You really are out of it. I'd rather debate a bot.
> >>
> >> >Yourself as part of the military and civil service cabal/cartel are
> >> >clearly limited as to whatever your closely moderated and otherwise
> >> >cultivated mindset can accept or share. Don't expect little old me to
> >> >change what has been done over and over to your mindset until the
> >> >point of no return.
> >>
> >> >I've never once stipulated or having otherwise suggested that our
> >> >DARPA and their crack NASA/Apollo team wasn't trying every good or bad
> >> >trick within their Zionist/Nazi book, for getting themselves safely to/
> >> >from the surface of our moon. Them dirty rotten Russians were
> >> >obviously doing the same, and for the exact same government, military
> >> >and civil service job security with loads of benefit reasons, as that
> >> >which our side of this mutually perpetrated cold-war had been trying
> >> >to pull off.
> >>
> >> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> >>
> >> Fantastic ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG, just fantastic. Best
> >> laugh of the day.
> >>
> >> Way to kOOk!
> >
> >I'm not interested in your perpetual excuses or in entertaining the
> >masses. Just start sharing the best available science before it's too
> >late (such as right about not would be a good time).
> >
> >There's nothing so terribly wrong with our having pulled off the
> >greatest perpetrated cold-war sting of the century, as long as the
> >rest of us don't have to forever keep paying for the consequences or
> >avoiding the remorse from our mutual collateral damage to our
> >environment and humanity.
> >
> >Your idea of forever sustaining truth-lag is not acceptable.
> >
>
> If I could make sense of that ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG I
> would write an appropriate response. Unfortunately all I can make out is:
>
> Babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble
> babble. Babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble
> babble (babble babble babble babble babble babble).
>
> Babble's babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble
> babble babble babble babble-babble babble babble, babble babble babble
> babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble
> babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble
> babble babble and babble.
>
> Babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble babble.
Since everything that represents yourself and others of your Zionist/
Nazi kind, is why your reply figures.
~ BG
date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
author: BradGuth
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:53:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "M104galaxy@gmail.com"
:
>On Sep 23, 6:10 pm, BradGuth wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 2:17 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:01:27 +0000, the following appeared
>> > in sci.skeptic, posted by Yet Another Government Shill
>> > :
>>
>> > >BradGuth shat...
>>
>> > >>Since everything that represents yourself and others of your
>> > >>Zionist/Nazi kind, is why your reply figures.
>>
>> > >I don't know who you are, but I know what you are.
>>
>> > I suspect that what you (and the rest of the rational
>> > adults) know barely scratches the surface of what he is.
>> > --
>>
>> > Bob C.
>>
>> The truth usually hurts those you love the most.
>>
>> ~ BG
>
>I'll put a different spin on this whole "discussion".
>
>Thank you Brad--you are paying those of us who worked on Apollo a
>tremendous backwards compliment when you state that what we did was,
>in your expert scientific opinion, impossible and therefore could not
>have happened. My guess is that you were not alive ( or were a child )
>at the time and/or have no formal scientific training.
That's almost a given.
> Apollo did land humans on the moon on multiple occasions--we must
>have been pretty smart folks who could somehow bend your "laws of
>physics"!
Does he actually think he has scientific evidence that the
lunar landings were impossible? I thought he was just
another conspiracy-theorist idiot with competence envy.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:10:18 -0700
author: Bob Casanova
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:10:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
:
>On Sep 23, 2:17 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:01:27 +0000, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Yet Another Government Shill
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> >BradGuth shat...
>>
>> >>Since everything that represents yourself and others of your
>> >>Zionist/Nazi kind, is why your reply figures.
>>
>> >I don't know who you are, but I know what you are.
>>
>> I suspect that what you (and the rest of the rational
>> adults) know barely scratches the surface of what he is.
>The truth usually hurts those you love the most.
So you must be in constant pain from reading the truth you
so categorically deny, even without the "love" (or even
"like" or "respect") part...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:13:56 -0700
author: Bob Casanova
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:31:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
:
>On Sep 24, 2:13 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:10:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 23, 2:17 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:01:27 +0000, the following appeared
>> >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Yet Another Government Shill
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >BradGuth shat...
>>
>> >> >>Since everything that represents yourself and others of your
>> >> >>Zionist/Nazi kind, is why your reply figures.
>>
>> >> >I don't know who you are, but I know what you are.
>>
>> >> I suspect that what you (and the rest of the rational
>> >> adults) know barely scratches the surface of what he is.
>> >The truth usually hurts those you love the most.
>>
>> So you must be in constant pain from reading the truth you
>> so categorically deny, even without the "love" (or even
>> "like" or "respect") part...
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
>
>Your closing quote says it all, doesn't it.
Sure does. It's a paraphrase of a statement from that
paragon of scientific and logical (in)competence, John
McCoy. And it seems to fit all the bozos who deny the US
lunar landings, despite the mutually supporting evidence.
What, you thought it was something I agreed with, rather
than an example of denialist idiocy?
> Excluding or
>disqualifying whatever evidence that rocks your good ship LOLLIPOP is
>what it's all about.
Good thing I got my IronyMeter upgraded, given your
persistent denial of evidence.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:50:09 -0700
author: Bob Casanova
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by harry k
:
>On Sep 24, 2:10 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:53:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "M104gal...@gmail.com"
>> :
>> >On Sep 23, 6:10 pm, BradGuth wrote:
>> >> On Sep 23, 2:17 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:01:27 +0000, the following appeared
>> >> > in sci.skeptic, posted by Yet Another Government Shill
>> >> > :
>> >> > >BradGuth shat...
>> >> > >>Since everything that represents yourself and others of your
>> >> > >>Zionist/Nazi kind, is why your reply figures.
>> >> > >I don't know who you are, but I know what you are.
>> >> > I suspect that what you (and the rest of the rational
>> >> > adults) know barely scratches the surface of what he is.
>> >> The truth usually hurts those you love the most.
>> >I'll put a different spin on this whole "discussion".
>>
>> >Thank you Brad--you are paying those of us who worked on Apollo a
>> >tremendous backwards compliment when you state that what we did was,
>> >in your expert scientific opinion, impossible and therefore could not
>> >have happened. My guess is that you were not alive ( or were a child )
>> >at the time and/or have no formal scientific training.
>> That's almost a given.
>> > Apollo did land humans on the moon on multiple occasions--we must
>> >have been pretty smart folks who could somehow bend your "laws of
>> >physics"!
>> Does he actually think he has scientific evidence that the
>> lunar landings were impossible? I thought he was just
>> another conspiracy-theorist idiot with competence envy.
>From his posting history, I have concluded that he lives under a
>bridge.
Maybe. But most trolls get bored after a few weeks or
months, unlike Brad.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:52:49 -0700
author: Bob Casanova
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
"BradGuth" wrote in message...
news:afd76d1e-51e9-4924-9bef-62d627023d90@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 7:56 am, Disneygeek wrote:
>>
>> Where is your information on this from? And are you suggesting that a
>> lump of coal the size of the moon would shine as brightly in the night
>> sky?
>
> A terrestrial sphere of coal as made to look as large as our moon in
> the night sky, as such would in fact appear nearly as bright as our
> Selene/moon.
I agree with Brad on this fact. If there were a smooth
lump of coal (albedo = 0.1) the size of planet Selene
(the Moon), at "Full Coalplanet" it would shine about
as bright as the maria on Selene, maybe even just a
little bit brighter. But it would be a little dimmer than
the brighter areas of Selene.
As interesting as this debate is, why is the brightness
of coal vs. the brightness of Selene so important?
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!
P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net
date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:48:08 GMT
author: Painius
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote...
in message news:Tc-dnfDEoMDekUDVRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
> BradGuth wrote:
>>
>> The average lunar albedo of 0.11 is nearly the same as a
>> terrestrial open-pit coal mine.
>
> Which kind of albedo? Bond albedo? Lambert albedo? Visual
> Normal albedo? What spectrum? Solar spectrum?
> Visual spectrum?
>
> The average Bond albedo across the lunar surface is 0.12 (12%).
> Being off-axis reduces this by around 30%. Compare this with
> Venus, with a Bond albedo albedo of 0.65 (65%), Earth at 0.37
> (37%) and Mars at 0.15 (15%). Coal has a Bond albedo of about
> 0.05 (5%), well over twice as dark as the moon.
>
> That being said, the albedo of the Moon strongly directional and
> non-Lambertian, so the Bond albedo does not tell us how bright
> it would be compared to a luna-sized lump of coal in the same
> location in space. For that, the best measurement is the visual
> normal albedo at 5% phase angle. In addition, the human eye does
> not average the brightness of a surface, but instead tends to
> estimate brightness as the brightness of the brightest features,
> as long as they arent so small that the eye doesn't consider
> them to be representitive of the entire surface.
>
> Some visual normal lunar albedo figures are:
>
> Coal: 0.05 (5%)
> Darkest lunar areas: 0.09 (9%)
> Plato's floor: 0.10 (10%)
> Ptolemaeus floor: 0.13 (13%)
> Aristarchus: 0.2 (20%)
> Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 0.30 (30%)
>
> So a conservative estimate would be that the moon is three times
> brighter than a moon-sized sphere of coal in lunar orbit would be.
>
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy, i still don't know why the comparison of Selene's
brightness to coal is so important, but i have to disagree
with your above statement. I have read that coal's
albedo is about 0.1, and the Moon's average albedo is
about 0.113. This says that a lump of coal the size of
the Moon in orbit around Earth would shine just about
as brightly as the maria on the Moon, but just a little
dimmer than the brighter areas of the Moon. Three
times dimmer appears to be way off.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!
P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net
date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:54:58 GMT
author: Painius
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
Painius wrote:
>I have read that coal's albedo is about 0.1, and the Moon's
>average albedo is about 0.113.
Which kind of albedo? Bond albedo? Lambert albedo?
Visual Normal albedo? What spectrum? Solar spectrum?
Visual spectrum?
>This says that a lump of coal the size of
>the Moon in orbit around Earth would shine just about
>as brightly as the maria on the Moon, but just a little
>dimmer than the brighter areas of the Moon. Three
>times dimmer appears to be way off.
Which part of "The Bond albedo does not tell us how bright
the moon would be compared to a luna-sized lump of coal
in the same location in space" are you having trouble
understanding?
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:48:54 +0000
author: Guy Macon http://www.GuyMacon.com/
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
On Sep 27, 2:48 am, "Painius" wrote:
> "BradGuth" wrote in message...
>
> news:afd76d1e-51e9-4924-9bef-62d627023d90@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 26, 7:56 am, Disneygeek wrote:
>
> >> Where is your information on this from? And are you suggesting that a
> >> lump of coal the size of the moon would shine as brightly in the night
> >> sky?
>
> > A terrestrial sphere of coal as made to look as large as our moon in
> > the night sky, as such would in fact appear nearly as bright as our
> > Selene/moon.
>
> I agree with Brad on this fact. If there were a smooth
> lump of coal (albedo = 0.1) the size of planet Selene
> (the Moon), at "Full Coalplanet" it would shine about
> as bright as the maria on Selene, maybe even just a
> little bit brighter. But it would be a little dimmer than
> the brighter areas of Selene.
>
> As interesting as this debate is, why is the brightness
> of coal vs. the brightness of Selene so important?
Because one of the arguments against the moon landing was that light
appears to be scattered. It's been suggested that the light is
bouncing off the surface of the moon itself and being reflected by the
suits. Brad's argument appears to be that the moon isn't as reflective
as we all see it is when we're looking at it so that can't possibly be.
date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 07:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
author: Disneygeek
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message...
news:tLqdnTq3PdcFkkPV4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
> Painius wrote:
>>
>> I have read that coal's albedo is about 0.1, and the Moon's
>> average albedo is about 0.113.
>
> Which kind of albedo? Bond albedo? Lambert albedo?
> Visual Normal albedo? What spectrum? Solar spectrum?
> Visual spectrum?
Visual geometric albedo.
>> This says that a lump of coal the size of
>> the Moon in orbit around Earth would shine just about
>> as brightly as the maria on the Moon, but just a little
>> dimmer than the brighter areas of the Moon. Three
>> times dimmer appears to be way off.
>
> Which part of "The Bond albedo does not tell us how bright
> the moon would be compared to a luna-sized lump of coal
> in the same location in space" are you having trouble
> understanding?
It doesn't appear to apply strongly, here, Guy. Your
treatise on the Bond would apply to the Moon as seen
from off the surface, say, from Earth. What seems to
be in question, mostly, is the contrast between the
Moon's surface and its pitch-black sky, as seen in the
photos taken by the Moon walkers.
The hoaxster question is, "Why doesn't the surface of
the Moon appear 'black as coal' in the photos?", and i
contend that it *does* appear almost as dark as coal
would appear. The surface doesn't appear dark black
because of the stark contrast between the surface and
the 0.000 albedo, pitch-black sky.
The surface of the Moon in the astronauts' photos is,
or at least seems to be, consistent with a 10% or so
value of reflection of the Sun's radiation in the visual
wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!
P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net
date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:39:53 GMT
author: Painius
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
On Sep 27, 9:39 am, "Painius" wrote:
> "Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message...
>
> news:tLqdnTq3PdcFkkPV4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>
> > Painius wrote:
>
> >> I have read that coal's albedo is about 0.1, and the Moon's
> >> average albedo is about 0.113.
>
> > Which kind of albedo? Bond albedo? Lambert albedo?
> > Visual Normal albedo? What spectrum? Solar spectrum?
> > Visual spectrum?
>
> Visual geometric albedo.
>
> >> This says that a lump of coal the size of
> >> the Moon in orbit around Earth would shine just about
> >> as brightly as the maria on the Moon, but just a little
> >> dimmer than the brighter areas of the Moon. Three
> >> times dimmer appears to be way off.
>
> > Which part of "The Bond albedo does not tell us how bright
> > the moon would be compared to a luna-sized lump of coal
> > in the same location in space" are you having trouble
> > understanding?
>
> It doesn't appear to apply strongly, here, Guy. Your
> treatise on the Bond would apply to the Moon as seen
> from off the surface, say, from Earth. What seems to
> be in question, mostly, is the contrast between the
> Moon's surface and its pitch-black sky, as seen in the
> photos taken by the Moon walkers.
>
> The hoaxster question is, "Why doesn't the surface of
> the Moon appear 'black as coal' in the photos?", and i
> contend that it *does* appear almost as dark as coal
> would appear. The surface doesn't appear dark black
> because of the stark contrast between the surface and
> the 0.000 albedo, pitch-black sky.
>
> The surface of the Moon in the astronauts' photos is,
> or at least seems to be, consistent with a 10% or so
> value of reflection of the Sun's radiation in the visual
> wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.
I'm using those 0.85 albedo reflective moonsuits as our contrast or
standard reflective basis to go by, not that any number of pure white
coated surfaces and of numerous other items of their equipment
offering their known albedo isn't as good. The gray hew or color/tone
of bare aluminum is always offering a good albedo reflective standard
to go by.
Don't forget those camera optics had a polarized element that by
rights should have made the bulk of those lunar terrain Kodak moments
look as though 50% darker, especially not lighter if we're at all into
discussing sun illuminated glare considerations.
Don't forget about the black-light bluish tint or hue saturation
whenever there's such a great amount of raw UV spectrum to work with.
They made multiple ruse/sting mistakes, and then having excluded,
hidden or destroyed most of the mission science and data that could
have proven quite damaging by way of a modern forensics kind of
review.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
author: BradGuth
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
"harry k" wrote in message
news:c97dd655-2782-4841-abd5-4d9a8e341fc9@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> >On Sep 23, 6:10 pm, BradGuth wrote:
-
From his posting history, I have concluded that he lives under a
bridge.
And also has an IQ somewhat lower than the bridge?
--
Chris,
Abandon hope all ye who push enter key here.
date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:13:19 +0100
author: Cerumen
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
"BradGuth" wrote in message...
news:321e6590-fced-4e68-b09a-5f4e396bd47f@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 27, 9:39 am, "Painius" wrote:
>> "Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message...
>> news:tLqdnTq3PdcFkkPV4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>> > Painius wrote:
>>
>> >> I have read that coal's albedo is about 0.1, and the Moon's
>> >> average albedo is about 0.113.
>>
>> > Which kind of albedo? Bond albedo? Lambert albedo?
>> > Visual Normal albedo? What spectrum? Solar spectrum?
>> > Visual spectrum?
>>
>> Visual geometric albedo.
>>
>> >> This says that a lump of coal the size of
>> >> the Moon in orbit around Earth would shine just about
>> >> as brightly as the maria on the Moon, but just a little
>> >> dimmer than the brighter areas of the Moon. Three
>> >> times dimmer appears to be way off.
>>
>> > Which part of "The Bond albedo does not tell us how bright
>> > the moon would be compared to a luna-sized lump of coal
>> > in the same location in space" are you having trouble
>> > understanding?
>>
>> It doesn't appear to apply strongly, here, Guy. Your
>> treatise on the Bond would apply to the Moon as seen
>> from off the surface, say, from Earth. What seems to
>> be in question, mostly, is the contrast between the
>> Moon's surface and its pitch-black sky, as seen in the
>> photos taken by the Moon walkers.
>>
>> The hoaxster question is, "Why doesn't the surface of
>> the Moon appear 'black as coal' in the photos?", and i
>> contend that it *does* appear almost as dark as coal
>> would appear. The surface doesn't appear dark black
>> because of the stark contrast between the surface and
>> the 0.000 albedo, pitch-black sky.
>>
>> The surface of the Moon in the astronauts' photos is,
>> or at least seems to be, consistent with a 10% or so
>> value of reflection of the Sun's radiation in the visual
>> wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.
>
> I'm using those 0.85 albedo reflective moonsuits as our contrast or
> standard reflective basis to go by, not that any number of pure white
> coated surfaces and of numerous other items of their equipment
> offering their known albedo isn't as good. The gray hew or color/tone
> of bare aluminum is always offering a good albedo reflective standard
> to go by.
>
> Don't forget those camera optics had a polarized element that by
> rights should have made the bulk of those lunar terrain Kodak moments
> look as though 50% darker, especially not lighter if we're at all into
> discussing sun illuminated glare considerations.
>
> Don't forget about the black-light bluish tint or hue saturation
> whenever there's such a great amount of raw UV spectrum to work with.
>
> They made multiple ruse/sting mistakes, and then having excluded,
> hidden or destroyed most of the mission science and data that could
> have proven quite damaging by way of a modern forensics kind of
> review.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
All of this has been thoroughly debunked, Brad. If you
cannot understand the debunkings, that's unfortunate.
However, the evidence is *overwhelming* against the
hoaxsters. So you need to try harder to understand all
that evidence.
No amount of hoax talk can belittle what our courageous
spaceship pilots, from Yuri Gagarin, the first person in
space, right on up to Apollo 17 Commander Eugene
Cernan, the most recent person to walk on the Moon. No
devaluing is possible, only the sound debunking of every
single hoax argument to ever reach the table.
Every step of the way was an astounding achievement.
Live with that, or continue on the dead-end path of the
debunked and impotent hoax claims...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!
P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net
date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:31:08 GMT
author: Painius
|
Re: so why didnt soviets expose fake moon landing?
"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message
news:O-adnWwYCubQB0PVRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>
> . . .
> Minor quibble: the geometric albedo is the brightness as
> seen from the light source. That does not describe the
> astronauts' photos.
So the Visual Normal, averaging perhaps 0.167 or
less, must be a better description. And if what i
read about coal's albedo being 0.1, then the Moon
still isn't all that much brighter than coal. If on the
other hand, you are correct in that coal has a 0.05
albedo, then i see where that would lead to your
"three times brighter" conclusion.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!
P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net
date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:20:38 GMT
author: Painius
|
|
|
