Is the Moon *really* as dark as coal? -Guy Macon

On Oct 6, 2:21 pm, Bob Casanova <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote:

Yes, "the Moon *really* as dark as coal" is worth citing from any
number of peer replicated sources, along with loads of outsider
obtained images that proves the exact same thing.

How many combined years have you been within Usenet or any part of
uplink.space.com?

~ BG

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:56:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
<[Registered users can see links. ]>:


And the fact that this was refuted several times in this
thread, *with references*, means nothing to you? OK.


About 15. Why is this relevant to the fact that your claim
was refuted?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On Oct 7, 2:22 pm, Bob Casanova <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote:

By way of independent and multiple peer replicated matter of fact that
a 5th grader knows best, our physically dark Selene/moon is upon
average nearly if not somewhat darker than terrestrial coal.

There are published amateur images of our solar illuminated moon and
that of the same FOV having Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and of course Venus
that's terribly bright (better than 2x the albedo of Earth). There
are even a few NASA published images that proves how physically dark
our moon is in relation to other planets, including the darkest
portions of Earth that are actually brighter than our moon, such as
our ocean albedo records as brighter than our moon. When Messenger
using the ultimate best of any camera and mirror optics imaged Earth
from Venus, our large enough moon was essentially invisible (clearly
as dark or darker than coal) because it was obviously darker than any
albedo portion of Earth.

Good grief you are a dumb one, and obviously dumbfounded to boot.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 04:53:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BradGuth
<[Registered users can see links. ]>:




Apparently it doesn't.



No answer. No surprise...


And the fact that this was refuted several times in this
thread, *with references*, means nothing to you? OK.


Perhaps, although refusing to accept unsupported claims as
fact seems to point the other way; when I'm asked for cites
I provide them, or say why I can't. And the "dumbfounded"
one is the one who makes no attempt to provide cites to the
claims he makes:

"Upon being asked to support his claims, the conspiracy
theorist was dumbfounded and wouldn't, or more likely
couldn't, reply other than by making additional unsupported
assertions."

Sound familiar? It should.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless