I believe that I'm within fullest agreement with the statement offered by "coberst" as pertaining to that of "Science and Truth", whereas my interpretations of what I have perceived as situated upon Venus is just that, my honest to-God though humanly subjective interpretation (mistakes and all), based upon what is entirely possible according those very same mainstream intellectual standards and the laws of physics that supposedly put man on the moon (even though that facet remains another sorely fact-free point on behalf of substantiating anything NASA/Apollo). Likewise, my notions of what humanity could have been accomplishing with respect to the moon is also based upon those same predictable laws of physics, and of otherwise perfectly valid reasonings that has only been given the swift boot of none-approval by way of the mainstream status quo, that which otherwise worships the flatulence and most of all the moneys associated with sucking up to whatever NASA/Apollo stipulates or wants to see happen. In other words, the orchestrated flatulence of fact-free negativity opposing absolutely anything and everything I've got to offer is absolutely staggering, as in mind boggling to say the least, and extremely global warming at that, not to mention potentially lethal.
Can my notions upon the skullduggery and dastardly cold-war rational be all that correct?
Is it as true as I have perceived, that the American way is badly skewed into the nearest space toilet?
Is what's left of our morality the very reason(s) why those space toilets have been plugged solid, thus overflowing?
Are the likes of our having such a muck running warlord leader as GW Bush the very best humanity can ever hope for?
Or, is there another way out, at least a dim light at the end of this doom and gloom tunnel that's not another one of the headlights of yet another NASA/NSA/DoD doomsday locomotive arriving from an extremely cold-war that's been headed directly for hell?
KODAK Film Simply Doesn't Have To Lie; in fact it actually photo-chemically can't, though NASA/Apollo and their NSA/DoD bosses seemingly lie their stinking remorseless butts off nearly all the time.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hot-spots.htm (this offers a somewhat shorter download page with a few specific photo details and info)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG (original picture of only the one astronaut being somewhat spot illuminated)
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 residing all of 5 degrees off the horizon, even though you and every other snookered village idiot upon this Earth should be able to easily identify from the NASA records that mother Earth for Apollo-11 had to have been at 65 degrees, and most certainly the sun wasn't close enough as to spot illuminate squat. In fact, all shadows should have been extremely crisp and of rather high contrast, especially considering the lack of atmosphere and of the supposed 11% average reflective index of the mostly basalt like surface.
It looks as though Earth is roughly 60% illuminated, so I don't know exactly what that's telling us about the timing and/or source of illumination 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 honestly meant to infer incest cloned Borgs).
Also, take further notice upon that reasonably large but nicely rounded off and not so dark 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 that rocks, meteorites and of shards strewn about Mars are even somewhat darker and certainly a whole lot sharper, whereas those had to penetrate the atmosphere of Mars, plus otherwise there's been thousands if not millions of erosion years transpiring upon Mars that certainly never transpired upon our moon.
And please take a bit further notice upon all of that supposed retro-reflective clumping-moon-dirt that's been clearly imaged in their visors, exactly like the folks of Apollohoax (namely Bob B. and of his puppet wizard master JayUtah) are claiming is the case for such having created another one of those horrific illumination hot-spots as recorded by so many of the NASA/Apollo Kodak moments, almost if not as though there's a somewhat nearby Xenon source of illumination..
Of course, perhaps it's that same old lunar gravity lens affect as being what obviously made everything look as though Earth was merely 5° off the lunar horizon, when in actual reality it had to have been at roughly 65°, and otherwise not so damn far away as depicted in numerous images (I'll have to guess that their standard 80 mm lens outfitted camera was hardly ever used, and apparently their telephotos of 250 and 500 mm simply failed to function if they included the likes of Earth, Venus or Sirius, leaving them (apparently all 6 missions) with only their Data Camera and of it's 60 mm wide-angle lens).
This somewhat recent argument of fully uncovering that NASA/Apollo did in fact practice their photo fakery on their 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 further "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 others believed this image was for real. However, as for just knowing that Earth was at 65° and seeing Earth being oddly depicted as 5° 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.
Just to being fair minded, here's access to yet another one of their PDF versions of Apollo Image Catalogs and various data sheets upon film and camera equipment that isn't exactly correct about the camera lens issues nor all there is to know about film, and the image files are sorely lacking in good resolution format as well as for sharing in what's actually the case: http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/MOON/DOCUMENTS/
Of course there's absolute loads of perfectly believable images obtained from orbit, as depositing a relatively basalt dark lunar surface that's highly strewn with the expected meteorite remains and impact shards that appears to coexist somewhat under several meters worth of lose soil, that which these soil like accumulations, meteorites and strewn shards almost entirely vanishes from view within most any photographs obtained while supposedly upon the surface, not to mention the much greater surface reflective index plus illumination hot zones that seemed nearly 55% as opposed to the 11% as obtained from orbit, and the fact that the raw solar illuminating failed to skew the colors one iota is simply photographis physice operating out of yet another intellectual space toilet.
Of course, you'll notice throughout all of this argument of how the likes of Kodak Corporate nor of any other film producer mentions absolutely nothing on behalf of anything NASA/Apollo. In fact, they never utilize any NASA/Apollo image as for promoting squat, and they do not bother to intervene into forum discussions on behalf of defending anything NASA/Apollo. In other words, Kodak officially knows that the stinking "glove fits" the spectrum profile of being Xenon illuminated and not that of raw solar photons, pretty much exactly like I've only badly outlined upon, and as such in any half-assed court of law isn't even a contest on behalf of anything that our NASA/Apollo wizards can possibly win.
Kodak color film; Specifically of the photographic yellow dye portion which records the near-UV and well into the UV/a spectrum, and as per covering the near-UV of 375~400 nm at nearly the peak performance of what this yellow dye emulsion sensitivity offers is recording at roughly 800% greater sensitivity than of the Cyan dye that's responsible for recording upon the likes of what's deep-red (675~700 nm), and otherwise the remainder of the UV/a spectrum of at least 400% better off than recording the bright red portions of the American flag.
In other words, Kodak film (color as well as B&W) is photo-chemically balanced as for recording images upon the surface of Earth, whereas our atmosphere offers a rather significant low-pass filter on behalf of somewhat cutting the near-UV and of significantly reducing the otherwise enormous levels of UV down to typically 250 mw/m2. Even though the Kodak photo-chemical reaction is intended for that of an Earthly environment, and as to represent more closely what the human eye sees, it actually records upon much more spectrum than what's directly visible to the naked eye, especially towards that of the UV spectrum.
Fortunately for humans and Kodak film, upon the surface of Earth there's darn little of the entire UV spectrum(s) getting through our atmosphere, whereas 250 mw/m2 might be an accepted level for most of us, whereas that's only exceed by slightly more than double if you're situated in high country or of extreme north/south territories, of which 500 mw/m2 is still a whole lot better off instead of receiving the 64 w/m2 as upon the lunar surface. Whereas the bulk of the IR spectrum gets through just fine and dandy with relatively slight energy shift. Thus way more bluish tint than red is the photographic order of the lunar day.
As such photographs acquired upon the moon must have been rather badly skewed, especially without a deep UV cut-off filter or unless utilizing the specialized formulation of IR recording film (B&W or color), as with such IR film is where the near-UV sensitivity would have been inherently diminished with respect to IR, and of anything UV/a almost entirely excluded, and thus also least sensitive to primary and secondary radiation fogging, which makes me wonder why the heck some of that film wasn't utilized. However, once again we have ourselves another one of those lo and beholds, whereas it seems there was never once an indication of such scientific photographic consideration given to those Apollo missions, odd in as much as being so dependent upon photographic recording of their expedition, as of such an opportunity that was repeated 6 times for offering an entirely new and unusual exploration environment by way of recording the lunar environment onto IR film clearly wasn't to be, which is certainly too darn bad (considering there'd have been no further CM space usage, nor added weight or any other astronaut considerations), as otherwise especially since there should have been such an enormous color skew of the lunar environment sharing way too much near-UV and UV/a spectrum energy plus a touch of secondary emission blacklight as to otherwise reasonably deal without benefit of specialized filters. I mean to say, exactly what were these "right stuff" jokers thinking?
Other than receiving the greater overall visual illumination influx as roughly doubled due to almost no lunar atmosphere, though as such there's hardly any spectrum intensity shift transpiring within the range of 650~700 nm, as opposed to photographing such items upon Earth, however there's several hundred times greater illumination improvement as per the 375~425 nm worth of those photons reflecting at nearly 256 times greater energy/m2, plus if having to introduce the minimum 4X fold yellow dye spectrum sensitivity makes for a 1024 times multiplier of recording greater exposure of whatever is reflecting/emitting within this lower range of the spectrum. As we head further up from 400 nm into the greater visual sensitivity range (maximum human sensitivity being 507 nm @1700 lumen/w), and as per residing upon the moon, the amounts of spectrum energy/m2/nm as per color shift factor should have become less noticeable, whereas the likes of anything red is just uniformally brighter as for receiving essentially similar amounts of the solar (red) spectrum as if being photographed on Earth. Thereby, the blue element having an associated spectrum of 450 nm, such as what our American flag contained, as this should have offered an extremely over-exposed blue, as in ultra vibrant blue if not reflecting as an absolute fluorescent (glowing) blue, plus the very nature of Kodak film easily recording a little UV/blacklight emission affect to boot, and that's no freaking lie.http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e73/e73.jhtml
Due to those pesky copyright issues, I'll be offering my best interpretation of their corporate message, although you can goto the above link if you'd care to obtain the official words of Kodak, or go into just about any commercial/scientific photographic site if you'd like that second or third opinion.
It is absolute truth that color films offer various levels of sensitivity throughout their intended recordings of the visual spectrum, though far differently than perceived by the human eye and well beyond human perceptions at that. In most instances, it is not a requirement of all three light-sensitive emulsions of a given film need record various spectrums of photon energy exactly as the human eye; however, given the spectrum of atmospheric filtered light as received upon Earth, the end result of a combined image of the primary red, green, and blue spectrums of light should be reproduced within a similar ratio with respect to the human eye. In other words, if the film only recorded what the human eyes sees, the recorded intensity as printed out onto photographic paper would become badly distorted, thus it becomes essential that the color receiving dyes are those considerably most sensitive to the near-UV spectrum. However, without special filters the UV/a portion of spectrums is recorded as well, though fortunately there's only a relatively slight amount of the UV/a spectrum energy available, thus there's no overwhelming problem associated with Earthly or even xenon illuminated photography while situated upon Earth.
It seems, according to official Kodak technology, that color films of that day were rather sensitive to ultraviolet photons, as well as from a given substance that reflects ultraviolet photonic energy are in fact going to appear as noticeably skewed towards being rather bluish as photographically recorded, rather than as how such colors appear to the naked eye. If the item in question is already blue to begin with, this is not as critical to spectrum skew as with regard to items of other colors, whereas the additional spectrum of this more bluish energy may otherwise merely neutralize portions of certain visual colors, or as otherwise producing a somewhat overall blue haze like affect. Neutral gray and/or low saturation colors are those most likely to being impacted by such added amounts of near-UV and UV/a energy. Technically You can only reduce this effect by extensive use of deep ultraviolet filter(s), such as a sufficiently deep amber if not a much deeper orange that could effectively filter out such harsh amounts of such unwanted energy that the human eye doesn't even see but the Kodak eye records just fine and dandy, exactly as should have been found to exist upon the moon.
There should have been highly overexposed blues, absolutely virant deep-blues and even loads of secondary blacklight photons recorded, that is unless the moon had a sufficient atmosphere that our NASA is not telling us about. Of course, the likes of Sirius should have damn near been burning holes in the Kodak film.
As I've frequently stipulated, upon yet another closely related effect from such UV/a energy is that of creating fluorescence. Some materials and substances actually absorb ultraviolet radiation (invisible to human sight) and subsequently re-emit those photons within the near-blue or violet range (shortest visible wavelength). Because the human eye is not all that sensitive in this spectrum, the effect of such fluorescence is not nearly as apparent until seen within a processed photograph. This is most often the case with white materials having sufficient brighteners or reflective elements incorporated within order to give them an even whiter (moon-suit lkike) appearance. These sorts of reflective brighteners would certainly have made a moon-suit and most other items of white clothing or even certain painted white items appear as having a rather very distinctive bluish illuminating tint, especially as recorded in those Kodak based photographs.
Besides the 256 fold increase within the UV/a spectrum of available energy/m2, and of the additional amounts of near-UV (375~400 nm) available to a highly sensitive photographic emulsion, whereas such photographs were being acquired on the moon were in fact being exposed to such skewed spectrum intensities, where this exposure would have greatly boosted upon the recorded vibrance and/or fluorescence of anything already of blue fabric or even blue colored item, not to mention the entire spectrum of visible colors being noticeably shifted (a little visually as well as extensively via photographic) towards the blue. In fact there are countless examples of nearly exactly what this looks like, and it can be consistently repeated in scientific terms, and that's even if the newest of replacement Kodak films that have be reformulated as to being somewhat less UV/a sensitive because it makes for better results as utilized here on Earth.
Unfortunately for Club NASA/Apollo, Kodak film isn't sufficiently biological, nor living in fear of being exterminated for merely disclosing the truth, and thereby simply doesn't lie about recording the skew of those available energy levels as per spectrums of light, nor is it responsible for selectively recording portions of the moon as retro-reflective in the way being kindly stipulated by their apollohoax division of damage-control borgs, nor can that Kodak film somehow manage to place another astronaut into a given frame, ot that of another(3rd) image (as though superimposed) of Earth where it simply is impossible to be (the very nature of superimposing requires human intervention and expertise after the fact), and/or of otherwise placing Earth too far away is yet another task that's not of something Kodak film accomplishes on its own, but most importantly it was the underlying false levels of subdued contrast as opposed to having essentially a pinpoint of light source (the sun) and thus due to the absolute lack of atmospheric defractions, plus the spectrum skew, or rather lack thereof, recording the natural (bluish, near-UV and UV/a) portion of sunlight, of which this was obviously resolved by that of their utilizing xenon illumination(s) offering those Earth like solar spectrums.
In order to have filtered such horrific amounts of near-UV and UV/a energy would not have been sufficiently accommodated by the traditional photographic lens filters. However, this argument doesn't actually matter because, NASA/Apollo utilized NO SUCH FILTERS, much less the sorts of deep and/or sharp intensity reduction filters that would have been required.
In space, or as such upon the deck of the moon, all humanly visual spectrums and thereby sources of light can seem more than twice as humanly bright, but also offering a rather noticeable bluish tint from receiving loads of additional near-UV plus hundreds of times greater UV/a portions of the raw solar spectrum reacting as for certain items emitting secondary near-UV (black-light), of which the human eye is somewhat least sensitive to such near-blue or black-light, but otherwise entirely insensitive to the UV/a as compared to the yellow dye portion of Kodak film which is absolutely most sensitive to such, thus we're firstly having to factor in the four times greater sensitivity of near-blue than of the mid-red spectrum as being photo recorded upon said Kodak film, or 8 fold as compared to the deep-red (near-IR) spectrum, and this is also exactly why the likes of Hubble with it's relatively small mirror for such photon collecting accomplishes so much better CCD imaging than from Earth. In fact, of Hubble using it's shortest possible scan, or least exposure upon the likes of recording Sirius, was simply overloaded by having to record way too much of the UV/a illumination to start off with, as opposed to an instrument like TRACE that has the appropriate filters.
Independent pro-Apollo report by Case Wright: http://homepage.mac.com/casewright/essays/apollo.html
Rant incert (1900 words)
Instead of my having to bother at telling the truth and nothing but the truth, I'd rather be another good/polished fiction or play writer, someone that could turn a nifty phrase and/or freely extract such talents from the works of others, thereby taking all the credit (like Shakespeare or Einstein accomplished some if not a great deal of their efforts at the expense of countless souls that are dead and gone, and/or ignored because they may have been considered the scum of the Earth) in order to create the sorts of intellectual worth that's not only considered as entertaining but essentially being more intellectually correct than not. Fortunately the likes of Kodak film, and especially of all that nifty yellow dye component that's so unusually sensitive (ergs/cm2) to the near-UV and especially of going into the UV/a spectrum isn't having to deal with the likes of human visual limitations nor ulterior emotions, nor of the self inflicted illusions of what most folks consider reality in spite of the facts.
At least that's supposedly the sort of polished documents and reporting and/or textbook writings and of subsequent mainstream media publishing we've come to expect, as well as for the likes of those spendy NOVA infomercial productions that passes the fact-free test of time, even to the point of becoming required reading/viewing as though it's the only truth and nothing but the truth in town (the underlying fact that the accredited author had little if anything to do with even compiling those words or formula becomes entirely unimportant, as in "so what's the difference"), such as absolutely anything having the NASA stamp of approval is much like that of obtaining a UL sticker (which by the way you have to pay seriously big-time just for obtaining that UL sticker). Since I'm not that great at writing out polished documents, and I do not have the resources for the sorts of necessary research staff comprised of folks that apparently know all there is to know, as opposed to and/or in spite of such is when so often my rage and then my dyslexia gets the best of my efforts, as a result I tend to utilize too many words, or I'll start a given page off with an assumption that anyone reading this page will in fact read through this mess, and those of other pages, and has otherwise have realized upon the greater implications and/or fundamental drift of what's what.
To my surprise, or perhaps not, once snookered always snookered has become the national pastime and norm, as being the mainstream status quo and of the final word, which is all there is regardless of whatever truths are to being had. Whereas to prove upon that point has recently become rather simple if we merely point out how many tens of thousands of innocent folks have bought the farm over this latest round of perpetrated cold-war that was basically contrived over energy reserves, that which recently became seriously damn hot and nasty over those invisible/contrived WMD, and I believe globally damn spendy at that (a few trillions spendy if you're being the least bit honest with yourself).
Whereas the orchestrated opposition as to anything about folks honestly utilizing our moon or upon whatever Venus has to offer are clearly focused upon seeing that the mainstream status quo is not looking at nor of allowing others to understand the raw science and physics as pertaining to such items of interest, but of their pathetically pointing out those various grammar and syntax errors, or merely identifying inconsistencies that they can proclaim as sufficient reason for others to not believe in individuals such as myself as having stumbled onto the truth. Lo and behold, I seem to accomplish the very same thing, with the exception being that of those I'm questioning are supposedly *all-knowing*, and as such upholding to a much higher standard, or at least that's supposedly the way it is. And of my errors haven't gotten anyone seriously dead, much less tens of thousands, along with 2/3 of Earth thoroughly pissed at America and/or American interest.
Obviously most folks have loads of better things to be doing, as in more importance as to seeing every last movie ever produced (several times if need be), plus taking in whatever a dozen or more sporting events, and otherwise just loads of spendy concerts and of whatever other fun and games (including casinos and even hundreds if not thousands of bucks worth of various lottery tickets), rather than having to be considerate of the present and future by understanding something that is not only new and trustworthy, of offering much greater opportunities to come, but otherwise absolutely contrary to their personal mainstream status quo intentions of spending everything now, with their intentions of declaring bankruptcy as often as need be. All of this intellectual and moral compromise rather than having to actually think about what's right for the greater good of humanity, and thereby of what's just for the intellectual basis by which open discussions as those related to various science and physics might actually function without benefit of any cloak and daggers. Most folks want to live throughout their entire lives as believing in what they already perceive as being the absolute truth, and that means believing in every bit of what their government has been telling them is supposedly the truth and nothing but the truth (yah, like that's going to happen any time soon), and perhaps that's exactly why I'm betting upon the notion of not only another 9/11 but, that the tooth fairy will soon be leaving me another trillion bucks the next time I place that tooth under my pillow (that's even if it's not my tooth, whereas that tactic worked just fine and dandy for the likes of WorldCom, ENRON, Arthur Andersen, Microsoft and even Martha Stewart to name just a few, and that's without my even getting into those nastier Bush/Halburton and Salem bin Laden fiascos).
As with the Venus image of what's looking a whole lot more artificial than not, most of us function best under a personal mainstream status quo that supposedly educated us in the first place, it's what gives us focus, judgment or balance and thereby essential meaning to life itself. Thus when you're being informed by some supposed village idiot as myself, that the SAR image color of white could actually be black, and that in the eyes of Apollo is where 2+2 has become 3, 5 or perhaps 1 or even 6 (anything but 4), whereas such strange arguments should in fact become downright aggravating to say the least.
Of what we were taught in elementary/grade school, and by way of further education, plus whatever our family and friends shared as of that early formative time frame, is usually what sticks with us for life, only being reinforced throughout the remainder of our supposed "high standards and accountability" worth of further education, and from everyday life of essentially becoming sucked into the cult of intellectual bigotry. And as such there's no apparent problem with that analogy until we're confronted with some actual new reality that's entirely outside of our mainstream status quo box, such as 2+2 = 4, as that's when we'd much rather blow those sorts of know-it-all bastards right off the face of Earth, rather than having to face the truth that we've all been snookered, and then some.
Of what I have been suggesting as having been overlooked and/or neglected about our moon, and of my suggesting upon what's associated with Venus is clearly being rather defiantly outside of your typical mainstream status quo box, though I'm not even having to propose such matters based upon some unproven or skewed laws of physics, nor am I part of some dark "Skull and Bones" like cult that's trying to overthrow all that's American. At least I'm willing to share my real name and address identity, point out my resources of acquired data, utilize the proven and thereby unskewed laws of physics, and even apply those laws of known biology, that which for the past few hundred million years worth upon Earth is where such life has seemingly relied upon at least half of its brain as to figuring out how in the heck to survive in spite of mother nature (in my case, in spite of dyslexia), thus eventually allowing for the honest give and take of our surviving by way of mutating our DNA/RNA to an evolutionary fairlywell, that's unfortunately gotten us into lying our butts off while killing off thousands of innocent folks over our warlord that can't seem to get in enough snipe hunting for those WMD (I mean, how smart is that?). Whereas all the sudden it's the CIA director that's at fault, instead of his personal "Skull and Bones" NSA partner in crimes against humanity, as God forbid, I guess we simply can't have ourselves an honest president that makes mistakes.
As much as I'm suggesting there are some viable truth or consequence alternatives, as opposed to all that has gone so terribly wrong within the past, and as such will likely continue off-track long into our future. Whereas in spite of all that has become skewed, there has been a great deal that's been as right and proper about America, and of our sciences and astrophysics being as good and wholesome as apple pie. Though even the best of science and physics has conjured up a mistake or two, although unfortunately it seems that few care to take personal responsibility for such errors, whereas often those mistakes are being reinterpreted and/or reinvented as an essential learning curve that's pretty much having to be accepted regardless of consequences, and that's in spite of sometimes having associated carnage taken into history as a matter of a no-fault fact of the matter, regardless of the lives lost and resources expended, and unfortunately there are seemingly countless analogies for that being the case, rather than not.
The same logic goes for much of our cold-wars, whereas provocation of some other nation was always and remains the name of our game(s) (in spite of 9/11, I think it still is business as usual). Even though that provocation resulted in humanity investing trillions and taking away a great deal of trust, along with trashing decades worth of our very best talents by focusing our expertise upon superior ways of aggravating and/or exterminating the other side, and whereas within these often hidden wars there were absolutely NO rules, other than the one about your not getting caught, as such all sorts of "do NOT push" buttons were in fact being pushed.
The same notion goes for pushing all of those "do NOT push" intellectual and scientific buttons, whereas such goes for what I believe has been discovered about certain aspects of our moon, and of more recently about our environment that's going to hell and of other life potentially existing upon Venus being somewhat different than we've been taught, thereby my personal mainstream status quo was certainly getting bent all out of shape, as per what you and I had been educated upon, as 2+2 no longer = 4.
KODAK film and that yellow emulsion dye comes to our rescue
Oddly the notion of taking pictures upon the moon, such as those supposedly accomplished by our Apollo teams, in far more ways than not is where this Apollo task or their 2+2 ruse simply wasn't adding up. Not only has there been disclosed various official images doctored as to depicting scenes that simply can't be, of dipicting various illuminations as somewhat highly unusual hot-spots or bright illumination zones that simply could not possibly have been the case, but then there's the unusually subdued levels of whatever blue portion of spectrum that should otherwise have been horrifically influenced by the added raw amounts of the near UV and UV/a solar spectrum, and of such being nicely recorded by the sorts of KODAK film that's rather extremely sensitive to the near-UV and UV/a spectrum at that, and that sensitivity is not by any small amount.
In order to have limited the intensity of the photo recorded blue spectrum, such as that of our American flag, that would have taken a rather substantial UV/a and even a near UV cut-off filter, of which wasn't utilized, yet oddly instead of the blue being extremely vibrant (if not glowing fluorescent like), it was unusually subdued as though being artificially illuminated by your typical xenon lamp, instead of from the highly available amounts of UV/a and of the near-UV spectrum coming off our sun, whereas the moon having absolutely no atmospheric filtering, that which upon Earth subdues nearly a 5%(68.5 w/m2) portion of our solar influx down to as little as 250 mw/m2, as for what's mostly within the UV/a that's reaching the surface of Earth. Lo and behold, whereas upon the moon is where the raw amounts of near-UV is not being diminished nor as otherwise atmospherically scattered (thus a obviously receiving an extremely harsh point-source of light), whereas unfortunately there's absolutely NO such opportunity of filtering out such photographically imprinting rays, especially while the photographer, camera and of all that sensitive Kodak film is situated on the moon.
A somewhat more conservative analogy of 1370+w/m2; where the 5% UV and lesser spectrum is worth roughly 68.5 w/m2, of which I've mentioned that the UV/ab portion takes up the lions share of that 5%, as to the tune of perhaps 64 watts/m2, whereas 64/.25 = 256:1 as for that ratio/amount of illumination providing far more UV/ab exposure than what's reaching the typical individual here at sea level. By way of using NASA and Kodak certified data and charts, as such I'm not having to exaggerate, nor having to make up any obscure reality of film physics, and I'm even willing to concede that the upper most portion of the UV/a spectrum(350~380 nm) may have been worth as little as half of that 64 w/m2, making for a mere 32 watt/m2, although once you reintroduce the greater portion of what the near-UV(380~400 nm) has to offer, and as such you're essentially right back to at least the 64 w/m2 if not exceeding 128 w/m2 as opposed to perhaps contending with as little as 1 w/m2 striking the surface of Earth, thus we should have at the very absolute minimum a good 128:1 worth of increased spectrum intensity, of which the yellow dye cmponent of the KODAK film records at 2:1 greater than of the medium-red color, and 4:1 of deep-red or near IR. Kodak film records without any regard to the limitations of our human biological traits, as per what you and I perceive as light is only a portion of what film records. Any way you'd care to slice this tit-for-tat into that sort of photonic physics and resulting photographic science, of which any number of folks can put such into words better than myself, those bluish items within a given Apollo photograph should have been recorded and subsequently printed as extremely vibrant to say the least, which by the way would have looked spectacularely better off (moon like) than of those subdued versions which have been passed off as the actual photos taken while on the moon, and at least more so impressive because some of the brighter stars (such as Sirius) would have been easily recorded, not to mention Venus.
Due to such additional near-UV and UV/a intensity as per Kodak dye spectral sensitivity, as such you will not find a standard photographic filter suitable for the task of taking photos upon the moon. Whereas upon Earth there's typically 250 mw/m2 to contend with, and otherwise at most 500 mw/m2 of UV/a to deal with unless you're sufficiently higher in the mountains where at most you might obtain 1000 mw/m2. Whereas for having to manage with the intensity of 32 w/m2, and/or of the more likely raw influx of 64 w/m2 if not as much as 128 w/m2, and if to be honestly including the near-UV spectrum would have required a custom or spectral cut-off filter, and/or that of a stack of conventional filters that would have become absolutely necessary. As otherwise there's only so much that you can accomplish after the fact, as per compensating for a badly over exposed yellow dye layer that's associated with regard to any photo lab of that day having to accurately reproduce a blue spectrum as perceived by the human eye. Such as something of a visual constant, like that of our red, white and "blue" American flag, as for having to conventionally print (pre-digital scan) from such otherwise badly skewed negatives and/or processed transparencies would have allowed a rather significant bluish shift across everything, especially of the 375 to 475 nm portion of the spectrum that's typically within the most sensitive zone of the film yellow dye component.
As of today, we could easily and of absolute safely (meaning nondestructively) scan such photo negatives and transparencies with 8192 dpi (that's roughly twice the best of optical/film recording capability, and easily four fold that of your best 35 mm format) extracting upon nearly any number of color depth and/or exposure per spectrum in terms of 128 bytes in order to best compensate for nearly whatever those various dye exposures were, and by such extending the range of print contrast ratio by at least another ten fold above the usual maximum of 720:1 ratio, to a value exceeding 7200:1, whereas any number of stars would have been recorded as relatively dim but subsequent to those images being scanned would have become quite noticeable. This scan process would nearly detect upon a given grain or certainly cluster of grains of photo emulsion (within frame or even in between would not matter) that was X-Ray struck and thus impacted by sufficient energy, of which the raw lunar environment had lots to share.
Speaking of recording stars; From the perspective of Earth, whereas such star light is being highly filtered by our atmosphere, and where the visible spectrum is diminished by at least 25% under the absolute best of conditions, and otherwise by more than 50% under the typical clear but polluted sky by which most of us have viewed and photographed said stars. That is why the likes of Hubble accomplishes such a terrific job upon what's received as so much brighter to those Hubble CCD eyes, and especially upon those spectrums of light to which our atmosphere essentially filters out the vast bulk of UV/a and even diminishes a great deal of what's near-UV.
Whereas from the unobstructed vantage point of the moon, those same stars are thereby not only 100% brighter with respect to the human eye, but of that sky is at least another magnitude darker. In addition to all of that visual improvement, and a good number of said stars are of those nicely shifted towards the near-UV and even into the UV/a spectrum, of which since there is no atmospheric filtering aspects between yourself and them stars, especially by the likes of Sirius/ab yielding an intense peak wavelength of 375 nm, thus emitting within much of a spectrum of which the human eye can't even perceive, though of the Kodak film eye (especially of the yellow dye portion) is remarkably sensitive (films of that day and age, and especially of the B&W films offering at least 8:1) at recording such spectrums as opposed to anything deep-red. So, with respect to that 375 nm source of illumination, there's at least a 512:1 if not a greater amount of photographic intensity to work with, that plus the only other star that's brighter to the human eye, that's witin the lunar sky, is that of our sun, of which you'd think should ring off another photographic bell or two, especially since the peak wavelength of our sun being roughly 525 nm offers a 150 nm skew or shift away from that of Sirius, whereas the peak wavelength of our sun becomes recorded mostly within the magenta dye layer that's recorded at roughly 50% less sensitive than of what the yellow emulsion dye records.
In fact, upon several of those Apollo missions there were perfectly good, if not absolutely terrific opportunities of including the likes of recording Venus within frame, whereas no harm would have been done, except for having the rather brightly illuminated partial orb of Venus creating a somewhat bright spot above the otherwise average 11% reflective lunar surface, a lunar surface that should have offered an absolute morgue worth of razor sharp meteorites and their shards (billions of years worth, some of which should have been much older than Earth) plus whatever raw/dark lunar basalt showing itself, either of which being of relatively dark matter and of a rough and supposedly sharp as a tack nature, making for such a lunar surface as being somewhat least reflective of the near-UV and much of lesser of the UV/a spectrum, whereas most of those spectrums are absorbed rather than reflected, thus if anything the images obtained as including the lunar surface from the close perspective of being on the lunar surface, those images should have photo-recorded the moon surface as a somewhat darker substance than of our visual spectrum of the same as viewed from the moon or Earth, KECK-II or even via the likes of Hubble, along with the emissions of near-UV created by way of the terrific influx of raw UV/a.
Remember that the moon is atmospherically naked, whereas such solar influx must coexist along with various items impacting into whatever is in our mutual path, at a nifty 30+km/s, that plus whatever headway factor of what any given object already had going for itself, plus the fact that the entire lot of us are trespassing our way through space at roughly 224 km/s, and of the moon is still absolutely naked, as in wide open to whatever comes along, and/or of its very own gravity influence of 1.625 m/s/s is only going to add further insult to whatever injury. Just the notion of dropping something away from the relatively stationary gravity-well null point or mutual nullification zone that's roughly 16% the distance (62,000 km) towards Earth, upon such an item reaching the lunar surface is going to hurt really bad, especially since any notions of terminal velocity isn't going to be worth squat.
BTW; regarding them moon rocks. How many tonnes, if not thousands of tonnes, of moon rock has landed in-tact upon Earth, as delivered via secondary meteorite shards of whatever impacted the likes of our moon, which seems to offer a few million times more such likely deposits than of our receiving much of anything from Mars?
It seems as though, most of the lunar impact debris would have eventually collected back upon the moon. Although, if merely 1% was sufficiently diverted away from the lunar orbit, and that of Earth being such a gravity hog and so nearby would have easily collected upon that messily 1%, which should only become a few thousand tonnes worth of relatively easily identifiable and thereby accessible moon-rock as deposited upon Earth (though 2/3 of Earth being water means the bulk of such is situated on various ocean floors). And, since the lunar substance is so much lighter in average density to that of Earth rock, as such it actually should not be all that difficult to locate that which is dark basalt like and supposedly a billion or so less years old Than Earth.
Oddly, per those Apollo mission photographs, not only was there an unusually vibrant amount of lunar surface reflection taking place, which should have been primarily that of IR and not of UV, whereas in fact quite considerable with respect to various known reflective items as those nifty moon suits, the lunar surface within most images was oddly depicted as 55% reflective, while offering darn few if any meteorites and/or of even fewer shards strewn about, much less of depicting upon any dark basalt exposed as otherwise having been imaged from various other perspectives than Apollo, such as of what had been recently disturbed and/or impacted upon the moon having created such darker zones of a nearly 5% reflective index (that's of more darkish basalt and/or nearly coal like substances being exposed).
Here's a B&W/IR site: http://www.a-dye.com/ired.htm
Here's another B&W/Color IR film data site: http://www.fotoinfo.com/info/techniques/ir.html
Here's another data sheet upon the Kodak Ektachrome/EIR emulsion (which didn't exist at the time of Apollo): http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/infraredpr.htm, of which this EIR product or of something similar would have been nearly an ideal application since it includes the easily pre-filtered UV/a portion of 375 nm through 425 nm, almost zilch worth of the peak solar 475~550 nm, and otherwise subdued through to the normal 700 nm range, plus a good deal of offset for that of favoring the IR spectrum of 700~900+nm. Of course, most of the original films utilized by those Apollo missions have been discontinued, and of their replacements having somewhat less UV/a sensitivity. Brands of other conventional color films than Kodak, such as Fuji, are even less UV/a sensitive, which in turn produces a more true to the eye result.
Naturally, the latest round of their 35th year anniversary hype and publicly touted images have been altered from those originally posted, processed as though selecting upon the darkest of moonscape, having none of those nasty hot-spots, nor any shadow indications whatsoever. In other words, almost as it might have had to look, except for the lingering Kodak film deficiency of oddly having none of those color shift/skew factors that should have been the case, unless digitally scanned and corrected as to suit whatever was necessary. Although, why would any fool modify the raw as-is image of what supposedly transpired 35 years ago, especially when today we can't manage to keep the Osprey airborne, much less demonstrate a purely rocket powered lunar-lander of any form without killing everyone onboard.
In fact, regarding a crisp shadow line, as from what should have been nearly absolute black to otherwise being extremely illuminated, as created by way of such a horrific spot-source of illumination that included the 64 w/m2 worth of UV/ab, there should have been recorded an edge worth of a spectrum rainbow of colors, from deep blue/violet emissions to perhaps a somewhat near-IR (deep-red) shift at the shadow line, especially if the illuminated surface was in fact anywhere near 55% reflective, of which it seems to have been just that, in direct respect to those 80+% reflective moon-suits.
In addition to all of this Apollo photographed lunar environment hosting as such an unusually vibrant lunar soil and of what few meteorites there were, whereas those few rocks and/or meteorites indicating as even somewhat eroded and of such an unusually light color, whereas there was even the recent stipulation of their clumping-moon-dirt somehow becoming retro-reflective as to explain away those various illumination hot-spots, and perhaps even dog-wagging their way out of those various side and/or fill-in illuminations that somehow created all of those unusual shadows and of weird angles other than solar related at that. It remains odd that even with an atmosphere that we can't simulate that affect from any individual spot-source of illumination, and even though Earth has a million times more moisture in our deserts than upon the moon, no one has been able to make that supposed moon dirt clump.
Here's where 2+2 = anything but four; whereas KODAK film was not only being highly impacted by an enormous degree of having to record the greater reflected amounts near-UV and UV/a reflected as a black-light (bluish element) spectrum of considerable energy/m2, such as off those artificial items of aluminum and of them white moon suits and especially of having to record those red, white and apparently extremely dull blue American flags, but there was also an endless gauntlet of thermal issues and of those nasty hard X-Ray class radiation factors to boot. Just the overall influx of nearly 1400 w/m2 was being somewhat IR reflected off the dark lunar surface, thus the thermal energy impact from the IR spectrum was worth 50% greater yet. Such secondary radiation was being continuously created by the solar plus cosmic influx that was unimpaired as well as non-deflected by way of any Van Allen zone, as well as for having no atmosphere represents an environment that's offering an entirely unobstructed influence from such influx, and of secondary reflected issues as the influx was interacting rather badly with all of that supposed clumping-moon-dirt, that which has recently become so unusually retro-reflective by recent definition of those damage-control folks/borgs of apollohoax.com, as stipulated by such official NASA borgs having all "the right stuff" as for explaining why there's so many unusual illumination hot-spots, and/or a diminishing illumination index of the more distant/background lunar terrain.
Of course, in addition to whatever the direct radiation influx and horrific TBI dosage of them hard X-Ray issues had to offer, there's the notion of astronauts as well as such film tolerating a thermal differential of 500+ºF, that which apparently wasn't the least bit of a problem for the sorts of tightly rolled KODAK film, of which this is still of a terrific news-worthy story to folks that have made the mistake of leaving their camera and/or film within a locked car that never gets to half of the upper extremes of being as roasted to death as per situated on the moon, and every bit as equally news worthy is for the sorts of mountaineers and of Antarctica explorations having broken similar film that wasn't half as cold as for the shaded lunar environment. Even from that of Earthly utilized films, where the thermal extremes were not half that of the moon, that same film which managed to survive less extremes upon Earth was physically distorted, and of those processed emulsion dyes noticeably skewed, whereas all of this is easily identified by way of inspecting and/or digital scanning of the original transparencies or negatives. In other words, this is not even requiring rocket science as to determine the extent of film distortions or other photographic impact. In fact, the film itself becomes a perfectly good and reliable forensic measure as to the environment extremes.
Once again; I'm not the one suggesting that Kodak roll film would not have survived, just not unscaved, and thereby not unskewed with respect to physical damage, radiation aspects and of color-shift associated with the horrific added amounts of the UV/a and near-UV spectrum, of which the lunar environment as recorded by such Kodak film shares a survivable 256:1 UV/a and near-UV advantage over what's reaching the surface of Earth, although even from a human visual perspective should have noticed a black-light skew offering that bluish shift. Obviously working within a vacuum isn't all that complicated, although getting rid of the internal 1000 BTUs/hr of a hard working astronaut while being summarily roasted by the influx plus what's being efficiently reflected off the dark and hot lunar surface being mostly of the IR spectrum, this should have made things a tad-bit interesting to say the least, especially while receiving a not-so-healthy TBI dosage and having to dodge whatever incoming lethal dust-bunny items.
In spite of all of this photographic compromise and/or complications of having to survive hard X-Rays, such issues pails by way of such folks dodging those lethal dust-bunny factors, by way of having to personally survive running into those pesky bits of perhaps 2 mg worth as impacting at an average velocity of 15+km's, although there's certainly loads of other stuff directly in the path of the moon and Earth which thereby exceeds 30+km/s. Of course, if we're talking about a for-real small meteorite, say one of 2 grams worth (that's merely worth 0.333 gram as per sitting on the lunar deck), because that sort of horrific impact energy becomes a wee bit more interesting than of receiving any dust-bunny/m2/day.
Without an atmosphere, there simply isn't squat situated between yourself and of what the moon is running itself into at 30+km/s, as cruising along within our solar system, and of whatever ungodly speed of what this entire solar system is moving itself through, or as actually being dragged through the greater expanse of this universe by the likes of Sirius, isn't exactly poking along at 224 km/s.
In other dyslexic words of wisdom, the moon is not a nice sort of walk-about, as we've been thoroughly snookered to death about the moon, by the sorts of folks supposedly having "the right stuff", whereas that supposed right stuff is based upon what's currently stuck deep within a badly overflowing intellectual space toilet, along with tonnes of other cold-war memorabilia that I certainly wouldn't care to utilize as toilet paper, much less as for the printed and re-published as the sorts of lies created by the liars responsible for all that has gone so terribly wrong, especially under the recent GW Bush warlordship that has gotten us, along with all of humanity, headed even deeper into that badly plugged space toilet.
Sorry about that little anti-Bush rant, though you should thank your lucky stars that I'm not off on one of my NASA/NSA/DoD cold-war rants, or that one of of where's Dr. Death (Henry Kissinger) rant, nor into various energy/pollution rants, Boeing/TRW Phantom Works rants, TWA Flight-800 instead of the intended Tel Aviv flight rants, or my rant upon others taking the likes of energy reserves from whomever without remorse much less royalty compensation, and of otherwise taking all the credits for all that's good for themselves, and there's always my Lunar Space Elevator rants and/or why we should NOT be doing much of anything with regard to Mars, much less of what's further away, unless of course you're honestly interested in learning something upon what the likes of Sirius/abc had to offer with respect to the history and possibly even evolution as linked to teraforming, and as per salvaging our somewhat precarious future of our Earthly environment and perhaps even that of humanity as we know it, as this is where I believe that at previous times (roughly every 110 thousand years) is where we seem to have cruised somewhat close to the likes of Sirius, perhaps to within well under 0.1 light year, and of subsequently what the 375 nm peak spectrum of Sirius/ab has to offer certainly gave the likes of our diatoms something extra to work with, plus the likes of Mars receiving at the very least a 10,000 year reprieve from being sub-frozen to death.
This is also not my stipulating that such intellectual and patent thieves were not sufficiently smart folks, as obviously the likes of Marconi, Einstein and even by way of Shakespeare taking from Marlowe offered a great deal of worth to humanity, that is unless you were perhaps an unfortunate Cathar, or even in the vacinity of a Cathar, as in the wrong time and place, as in which case certain Popes made a rather nasty issue that your ass was soon to become grass by way of exterminations. As otherwise, many other smart folks and obviously honest individuals like Tessla could conjure up, analyse and R&D upon all sorts of nifty things, but were somewhat less capable or merely less ambishus (nice way of stipulating less greedy) at getting such to market, or better yet into the dirty hands of our cloak and dagger agencies such as our CIA, or those of NASA/NSA/DoD. Of course, once you've started off with such a big-ass lie as Apollo, from that point on there's no turning back, and those original lies only get bigger and more complex because, we've essentially placed all of our rotten cold-war eggs into that one stinking basket that's been taking all of humanity to hell.
BTW; VLA-SAR imaging absolutely beats anything CCD photographic, as in all to hell and back, and then some. Of the most recent 16 bit SAR imaging is almost too good to be true, and it's only somewhat unfortunate of these Magellan images being of merely 8 bit, and then only because of the elliptical orbit having to be averaged upon 75 meter per pixel resolution at places like "GUTH Venus site No.1". Although, by way of subsequently combining those raw 75 meter/pixel images into a 225 meter per pixel composite format creates 12 looks per assembled pixel, which is actually quite nice and believable as compared to some pathetic film or CCD of merely visual photons that can't possibly differentiate a shadow from that of what's colored dark, or much less image upon what's situated within the dark, and/or that covered by even thin clouds, nor all that capable of determining what if anything about the substance being photographed. At least the SAR imaging isn't going to be skewed off track by some optical lens distortions, nor of any illumination refractions, and the notion of being spectrum skewed by way of those UV/a or of any other spectrum intensity simply isn't a factor. And, of anything honestly using PhotoShop does not modify nor otherwise distort one damn pixel, as there's no ulterior motivated AI photo software component that's running amuck. Thus I can not create, much less identify, a single WMD within anything that I've reviewed of Venus, nor of Earth, unless you'd care to include what's American, as in that instance there's all sorts of identifyable and dastardly WMD, way more than our fair share of and of just about anywhere you'd care to look. So, it's not as though I and a few million other nice folks wouldn't know a good WMD if we ever saw one.
The “scientific method” forms the heart of legitimacy for the natural sciences. This method consists in assembling evidence, combining that evidence with assumptions, and analyzing the combination in a logical manner to develop a hypothesis. This hypothesis is the bases for predicting what should happen in certain conditions if this hypothesis is true. Evidence is assembled to test the validity of the hypothesis. If the evidence indicates that the hypothesis has not been proven to be invalid then other predictions based on the hypothesis are used to construct additional experiments to further test its legitimacy.
The validity of a hypothesis can only be determined by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is obtained by observation alone. Scientific observation can only show that a hypothesis has not yet been proven to be illegitimate. The empirical evidence derived from a test of a hypothesis proves, not that the hypothesis is true, but only that the hypothesis has not been proven to be untrue. Science does not deal in absolute truth but only in probability.
The reality of natural science is matter. When the scientific method is applied to the social sciences the test for validity is society. The reality for social science is society.
Matter, the reality studied by the natural sciences is essentially stable and non-changing. The truth of natural science discovered a hundred years ago is unchanged today. Such is not the case for the social sciences.
The social scientist is attempting to build a theory about a moving target and the social scientist is riding on this moving target while constructing the theory.
Truth is that which conforms to reality. The above provides evidence why the truth of natural science is stable and the truth of social science—the science of human affairs—is unstable.
Humans and not nature construct social conditions. The society in which the social theorist lives and of which she derives her present understanding of truth is a recent construct. It was constructed by those with prejudices, false assumptions, biases etc. that permeate her consciousness.
Truth in matters of human affairs is very slippery. The student of Critical Thinking is better able to deal with such a situation than is an individual who thinks he is a critical thinker. The Big Leaguer is a Critical Thinker the sandlot player is a critical thinker.
Does this mean that truth, in matters of human affairs, is subjective without any objective content?
Does social reality make truth and the theorist only brings theory and truth into harmony?
It seems that theory creates reality and is shaped by reality. Does social theory have any claim on logical truth