Re: I Just Found A Beautiful JPG From NASA // Tears To My Eyes !!!

On Jul 29, 1:19�am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

Brad Guth wrote:

On Jul 27, 2:55 pm, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com> wrote:

I Just Found A Beautiful JPG From NASA // Tears To My Eyes !!! ...

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2010/04/07/EarthDay2010.jpg

I'm in photoshop designing a logo,
and I was looking around NASA
for photos of Earth and Space,
and then found that !

Wow !!!

___

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Sir Gilligan Horry's Video Will Save The World!!!
...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXXRTPGt7Pc"Show The World !!! ...
Please Copy. Please Share".

Mr HVAC and Hagar are
...http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/AliensUFOsProof/Mr_HVAC_Haga...

_______________________

NASA has no shortage of public-funded eyecandy infomercial hype. �They
also have a number of spiffy supercomputers for running complex multi-
body simulations of just about any combination you can think of, in
full color and 3D interactive animation to boot.

�~ BG


Don't forget that they have had photo retouching specialists on staff since
the late 60's
Some of those Apollo pictures are �still quite unbelievable.

More like most.  Even those obtained from orbit don't add up to what
LRO has recorded..


Especially the ones that were taken on the surface, on a moon that is
tidally locked, and they claim to have landed near the lunar equator, yet
have photos with the earth near the horizon.

.....When it should have ALWAYS been straight overhead.


There's actually lots wrong, but I've already mentioned such a few
thousand times.  Apparently the laws of moon physics as recorded by
Kodak film are entirely different than here on Earth.

Too bad that the same terrestrial physics and its science doesn't work
for identifying all those extremely hot and cold surface minerals on
our NASA/Apollo's inert and monochromatic moon/Selene, that in large
areas offered an albedo of well over 0.65 and even up to 0.75 as
directly compared to those oddly inert white moon-suits of 0.85.  In
fact, not even UV reactions for those unfiltered Kodak images
obtaining any of those secondary/recoil photons seems to work for our
moon/Selene, whereas only amateurs can take color/hue saturated images
of our physically dark moon/Selene, and only when having to do so from
Earth.  Earthshine on the moon is actually quite a significant
illumination that�s intensely bluish, but once again none of their
unfiltered Kodak moments picked up on any of that either.

Perhaps it�s the lack of having an atmosphere and otherwise all of
that color/hue blocking element of lunar sodium that made all of our
NASA/Apollo images so gosh darn monochromatic and of such unusually
low contrast to boot.  It�s probably what also blocks out any of those
pesky nearby Venus photons.

btw, Venus is still giving off 20.5 w/m2, and don't you think that's a
rather large amount of geothermal heat for a planet that�s supposed to
be nearly 5 billion years old?

How much geothermal heat is Mercury, Mars or Selene giving off?

 Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
 http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
 http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj