 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / January 2006NEIL ARMSTRONG & NASA - TOGETHER PERPETUATE MOON LANDING MYTH & DECEPTION
[WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG SHY] Historian Douglas Brinkley calls him "our nation's most bashful Galahad." Author James Hansen has opened the door to Armstrong's life a little wider with "First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong." He recorded more than 50 hours of interviews with Armstrong and talked with about 125 family members, friends and associates. [WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG VERY PRIVATE / SECRETIVE] Armstrong, 75, had rejected numerous requests to write his biography. The astronaut who once called himself a "nerdy engineer" finally accepted a proposal from Hansen, a history professor at Auburn University and a former NASA historian who talks his language. Hansen said his plan for the book and his credentials helped him earn Armstrong's trust. [WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG NOT HUMANISTIC?] "He can elaborate at length on technical issues," Hansen said. "When it comes to issues that are more involving personalities or human relationships, that's never been a great focus even from the time he was a boy." [WHY IS THERE SUCH ECCENTRIC ODDITY ABOUT PROCESS OF BOOK PUBLISHING DISPAYED BY NEIL ARMSTRONG?] Hansen said Armstrong quietly spread the word that it was OK for friends and associates to talk freely; that Armstrong read drafts of the book but did not demand approval rights; that he and Armstrong drew up a contract without involving lawyers; and that Armstrong will not personally benefit from the book. ['WHAT WOULD THEY SAY' HAD NEIL ARMSTRONG KEPT AVOIDING THE PARTNERED BOOK?] Armstrong's share of profits will go to his alma mater, Purdue University, for a space program archive. Hansen pitched the project to Armstrong in 1999. Interviews began in 2001, and the book went on sale Oct. 18. Publisher Simon & Schuster said that more than 113,000 copies are in print. "Readers have been eager to learn more about Neil Armstrong for years," said associate publisher Aileen Boyle. "As soon as the manuscript was complete, we published it as soon as possible." [WHAT IS NEIL ARMSTRONG HIDING - "NEVER FELT COMFORTABLE" MEETING PRESS, WRITERS & PUBLIC?] Armstrong has never felt comfortable with his celebrity, generated by a moon walk seen by a worldwide television audience estimated at 1 billion. "Friends and colleagues, all of a sudden, looked at us, treated us slightly differently than they had months or years before when we were working together," he told "60 Minutes" in a recent interview. "I never quite understood that." [WHY DOES NEIL ARMSTRONG RIGOUROUSLY PUT HEAVY DEMANDS ?] Although CBS and Simon & Schuster, both owned by Viacom, encouraged Armstrong to do the interview, he agreed to it only as a favor to the author, Hansen said. A spokeswoman for the publisher said Armstrong is refusing all other requests. [NEIL ARMSTRONG FEARS SQUEALING ABOUT THE MOON HOAX IN UNSCRIPTED REMARKS] One of the reasons may be that Armstrong, a perfectionist, doesn't like the way he comes off in unscripted remarks. He gave his performance on "60 Minutes" a grade of C-minus, Hansen said. [WITNESSES SAY NEIL ARMSTRONG "REMOTE" TO THEM] In appearances just before and after the moon walk, Armstrong often seemed remote, even boring. Author Norman Mailer, who was interested in doing an Armstrong biography, wrote that Armstrong answered questions "with his characteristic mixture of modesty and technical arrogance, of apology and tightlipped superiority." [THE SECRETIVE CHARACTER OF NEIL ARMSTRONG & A SECRET PROJECT - THE PERFECT MATCH] Maybe, Hansen suggests, it was that remoteness, that ice water-in-the-veins quality, that made Armstrong the perfect choice to be the first man on the moon. [THE SECRET PROJECT THAT SPOILT BEIL ARMSTRONG'S FAMILY LIFE] But those qualities also kept him from close family relationships. Hansen's book offers the most candid look yet at situations Armstrong had never discussed - painful events, such as the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Karen, of brain cancer in 1962, his lack of participation while his sons were growing up and his divorce from his first wife, Janet, after 38 years. Hansen came to know Armstrong in a way the public hasn't seen. ["SUSPECT" !] "He can be very sociable, very engaging," Hansen said. "He can almost be the life of the party. You would not suspect that." [NEIL ARMSTRONG'S 'FALSE EGO'] Armstrong doesn't see himself as a recluse, though. He makes numerous appearances and presentations at aerospace conventions and other forums that interest him. He took questions from the audience at one such meeting in Malaysia in September, offering these thoughts on manned flight to Mars. [TAXATION, OUTSOURCING & GLOBALIZATION] "It will be expensive, it will take a lot of energy and a complex spacecraft," Armstrong said. "But I suspect that even though the various questions are difficult and many, they are not as difficult and many as those we faced when we started the Apollo (program) in 1961." [NASA & NEIL ARMSTRONG'S FALSE PROPAGANDA WORKS ] Hansen's book has been generally well received. At book signings in Ohio, where Armstrong grew up, there were large crowds, heavy - in a discouraging way, Hansen felt - in the demographic that saw the moon walk on television. "It's all from the generation that participated in it," Hansen said. "There are very few young people coming." He noted that two-thirds of the world's population was not alive in 1969. [BOOK PERPETUATES THE MYTH & DECEPTION OF MOON LANDING] "I wrote the book for posterity, even more so than for folks today," Hansen said. "I wanted a complete history, a complete record to be there for future generations. Some reviewers have criticized the book for being too detailed. If that's the biggest mistake I made, so be it." Publishers Weekly reveled in Hansen's attention to detail, such as Armstrong's heart rate during liftoff (146 beats a minute) and what a signed Armstrong letter fetched at auction ($2,500). "Rather than overwhelming, this accumulation of details gives flesh-and-blood reality to a man who is more icon than human," PW noted. Brinkley, writing for The New York Times, praised Hansen's effort as "brimming with groundbreaking research, fresh anecdotes and fair-minded analysis." "If nothing else, Hansen should be commended for decoding the enigmatic Armstrong: a space hero short on words but sky-high on Midwestern integrity," Brinkley wrote. http://groups.google.com/group/FOOLED MOON LANDING HOAX RELIGIOUS. People were fooled by higher authorities that were motivated by religion into believing the moon landing. This continues even to this day! > MOON LANDING HOAX RELIGIOUS. People were fooled by higher authorities > that were motivated by religion into believing the moon landing. This > continues even to this day! THAT'S NOTHING! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE SANTA CLAUSE IS NOT REAL, THE EARTH IS "ROUND" LIKE A BALL, AND LIGHTNING ISN'T CAUSED BY ANGRY SPIRITS! HERETICS ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah, well, I've got your moonlanding hoax video right here: http://www.gaiaguys.net/moontruth.mpg Moron. I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon our extremely reactive moon. At this point, I'm not even certain if we've so much as managed any robotic soft landings, especially since there were at least a good dozen viable methods and loads of opportunities of their having easily proved otherwise. The NASA/Apollo teams of MIB gives folks little choice, that is if the likes of Neil Armstrong and of the whole damn original cloak and dagger crew of our perpetrated cold-war NASA (aka MI6/NSA~CIA), along with their extended family plus friends are to live. - Brad Guth > I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon > our extremely reactive moon. At this point, I'm not even certain if > we've so much as managed any robotic soft landings, especially since > there were at least a good dozen viable methods and loads of > opportunities of their having easily proved otherwise. Hmm, let's see.... Should I take the word of tens of thousands of scientists, astronauts, engineers, and technicians directly involved with the space program, or.... Some kookbreath psychotic's theory? Gee, that's a TOUGH ONE.... <snicker> >Hmm, let's see.... >Should I take the word of tens of thousands of scientists, astronauts, >engineers, and technicians directly involved with the space program, >or.... >Some kookbreath psychotic's theory? No contest; pick me, as I'll blow their socks off, and then some. Oops, I forgot that you folks don't believe in using hard-science or the regular laws of physics. So, what's the point? Obviously you haven't squat to work with, as otherwise you'd have posted whatever's 100+% proof-positive. Do I have to re-post all 1000+ contributions that I've managed thus far, as in walls of words along with the hard-science links to what would hold up in a court of law? Of course silly me, I didn't know that whatever's Kodak and the laws of photon physics was such a "kookbreath psychotic's theory". - Brad Guth > posted whatever's 100+% proof-positive. Do I have to re-post all 1000+ > contributions that I've managed thus far, as in walls of words along > with the hard-science links to what would hold up in a court of law? YES! alt.test is the place to do it, too! THEY don't monitor that newsgroup. You know who I mean, Brad. trane  Signature///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan // Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. >I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon >our extremely reactive moon. At this point, I'm not even certain if >we've so much as managed any robotic soft landings, especially since >there were at least a good dozen viable methods and loads of >opportunities of their having easily proved otherwise. Who is we in this context? The Russians would have to be part of your supposed conspiracy because of their robot probes to the moon you know. >The NASA/Apollo teams of MIB gives folks little choice, that is if the >likes of Neil Armstrong and of the whole damn original cloak and dagger >crew of our perpetrated cold-war NASA (aka MI6/NSA~CIA), along with >their extended family plus friends are to live. >- Do me a favour. This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades, except from you and the other believers? This is all based on bogus tabloid science and paranoia. Oh, and the desire of a few individuals to make a fast buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement. The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government cancelled it. -- Stephen Horgan "intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence" http://www.horgan.co.uk/ On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:45:31 GMT, in a place far, far away, Stephen Horgan <stephen@horgan.REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government >cancelled it. Well, that and the fact that it was ridiculously expensive, and cost ineffective... > On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:45:31 GMT, in a place far, far away, Stephen > Horgan <stephen@horgan.REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> made the phosphor on my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, that and the fact that it was ridiculously expensive, and cost > ineffective... I think you are both correct. America had clearly won the race to the moon and there didn't appear to be any plans to go on to Mars, so America grew bored with it and Congress thought there were better things to do with the money. Rockett Crawford > >>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government > >>cancelled it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > any plans to go on to Mars, so America grew bored with it and Congress > thought there were better things to do with the money. Then why is America racing back to the moon, in a short sighted ridiculously expensive and cost ineffective manner (VSE and ESAS)? Except perhaps to hide the real reason, to kill our American space program forever. http://cosmic.lifeform.org > >>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government > >>cancelled it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > any plans to go on to Mars, so America grew bored with it and Congress > thought there were better things to do with the money. ISTR fighting the losing Vietnam War was one of these 'better things'. Doug And I guess you have a cheaper way to get off the earth and to the moon? I think NOT. SignatureThe Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net In Garden Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden Blast Off Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/starlords > Well, that and the fact that it was ridiculously expensive, and cost > ineffective... >Stephen Horgan; >The Russians would have to be part of your supposed conspiracy >because of their robot probes to the moon you know. Now you're talking my kind of mutually perpetrated cold-war, of cloaks and daggers plus lots of smoke and mirrors that most all of humanity got to pay for, many of which with our lives. Please feel perfectly free anytime, as to provide us with such robotic fly-by-rocket R&D prototype expertise and of their documented proof-testing that the USSR must still have by the absolute truck loads to brag about. >This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades, >except from you and the other believers? I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and dumbfounded from A to Z. >Oh, and the desire of a few individuals to make a fast >buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement. Please send me my first "fast buck", as I'll frame it and send you a picture of that framed buck. >The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted >government cancelled it. You really are quite a thoroughly snookered and thus dumbfounded soul. Our getting safely to/from the LL1/ME-L1 parking zone or nullification sweet-spot was doable, and of having robotically orbited the moon was also doable, including recovering of the Kodak film was entirely within our robotic expertise of the day, After all, it was NASA/Apollo that proved they had that much expertise under control. It's the soft-landing upon and via our having accomplished such by our unproven fly-by-rocket landers that wasn't quite doable, and clearly still isn't the case as of today. It also seems that you're the ones continually excluding your own evidence, avoiding the topics of honest Kodak physics and of all those fly-by-rocket landers that simply did NOT exist. Though it's entirely possible that eventually a robotic semi-soft landing had been accomplished but not externally spoken of. Perhaps if these missions were called fly-by-rocket to surface soft-impactors, as that I'd have to buy. Here's a little recent info that makes myself think all the more that I'm dead right, at least it doesn't exactly help the pro-NASA/Apollo arguments. Robotic fly-by-rocket lander R&D: "The upper limit of $750M should be used." http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18919 "The mission concept should generally follow the MSFC proposed concept, where a CLV test flight is used to launch the lander, and a throttleable RL-10 engine is used for the descent and landing to best emulate the human landing approach." "To the degree possible, the landing should be a verification test of the human lander descent and landing guidance and flight control algorithms, the precision landing and hazard avoidance capability, including navigation and instruments." - Don't look now, but it sounds exactly like they're having to totally reinvent those fly-by-rocket wheels to me. Our NASA clearly wants this fly-by-rocket robot to first prove the task is even safely doable. Personally, I couldn't agree more, as there's next to nothing that a human interfaced fly-by-rocket lander could possibly accomplish a better job of, than a fully robotic lander as having a terrestrial based ground-control interface, or as having their manned LL1/ME-L1 command platform at the stick after having initiated a nearly zero velocity drop-away from that very same nifty parallel parking zone that's supposedly less than 60,000 km off the deck, representing just a mere orbital velocity of 164 m/s that offers the nifty advantage of there being no good reasons as to having to ever increase that orbital velocity factor. As for going vertical at perhaps an average of 1.66 km/s is worth roughly 10.5 hours to reach the deck, of which this could safely place the lander just about anywhere north, south, east or west of dead center. Of course, if accomplished purely via fly-by-rocket, that's suggesting a one-way ticket of 10.33 hours of dropping from dead out of the sky plus having to safely manage a good deal of controlled down-range, which is clearly something we can't seem to manage as of today. It sounds as though their supposed new and improved rover capability is also up for grabs, meaning there's nothing on the existing boards or otherwise within prototype inventory that'll accomplish the rover task as is. I can fully understand this need for R&D if this rover has to manage as per fully functioning and somehow surviving with limited traction upon and/or having to trek itself through as little as 5g/cm2 worth of bone dry quicksand surface tension, that is unless sticking to a path of exposed solids/bedrock that isn't going to exactly represent level or smooth lunar terrain. Gee whiz folks, of keeping their surface tension loading below 50 kg/m2 upon whatever multiple wide and thus supportive tires and/or upon wide traction belts of rover treads shouldn't be all that difficult. My thinking a bit outside the box; - from the relative safety of LL1/ME-L1 they could just safely lower this robotic lander package by way of having a fairly large ball of composite basalt string, or of some other fiber/tether product, then sit back and watch the sparks fly. >And I guess you have a cheaper way to get off the earth >and to the moon? I think NOT. At a ratio of something greater than 100:1, meaning that of that era it should have taken more than 100 liftoff tonnes per Apollo mission tonne, which is certainly another interesting push of faith that was obviously to a mostly robotic extent doable, but otherwise extremely testy for even a crew spending their mission time at LL1/ME-L1. I do believe it takes a bit more energy going for the moon as opposed to parking a given satellite tonnage at 36,000 km. Apollo-17 launch mass: 2,923,387 kg / 46,825 = 62.4:1 which is suggesting a rather impressive accomplishment without benefit of SRBs, especially since even with massively powerful SRBs that have been typically configured as providing ten fold the thrust capability of the LH2/LXO rocket engines, whereas it seems there is nothing as of the very best applied rocket launch technology of today that comes even close to that accomplishment of getting relatively small stuff into GSO. Has inert rocket mass and of the rocket science itself been going backwards for all of these decades? - Brad Guth On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:54:32 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Starlord" <starlord@despammed.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >And I guess you have a cheaper way to get off the earth and to the moon? I >think NOT. Why is it necessary that *I* have one? There are certainly more cost-effective ways than those we've chosen. Not really, even the building, testing, and 3 sub orbilal flights of Spaceship 1 , launched from Mojave Spaceport cost over $10 million. And so far the Space X rocket hasn't gotten off the pad either. Plus to design, build, test, and fly something that will reach earth orbit and then reach for the moon, you'r looking at billions. Now, unless someone finds a stargate or something else, we're left with ROCKETS and they are very costly. Oh, maybe we can use a big slingshot? SignatureThe Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net In Garden Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden Blast Off Online Gift Shop http://www.cafepress.com/starlords > On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:54:32 -0800, in a place far, far away, > "Starlord" <starlord@despammed.com> made the phosphor on my monitor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why is it necessary that *I* have one? There are certainly more > cost-effective ways than those we've chosen. > Not really, even the building, testing, and 3 sub orbilal flights of > Spaceship 1 , launched from Mojave Spaceport cost over $10 million. And so > far the Space X rocket hasn't gotten off the pad either. Plus to design, > build, test, and fly something that will reach earth orbit and then reach > for the moon, you'r looking at billions. Ok for a really large hydrogen powered SSTO/RLV anywhere from 1 to 15 billion. Compared to anything else that government does, it a real good deal. > Now, unless someone finds a stargate or something else, we're left with > ROCKETS and they are very costly. Oh, maybe we can use a big slingshot? But there are certainly many avenues of incremental cost reduction, but certainly VSE via ESAS is not a viable avenue of incremental cost reduction. Every other phrase in ESAS is : burned up, ejected, discarded, thrown away, junked. On the other hand : a small kerosene TSTO. When SpaceX tries to scale that up, they will very quickly realize they have just another very large, heavy, clustered rocket system. I believe the correct approach is SSME powered SSTO, with a new retrofittable foamless tank. Then once that is demonstrated, full SSME RLV. One way to reduce costs is to get rid of the large launch gantry and the standing army. http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://www.lifeform.net/forum >Stephen Horgan; >The Russians would have to be part of your supposed conspiracy >because of their robot probes to the moon you know. Now you're talking my kind of mutually perpetrated cold-war, of cloaks and daggers plus lots of smoke and mirrors that most all of humanity got to pay for, many of which with our lives. Please feel perfectly free anytime, as to provide us with such robotic fly-by-rocket R&D prototype expertise and of their documented proof-testing that the USSR must still have by the absolute truck loads to brag about. >This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades, >except from you and the other believers? I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and dumbfounded from A to Z. >Oh, and the desire of a few individuals to make a fast >buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement. Please send me my first "fast buck", as I'll frame it and send you a picture of that framed buck. >The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted >government cancelled it. You really are quite a throughly snookered and thus dumbfounded soul. Our getting safely to/from the LL1/ME-L1 parking zone or nullification sweet-spot was doable, and of having robotically orbited the moon was also doable, including recovering of the Kodak film was entirely within our robotic expertise of the day, After all, it was NASA/Apollo that proved they had that much expertise under control. It's the soft-landing upon and via our having accomplished such by our unproven fly-by-rocket landers that wasn't quite doable, and clearly still isn't the case as of today. It also seems that you're the ones continually excluding your own evidence, avoiding the topics of honest Kodak physics and of all those fly-by-rocket landers that simply did NOT exist. Though it's entirely possible that eventually a robotic semi-soft landing had been accomplished but not externally spoken of. Perhaps if these missions were called fly-by-rocket to surface soft-impactors, as that I'd have to buy. Here's a little recent info that makes myself think all the more that I'm dead right, at least it doesn't exactly help the pro-NASA/Apollo arguments. Robotic fly-by-rocket lander R&D: "The upper limit of $750M should be used." http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18919 "The mission concept should generally follow the MSFC proposed concept, where a CLV test flight is used to launch the lander, and a throttleable RL-10 engine is used for the descent and landing to best emulate the human landing approach." "To the degree possible, the landing should be a verification test of the human lander descent and landing guidance and flight control algorithms, the precision landing and hazard avoidance capability, including navigation and instruments." - Sounds exactly like they're having to totally reinvent those fly-by-rocket wheels to me. Our NASA clearly wants this fly-by-rocket robot to first prove the task is even safely doable. Personally, I couldn't agree more, as there's next to nothing that a human interfaced fly-by-rocket lander could possibly accomplish a better job of, than a fully robotic lander as having a terrestrial based ground-control interface, or as having their manned LL1/ME-L1 command platform at the stick after having initiated a nearly zero velocity drop-away from that very same nifty parallel parking zone that's supposedly less than 60,000 km off the deck, representing just a mere orbital velocity of 164 m/s that offers the nifty advantage of there being no good reasons as to having to ever increase that orbital velocity factor. As for going vertical at perhaps an average of 1.66 km/s is worth roughly 10.5 hours to reach the deck, of which this could safely place the lander just about anywhere north, south, east or west of dead center. Of course, if accomplished purely via fly-by-rocket, that's suggesting a one-way ticket of 10.33 hours of dropping from dead out of the sky plus having to safely manage a good deal of controlled down-range, which is clearly something we can't seem to manage as of today. It sounds as though their supposed new and improved rover capability is also up for grabs, meaning there's nothing on the existing boards or otherwise within prototype inventory that'll accomplish the rover task as is. I can fully understand this need for R&D if this rover has to manage as per fully functioning and somehow surviving with limited traction upon and/or having to treck itself through as little as 5g/cm2 worth of bone dry quicksand surface tension, that is unless sticking to a path of exposed solids/bedrock that isn't going to exactly represent level or smooth lunar terrain. Gee whiz folks, of keeping their surface tension loading below 50 kg/m2 upon whatever multiple wide and thus supportive tires and/or upon wide traction belts of rover treds shouldn't be all that difficult. Thinking a bit outside the box; - from the relative safety of LL1/ME-L1 they could just safely lower this robotic lander package by way of having a fairly large ball of composite basalt string, or of some other fiber/tether product, then sit back and watch the sparks fly. - Brad Guth >>Stephen Horgan; >>The Russians would have to be part of your supposed conspiracy >>because of their robot probes to the moon you know. >Now you're talking my kind of mutually perpetrated cold-war, of cloaks >and daggers plus lots of smoke and mirrors that most all of humanity >got to pay for, many of which with our lives. Every other country that can monitor space missions, or with any serious intelligence gathering expertise is also involved you know. And no-one's talking. For decades. Is that really your position? >Please feel perfectly free anytime, as to provide us with such robotic >fly-by-rocket R&D prototype expertise and of their documented >proof-testing that the USSR must still have by the absolute truck loads >to brag about. So, the Russians didn't go to the moon either? >>This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades, >>except from you and the other believers? >I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as >of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and >dumbfounded from A to Z. Why haven't the Men in Black taken you away? >>Oh, and the desire of a few individuals to make a fast >>buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement. >Please send me my first "fast buck", as I'll frame it and send you a >picture of that framed buck. They make the fast buck from people like you. >>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted >>government cancelled it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >fly-by-rocket landers that wasn't quite doable, and clearly still isn't >the case as of today. And the evidence is? >It also seems that you're the ones continually excluding your own >evidence, avoiding the topics of honest Kodak physics and of all those [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >were called fly-by-rocket to surface soft-impactors, as that I'd have >to buy. Evidence? >Here's a little recent info that makes myself think all the more that >I'm dead right, at least it doesn't exactly help the pro-NASA/Apollo [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >having to safely manage a good deal of controlled down-range, which is >clearly something we can't seem to manage as of today. Technology has moved on a great deal since the 1960s. For VSE, the idea is to land 21st century spacecraft with vastly greatly capacity and capability on the moon, not dust off a 40 year old design. This is also an opportunity to build space infrastructure, not a race, which again suggests designed rather that a retrospective approach. What is your actual point? That you disagree with NASA's approach? >It sounds as though their supposed new and improved rover capability is >also up for grabs, meaning there's nothing on the existing boards or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >a path of exposed solids/bedrock that isn't going to exactly represent >level or smooth lunar terrain. The missions envisaged on the moon are much longer lasting than Apollo. It follows that the rover design will have to be different, never mind that decades of technological advances are available. >Gee whiz folks, of keeping their surface tension loading below 50 kg/m2 >upon whatever multiple wide and thus supportive tires and/or upon wide >traction belts of rover treds shouldn't be all that difficult. Write to the project team then and tell them your idea then. This is not evidence of any conspiracy. >Thinking a bit outside the box; - from the relative safety of LL1/ME-L1 >they could just safely lower this robotic lander package by way of >having a fairly large ball of composite basalt string, or of some other >fiber/tether product, then sit back and watch the sparks fly. Huh? Such materials do not exist. Unless you can prove differently. -- Stephen Horgan "intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence" http://www.horgan.co.uk/ >Stephen Horgan; >So, the Russians didn't go to the moon either? They certainly tried every trick within their perpetrated cold-war book, but having failed at getting their robotics safely deployed. >Why haven't the Men in Black taken you away? I'm a bit of a recluse, thus nearly sequestered without any MIB involvement. Would you like to attend one of my local lectures? >They make the fast buck from people like you. I want my fair share, thus be specific; whom is "they"? >And the evidence is? The lack of what should have been hard-science, including the highly sodium rich atmosphere as having a good amount of argon plus sufficient radon near the deck. Their physical samples should have included such salts, titanium, iron and loads of carbon/soot mixed in with the local secondary impact debris of basalt, plus a few viable elements of radium and otherwise a cosmic morgue of interesting contributions of which our atmosphere deflects or vaporises before hitting the surface of Earth. Of course badly spectrum skewed Kodak moments should have been their status quo norm, including a few shots as having depicted Venus and perhaps a couple of other planets besides an extremely large diameter worth of mother Earth, and especially including a few other frames worth of having included the extremely vibrant and bluish skewed images of the Sirius star system as having been somewhere above the lunar horizon. Or was our moon surrounded by dark-matter or dark-energy that moderated all such external items of interest, thus eliminating any chance of their obtaining such as proof-positive images from the surface of our moon? >What is your actual point? That you disagree with NASA's approach? Try thinking at least a little outside your mainstream status quo box, of considering your having been snookered and thus ever since so easily dumbfounded, just as I was as of 6 years ago. Stop pretending that you do not understand whatever it is that I'm driving at. >Write to the project team then and tell them your idea then. >This is not evidence of any conspiracy. You've got to be absolutely kidding your extremely brown nose off. Informing NASA of their own moon surface related science is bogus is like telling our resident warlord(GW Bush) there never were any WMD, and to never mind about all the horrific collateral damage and carnage of the innocent. Is it your mainstream lack of remorse and subsequent disregard something that others and myself should strive for? >Huh? Such materials do not exist. Unless you can prove differently. Basalt fibers have existed for decades (perhaps longer than Apollo), as being way more than capable of affording sufficient GPa for providing a viable tether that could deploy interactive science and robotics onto the lunar surface from the relative safety of the LL1/ME-L1 parallel parking zone. A few other synthetic products (especially the likes of the latest CNT technology) could also have been applied. Therefore, I believe the proof of this deployment capability is entirely another been there and done that, though I'd hardly expect our NASA to give an honest tinkers damn, especially since it wasn't their idea to start with. - Brad Guth > I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as > of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and > dumbfounded from A to Z. Ah, so that was when the paranoid schizophrenia first manifested itself, eh? >Ah, so that was when the paranoid schizophrenia first manifested >itself, eh? Hey Dunakin are you planning to launch any more high power rockets in 2006 without the proper waver?.... I hope the FAA fries your hairy a.s If the moon landing was hoax, what about the landing of robotic probes on Mars and Saturn? Were those landings and exploratory missions also faked? Say it isn't so! -mij :-) >If the moon landing was hoax, what about the landing of robotic probes on >Mars and Saturn? Were those landings and exploratory missions also faked? > >Say it isn't so! > >-mij :-) It's just too technologically difficult to land on the moon. The durn thing's concave half of the time, and it disappears entirely once per month. Nope.. just cannot be done... http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33010 <vbg> tah -- Tod A. Hilty Hilty Information Systems Do not look in the direction of the flash... Curl up in a ball as you hit the ground... CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight Please replace weinerboy dot org with adelphia dot net for reply. >>If the moon landing was hoax, what about the landing of robotic probes on >>Mars and Saturn? Were those landings and exploratory missions also faked? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > tah Mmmmmmmmmm, onions.... is there nothing they can't do? > The durn > thing's concave half of the time, and it disappears entirely once per > month. That's because the Vulcan's have to work on their "blind." The cloaking technology requires frequent maintenance. Randy www.vernarockets.com > If the moon landing was hoax, what about the landing of robotic probes on > Mars and Saturn? Were those landings and exploratory missions also faked? > > Say it isn't so! Ok. It isn't so. At least as far as landing a probe on Saturn. :-) > -mij :-) >If the moon landing was hoax, what about the landing of robotic probes on >Mars and Saturn? Were those landings and exploratory missions also faked? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Beware smoky red herrings and other beclouded obfuscation tactics. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, & Happy New Year 2006! Daniel Joseph Min http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7 *Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books: http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/ *Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster >The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government >cancelled it. Is ignorance this severe painful, or do the hallucinogenics relieve it? D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government >>cancelled it. > >Is ignorance this severe painful, or do the hallucinogenics relieve >it? Is there actually a point to this, or do actually have nothing to say on this matter beyond playground abuse? -- Stephen Horgan "intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence" http://www.horgan.co.uk/ >>>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government >>>cancelled it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Is there actually a point to this, or do actually have nothing to say >on this matter beyond playground abuse? Yes, there is a point. You are an utterly clueless loon. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon > our extremely reactive moon. At this point, I'm not even certain if [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > - > Brad Guth That's a good boy Brad. Now lets go back to your room and you can play with your little friends some more. Doesn't that sound nice? Shawn, What's with all of this extremely pro-Jewish white noise? Is your mainstream status quo boat having another bad rocking and sinking sort of day? Just because you can't manage to prove that I'm wrong about those Kodak moments isn't a very good reason to off yourself, although I certainly wouldn't stand in your way. Would you like to contribute a link to whatever's a proof-positive image that proves your side of the argument? I'd certainly be more than happy to review that image and share alike. - Brad Guth > I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon > our extremely reactive moon. At this point, I'm not even certain if [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > - > Brad Guth Ah, yes -- ANOTHER barking moonbat heard from! SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. Orval Fairbairn, What's with all of this extremely white noise? Is your mainstream status quo having another bad day? Just because you can't manage to prove that I'm wrong isn't a very good reason to kill yourself, although I certainly wouldn't stand in your way. Would you like to contribute a link to a proof-positive image that proves your side of the argument? I'd certainly be happy to review that image and share alike. - Brad Guth > Orval Fairbairn, > What's with all of this extremely white noise? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > - > Brad Guth Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program! I ran the original performance calculations, using the mass properties, propellant and motor performance. I also have a friend who was in charge of the astronaut office at Grumman, who made the lander. He described the Lunar Module flight as "being cat launched from a carrier, going into combat and landing on another carrier in a craft that you had never flown." That is why all of the early astronauts were accomplished test piolts. They trained in test articles that simulated, as best they could, the flight characteristics of the actual craft. Brad is so full of fecal material that his eyes have turned brown! The so-called "photographic errors" are simply tricks that the lens plays. I have a recent photo of my own plane, taken in flight. Lines that are parallel in real life (wingtip-to-wingtip and horizontal stabilizer lines) focus on a point in space, rather than appear parallel. Look at any aviation photo and see the same thing. SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. In message <o_r_fairbairn-9785F9.23303727122005@news1.west.earthlink.net>, Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> writes >> Orval Fairbairn, >> What's with all of this extremely white noise? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >that are parallel in real life (wingtip-to-wingtip and horizontal >stabilizer lines) focus on a point in space, rather than appear parallel. Isn't that perspective, or something (in the artistic sense)? Back in the 1960s various amateurs listened to the Apollo transmissions and wrote about it in QST and other magazines. At the time, they weren't allowed to reveal what they heard because of FCC regulations, but did they record the transmissions and have any survived? They'd be worth a fortune on Ebay :-) And yet again, here's a nice page of amateur and professional observations of the craft en route, including one from yours truly <http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html> Orval Fairbairn; >Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program! Lord knows, I've never suggested otherwise. So what's your point? >I ran the original performance calculations, using the mass properties, >propellant and motor performance. I also have a friend who was in charge [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >piolts. They trained in test articles that simulated, as best they >could, the flight characteristics of the actual craft. >The so-called "photographic errors" are simply tricks that the lens >plays. I have a recent photo of my own plane, taken in flight. Lines >that are parallel in real life (wingtip-to-wingtip and horizontal >stabilizer lines) focus on a point in space, rather than appear parallel. >Look at any aviation photo and see the same thing. And what if anything does a still photo (any number of still photos) have to do with actual prototypes and of their extensive R&D as to fly-by-rocket landers? I very much appreciate your soft-science an/or skewed conditional physics of "I ran the original performance calculations". And how can we possibly reject your "I also have a friend who was in charge of the astronaut office at Grumman, who made the lander." and another wow once again on your ""being cat launched from a carrier, going into combat and landing on another carrier in a craft that you had never flown."" and best of all is your ""The so-called "photographic errors" are simply tricks that the lens plays."". Tell us Sir wizard and all-knowing chief rusemaster Orval, dose this pathetic ruse/sting of yours get any better, or is it already the ultimate black hole that it really is? What part if anything you've offered would hold up in a court of law, much less of any science of proof-positive court as based upon the regular laws of physics? Running off calculations is not creating an actual fly-by-rocket lander by way of any known standards of hard-science, physics or aeronautical engineering upon this Earth. What sort of fly-by-night cloak and dagger planet of smoke and mirrors are you actually from? Show us your R&D plus those actual engineered and constructed prototypes of such fly-by-rocket landers, which had to have been created and at least AI/robotically flown if not as tethered and thus hard-wired to remote flight controls, that which actual pilots plus flight-data computers would have managed to learn a thing or two, mostly of what not to do. While you're at it, share with us about those modulated thrusters and of the required reaction wheels. Tell us about the sodium rich lunar atmosphere, as having a good amount of argon and a bit of radon to boot. Tell us of why your conditional laws of physics pertaining to radiation are of no possible consideration. Tell us why the lunar terrain lost all of the deep brownish/reddish and somewhat dark carbon/soot composite color, then somehow gained upon depicting itself as having an average albedo of 55+% for as far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see. - Brad Guth (garbage snipped) > Running off calculations is not creating an actual fly-by-rocket lander > by way of any known standards of hard-science, physics or aeronautical > engineering upon this Earth. What sort of fly-by-night cloak and dagger > planet of smoke and mirrors are you actually from? Earth -- we have enough barking moonbats here to keep us laughing. > Show us your R&D plus those actual engineered and constructed > prototypes of such fly-by-rocket landers, which had to have been > created and at least AI/robotically flown if not as tethered and thus > hard-wired to remote flight controls, that which actual pilots plus > flight-data computers would have managed to learn a thing or two, > mostly of what not to do. Talk to Grumman -- they built the lander. We didn't need AI to get there -- just good pilots with good training and good autopilots (with stability augmentation) and practice - practice - practice. > While you're at it, share with us about those > modulated thrusters and of the required reaction wheels. Done with pressurized fuel tanks -- UDMH/nitric acid or a variant thereof. What reaction wheels? Talking about inertial platform gyros? > Tell us about > the sodium rich lunar atmosphere, as having a good amount of argon and > a bit of radon to boot. No sodium-rich atmosphere -- in fact, no atmosphere at all! > Tell us of why your conditional laws of physics > pertaining to radiation are of no possible consideration. No "conditional laws of physics." The ambient radiation level is low enough for short visits -- it is solar flares that you have to monitor. > Tell us why > the lunar terrain lost all of the deep brownish/reddish and somewhat > dark carbon/soot composite color, then somehow gained upon depicting > itself as having an average albedo of 55+% for as far as their > unfiltered Kodak eye could see. Things look a lot different from far away -- just look at the difference in looks between your back yard and how it looks from 1000 ft above, then from 50 miles. Now, Brad, go back to Mother Guth and tell her she is calling you! SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. >No sodium-rich atmosphere -- in fact, no atmosphere at all! I'm sorry, Orval. Did I forget to say that your extremely brown and bigoted wizard nose sucks and blows worse off than WMD? >No "conditional laws of physics." The ambient radiation level is low >enough for short visits -- it is solar flares that you have to monitor. But of course. Why don't you tell that one to Russia or even to ESA? Apparently the square of the distance doesn't apply to our naked and thus reactive moon. >Things look a lot different from far away -- just look at the difference >in looks between your back yard and how it looks from 1000 ft above, >then from 50 miles. But you just said "in fact, no atmosphere at all!". Is this your LLPOF Version-2.0? Besides Sir fool on the hill and sexual cloning rusemaster pervert to boot, the further away I get from things upon Earth, the lighter or more pastel of their colors, and lo and behold less contrast becomes the norm, unless I pack on some serious spectrum band-pass filter and/or a good near-UV cut-off filter. Of course, there's hardly any UV upon the surface of Earth, compared to the moon which receives way more than it's fair share of raw/unfiltered UV because there's "in fact, no atmosphere at all!". Without somewhat significant optical spectrum filtering, and so gosh darn little if any atmosphere; how otherwise do you achieve a xenon lamp illuminated scene? - Brad Guth (kookbabble snipped) > Besides Sir fool on the hill and sexual cloning rusemaster pervert to > boot, the further away I get from things upon Earth, the lighter or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than it's fair share of raw/unfiltered UV because there's "in fact, no > atmosphere at all!". The xenon lamps would illuminate the lunar surface the same way the sun does -- by radiant light. The suits had a "silver" outer layer and UV - protective faceplates. BTW -- the light on the lunar surface is unfiltered sunlight. The film used had provision for UV, in addition to filters on the camera lenses. SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. >BTW -- the light on the lunar surface is unfiltered sunlight. The film >used had provision for UV, in addition to filters on the camera lenses. BTW; you are dead right on the first count but otherwise dead wrong and wrong once again. In other words; LLPOF wrong 2 out of 3. Although I do like your "The xenon lamps would illuminate the lunar surface the same way the sun does -- by radiant light. The suits had a "silver" outer layer and UV - protective faceplates." Obviously you don't comprehend the meaning or scope of the word 'spectrum'. Tell me, were those suits of such a "silver outer layer" utilized by our NASA/Apollo, or were they utilized upon some other moon as having xenon like illumination of a very terrestrial atmospheric filtered solar spectrum rather than what a raw solar illuminated moon would have depicted? - Brad Guth A typical HB - if it doesn't agree with you, then you have to ignore / insult / discard it. The height of arrogence in the scientific world. >>No sodium-rich atmosphere -- in fact, no atmosphere at all! > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > - > Brad Guth >The height of arrogence in the scientific world. I'll have to assume that you're talking about Orval. BTW; why haven't you contributed a NASA/Apollo Kodak moment that's 100+% proof-positive? Why are you excluding any of the NASA/Apollo images obtained from orbit? - Brad Guth > Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program! Then you admit being part of the conspiracy! > > Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program! > > Then you admit being part of the conspiracy! Which conspiracy? There are literally *hundreds* of conspiracies to go around -- all with their following of barking moonbats. SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. >> > Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program! >> >> Then you admit being part of the conspiracy! > > Which conspiracy? Exactly! The proof that you're part of the conspiracy is denial! When the Zeta Reticulans arrive, the truth will be out there! Scott Hedrick, Good grief, no "Zeta Reticulans", just exoskeletal Cathars from Venus, as in really big and nasty and packing heat. - Brad Guth > >> > Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program! > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > When the Zeta Reticulans arrive, the truth will be out there! Please name the alleged conspiracy! Are you referring to the: "Elvis is alive" conspiracy? "9-11 was a Mossad moment" conspiracy? "Lunar Landing was a Hoax" conspiracy? "LBJ had JFK shot" conspiracy? "FDR knew about Pearl harbor beforehand" conspiracy? "Mad Muslims didn't do 9-11" conspiracy? "Illuminati control the world" conspiracy? We have enough barking (and howling) moonbats out there to give life to all of the above. SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. >> >> > Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program! >> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Please name the alleged conspiracy! *That* would be telling. Wow! Orval Fairbairn, such an impressive wag-the-dog list. How about we add the USN LIBERTY fiasco, those 6-Day war exterminations, TWA Flight-800, our Phantom Works ABL running amuck and a few dozen more of examples of your perpetrated cold-war crapolla that has only cost humanity decades upon decades of having blown trillions upon trillions, as having set the intellectual and moral worth of humanity deep into the nearest toilet by regressing a good century in the process of having taken our environment to it's bloody oil sucking knees. I'll have to bet that nukes in space is next on your wish list. Do you have an office pool for WW-III? - Brad Guth > Wow! Orval Fairbairn, such an impressive wag-the-dog list. How about we > add the USN LIBERTY fiasco, those 6-Day war exterminations, TWA [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > - > Brad Guth No. My pool is for when the guys in the white coats come and put a net over "Brad Guth". SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. >No. My pool is for when the guys in the white coats come and put >a net over "Brad Guth". Fair enough. Is your pool heated? - Brad Guth > >No. My pool is for when the guys in the white coats come and put > >a net over "Brad Guth". > Fair enough. Is your pool heated? > - > Brad Guth Yes -- it is, but is only about 72 degrees this time of year. BTW, one of my NSA friends intercepted this message that had been sent to BG: "Dear Mr. Guth, The Awards Committee has reviewed your application for a second digit to your IQ point score and, at this time, cannot justify such action. We have, however, reviewed some of your previous material, and question your current IQ ratings. Please be available for retesting, as we think that you should lose at least five points (1/3 the amount you lose if you wear a baseball cap with the brim turned backwards. Sincerely, The Intelligence Awards Committee" SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. Nice off-topic save, Orval: >BTW, one of my NSA friends intercepted this message that had been sent >to BG: Hot damn, Orval Fairbairn has got friends in low places(aka NASA)? (I'm seriously impressed) Second off-topic save by Orval: >We have, however, reviewed some of your previous material, and question >your current IQ ratings. Please be available for retesting, as we think >that you should lose at least five points (1/3 the amount you lose if >you wear a baseball cap with the brim turned backwards. That's actually not half bad for my having but three somewhat dyslexic functioning brain cells to work with. The worth of 3 to the third power is I believe 27, which thus far seems to be functioning just fine and dandy. How many extra of your incest cloned and thus somewhat bigoted brain cells does it take for achieving the same 27 ? Actually, since I'm a 5th dimensional sort of guy puts my three viable brain cells up to the quantum binary count of 243. If my cells go into FM mode (aka dyslexic postal), there's no limits to my form of insanity. - Brad Guth there's no limits to my form of insanity. Brad Guth (snip) > Actually, since I'm a 5th dimensional sort of guy puts my three viable > brain cells up to the quantum binary count of 243. If my cells go into > FM mode (aka dyslexic postal), there's no limits to my form of > insanity. I think that the majority of this NG would agree with the final clause of the last sentence! SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think that the majority of this NG would agree with the final clause > of the last sentence! I believe you are correct; especially with the level of "facts in evidence" displayed throughout his/her posts. BTW, you may want to strip the other rec groups, when responding to Mr./Mrs/ Guth. Also I kill filed the individual posts and now only see those who respond. I guess it's time to kill the thread. Fred > Actually, since I'm a 5th dimensional sort of guy puts my three viable > brain cells up to the quantum binary count of 243. If my cells go into > FM mode (aka dyslexic postal), there's no limits to my form of > insanity. > - > Brad Guth Maybe if we can get him to say "htugdarb" he'd be out of our hair for the next 90 days! Dear lensman1955, Besides your obvious brown-nosed sucking and blowing of wagging-the-dogs worth of damage control, as in lies upon lies as to having inferred that terrestrial instruments (including impressive radar imaging technology) simply can't accomplish the look-see task, thus you're into bashing down upon whomever, including team KECK and of most others hosting even better optics. Outside of whatever team KECK could have easily accomplished, or even from the actual NASA/Apollo image archives that proves you're all a serious sick bunch of born again liars, as otherwise by way of your very own rocket-science numbers, it's naysay rotten eggs again. Saturn-V / Saturn-5 total Mass: 3,054,750 kg Payload to Moon: 48,500 kg Rocket/payload ratio: 63:1 Another official source: 2923.4/46.8 = 62.5:1 Considering LOX/RP-1 as their first stage simply wasn't nearly as good of payload performance as SRBs. Considering the overall inert/dry mass ratio of the Saturn-V was so much greater than what's utilized today. As such, I can't seem to comprehend or otherwise appreciate as to where 63:1 was remotely possible unless we're having to consider the spacecraft itself (supposedly in orbit mass: 46.8t) was essentially providing their forth stage (in which case the spacecraft portion of the liftoff tonnage was nearly all fuel). By today's standards seems that 63:1 is nearly twice as good as to what it should have taken, especially since the very best of the Ariane-5 is closer to 110:1 It seems that rocket-scientist types are not into sharing the fundamental knowledge of what it takes, especially of the taboo/nondisclosure that's still related to our moon. Therefore I'm on their need-to-know basis and having to search for and throughout whatever limited public information there is. Such as, it seems with the next best generation of the very newest and thereby reduced inert/dry mass of the Ariane-5 becoming touted for getting 12t into GSO with perhaps an 800t gross liftoff is 66.7:1, whereas if the translunar trek is given the benefit of being half again as demanding as per GSO, as such making their latest improved lunar orbit capability into possibly becoming worth 100:1 Keeping in mind that obtaining the GSO altitude of 36,000 km is not the much longer shot demands of reaching the mutual gravity-well/nullification zone of LL-1/ME-L1 that's 316,500 km, nor are those GSO deployments in demand of managing the final inbound deployment phase of their having to get items into safely orbiting our moon. Without SRBs (instead of the LOX/RP-1) as their first stage, there's simply no way unless NASA/Apollo was having to involve a forth stage, by which our NASA/Apollo missions accomplished even so much as robotic orbiting missions, much less having safely fly-by-rocket landed those robotics upon the cosmic and local mineral deposited as a very albedo dark and nasty surface that's so gosh darn reactive by day. Perhaps this fuzzy rocket-science also explains as to why my PC and internet service provider via GOOGLE/Usenet is getting so tormented by their malware/fuckware, as why otherwise would I have become so entitled to their mainstream damage-control? - Brad Guth > Dear lensman1955, > Besides your obvious brown-nosed sucking and blowing of > wagging-the-dogs worth of damage control, as in lies upon lies as to OMG, is anyone besides me imagining the French knight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"? "I blow my nose at your so-called brown-nosed sucking and blowing of wagging-the-dogs thing!" That is some hilarious stuff, he ought to write for The Onion. I'll accept that offer to write for "The Onion". At least most of what they publish is based upon the truth and nothing but the truth. That's a far cry from the infomercial crapolla of disinformation that you've been suckered into reading, thus it's not even fit for bird cages or butt wiping. - Brad Guth > I'll accept that offer to write for "The Onion". At least most of what > they publish is based upon the truth and nothing but the truth. Um yeah, Brad - just like the "Weekly World News"! (...making "A-O.K." sign while winking one eye) >>Dear lensman1955, >>Besides your obvious brown-nosed sucking and blowing of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That is some hilarious stuff, he ought to write for The Onion. Holy crap, You're right! Hahahahahahaha! In article <1135889704.836781.232500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on 29 Dec 2005 12:55:04 -0800, Brad Guth ieisbradguth@yahoo.com attempted to say ..... > I'll have to bet that nukes in space is next on your wish list. Shhhh.,that's a secret SignatureWhen dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. bg; I'll have to bet that nukes in space is next on your wish list. >Shhhh.,that's a secret My dear Tank Fixer (aka spook name that says it all), I didn't think that "nukes in space" was any secret, and as for years the likes of Canada has been nothing but a damn woss about it. I don't understand why they'd object to a few hundred megatonne class of warheads passing overhead every few hours, plus having one hell of a big-a.s fuel depot up there as well. I mean, what could possibly go wrong? If anything did run amuck, we could use the same LLPOF and our "so what's the difference" tactics as we had to apply with regard to the TWA flight-800 fiasco and all of those WMD. - Brad Guth >I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon >our extremely reactive moon. <snip whatever> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29528 <vbg> tah -- Tod A. Hilty Hilty Information Systems Do not look in the direction of the flash... Curl up in a ball as you hit the ground... CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight Please replace weinerboy dot org with adelphia dot net for reply. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Yes indeed, the Moon is most DEFINITELY out of reach, to wit: ALTITUDE COMPARISON CHART SHUTTLE VS. MOON & MANMADE SATELLITES (not to scale) x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x | | | | | | | | ~ ~214,000 MILES ~ ~ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ~ | | | | | | x------High-altitude orbit ~25,000+ miles altitude------x | | x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x | | | | ~ ~10,000 MILES ~ ~ ~ | | x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x | | | | ~ ~10,000 MILES ~ ~ ~ | | x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x x------JPL/NASA Space Shuttle orbit ~300 miles altitude-x x------Intl. Space Station orbit ~220 miles altitude | x------Earth's sea level -0- miles altitude-------------x To give you an idea of the scale involved, if each hard line break in the chart below equals roughly 10,000 miles, to wit: x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x | 230,000 | | 220,000 | | 210,000 | | 200,000 | | 190,000 | | 180,000 | | 170,000 | | 160,000 | | 150,000 | | 140,000 | | 130,000 | | 120,000 | | 110,000 | | 100,000 | | 90,000 | | 80,000 | | 70,000 | | 60,000 | | 50,000 | | 40,000 | | 30,000 | x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x Then the low-earth shuttle orbit would fit somewhere between the center and baseline of the bottom 'x'--hardly visible at all at this scale. And yet, that is the highest altitude any manned flight has ever successfully sustained for any length of time. But the "men to the moon" fairytale devotees don't want to face up to these and other glaring facts in evidence: *Apollo Moon Missions 1969-1972 Were *Unmanned*: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VTKA4X1O37500.9704861111@Gilgamesh-frog.org *Quasi-Uncensored Apollo Moon Hoax Bookmarks: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7RL5KJIX37499.1691435185@Gilgamesh-frog.org Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, & Happy New Year 2006! Daniel Joseph Min http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7 *Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books: http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/ *Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster >[WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG SHY] ><snipped for clarity> > >MOON LANDING HOAX RELIGIOUS. People were fooled by higher authorities >that were motivated by religion into believing the moon landing. This >continues even to this day! "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" --William of Ockham (~1300-1349) > Then the low-earth shuttle orbit would fit somewhere between > the center and baseline of the bottom 'x'--hardly visible at > all at this scale. And yet, that is the highest altitude any > manned flight has ever successfully sustained for any length > of time. But the "men to the moon" fairytale devotees don't > want to face up to these and other glaring facts in evidence: Yes, the shuttle can only reach low orbit. So what? The Apollo astronauts didn't use a shuttle to go to the moon, they used a much more powerful vehicle. BTW, if you think the moon landing was a hoax, what makes you so sure the shuttle really reaches orbit? Go take your meds. ê raydunakin@aol.com, Their ratio of rocket to payload was also rather impressive. Apparently the inert mass of each of their primary, secondary and third rocket stages was even better off than the most advanced composites of today, and without benefit of SRBs at that managed to obtain their mission goals at a fantastic 62:1 ratio, meaning just 62 rocket tonnes per tonne of spacecraft. Is that downright impressive or what? - Brad Guth > raydunakin@aol.com, > Their ratio of rocket to payload was also rather impressive. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > - > Brad Guth What does Tinker bell and the rest of the fairies have to say about it? >Dave Grayvis; >What does Tinker bell and the rest of the fairies have to say about it? Although Ariane-5 has truly become an impressive GSO launch alternative at 82.3:1, perhaps the worlds best all around launcher might have to be our good old (extremely old) Apollo cold-war method, of supposedly taking merely 62:1 as being sufficient for a complex lunar mission should therefore as is become worth way better than 50:1 as for accomplishing somewhat massive and/or multiple GSO related deployment functions on behalf of Earth. With modern composites and SRBs capable of getting the fairly bulky original inert mass way down to an even better modern day dull roar, whereas that Apollo launch ratio along with such powerful SRBs should thereby become well below 25:1. Meaning just 25 rocket liftoff tonnes per payload tonne, and that's far better than three fold of what the very best Ariane-5 has to offer. Is that good delivery GSO capability and fly-by-rocket efficiency or what? Since few satellite items exceed 10 tonnes (except for our planned thermal nuclear preemptive deployments), perhaps we should just make a smaller Apollo class of those supposed rocket launchers that didn't even require any stinking SRBs. Of course, Apollo methods happened to use a good amount of their cloak and dagger smoke and mirrors of our perpetrated cold-war era, that which have all since been lost along with all of the original engineers and of those mad rocket scientist that made it all happen. - Brad Guth Please forgive the top post, but DJMs graphic is a reasonable inclusion. What His Minness doesn't note is that once a space craft reaches an altitude of 4000 miles it experiences 1/4 Earth's surface gravity. At 12,000 or so miles form the surface, Earth's gravitational pull is only 1/16g. In addition, as spacecraft gets closer to the moon its gravity helps pull the ship as well. Traveling from one interplanetary body to another is not analogous to climbing a ladder from one body to the next. In fact, relatively recent developments in space science have allowed probes to move around the solar system with the expenditure of very little fuel, at the expense of long travel time. http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050416/bob9.asp Sorry to interject some science into this philosophical debate, but it's just my nature. Tomorrow I'm going to a Baptist church to talk about evolution. ;-) Shawn > Yes indeed, the Moon is most DEFINITELY out of reach, to wit: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > x------Intl. Space Station orbit ~220 miles altitude | > x------Earth's sea level -0- miles altitude-------------x Snip reams of fantasy; > MOON LANDING HOAX RELIGIOUS. People were fooled by higher authorities > that were motivated by religion into believing the moon landing. This > continues even to this day! So the samples I watched undergo isotopic analysis at UKC space sciences dept were in fact what ? cheese ? Numpty... jc I'm usually not a proponent of eugenics, but then I remember that there are people who think we didn't go to the moon. >I'm usually not a proponent of eugenics, but then I remember that there >are people who think we didn't go to the moon. Geez you guys of course we didn't go to the moon. There is no moon. The Feds operate huge pumping systems, like wave pools at amusement parks, to regulate the tides, and the human female menstrual cycle is regulated by artificial compounds covertly added to public drinking water systems... Get over it. There is no moon... Sheesh... <vbg> Tod "I dunno, I was really drunk at the time" Hilty -- Tod A. Hilty Hilty Information Systems Do not look in the direction of the flash... Curl up in a ball as you hit the ground... CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight Please replace weinerboy dot org with adelphia dot net for reply. >>I'm usually not a proponent of eugenics, but then I remember that there >>are people who think we didn't go to the moon. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Tod A. Hilty > Hilty Information Systems Actually there's no earth either. All of what we thought we've experienced in our lives has been projected into our minds. We need to wake up and realize that we are all disembodied brains floating in lab jars. <j> Rockett Crawford >>>I'm usually not a proponent of eugenics, but then I remember that there >>>are people who think we didn't go to the moon. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Rockett Crawford I think brad's jar has a crack in it. <whack> >Actually there's no earth either. All of what we thought we've experienced >in our lives has been projected into our minds. We need to wake up and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Rockett Crawford And, I see that the Illuminati forgot to put fresh batteries in the Earth again, as it's rotation seems to be slowing down... http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2005_1222.htm#newyear Geez.. Ya just can't find good help these days... <vbg> tah -- Tod A. Hilty Hilty Information Systems Do not look in the direction of the flash... Curl up in a ball as you hit the ground... CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight Please replace weinerboy dot org with adelphia dot net for reply. > And, I see that the Illuminati forgot to put fresh batteries in the > Earth again, as it's rotation seems to be slowing down... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <vbg> You can't trust this new fangled technology either. Maybe they should go back to the 11 quadrillion ton mice running in tread wheels? Rockett Crawford > Geez you guys of course we didn't go to the moon. There is no moon. We *did* go to the moon. Remember- it was blasted out of orbit September 13, 1999, because of all the nuclear waste we deposited there. That's when the government had to activate the tide regulating pumps and launch the moon-painted inflatable satellite. >> Geez you guys of course we didn't go to the moon. There is no moon. > >We *did* go to the moon. Remember- it was blasted out of orbit September 13, >1999, because of all the nuclear waste we deposited there. The moon got blasted. Wow, had a flashback to the 80s for a second, anyone else remember Thundar the Barbarian and the shattered moon. <laugh> >>> Geez you guys of course we didn't go to the moon. There is no moon. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > anyone > else remember Thundar the Barbarian and the shattered moon. <laugh> 80s, hell! Try 70s- Space:1999! >>>>Geez you guys of course we didn't go to the moon. There is no moon. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 80s, hell! Try 70s- Space:1999! I loved that show. Damn, and I hadn't even discovered drugs yet. Shawn > [WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG SHY] > Historian Douglas Brinkley calls him "our nation's most bashful [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > that were motivated by religion into believing the moon landing. This > continues even to this day! (Whoops, too quick on the send button!) Did you know that JET PLANES are FAKE too? If YOU go on a flight, you are DRUGGED and sent to your destination by a SUPER-HIGHSPEED UNDERGROUND train link. The planes you see in the sky are HOLOGRAPHIC projections. TRUE! You've fallen for a much older government cover-up. Trains don't exist either. No human transportation technology exists. It's all a progressive set of lies perpetuated to keep us happy in THE MATRIX and I have proof. Just take a look at one of the bathtub toys that Columbus supposedly used to discover the new world. No way it could have crossed an ocean. Columbus is a myth. Of course so is Darwin's voyage, just ask Tai. Since ships don't exist, Darwin couldn't have made his journey of discovery. > Did you know that JET PLANES are FAKE too? If YOU go on a flight, you are > DRUGGED and sent to your destination by a SUPER-HIGHSPEED UNDERGROUND > train link. The planes you see in the sky are HOLOGRAPHIC projections. > TRUE! > You've fallen for a much older government cover-up. Trains don't exist > either. No human transportation technology exists. Madagascar Penguins: "You didn't see anything...." : ) Randy www.vernarockets.com If everything is fake, then what is real ?? The movie Matrix ?? You need to trust your senses; it's all you have. I've never really seen this ratio as important, normally we are concerned about total liftoff weight, however, one reason the Saturn V had a more favorable dry weight to payload weight ratio was because of the fuel it used in the first stage, kerosene. Because kerosene is much less bulky than what we normally use now, Hydrogen, the first stage could be built much smaller, making the dry weight of the entire vehicle much less. Had they used Hydrogen the first stage would have to have had much larger tanks to hold all the fuel that was needed, thereby making the entire stack, as I just said, much larger and heavier when dry. But dry weight doesn't really matter, unless you are talking about just building the rocket and moving it about, what really matters is the total liftoff off weight. Try again kids. > Columbus is a myth. Actually, you're not very far off, especially since it was those smart Chinks and of their little Dropa/Dzopa wizards that discovered North America. - Brad Guth >> Columbus is a myth. >Actually, you're not very far off, especially since it was those smart >Chinks and of their little Dropa/Dzopa wizards that discovered North >America. >- >Brad Guth North America was "discovered" why whomever first got there, it wasn't the Chinese. There is some evidence of European incursion over 9000 years ago. http://www.kennewick-man.com/ -Rich >Rich; >North America was "discovered" why whomever first got there, >it wasn't the Chinese. There is some evidence of European incursion >over 9000 years ago. http://www.kennewick-man.com/ European's probably learned everything about exploring first from those smart Chinese that learned most everything they knew from those extremely little Dropa/Dzopa ETs that arrived (crash landed) in their backyard some 10,000 BC. - Brad Guth > >Rich; >>North America was "discovered" why whomever first got there, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > - > Brad Guth ETs!!!???!!! We should have known this thread would lead here. Any proof to any of this drivel other than your saying "probably"? So you'll believe crap with absolutely no proof but won't believe something with volumes of proof. What a dweeb! >David Bacque; >ETs!!!???!!! We should have known this thread would lead here. >Any proof to any of this drivel other than your saying "probably"? Got proof that you're not an ET, or some halfbreed/interracial ET? >So you'll believe crap with absolutely no proof but won't believe something with volumes of proof. Proof is within the eye of the beholder, and I simply do not behold the parts about landing upon and much less having walked upon the sunny side of our highly reactive moon, that's of such a dark and nasty composite terrain that's anything but moonsuit and/or rover friendly. BTW; I don't consider hearsay by way of the fox that had perpetrated cold-war motives up the kazoo, loads of means plus multiple opportunities for having devoured all of the chickens, as a reliable source of obtaining the truth about the rather odd lack of any remaining chickens, as beings almost as bad off as per all of those stealth WMD that so happened to unfortunately look exactly like innocent Muslims sitting upon an oily rock. The US and USSR were each playing the same lethal games, of mutually perpetrating the holy crapolla out of humanity for all that it was worth. Supposedly we won that game, and it only took us 5+ decades and trillions upon trillions of dollars, plus the likes of TWA flight-800, 911 and now Iraq that's about to get us into going thermal nuclear because most of the world simply can't afford $100+/barrel oil. - Brad Guth In article <1135640057.214320.108950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on 26 Dec 2005 15:34:17 -0800, Brad Guth ieisbradguth@yahoo.com attempted to say ..... > >David Bacque; > >ETs!!!???!!! We should have known this thread would lead here. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 911 and now Iraq that's about to get us into going thermal nuclear > because most of the world simply can't afford $100+/barrel oil. Do you want a towel to wipe off that spittle ? SignatureWhen dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. Tank Fixer (aka ? dumbfounded spook), >When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in >variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. I can't tell; "one sometimes always speaks" exactly which side are you on? Is that part of your anti-ET and therefore anti-Klingon variable absolute religion of keeping the likes of Jesus Christ on a stick? Are you hard-core Mormon or just another Third Reich collaborating Jew? You know, there are good Mormons and Jews, though obviously there's just not enough of them nice folks to go around (somewhat like we have a global shortage of even nicer Cathars to go around), as otherwise your sorry a.s would have been less than grass by now. - Brad Guth In article <1135646441.899788.26590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on 26 Dec 2005 17:20:41 -0800, Brad Guth ieisbradguth@yahoo.com attempted to say ..... > Tank Fixer (aka ? dumbfounded spook), > >When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in > >variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. > I can't tell; "one sometimes always speaks" exactly which side are you > on? I take my orders from the Galactic Collective, feel better now ? > Is that part of your anti-ET and therefore anti-Klingon variable > absolute religion of keeping the likes of Jesus Christ on a stick? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a global shortage of even nicer Cathars to go around), as otherwise > your sorry a.s would have been less than grass by now. You should go tell mommy it's time for milk and cookies and then a nice warm bath. It's you're bedtime sonny SignatureWhen dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. >I take my orders from the Galactic Collective, feel better now ? I see. You're deathly afraid to share whatever's your associations with the real world, or even which side of the line you're on. How interesting but rather Usenet pathetic, though ideal for the likes of being Skull and Bones as well as more than Third Reich qualified. - Brad guth In article <1135657352.530277.21150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, on 26 Dec 2005 20:22:32 -0800, Brad Guth ieisbradguth@yahoo.com attempted to say ..... > >I take my orders from the Galactic Collective, feel better now ? > I see. You're deathly afraid to share whatever's your associations with > the real world, or even which side of the line you're on. How > interesting but rather Usenet pathetic, though ideal for the likes of > being Skull and Bones as well as more than Third Reich qualified. I'd say that you're tin foil hat is loose. But there is scientific evidence that tin foil hat;s don't work so I guess you are doomed.. SignatureWhen dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. >I'd say that you're tin foil hat is loose. But there is scientific >evidence that tin foil hat;s don't work so I guess you are doomed.. And this has what if anything to do with the prime topic or sub-topic at hand? - I've noticed as of lately, that a good number of these incest cloned and otherwise extremely brown-nosed and thereby butt-sucking borg collectives of Usenet and ISP spooks, most specifically of this GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA disinformation cesspool of topic/author stalking Aryan species of ultra brown-noses have been into using a bit more than their fair share of their boss's spermware/malware (aka MI6/NSA~CIA Third Reich PC fuckware), as per getting right back into their usual space-toilet modes of perpetrating MOS nasty sorts of their cold-war tricks. So, I guess that I'll just have to keep doing my level best at returning their own warm and fuzzy flak along with as much love and affection as I can muster. - "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it." -Brad Guth "To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting." -Stanislaus I "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but having new eyes." -Marcel Proust "Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an action, not a thought." -F.W. Robertson ~ Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush). Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm In article <1135904388.877219.17600@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on 29 Dec 2005 16:59:48 -0800, Brad Guth ieisbradguth@yahoo.com attempted to say ..... > >I'd say that you're tin foil hat is loose. But there is scientific > >evidence that tin foil hat;s don't work so I guess you are doomed.. > And this has what if anything to do with the prime topic or sub-topic > at hand? It must suck to always be looking over your shoulder... SignatureWhen dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. >It must suck to always be looking over your shoulder... Don't have to look over my sholder, just at my PC that's receiving your malware/fuckware, as that much certainly sucks and blows. - Brad Guth >>It must suck to always be looking over your shoulder... > > Don't have to look over my sholder, just at my PC that's receiving your > malware/fuckware, as that much certainly sucks and blows. > - > Brad Guth Brad, instead of acting like a moron, try turning on your pc's firewall. You might also try using anti-virus software. >Brad, instead of acting like a moron, try turning on your pc's firewall. >You might also try using anti-virus software Instead of your acting as though I haven't been there and haven't done that, why don't you tell your MIB goons to knock it off. - Brad Guth > >Brad, instead of acting like a moron, try turning on your pc's firewall. >>You might also try using anti-virus software > Instead of your acting as though I haven't been there and haven't done > that, why don't you tell your MIB goons to knock it off. No, we're having FAR too much fun hooking into your webcam and watching your fat a.s parade around the house naked. p.s. there's a potato chip stuck to your butt, genius. > >Brad, instead of acting like a moron, try turning on your pc's firewall. > >You might also try using anti-virus software > Instead of your acting as though I haven't been there and haven't done > that, why don't you tell your MIB goons to knock it off. > - > Brad Guth Brad, you're simply not as important as you think you are. If you are having these problems, then you simply haven't done proper maintenance. That's it. Obviously you're another born again liar, as in LLPOF minion of your incest cloned brown-nosed Third Reich. If it were as you say (of which it isn't), as such my PC should be going just as postal and/or shutting itself down whenever I'm not internet connected. As otherwise, it's mostly(99%) been getting summarily trashed while I'm within this GOOGLE/Usenet of a cesspool that sucks and blows such horrific malware/fuckware. Why are you in denial? - Brad Guth The French knight a.k.a. "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> looked down from the castle, blew a raspberry, and said in that OUTRAGEOUS accent: > Obviously you're another born again liar, as in LLPOF minion of your > incest cloned brown-nosed Third Reich. HA! HA! > <snip more stupid drivel> > Why are you in denial? I dunno, why are you in de Amazon? > Obviously you're another born again liar, as in LLPOF minion of your > incest cloned brown-nosed Third Reich. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > - > Brad Guth Brad, if you're such a moron that you can't even properly maintain your pc properly, maybe you should turn off the computer and go back to watching that BattleStar Galactica marathon on the sci fi channel. I'm sure you would be happier. > Brad, you're simply not as important as you think you are. If you are > having these problems, then you simply haven't done proper maintenance. > That's it. In 28 years of working with computers, I've *never* been hit with a virus. I only started running antivirus programs about 7 years ago (and immediately detected a macro virus in a Word file I'd downloaded from AOL a few years earlier- but since I had macros turned off, it was harmless). I haven't been lucky- I've taken the time to learn how to operate the computer and I perform regular maintenance. I also don't visit porn or conspiracy sites (as if there's a difference to Brad). About twice a year, I flush my system and reinstall the software, nailing any lurking bad guys I haven't caught. AVG's been good to me! ZoneAlarm is your friend! >ETs!!!???!!! We should have known this thread would lead here. > Klaatu's Law? Pat >>> Columbus is a myth. >>Actually, you're not very far off, especially since it was those smart [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >over 9000 years ago. >http://www.kennewick-man.com/ From the same site: 24,000 BCE - Likely early crossings of land bridge across Bering Strait. People have been chasing bears out of caves in North America for quite some time. >> Columbus is a myth. > Actually, you're not very far off, especially since it was those smart > Chinks and of their little Dropa/Dzopa wizards that discovered North > America. Hahahaha. The Matrix has you, Brad. trane Signature///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan // Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. Trane Francks, Good grief almighty. It seems we have us another pro Christ on a stick sort of mainstream status quo rusemaster, hard at work with as much of his/her dog-wagging spin, hype and disinformation to boot. Exactly how much evidence exclusion are you planning upon introducing? The one and only way of excluding intelligent design, thus excluding ETs is to exclude evidence, just like our resident warlord(GW Bush) excluded evidence all the time, while otherwise having invented evidence via soft-intelligence as a mater of staying the course of his thousand lights, meaning the pillaging and plundering lights of mostly Muslim homes and of entire villages with whatever nearby oil fields and infrastructure that we've directly and indirectly set on fire. Perhaps while you're at it (brown nosing your way through life at the demise of others), you might as well exclude our moon and the likes of Venus entirely, as for their not even existing. What the freaking hell is wrong with the likes of yourself? Are you that Third Reich collaborating Jewish? - Brad Guth > Trane Francks, > Good grief almighty. It seems we have us another pro Christ on a stick ROTFL - You're a knob, dude. A total nutbar, brain-fried, whacko loon. > What the freaking hell is wrong with the likes of yourself? Are you > that Third Reich collaborating Jewish? Godwin's Law invoked. Loser plonked. trane Signature///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan // Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. > > Trane Francks, > > Good grief almighty. It seems we have us another pro Christ on a stick [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > trane Not only that -- but BG's postings offer some of the finest evidence AGAINST "Intelligent Design." SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. Orval, You're supposed to call a doctor if it doesn't go down after four hours. I do believe it's been more than 12 hours and counting, as otherwise your voice wouldn't still be an octive higher than normal. - Brad Guth You know, in the short time I have been here, I can't but notice all the 'Guthisms' that little Brad uses: Brown-nosed Malware / fuckware Fly-by-rocket Snookered Kodak moment MI6 / NAS ~ CIA spooks NASA / GOOGLE / NOVA Disinformation Incest cloned borgs Skull & Bones... to name but a few. I figure that if you joined the above 'Guthisms' with 'and' 'or' 'you' and perhaps the occasional 'moon' or 'venus', you could create a single sentence that would be indistinguishable from one of Brad's normal invective. There might be a game show in this...... > You know, in the short time I have been here, I can't but notice all the > 'Guthisms' that little Brad uses: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > There might be a game show in this...... They are not "Guthisms" -- they are symptoms of "Guthitis." SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:46:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, Evil Roy <evilroy@bigpond.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >You know, in the short time I have been here, I can't but notice all the >'Guthisms' that little Brad uses: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >to name but a few. You forgot "sucks and blows." >Evil Roy - There might be a game show in this...... That's actually not such a half bad idea (keep them coming). Perhaps "Orval Fairbairn" can be my first co-host, along with yourself as team moderator of "Crimes Against Humanity" or perhaps "My God Can Kick Your God's Butt", or how about "Know Thy Enemy So That You Can Snooker Thy Humanity", or if those are too wordy, we could try out the global pollution and domination game of "Up Your's"? I believe that you kind and supposedly all-knowing folks already know for a bloody matter of fact that the USSR plus a few other collaborating nations were every bit our mutual perpetrated cold-war partners in crimes against humanity, as well as you've known that such an analogy has always been my position from the very get-go. So, what's your point of arguing that one chicken killing fox (aka USSR) is going to risk pointing out a fellow chicken killing member (aka USA) of his own pack? (somehow, I don't think so) Over the decades since WW-II, a lot of perfectly nice and innocent Russians had came to an early demise, while others were clearly doing without in order that their government keep their peddle to metal against those perpetrated and cultivated perceptions as supposedly representing real American threats, when in fact we were each being more of a threat to ourselves and upon any unfortunate nations that weren't part of our mutually perpetuated ruse/sting of the century. I'll simply ask you to follow the money, job security and retirement benefits while disregarding all of the collateral damage and carnage along the way, then you tell me if the USSR or the Russia of today would so much as dare spill the beans. Here's a little more of what's dead wrong with this extremely brown-nosed Usenet that sucks picture. I know for a matter of fact, that if we should manage to set a human foot upon the likes of another planet or moon, that without a stitch of remorse we're going to become the intelligent design pagan God(s) of that planet or moon, as having ulterior motives and all of the usual cloak and daggers worth of hidden agendas up the kazoo. Ask yourself; is creation purely happenstance, or is it intelligent design with an ulterior motive. Many of the naysayers are those sequestered within the creation via happenstance arena, in this case meaning that in order to stay their course of a thousand lights, keeping all exactly as is and as unchangeable means their having to exclude most everything of reasoning that comes along, that is unless it is of something that reinforces their mindset, whereas such reinforcements are most often not required to their having hard-science, yet given all the hype and front page infomercial space at public expense, plus set upon another fast-track into their educational standards of supposed higher learning that'll further insure the future outcome as maintained on top of the heap of knowledge, and thus shining brightest upon their side of the argument. Thereby selective knowledge remains as king, and disinformation is better than God. By disallowing deductive reasoning involves a good deal of evidense exclusions which are absolutely mainstream paramount, whereas whatever dot connecting is regarded as taboo as pixel connecting or even upon photographic grains of film worth of connecting, meaning that no matters what you can not use the old or even the new and improved science of others, nor even so much as interpret the available science of dots or image pixels to mean anything other than the 1:1 where is and as is mainstream status quo of published interpretations, that once again has to support their mindset, or else. The "or else" meaning that if you break ranks by ignoring such rules you are as fair game as folks hiding WMD, and that's even if those WMD were invented so as to justify your actions. Thus another mainstream status quo standard is having no soul of remorse, as in none whatsoever. As with the naysayers of this Usenet that in my view have sucked and blown seriously big time for decades, it's clearly those naysayers that keep insisting that our moon was born of Earth, and that all of our local planets are thereby of nearly the same or relatively singular age of a stellar plus an extremely complex happenstance creation, and that somehow without intervention only Earth had been blessed with life because, thus far Earth is the one and only planet blessed with vast oceans of water, of extremely salty water none the less. Thus naysay physics-101 is entirely conditional, most often depending on the color of your race, your religion or lack thereof, and especially as based upon your personal associations and whatever conclusions that'll determiine the amount of brown-nose you have to contribute to their status quo collective pot. No brown-nose and you're not going to be accepted into their Skull and Bones hall of fame, thus no matters what you have to contribute, if it's without sufficient brown-nose it is only entitled to being stalked and bashed at every possible turn in the road. Apparently, instead of accepting that mainstream folks may have overlooked a thing or two about the Sirius star/solar system, or with regard to Venus or you name it about our moon isn't an option. Thereby, it is case closed from the very get-go upon whatever's new and improved or otherwise having come along that is the least bit contrary to their way of allowing whatever truth to being shared. Clearly the new information or interpretations thereof existing knowledge can not rock thy boats or otherwise infringe upon thy high standards and accountability of whatever the mainstream status quo has previously invested into, and you can't even so much as suggest that others haven't been doing their jobs, much less infer that ulterior motives and/or hidden agendas are at work. Yet the mainstream can officially stalk and bash to any extent upon the influx of whatever's coming along the pike that might possibly accomplish a little boat rocking, thereby pointing out a possible flaw or two with the almighty soup of knowledge that isn't supposed to change no matters what. Apparently seeing is not believing, and thereby observationology of my having created whatever's humanly subjective but otherwise of honestly deductive reasoning is just as out the window as any other forms of soft, hard or deductive science that'll suggest upon anything other than what has their NASA/Apollo good house keeping stamp of approval. Clearly, it is still a mostly white boys and girls upper class club, with only token nonwhite's as members where absolutely necessary in order to suggest that all is well and good. The regular laws of physics do not even count for squat if any of those laws imply support on behalf of whatever's external to the prevailing mindset, especially if that prevailing mindset was badly polluted. Thus you name it, if it's going to upset what we've been indoctrinated with, it is going to get more than it's fair share of mainstream flak, plus taking on everything else that can be tossed at the notions of whatever the outsider(s) might have to share. Good folks that basically agree with what I've uncovered are still either too dumbfounded or merely afraid of their own shadows to step up to the plate, too afraid of their getting caught by any secondary/recoil worth of incoming flak that could potentially involve taking a brick or two out from whatever foundation they've created for their own job security and retirement benefits, that which especially these days can't afford getting pulverized, perhaps losing out on the next round of those brown-nosed cult dollars and privileges that's worth taking on as much personal brown-nose as you can stand. So, without rocking thy mainstream good ship LOLLIPOP(aka status quo), of whatever's our solar system associations and/or interactions with Sirius are clearly just as nondisclosure/taboo as for the truth about our moon, and just as worthy of being as excluded as for other intelligent life having coexisted upon Venus (of course that's regardless of the WYSIWYG and regular laws of physics factors), whereas whatever other life (locals or ETs) upon Venus is having to remain as insane as for my not having believed in WMD, or in much of anything else our insane resident and supposedly born again warlord(GW Bush) has had to say. Why am I and of my brown deficient nose not the least bit surprised? - Brad Guth > >Evil Roy - There might be a game show in this...... > That's actually not such a half bad idea (keep them coming). Perhaps [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Humanity", or if those are too wordy, we could try out the global > pollution and domination game of "Up Your's"? I have no intention of appearing on the "Fairy Tale Channel" with a babbling goof, who posts gigabits of nonsense. (some of that nonsense snipped) SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. >I have no intention of appearing on the "Fairy Tale Channel" >with a babbling goof, who posts gigabits of nonsense. That's too gosh darn bad because, the pay is really terrific. I'm thinking of paying my co-host a million bucks per show. Sorry you're not the least bit interested. - Brad Guth > >I have no intention of appearing on the "Fairy Tale Channel" > >with a babbling goof, who posts gigabits of nonsense. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - > Brad Guth I don't collect Confederate dollars. SignatureRemve "_" from email to reply to me personally. Mr. Guth, Give up replying to the naysayers. It is sad, but these are people with nothing better to do with their time than to taunt nutjobs and kooks. Don't reward them by playing their game. >Give up replying to the naysayers. >It is sad, but these are people with nothing better >to do with their time than to taunt nutjobs and kooks. >Don't reward them by playing their game. Me, That's simply not fair. If I can't return the warm and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster, as then what? I totally agree that these naysaying "people" are pathetic, and it is specifically because of their topic/author stalking and bashings that only proves that I'm right more often than not, as why otherwise would they bother? These naysaying "people" don't seem to be taunting the truly insane "nutjobs and kooks" by way of stalking and bashing those that are 100+% mainstream status quo, and so many of those folks are simply certified as insane little incest cloned Hitlers or Third Reich collaborating minions, every bit as Skull and Bones brown-nosed as they come, if not worse. Obviously you play with a double edged sword as well, and why is that? Instead of sub-topic diversions, why don't you contribute something/anything as to nailing the topic at hand? Are you without a clue? NEIL ARMSTRONG & NASA - TOGETHER PERPETUATE MOON LANDING MYTH & DECEPTION is not a pro-NASA nor is it even pro-USSR or that of any sort of pro big-government sort of topic. How would you otherwise interpret, as to your SWAG and/or jest of this topic? If I'd wanted to be pro BIG government, I'd be just as pro GW Gush and pro Dick Cheney as they come, thereby easily pro-NASA to boot, believing in whatever hype, wag-the-dog worth of their spin-ology and infomercial soft-science, along with accepting all of their conditional laws of physics that comes along the pike of their ulteriot motivated global dominating and cold-war agendas, that which has a perverted mindset of placing spare pro-American and especially pro-Jewish NUKE and VX-enhanced STINGER within every garage. - Brad Guth <usual enormous rant snipped> A bit disappointing. Only a couple of 'snookered', a 'Skull & Bones', one 'disinformation', and a shed-load of 'brown-nosed'. The length was there, as were the unpunctuated sentences,the usual insulkts, and the crackpot theories - but it lacked style, and a poor demonstration of Guthitis. I'd only give that a 4.5, along with a 'must try harder!'. Next! Good freaking grief almighty, Evil Roy. Besides your inability to share technical specifics that might spill a few too many beans, thereby sharing rational rocket-science logic, it seems that other sorts of damage-control topics is where we're being given or rather force fed the likes of an extremely old 1034 page report of skewed information, as an old link re-posted by rusemaster Pat Flannery, that's certainly not by any means sharing a fair and balanced look-see at the truth and nothing but the truth. A couple of liars (aka USSR/USA) telling each other their cold-war disinformation, and of their wag-the-dog lies upon lies, isn't exactly the sort of news we can use. Best Book on Space Race/Cold War/Missles? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/109bc1f53f2d9 aed/66476063ffd7e37e?lnk=st&q=20000088626_2000122281.pdf&rnum=1#66476063ffd7e37e http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000088626_2000122281.pdf Obviously these folks can't seem to manage getting this rocket-science down to the dull roar basics of rocket to payload delivery ratios. Just tell us what if anything comes close to the nearly 55:1 ratio of what the Saturn-V supposedly accomplished? Evil Roy, What's the fully configured CEV on a big-a.s stick of such a new and improved rocket got within it's deployment ratio to work with? Unless all of terrestrial rocket-science has been time-traveling itself backwards for the last four decades, you'd have to think such newer and thus improved capability would have become a whole lot better off than any old Saturn-V. That is unless the entire Apollo spacecraft(aka wet liftoff payload) wasn't but half the tonnage as we'd been told, or of it's fuel load(s) having been utilized for achieving the mostly robotic orbital configuration, while our crew spent much of their time as remaining relatively safe at LL1/ME-L1, which is still a good ten fold better then those Ruskies ever accomplished on behalf of manned space flights. Guess what; I'm not even excluding their return to Earth as taking the gravity pull advantage, of their having to orbit the moon in person, whereas at least that much exposure should have been entirely doable. - Brad Guth Mr. Guth, what is your profession? Are you in any way related to MIT professor Alan Guth? >Brian McDermott - Mr. Guth, what is your profession? >Are you in any way related to MIT professor Alan Guth? I've been self employed as an electronics, electrical and hydraulics design and applications wizard, plus a few interrelated matters as to various systems of what otherwise makes a private or commercial vessel just a bit safer and a little more efficient to own and operate. Other than some DNA/RNA that's related to Allen Guth being from Earth, that's about as far as I think it goes, but I could be wrong (wouldn't even be the first time). - Brad Guth "Next!" You're read for his next post ?? Heck, I haven't even read his last dozen or so. "Next!" You're ready for his next post ?? Heck, I haven't even read his last dozen or so. In article <o_r_fairbairn-A413F3.21400230122005@news1.west.earthlink.net>, on Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:40:09 GMT, Orval Fairbairn o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net attempted to say ..... > > > Trane Francks, > > > Good grief almighty. It seems we have us another pro Christ on a stick [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Not only that -- but BG's postings offer some of the finest evidence > AGAINST "Intelligent Design." Ah, but not enough proof of Darwin's theories. Anyone as dumb as Brad would have been thinned from the herd long ago.. Unless he is only 12 or so. If that be the case then time is running out for him/it.. SignatureWhen dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. Wow! I didn't know that. Thanks much. BTW; stop using used toilet paper for blowing your extremely brown nose. - Brad Guth > [WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG SHY] > Historian Douglas Brinkley calls him "our nation's most bashful > Galahad." Just the way Buzz is too? Maybe it's just his personality. Besides all of my Kodak proof-positive that such Kodak moments were NOT obtained from the surface of our moon, here's a wee bit of what "Stephen Horgan" has to say, and of my edited reply; >The Russians would have to be part of your supposed conspiracy >because of their robot probes to the moon you know. Now you're talking my kind of mutually perpetrated cold-war, of cloaks and daggers plus lots of smoke and mirrors that most all of humanity got to pay for, many of which with our lives. Please feel perfectly free anytime, as to provide us with such robotic fly-by-rocket R&D prototype expertise and of their documented proof-testing that the USSR/Russia must still have by the absolute truck loads to brag about. >This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades, except >from you and the other believers? I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and dumbfounded from A to Z. >Oh, and the desire of a few individuals to make a fast >buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement. Please send me my first "fast buck", as I'll frame it and send you a picture of that framed buck. >The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted >government cancelled it. You really are quite a thoroughly snookered individual, and thus a dumbfounded soul. Our getting safely to/from the LL1/ME-L1 parking zone or nullification sweet-spot was doable, and of having robotically orbited the moon was also doable, including recovering of the Kodak film was entirely within our robotic expertise of the day, After all, it was NASA/Apollo that proved they had that much expertise under control. It's the soft-landing upon and via our having accomplished such by our unproven fly-by-rocket landers that wasn't quite doable, and clearly still isn't the case as of today. It also seems that you're the ones continually excluding your own evidence, avoiding the topics of honest Kodak physics and of all those fly-by-rocket landers that simply did NOT exist. Though it's entirely possible that eventually a robotic semi-soft landing had been accomplished but not externally spoken of. Perhaps if these missions were called fly-by-rocket to surface soft-impactors, as that I'd have to buy. Here's a little recent info that makes myself think all the more that others and that I'm dead right, at least this next part doesn't exactly help the pro-NASA/Apollo arguments. Robotic fly-by-rocket lander R&D: "The upper limit of $750M should be used." http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18919 "The mission concept should generally follow the MSFC proposed concept, where a CLV test flight is used to launch the lander, and a throttleable RL-10 engine is used for the descent and landing to best emulate the human landing approach." "To the degree possible, the landing should be a verification test of the human lander descent and landing guidance and flight control algorithms, the precision landing and hazard avoidance capability, including navigation and instruments." - Don't look now, but it sounds exactly like they're having to totally reinvent those fly-by-rocket wheels to me. Our NASA clearly wants this fly-by-rocket robot to first prove the task is even safely doable. Personally, I couldn't agree more, as there's next to nothing that a human interfaced fly-by-rocket lander could possibly accomplish a better job of, than a fully robotic lander as having a terrestrial based ground-control interface, or as having their manned LL1/ME-L1 command platform at the stick after having initiated a nearly zero velocity drop-away from that very same nifty parallel parking zone that's supposedly less than 60,000 km off the deck, representing just a mere orbital velocity of 164 m/s that offers the nifty advantage of there being no good reasons as to having to ever increase that orbital velocity factor. As for going vertical at perhaps an average of 1.66 km/s is worth roughly 10.5 hours to reach the deck, of which this could safely place the lander just about anywhere north, south, east or west of dead center. Of course, if accomplished purely via fly-by-rocket, that's suggesting a one-way ticket of 10.33 hours of dropping from dead out of the sky plus having to safely manage a good deal of controlled down-range, which is clearly something we can't seem to manage as of today. It sounds as though their supposed new and improved rover capability is also up for grabs, meaning there's nothing on the existing boards or otherwise within prototype inventory that'll accomplish the rover task as is. I can fully understand this need for R&D if this rover has to manage as per fully functioning and somehow surviving with limited traction upon and/or having to trek itself through as little as 5g/cm2 worth of bone dry quicksand surface tension, that is unless sticking to a path of exposed solids/bedrock that isn't going to exactly represent level or smooth lunar terrain. Gee whiz folks, of keeping their surface tension loading below 50 kg/m2 upon whatever multiple wide and thus supportive tires and/or upon wide traction belts of rover treads shouldn't be all that difficult. My thinking a bit outside the box; - from the relative safety of LL1/ME-L1 they could just safely lower this robotic lander package by way of having a fairly large ball of composite basalt string, or of some other fiber/tether product, then sit back and watch the sparks fly. >And I guess you have a cheaper way to get off the earth >and to the moon? I think NOT. At a ratio of something greater than 100:1, meaning that of that mid/late 60's era it should have taken more than 100 liftoff tonnes per Apollo mission tonne, which is certainly another interesting push of faith that was obviously to a mostly robotic extent doable, but otherwise extremely testy for even a crew having to spend their mission time at LL1/ME-L1. I do believe it takes a bit more energy going for the moon as opposed to parking a given satellite tonnage at 36,000 km above Earth. Apollo-17 launch mass: 2,923,387 kg / 46,825 = 62.4:1 which is suggesting a rather impressive accomplishment without benefit of SRBs, especially since even with massively powerful SRBs that have been typically configured as providing ten fold the thrust capability of the LH2/LXO rocket engines, whereas it seems there is nothing as of the very best applied rocket launch technology of today that comes even close to that accomplishment of getting relatively small stuff into GSO. Has inert rocket mass and of the rocket science itself been going backwards for all of these decades? - Brad Guth Apparently "Evil Roy (aka spook and rusemaster)" that insisted I pick out a given image for his rebuttal is still out to lunch. As here's at least one proof-positive image that our warm and fuzzy NASA knew exactly how to phony-up such an image that was by far good enough accomplished so that without folks having access to the originals there's no possible way of even the best experts uncovering that this example wasn't for real: Many others had previously discovered this following image as being absolutely phony, and not by way of there being these two of a kind astronauts depicted, but by way of what else wasn't making good photographic or even astronomy sense. I and others having to uncover the original as11-40-5903.jpg image, as it simply was not being offered by way of any official wording associaded with promoting of the Doble11.JPG. A search for the following official NASA/Apollo image: "Doble11.JPG" and of the supposed original. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903.jpg I'll certainly have many better examples to share, however it seems this one alone has always been sufficient proof-positive that for decades an official Apollo image of our astronauts supposedly standing upon the moon was in fact officially altered, and even autographed as for representing the real thing. As for being a good sport, you'll also have to compare the terrestrial Apollo images of moonsuits and of their red, white and blue flag as depicted upon them, and comparing those supposedly taken upon the moon. Notice how there's absolutely no spectrum color differences to being found in any of those primary colors or even with regard to their contrast. That's a damn neat photographic trick for such unfiltered Kodak moments that supposedly had only the singular raw solar illumination and of the nearly coal dark and nasty lunar surface of carbon/soot, iron, titanium and local basalt for accomplishing whatever's piss-poor reflected/secondary light. However, as for just knowing that mother Earth was at 65+°, and having seen Earth being oddly depicted as 5° above the horizon was worth discussing as to how that could be. In addition to mother Earth being so entirely incorrect, there was the rather great deal of harsh side illumination, as though the moon was having an unscheduled sunset, plus then there was the rather spotty illumination of the foreground and surrounding the astronauts, whereas most of the background was remaining essentially way under illuminated, and there was even more so of horrific spot illumination as clearly being depicted within the visor. Lots of unusually good secondary fill-in illumination for nowhere isn't exactly the norm. The NASA/Apollo Borg collective having suggested that their clumping-moon-dirt was somehow selectively being retro-reflective due to being so glass like is even more interesting than just pathetic. The surface illumination/albedo as compared to their illuminated white moon suit still clearly indicates that the lunar surface was oddly reflecting at 55+%, which of course simply can't be. Besides the total lack of any bluish tint, no sign whatsoever of any secondary/recoil worth of near-blue and zilch worth of thermal impact or hard-X-rays. You'd think if you'd actually been to the surface of our moon and having taken such Kodak moments by the hundreds if not thousands of frames, why back on Earth would you have to bother with distributing such a phony baloney image in the first place? Remember folks, this Doble11.JPG is offering at least a triple phony baloney image, and actually worth four times phony if you'd care to include their final master transparency or negative. If they can pull off accomplishing this "Doble11.JPG" degree of photographic smoke and mirrors, they can do anything. Why the heck did so many other publications have to doctor up whatever else got published? Wasn't the real thing good enough? - Brad Guth Dear moonlandinghoaxreligious, I'm becoming just as sorry as hell. So, if you'd be so kind as to asking these pro-NASA/Apollo or bust cults, as to please do tell and thus share with us village idiots as to why this most modern day Proton/Breeze (with all of it's four stages) is so absolutely pathetic compared to our extremely old 3-stage Saturn-V that was somewhat stuck in the muck with the less effective LOX/PR-1 first stage, instead of having those nifty SRBs that seriously kick rocket-butt? http://www.ilslaunch.com/proton/1protonm/characteristics/ Proton/Breeze M (4 stage) Total liftoff mass: 691,272 kg Increased lift capability of approximately 5,645 kg (12,125 lbm) to geosynchronous transfer orbit with a 1,500 m/sec residual velocity to GSO = 122.5:1 (actually it's capable of providing better than 122:1 because of the reserve velocity) It would take nearly nine(8.6) of these most advanced Proton w/4-stages worth of fire and brimstone breathing monsters in order to just get our Apollo spacecraft into GSO. More than nine(9.33) units if that's having to include the Launch Escape System(LES) at 4170 kg. I'm wondering a wee bit as to how much extra for accomplishing the GSO-->Moon portion? In other words of my limited wisdom; Ask these kind folks what the freaking hell gives? - Brad Guth > Dear moonlandinghoaxreligious, I'm becoming just as sorry as hell. > So, if you'd be so kind as to asking these pro-NASA/Apollo or bust [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > - > Brad Guth What the freaking hell gives, is that you have no idea what you are talking about. >Dave Grayvis; What the freaking hell gives, is that you have no >idea what you are talking about. And I suppose that you and of your brown-nosed friends are going to make it all better by way of telling us what's what. Actually, I'd have to further conclude that the rocket-science smarts of your Third Reich along with all of their collaborating Jews was a highly productive technological phase in humanity, as well as extremely profitable basis of knowing thy enemy and thereby snookering thy humanity to boot. Especially somewhat of a win-win for the old Skull and Bones gipper if you were on the collaborating side of the perpetrated cold-war equation. >donstockbaue; Oh, come on, Braddie. When I was there it wasn't >that bad. Except for Randall Tunstall and Hector Garcia And SAIC's >"Ms. Wednesday". Give'em a break. They've done some good for the >World, at least. I've never said that your brown-nosed Third Reich, SS minions or even that of their boss (aka Hitler) were not sufficiently smart, and thus having indirectly contributed some worth to humanity. I believe even Godzilla has some redeeming points. Of course, if you're dead, prematurely dying off or just having to live within a lower standard because of that effort, as such you might place a somewhat different value upon such Skull and Bones achievements. I'm simply stipulating that you supposedly kind and all-knowing folks need to be telling us poor and uneducated village idiots what's what. As it was your very own pagan NASA/Apollo cult having claimed as to what's still so unbelievably fantastic to start with. Instead of using my numbers, I'm stuck with using the NASA/Apollo numbers, plus those of other supposedly honest rocket-scientist that you've bet your sorry life upon. Thus it's your very own laws of physics and of your own hard-science that sucks and blows. There's simply too much hocus pocus, as in perpetrated cold-war cloaks and daggers, plus ample smoke and mirrors that's keeping us common folk away from adding up their own numbers, as to how the heck our Saturn-V even managed GSO with such a back-breaking 52.67t initial payload. At the supposed utmost liftoff mass; I believe that's an impressive 58:1 ratio that shouldn't have been capable of GSO, especially way back then having the greater inert/dry mass of the Saturn-5 being what it was, and especially without benefit of SRBs instead of that pathetic LOX/RP-1 first stage (at the officially reported liftoff mass, Saturn-V actually gets this task closer to their having a 55:1 translunar capability). LOX/RP-1 simply doesn't even come anywhere close to SRBs. There are many of our best and extremely powerful rockets configured as per using SRBs that can't even be effectively utilized for accomplishing GSO deployments, that is unless they're into using the 4 stage method. It takes considerably more of and of somewhat bigger SRBs, plus the likes of a composite 4-stage Proton method of 122:1 via the liftoff mass of 691,272 kg, whereas that's nearly the best rocket bang we've got to work with, that's only capable of getting relatively small payloads of 5.645t into GSO. Since anything of a 58:1 translunar capability simply isn't within the Saturn-V cards, why don't you do the math. Then you tell me how the hell we managed to pull off those NASA/Apollo missions. - Brad Guth >>Since anything of a 58:1 translunar capability simply isn't within the Saturn-V cards, why don't you do the math. Then you tell me how the hell we managed to pull off those NASA/Apollo missions. - Brad Guth << Are you for real? Were you even alive during that time period? I watched some of those moon shots from lift off to stage one separation with eyeballs and binocs. I'm thinking either you need to change the batteries in your slide rule or you didn't get the memo about the tin foil hat your wearing serving as a wave guide for those mind control freqs you laddies are so concerned with. >EatMe; I watched some of those moon shots from lift off >to stage one separation with eyeballs and binocs. Double duh, fool. So what's your pickshit and brown-nose wipe another pagan butt worth these days? Obviously you're quite easily dumbfounded, thus it isn't worth squat. Dear EatMe (aka all-knowing brown-nosed fool on the hill), Please do share as to the far better ratio of what the Saturn-5 had over anything currently available, or even of what's on the drawing boards, of such an absolutely terrific rocket-science solution having no worse off than 63:1. Whereas using whatever's the newest math that your conditional laws of physics have got to share, that'll make the sort of folks like myself go away and die. Thereby telling all the rest of us village idiots how that extremely old and inert bulk of a first stage that utilized LOX/RP-1, of it's inert/dry mass of 133+t was so much more ratio effective than the most modern of SRBs. Then please do not stop impressing us without further sharing as to how those two remaining conventional LOX/LH2 stages managed to get our 48.5t payload all the way past LL-1 in such a quick/expeditious order, and of each and every time without a single hitch to boot. Supposedly this first stage at 2283t had an impressive initial 3400t of thrust for all of 135 seconds, then 2750t worth for an extra 27 seconds of reaching an altitude of 67 km, while having achieved a rather nifty velocity of 2.75 km/s as it hauled it's remaining bulk along with the other two massive stages of 494t and 123t, plus accommodating the 2t instrument unit, the 48.5t spacecraft and the 4.17t LES aloft. So far so good if you'd care to believe the spacecraft payload wasn't half of what's reported, or you'd care to believe that the spacecraft itself was actually utilized as the necessary fourth stage for getting anything into the LL-1 zone. The reusable EAP/SRBs of 275t each, producing 650t of thrust, with a 37t inert/dry mass isn't all that bad a launch ratio at 17.6:1. Of what 6 of such units being initally worth 1650t is offering a 633t advantage from the very get-go, yielding 3900t of thrust being another 500t improvement over the LOX/RP-1. The collective EAP/SRBs worth of inert/dry mass of 222t is seemingly that of a 1.67:1 penalty factor that's way more than having been cancelled out by the initial savings of 633t plus the added 500t of thrust, that which if these items were made semi-disposable should go entirely away with the use of composites saving yet another 100t, whereas subsequently the requirement of fewer units representing that merely 4 such extended burn but disposible EAP/SRBs would have significantly outperformd the LOX/RP-1 alternative of driving the remaining upper three instead of the two LOX/LH2 stages of what the Saturn-V should have involved for getting that much payload tonnage past the LL-1 station-keeping zone in such short order. At least from within LL-1 offers the best ever location from where anything robotic could be effectively deployed into orbiting the moon, even subsequently recovered items having exited away from the moon, whereas headed directly towards Earth is simply a perfectly natural and somewhat self aligning solution of arriving into the least gravity and with utter simplicity offering the least velocity differentials to deal with. We're talking about a catcher's mit of a zone of mutual nullification that's as good as it gets (somewhat like our very own antimatter sweet spot or perhaps mini star-gate). - Brad Guth <<At least from within LL-1 offers the best ever location from where anything robotic could be effectively deployed into orbiting the moon, even subsequently recovered items having exited away from the moon, whereas headed directly towards Earth is simply a perfectly natural and somewhat self aligning solution of arriving into the least gravity and with utter simplicity offering the least velocity differentials to deal with. We're talking about a catcher's mit of a zone of mutual nullification that's as good as it gets (somewhat like our very own antimatter sweet spot or perhaps mini star-gate). >> I'll bet you just like standing in front of a mirror so you can watch your tonsil twitch while you spew out all this. Tell me something Brad, where are the Mars Rovers being faked from these days eh? That's the really big question. Moonbase ALpha perhaps? Perhaps all those folks responsible are being kept sequestered along with all the folks from the AA flights that did/didn't/might have/couldn't have hit NYC and the Pentagon. Now you're the one that's silly and going postal. Stop it! >Perhaps all those folks responsible are being kept sequestered >along with all the folks from the AA flights that did/didn't/might >have/couldn't have hit NYC and the Pentagon. More than likely they were either onboard TWA flight-800 or actually on the intended TWA flight that got pushed back a notch (the one and only time out of 7 years worth). Your God (aka MI6/NSA~CIA) works in mysterious ways. - Brad Guth > >Dave Grayvis; What the freaking hell gives, is that you have no > >idea what you are talking about. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > - > Brad Guth Proof that you are actually NOT being targeted by anyone is given by the fact that they can't get you to SHUT UP! Why exactly are you concerned enough about getting me to "shut up"? After all, I'm more than sufficiently right about other intelligent life upon Venus, right as terrestrial rain about our once upon a time icy proto-moon, as well as I right about our having been orbiting the Sirius star system to boot. Just like my 25 kw/m2 of 100% renewable energy footprint as a do-everything solution to the salvation of our environment and future energy demands. At least all of the regular laws of physics are squarely on my side, along with each improvement in hard-science being supportive, especially about the LSE-CM/ISS that's Usenet (aka MI6/NSA~CIA) spook taboo/nondisclosure. Tell me Sir Butt Sucking Spook; How many folks are there with such nifty information and notions that are on your official do-not-respond list, especially with certain key words, as an internal author/topic avoidance policy of keeping the public and especially local and foreign media totally snookered? So, what's your contribution to science, to humanity or as to any positive contributions towards the environment of Earth? - Brad Guth Brad, I'm going to scientifically address your points, one by one. Please be patient and read through to the end, o.k.? > After all, I'm more than sufficiently right about other intelligent life upon Venus, Nope! Psychotic drivel. > right as terrestrial rain about our once upon a time icy proto-moon, Nope! Imaginative but unsubstantiated drivel. > as well as I right about our having been orbiting the Sirius star system to boot. Nope! Psychotic drivel. > Just like my 25 kw/m2 of 100% renewable energy footprint as a do-everything > solution to the salvation of our environment and future energy demands. Nope! Meaningless and invalid drivel. > At least all of the regular laws of physics are squarely on my side, Nope! Entirely unsubstantiated drivel. > along with each improvement in hard-science being supportive, especially about > the LSE-CM/ISS that's Usenet (aka MI6/NSA~CIA) spook taboo/nondisclosure. Nope! Psychotic drivel. Now, please turn off your PC, pick up the phone, and make that call to your local mental health services. You owe it to your family, friends, and loved ones. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.