NASA Apollohoax.com is a BLOODY HOAX, as in LLPOF

This isn't even myself having to run amuck, as it's our very own NASA/NSA/DoD and another one of their space toilets overflowing

by; Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA     update: July 07, 2004

Dear Earth Orbit and David Moore; much of the good stuff of what I've posted unto the likes of "Apollohoax.com borg collective" has either been blocked, excluded, and/or moderated to death (important context removed). Oddly I've managed to have saved a few copies of what I'd initially posted, and I could even reconstruct upon a good number of the specific topics exactly as they were, at least as prior to their not being able to refute my statements and subsequently blocking my efforts at refuting their assertions that I'm the messenger that's at fault.

Now there's even good old "BADASTRONOMY.COM" that sucks, at least according to my way of thinking, though still not nearly as butt sucking bad off as apollohoax.

I've added yet another warm and fuzzy page, as focusing primarily for addressing those rather testy sensitivity issues of KODAK film upon exposure to the likes of UV/a and even of the near-UV spectrum, of which there's simply no viable alternative except for their using xenon illumination, as in artificial as all of holy hell for producing all of those shots, including those officially recognized as being doctored to death by the very same folks that had previously stipulated they had done no such thing. Well guess what, this is yet another LLPOF upon all of those NASA/NSA/DoD incest cloned borgs.

You must already understand that I perceive that ALL is at risk, and by "all" I mean every last fiber of the American way of life, and of what's left of our pathetic morality is at risk of being exposed as a bloody LLPOF joke upon all of humanity, and that's specifically why the folks at apollohoax.com are not going to budge nor give an inch. We're talking about tens of thousands of highly paid jobs that are still on the line, many of which are of perfectly snookered folks like most Americans, and even the few that perceive that they are not snookered are simply too dumb and dumber and/or dumfounded by way of the GW Bush educational "high standards and accountability" as to ever realize otherwise, and certainly scared literally to death by the consequences of violating their cult "nondisclosure" policy.

On their behalf, I was going to coin what I had thought was previously a new internet phrase; LLPOF of meaning Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire, and it seems that I may have to utilize this "LLPOF" quite frequently when discussing the sorts of disinformation tactics of those official dog-wagging spin and damage control borg like incest freaks working on behalf of salvaging their NASA/NSA/DoD cloak and dagger cold-war butts. As usual I'm wrong, in that it turns out that the "LLPOF" has been something freely utilized for perhaps a decade or more, so apparently I'm not the one and only unhappy camper in America, especially with regard to our current warlord and otherwise village idiot and otherwise ultra moron of a commander and chief that's become our very own WMD snipe hunting idiot.

In a few too many other words of wisdom; of what I having to say has clearly become far too damaging to our NASA/NSA/DoD agenda of global domination, too truthful and otherwise to the best of my knowledge offering the truth and nothing but the truth about the moon and Venus. And that's not that I don't make my fair share of my own mistakes, as for my being on a "need to know" basis has undoubtedly ensured errors and subsequent complications, although at least I'm not intentionally doing such on behalf of covering up the ultimate cold-war sting/ruse of the century.


Dear Earth Orbit, Dave Cosnette, Christopher Montgomery, David Moore and other many friends of humanity.

This ongoing effort of uncovering the truth and nothing but the truth has become somewhat of a formal declaration of war, with lot of warm and fuzzy flak to go around.

I've recently added to and edited some information on your behalf within this http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-apollohoax.htm page, that's becoming a little better off than some of the older stuff in my other Apollo related pages, such as the moon-04.htm page.

I might suggest that you (Earth Orbit and others on the side of the moral majority) seem to be overlooking the most raw of photographic as well as technological errors, such as for those numerous illumination hot-spots that simply can't be, as well as for the nearly 55% reflective aspect of the moon itself which also can't be the case, and there's still no documentation of any such 1/6th mass scaled test version of the lander. The phony (doctored up) image depicting those two astronauts having Earth incorrectly reflected in their visors is simply the absolute "proof positive" that they had the capability and in fact utilized such as to doctor up various images, especially those showing Earth as being too far away, and of the issue of "no stars" should actually include upon "no Venus" and of no UV/a Sirius that should have been damn hard to have intentionally excluded without subsequent photographic alterations. And don't forget about the horrific influx of such UV/a, of which the unobstructed likes of 375 nm influx from Sirius should have burned holes in that KODAK film, while otherwise our solar UV/a should have noticably skewed those images, especially those including the red, white and blue American flag.

The ongoing fact that of any landing and/or crash site should have in fact blown away the slightly gravity held surface debris, so as exposing the darker lunar basalt, this factor alone remains big-time in error within those Apollo images. In other words, those Apollo imaged landers didn't manage to blow away much of anything, which is rather odd for such lose/uncompacted lunar debris being within a 1/6th gravity environment without a drop of H2O nor of benefiting from any other act of geology physics as for keeping anything clumping together.

Because I'm such a fair sort of guy, here's yet another very good and I'd have to say extremely pro-Apollo report by Case Wright, as having been E-Published by RationalInquiry.org, and of so much apparent quality that it's rather odd that our very own apollohoax.com dream-team of spooks, moles and incest cloned borgs never once referenced others like yourself nor I into this independent and extremely well documented site. Whereas by their not offering squat worth of even pointing out that such supposed pro-Apollo independent efforts were so easily available, this issue only makes me wonder why?
http://homepage.mac.com/casewright/essays/apollo.html

Perhaps that's because there's still a little something, if not a very big something other that's not quite right, such as pertaining to those recent landing/impact disturbed sites as suggesting upon one of those being the Apollo-15 landing, and/or of their impact zone, that which obviously could have just as easily suggested upon those dark areas as being that of merely a lander crash/impacted site.

In a little further honest respect to a photographic review upon the image as acquired by the Clementine spacecraft of the supposed Apollo-15 landing site. If you'll read through and scroll yourself down the above page to where the "Map of the photometric anomalies around the Apollo-15 landing site is pointed out. Images taken by the Clementine spacecraft have resulted in spotting disturbed lunar terrain around the touchdown zone", whereas his "Arrow A points to a diffuse dark spot exactly at the locale of the lunar module". However, this is perhaps where the next round of pesky tid bits worth of their skewed physics difficulty might be, in that due to the camera resolution it's obviously suggesting a relatively large but expected displacement zone, of that being so much darker than of the surrounding 11% reflective lunar surface, and so much so darker that I'd have to give it a reflective index value of perhaps 5%, which is about what I'd expect from a sufficient impact and/or perhaps from a lander rocket blast as for exposing the dark lunar basalt (lunar surface soil/rock being of a dark grayish basalt and of small to micro meteorite strewn shards, with the underlying composite of much darker raw lunar basalt), as this outcome would be entirely consistent with any number of recently recorded impact zones.

Now oddly, it seems that none of those Apollo landing sites as subsequently photographed by their respective astronauts was hardly made the least bit darker than of the surrounding terrain, in fact extremely little of that surrounding lunar terrain was offering much below 55%, as that reflective index can be easily taken in various direct relationships to any number of man made items offering their cameras and UV sensitive KODAK film a well known reflective index, and most importantly there was darn little if any such blast-away disturbance exposing much of anything the least bit dark-basalt like, as under nor of surrounding those landers, and of certainly no indications of any final few meters worth of suggesting upon the 100% rocket powered down-range trough of rocket blasted away debris as so easily noted in your landershad.gif, goodphoto.gif, Good.gif and Armsg.gif (actually you and I should be able to point out so many other examples within their official Apollo photo archives that'll better demonstrate such).

About that "C-Rock"; forget all about the letter "C", even about the apparent soil impression of that letter C isn't of what really matters. It's the color and/or contrast of that rock, and of more so of the apparent eroded smooth nature of all edges. Compare that "C-Rock" or of most other surface rock photographed by those Apollo teams to that of just about any rock imaged upon Mars. By doing such you might first notice how much darker those Mars rocks/meteorites and shards are, and the fact that all edges of Mars strewn rocks and impact shards are extremely sharp (BTW; Mars rocks and those meteorite shards reflect the same amount of light and within the same spectrum as via KECK-II and/or Hubble as they do from recent surface images, whereas oddly that's not the case at all with respect to our moon as supposedly photographed by our radiation proof and impact resistant Apollo borgs).

Understanding that a meteorite/rock reaching the Mars surface had an actual atmosphere to get through, and then horrific amounts of atmospheric and climate related erosion applied to boot, whereas the moon environment offers absolutely none of that. In fact, per m2 there should have been nearly 10 fold as many meteorites and of especially the class of smaller and micro-meteorites strewn about the lunar surface, and perhaps those would have accumulated to as much a meter worth of uncompacted (still lose) debris per billion years should have been the case, especially within lunar basin like areas where the impact debris would have been deflected back and or rolled down hill. At least that's what happens on Earth and of what has been imaged as transpiring upon Mars.

The lack of significant meteorites and the apparent lack of sufficient build-up of surface strewn shard like debris doesn't even compute to what's reaching Earth. Mars clearly offers way more meteorite and strewn shards per m2, all of which is somewhat darker than of the surrounding terrain, and of those meteorite and shard remains are sharp as a tack, of not all rounded off like that pathetic "C rock".

Forget about whatever items are specifically within a given image, like of those depicting Earth being too small and/or of where it wasn't supposed to be, even try to further ignore the waving flag or the fact that the likes of Venus and even Sirius should have been easily included within any number of their photographs, and even for the moment forget all about those pesky illumination hot-spots that wizard Bob B. and of his master wizard JayUtah stipulated were caused by their infamous clumping moon dirt becoming so "retro-reflective", as it's actually all about the unfiltered UV/a spectrum that's entirely skewed, or rather not skewed enough is a more correct statement.

Rember folks, that of what the human eye perceives isn't worth squat as compared to what that KODAK film had to have recorded. Kodak film is highly sensitive to the UV/a spectrum, meaning that a little bit of UV/a as reveived here on Earth goes a long ways towards overexposing whatever is being illuminated by such on the moon. Roughly 5% of the entire solar influx is of the UV/a and shorter spectrum, and that's roughly 68 watts/m2 that for the most part having been atmospherically filtered/blocked so as not to be reaching the surface of Earth, but absolutely all of it reaches the moon. The surface of Earth receives perhaps 250 mw/m2 to 500 mw/m2 worth of the UV/a spectrum.

Within the lunar environment, the blue spectrum of an American flag should have been photo-recorded of at least twice as vibrant as for the color red (remember that the KODAK film emulsion, of the developing chemicals and even printing was configured as for an Earthly illuminated environment), though notice that oddly the blue is somewhat subdued, as if it were illuminated by an artificial light source having little if any UV/a and not even all that much near-UV (380~425 nm) spectrum at that (much like that of a commercial Xenon illumination source).

http://www.diagnosysllc.com/ColorDome_bright_xenon.jpg
Notice how the amount of xenon illumination below 425 nm isn't even worth 10% of the peak 500~550 nm portion (though relatively similar to actual sunlight as received on the surface of Earth), and of 450+nm (blue) still isn't offering a third.

On Earth, and because of our atmosphere, at best not more than half of the solar energy reaches the surface, whereas usually that's been reduced to receiving an average of 25% due to solar angle, pollution and of various cloud factors, whereas nearly all of that solar UV spectrum has been nicely diverted and/or filtered out.

Other than noting a rather healthy solar spike at 121.5 nm (10 mw/m2), I believe external to Earth there's roughly and very conservatively at least an influx of 20 w/m2 worth of the entire UV/a spectrum, whereas perhaps at most 2.5% of that energy reaches the surface of Earth (0.5 w/m2), though in reality it's more likely providing an exposure average of merely 0.25 w/m2. That alone offers an 80:1 added UV/a exposure upon KODAK film that's actually most sensitive to recording such spectrum, not to mention of becoming fogged by those nastier shorter wavelengths included within the gauntlet of the 68 watts/m2 as mentioned previously.

However, sinse I have recently learned that nearly 5% of the total solar influx is of the UV and shorter wavelengths, thus that's 68 watts/m2 as opposed to my previous understanding of using just 20 watts/m2, whereas this provides another good three fold greater ratio of illumination intensity boost for the likes of photo recording Sirius as well as for whatever's being UV unobstructed as illuminated upon by the likes of our sun.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/glossary.php3?mode=alpha&seg=u&segend=w   "ultraviolet radiation: The energy range just beyond the violet end of the visible spectrum. Although ultraviolet radiation constitutes only about 5 percent of the total energy emitted from the sun, it is the major energy source for the stratosphere and mesosphere, playing a dominant role in both energy balance and chemical composition. Most ultraviolet radiation is blocked by Earth's atmosphere" However, since the UV skewed spectrum of Sirius offers a peak of 375 nm worth (as opposed to our sun being of 525 nm), and of what's delivered upon Earth isn't offering but at most 1% of what's otherwise getting onto the moon, meaning that the amounts of such horrific illumination coming off the likes of Sirius is actually delivering at the very least 50 times greater impact upon that UV sensitive KODAK film as being photographed from the moon, and of the UV derived from our sun being at least 40 fold more intensified should have noticeably shifted that spectrum of exposure per what's humanly visible as blue into being nearly a fluorescent blue. Of color as well as B&W photography would have required a rather significant set of UV filter(s) as to compensate (please check their photographic equipment manifest, you wont find squat worth of such filters). Take yourself into almost any photographic site and learn of what's required to compensate for cutting the typical 0.25 w/m2 as here on Earth (a bit more so UV/a/b filtering required if you're high in the mountains), then having to multiply that by at least another factor of 40X if not 100+ times more worth of UV/a intensity, in order to appreciate upon how much UV/a plus UV/b filtering would have been necessary upon the moon. Even the near UV of 375 to 425 nm should have been photographically skewed to death without the usage of such deep spectrum cut-off filters for diminishing the UV/a and UV/b intensity, then recheck those official KODAK "spectrual-dye-density curves" out for yourself. I might suggest trying for a UV/ab spectrum cut-off worth at least f32 (64:1) if not as much as f64 (128:1), and for also remembering that hardly any of the UV/bc spectrum gets involved with skewing pictures as taken here on Earth. Using my usual physics of applied duh-101; whereas upon the moon there's no apparent atmospheric or of any global location nor hardly any seasonal tilt factor at cutting those UV rays, as such there's only the maximum of all there is to contend with, and that's 24/7 for 29 days at at a time, unless you're working the much safer and otherwise well illuminated earthshine (ashen light) environment to start off with. As such, that bone dry yet clumping soil that should have been represented as offering a dull average of 11% reflective, that sort of landscape substance would have proportionally reflected less UV than not, thereby if anything the 11% reflective lunar landscape should have been photographically recorded as even somewhat darker in relationship to various artificial items of reference, such as various aluminum items and of those white moon suits offering 80+%, and of the moonscape especially should have been photographically recorded as somewhat darker than of the blue portion of the American flag, as it's not of what the human eye sees as much as it's what that KODAK film recorded on behalf of human visual limitations. What all of this photograph UV/a spectrum intensity factor represents is that our warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo folks supposedly having "the right stuff" have actually been blowing chunks out their butts all along, and that humanity has been snookered to death (literally). In other words, it should have been damn hard NOT to have been recording those vibrant stars of darn good UV/a intensity, at least dimly, but if even a few of those transparencies/negatives were digitally scanned, those dim stars should have to be there, and that's a fact.

But then there has always been another ongoing issue pertaining to those various impacting dust-bunny factors, some of which are making their debut at 15+km/s, while of other potentially nasty stuff is incoming at merely 30+km/s as the two of us zoom about the sun that has been tossing just about everything except the kitchen sink at us. ( KE = .5MV2 )

Perhaps you and others should start off your next round of attacks upon apollohoax by using my LLPOF (liar, Liar, Pants On Fire) analogy against those incest cloned borgs defending their badly overflowing Apollo space toilets, because that's exactly what they are all doing, either that or of summarily screwing humanity as need be in order to clone more borgs.

In case you're wondering why I'm suggesting we focus upon an all-out WMD attack upon our warm and fuzzy NASA/NSA/DoD, and if need be an entire overthrow of the American system of dog-wagging hype, spin and subsequent damage control (perhaps easily justified as just another one of those WMD oops), as that I'm suggesting we formally declare war against all these LLPOF borgs. That's because of how these very same incest borgs have been continuously lying their nasty butts off with regard to Venus, which by the way, makes for almost anything related to our moon and those Apollo missions insignificant, though the sole cause for their not taking this other life on Venus seriously, other than to seriously destroy any hope for humanity in spite of the truth.

This apollohoax.com hoax sort of thing has actually become worse off then Cathars being exterminated by the Pope, or of Jews by Hitler and supported by the of American banking institutions comprised oddly of mostly other Jews. It only gets personally worse off if our resident warlord thinks that you're hiding Osama bin Laden or some of those WMD.

I'll assume that you're sufficiently aware of what I've uncovered about Venus; http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm, and aware that there's even more of their own shit that's been recently hitting their fan, such as somehow my research has managed to break down one of their borg http://irishastronomy.org servers for more than a week (that's somewhat like breaking NASA's uplink.space.com): whereas irishastronomy has apparently been partially infected, in other words sufficiently screwed over by those other incest NASA borgs, thus all of their body orgins having become fully interchangable between the likes of uplink.space.com and irishastronomy.org.

Just in case anyone is the least bit interested, I may have to post a few more words of wisdom on their behalf, as to be updated in either of the following two pages.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-apollohoax.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm


About Venus

First off; Venus isn't nearly as hot and nasty as published under what has been otherwise NASA moderated to death, especially of their nighttime season and of elevated territory.

There's always been plenty of H2O, it's just nicely situated in them clouds (conservatively there's 5e20 kg worth of clouds), thereby an amount such as 25% of those clouds being of H2O, and that's merely 1.25e20 kg, or 125,000 tera tonnes, and that's not including whatever is stored underground, and/or as H2O2. Actually the amount of cloud density that's H2O could be as great as 33%.

There's always been more available kinetic energy available from just the vertical differential of 4+bar/km than all of the energy upon Earth. At the average surface elevation is where that atmosphere represents nearly 10% the density of water, and obviously it only gets better than 10% at nighttime, and even more so density at -5 km. I also can't imagine what anyone could do with all that H2O, except if you'd like to process some of that into H2O2 for safe keeping, or how about otherwise processing upon a little CO2-->CO/O2, that's merely offering a ultimate solution as for obtaining your fuel and oxidiser while on the fly.

My horse before the cart: There's nothing rocket science about folks constructing and subsequently operating a rigid airship on Venus (from steel alloys, plus ample composites of basalt and/or silica), that is unless you don't like efficiently cruising about in relative comfort all over the globe at an elevation of perhaps 25+km, or of occasionally busting through those nighttime clouds so as to cruise at perhaps 50+km, whereas that way you could have yourself a good look-see as well as a good laugh at the utmost snookered and otherwise dumber than dumb-ass dumfounded other planet in the universe (Earth), that's especially referring to those LLPOF astrophysics and astronomy types.

Even though I've been officially informed otherwise, now it seems we're being publically informed that KECK-II has had no problem in imaging upon the nighttime side of Venus, of which the last time around Venus was ideally a good 5+ below the sun, whereas this time around it's having to pass over the southern photosphere that should be somewhat testy if not impossible for the likes of KECK-II, but absolutely ideal for the likes of TRACE and/or the far superior instruments of the BAA. Recently (thanks to KECK-II) there's been identified a great deal more atomic (free) O2 runing amuck, and of that being nicely ionized in their nighttime atmosphere of creating a green illumination. What's next? an illuminated nudest camp sign post at either end of the bridge at the "Guth Venus" canyon?

In other words Dave and/or "Earth Orbit", it seems these folks have all been lying their butts off for so long about those phony Apollo missions, that there's no way in their holy cesspool hell of giving an inch for anything Venus, much less upon other life existing on Venus as per "Guth Venus".

I wouldn't be advising you to be slacking-off, much less giving up upon those Apollo hoax topics, I just think it might be a good diversion as for kicking some of these NASA/Apollo bastards in their balls while you've got them on the floor over those pathitic Apollo issues, at least that way there'd be something good transpiring on behalf of humanity, such as for promoting this discovery of other life existing on Venus should have been worth at least 100 fold more than all of what NASA stands for.

BTW; Your web pages are certainly great (colorful and otherwise graphically interactive but, a wee bit difficult to read with all of the black background, and there's so much JAVA going on that it takes a bit of page download time and subsequent CPU stress. Instead, you and I might want to create a Washington Post newspaper like article format, in that similar publications could take a given page as is, and re-publish it without having to restructure so much from scratch. Unfortunately, don't look at my pages for doing all that much better than yours, though at least mine are mostly of plain (html) text that can be easily manipulated about the few images.

I've kept my images in two subdirectories which may prove more difficult than not, although if your file system for storing and accessing my research off-line were to include these two "/images" and "/images2" subdirectories, as then everything should function fully while off-line.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/images2

BTW No.2: I believe your argument as to the Apollo thrust requiring 10,000 lbs isn't quite what the 1/6th gravity environment would have required (I've made the very same mistaken argument, perhaps that's because like yourself I'm not a rocket scientist). Although the initial decent mass may have been close to 10,000 lbs, supposedly by the time their considerable fuel and oxidiser burn-off took place in order to de-accelerate and thereby safely decend and accomplish a little controlled down-range flight prior to touchdown, I believe their final mass was down to roughly 6,000 lbs, and 1/6th of that makes for a thrust requirement of merely 2,000 lbs, of which still should have blown away a great deal of surface debris, exposing the much darker basalt and meteorite shards as was so nicely depicted within the Case Wright report: http://homepage.mac.com/casewright/essays/apollo.html

Of course this entire argument over a supposedly functioning lander that was never once successfully test flown as a 1/6th mass prototype, and there's still absolutely no believable test flight documentation whatsoever, and hardly any engineering documentation at that, all seems rather pointless because, the only avenue for those of our NASA/Apollo borg collective is to continually lie their butts off about absolutely everything, as if they want to continue living they have absolutely no alternative except to allow each lie to beget another, and so on. So, of no matter what, you simply can win on the basis of what the lander can or can not accomplish because, lord NASA holds all the cards, and NASA has unlimited funding and certainly the ultimatum of all or nothing per their motivation to pulling it off. What humanity needs is merely access to a few of those original negatives/transparencies (hundreds if not thousands to pick from that are of absolutely no content value whatsoever because there's dozens of far better images that we don't need to subject to essentially nondestructive scanning) that were supposedly created upon the moon.

I'm going to start posting this link into your home page (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk ), and if you could manage to offer something similar as for my home page, that would certainly be great. If you catch any of my misunderstandings or poor math, and numerous syntax/grammar mistakes, please feel free to advise, as I'll be looking forward to such feedback as opposed to having to handle so much official flak from the likes of NASA's uplink.space.com or their apollohoax.com, as I've even attracted more than my fair share of GOOGLE flak.


As of May 09, 2004; the most recent apollohoax game contestant "Earth Orbit" seems to be plugging away at this never ending gauntlet, I suppose gathering insight and important data for another movie or of some other documentary, although in addition to the rather obvious photographic errors and officially identified photo doctoring, the physical issues of the lunar environment are being glossed over, not to mention our pathetic lander that never once flew without loosing its cool.

The comment of "NO STARS" is still a perfectly valid one, though somewhat misleading in that them stars would have been not only of at least 25+% brighter, but of the surrounding foreground and background would have been another ten fold if not a magnitude 5 (100X) darker to the human eye, and the moon itself shouldn't have represented more than a 12% reflective index. But as to the recording eye of that thermally stressed and radiation proof KODAK film, the added UV/a spectrum alone should have skewed the colors, especially those of the blue spectrum should have become nearly fluorescent. As for the horrific illumination coming off Sirius/ab being of a peak spectrum of 375 nm should have burnt holes in that film, and of the likes of Venus should have been absolutely impossible to exclude. Mother Earth on the other hand should have been at least four times the diameter of the sun, and of the available earthshine upon the moon should have been roughly 20+ fold greater than moonshine upon Earth (we're talking as much 50 times greater if that were a 100% illuminated Earth and of a bad sort of cloud day, which would have made for an ideal illuminated mission via earthshine).

Lunar weather is somewhat of an interesting what if, in that the surface weather is merely experiencing a continuous environment of 30+km/s (+/- 1 km/s) rate of having to impact into absolutely anything and everything that's out there, and that's only worth 67,000 MPH, of which that's in addition to the worth of having to impact you way through 1e9 atoms/m3 plus whatever debris, plus accommodating the 1.625 m/s/s of gravity influence might impose upon such items within 2r (1738 km from the surface) that's pretty much guaranteed as to being sucked in. In fact at 4r (5214 km off the lunar deck) offers a gravity influence that's starting things off by adding 0.1 m/s/s worth of influence upon dragging down whatever is within that vicinity (trust me folks, it only gets worse), or of just focusing via gravity whatever is already headed towards the moon into further acceleration of obtaining all that much more so velocity prior to final impact, with absolutely nothing impeding the advancing speed of eventual impact except for the surface of the moon or of some foolish astronaut walking about in a plastic moon suit that's essentially providing a dead-man-walking target, as in naked to such speedy debris influx.

The impact formula is; KE = .5MV2, and that's hoping were only having to deal with those 2 mg worth of dust-bunny items, as for experiencing 2 grams worth is downright lethal. Even sitting within that unproven lander, a 2 gram item impacting at merely 15 km/s is an absolute death sentence. Though oddly, never once during all of the mission EVAs was there ever a single impact recorded, not even one impact anywhere within sight, of which such an impact at 15+km/s (not to mention 30+km/s) should have kicked up some of that infamous clumping and apparently retro-reflective moon dirt as per apollohaox Bob B..

Essentially there's so much that's flat out incorrect about those photos, and of even more that's not adding up about the raw physics of the lunar environment, that perhaps all I can add is my truth qualifier statement of LLPOF upon the lot of NASA/Apollo folks doing everything they possibly can, as to keeping a tight lid upon their badly overflowing space toilet.

Remember folks, that statement off "IN WAR THERE ARE NO RULES", except the one rule about your NOT being caught, as otherwise all is fair and all is committed without remorse because it's war. Cold-war my freaking ass, war is war, and of this one had way more than its fair share of collateral damage and even internal extermination wherever necessary, and that includes getting rid of folks like JFK, as that's what I believe our so called cold-war was and still is all about, as that was not only of back then but still is being perpetrated against all of humanity.

BTW; if anyone can manage to find Dr. Death (Henry Kissinger), the master-mind of so much carnage and demise for humanity, as that sorry individual can tell us much, including the before and after aspects of the 9/11 and of so many other fiascos, such as about the 6-Day war that involved the USS Liberty and of a few thousand prisoners that oddly vanished off the face of Earth.


The sun is what's really hot and nasty

Of course, surviving the moon isn't easy while the sun is occasionally tossing off a great deal of flak, such as those nasty storms including everything from the lethal dosages of radiation spectrums traveling at 3+e8 km/s, of those otherwise nasty UV/abc into the nearly physical aspects of the 10,000+nm class of IR related photons of flux that's already traveling at 3e8 km/s, plus there's actual physical debris clouds, some of which traveling at perhaps 30,000 km/s (10% ls). A 10,000 nm item is merely 0.01 mm that's given a V2 boost factor of creating 9e16 X whatever erg. or mass that's associated with those IR photons coming off the sun. The more physical debris (much of that being iron) offered from the sun is merely offering a V2 factor of perhaps 9e12 X whatever particle mass, which sort of makes for running into whatever other stardust at merely 30 km/s into a walk in the park.


Other pages on this topic and more upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/illumination-spots.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earthshine-moonshine.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hot-spots.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/illumination-spots-02.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm

I've also added other material of interest into this page, so that the "apollohoax.com" feedback follows a bit further down this same page. But notice how few if any actual public folks are pitching in, as it's mainly their Borg collective that's involved with "spinning" and "dog wagging" their butts off, as in trying to keep another lid from popping off.

Of what other's new for supporting the likes of "Earth Orbit" and friends of humanity;

Here's that other very good and I'd say extremely pro-Apollo report offered by; Case Wright, and E-Published by RationalInquiry.org, and of so much quality that it's rather odd that our very own apollohoax.com team of spooks, moles and incest cloned borgs never once referenced others to this alternate and extremely well documented site. Whereas by their not offering squat worth of even pointing out that such supposed independent efforts were so easily available, this makes me wonder why? http://homepage.mac.com/casewright/essays/apollo.html

Perhaps that's because there's still a little something other that's not quite right, such as pertaining to the disturbed sites suggesting upon a landing zone that would have also as easily suggested those being of our lander crashed/impacted sites, and/or perhaps of those indications are in fact of a supposed landing or related Apollo mission debris impact site which isn't exactly where it's supposed to be.

"The existence of this feature does not absolutely prove the existence of the landing, but it provides additional supporting evidence." At least this statement seems perfectly fair and honest, as certainly the lunar 1.625 m/s/s of gravity influence upon anything approaching and thereby impacting upon the moon should in fact have created just such a fairly good amount of kinetic energy impact and related shard dispersements.

Also keeping in mind that this Clementine spacecraft was of a relatively new-age of modern imaging technology as compaired to the Apollo era, although of not even outfitted with a tenth the resolution capability that was easily available for the era of this Clementine mission, which makes me wonder why they either elected as to utilizing a relatively old/outdated CCD capability (especially when that CCD component and of related circuitry is so easily updated), and/or coded the image data so that only a limited resolution was available.

None the less, this previous page link certainly seems as a perfectly good omen on behalf of NASA/Apollo, seemingly far better than anything those borg fools at apollohoax.com have to provide on behalf of their pagan NASA/Apollo. At least this author isn't suggesting upon the likes of clumping moon dirt, nor much less upon that moon-dirt being of any such retro-reflective nature, nor of this image offering anything above the expected 11% average reflective index, and certainly not of any portion depicting the sorts of 55+% of what the vast majority of those Apollo photos have thus far indicated in direct association with those reflective reference from such items as those 80~85% reflective moon suits.

However, apparently the notions of their KODAK roll film surviving the 500F thermal differentials along with the added influx of radiation factors (primary plus secondary hard X-Ray class), and the fact that there was absolutely no special amounts of filtering on behalf of reducing the horrific amounts of solar UV spectrum, of which KODAK film is notoriously sensitive to such as the UV/a spectrum, especially of the Sirius sorts offering a peak spectrum of 375 nm should have been capable of nearly burning holes in that film, at least of sufficient intensity as to have been dimly recorded. Never the less, there's not any sign of plastic film stress nor even the skewing of said colors, which seems like there should have been a rather considerable skew of making blues somewhat vibrant as opposed to the spectrum of red, although of our flag containing blue was if anything offering an unusually subdued blue, suggesting somewhat normal if not a below normal amount of the expected near-UV and UV/a spectrum contributions. Then there's absolutely no physical distortions nor fogging of the film, and oddly the notion of that supposed clumping moon dirt having become selectively retro-reflective so as to justify those illumination hot-spots is almost as LOL and LLPOF pathetic as for the near absence of meteorites and shards strewn about.

Of those supposed lunar rocks and meteorites being relatively rounded off, as in somewhat eroded, as though being blown about for thousands or millions of years is rather absurd when the likes of Mars meteorites are of at least 10 fold more of such per m2 to start off with, and all of those items seem to have oddly remained as sharp as a tack, and even of somewhat darker substance than moon meteorites to boot.

Another photographic odd tit for tat, is that not even a single negative nor transparency or portion of leader/trailer from any of the numerous roles of film has ever been made available for privet analysis. As I said, not even a portion of leader/trailer nor one of any number of essentially useless content imaged frames has ever surfaced into an independent photo laboratory, so obviously there's either something to hide or perhaps we really don't want the world to know the truth. In addition there's not one word of expertise emerging from the likes of KODAK nor Hasselblad on behalf of NASA/Apollo.

Obviously of today we can nondestructively scan valuable property within the safety and security of those archive vaults, accomplishing such at 4096 or even 8192 DPI, to a depth of at least 64 bits, if not 256, and of thereby extracting more color rendition than you or I can possibly shake that flaming stick at, thus pushing the normal illumination/exposure capture ratio of 720:1 to far beyond 7200:1, that which would have easily pulled in the likes of Sirius and Venus without ever degrading what's otherwise well illuminated.


Apollohoax.com is the real thing, the LLPOF Hoax of the century

The following context is still an incomplete collection of what was posted (some of which has subsequently been thoughtfully removed by "Apollohoax"), and as I get my notes together, I'll further edit and add to the approprate context of whom and/or about specifically what I was posting upon. Unfortunately, of those I'm up against, they don't really exist in terms of our knowing whom they really were, as individuals and/or of some borg collective of unknown ownership of a spoof name is what should make for my contentions as well as those of folks like "Earth Orbit" even more worthy than theirs.

Here are some of the primary page links to their "Apollohoax.com/forums/index" as mostly to being found with their title of "General Discussions", whereas unlike those objecting to what others and myself are having to say, I'm posting 100% as myself "bradguth-ieis" and later as "bradguth-gasa", whereas I offered my real name, real email and even my phone number for whomever wanted a one on one discussion pertaining to whatever.
http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/viewforum.php?forum=12&5993
http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/index.php


Topic: "Apollo 11 pictures of the solar corona" and "Moon Shadow Discrepancy"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apollo/bin/catalog/magazine.html?42 (this being a fairly long download)

Besides the fine collection of Apollo-11 pictures as offered above, there's also another nice group shot of a couple of our radiation proof as well as fast moving lunar dust-bunny proof astronauts standing a few yards away from their lander, that which we still have no actual footage of it ever flying any typical down-range decent and managing a soft landing without being tethered nor essentially loosing it and subsequently blowing itself up even at that. That de-orbit and down-range event took some time and had to have covered a great deal of lunar ground, retro rocket thrusting needed nearly all the way as there's no atmosphere and that pesky 1.625 m/s/s influence of gravity that only gets worse off as they approach the surface.

Here's just the first of many certified phony NASA/Apollo pictures to come, and otherwise there's a totally honest picture of a Venus illumination hot-spot that also shouldn't be:

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hot-spots.htm (short download w/info)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG (picture only)

Notice that there's a somewhat terrifically spotty amount of sunlight (perhaps this was caused some sort of [LOL] lunar gravity lens affect or whatever), of an illumination which seemingly isn't coming from the same direction of what's otherwise illuminating upon mother Earth, that's of what's clearly being reflected as mother Earth within their visors.

Of course that same [LOL] lunar gravity lens affect, as another accepted apollohoax sort of analogy, is obviously what made it look as though Earth is merely 5º off the lunar horizon, when in reality it had to be at roughly 65º, or such as in other images as Earth being simply way too small and thereby too freaking far away as to being real.


NEW Topic: Uplink.Space.Com sucks almost as bad as GOOGLE

20 questions that'll piss off NASA/Apollo

Looking at HST V838 Mon,
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2003/10/
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/0300983.jpg (seriously big download)
http://www.tim-thompson.com/v838mon.html
taking notice of the intricacy (0300983.jpg) and minute details of what's 20,000 light years further away than our moon, taking an even closer notice of the Oort cloud of debris that's surrounding, looking almost as though they were stacking images and applying a great deal of photoshop. Then extrapolate the greater detail that's potentially available at merely 365,000 km (1 light year = 9.46053e12 km)

9.46e12/3.65e5 = 2.59e7 X 20e3 = 51.8e10 : 1


It seems if I merely post anything that's supportive and/or at least not conflicting with our NASA/Apollo history, or of whatever sorts of their weird conditional physics was necessary, as such those incest cloned Borg dogs of NASA/Apollo are nowhere to be found. However, if anyone or I even suggest upon the least bit of anything that's out of step with the mainstrean status quo or the NASA/Apollo bible, then lo and behold, those incest created Borg wagging dogs are absolutely everywhere you'd care to look.

It's almost as though there's something to hide, as otherwise why would those nasty dogs even bother with attacking the sort of nice folks like myself, as for being openly treated as the anti-American scum of the Earth, or the messenger from hell that simply will not die nor go away. At least whenever I've applied logic and interpretation based upon honest laws of physics, such as where light is coming from and where mother Earth should be with respect to folks strolling about on the moon as nearly naked to the horrific solar and cosmic influx, plus loads of their apparently highly retro-reflective clumping moon dirt creating loads of TBI worthy secondary radiation of hard X-Ray class dosage, not to mention their having to dodge those 15+km/s dust-bunny and larger items trying to knock their blocks off without warning, for some odd reason there's this persistent space toilet stench that's always coming from our NASA/NSA/DoD headquarters, and we're not even down-wind, so that horrific stench is so freaking bad that it's been circumnavigating Earth (no wonder other nations don't like us).

Specific moon related questions are;

1) Lunar surface average reflective index, is it 11% or 55%?

2) Strewn meteorites and shards, as in where the heck did those all go?

3) Surface accumulations per billion years, 0.1 meters or 1+ meters/1e9 years?

4) Moon being the ultimate meteorite morgue, shouldn't there have been a few deposits of what's older than 4.5 billion years?

5) Why were those moon rocks and meteorites so few and of such light color, and eroded?

6) Interactive lunar surface probes still do not exist, and why is that?

7) KODAK film that's tolerant to a thermal differential of 500ºF and apparently UV as well as radiation proof, where can we buy that film?

8) If Earth was so easily imaged, then what about a horrifically bright Venus, or even Sirius?

9) Why wasn't the added safety of more than sufficient earthshine utilized for those Apollo missions?

10) Does the moon have a substantial magnetosphere protecting it?

11) How hallow like is the moon, geode like and/or perhaps artificial?

12) Lunar core is supposedly 850ºC, is that geothermal or somewhat nuclear based?

13) How about our establishing a lunar space elevator; LSE-CM/ISS?

14) Using the moon as for a VLA-SAR image receiving or as hosting the aperture pixel gathering element, what's the performance capability?

15) Live lunar seismics, thermals, and radiation data, where's the beef?

16) What amount of lunar recession energy is there to be extracted upon?

17) If a mere 2 grams worth of whatever were attracted towards the moon, what would become the final impact velocity and subsequent kinetic energy?

18) How far away from the moon would stray items not previously on any specific trajectory be attracted towards and subsequently impacting the lunar surface?

19) How much debris, and of what nature (particle size) is such within the Earth/moon path while we're traveling along at 30+km/s?

20) Once those lunar surface hard X-Rays are created, how far can those travel?

I have many other questions that are more specifically addressing upon the topic of the LSE-CM/ISS, and of how we'd manage in the future as to getting folks as quickly and as safely as possible through the Van Allen zone of death, and as such essentially to/from this L1.1 lunar outpost or GMDE(Guth Moon Dirt Express) depot that's part of the overall CM/ISS, within accommodating the 1e6 m3 ISS habitat. http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

About those illuminated lunar hot spots, and Earth of all things nearing the horizon.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hot-spots.htm

Besides moon related topics, I've got a few hundred consideration upon Venus, and even dozens of other for the likes of Sirius.

BTW; the German variation of our NIMA.MIL imaging capability is capable of being at least 10 fold better at pulling out resolution from what you'd call a fuzzy clump or smear of unusable pixels, as extracted from somewhat similar to what HST would have obtained if they had but one individual exposure or digital frame of V838, and of no applied photoshop whatsoever, which surely would have created rather disappointing results to say the least. Now that KECK-II has those adaptive mirrors plus prototype CCD elements of nearly 1 nm, and/or photoshop that'll essentially reduce the per-pixel area, so that stacks of 100 or even 1000 frames can become one usable terabyte of data if need be, as such I don't see where the problem has been, other than for humanity having to deal with such a overflowing space toilet and of that horrific cold-war stench.


Dear Dr. John,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful feedback and page link on question No.1, I didn't realize there were a few 30% reflective areas, as that's a good 5% greater than I'd previously understood.

Joe Durnavich (apollohoax borg) seems to think I'm still the actual village idiot among us, of my not realizing upon the 80~85% reflective index of those moon suits and/or by reference of numerous other man made items by which to directly compare the solar reflection as coming off the supposedly average 11% index of the moon, of that which unfortunately was usually affording 55+% in the vast bulk of those Apollo images, so obviously that Lunar Albedo report is entirely bogus, or at least insufficiently skewed as to supporting those NASA/Apollo Dead Sea Scrolls. http://www.roboticobservatory.com/jeff/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm

Joe Durnavich 1) If the "Darkest areas are of 8.6%", then obviously the vast bulk of the lunar surface must be somewhat close to this 8.6% basis, as otherwise the average would climb far above the 11% mark. This 8.6% factor isn't nearly as dark as what the likes of Earth basalt can represent as reflecting little as 5%~7.5%, although 4.5 billion years worth of accumulations is likely to have infused most all surfaces with a relatively thick coating of highly impacted meteorite debris, that's on average typically of a composite of something less contrasty, such as the 11~12% might be the case.

Joe Durnavich 2) The strewn meteorites wasn't a fair question, as I'd been using those of somewhat older images of the Mars surface, of which there is in spite of having an atmosphere (which was apparently more robust in the past) and having subsequent geological events plus horrific weathering being responsible for covering up the vast majority of such older meteorites and their impact shards, yet lo and behold there's still depicted way more meteorites/m2 than of our fully exposed moon, with the environment of Mars receiving lots more on the way, as most recently imaged by the ongoing surface probe.

BTW; there are rocks containing iridium on Earth, and/or rocks that can be artificially infused with the likes of iridium, although the natural status of moon rock and/or aged meteorites being fully exposed to the solar and cosmic influx with absolutely zilch worth of shield, these would certainly have accumulated far more than Mars, perhaps to depths of a meter per billion years, with absolutely no further chemical or other bonding nor compacting whatsoever from the notions of a 1/6th gravity worth of geological aspects of the past several billion years worth. However, the infusion of He3 should certainly be altogether in excess upon the moon as opposed to what's deposited upon Earth, especially since the vast bulk of what attempts to land on Earth is either trapped within the Van Allen zone of death, vaporised and/or diminished to a fraction of it's original size and density before impact, to a point of where perhaps not 1% of the original volume of incoming debris is physically accumulated as something we'd recognize as from another time and place.

Joe Durnavich 3) Your answer to this age old question is a bit odd. I mean, if we've supposedly been to the moon in person a half dozen times, the accumulations per billion years shouldn't be an unknown factor for the moon nor Earth. We should have by now known exactly, to within a mm of what's been accumulating per billion years, or at least a far better estimate of the last billion years worth rather than of your "It depends on which billion years" statement.

Joe Durnavich 4) Your "entire upper crust was a molten magma ocean around that time, so you probably won't find many meteorite fragments that date to before that" is clearly alluding to the fact that other debris from our supposedly 14+billion year old universe is still passing through, and/or we're the ones along with the likes of Sirius on this journey of passage, where the lunar environment has been offering science an absolutely ideal collector and subsequent morgue for such debris, as we either run into such and/or vice versa.

I used the term "alluding" because, I very much doubt that you and of folks like yourself ever intentionally or otherwise overlook much of anything.

Joe Durnavich 5) Those museum rocks from the moon are not nearly as dark as you suggest, certainly not nearly as dark as meteorites strewn about Mars nor of Mars substance itself. If those were of typical moon rocks, then perhaps that explains why so many of the Apollo images were offering a 55% reflective index, as that certainly matches the photographic evidence.

Joe Durnavich 6) This statement "To learn more about Mars" is suggesting that of honest Earth sciences and of the most accessible benefits for humanity, apparently there's no further need of our doing anything upon the moon, or of extracting substances and/or energy for Earth.

6a) Is that suggesting it's because we can't honestly manage to get ourselves onto the moon?

6b) After all, you and I've known how sub-frozen, pulverised and irradiated to death Mars is, we've known that as a matter of fact for more than a decade, if not several decades. So, what exactly do we need to know about Mars that couldn't have been nicely imaged from a VLA-SAR that's utilizing our moon as for the receiving aperture?

6c) Or, how much better resolution of such a sub-frozen, pulverised and irradiated to death planet do we actually need, and at what further timeline and subsequent cost to humanity?

Joe Durnavich 7) Your "Thermal extremes were never an issue" is certainly quite odd, as upon Earth where the thermal extremes are nowhere as vast, there has been and still exist limits of what such tightly rolled film can endure, and that's nowhere as extreme as for being on the moon, much less being irradiated from every which way but lose. Only plate film or emulsion on glass can survive such extremes, although alluding from the radiation is still in need of smoke and mirrors worth of skewed physics.

Joe Durnavich 8) Your "too dim to pick up in normal exposures" is an acceptable answer, however there were many opportunities and examples of those exposures being modified as to suit the photographic requirements and/or opportunities at hand, and then there's print pushing and/or digital scanning of the negative and/or transparency that'll push at least another 10 fold, which gives us the 7200:1 factor of pulling in such supposedly dim images, although to some of those missions, the sight of Venus should have been incredibly spectacular, and even the UV/a likes of Sirius should have been worth attempting to capture on film, whereas at least 99.999% of anyone other would have done such.

Joe Durnavich 9) Your "It is easier to see in the sunlight" is what it is, an absolute bogus reply to the fact that Earthshine would have been terrifically bright, especially to the adjusted optical rods and cones of the human eye. The added safety factor of obtaining far less solar influx should have far outweighed any benefit from the horrific intensity of the sun, as opposed to the nicely illuminating and obviously much cooler moon suit friendly environment of Earthshine. Adding solar influx (much of that IR) to another 1000+Btu per suit occupant isn't nearly as accommodating as for having to radiate such surplus energy into a pure vacuum. In other words, it's so much easier having to stay warm than is for staying cool, and that's a moon suit fact.

Joe Durnavich 10) Your "NO" answer is correct as far as we know, there's no such Van Allen zone protecting the moon, thus 100% of all that's solar and cosmic has an absolute free run of impacting whomever is strolling about on the moon.

Joe Durnavich 11) Your "It is not hollow" is suggesting that you or someone knows what's otherwise making the moon so low in density per it's volume (it was supposedly made of Earth core was it not?). If it's not hollow or perhaps geode like, then perhaps it has become extremely porous, which would certainly be a rather super terrific geological aspect if perchance some of those pores are big enough for us to habitat within. A good amount of decor by Martha Stewart could make those pores as good as home.

Joe Durnavich 12) The "Radiogenic" notion is perhaps correct, as the notion of the moon reportedly having roughly twice the radioactive substance per m3 of Earth is also of something that's interesting, especially considering the extremely low primary density of the moon itself.  Either way it's looking as though there's a solid wealth of a nifty core energy deposit, from which we could extract upon to operate quite nicely, such as within underground or of sufficiently shielded surface structures might be powered by such.

Joe Durnavich 13) Your "It would be more cost effective to send a multitude of probes" is to say the least, as for deploying the full blown LSE-CM/ISS is perhaps trillions and another decade worth of investments, including unfortunate human losses due to mishaps, technological complications and those all important what-if factors of achieving this outpost.

However, probes are not going to obtain the likes of He3 for humanity, nor are probes going to accommodate our future expedition travels to other places such as Mars and Venus, nor will such probes facilitate interplanetary enterprise (other than for communications transponders and the likes of VLA-SAR imaging) nor will any probe offer us the star-wars advantage of our having a deployed tether dipole element that's cruising it's termination platform to within 50,000 km of Earth, while that's hosting a few of those 100 GW class laser cannons for beaming energy back towards Earth, or otherwise frying the next bastard that's trying to harm the rest of us.

Joe Durnavich 14) Your "Don't know" seems a bit unusual. None the less, there's nothing that a spendy and time consuming probe offers that's any better off as for obtaining necessary Earth science, and of gathering information about other places like Mars. Obtaining higher resolutions of dry ice is still dry ice.

Surface probes often fail, seldom last as long as expected, takes years if not decades to R&D and deploy, with their overall contribution to Earth CO2 being rather enormous, and we certainly have nothing that'll survive the likes of getting onto the surface of Jupiter. If planetary probes were of mostly SAR imaging, of 16 bit or better depth of detecting into the substances being imaged, and if each of those those didn't take years and even decades out of our lives, as such I'd be all for the usage of such probes. My notions for deploying a multitude of those lunar Javelin probes is a perfectly good example of achieving the most Earth as well as moon science bang for the buck, as well as for deploying a lunar robotic SAR aperture receiving module that isn't 1% of Hubble.

Joe Durnavich 15) "The ALSEPs were powered off in 1977" I've known about, and it's still not an indication that we've been there in person, nor am I insisting that we've never once set a radiated foot upon the moon, only that if we ever did so it wasn't as the Apollo record stands. Again, that's why I've suggested upon the simple and highly cost effective notion of robotically deploying a few dozen to perhaps a thousand Javelin like probes that'll be highly effective at obtaining all sorts of live data for years if not decades at a time. We may not have had that capability in the 70's, but as of the past decade it's hardly rocket science as to R&D and deploy a few multitasking Javelin like probes that'll obtain a stream of invaluable data for Earth sciences and of supporting eventual lunar expeditions to follow.

Joe Durnavich 16) Your "Don't know" upon lunar recession energy is indicating that you're not the least bit interested and/or qualified as to the most fundamental laws of gravity, and of the factors of mass and volume associated with the tidal forces at pay, but nor am I. That's why I was asking, as others have suggested at least 4 tera watts as being the raw energy of tidal forces alone, although that's not including the factor of overcoming the rather considerable friction of the moon having to travel itself through the 1e9/m3 worth of atoms as 30+km/s.

Joe Durnavich 17)  KE = 0.5MV2 makes your "Don't know" somewhat absurd.

Joe Durnavich 18) Your "Don't know" about lunar gravity and of the continuous cycle of a 1.625 m/s/s influence subsequently collecting debris is suggesting that you're not the least bit qualified on any number of other subjects of what's to be found upon the lunar surface, nor of how downright testy a flimsy lander much less that of a moon suit exposure is bound to be. Surely you must have some raw notions as to the gravity influence of what such an exposed surface can be expected to obtain per m2 per year, and of at what distance those items are most likely to being attracted as opposed to entirely missing the moon altogether.

Joe Durnavich 19) The feedback upon those micrometeoroids seem perfectly good data that's worth my considering in future research. However, there seems to be a rather wide spectrum between that of your 10^-8 grams and that of 100 grams, of which my interest in the 2 mg as well as for the 2 gram falls between, thus I'm still on that need-to-know basis, at least until I obtain the information that's pertaining to what's what about the sorts of debris that's out there. If I should extrapolate without further data, chances are I'll be in error, of which I'm certain that your resources can easily correct upon.

Obviously a rather sizable 100 gram item could become radar detected, however those of 10^-8 gram are going to remain invisible until it's too late, although a 10^-8 gram impacting at even 30+km/s isn't going to become nearly as lethal as a 2 mg (2^-3), not to mention what a truly horrific impact the sorts of what some typical 2 gram item is going to attribute as to delivering instant death on the spot.

My estimate as extraploated from the above data, for the likes of a 2 mg (2^-3), essentially a dust bunny, the flux is about 10^-9 per square meter per second.

Since there's 8.64e4 seconds per day, obviously we're at 1e-9 * 8.64e4 = 8.64e5 days per m2 as for receiving a 2 mg item.

Of course this insufficient analogy is projecting a somewhat mild influx that's not anywhere near what's been arriving into Earths' environment, of which not but 1% of this influx ever reaches the surface of Earth as to physically contribute to the soil or ocean floor. So, obviously the notions of there being so little debris in the vacinity of Earth/moon as we travel about at 30+km/s is rather highy doubtful that there's not actually more to being concerned about. In fact, I'd have to speculate that those items of 10^-8 grams or lesser are not necessarily even escaping the influence of the Van Allen zone of death without their being further impcted and thereby modified from their original form.

The moon NOT having a Van Allen zone nor all that much of anything else except for its 1.625 m/s/s of gravity influence, this is obviously offering a wide open barn door, while having a super-sonic windtunnel as suction at the back barn door, as to influencing upon whatever is out there.

Joe Durnavich 20) Your inference of "To quote Alan Shepard: Miles and miles..." of the distance that hard X-Rays travel is certainly truth worthy, if not a touch shy by a few thousand if not millions of miles. As such those nasty hard X-Ray class particles are indeed being made available via the secondary interaction of solar and cosmic influx reacting rather badly with all that clumping moon dirt (more atomic worthy density than aluminum), as arriving nicely from every which way but lose with respect to whomever is taking that lunar walk in the park, especially when being nearly naked to those sorts of energy levels is asking quite a lot of KODAK film that's already overheated and/or sub-frozen, as well as extremely UV sensitive, not to mention the photographers' hair that's turning white and or losing such as they persist in staying upon the lunar deck.

New question (two part);
21) I guess it just slipped my thoughts, as to how much banked bone marrow was taken prior to and subsequently transplanted upon their return to Earth. I mean, how much of a safety margin or timeline of error does a thoroughly TBI patient have before it's simply too late for replacement bone marrow?

21a) I understand about how a few micrometeoroid holes (clean through-pass) can be patched with duct tape, and I realize that a few hundred rads or rem worth of TBI exposure can be survived (though not unscaved). However, how does human DNA/RNA fair with the likes of being so irradiated?


Under the topics: "Moon Shadow Discrepancy" and "What is reflected in Al Bean's Visor" and "Uplink.Space.Com sucks almost as bad as GOOGLE"

Thanks "earth orbit", for posting the original image: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG

Notice how there's so freaking much low angle side illumination that's not even the least bit consistent with their having Earth situated dead straight ahead of those astronauts, and none the less all of 5 degrees off the horizon, even though you and every other snookered soul on Earth should be able to easily identify from the NASA records that mother Earth had to have been at 65 degrees.

It looks as though Earth is roughly 60% illuminated, so I don't know exactly what that's telling us about the source of illumination upon the moon but, I'll just have to bet it's not good news for our cold-war Apollo ruse/sting of the century or bust freaks (sorry, I meant incest cloned Borgs).

Also notice that reasonably large but nicely rounded off meteorite or supposed moon rock to the left. I'm wondering how that sucker got there without ever a making crater, and then became so nicely smoothed off like the vast majority of other moon rocks. Seems those rocks and meteorites and of shards strewn about Mars are somewhat darker and certainly a whole lot sharper, whereas those had to penetrate the atmosphere of Mars, plus there's been thousands if not millions of erosion years transpiring upon Mars that certainly never transpired upon our moon.

And please take further notice all of their supposed retro-reflective clumping-moon-dirt that's been clearly imaged in their visors, exactly like Bob B. and of his wizard JayUtah are claiming is the case, as such has created another one of those unusually horrific illumination hot-spots.

As for somewhat better results, you'll need to photoshop this image and give us your feedback. I already accomplished a rough 2:1 enlargement of the visor, although others should be capable of doing far better. Of course, if the original transparency or negative could have been scanned at 4096 dpi or better, chances are that a good number of them dim stars should be there as well, although I'm wondering if any of those stars would be in the correct location. There's also some of those hair-line crosses missing, although at this point I'm LOL so much that I can't even see straight.

Topic: "The Untested Lander"

BTW folks and fellow snookered village idiots; we had to get ourselves there in the first place. Notice how there's still no film footage whatsoever of any astronaut pilotted craft making a test reentry and down-range that accomplished any soft landing. In fact, as of today there's insufficient fly-by-wire technology as to making that happen. More than half the time we can't even keep those spendy Ospreys in the air. The gravity scaled Apollo lander test flight that was fully tethered and intentionally of 1/6th the mass as to simulate the lunar gravity, whereas it promptly became highly unstable, then proceeded to crash and nicely explode (not exactly offering any confidence builder).


As redirected back at the pro-NASA/Apollo camp.

Please do tell us why some absolute NASA moron thought they needed to make a fake photograph when they had thousands of perfectly good originals?

Was the lunar soil like a debris of supposed meteorites and shards faked?

Where are all the sharp and multitudes of meteorites and their impact shards?

Was the Bob B. retro-reflective clumping moon dirt also being faked?

Or, were those illumination hot-spots merely faked for affect?

Was the side illumination of "Doble11.JPG" aspect faked?

Was the lunar surface itself faked as to eliminate excess meteorites and shards?

Were stars that had to have been dimly recorded removed as to create some illusion?

Is the autograph itself fake?

What part of either image is real?

In your original: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903.jpg Can you further explain upon the side illumination, and/or explain about the supposedly retro-reflective clumping moon dirt as Bob B. and his wizard Jay have stipulated as being the case, as also clearly seen as yet another horrific hot-spot illumination captured in the visor, as well as the foreground and background aspects.

I mean, good grief; was this a timeline of a lunar sun set or what?

Were those Apollo days on the moon of less than 12 hours worth?

Can you explain why the likes of Bob B. and wizard Jay simply had no idea whatsoever that the official image: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG was that of an entire fake?

Can you otherwise explain upon the highly eroded aspects of those few and far between debris items?

If you're being correct about the "Doble11.JPG" being phony, of which I fully concur that this is the case, please take notice of how perfectly this fake imaging was accomplished, and that oddly there was never a hint of wording to that affect associated with this "official NASA/Apollo" image.

How many other official NASA/Apollo images were modified for some allusion?

How about those images where Earth to simply too damn far away?

How about those landing sites where there had to have been a down-range landing path of having to support the lander mass, of sufficient thrust until the final set-down, and still not a hint of blown moon dirt that should have been reacting somewhat more like popcorn at the 1/6th gravity, and the fact that absolutely nothing that's situated on the moon was compacted nor otherwise geologically bonded in any manner whatsoever.

How about the overall 55% reflective index, was that also being faked for an improved photographic affect or what?

What part of "liar, liar pants on fire" do you not understand?


Topic: "Radiation. A hypothetical Story"

On behalf of "earth orbit"

The Van Allen zone of death is certainly a bit testy (2e3 Sv/year situated behind 2 g/cm2 was what TRW reported). However, there's a bit more so of a TBI worthy radiation issue with respect to the lunar surface, in that solar plus cosmic influx is further augmented by the relatively bad secondary reaction being created with nearly all of that nicely bone dry but clumping moon dirt, that which we somehow never got a clumping sample worth of the 11% reflective index stuff, only the bright 55+% stuff which never really clumped all that well, if at all.

This added TBI factor is called secondary radiation that essentially produces loads of nasty hard X-Rays, which are subsequently coming at you from just about every which way but lose.

Add the hard X-Ray dosage into everything else and your moon suit exterior can easily see as much as 364 rem/hr, unless there's something nasty happening on the sun, in which case applying another ten fold as might become the norm. A solar and cosmic calm sort of day might get your lunar environment down to 364 rem/day, and otherwise rarely that of seeing anything much below 100 rem/day unless you're speaking of residing under earthshine.

Of course the near absence of surface debris, there being hardly any existing meteorites nor shards of said meteorites and subsequently little if any exposed dark lunar basalt is perhaps what's really most different about our moon and of it's unusually high 55+% surface reflective index as recorded by Apollo, as opposed to the likes of a sub-frozen, pulverised and irradiated to death Mars having seemingly way more than it's fair share of said meteorites, as much like to be expected as clearly strewn about and even of somewhat darker substance than the surface of Mars.

Oddly our lunar morgue of meteorites and inpact shards was apparently picked clean by those damn ETs, as otherwise where's the debris and shard remains.

Other pesky issues are regarding those nasty little lunar dust-bunny items influxing at roughly 15+km/s, as radiation proof astronauts and their KODAK film that doesn't freeze nor melt or not, getting yourself impacted by a mere 2 mg dust-bunny is seriously going to ruin your entire walk in that lunar park, and then some.

Go figure this impact out for yourself; KE = 0.5MV2

Of course there's certainly an amount of those dust-bunny items clocking in at 30+km/s, and of those nastier items of perhaps 2 grams or better that simply become so easily attracted to the moon and of it gravity influence of 1.625 m/s/s.

BTW; as others and I've stipulated before, there's no apparent atmosphere as for diverting/deflecting nor absorbing squat worth energy, so that everything has an unobstructed opportunity as to nailing your butt, or knocking your block off, and without all that much notice at that.


Topic: "Radiation. A hypothetical Story"

I thought this topic was all about radiation issues, and not about folks consistantly lying as to why Hubble can't image better than 186 meters worth. For Gods' sake, goto NIMA.MIL and tell them folks what they're doing wrong.

No wonder team Hubble can't get funding, their instrument and image resolution is entirely bogus if it's looking at the moon.

Actually we can sort of forget about the notions of horrific radiation, as I'll concur that 14+ days worth is survivable, especially by having access to a load of their banked bone marrow back here on Earth.

The true risk factor is still in having to deal with those nasty dust-bunny items, some of which making 30+km/s in relationship to the in-route mission of folks being outside the Van Allen zone of death (2e3 Sv/year as situated behind 2 g/cm) as the traveling to/from the moon, and only made so much worse off by the 1.625 m/s/s influence of the lunar gravity while having to reside on the deck.

I'm still thinking that at least of anything within 4r (1738 km x 4 = 6952 km) should have been further advanced along quite nicely by the lunar gravity constant of up to 1.625 m/s/s, plus whatever the original velocity, that which could easily have been in excess of 30 km/s, although an average of 15 km/s is certainly suggesting upon what's bad enough.

There's some complicated math that takes the altitude above the moon fully into account and deliverers the actual final impact velocity. From that information you can appreciate how much their decent rocket thrust was necessary and of what you might otherwise expect from almost anything that's going to freely impact with the moon, from a mere lethal dust-bunny that's easily capable of penetrating a moon suit, to a seriously destructive 2 grams worth that could have easily vaporised their lander on the spot.

Keep doing this math; KE = 0.5MV2

BTW; I understand about how a few micrometeoroid holes (clean through-pass) can be patched with duct tape, and I even realize that a few hundred rads or rem can be survived (though not unscaved). However, how does our human DNA/RNA fair on the long run with the likes of being so irradiated?

I guess that it had just slipped my thoughts, as to exactly how much banked bone marrow was taken prior to and subsequently transplanted upon their return to Earth. I mean, how much of a safety margin or timeline of error does a thoroughly TBI patient (in the case of those pathetic Apollo moon suits is including their heads and brains) have before it's too late?


Dear "earth orbit" and friends of humanity,

Dear ROBERT A.M. STEPHENS & CO., and friends of humanity,

Dear "glom", and friends of humanity,

The likes of our wizard JayUtah, Joe Durnavich and of so many others within this intellectual cesspool are exactly what they are, it's an incest of their genetic cloning mutations that's responsible for making their lips move and their fingers type every time these folks lie.

Obviously we've sent stuff to the moon, and just possibly one of those Apollo missions actually made it to the surface for perhaps all of one command orbit. Otherwise there's absolutely nothing on the books as for how we actually managed to even arrive at the moon in some untested lander that there's still absolutely no believable documentation that such had ever once had been astronaut flown to a safe test landing.

Search as you may, out of all the scientific and aeronautical publications, news coverage and/or even from within NASA, there's absolutely not the slightest documentation of anything as being dropped from a helicopter or preferably a cargo jet that's operating at good speed, that was purely rocket powered and had subsequently managed a safe down-range and soft landing, and that's still a bloody fact as of today.

Good Christ almighty folks, the ruse/sting of the century was what it was, as yet another cloak that was necessary for ethnic cleansing and of a cold-war bloodletting fiasco that almost got us into WW-III, and may eventually do just that. I believe the likes of Jay and others within his cult even thinks the extermination of Cathars was a good idea, so I'm wondering of what he thinks of Hitler or perhaps our very own WMD snipe hunting resident warlord bastard, and of others such as Henry Kissinger, as for supporting all of his crimes against humanity.

To date, this perpetrated cold-war and subsequent ruse/sting has indirectly cost humanity millions of lives and trillions of dollars, summarily having to trash those laws of physics, as well as trashed humanity intellectually, as well as set all of humanity back decades worth, and as for subsequently polluting our Earth to a fairlywell, and now some folks are oddly trying to exterminate us simply because we're considered as being nothing but a pack of liars. Most of us are so snookered that we do not even realize when we're lying to one another, as it's obviously become a genetic mutation, as in skewed DNA/RNA as that's exactly what this sort of incest biology creates, mutations of logic and as much immoral rational as need be for justifying absolutely everything under the sun.

Truth or consequences isn't within wizard Jays' bible, as his pagan religion has always been within the cloak and dagger aspects of NASA/NSA/DoD (DHS) or die, and that's including the likes of the USS LIBERTY fiasco that murdered some 39 crew, of the demise of JFK that was about to shut everything Apollo down, and even responsible for folks of the COLUMBIA, and we should exclude the likes of flight TWA-800 that unfortunately took the outbound time-slot on behalf of the intended Tel Aviv flight. Essentially there's no limits as to his intent nor those of others, as to defraud humanity.


Dear "earth orbit", and friends of humanity,

This statement will most likely get me banded (again), as did a previous posting that was offering too much truth to behold, even though all of it's of my opinion of what's true and nothing but the truth. This Apollo Hoax site is owned and operated by the sort of folks doing everything they can as to spin and dog-wag everything into one of their space toilets. Since they allow and/or control what's posted, they alone establish the rules and the final outcome, and thereby the context of what's what, and it's that simple.

As it turns out, they (NASA/NSA/DoD) edited this following script by removing all the really good stuff, then they proceeded to block me from not only posting but from even reading this forum. Gee whiz folks, now I'm really wondering what the heck they're hiding.

Here goes nothing on the topic of; "The Untested Lander"

For some unexplained reason(s), nearly everyone is still being snookered into thinking that we actually had an operational lander. Fact is we still don't.

Of course, this would be extremely simple as to prove otherwise, by mocking up (assembling) another 1/6th mass scaled lander as to stimulate the lunar gravity (say having 7,000 lbs altogether including the necessary fuel and oxidiser so that upon final landing upon Earth it would have become roughly 6,000 lbs), then tossing it out the rear of a large cargo jet at sufficient altitude and obviously at good speed, then having those same physical attributes and technologies of our (LOL) late 60s fly-by-wire and another one of those expendable astronauts at the controls.

Of course, the atmosphere of Earth would offer great benefit, as in dramatically slowing the decent due to the terrific friction, that which obviously doesn't exist on the moon, and giving the rocket thrust something to push against for the daunting task of slowing things down. Dropping in on the moon offers absolutely no buffer whatsoever, only more and more radiation as you approach the surface, along with that pesky 1.625 m/s/s issue of gravity, plus there's incoming dust and debris of good speed (15+km/s) being the norm.

Lo and behold, this event of a working lander "proof positive" would become absolute world class news, at least in the world of aeronautical R&D, since none others have come even remotely close as to accomplishing this feat.

Unfortunately, most of the time we can't even keep those spendy Osprey in the air.

As pathetic as the stability or lack thereof was for those landers, their near paper thin and mostly flat panel construction was no match for the pressure differentials, nor of the 500ºF thermal differential from solar side to night side, and of offering nearly no shield against radiation, much less capable of fending off any sort of 15+km/s debris (although I believe they did have lots of duct tape onboard).

Here's the rest of the lander story (previously excluded by the spooks at Apollohoax.com)

The only photographic record by whatever films are those depicting craft of highly precarious prototypes that were of a configuration utilizing a lower center of gravity, and even of those machines barely managed to hover about for a few seconds at a time, and absolutely none of those prototypes we ever flown by an astronaut, much less as being dropped from altitude while making good headway and subsequently having to achieve a safe deceleration and down-range landing because, we simply could NOT do it then and guess what folks, we still can't.

BTW; rocket engines still do NOT like being modulated, as they like being either sustained as ON or OFF, with the exception of those really big and sophisticated engines such as for the shuttle, of which wasn't the case nor of any other proven sophistication applied of those lander engines. There wasn't even an application of physical airframe stabilisation gyros (there's a better phrase for that), and otherwise nothing as to compensate for the horrific shift in the center of gravity as their fuel and oxidiser was being consumed by mass quantities.

The rusemasters of this Apollohoax.com site will only continue to spin and dog-wag their lying butts off, and lie as the cold-war liars they are until them Apollo cows come home, and that's another fact of the matter.

In other words; we've all been fully snookered by folks having "the right stuff", however that "right stuff" being nothing but loads of their horse pucky and absolute arrogance as to be suggesting the horrific stench of rotting flesh wasn't of something self-inflicted by the likes of our cold-war NASA/NSA/DoD rusemasters.

As such, I believe all is at risk, and that all is about to hit the fan, especially with the discovery of other life existing on Venus, and I'm not talking about any atmospheric diatoms, unless those are really big ass diatoms that like to build suspension bridges and a freaking complex community having multiple reservoirs, roadbeds, multiple and large structures, quarry sites, a massive tarmac and even somewhat of a substantial rigid airship to boot.

If you'll check my home page or of the update link from time to time, there should be more available than you or I can shake a flaming stick at.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm or the likes of http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm

BTW; in the future you may have to post links into my research on my behalf, as these nice folks are doing all they can as to keeping such knowledge from infecting the troops. If need be, I'll give you your own page within my URL so that you can take whatever you like and subsequently post topics on my behalf. Or, perhaps you nor I shouldn't waste any more of the valuable time of these rusemasters.


Dear RAMS,
It seems that since we now we have the likes of "Bob B." working on behalf of Apollohoax wizard Jay.

Perhaps you'll need to apply your expertise on their behalf, as they seem to be running seriously amuck.

This time it's his assertion (not being refuted by wizard Jay) that the lunar surface is entirely retro-reflective, thus supposedly explaining the odd number of those spotlight sort of illuminations, as well as for such retro-reflective attributes apparently accounting for shadows that seem to be running amuck. The fact the our sun had to be 65 degrees above the horizon for the likes of Apollo-11 apparently doesn't count for photographic squat when so much of their infamous clumping lunar soil is so freaking retro-reflective.

Actually, BOB B. has been telling us much about this retro-reflective sort of clumping moon dirt, as your typical lunar surface tends to go, is even somewhat selectively so, in that a face illuminated scene need not be anything more than the normal lunar reflective index (that index apparently being of roughly 55+% in respect to the well known reflective index reference of those moon suits being 80~85%), in as much as from time to time there's those sneaky portions of clumping moon dirt that are apparently extremely retro-reflective to the aspect of more than 10:1, in fact in some instances we're talking perhaps 50:1.

It's no freaking wonder no one has been able to clearly identify a returned photon packet as accounting for any more or less photons from the supposed areas known for containing those multiple retro-reflectors, as officially deployed by those Apollo missions, as opposed to what a purely natural lunar reflected amount of photons amounts to.


Dear Bob B.,
Good Christ almighty, get a new grip on your whatsit.

There's been way too many photos that supposedly have the sun coming from behind the camera that do NOT provide the sorts of spotlight or retro-reflected allusion, as well as many taken with the sun at a somewhat glancing side angle, although either of those illuminated scenes haven't been the least bit spotty, however they frequently do seem to exceed a reflective index of 55%.

So what is this time; glass or silica like crystals that are not only retro-reflective but only so in some locations while not in others?

I've been informed that the average lunar reflective index is supposedly 11%, so why is there so darn much that's 55+%?

Besides so many other fine collections of Apollo-11 pictures, there's still the perfectly nice group shot of a couple of our radiation proof as well as fast moving lunar dust-bunny proof astronauts standing a few yards away from their lander, that which we still have no actual footage of it ever flying any typical down-range decent and as for managing a soft landing without being tethered nor essentially loosing it and subsequently blowing itself up even at that. That de-orbit and down-range event took some time and covered a great deal of ground, retro rocket thrust needed nearly all the way as there's no atmosphere and of that pesky 1.625 m/s/s influence of gravity that only worse off as they approached the surface.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hot-spots.htm (short download w/info)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG (picture only)

Notice that there's a somewhat terrifically spotty amount of sunlight (perhaps this was some sort of lunar gravity lens affect or whatever retro-reflective aspect as specified by Bob B.), of an illumination which seemingly isn't coming from the same direction of what's illuminating upon mother Earth that's clearly being reflected as mother Earth within their visors.

Of course that same lunar gravity lens affect or perhaps retro-reflective affect is obviously what made it look as though Earth is merely 5º off the lunar horizon, when in reality it had to be situated at roughly 65º.

Although, it's entirely possible that of our radiation proof and lunar dust-bunny impact proof astronauts were unaware of their being situated within an extremely steep crater of nearly 60º(although the full image oddly isn't suggesting such, and it's somewhat damn odd they never mentioned that crater aspect). Obviously the 5º or of the proper 65º aspect of where Earth should have been is nearly one and the same in their Apollo bible or little black book of lies, of which must also correct for all of that 55+% lunar reflective index (moon suits being 80~85%) of being so badly skewed from the otherwise expected 11% average as seen by the likes of KECK-II or Hubble and so on, and of that black book or NASA/Apollo bible of theirs must also have compensated as for why there's such few meteorites and shards strewn about.

Perhaps our moon once upon a time had an extremely thick atmosphere of pure xenon gas, though I'm not even sure if that much could explain the absence of those meteorites, as otherwise our moon should have been the absolute ideal meteorite morgue of at least ten fold greater accumulations/m2 than Mars.

I'm still thinking that at least of anything within 4r (1738 km x 4 = 6952 km) should have been further advanced along by the lunar gravity constant of 1.625 m/s/s, plus whatever the original velocity, that which could easily have been in excess of 30 km/s, although an average of 15 km/s is certainly bad enough.

There's some complicated math that takes the altitude above the moon fully into account and deliverers the actual final impact velocity. From that information you can appreciate how much their decent rocket thrust was necessary and of what you might otherwise expect from almost anything that's going to freely impact with the moon, from a mere lethal dust-bunny that's easily capable of penetrating a moon suit, to a seriously cataclysmic destructive 2 grams worth that could have easily vaporised their lander on the spot.

Please do the math; KE = 0.5MV2


Dear "earth orbit" and friends of humanity,

This portion of what I had to offer was banned and subsequently excluded by the owners of "Apollohoax.com"

Sadly, our government has consistently spun so much phony propaganda for decades, like so much dust in the wind, by firstly creating human fears and even their using of religious beliefs and/or superstitions on whatever conditional basis, plus continually skewed and/or outright distorted written history, further skewed the laws of physics as well as the scientific truth(s) as to whenever their need(s) demanded, then further published such into the mainstream of numerous magazines and textbooks, and/or spendy NOVA production hyped and otherwise proceeded as to lie their butts off ever since. They even encouraged and/or allowed others as for accomplishing our immoral cold-war dirty work (training and outfitting Taliban was only one of our latest mistakes), as well as for quietly assisting and/or looking the other way while ethnic as well as intellectual cleansing was accomplished on our behalf (6-Day war for another example), along with obviously so much subsequent collateral carnage as following along in wherever we've set our perverted minds as towards the global domination task at hand.

In my case, the discovery of what's clearly existing on Venus is still officially blocked, even though it's in no way intended as a threat to our humanity, and even intellectually it's only highly beneficial on behalf of humanity, as I believe the ongoing and officially orchestrated opposition has been focused upon destroying my efforts simply because I'm revealing upon yet another error or oversite fiasco that's obviously connected into those same folks (the old Apollo guard) that managed to cold-war skew those laws of physics and of our morality, or lack thereof, that supposedly placed us on the moon.

Our perpetrated cold-war(s) with the USSR was clearly something of an all-out as well as all or nothing propaganda task. As a result of uncovering this and of a few too many errors about those Apollo missions, my email accounts are all being overloaded with intentionally infected files, and even my computer itself has been infected while connected to their internet sites and while I'm accomplishing any research or posting upon behalf of topics such as Apollo, our moon, Venus or even Sirius, as such intentional computer damage has been something specifically related to my research and as such ongoing for the past three years, whereas my piss-poor Windows operating system gets easily infected and even auto-shuts-down (of which not even Microsoft has been able to explain how they're accomplishing that one (but everyone already knows that Microsoft lies as their standard protocol), whereas at any moment and for absolutely no other apparent reason than for what I'm researching and/or informing others about, my computer gets it's teeth kicked in. This is absolutely the truth because, I can otherwise be on the internet for days as long as I'm not associated with anything NASA/NSA/DoD or of their Apollo fiasco, and as such I'm not having a single computer fault, much less an auto-shut-down taking place, as it's only if I'm into the likes of sites as "space.com" or "Apollohoax.com" or any of GOOGLEs' space related forums that all of hell breaks lose within my computer operating system. It's not been uncommon for me to have to reboot half a dozen times per day while working on the topics of Apollo, our moon, Venus or just about anything having to do with my space and exploration related research and subsequent E-publishing.

Frequently my firewall program starts running amuck with reporting hundreds of obvious attempts at others less capable than NASA/NSA/DoD spooks trying to do my computer as much harm as possible, and again this is only when and if I'm working on related research that's giving me further knowledge and/or of allowing my work to being E-published.

Although, of whenever I'm still up and running, thus online and posting my comments and of imposing honest questions, the sorts of feedback and/or answers are not forthcoming nor being treated with any respect, and few if any of the truly nasty sorts of feedback have been coming from the sorts of folks having a real name or working email (much like those spooks at "space.com"), as their profiles are consistently either intentionally vague, misleading and/or empty. So, from time to time I've managed as to returned the same warm and fuzzy bashing favor, and lo and behold, all of the sudden I'm the bad guy, or perhaps the messenger from hell, simply because I will not cave-in to their mainstream status quo, nor otherwise go away.

I'm sorry folks, but these pro-NASA/Apollo Borgs are NOT nice folks, as I happen to believe they've directly murdered and/or exterminated their own kind without remorse, and that they see absolutely noting whatsoever wrong in their past nor future morals of intellectual book burnings and/or of allowing the rest of humanity and of our global environment to suffer the consequences needlessly as a result of their infecting our world with their form of cloned intellectual incest, thereby obviously wasting our best talents and limited resources, and of their further distorting the innocent minds of otherwise perfectly nice folks. As such, it's little wonder that our tall buildings are being smashed into by our own aircraft, each loaded with other innocent folks, and/or that certain other flights are those being officially taken out due to whom's onboard. It seems we even have our very own Boeing/TRW Phantom Works wizards the green light for utilizing returning shuttles as R&D target practice. So, there's obviously no limits as to what our ongoing cold-war and star-wars fanatics will accomplish, in spite of the consequences.

BTW; take further note: When this http://apollohoax.com/forums/ bands you from posting they obviously also have the snooping and blockage privileges of their also banding you from even reading anything "Apollohoax" whatsoever. Odd that I've become worth all that much trouble, odd also that their computer borgs have managed to access by computer (cutting directly through my firewalls as though they're not even there) and have frequently terminated my CPU by way of their remotely infecting the operating system (Windows being no sweat as for accomplishing that little task) and of even entirely shutting it down without my having to do anything. These spooks are good, damn good.

Whenever this "Apollohoax.com" collective offers an opportunity as for the likes of honest folks to discuss their views and/or research upon what certainly looks, taste and smells like a hoax, whereas in reality it's become a whole lot more like Hitler inviting Jews over for dinner to discuss their holocaust, and of what can be done as to making things right. What you're obviously not aware of, with the likes of "Apollohoax.com", is that these folks being fully encharge of their forum are merely acting as Hitlers' little helpers, either that or they're also working on behalf of the Pope as to defending those exterminations of Cathars. In either instance there's absolutely no intent upon their allowing anyone that enters as to leaving without being either converted to their pagan religion and/or eaten alive.

The recent notion of fully uncovering that NASA/Apollo did in fact practice their photo fakery on the http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG  as opposed to the actual original http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903.jpg is "proof positive" that for decades an official Apollo image of astronauts upon the moon was in fact altered and even autographed as for representing the real thing. Unfortunately, I never once suggested that because there happened to be two identical astronauts depicted as being an issue of image fault, as I as well as other believed this image was for real. However, as for just knowing that Earth was at 65º and seeing Earth being oddly depicted as 5º above the horizon was worth discussing as to how that could be. Though in addition to mother Earth being so incorrect, there was the rather great deal of harsh side illumination, as though the moon was having a sunset, then there was the spotty illumination of the foreground and area surrounding the astronauts, whereas most of the background was remaining essentially under illuminated, and there was even more so of horrific spot illumination as clearly seen in the visor. The Borg collective suggesting that their clumping-moon-dirt was now retro-reflective due to being so glass like is even more interesting than pathetic. Just the surface illumination as compared to the illuminated moon suit still clearly indicates that the surface was oddly reflecting at 55+%, which simply can't be.

So, now that we know for an absolute matter of fact as for decades this ongoing ruse/sting of the century included an altered image, and that NASA/Apollo did everything they could up until we (others such as "earth orbit" and myself) pointed out that the facts and of those pesky laws of physics simply didn't fit the photographic criteria, and as to NASA/Apollo having provided this image as a supposed truthful representation is absolutely bogus, especially when in fact there's damn little if anything that's true, which obviously more than suggest upon the notions that not all is right with our NASA/Apollo team. Although, this evidence clearly does substantiate upon the fact(s) that our NASA/Apollo team had the capability and in fact had utilized that capability as to alter images. So, now the question is upon how many other Apollo images were altered?

Obviously if they can manage as to introduce an entire astronaut, and then various images of Earth at will, there's certainly much less in doubt, if damn little effort would have been required as for merely eliminating dimly recorded stars and likes of a horifically vibrant Venus. As obviously the location of something like the Sirius star system and/or Venus within any association with that of the lunar surface, or that of Earth or of the sun would have identified upon the exact location of the camera.


Here's a little something that I had tried to introduce to the likes of posting within GOOGLE.

This next topic may be offering something of old-news for the likes of your knowledge.

"moon is ours for the taking, Apollo hoax or not"

The part that I'm suggesting about our NASA doing what's right isn't entirely focused upon their past, not even upon their Apollo hoax or sting/ruse of the century, although their NSA/DoD cold-war past has pretty much locked all those nondisclosure doors that would otherwise have permitted an honest review of what's on Venus, and of what can honestly be accommodated with regard to our moon. Thereby this topic might have to be considered as science fiction, especially since those laws of physics seems to be so easily skewed and otherwise conditional on behalf of whatever the prime directive of NASA is.

Unfortunately, of what's situated on the moon is perhaps even more interesting and certainly of greater value to humanity than contacting folks on Venus because, we should by now have been capable of actually going there and setting up the LSE-CM/ISS, and once that's accomplished is when all sorts of other enterprising things start to affordably happen, like extracting He3 or 3He and/or of our setting up camp within the potentially geode crystal interior of the moon, preferably as situated somewhere between the cold sub-surface and of the 850ºC core. Then it's affordably off to visit those wizards of Ozz on Mars or Venus.

However, we seem to be having ourselves a wee bit of a problem with the levels of applied technology making it possible as to surviving upon the moon, and we even seem to have ourselves somewhat of a cold-war fire-wall that's keeping our troops from even deploying robotic lunar probes so that we might further obtain a truthful analysis of what's what.

It's still a bit odd that of recent missions to Mars having the advantage of previous satellites and surface probe analysis plus loads of images, all of which reporting back with their improved resolution upon exactly what the likes of KECK-II and Hubble could see from afar as a surface and environment being nearly exactly the same illumination and reflective index as to be expected, though the surface images are clearly those of an extensively meteorite and shard strewn environment, where those being razor sharp and as to be expected numerous items were actually somewhat darker than of the surface itself, thus because of such little atmosphere, there's all of the expected debris and ongoing influx of what managing to easily reach the surface of Mars.

With similar regard to the moon, having absolutely no atmosphere to deflect nor slow absolutely anything down, and with simply loads of commercial, amateur, KECK-II, team Hubble and even official NASA images of good integrity showing us and thereby confirming that the average reflective index of the moon is 11%, which clearly represents that the darker geology aspects are those of perhaps 5% (near coal like or dark basalt), and that of the lighter portions being in the vast majority therefore can't possibly represent much better than 25% because that would easily have skewed the overall average reflective index to something well above the 11% mark.

Oddly those Apollo images hardly ever seemed to identify upon anything that was less than 25%, in fact the vast majority of their images included terrain that exceeded 55+%, and of what few and far between meteorites were more often than not of even lighter contrasting composition than of their surrounding terrain seemed a bit unusual. In fact, them supposed meteorites were even looking a tad bit rounded-off with even fewer shards associated than you'd have discovered here on Earth, much less Mars.

The impact formula is KE=.5MV2, and of the typical item the moon either runs itself into or received from what's typically headed toward Earth is perhaps 15+km/s, with obviously the unobstructed opportunity of whatever's making 30+km/s, plus there's a few other items that have been clocked at 72+km/s to contend with, and all of which being further accelerated along by the gravity constant of 1.625 m/s/s, whereas final impact is given that little extra incentive without squat worth of atmosphere as to deflecting nor slowing anything down, much less heating such up nor smoothing off the surfaces of whatever accummulated debris from meteorites and shards that should have remained sharp as a tack.

So, the lunar environment is not only offering a good deal of above-surface thermal extremes, along with all of its' surface reacting rather badly from the equally unobstructed influx of solar and cosmic radiation which subsequently becomes a great deal of hard X-Ray class radiation, but lo and behold, the surface should thereby have been strewn much more so than Mars with not only the utmost ever to be discovered density of raw meteorites, but also of extremely sharp and certainly somewhat darker shards created from all those unobstructed impacts, and certainly of no geological nor other erosions as for moving nor blowing things away, nor as for compacting anything.

Without great difficulty, I seem to have located numerous research suggesting that an accumulation of perhaps a meter per billion years wouldn't have been all that unlikely, and since there's but 1/6th gravity, those items of sizable meteorites and then mostly micro-meteorites and of multitudes of resulting smaller shards would have become sort of like an extremely rugged field of badly broken basalt like rocks surrounded by much of their own dust-bunnies, along with other pesky sorts of items continuously arriving per m2 almost hourly, or of at least once per m2 per day, where the impact from which items would send a fairly noticeable cloud of surrounding debris/flak into the nonexistent air (again there's absolutely nothing slowing secondary debris trajectories down), whereas if you were standing within 10 meters of merely a 2 mg dust-bunny item impacting at 15+km/s, of the potential deflection of whatever was impacting or of those nasty shards or clumping moon dirt being kicked up would in fact have been somewhat lethal to any moon suit protected individual.

Standing on the moon is risky business, whereas sometimes hourly or at least once a day per m2 there's a rather nasty love note from God or whomever that's clocking in at 15+km/s, but then there's the terrific and unobstructed views of such terrifically illuminating things like the Sirius star system, and of the so much brighter items being those of Venus and even mercury. Oddly never once was there an effort as to include such within any lunar landscape image. Of course, none of those truly interesting meteorites, some of which had to have been billions of years older than Earth were ever obtained from the ultimate meteorite morgue of all time, all we got was essentially more of the same of what's existing here on Earth, nor were there interactive instruments and probes established that couldn't have been deployed from orbit, much less independently accessed by the scientific community of the world, as only of what was filtered through and/or moderated to death by NASA ever became published.


This following topic was about interplanetary communications, perhaps equally offering something of old-news as for the likes of your knowledge upon laser retro reflectors(LRRs) but should be helpful for those folks coming in late. This was in reply to other stipulating that there's absolutely no valid reason and no available technology as to apply lasers for such communications efforts.

However folks, it seems that the likes of high speed modulated retro-reflectors for lasers, or of Quantum-Well Modulating Retro-Reflectors as being another phrase that's utilized upon the same topic, have in fact existed for decades.

As listed below, apparently there has in fact been any number of such products and even a good number of modulated laser beam communications hard at work, at least it's been listed as such on the internet for years if not decades within public libraries, and lo and behold, damn if it doesn't actually work. Yet there's been none of the GOOGLE or Space.Com NASA/NSA/DoD spooks, moles nor incest cloned Borgs offering squat upon this avenue for the honest quest of utilizing such technology as being applied into interplanetary communications.

Gee whiz folks, it seems I'm left wondering what the heck their collective mind was thinking, or perhaps not thinking is the more correct analogy. I've always known of several observatory laser programs (mostly those of lunar ranging related), yet here too it seems these incest cloned Borgs haven't bothered once as to getting such folks honestly involved, and perhaps that's because they were all in bed (incest cloning) with their Boeing/TRW Phantom Works ABL program that freely utilized such opportunities as reentry shuttles for their target practice, as for verifying upon their beam tracking as well as thermal efficiency aspects, thereby obtaining the necessary target results as of those all important and necessary credits for DoD (Star Wars) contract payments, and I guess in light of the COLUMBIA fiasco, we wouldn't want the public to ever know about such things.

BTW; retro-reflectors are not rocket science, they are merely high quality optics that return a beam in nearly the same trajectory as the entry path, along with creating roughly twice the divergence and thereby roughly delivering a quarter the photons/m2 as with respect to a given detector that's counting those reflected photons, thus obviously so much better off than for the same reflective area of clumping-moon-dirt that's upon average supposedly worth a mere 11% reflective, and supposedly non-directional at that.

However folks, of those original lunar laser shots created a fairly sizable 20+km diameter zone of thereby extremely spread photons, whereas the vast majority of more recent lunar reflected photons are those having a surface impact zone diameter of roughly 2 km = 3.1416e12 m2 as opposed to perhaps targeting upon 3 m2 worth of those supposed Apollo LRR. That's only a mere trillion to one advantage, so even if those LRR were 100% efficient (which they most certainly were not) there's simply no contest of where the vast majority of those reflected photons were coming from, and since the average lunar surface reflects 11% and thereby we have established a good deal of variance from 5% (dark basalt/coal) to as much as the vast bulk of nearly all those Apollo images indicating as 55+% reflective substances (clumping moon-dirt that's nearly devoid of having meteorites and shards strewn about), thus the surface reflective index can certainly vary itself by at least 10:1 depending entirely upon whichever specific zone, that which may or may-not have those supposed LRR items within.

I'm still not even having to suggest there are no such LRR items, just that if they are in fact there, as such they simply didn't require being individually surface deployed by astronauts, nor even all that properly aligned. As for LRRs being included or not within a given laser measurement target zone, and because they represent 1e-12 or less of the total laser illuminated area, as such hasn't even been all that confirmed by some of the very best instruments we've got. Of course if we could get that laser beam down to 0.05 milliradian, packing perhaps a full MW into that delivery, as such it may become possible as to obtaining an individual LRR photon reply.

Those LRRs could also have been made with relatively narrow band-pass filtering, as an optical coating that would have greatly improved upon their specific photon signature, though chances are that after a few years they would have been damaged and/or covered with a sufficient layer of dust, as if that didn't already happen upon our radiation and apparently impact proof astronauts leaving the moon, or sufficiently fractured from merely being impacted by whatever is continually incoming.

This following GOOGLE link seems to offer far better words of retro reflection than I can possibly manage (if you can't find this page, I've got a copy):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=active&threadm=19990116190540.07042.00002240%40ng-fr1.aol.com&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dretro%2520reflector%2520efficiency%26num%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg

Other sorts of retro-reflector information that's been public:
A principle of total internal reflection(TIR), whereas a beam entering the effective aperture is reflected by the three roof surfaces and emerges from the entrance/exit surface parallel to itself.  This property is independent of orientation of the retro-reflector, within acceptance angle limitations.

http://www.optarius.co.uk/corner_cube_retro.htm
Corner cubes provide two-dimensional retro-reflection thereby sending an incoming beam of light back with a constant deviation of 180º regardless of the input angle.
Typical deviation 180º±3 arc sec, though less than 1 arc sec can be obtained.

http://www.boreal-laser.com/docs/RetroReflect.pdf
Retro reflectors are used to ensure that the signal is returned as accurately as
possible to where it was transmitted from. They are coated with a very thin layer
of gold to ensure high reflectance and no tarnishing. Retro reflectors are easy to align.

http://web.mit.edu/tsoline/www/AOMpaper-IEEE.pdf
High speed modulated retro-reflector for lasers
York University & advr-inc.com http://advr-inc.com/

Here's some of the most recent moon related updated files:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-bump.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-speed.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-dust-bunny.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-javelin-probes.htm

Interplanetary Communications that's clumping moon-dirt cheap:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/laser-com.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/radio-maybe.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/calling-venus.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/universal-light.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/quantum-packet-02.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-velikovsky.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/illumination-spots-02.htm


Basically, of what I've been telling folks is this; the likes of "Apollohoax.com", "uplink.space.com" and even from within various GOOGLE space and of their science related topics/forums are what they are, loaded down with cesspools containing more than their fair share of intellectual eliminations from the utmost of incest cloned Borgs working their intellectual smoke and mirrors on behalf of protecting their entitlements, which obviously includes protecting our government, and especially on behalf of justifying the carnage associated with dog-wagging their butts off, as they've proceeded to lie as the liars the they are, suggesting that their pagan God hasn't committed any such fraud nor crimes against humanity, whereas any honest sort of moral human should easily know better.

Even the most honest of unprovoked humans make mistakes, and a perverted government made up of such humans only brings in the added factors of lust for power and money, as well as retribution fears for those daring to break the cult "nondisclosure" policy. Even without involving those very real cold-war issues, as there are very human sorts of factors per lusting after power and money that are by far the utmost clearest sorts of common motives for committing all sorts of dastardly as well as horrific sorts of carnage related things against humanity. Of course, among all the bad aspects of the cold-wars and subsequent lies upon lies, there's bound to being some good that manages to happen as a result of necessary PR and/or in spite of all that has been operating itself from within our horrifically spendy space toilet.

Perhaps some day folks will realize upon just how snookered we've all been, how taken for a ride and mislead nearly every step of the way. This won't ever change the fact of history, although it might get the truth published as history, thereby hopefully preventing our futures from having to continually operate out of that very same space toilet.

P.S.; Don't hold your breath, or perhaps due the stench coming from that overflowing space toilet, you should hold your breath.


To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of recently posted UPDATES)
alternate URL's: http://guthvenus.tripod.com  and  http://geocities.com/bradguth
Copyright © 2000~2004 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA   ~  1-253-8576061
created: May 04, 2004

Brad Guth / IEIS IEIS-Brad@Juno.com
(due to officially DHS sanctioned email account bashings, as well as unauthorized moderation of my email accounts, if push should come down to shove, you can always call or simply post your reply into the likes of GOOGLE using "bradguth-email" or simply include "guthvenus" or "Brad Guth" within your subject line, in that way I'll find you, though even GOOGLE can be moderated/excluded by you know who)