Awesome moonscape

On Dec 25, 5:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :







On Dec 25, 3:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:8e815ed4-80c6-4b6d-8e8c-
:

Is this also why you silly brown-nosed folks can't share and share
alike, such as for sharing in the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, as to why our NASA/Apollo moon wasn't ever all that
physically dark and blue, especially to all of those unfiltered
Kodak moments?

I never use Kodak. Only Fuji. I find the color saturation more
satisfying. However, if I'm going for a pastel or Andy Wyeth egg
tempera sort of feel I do use Kodak. So, guilty as charged.

Bertie

In other words, that loaded MIB gun that's pointed at the back of your
empty head has gotten your undivided attention.

The only thing pointed at my head has been a glass of wine.

Bertie

In that case, if you should ever slip up, just keep checking that wine
for Po210. (standard MIB issue)

- Brad Guth

On Dec 25, 5:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :



On Dec 25, 3:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote

Obviously those Antichrist and most all those 'pretend atheists'

So does a pretend atheist believe in god and says he doesn;t, or does
he say he does and secretly doesn't?

A pretend Atheist is very much a faith-based believer in some kind of
god, but that gets in the way of being a good Usenet rusemaster that
always needs to jump those various faith-based fences as often as they
like, as they topic/author stalk their ulterior motivated way within
Usenet.

Usually those Semitic pretend Atheist are rather easy to spot, as
their actions upon others is what typically goes along the exact very
same path or mindset as would any Old Testament thumping Zionist or
devout hard core Jew. Sometimes I can even spot those Mormon pretend
Atheists, because a true Atheist would tend to embrace the notions of
ETs and of whatever their intelligent design might have had to do with
the unusually complex forms of life as we know it.

Unfortunately, most honest folks of Usenet are deathly afraid of their
own shadow, and the other 99.9% are simply born-again liars unless
snookered and/or dumbfounded past the point of no return. Which group
do you fit into?

Dunno, I thought you had alreadty decided and were goingto save me the
trouble of deciding for myself.

Bertie

That's my MI5/CIA spook, doing the usual buck passing, or isn't it a
little more like a hot potato pass. To think, without your silly
mindset kind of status quo or bust, the likes of Hitler would not have
gotten 10% as far as they did, and of course the same can be said of
our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

- Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote in
:

On Dec 25, 5:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote

om:

Those NASA/Apollo folks were simply a whole lot smarter than given
credit, especially those Third Reich of the Semitic kind.

Even if having such a reliable fly-by-rocket lander (of which our
Apollo wizards did not have); would you have taken those moonsuit
naked EVA walks upon such a gamma saturated moon that's at least 8
fold worse off in secondary/recoil X-rays than any nasty Van Allen
belt?

You bet I would.

Bertie

And that's either because you had yourself an actual fly-by-rocket
lander (though of undocumented prototype R&D) as of 4 decades ago and
oddly not doable as of today, and/or is this naked moon walkabout
possible because of your superior rad-hard DNA?

Remember that you folks can't even tell us why the NASA/Apollo moon
wasn't the least bit physically dark or much less looking blue, not to
mention your not knowing of where or how the hell Venus was hiding.


I could but since you're a k00k you wouldn't listen anyway.

Bertie

BradGuth wrote in
:

On Dec 25, 5:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:d0b2366f-3592-4e9a-9799-

om:







On Dec 25, 3:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:8e815ed4-80c6-4b6d-8e8c-
:

Is this also why you silly brown-nosed folks can't share and
share alike, such as for sharing in the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, as to why our NASA/Apollo moon wasn't ever all
that physically dark and blue, especially to all of those
unfiltered Kodak moments?

I never use Kodak. Only Fuji. I find the color saturation more
satisfying. However, if I'm going for a pastel or Andy Wyeth egg
tempera sort of feel I do use Kodak. So, guilty as charged.

Bertie

In other words, that loaded MIB gun that's pointed at the back of
your empty head has gotten your undivided attention.

The only thing pointed at my head has been a glass of wine.

Bertie

In that case, if you should ever slip up, just keep checking that wine
for Po210. (standard MIB issue)

Po 210? Was that a Cessna vuilt under licence in Warsaw?

Bertie

BradGuth wrote in
:

On Dec 25, 5:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:d9231cb8-3876-4199-8723-

om:



On Dec 25, 3:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote

Obviously those Antichrist and most all those 'pretend atheists'

So does a pretend atheist believe in god and says he doesn;t, or
does he say he does and secretly doesn't?

A pretend Atheist is very much a faith-based believer in some kind
of
god, but that gets in the way of being a good Usenet rusemaster
that always needs to jump those various faith-based fences as often
as they like, as they topic/author stalk their ulterior motivated
way within Usenet.

Usually those Semitic pretend Atheist are rather easy to spot, as
their actions upon others is what typically goes along the exact
very same path or mindset as would any Old Testament thumping
Zionist or devout hard core Jew. Sometimes I can even spot those
Mormon pretend Atheists, because a true Atheist would tend to
embrace the notions of ETs and of whatever their intelligent design
might have had to do with the unusually complex forms of life as we
know it.

Unfortunately, most honest folks of Usenet are deathly afraid of
their own shadow, and the other 99.9% are simply born-again liars
unless snookered and/or dumbfounded past the point of no return.
Which group do you fit into?

Dunno, I thought you had alreadty decided and were goingto save me
the trouble of deciding for myself.

Bertie

That's my MI5/CIA spook, doing the usual buck passing, or isn't it a
little more like a hot potato pass.

No, just saving myself loads of work by allowing you, with yur
tremendous insight, to tell me how it all works.

Bertie

On Dec 26, 2:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :

On Dec 25, 5:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:d9231cb8-3876-4199-8723-





om:

On Dec 25, 3:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote

Obviously those Antichrist and most all those 'pretend atheists'

So does a pretend atheist believe in god and says he doesn;t, or
does he say he does and secretly doesn't?

A pretend Atheist is very much a faith-based believer in some kind
of
god, but that gets in the way of being a good Usenet rusemaster
that always needs to jump those various faith-based fences as often
as they like, as they topic/author stalk their ulterior motivated
way within Usenet.

Usually those Semitic pretend Atheist are rather easy to spot, as
their actions upon others is what typically goes along the exact
very same path or mindset as would any Old Testament thumping
Zionist or devout hard core Jew. Sometimes I can even spot those
Mormon pretend Atheists, because a true Atheist would tend to
embrace the notions of ETs and of whatever their intelligent design
might have had to do with the unusually complex forms of life as we
know it.

Unfortunately, most honest folks of Usenet are deathly afraid of
their own shadow, and the other 99.9% are simply born-again liars
unless snookered and/or dumbfounded past the point of no return.
Which group do you fit into?

Dunno, I thought you had alreadty decided and were goingto save me
the trouble of deciding for myself.

Bertie

That's my MI5/CIA spook, doing the usual buck passing, or isn't it a
little more like a hot potato pass.

No, just saving myself loads of work by allowing you, with yur
tremendous insight, to tell me how it all works.

Bertie

Unlike yourself, I'm not the least bit all-knowing, except I usually
know when I'm being snookered along.

Our blue moon as having been recently color CCD imaged with quality
bandpass coated optics is in fact looking rather bluish, pretty much
as it should appear to those insufficiently filtered cameras.

BTW, our moon's albedo on average of 0.11 is nearly as physically dark
as an open pit coal mine. Go figure upon which other nearly white
guano moon as having been xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated that our
rad-hard Apollo wizards landed upon, instead of the unavoidably
reactive naked surface of iron, cobalt, sodium and titanium worth of
such a dry and extremely dusty moon that's so physically dark and as
such representing that unavoidably gamma and X-ray anticathode nasty
environment in addition to its naked basalt surface as being so
unavoidably electrostatic charged.

- Brad Guth

On Dec 26, 2:06 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :



On Dec 25, 5:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote

om:

Those NASA/Apollo folks were simply a whole lot smarter than given
credit, especially those Third Reich of the Semitic kind.

Even if having such a reliable fly-by-rocket lander (of which our
Apollo wizards did not have); would you have taken those moonsuit
naked EVA walks upon such a gamma saturated moon that's at least 8
fold worse off in secondary/recoil X-rays than any nasty Van Allen
belt?

You bet I would.

Bertie

And that's either because you had yourself an actual fly-by-rocket
lander (though of undocumented prototype R&D) as of 4 decades ago and
oddly not doable as of today, and/or is this naked moon walkabout
possible because of your superior rad-hard DNA?

Remember that you folks can't even tell us why the NASA/Apollo moon
wasn't the least bit physically dark or much less looking blue, not to
mention your not knowing of where or how the hell Venus was hiding.

I could but since you're a k00k you wouldn't listen anyway.

Bertie

In other words, you claim to know the truth but have elected as to not
share and share alike. Figures, doesn't it.

As having said this before; Our blue moon as having been recently
color CCD imaged with quality bandpass coated optics is in fact
looking rather bluish, pretty much as it should appear to those
insufficiently filtered cameras.

BTW, our moon's albedo on average of 0.11 is nearly as physically dark
as an open pit coal mine. Go figure upon which other nearly white
guano moon as having been xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated that our
rad-hard Apollo wizards landed upon, instead of the unavoidably
reactive naked surface of iron, cobalt, sodium and titanium worth of
such a dry and extremely dusty moon that's so physically dark and as
such representing that unavoidably gamma and X-ray anticathode nasty
environment in addition to its naked basalt surface as being so
unavoidably electrostatic charged.

- Brad Guth

On Dec 26, 2:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :

On Dec 25, 5:05 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:d0b2366f-3592-4e9a-9799-





om:

On Dec 25, 3:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:8e815ed4-80c6-4b6d-8e8c-
:

Is this also why you silly brown-nosed folks can't share and
share alike, such as for sharing in the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, as to why our NASA/Apollo moon wasn't ever all
that physically dark and blue, especially to all of those
unfiltered Kodak moments?

I never use Kodak. Only Fuji. I find the color saturation more
satisfying. However, if I'm going for a pastel or Andy Wyeth egg
tempera sort of feel I do use Kodak. So, guilty as charged.

Bertie

In other words, that loaded MIB gun that's pointed at the back of
your empty head has gotten your undivided attention.

The only thing pointed at my head has been a glass of wine.

Bertie

In that case, if you should ever slip up, just keep checking that wine
for Po210. (standard MIB issue)

Po 210? Was that a Cessna vuilt under licence in Warsaw?

Bertie

Gee whiz, you certainly got that one correct. Your pathetic life gets
summarily terminated while riding within a Cessna 210. Go figure, why
the hell not.

- Brad Guth

Perhaps the best "what-if" and/or future revisions of of
science.space.history from the perspective of everything from Japan
and China that's getting such new and improved science data about our
unusually surface massive and nearby moon that's looking as though so
unusually blue, as such is having to be mainstream taboo/nondisclosure
rated and/or moderated to death for all it's worth, all because it's
getting too freaking honest and clearly not sufficiently Semitic
enough in order to suit those in charge of our private parts.

As having said this so often before; Our blue moon as having been
recently color CCD imaged with quality bandpass coated optics is in
fact looking rather secondary/recoil photon bluish, pretty much
exactly as it should appear to those insufficiently filtered cameras.
Of course those of our NASA/Apollo EVA cameras had no such narrow
bandpass coatings whatsoever, much less of having any color hue
saturation cutoff worth of optical element, but yet they did have all
of that nifty Kodak film that was apparently made rad-hard and
otherwise naturally more spectrum sensitive than the human eye, along
with having more than a sufficient worth of dynamic range(DR) in order
to have easily recorded Venus.

BTW, our moon's albedo on average of 0.11 is nearly as physically dark
as an open pit coal mine. Go figure upon which other nearly white
guano island sort of moon as having been xenon arc lamp spectrum
illuminated that our rad-hard Apollo wizards landed upon, instead of
the physically dark and unavoidably reactive basalt naked surface of
such iron, cobalt, sodium and titanium worth of our crystal dry and
extremely dusty moon that's upon average physically darker than
basalt, and as such representing that unavoidably gamma and X-ray
anticathode nasty environment in addition to all of its naked basalt
and dusty surface as being so unavoidably electrostatic charged.

BTW No.2, those raw 10 meter per pixel images via JAXA are going to
extrapolate out to offering as good as one fuzzy meter per pixel of
resampled enlargements, but otherwise of perfectly worthy images
depicting most anything of any significant size that's any part of our
NASA/Apollo stuff.

I honestly expect to eventually see those NASA/Apollo remainders as
dust covered forms of something artificial within each of their
artificial impact craters, or at best of their one-way hard landing
site, whereas only the most robust of rad-hard robotics could have
survived for any length of time.

Otherwise we're forever stuck within the cloak and dagger loops of one
of those pesky "don't ask, don't tell" situations.

- Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
BTW, our moon's albedo on average of 0.11 is nearly as physically dark
as an open pit coal mine.

So what? The albedo of a green golf course is 0.13. The albedo of a
conifer forest is only about 0.083.

You need to get out more. Go to a basalt flow on Earth - there are
plenty. Or get outside and look up at the full moon some night. You're
hanging your hat on the most feeblest of all threads.

Speaking of coal mines, compare these photos:
http://www.geokem.com/images/scans/I..._coal_mine.jpg
http://www.geokem.com/images/scans/N...-Geologist.jpg

with this one:
http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Project...g/MoonBack.jpg

So what did you think of the piloting of Neil Armstrong? (Trying to
make this topical! ;-))