note that you've said that Moon is "physically dark,"
apparently referring to its albedo compared to Earth,
but all of this is rather elementary for anyone
who has taken photographs at night, and further, if
they have developed the film & prints by hand,
whereby one can actually develop those stars --
with which few in Apollo were concerned. of course,
the astrosuits were by far the brightest objects,
other than Sun, itself.

just so happens, there's an article about this
in the current "Skeptical Enquirer,"
noting that soem stars are visible becase
the UV was not filtered -- as you say?... unfortunately,
it's also "part two" of their "global" warming bake-
sale, and they also get into lagubrious cosmology.

thus:
as pointed-out by the Tits On Mars guy,
who was a commentator for one of the TV networks
at the time, these simulations were labeled
as such for the broadcasts ... Dick Hoagland,
whose own face may be on Mars, two!

in Gore's "global" warming propoganda,
he actually refers to the "dark side of the moon,"
when the astronauts lost radio contact, or
some thing, followed by the paradigmatic "rise
of Earth" during orbit; another victim of pinkfloydism,
"the wall" of the Harry Potter PS
that he attended in DC?... anyway,
there are many other inaccuracies in his movie, but
I didn't take notes when I saw it at the pier.

--n~nerfman~n!

Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum wrote:
note that you've said that Moon is "physically dark,"
apparently referring to its albedo compared to Earth,
but all of this is rather elementary for anyone
who has taken photographs at night, and further, if
they have developed the film & prints by hand,
whereby one can actually develop those stars

You have clearly never, ever experienced the limited latitude of film
photography. One exposes for the moon or the background. Digital is not
much different.

I have. You have not.

You are full of ****.

heh-heh -- which one of us are you slagging;
Uncle Guth with his sim-o-vision, or
me, who has never used a telescope,
with or without a camera?

heh-heh; Venus is Unidentified Floating Object #1,
for all time as viewed from Earth,
especially from aircraft!

I think, there is equipment to shoot stars,
during Earth daytime, but I'm not sure. also,
there is a scope in Simi Valley, CA,
that blocks Sun, but it's mainly
to look at the chronosphere etc., I think,
sort-of simulating an eclipse.

note that you've said that Moon is "physically dark,"
apparently referring to its albedo compared to Earth,
but all of this is rather elementary for anyone
who has taken photographs at night, and further, if
they have developed the film & prints by hand,
whereby one can actually develop those stars

You have clearly never, ever experienced the limited latitude of film
photography. One exposes for the moon or the background. Digital is not
much different.

I have. You have not.

thus quoth:
14 Italian Senators Call for Cheney Impeachment
Aug. 1, 2007 (EIRNS)-The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee
(LPAC) issued the following release today.

Fourteen members of the Italian Senate have signed a call "to the
Members of Congress to support Rep. Kucinich's House Resolution 333
for the Impeachment of Dick Cheney."

The signatures were organized by Sen. Lidia Menapace, who is the first
signer. Senator Menapace held extensive meetings with Lyndon LaRouche
during his Italian tour in June of this year.

So far all signers are members of the PRC/European Left group faction
in Italy's parliament. The names of the signers were sent this morning
to the Milan office of the LaRouche movement. This afternoon, European
Time, they will be sent to a priority list of U.S. Congressmen.

[Text of the Letter]
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07080...tors_call.html

thus:
pehaps it has been said,
history is made by the victors. I just read
about a new documentary by a japanese-american,
finally using the immense footage
from the scty of war Stimson's arbtitrary policy
of heralding the nuclear age with an act of unneeded terror,
which Truman embraced, as a matter of bowing
to his British betters, supposedly
to "give the SU a lesson."

this is fully documented in the LaRocuhe stuff, but
maybe you can't tolerate reading that.

they did it over MacArthur's head, and ever since then,
they've tried to say that he'd have done it in Korea!

thus:
in Gore's "global" warming propoganda,
he actually refers to the "dark side of the moon,"
when the astronauts lost radio contact, or
some thing, followed by the paradigmatic "rise
of Earth" during orbit; another victim of pinkfloydism,
"the wall" of the Harry Potter PS
that he attended in DC?... anyway,
there are many other inaccuracies in his movie, but
I didn't take notes when I saw it at the pier.

--n~nerfman~n!

Does telling lies upon lies make Yids feel extra holy special, as in
closer to your God that apparently didn't mind seeing one of his own
kind put on a stick?

Where's Venus? (you silly brown-nosed Yids damn well know exactly what
I mean)
- Brad Guth

if you are going to conversate,
maybe I just have to wait for you
to process what I wrote, above,
now "below."

why should Venus be any different
in its behavior as seen from Earth,
except a bit more or less relatively bright
in those lunar environs?

why is it *not* the morningstar or
eveningstar vis-a-vu Moon?

all of us who've exposed film and
developed it & printed the results,
with varying degrees of contrast, know this
for an absolute surety --
it's all relative, even though
I've never tried to photograph stars!

see the current *Skeptical Enquirer*,
which is otherwise pretty bad IMHO;
argue with those turkeys, not us, because
you just can't seem to engage torpedoes!

Where's Venus? (you silly brown-nosed Yids damn well

thus:
I think, there is equipment to shoot stars,
during Earth daytime, but I'm not sure. also,
there is a scope in Simi Valley, CA,
that blocks Sun, but it's mainly
to look at the chromosphere etc., I think,
sort-of simulating an eclipse.

but all of this is rather elementary for anyone
who has taken photographs at night, and further, if
they have developed the film & prints by hand,
whereby one can actually develop those stars

You have clearly never, ever experienced the limited latitude of film
photography. One exposes for the moon or the background. Digital is not
much different.

14 Italian Senators Call for Cheney Impeachment
Aug. 1, 2007 (EIRNS)-
The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee
(LPAC) issued the following release today.

Fourteen members of the Italian Senate have signed a call "to the
Members of Congress to support Rep. Kucinich's House Resolution 333
for the Impeachment of Dick Cheney."
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07080...tors_call.html

"Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" wrote in message
oups.com...
: if you are going to conversate,


What kind of ****** talk is "conversate"?
The English word is "converse".

I'm just trying to dance like the butterfly
of copaesthetic language that monsieur Guth is;
I was stung by his Homer SIMS-sonite revealation:
I can see Venus on my dumbterminal,
no matter where I fly in Universe --
it's morning in America, and every where else!

look, Ma; I'm flying de spacecraft with no hands --
wheeee!

hey, that's better then most western astrologers;
everything has precessed since Ptolemy "codified" that ****, and
his epicycles *was* a hoax, and they're still using them,
in a sense, over 2000 years later. but,
JPL doesn't care about which house Sun is "rising" in, or
about any other stars or apparent constellations,
for the purposes of perisolar launches
-- of course, that's all of them, to date --
so, that's not in the ephemeris!

The English word is "converse".

--n~nerfman~n!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07073...each_dick.html
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07080...tors_call.html

I'm just trying to dance like the butterfly
of copaesthetic language that monsieur Guth is;
I was stung by his Homer SIMS-sonite revealation:
I can see Venus on my dumbterminal,
no matter where I fly in Universe --
it's morning in America, and every where else!

look, Ma; I'm flying de spacecraft with no hands --
wheeee!

hey, that's better then most western astrologers;
everything has precessed since Ptolemy "codified" that ****, and
his epicycles *was* a hoax, and they're still using them,
in a sense, over 2000 years later. but,
JPL doesn't care about which house Sun is "rising" in, or
about any other stars or apparent constellations,
for the purposes of perisolar launches
-- of course, that's all of them, to date --
so, that's not in the ephemeris!

The English word is "converse".

--n~nerfman~n!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07073...each_dick.html
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07080...tors_call.html

Androcles wrote:
"Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" wrote in message
oups.com...
: if you are going to conversate,


What kind of ****** talk is "conversate"?
The English word is "converse".

Lighten up, asshole. Look to the content.

On Aug 8, 5:53 pm, Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
wrote:
if you are going to conversate,
maybe I just have to wait for you
to process what I wrote, above,
now "below."

why should Venus be any different
in its behavior as seen from Earth,
except a bit more or less relatively bright
in those lunar environs?

why is it *not* the morningstar or
eveningstar vis-a-vuMoon?

all of us who've exposed film and
developed it & printed the results,
with varying degrees of contrast, know this
for an absolute surety --
it's all relative, even though
I've never tried to photograph stars!

see the current *Skeptical Enquirer*,
which is otherwise pretty bad IMHO;
argue with those turkeys, not us, because
you just can't seem to engage torpedoes!

Where's Venus? (you silly brown-nosed Yids damn well

thus:
I think, there is equipment to shoot stars,
during Earth daytime, but I'm not sure. also,
there is a scope in Simi Valley, CA,
that blocks Sun, but it's mainly
to look at the chromosphere etc., I think,
sort-of simulating an eclipse.

but all of this is rather elementary for anyone
who has taken photographs at night, and further, if
they have developed the film & prints by hand,
whereby one can actually develop those stars
You have clearly never, ever experienced the limited latitude of film
photography. One exposes for themoonor the background. Digital is not
much different.

I see, covering thy but with all the usual lies upon lies is the best
you silly Yids can muster.

The physics and best available science of evidence has been posted for
years, and especially as of lately is not without having been
replicated to death.

The NASA/Apollo lack of Venus is just one of a good dozen other issues
that simply do not add up for others according to the limitations of
your Yiddish holy grail.

Those naked Kodak moments were unfiltered. Do the math and offer up
the science. Do the 3D interactive orbital simulator, and share.
Otherwise, do offer us whatever examples as to how the heck Venus was
so good at hiding itself while above that physically dark horizon.
- Brad Guth