The Dark Moon

[Higgsy]

With the recent discovery of water on the moon, you'd think it would have already evaporated off if there was light hitting it at the red end of the spectrum?

There are only hypotheses, and no accepted explanations at present for the presence of water in sunlit areas of the Moon. The hypotheses are that the water is locked, either in grains or between grains in permanent shadow, but that is yet to be demonstrated. I note that the concentration of water seems to be about 100 times less than in the Sahara desert and I wonder what you think would become of the water molecules if they did evaporate? Finally, if you claim that the presence of water is an argument against IR incident on the Moon's surface, it seems ironic that the detection of the water was actually made by measuring absorption in IR reflected off the surface.

[GaryN]

Cargo:

I would like to see a picture of the milky way from the dark side of the moon. Of course basic data about the camera used is important too. Was it a 10-hour exposure and such.

You will never see photos of the MW from anywhere on the lunar surface no matter how long an exposure is used. It will be interesting to see just what the next visitors to the Moon have to say, and with the much better video cameras we have nowadays I'm hoping they will repeat the Apollo 8 live transmissions as they approach and orbit the Moon. There is a good reason that nobody has been outside of LEO for so long and I am wondering just how they are going to play a Moon mission. Hope they take a light meter with them, and use it. Can't wait.

Higgsy:

I don't even understand why you would entertain your idea for more than a millisecond; or why, faced with the dearth of evidence to support it, that you continue to cleave to it like an article of faith.

Right back at you. Where is your proof? It is hard for me to believe that so many people can not see that the Emperor has no clothes.

[Higgsy]

I don't even understand why you would entertain your idea for more than a millisecond; or why, faced with the dearth of evidence to support it, that you continue to cleave to it like an article of faith.

Right back at you. Where is your proof? It is hard for me to believe that so many people can not see that the Emperor has no clothes.

What you did there was a rhetorical device to attempt to legitimise your bankrupt argument. It's like trying to equate the validity of the arguments for and against the moon being made of green cheese, where your position is equivalent to that of the green cheesists.

The reason why almost 100% of thinking people accept that the Sun emits visible and IR light is because there is overwhelming evidence for it, some of which I have laid out in this thread, and none of which you have been willing or able to address. We know that the rays from the Sun travel largely undeviated through a cloudless terrestrial atmosphere, the Sun's spectrum at the Earth surface is a near black-body modified precisely as we would expect if the standard explanation for solar light scattering and polarisation (mainly Rayleigh scattering) is correct, and by specific and identified water, oxygen, ozone and carbon dioxide absorption bands mainly in the IR and UV. We detect the Fraunhofer lines in the Sun's spectrum in the visible and IR. Moreover, measurements of the Sun's spectrum above the atmosphere are completely compatible with surface measurements and confirm that the Sun's output peaks in the visible, in a way that is consistent with the theory of thermal radiation from the photosphere at about 5900K. The accepted idea that the Sun emits visible light starts with the almost trivial observation that sunlight is visible, and is supported by all the evidence that we have.

To observe visible sunlight, and to reject the obvious explanation that what you see is what you get, and then to claim that the Sun emits no visible light, but that the Sun's emission is somehow converted in the atmsphere, is an extraordinary and unwarranted idea. To be taken seriously it needs strong evidence and viable mechanisms for the Sun's putative non-emission of visible radiation, and more importantly, for the conversion process which preserves the direction of the light propagation and features in the solar spectrum such as Fraunhofer lines. None of this is forthcoming from you (or from anyone), and intelligent people aren't going to discard a satisfactory explanation in favour of a bizarre one that is completely unsupported by evidence or theory. You have had every opportunity to present evidence and to propose mechanisms for these processes in this thread, but you have singularly failed to do so. So, yes, your Emperor has no clothes.

[GaryN]

"..and intelligent people aren't going to discard a satisfactory explanation in favour of a bizarre one that is completely unsupported by evidence or theory."

I'll take that as an insult. I used to believe in the standard theories until I began to look closer. Eric Dollard was the man who piqed my curiosity, and it soon became apparent that something was not right. There is much basic information that is not available yet should surely be known.
The solar filtered photograph of the Sun from outside of Earths atmosphere has still not been taken. I refer to photographs as being visible light images produced by a conventional film or digital camera designed to reprodce what our eyes would see see, and not iclude IR or UV information. My 50 year old 35mm Kodacrome 64 slides still reproduce the exact same experience as the time they were taken, as do more recent digital photos, so why do we not send ordinary cameras into space any more?
The reason I believe is that it is so much darker out there than it should be that questions would have to be asked as to why. The lunar surface illumination levels are one instance where the actual illumination levels are still not known, or I'm sure are but are not being published, as the actual figures would not tally with the standard model. Similarly for Mars, and especially for Mercury, whose surface should be blindingly bright even though of low albedo, but looking at the instruments that have orbited Mercury it is clear that they are not designed for these extreme visible light levels.
I suspect that even my alternative model is not the real one though, and that the ultimate model is likely an Aetheric or Akashic one, that all phenomena including light are the result of relationships between these Atheric elements, and these relationships will be based on the tetrahedron, making an understanding of Buckminster Fullers Synergetics almost mandatory. Non-simultaneous and only partially overlapping events as Einstein said, and the rate of change of these relationships is based on the shortest Plank time, so the 'clock speed' of the Universe is therefore 10^43 Hz.(I think it should be 42.) How ever it all works, the model of the Sun emitting any visible light or heat does not stand up to scrutiny and the lack of what should be well known basic lighting information only confirms this to any intelligent and inquisitive minds.

[moses]

"I suspect that even my alternative model is not the real one though, and that the ultimate model is likely an Aetheric or Akashic one, ..." GaryN

All life emits light and the aether is very likely to be involved in this. So if the Sun and planets and moons are alive means they have an aetheric body and they emit light. One would expect the Sun to emit much more light than the Moon or the Earth. But still the light from the dark side of the Moon is noticeable and the light from the Earth is likely to be the cause of the blue colour of the sky.

As I have written before, light from stars gets bent somewhat by our atmosphere and so the width of that starlight gets greatly increased. So say about 50 pixels on Earth and about 1 pixel outside of Earth. Mainstream don't want to know about this bending because it means that light bends a lot more than they want and if light bends in the atmosphere then it would be extremely likely to bend going through space/plasma/dust.

Cheers,
Mo

[Higgsy]

"..and intelligent people aren't going to discard a satisfactory explanation in favour of a bizarre one that is completely unsupported by evidence or theory."

I'll take that as an insult.

That's your choice, but I wasn't referring to you, but rather to people who you might be trying to persuade of the truth of your proposition.

I used to believe in the standard theories until I began to look closer. Eric Dollard was the man who piqed my curiosity, and it soon became apparent that something was not right. There is much basic information that is not available yet should surely be known.
The solar filtered photograph of the Sun from outside of Earths atmosphere has still not been taken. I refer to photographs as being visible light images produced by a conventional film or digital camera designed to reprodce what our eyes would see see, and not iclude IR or UV information. My 50 year old 35mm Kodacrome 64 slides still reproduce the exact same experience as the time they were taken, as do more recent digital photos, so why do we not send ordinary cameras into space any more?

The NASA manned space missions used a number of conventional cameras including Hasselblads loaded with ordinary monochrome and colour film. But that is all beside the point, as I have point out several times on this thread, the output of the Sun in the visible and IR has been measured accurately many times above the atmosphere.

The reason I believe is that it is so much darker out there than it should be that questions would have to be asked as to why.

But you have utterly failed to demonstrate that it is "darker out there than it should be", so that is a moot question.

The lunar surface illumination levels are one instance where the actual illumination levels are still not known, or I'm sure are but are not being published, as the actual figures would not tally with the standard model.

Say you, but you have presented no reason for us to think that "the actual figures would not tally with the standard model"; it is just unevidenced fantasy on your part.

Similarly for Mars, and especially for Mercury, whose surface should be blindingly bright even though of low albedo, but looking at the instruments that have orbited Mercury it is clear that they are not designed for these extreme visible light levels.

If that is so clear, why not produce your evidence. How bright do you think Mercury's surface should be, according to the standard model? And how bright do you think it is, and why do you think that?

I suspect that even my alternative model is not the real one though, and that the ultimate model is likely an Aetheric or Akashic one, that all phenomena including light are the result of relationships between these Atheric elements, and these relationships will be based on the tetrahedron, making an understanding of Buckminster Fullers Synergetics almost mandatory. Non-simultaneous and only partially overlapping events as Einstein said, and the rate of change of these relationships is based on the shortest Plank time, so the 'clock speed' of the Universe is therefore 10^43 Hz.(I think it should be 42.) How ever it all works, the model of the Sun emitting any visible light or heat does not stand up to scrutiny and the lack of what should be well known basic lighting information only confirms this to any intelligent and inquisitive minds.

Dullard, Aetheric, Akashic, Synergetics, Plank (sic). My mistake was thinking we were having a discussion about science, but apparently not.

[GaryN]

Dullard

That tells me a great deal about your overall attitude, you THINK you know everything any anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. Mainstream is full of such arrogance and ignorance.

How bright do you think Mercury's surface should be, according to the standard model? And how bright do you think it is, and why do you think that?

You're the expert, you tell me.

[Higgsy]

How bright do you think Mercury's surface should be, according to the standard model? And how bright do you think it is, and why do you think that?

You're the expert, you tell me.

It's your assertion. You wrote: "the actual figures would not tally with the standard model. Similarly for Mars, and especially for Mercury, whose surface should be blindingly bright even though of low albedo". Now you're running away from quantifying it. You never produce any evidence, any proposed mechanisms, any quantification or any reasoned argument. Just blind rhetoric. It's about as far away from how science is done as you can get. And that's why intelligent people reject your idea out of hand.

And you want me to tell you what you think the surface brightness actually is and why you think it? Really? How on earth should I know what's going on in your head?

[GaryN]

The first hint that Mercury is very dim is by looking at the Mariner 10 video camera. The Mariner 10 mission carried a vidicon based TV camera with spectral coverage from the near UV, through visible, and into the near IR. The vidicon was very sensitive, designed for low light conditions, but using exposure times of mostly 11.7 seconds. This colored, composite image is of a half lit Mercury:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... iner10.jpg

Similarly, the Apollo video cameras were low light level devices, though NASA had to go to the D.O.D. to get permission to use the even more sensitive vidicons that the military was using. Now why send low light level cameras to the Moon when it should be very bright? Here is a pdf on the cameras:

Low light level devices: A Designers Manual
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/735006.pdf

If we look carefully we will find that here are no visible light photographs of any part of Mercury or of the far side of the Moon. The images are in the IR or UV, and the spectral devices are not seeing reflected sunlight but emission or absorption lines of the surface material when subject to solar ionising radiation.

The Israel Beresheet mission engineering camera, a Bayer filtered, visible light only camera tried to photograph the fully lit far side of the Moon, this is what they saw:

A picture of the far side of the moon with Earth in the background. (Photo credit: Eliran Avital)
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews. ... ?ve=1&tl=1
On April 4 2019 the Moon was new, the far side fully illuminated.

An unprocessed photo of the fully lit far side:
https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... 706&crop=1

So although we have no actual measurements of the Moon or Mercury surface illumination levels all the instrumental evidence points to figures much dimmer than the solar constant model puts forward. Frustrating that they will not use simple light meters to give us the real numbers.

[Solar]

Interesting topic as usual GaryN.

I just happened to have recently come across a Feb 2019 article regarding “Lunar Swirls”. Interestingly, the “current hypothesis” regarding these brighter areas is that the moon’s small patchy crustal magnetic field might shelter some areas from the solar wind and/or UV radiation. Conversely, areas not protected via the moons crustal magnetism become darker by way of long term direct exposure to UV radiation. See:

Understanding Lunar Swirls - Spaceref 2019

A different related article covers Lunar albedo and also mentions the albedo of other celestial bodies. This topic reminded me of the hypothesis that the moon’s electric fields can lift fine crystalline dust (lunar dust levitation) and spread it for several miles. See:

The Dirtiest Lunar Mystery Of All 2013

I was curious whether levitated dust scattering and ‘reflecting sunlight’ might contribute to albedo and was surprised to find the above article pointing to the same idea. Electrostatic charging at the Lunar Terminator, as with other celestial bodies, is suspected of playing a key role. The article also mentions the long suspected Lunar Exosphere:

The search for electrostatically lofted grains above the Moon with the Lunar Dust Experiment

See also: Exploring the Moon with Landee (slides 10-19)

Both Luna and Mercury have a Sodium Tail and an Exosphere

‘Atmospheres’ of any sort have a very unusual quality (at least to me they do). It's so odd to realize that standing on Earth during the day and looking up a blue sky presents itself. At the same time someone on the moon looking at the Earth will see my blue sky become transparent from their vantage point having no color at all. That is such a unique feature.

When looking through transparent ‘atmospheres’ the invisible dynamics occurring for some distance around a celestial object might make that object appear quite different than when standing on same. This mixture of qualities coupled with ‘sunburn’ from UV radiation might account for the albedo effects. This unique optical quality was touched on during Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The commentary said that it “does not necessarily show the comet as it would appear to someone who is riding on Rosetta”. As well as - “If you looked at the comet with human eyes it would basically be black.” See:

Why Haven't We Seen Rosetta's Comet in Color Until Now?

[Higgsy]

Well done for attempting, at last, to provide evidence, or what you regard as evidence. As we’ll see, what you have provided is fails to support your case, but nevertheless, you did try. In this reply I am going to concentrate on your assertions regarding Mercury, as that is what we have been discussing recently.

I note that you have again failed to quantify anything. For example, your bald assertion that the surface of Mercury should be “blindingly bright” remains unsupported by any reasoning, and I repeat my question: just how bright do you think the surface of Mercury should be?

The first hint that Mercury is very dim is by looking at the Mariner 10 video camera. The Mariner 10 mission carried a vidicon based TV camera with spectral coverage from the near UV, through visible, and into the near IR. The vidicon was very sensitive, designed for low light conditions, but using exposure times of mostly 11.7 seconds.

The vidicon was very sensitive, you say? That is a claim for which you have not yet provided a single iota of evidence. Information about the television camera experiment on Mariner 10 can be found in Danielson, Klaasen and Anderson, Acquisition and Description of Mariner 10 Television Science Data at Mercury, J Geophys Res 80, p2357, (1975), which has a great deal of information about the first two Mercury fly-bys of Mariner 10. “The sensor was an improved version of the selenium sulfur photosurface slow-scan vidicon.” There is no mention of “high sensitivity” either here or on NASA’s description of the experiment. The only change over Mariner 9’s camera was the introduction of light flooding to eliminate the residual image problem. Vidicon tubes that used selenium for their photoconductor were not known for their extreme sensitivity. Ultra low light vidicons of the period used intensifier silicon-intensifier target (ISIT) tubes such as GEC ED7085. The vidicon used on Mariner 10 was not an intensifier type.

The optical telescopes (two identical instruments) were fitted with 1500mm f/8.4 lenses, so the luminance of the scene would have been about 90 times more than light levels at the vidicon faceplate with clear filters ignoring optical system losses (see Born and Wolf, Principle of Optics, Sec 4.8.3 for the derivation of the expression relating sensor illuminance to scene luminance), and much more with the blue and orange filters (roughly 2.5 and 4 times respectively). GEC selenium photoconductor vidicon tubes typically specify 1000 ft candels (about 10,700 lux) as the maximum luminance at the face plate, so in the optical system on Mariner 10 they could accomodate scene luminance up to 963,000 lux without damage.

I don’t know where you got your claim that the exposures were mostly 11.7s, but the instruments were capable of exposures from 3ms to 12s. The only mention of 11.7s exposures is with reference to the search for moons of Mercury which started 1 day and 22 hours after closest approach on the first fly-by. Obviously when searching for what might be very small objects at very great distances, exposures approaching the maximum of the instrument were used to image 36 Mercury radii on either side of the planet in the ecliptic plane and 12 radii above and below the ecliptic. There is no mention of 11.7s exposures when actually imaging Mercury.

Indeed the close encounter mosaic images are of such a resolution that relatively short exposures were necessary to avoid along-track motion smear. See for example https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/de ... d=PIA03103. Figure 5 of Danielson et al shows an 8.9km resolution mosaic on the incoming leg taken through the orange filter. On closer encounter continuous real-time imaging commenced through the clear filter plus or minus four hours around closest approach and exposure times were minimised to avoid smear in the pictures. See many close encounter images on this page: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/spac ... riner%2B10.

This colored, composite image is of a half lit Mercury:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... iner10.jpg

I have no idea why you linked this image, because it doesn’t support your case in any way.

Let’s turn to Messenger, a much more recent Mercury probe. MESSENGER performed three fly-bys and then orbited Mercury for four years and imaged the surface with exquisite (up to 20m) resolution using two CCD cameras, one a wide angle and one a narrow angle camera. Colour imaging was carried out with the wide angle camera and narrow band filters. The narrow band filters were centred at 415nm (40nm width), 480nm (30nm), 560nm (10nm), 650nm(10nm), and six more in the IR out to 1 micron. These filters were used individually to construct colour images. Being so narrow, the filter factors were large (ie they cut out most of the light - in the case of the 10nm wide filters, about 96% of the visible light was blocked). The optical system was f/10 and hence the scene luminance to sensor illuminance ratio through clear filters was 127 and through the narrow band filters between 800 and 3200. In other words, unless Mercury's surface is very bright, this system would have struggled to achieve a reasonable S/N ratio. Indeed, Hawkins et al (see below) state: "For WAC spectral filters, passband widths were selected to provide equired SNR in exposure times sufficiently short to prevent linear smear by along-track motion..SNR is not an issue, as sufficient light is available for SNRs > 200, but saturation is a concern at low phase angles."

The narrow angle camera operated at f/22 giving a scene to sensor luminance ratio of 620. Nevertheless the NAC typically worked with 7ms exposures to give a motion smear of 20m per pixel in the image along the track.

The sensor was a Thomson TH7888A frame transfer CCD. See Hawkins et al, The Mercury Dual Imaging System on the MESSENGER Spacecraft, Space Sci Rev 131: 247 – 338 (2007) – see fig 11 for the filter pass bands and CCD spectral quantum efficiency. The CCD spec sheet is here: https://www.digchip.com/datasheets/par ... 8A-pdf.php . At 640nm, the QE is 15% (low by modern standards), 6 microvolts per electron, pixel saturation at 1.9v, so you can work out the sensitivity which is typical of an ordinary digital camera sensor.

The broadband (clear) filter was used only for optical navigation (by imaging stars), not for imaging the planet. Exposure times of the wide angle camera could be varied for 1ms upwards. MESSENGER imaged 100% of Mercury’s surface in multiple visible and IR bands with over 160,000 high quality images in the visible and near IR transmitted back to Earth.

The fact is that when you actually look into the details of Mariner 10 and MESSENGER optical systems, your proposition that the planet is "very dim" is not supported at all. I'll comment on the rest of your post later.

[GaryN]

Hi Solar, with LADEE I think the artists impression is possibly one of the few realistic artists impessions I have seen, except that thy say the dust is scattering visible sunlight, I say it is being generated by the silica dust. Unless they can show me a photo of the Sun from space though then I obviously favor my method.
LADEE image:
https://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2015-08/nasa-la ... 880977.jpg

Ah, this is looking more like it!

"It is concluded that shadow luminance was greater than 0.6 ft-L and less than 1 to 10 ft-L for 325 ft-L average lunar surface luminance."

325 ft-L is 1150 lux, which is at the low end of an overcast mid-day illumination level on Earth.

From "Analysis of Apollo 8 Photography and Visual Observation"
(The link will not work on here but it can be found for free on Google)

So not blindingly bright, and confirms a post by someone who had had a chance to don an Apollo helmet and look through the 'dark' visor. He said it was like looking through a 2 way mirror and made the view clearer but not much dimmer. The idea by NASA was that it would reduce the incidental light from lunar surface reflection so they could see more clearly.

The experiment I now would like to see is of the average light levels on the far side. and I also suspect it is not Earthshine that is illuminating the dark portion of the near side but either the Van Allen belt UV/EUV radiation, or same from Earths upper atmosphere. Yes, an interesting topic indeed.

[Higgsy]

Ah, this is looking more like it!

"It is concluded that shadow luminance was greater than 0.6 ft-L and less than 1 to 10 ft-L for 325 ft-L average lunar surface luminance."

325 ft-L is 1150 lux, which is at the low end of an overcast mid-day illumination level on Earth.

From "Analysis of Apollo 8 Photography and Visual Observation"
(The link will not work on here but it can be found for free on Google)

Here is the link: https://www.scribd.com/document/5424660 ... -Operation. It seems that you don't understand what you read. The passage you quoted is from page 50, where the author is calculating the minimum luminance and contrast within shadow areas, surrounded by lit areas, in order to see detail in the shadows, under the condition of a low solar angle of ten degrees. The mean luminance from the surface for that solar angle assuming a 10% average reflectance and 25% line of sight reflectance is calculated using the solar radiance at the Moon of 13,000 lumens/square foot which is 140,000 lux. So yes, as bright as is expected from conventional considerations.

Also available in that report are the calculations for camera settings starting on page 114. All exposures were made at 1/250s with apertures ranging from f/2.8 to f/16. The average solar irradiance at the surface is quoted as 14 x 10^4 meter-candles which is 140,000 lux consistent with the figure used on page 50. The exposure is also compatible with exposures of the full Moon from the Earth on a clear night which is 1/250s at f/7 ISO100.

It is obvious from these data, in the same paper that you referenced, that the solar irradiance and brightness of the Sun at the Moon is exactly as expected from mainstream considerations.

The experiment I now would like to see is of the average light levels on the far side. and I also suspect it is not Earthshine that is illuminating the dark portion of the near side but either the Van Allen belt UV/EUV radiation, or same from Earths upper atmosphere.

As usual, you provide no rationale, no mechanism, no evidence and no quantification.

[Higgsy]

Similarly, the Apollo video cameras were low light level devices, though NASA had to go to the D.O.D. to get permission to use the even more sensitive vidicons that the military was using. Now why send low light level cameras to the Moon when it should be very bright? Here is a pdf on the cameras:
Low light level devices: A Designers Manual
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/735006.pdf

So, to continue the analysis of your groundless claims. First of all you give absolutely no reference or evidence for your assertion that Apollo video cameras were low light devices or that NASA had to go to the DoD to use them. Secondly, that report you linked, all several hundred pages of it, has absolutely nothing to do with the Apollo missions, but is a guide to using a wide range of commercially available imaging devices including vidicons. Your implied claim that NASA knew then that the Moon surface is dim, and that they have hidden that fact all these years is a blatant conspiracy theory which you provided no evidence for.

If we look carefully we will find that here are no visible light photographs of any part of Mercury or of the far side of the Moon. The images are in the IR or UV, and the spectral devices are not seeing reflected sunlight but emission or absorption lines of the surface material when subject to solar ionising radiation.

Arrant nonsense. I linked to a mosaic photograph of Mercury taken by Mariner 10 with the orange filter. Images were taken of Mercury with two filters in the visible (blue and orange). MESSENGER has taken vast numbers of images of Mercury including images using several narrow-band filters in the visible. As for the Moon, the far side has been imaged since the Russian Luna 3 satellite in 1959 and dozens of times since up to the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter which photographed the Moon in exquisite detail multiple times and especially at 643nm and 100m/pixel. The whole surface. More than once.

So although we have no actual measurements of the Moon or Mercury surface illumination levels all the instrumental evidence points to figures much dimmer than the solar constant model puts forward.

Not so. As you will have seen in the actual figures in the recent posts, all the actual quantified instrumental evidence for the Moon and Mercury supports the standard mainstrem view. All you have is fantasy and conspiracy theories.

[GaryN]

Higgsy:

First of all you give absolutely no reference or evidence for your assertion that Apollo video cameras were low light devices or that NASA had to go to the DoD to use them.

Early in the Apollo program NASA became aware of a special low-light television imaging tube that Westinghouse had developed for the Department of Defense. Due to the war in Viet Nam, the Army was developing low light devices for use as jungle surveillance devices and on aircraft to spot a downed pilot at night. To meet the DOD requirements Westinghouse developed a sensitive image tube that combined a variable-gain light intensifier with a secondary electron conduction (SEC) target. The SEC tube had the capability to reproduce objects in motion, at low light levels, without the normal smearing produced by vidicon or image orthicon tubes.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat5.pdf