On Jul 8, 11:45 pm, Tonico wrote:
On 8 jul, 21:48, BradGuth wrote:



On Jul 8, 11:26 am, Tonico wrote:

...........................
historical record nothing but mere mythology?

"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth-

************************************************
Hey, hellooooo! And what happened to the usual zionist jewish hokus-
pokus demonish shmonish ramble??
Are you beginning to like jews?? Oy vey!!!!!
One can´t trust fundie nazi-racist antisemites anymore...**sigh**
Regards
Tonio- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's your problem?

Most of the Jews I know of are smart and wouldn't so much as hurt a
Muslim fly.

The still alive and kicking Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones and
Zionism) is exactly what it is. You've got actual proof otherwise?
-
Brad Guth-

**************************************************
You talk nonsense about skull, bones, third reichs and zionism hokus
pokus....and you ask proof OTHERWISE from me???
Excuse my hungarian, but LOL...DD)
I have as much proof "otherwise" from your rather feverish, moronical,
unbased and sick claims as you have that purple winged dragons DO NOT
dwell in the Amazonas basin and eat little pink seraphines...)
Regards
Tonio- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, didn't realize that you were a Third Reich Jew. My mistake.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 4, 5:38 pm, wrote:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

Just keep asking; where's Venus? where's Venus? where's Venus?

Venus was big, it was bright and it was certainly nearby. I even have
a pathetic VGA cellphone camera with sufficienr DR for having recorded
Venus and that of our physically dark moon within the same FOV.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote in
ups.com:

On Jul 7, 4:52 pm, bz wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote
innews:lcEji.1325$Xa3.1188@attbi_s22:

I already use such software. Like I said, too bad sufficiently
bright
objects (within the dynamic range of the films used) weren't in
the image field. The fact is they were not.

We are waiting,BradGuth, for you to cite credible data to the
contrary. I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible
data, Guth!

This months Skeptical Enquirer has a good article showing images of
some stars in UV photos taken on a moon mission.

The earth is also in the UV photos.

.....

There was quite a great amount of UV energy available on our moon.

Unfortunately, those unfiltered cameras recorded none of it.

Take a look at the article "The Earth and Stars in the Lunar Sky" SI,
July/August 2007.

"The Earth images from the Apollo 16 S201 experiment have been widely
reprinted. Their first publication in a scholarly form was by Carruthers
and Page (1972) only a few months after the mission."

The UV camera was carried on the Apollo 16 mission. Google for "Apollo 16
UV" and "Apollo 16 Earth"

The author analyzes AS16-123-19657 and points out the identities of the
stars in that photo.

"One argument by proponents of the Apollo-hoax theory is the lack of stars
in photographs from the lunar surface. While the sunlit surface is much too
bright to yeild properly exposed images showing stars in visible-light
photographs, stars are easily visible in images taken using the ultraviolet
camera carried to the Moon by Apollo 16. The stars seen behind the Earth
can be identified on those images and interested readers can do so by using
the Web." William C. Keel

As I said, an interesting article.


Where's Venus?

About where she has always been for as long as there has been life on
earth, about 0.7 AU from the sun.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On 9 jul, 09:55, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 8, 11:45 pm, Tonico wrote:





On 8 jul, 21:48, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 8, 11:26 am, Tonico wrote:

...........................
historical record nothing but mere mythology?

"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth-

************************************************
Hey, hellooooo! And what happened to the usual zionist jewish hokus-
pokus demonish shmonish ramble??
Are you beginning to like jews?? Oy vey!!!!!
One can´t trust fundie nazi-racist antisemites anymore...**sigh**
Regards
Tonio- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's your problem?

Most of the Jews I know of are smart and wouldn't so much as hurt a
Muslim fly.

The still alive and kicking Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones and
Zionism) is exactly what it is. You've got actual proof otherwise?
-
Brad Guth-

**************************************************
You talk nonsense about skull, bones, third reichs and zionism hokus
pokus....and you ask proof OTHERWISE from me???
Excuse my hungarian, but LOL...DD)
I have as much proof "otherwise" from your rather feverish, moronical,
unbased and sick claims as you have that purple winged dragons DO NOT
dwell in the Amazonas basin and eat little pink seraphines...)
Regards
Tonio- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, didn't realize that you were a Third Reich Jew. My mistake.
-
Brad Guth-
***********************************************
Indee, another one of your mistakes.
You´re forgiven.
Regards
Tonio

wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jul 9, 4:14 am, BradGuth wrote:
:
: "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
:
: And he who controls the present controls the past.
:

You are off your ****in' trolley.
Get back on my killfile.
*plonk*

On Jul 9, 6:05 am, bz wrote:
BradGuth wrote

Ha! I am glad I am not the only one that transposes words.

"One argument by proponents of the Apollo-hoax theory is the lack of
stars
in photographs from the lunar surface. While the sunlit surface is
much too
bright to yeild properly exposed images showing stars in visible-
light
photographs, stars are easily visible in images taken using the
ultraviolet
camera carried to the Moon by Apollo 16. The stars seen behind the
Earth
can be identified on those images and interested readers can do so by
using
the Web." --William C. Keel
roups.com:

Souldn't that read

too bright to [properly -- yeild] exposed images )

Sue...


[...]

BradGuth wrote:
[...] I even have
a pathetic VGA cellphone camera with sufficienr DR for having recorded
Venus and that of our physically dark moon within the same FOV.

Shine a flashlight into the lens while you make the same picture. Venus
will not show up, providing the toy camera has exposure control. It will
shutter down to accomodate the flashlight image.

On Jul 9, 6:38 am, John Boy wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
[...] I even have
a pathetic VGA cellphone camera with sufficienr DR for having recorded
Venus and that of our physically dark moon within the same FOV.

Shine a flashlight into the lens while you make the same picture. Venus
will not show up, providing the toy camera has exposure control. It will
shutter down to accomodate the flashlight image.

Silly Jewspeak. I see that incest cloning hasn't been exactly kind to
your family tree.

There are many posted examples of our moon and Venus sided by side,
meaning within the very same FOV and using the very same exposure.
There are even official satellite images having accomplish such.
Obviously we have those NASA/Apollo images of our moon along with the
very darkest portions of Earth as recorded within the same frame, as
exposed onto the very same Kodak film.

Oddly, Venus wasn't all that far away, and of its illuminated clouds
were most certainly a whole lot brighter than the darkest portions of
Earth that recorded just fine and dandy. Those photons derived from
Venus also included a whole lot mome near-blue, violet and UV photons
to boot than given off by Earth's wussy albedo, of which the
unfiltered Kodak eye was in fact highly sensitive to.

Why are you and so many others of your Zion kind such dumnbfounded
fools and/or such born-again liars?
-
Brad Guth

On 9 jul, 18:05, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:38 am, John Boy wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
[...] I even have
a pathetic VGA cellphone camera with sufficienr DR for having recorded
Venus and that of our physically dark moon within the same FOV.

Shine a flashlight into the lens while you make the same picture. Venus
will not show up, providing the toy camera has exposure control. It will
shutter down to accomodate the flashlight image.

Silly Jewspeak. I see that incest cloning hasn't been exactly kind to
your family tree.

There are many posted examples of our moon and Venus sided by side,
meaning within the very same FOV and using the very same exposure.
There are even official satellite images having accomplish such.
Obviously we have those NASA/Apollo images of our moon along with the
very darkest portions of Earth as recorded within the same frame, as
exposed onto the very same Kodak film.

Oddly, Venus wasn't all that far away, and of its illuminated clouds
were most certainly a whole lot brighter than the darkest portions of
Earth that recorded just fine and dandy. Those photons derived from
Venus also included a whole lot mome near-blue, violet and UV photons
to boot than given off by Earth's wussy albedo, of which the
unfiltered Kodak eye was in fact highly sensitive to.

Why are you and so many others of your Zion kind such dumnbfounded
fools and/or such born-again liars?
-
Brad Guth
**************************************************
So you "reinforce" your """arguments""" with ad-hominems, cursing,
name-calling and mocking....aha. What a great mind!
Regards....from the dark cellars of Zionland...MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Tonio

On Jul 4, 6:38 pm, wrote:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

Here comes my response and critique.

***
"The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day,
for tomorrow, 21 June 2007:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the
daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.

NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be
visible."
***

Visible to the naked eye, perhaps, when not looking against the
dazzling
surface of the moon. When you have that in the shot, your camera needs
to be adjusted so the moon surface does not appear so dazzling, and
this therefore drowns the much fainter stars. Stars are brighter when
viewed in space, yes, but not so bright they can overshine the intense
reflection from the Sun (remember the Sun appears brighter too due to
the lack of atmosphere, further adding to the effect from the Moon's
already highly-reflective surface.). It would be silly to expose a
photo
where the Moon's surface looks like a solid white patch just so you
can
see the stars, when the whole point is to see the surface!

***
"Eric Hufschmid's Science Challenge asked if Apollo astronauts would
be able to see stars while they were on the moon:
www.EricHufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html
And would astronauts see stars as they traveled to and from the moon?
Would astronauts in the space shuttle be able to see stars?

NASA has been claiming for decades that it is nearly impossible for
astronauts to see stars, but now the Astronomy Picture of the Day
admits that without an atmosphere, we would see stars even when the
sun was shining.

Have you seen the Apollo press conference when Neil Armstrong and Mike
Collins said they didn't see stars? The video is on this page:
http://www.EricHufschmid.net/MoreInf...Challenge.html "
***

Yes! This is absolutely right. And the astronauts even admitted they
could
see the stars. This proves nothing at all. Once you realize the Moon
photos
were taken with a CAMERA...

Take a film camera, adjusted for taking pictures of the stars. Now try
and take
a picture of the ground in those settings, in broad daylight. Do you
see what
happens to it? Now try taking a picture of the stars with the camera
set up
to take pictures in daylight. Do you see them? Even on the Moon these
principles
still apply. The lack of stars in the photos simply tells us they had
their camera
set up to take a shot of the ground, not the stars...