On Jun 22, 9:20 am, Grover Hughes wrote:
On Jun 21, 4:58 pm, spudnik wrote:

the matter is so very simple:
given the relative closeness ofVenusto Sun, since
its orbit is inside of Earth's, it is never *visible*,
except when Sun is completely occluded by some thing,
such as Earth.

On the contrary, Venus is even visible in the daytime to the unaided
eye, as I have demonstrated many time to students in my astronomy
classes. If you'd like to have help in doing so yourself, please email
me for times and look angles. I'll need your geodetic longitude and
latitude.

Regards,

Grover Hughes

Thanks for that honest feedback, not that it'll do us any good up
against these Borg like mindset Zionist/Nazi DARPA types.

-

May 20th image release:
JAXA | SELenological and ENgineering Explorer "KAGUYA" (SELENE)

The "halo" area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain
Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA)
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/img...kaguya_01l.jpg

First of all, this pathetic image that proves absolutely nothing on
behalf of any such NASA/Apollo soft landing site, as such simply isn’t
from the best of their 10 meter resolution TC. It looks more like a
100 meter intentionally made fuzzy dumb image resolution.

Apparently JAXA is still being used by our DARPA / NASA as so much
ongoing damage-control toilet paper.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

what is wrong with you folks, other than
a horribly deep immersion in the rectal dysplay unit,
your silly simsuits?

look; it's known as "the morningstar" or "the eveningstar," meaning
that
it is not generally *noticed* after you have "come out
of the umbra."

perhaps you have "shown your students Venus"
in the penumbra, but any later?... and, if really so,
what precautions do you make to actually site it?

do you see this relationship on your glass teat?...
how long, Lord; how long !?!

except when Sun is completely occluded by some thing,
such as Earth.

On the contrary, Venus is even visible in the daytime to the unaided
eye, as I have demonstrated many time to students in my astronomy
classes. If you'd like to have help in doing so yourself, please email
me for times and look angles. I'll need your geodetic longitude and
latitude.

well, how about, what maximum angle over the horizon,
have you ever seen Venus without any visual aids?

thus:
speaking of whether you're really a wigwam or a teepee[*],
Islam has many important cultural aspects, perhaps all
of them simply being codifications of Arabic ones, but
I don't plan on converting. I mean, I'd love
to be a camel jockey, two, but Obama's just-announced conversion
to the anticonstiutional faith-based initiatives, really,
has me wondering about camel poop ... and other forms
of "alternative energy." I only just read that
Obama shills for corn ethanol.

there is no "separation of church & state,"
for crying out loud; doesn't the DNC know this?

* the trouble with you is,
you're two tents; ha.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...818208,00.html
search:
buckminster june-26-2008 OR 6.26.2008

of course, even if you can see Venus, some times,
carefully shieding your eyes from the bright horizon
of dawn or dusk, why would that mean that the camera will see it?

which one of you guys has ever photographed foreground objects,
against a supposedly starry background?... well,
I haven't, either, but I wouldn't even try. I mean,
do you ever see objects in the foreground, regardless of focus,
in astronomical photography?

this is a God-am Photo One dot One lesson -- yeesh!

well, how about, what maximum angle over the horizon,
have you ever seen Venus without any visual aids?

* the trouble with you is,
you're two tents; ha.

--Seargent Cheeny Pepper,
"Give war a chance in the Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial markets!"

On Jul 2, 4:19 pm, spudnik wrote:
of course, even if you can see Venus, some times,
carefully shieding your eyes from the bright horizon
of dawn or dusk, why would that mean that the camera will see it?

which one of you guys has ever photographed foreground objects,
against a supposedly starry background?... well,
I haven't, either, but I wouldn't even try. I mean,
do you ever see objects in the foreground, regardless of focus,
in astronomical photography?

this is a God-am Photo One dot One lesson -- yeesh!

well, how about, what maximum angle over the horizon,
have you ever seen Venus without any visual aids?
* the trouble with you is,
you're two tents; ha.

--Seargent Cheeny Pepper,
"Give war a chance in the Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial markets!"

From our physically dark as coal moon, and using the unfiltered Kodak
film could not have avoided getting Venus within a few FOVs, even if
they weren't specifically trying for including Venus.

There are countless examples of peer replicated images of our moon,
other planets and even a few of the brightest stars being within the
same FOV (meaning same exposure as obtained from Earth). Sirius of
course would have been extremely impressive, as easily obtained from
the physically dark as coal surface of our moon.

Everything except the sky is so much brighter when taken into the
photographic account from the vacuum of space, especially if using
unfiltered optics. It only helps that the moon itself is nearly as
dark as coal (further proof via JAXA Selene), and having the polarized
optical element would only have made that moon itself look even
darker.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

it is an elementary encyclopedic exercise
to ascertain the magnitude of Moon's brightness,
compared to other planets & stars; if you don't do that,
you are avoiding the question of relative exposure, and
you ar clearly relying solely on simulations ... as if it was you,
that was at the Mojave Video Skunkworks in '69. so, go out
with the specific intent to capture Venus,
with some mildly lighted inflatable dummy in the foreground,
and see how easy it is, or how many tries it takes.

all extant fora on "fake landings" dyspose
of this "problem" at the outset;
that astronauts could see the stars, when
they looked upward to avoid the moonscape, but
there cameras mostly were not calibrated for that. the fact that
you have never engaged in astrophotogrphy is just for you
to admit.

human visual accuity is so much greater in range;
you have to account for that, in comparison
with the Hasselblad format e.g:
if the goal is not to specifically image Venus,
compared with the far-brighter "coal" foreground
of Moon, it will not be in the where, there (although
it might be possible to process the image,
to get the latent venusian trace out of the negative .-)

which one of you guys has ever photographed foreground objects,
against a supposedly starry background?... *well,

From our physically dark as coal moon, and using the unfiltered Kodak
film could not have avoided getting Venus within a few FOVs, even if
they weren't specifically trying for including Venus.

There are countless examples of peer replicated images of our moon,
other planets and even a few of the brightest stars being within the
same FOV (meaning same exposure as obtained from Earth). *Sirius of
course would have been extremely impressive, as easily obtained from
the physically dark as coal surface of our moon.

Everything except the sky is so much brighter when taken into the
photographic account from the vacuum of space, especially if using
unfiltered optics. *It only helps that the moon itself is nearly as
dark as coal (further proof via JAXA Selene), and having the polarized
optical element would only have made that moon itself look even
darker.

--Seargent Barracks McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial markets -- Yahoo!TM"

holey space-rodent droppings,
I should refer to the Kodak format of your choice, as opposed
to Hasselblad's, since that is the only practical way
for you to prove your alleged point about the relative exposures
of Venus-in the-background with Moon-in-the-foreground. so,
you'd have to compare that with the astronomical "magnitudes,"
which I think is in powers of ten, of Venus and Moon,
without bothering with the problem of being a lot closer
to Moon, by standing on it ... or teh Mojave Skunkworks Studio
backlot.

so, when you don't bother, again, to do this elementary research,
we will just have to give up on your case; you'll never learn,
dood.... anyway,
it is an elementary encyclopedic exercise
to ascertain the magnitude of Moon's brightness,
compared to other planets & stars; if you don't do that,
you are avoiding the question of relative exposure, and
you are clearly relying solely on simulations ... as if it was you,
that was at the Mojave Video Skunkworks in '69. so, go out
with the specific intent to capture Venus,
with some mildly lighted inflatable dummy in the foreground,
and see how easy it is, or how many tries it takes.
all extant fora on "fake landings" dyspose
of this "problem" at the outset;
that astronauts could see the stars, when
they looked upward to avoid the moonscape, but
there cameras mostly were not calibrated for that.

the mere fact that you've never engaged
in astrophotography is just for you to admit;
human visual accuity is so much greater in range, that
you have to account for that, in comparison
with the Kodak/Hasselblad format e.g.:
if the goal is not to specifically image Venus,
compared with the far-brighter "coal" foreground
of Moon, it will not be in the where, there (although
it might be possible to process the image,
to get the latent venusians traced-out
of the negative .-)

--Seargent Barracks McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft, boys'n'girls."

On Jul 3, 12:17 pm, spudnik wrote:
it is an elementary encyclopedic exercise
to ascertain the magnitude of Moon's brightness,
compared to other planets & stars; if you don't do that,
you are avoiding the question of relative exposure, and
you ar clearly relying solely on simulations ... as if it was you,
that was at the Mojave Video Skunkworks in '69. so, go out
with the specific intent to capture Venus,
with some mildly lighted inflatable dummy in the foreground,
and see how easy it is, or how many tries it takes.

all extant fora on "fake landings" dyspose
of this "problem" at the outset;
that astronauts could see the stars, when
they looked upward to avoid the moonscape, but
there cameras mostly were not calibrated for that. the fact that
you have never engaged in astrophotogrphy is just for you
to admit.

human visual accuity is so much greater in range;
you have to account for that, in comparison
with the Hasselblad format e.g:
if the goal is not to specifically image Venus,
compared with the far-brighter "coal" foreground
of Moon, it will not be in the where, there (although
it might be possible to process the image,
to get the latent venusian trace out of the negative .-)



which one of you guys has ever photographed foreground objects,
against a supposedly starry background?... well,
From our physically dark as coal moon, and using the unfiltered Kodak
film could not have avoided getting Venus within a few FOVs, even if
they weren't specifically trying for including Venus.

There are countless examples of peer replicated images of our moon,
other planets and even a few of the brightest stars being within the
same FOV (meaning same exposure as obtained from Earth). Sirius of
course would have been extremely impressive, as easily obtained from
the physically dark as coal surface of our moon.

Everything except the sky is so much brighter when taken into the
photographic account from the vacuum of space, especially if using
unfiltered optics. It only helps that the moon itself is nearly as
dark as coal (further proof via JAXA Selene), and having the polarized
optical element would only have made that moon itself look even
darker.

--Seargent Barracks McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial markets -- Yahoo!TM"

You are clearly excluding peer replicated science that 100% agrees
with the regular laws of physics. Way to go, DARPA clown, you
couldn't be any more brown-nosed or Zionist/Nazi mindset if you'd
tried.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jul 3, 12:42 pm, spudnik wrote:
holey space-rodent droppings,
I should refer to the Kodak format of your choice, as opposed
to Hasselblad's, since that is the only practical way
for you to prove your alleged point about the relative exposures
of Venus-in the-background with Moon-in-the-foreground. so,
you'd have to compare that with the astronomical "magnitudes,"
which I think is in powers of ten, of Venus and Moon,
without bothering with the problem of being a lot closer
to Moon, by standing on it ... or teh Mojave Skunkworks Studio
backlot.

so, when you don't bother, again, to do this elementary research,
we will just have to give up on your case; you'll never learn,
dood.... anyway,
it is an elementary encyclopedic exercise
to ascertain the magnitude of Moon's brightness,
compared to other planets & stars; if you don't do that,
you are avoiding the question of relative exposure, and
you are clearly relying solely on simulations ... as if it was you,
that was at the Mojave Video Skunkworks in '69. so, go out
with the specific intent to capture Venus,
with some mildly lighted inflatable dummy in the foreground,
and see how easy it is, or how many tries it takes.
all extant fora on "fake landings" dyspose
of this "problem" at the outset;
that astronauts could see the stars, when
they looked upward to avoid the moonscape, but
there cameras mostly were not calibrated for that.

the mere fact that you've never engaged
in astrophotography is just for you to admit;
human visual accuity is so much greater in range, that
you have to account for that, in comparison
with the Kodak/Hasselblad format e.g.:
if the goal is not to specifically image Venus,
compared with the far-brighter "coal" foreground
of Moon, it will not be in the where, there (although
it might be possible to process the image,
to get the latent venusians traced-out
of the negative .-)

--Seargent Barracks McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft, boys'n'girls."

Once again and again, you are clearly excluding any number of
published peer replicated science that 100% agrees with the regular
laws of physics. Way to go, you private part sucking DARPA clown, you
couldn't be any more brown-nosed or Zionist/Nazi mindset if you'd
tried.

A crescent Venus would have been too damn large and terribly bright to
have been so easily ignored. Even Mars and especially Jupiter and
Saturn shouldn't have been entirely excluded, at least not to any good
digital scan of those original rad-hard Kodak moments.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

do you know what a "handwaving argumentarium" is?

can you just consider the question, please, or
forever hold your pieces & your name-calling BS?

your *saying* that "all of science confirms my POV" doesn't do it;
sorry, about the imploding cigar-shaped object, dood, even if
I was an evil agent of DARPA etc.

it is an elementary encyclopedic exercise
to ascertain the magnitude of Moon's brightness,

Everything except the sky is so much brighter when taken into the
photographic account from the vacuum of space, especially if using
unfiltered optics. *It only helps that the moon itself is nearly as

You are clearly excluding peer replicated science that 100% agrees
with the regular laws of physics. *Way to go, DARPA clown, you

--Seargent Barracks McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft, boys'n'girls."

On Jul 3, 2:14 pm, spudnik wrote:
do you know what a "handwaving argumentarium" is?

can you just consider the question, please, or
forever hold your pieces & your name-calling BS?

your *saying* that "all of science confirms my POV" doesn't do it;
sorry, about the imploding cigar-shaped object, dood, even if
I was an evil agent of DARPA etc.

it is an elementary encyclopedic exercise
to ascertain the magnitude of Moon's brightness,
Everything except the sky is so much brighter when taken into the
photographic account from the vacuum of space, especially if using
unfiltered optics. It only helps that the moon itself is nearly as
You are clearly excluding peer replicated science that 100% agrees
with the regular laws of physics. Way to go, DARPA clown, you

--Seargent Barracks McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft, boys'n'girls."

Are you suggesting that our warm and fuzzy government and of its many
cloak and dagger agencies such as DARPA never lie to us, or otherwise
never infowar hype via disinformation or merely exclude pertinent
evidence in order to suit their ulterior motives or hidden agendas?

Did I miss the part when you'd mentioned that you are not from Earth,
or that's you've been off-world for more than a half century?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth