On Jul 8, 11:24 pm, wrote:
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.

Zions and a few other faith-based cults are actually pretty darn good
at controlling both. It's apparently what their unusually white God
expects.

However; what if God is actually favoring towards Cathar, or Muslim?
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 8, 11:24 pm, wrote:
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 think anyone here actually knows what photographic color
saturation is?
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:

An unfiltered Kodak eye always sees so much more of the available
spectrum than the human eye,

No it absolutely DOES NOT. Consumer film is made to approximate the
human eye's color response. There are a couple colors that the eye does
not 'see' properly, depending upon adjacencies and background, but it
doesn't matter whether it's IRL or on a print.

BradGuth wrote:

However; what if God is actually favoring towards Cathar, or Muslim?

Are there any Cathars left? And of course, the Muslims are just
second-copies of XTian with a big dose of radical social fundamentalism;
their religion is their government.

Heck, there were gnostic 'Christian' sects, among many other variants
until about the year 300.

BradGuth wrote:

You think anyone here actually knows what photographic color
saturation is?

Yes. Do you?

"jj" stop.right.there.net wrote in message
...
: BradGuth wrote:
:
: You think anyone here actually knows what photographic color
: saturation is?
:
: Yes. Do you?


Hmm... a kindred spirit. Well put!

On Jul 10, 6:12 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
An unfiltered Kodak eye always sees so much more of the available
spectrum than the human eye,

No it absolutely DOES NOT. Consumer film is made to approximate the
human eye's color response. There are a couple colors that the eye does
not 'see' properly, depending upon adjacencies and background, but it
doesn't matter whether it's IRL or on a print.

That's very Jewspeak LLPOF, especially about the film utilized by our
not so rad-hard NASA/Apollo rusemasters and of their xenon arc lamp
spectrum of illuminations which created very little (less than
terrestrial) UVa. Perhaps guano islands just arn't what they used to
be.

Would you like to talk about those pesky red, white and blue color
saturations. How about those near-blue ones of pesky secondary/recoil
photons, of what such raw UVa unavoidably generates.

BTW, where's Venus? (perhaps hiding along with all of those Muslim WMD
and Usama bin Laden?)
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 7, 10:45 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:17 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:01 pm, pico wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth,
Uh... was Venus even within the scene they could photograph? And how
much brighter was it than the surface of the moon? Let's be specific.
Was it a range of possibly 10,000:1? (It was greater, actually).
My God, what a infomercial spewing liar, and pagan to boot. Do you
also suck private parts for a living?
-
BradGuth
Guthcan't answer the question!

Such silly and usually loaded questions are not the point.

Venus was per it's given visual size offering a brighter item per
grain of film than Earth. You folks are absolutely pathetic Zions,
without any speck of remorse or sense of humor none the less.

Too bad a sufficiently bright Venus was not in the image field!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can you say "anticathode"?

BTW, of braille astronomy orbital simulators don't count.

Why don't you show us your Jewish approved orbital simulator's proof-
positive of where Venus was hiding itself throughout each and every
mission.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 10, 1:21 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:45 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Too bad a sufficiently bright Venus was not in the image field!

Can you say "anticathode"?

BTW, of braille astronomy orbital simulators don't count.

Why don't you show us your Jewish approved orbital simulator's proof-
positive of where Venus was hiding itself throughout each and every
mission.
-
Brad Guth

Guth--you claimed Venus should be in the field of view without even
checking whether it was. I checked and you are just bull****ting.
Quit being so stooopid!

They 'lost' all the pictures anyway. People were
looking too close.
They accidentally 'erased' all the e-mails pertaining
to prosecutor firings, also. Too bad those are still on
servers.

If they keep missing Leahy with their
Army-grown Anthrax for awhile, and any of his
staff survive (several died from that), maybe his
calls for justice will be heard. Compared to him,
your rulers are scum.

John

On Jul 10, 11:30 am, malibu wrote:
On Jul 10, 1:21 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:



BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:45 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Too bad a sufficiently bright Venus was not in the image field!

Can you say "anticathode"?

BTW, of braille astronomy orbital simulators don't count.

Why don't you show us your Jewish approved orbital simulator's proof-
positive of where Venus was hiding itself throughout each and every
mission.
-
Brad Guth

Guth--you claimed Venus should be in the field of view without even
checking whether it was. I checked and you are just bull****ting.
Quit being so stooopid!

They 'lost' all the pictures anyway. People were
looking too close.
They accidentally 'erased' all the e-mails pertaining
to prosecutor firings, also. Too bad those are still on
servers.

If they keep missing Leahy with their
Army-grown Anthrax for awhile, and any of his
staff survive (several died from that), maybe his
calls for justice will be heard. Compared to him,
your rulers are scum.

John

Mix in a little fact, a handful of intellectual dishonesty, then bake
@ 350F for 2 hours in an environment of stupidity and you have a
typical malibu posting.