Awesome moonscape

On Dec 23, 12:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:8b969aa1-b7d9-4f71-b26b-
:


On Dec 22, 4:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:7a965ed2-3abb-4b38-a61e-
:

On Dec 21, 2:40 pm, Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
BradGuthwrote:

FYI: the Moon is not actually BLUE, except to the unfiltered eye.

Well if I put the right filter on the camera my **** can be pink.

Are you saying that China and Japan had each put blue bandpass filters
on their color cameras?
-BradGuth-

Why, do they **** pink?

Thanks for proving the obvious, that Yids of a feather flock
together.

Does this mean I have to get circumcised?

Bertie

If that's what it takes for the likes of yourself to tell us why
nothing of our NASA/Apollo ever managed to look the least bit bluish
(pretty damn neat Kodak film trick with such unfiltered cameras), and
as to why the albedo vibrance of Venus was never once within sight
from any EVA or orbital FOV.

BTW, our moon's albedo on average is 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 reactive naked surface of
iron, cobalt, sodium and titanium of such a dry and dusty moon that's
so physically dark and as such unavoidably gamma and X-ray anticathode
nasty.
- Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote in
:

On Dec 23, 12:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:8b969aa1-b7d9-4f71-b26b-
:


On Dec 22, 4:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:7a965ed2-3abb-4b38-a61e-
:

On Dec 21, 2:40 pm, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote:
BradGuthwrote:

FYI: the Moon is not actually BLUE, except to the unfiltered
eye.

Well if I put the right filter on the camera my **** can be
pink.

Are you saying that China and Japan had each put blue bandpass
filters on their color cameras?
-BradGuth-

Why, do they **** pink?

Thanks for proving the obvious, that Yids of a feather flock
together.

Does this mean I have to get circumcised?

Bertie

If that's what it takes for the likes of yourself to tell us why
nothing of our NASA/Apollo ever managed to look the least bit bluish
(pretty damn neat Kodak film trick with such unfiltered cameras), and
as to why the albedo vibrance of Venus was never once within sight
from any EVA or orbital FOV.


Well, I don;t think circumcisn would help with that. Anything else
jewish I can do to augment my comprehension of the universe and
photography?


BTW, our moon's albedo on average is 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 reactive naked surface of
iron, cobalt, sodium and titanium of such a dry and dusty moon that's
so physically dark and as such unavoidably gamma and X-ray anticathode
nasty.

I thought they landed on the Ementhal part.


Bertie

BradGuth wrote in
:

On Dec 21, 10:41 am, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Besides JAXA as having been excluding those natural color images of
our moon, is there any good technical reason(s) as to why the JAXA/
SELENE(KAGUYA) science via their "X-ray Spectrometer(XRS)" and
"Gamma Ray Spectrometer(GRS)" is being kept secret?

-BradGuth-

Nice try...you're an idiot.

and not a very good troll.

this was hilarious, thanks

--
Message posted via
AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/20071
2/1

Then where's that NASA/Apollo unfiltered Kodak moment of secondary/
recoil blue?

Or how about your sharing the other good one of where's Venus?


Wasn't that an episode of Fireball XL5?


Bertie

"gatt" wrote in
:


"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote in message
news:7d07b4aa19173@uwe...


Nice try...you're an idiot.

and not a very good troll.

He's not a troll, he's -dead serious- and since he used the word "Yid"
and "MIB" I totally 100% believe him now. His work here is clearly
done.


I beg to differ. I think he's only just begun..


Bertie

BradGuth wrote in
:

On Dec 21, 12:51 am, WingFlaps wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:01 pm, BradGuth wrote:


On Dec 18, 5:58 pm, WingFlaps wrote:

On Dec 19, 12:44 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 18, 2:37 pm, "gatt" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in message

news:453d3e93-7e2d-4e4f-b1ed-

Why was that NASA/Apollo moon ever once as having been
recorded by those unfiltered optics and upon such
gamma/X-ray sensitive film as depicting that moon as not
hardly the least bit physically dark or much less of any
bluish tint, or anything the least bit like the blue/
purple saturated hue of what those missions of Japan and
China are recording?

Another literary masterpiece.

The authority on this subject is MXManiac. Why don't you two
start a thread about it?

Are those Third Reich and apparently MI5 Jews in charge of
our mutually perpetrated cold-war, and of pulling off that
hocus-pocus space race, actually still that deathly afraid
of sharing the truth? (apparently so)

Obviously the likes of "gatt" doesn't even get it.

What, that the Third Reich and the Jews are hoaxing the space
race?

Of course I get it. You're a marginally-literate usenet
whackjob. AKA "k00k"

-c

See what I mean. (obviously not)

Can you tell us where the heck NASA and their teams of Apollo
folks were hiding Venus?

Can you explain as to why the NASA/Apollo moon wasn't hardly
ever physically dark or otherwise the least bit blue within any
of those unfiltered Kodak moments?
- Brad Guth

No hiding needed, where should Venus be? A typical moon exposure
wouldn't capture Venus as the moon surface is too bright and the
film latitude too narrow. Second the hint of blue (and yellow
and red) in the moon is so slight you need digital photography
and image processing to pull it out. I know, I've done it.

Cheers

Good Christ almighty on a stick, and such a liar to boot. Do all
Yids lie as a regular part of their incest mutated DNA code?
- Brad Guth

What a sad little man you are.

Cheers

Are you silly folks suggesting that Muslims are the ones in charge of
all the bad stuff associated with our MI5/CIA and of their NASA/Apollo
cloak and dagger fiasco of our mutually perpetrated cold war(s)?


Silly folks!

Everyone know that the Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for
nothing.


That must also be why you pretend atheist folks keep running those key
words together with whatever adjoining words all the time.


I'm not a prtend atheist. You made me Jewish, remember? I'm taking that
seriously and ordering a Buick this afternoon.

Sadly, it's called mainstream status quo damage control.

Yes, so I've heard. I hate Status Quo anyway. They slid downhill fast after
"Pictures of matchstick men"

Bertie

BradGuth wrote in
:

Is that what Hitler's brown-nosed minions think is always the answer
to everything that rocks your mainstream status quo boat? (drugs?)


Obviously you don;t feel the need for drugs. I agree, you don't need them.
Not one little bit.



Why don't you just tell us why those NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak moments
were not the least bit bluish?


BB King wasn't available?


Bertie

On Dec 23, 3:37 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :



On Dec 23, 12:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:8b969aa1-b7d9-4f71-b26b-
:

On Dec 22, 4:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:7a965ed2-3abb-4b38-a61e-
:

On Dec 21, 2:40 pm, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote:
BradGuthwrote:

FYI: the Moon is not actually BLUE, except to the unfiltered
eye.

Well if I put the right filter on the camera my **** can be
pink.

Are you saying that China and Japan had each put blue bandpass
filters on their color cameras?
-BradGuth-

Why, do they **** pink?

Thanks for proving the obvious, that Yids of a feather flock
together.

Does this mean I have to get circumcised?

Bertie

If that's what it takes for the likes of yourself to tell us why
nothing of our NASA/Apollo ever managed to look the least bit bluish
(pretty damn neat Kodak film trick with such unfiltered cameras), and
as to why the albedo vibrance of Venus was never once within sight
from any EVA or orbital FOV.

Well, I don;t think circumcisn would help with that. Anything else
jewish I can do to augment my comprehension of the universe and
photography?



BTW, our moon's albedo on average is 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 reactive naked surface of
iron, cobalt, sodium and titanium of such a dry and dusty moon that's
so physically dark and as such unavoidably gamma and X-ray anticathode
nasty.

I thought they landed on the Ementhal part.

Bertie

On average the moon's rather dim albedo of 0.11 is much like
terrestrial coal at 0.1, which means that if some of that moon is
worth 0.33, whereas other sooty near black basalt portions of less
than 0.05 must also exist, as in fact they each do exist. However,
nothing of our moon is ever going to represent itself as 0.75,
especially at the incoming angle of that morning sun unless you are
looking nearly directly towards the sun and without using a polarized
lens element for cutting the solar glare that's coming off that
physically dark surface.

There was no lunar aluminum, salts or even metallic sodium within
those supposed soil samples. Go figure.
- Brad Guth

On Dec 22, 12:49 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:45 am, "gatt" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message

...

"gatt" wrote:
Furthermore, the moon is blue. Like, uh, nickel. Or moldy
cheese.

You silly sod - it's not made of moldy cheese - it's probably made
of Blue Wensleydale. That's why humanity sent a man and his dog
Gromit to the moon - for the cheese!

AHHHH, it makes so much more sense now.

-c

But none of those NASA/Apollo EVAs of taking all of those unfiltered
Kodak moments and even of their more sensitive video were never
getting the least bit blue saturated. What gives?

Brad,

The original post in this thread was technically off topic for this
forum, but the poster otherwise had good intentions and was just
providing a friendly FYI to fellow readers.

I suppose if his being yet another status quo or bust kind of
rusemaster is what makes you silly folks happy campers, then so be it.


Your posts, however, are often incoherent and unclear in their intent.

My intent has always been clear, at least to an honestly open mindset
without the brown-nose status quo as so many of you folks seem to
always have.


They are not only off topic for this forum, they assume presumptions few
posters to this group appear to share and demand answers to questions
that none of us either care to deal with or have the expertise and
knowledge to address.

Now you're claiming as not being so all-knowing, but will gladly robo
defend the actions of others just because they're part of your pretend
atheism. Isn't that exactly what the likes of Hitler and even that of
our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) counted on, and for the most part
got?


I assume (but honestly can't tell, since you fail to make explicit claims
or provide sane reasoning - you just toss out questions on off topic
subjects) you think the Apollo moon landings were faked. Even if that
were true, it has nothing to do with piloting of aircraft. And it has
nothing to do with appreciating awesome moonscapes, real or invented.
Hell, I've pointed people toward great space art by Chesley Bonestell,
all of it "fake" but nevertheless great and inspiring work.

Again, if such bogus eye-candy is your hocus-pocus thing, then so be
it, but do not keep selling it as even remotely representing the NASA/
Apollo truth.


No one here can stop you from posting, but they can stop paying
attention, and the fault for that would be with _you_ and how you present
yourself and respond to others. If your objective is to get yourself
universally ignored, you are on the right track. If your objective is
anything else, you need to rethink your entire approach.

Good luck - IMHO you'll need it.

You folks already know about what I've discovered of Venus that's
looking as though extremely intelligent worthy, and you folks also
know that our moon's L1 is worth trillions upon trillions to whomever
is in charge of that nifty realm, especially if there's to be any such
Clarke Station or far better that of my LSE-CM/ISS established (most
likely by China).

The matter of my having been officially ignored is not from my doings,
and the sorts of PC traumatizing via Usenet spermware/****ware that I
have to continually put up with, isn't of my doings either.
- Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote in
:

On Dec 23, 3:37 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:34d0f922-04ac-4d7c-8acf-

om:



On Dec 23, 12:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:8b969aa1-b7d9-4f71-b26b-
:

On Dec 22, 4:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
news:7a965ed2-3abb-4b38-a61e-
:

On Dec 21, 2:40 pm, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote:
BradGuthwrote:

FYI: the Moon is not actually BLUE, except to the
unfiltered eye.

Well if I put the right filter on the camera my **** can be
pink.

Are you saying that China and Japan had each put blue
bandpass filters on their color cameras?
-BradGuth-

Why, do they **** pink?

Thanks for proving the obvious, that Yids of a feather flock
together.

Does this mean I have to get circumcised?

Bertie

If that's what it takes for the likes of yourself to tell us why
nothing of our NASA/Apollo ever managed to look the least bit
bluish (pretty damn neat Kodak film trick with such unfiltered
cameras), and as to why the albedo vibrance of Venus was never once
within sight from any EVA or orbital FOV.

Well, I don;t think circumcisn would help with that. Anything else
jewish I can do to augment my comprehension of the universe and
photography?



BTW, our moon's albedo on average is 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 reactive naked surface
of iron, cobalt, sodium and titanium of such a dry and dusty moon
that's so physically dark and as such unavoidably gamma and X-ray
anticathode nasty.

I thought they landed on the Ementhal part.

Bertie

On average the moon's rather dim albedo of 0.11 is much like
terrestrial coal at 0.1, which means that if some of that moon is
worth 0.33, whereas other sooty near black basalt portions of less
than 0.05 must also exist, as in fact they each do exist. However,
nothing of our moon is ever going to represent itself as 0.75,
especially at the incoming angle of that morning sun unless you are
looking nearly directly towards the sun and without using a polarized
lens element for cutting the solar glare that's coming off that
physically dark surface.


Yeah, it was so obviously a fake that I sent back my Kenner junior
astronaut set.



There was no lunar aluminum, salts or even metallic sodium within
those supposed soil samples. Go figure.

It is a mystery!

Bertie

On Dec 23, 5:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :

On Dec 23, 3:37 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:34d0f922-04ac-4d7c-8acf-





om:

On Dec 23, 12:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:8b969aa1-b7d9-4f71-b26b-
:

On Dec 22, 4:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
news:7a965ed2-3abb-4b38-a61e-
:

On Dec 21, 2:40 pm, Gig601XLBuilder
wrote:
BradGuthwrote:

FYI: the Moon is not actually BLUE, except to the
unfiltered eye.

Well if I put the right filter on the camera my **** can be
pink.

Are you saying that China and Japan had each put blue
bandpass filters on their color cameras?
-BradGuth-

Why, do they **** pink?

Thanks for proving the obvious, that Yids of a feather flock
together.

Does this mean I have to get circumcised?

Bertie

If that's what it takes for the likes of yourself to tell us why
nothing of our NASA/Apollo ever managed to look the least bit
bluish (pretty damn neat Kodak film trick with such unfiltered
cameras), and as to why the albedo vibrance of Venus was never once
within sight from any EVA or orbital FOV.

Well, I don;t think circumcisn would help with that. Anything else
jewish I can do to augment my comprehension of the universe and
photography?

BTW, our moon's albedo on average is 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 reactive naked surface
of iron, cobalt, sodium and titanium of such a dry and dusty moon
that's so physically dark and as such unavoidably gamma and X-ray
anticathode nasty.

I thought they landed on the Ementhal part.

Bertie

On average the moon's rather dim albedo of 0.11 is much like
terrestrial coal at 0.1, which means that if some of that moon is
worth 0.33, whereas other sooty near black basalt portions of less
than 0.05 must also exist, as in fact they each do exist. However,
nothing of our moon is ever going to represent itself as 0.75,
especially at the incoming angle of that morning sun unless you are
looking nearly directly towards the sun and without using a polarized
lens element for cutting the solar glare that's coming off that
physically dark surface.

Yeah, it was so obviously a fake that I sent back my Kenner junior
astronaut set.


There was no lunar aluminum, salts or even metallic sodium within
those supposed soil samples. Go figure.

It is a mystery!

Much the same as our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) that wasted all
of those decades, traumatized and/or having exterminated countless
millions of mostly innocent lives and cosing us trillions per decade
in the process is still a mystery (much the same as those Muslim WMD),
isn't it.
- Brad Guth -