Hi Brad, I've read a great deal of your postulating with interest and must ask one simple question. It's the same question I tell my son he must ask of his sources when doing research. This is not a flame. It's a serious question asked in a civil manner and as such I expect a serious answer given in a similar civil manner. Any serious research scientist would not hesitate to answer this question openly, honestly and without hostility. If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a little about your credentials.

What type of education do you have, what degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your theories. Basically, what is your background and why should we accept the profusion of words that flow from your computer over those of anyone else who happens to have an internet connection or, more importantly, over those who have proven themselves in the scientific or academic world.

Statistical Techniques Statistical Mechanics.

A serious answer to this question would do more for your believability than anything else you could say. Dave unk.@googlegroups.com 05.01.06 18:51 Starlord 05.01.06 19:03. I would ask the very same question as David.

Anyone can get on here and post whatever they thing they know and a lot of it is pure hot air. -- The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop In Garden Online Gift Shop Blast Off Online Gift Shop 'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:fXkvf.415$hf2.402@newsfe20.lga. >David Bacque wrote: >>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have >>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >>theories. >>>>Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has >nothing to do with credentials. That is just about the dumbest thing you >can ask on the usenet.

If you have a problem with someones evidence, let's >see your evidence. >>Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility. >>But then again, who needs credibility here? Unk.@googlegroups.com 05.01.06 19:39 Sam Wormley 05.01.06 19:47. 'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:uElvf.417$hf2.49@newsfe20.lga.

>Starlord wrote: >>>I would ask the very same question as David. >>And that makes you a credentialist as well.

Credentialism went the way of >absolutism with the advent of the internet. Acpi Smcf010 Windows 7 Driver Download Fujitsu. Therefore, since you provide >us with no evidence, no entertainment, abundant spam via a vain.sig, and >are top posting as well, without further discussion - the evidence: Credentials by themselves are not sufficient, because a respected scientist can go senile. You can also have someone who is good at digging up bones, but isn't all that bright. I think that it is reasonable to ask about credentials. One of David's questions concerned peer reviewed papers. Has anyone verified Brad Guth's research?

It's a rhetorical question, because we know the answer, but it is OK to ask. Most Democrats didn't bother attacking Harriet Myers and David seems to be taking the same approach with Brad Guth. David's approach may be different from your approach, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. Nitram578 05.01.06 19:56. Thank you for pointing out about credibilty as you point. 'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:fXkvf.415$hf2.402@newsfe20.lga.

>David Bacque wrote: >>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have >>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >>theories.

>>>>Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has >nothing to do with credentials. That is just about the dumbest thing you >can ask on the usenet. If you have a problem with someones evidence, let's >see your evidence.

>>Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility. >>But then again, who needs credibility here? MikeA 05.01.06 19:58. 'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:uElvf.417$hf2.49@newsfe20.lga. >Starlord wrote: >>>I would ask the very same question as David. >>>>And that makes you a credentialist as well. Credentialism went the way of >absolutism with the advent of the internet.

Therefore, since you provide >us with no evidence, no entertainment, abundant spam via a vain.sig, and >are top posting as well, without further discussion - the evidence: >>>>You are the lord of nothing. >Yep, the guy is a complete wackjob. MikeA 05.01.06 20:01. 'Sam Wormley' wrote in message news:nLlvf.687275$_o.159151@attbi_s71.

>David Bacque wrote: >>Hi SAM, >>>>I've read a great deal of your postulating with interest and must ask one >>simple question. It's the same question I tell my son he must ask of his >>sources when doing research.

This is not a flame. It's a serious >>question asked in a civil manner and as such I expect a serious answer >>given in a similar civil manner. Any serious research scientist would >>not hesitate to answer this question openly, honestly and without >>hostility.

>>>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers >>have you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >>theories. Basically, what is your background and why should we accept >>the profusion of words that flow from your computer over those of anyone >>else who happens to have an internet connection or, more importantly, >>over those who have proven themselves in the scientific or academic >>world. >>>>A serious answer to this question would do more for your believability >>than anything else you could say.?

David Bacque 05.01.06 20:02. 'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:fXkvf.415$hf2.402@newsfe20.lga. >David Bacque wrote: >>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have >>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >>theories. >>>>Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak.

It has >nothing to do with credentials. That is just about the dumbest thing you >can ask on the usenet. If you have a problem with someones evidence, let's >see your evidence. >>Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility. >>But then again, who needs credibility here? Reproducibility of evidence is where peer review comes in. Again, no serious scientist would take offense at answering this question.

Why are you taking offense of my asking it of someone else? I don't need credibility here. I'm not postulating an unusual theory. The theorist is the one that needs to establish his credibility and that's where credentials come in.

It's like if your doctor says he thiks arsenic would help your headaches. Asking to see his medical license and if anyone else has reviewed his theory wouldn't destroy your credibility. It would only show your sensibility.

Dave Thomas Lee Elifritz 05.01.06 20:11. David Bacque wrote: >'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message >news:fXkvf.415$hf2.402@newsfe20.lga.

>>David Bacque wrote: >>>>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >>>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >>>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have >>>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >>>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >>>theories. >>>>>>>Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has >>nothing to do with credentials.

That is just about the dumbest thing you >>can ask on the usenet. If you have a problem with someones evidence, let's >>see your evidence. >>>>Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility. >>>>But then again, who needs credibility here? >>Reproducibility of evidence is where peer review comes in. No, last time I checked, reviewing my peers did not reproduce any evidence.

It just gathered previously existing evidence. If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put a woman on the moon? >Again, no >serious scientist would take offense at answering this question. Why are >you taking offense of my asking it of someone else?

I didn't take any offence, the only entertainment I could derive from his idiotic question was the manner in which it was phrased, an individual seeking correspondence with a kook, on a usenet science newsgroup no less, and then asking for the kooks credentials. That was hilarious. >I don't need credibility here. I'm not postulating an unusual theory. The >theorist is the one that needs to establish his credibility and that's where >credentials come in.

It's like if your doctor says he thiks arsenic would >help your headaches. Asking to see his medical license and if anyone else >has reviewed his theory wouldn't destroy your credibility.

It would only >show your sensibility. You're a kook. Phil Wheeler 05.01.06 20:43. Who is Harriet Myers?

Name means nothing to me. -- The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop In Garden Online Gift Shop Blast Off Online Gift Shop 'Michael Rhino' wrote in message news:PSlvf.27762$pE4.3073@tornado.socal.rr.com. >'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message >news:uElvf.417$hf2.49@newsfe20.lga. >>>Most Democrats didn't bother attacking Harriet Myers and David seems to be >taking the same approach with Brad Guth.

David's approach may be >different from your approach, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. >Starlord 05.01.06 21:29. Thomas, You're right. Science is about reproducibility. Friend Guth has accused all of NASA, and the supporting groups invovled, in a cover up so massive in population, that it would dwarf any other kook-conspiracy theory I've ever heard of.

Small timers! Gnomes of Zurich? Skull and Bones? Tell 'em to go home and bring friends!) Here's a novel idea: How about Guth and his buddies giving up some take-it-to-court-proof that we haven't landed on the moon? (note bene: a video file of sibrel's ilk counts towards NGI status, not proof for their argument.) Bob Bob Brad Guth 06.01.06 02:19. Brad Guth's Credentials Good grief, David. Now I've got 'Credentials'?

Here I'd thought I was just being darn good at my observationology, as to better than average dot/pixel connecting upon what's situated upon Venus, and secondly of what's not situated upon our moon. Trust me, it's not much more complicated than that. Most everything else has been my somewhat dyslexic way of pushing as many of those Do-NOT-Push buttons, plus having sometimes required excessive use of my lose cannon.

As a result, it seems that I've remained on the receiving end of more than my fair share of topic/author stalking, bashings and otherwise wherever possible I've received banishment. As perhaps equally, it seems that you could soon be taking on a bit of flak for having simply included my name within your topic that's got my attention, none the less.

Besides your capability of asking such a multi-tasking question; might I inquire as to what focus or level of talent and/or expertise that you yourself have to offer? >Any serious research scientist would not hesitate to answer >this question openly, honestly and without hostility. Have you considered applying that very same rule or standard and accountability upon those having stalked and bashed my every move from the very get go, as of nearly 6 years ago? >If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have >you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >theories.

Basically, what is your background and why should we accept the >profusion of words that flow from your computer over those of anyone else >who happens to have an internet connection or, more importantly, over those >who have proven themselves in the scientific or academic world. First of all, that's not a question, rather more like a complex gauntlet of questions that seem rather ulterior motivated if not potentially intended to disqualify rather than support (meaning there's far more negatives than positives cloaked within that question). I'll try to sort the bulk of this 'question' of your's out, and if possible without my going postal. 1) Credentials: I use my real name, a for real street and email address, as well as phone number that I'll answer, thus that's at least four fold better off credentials than the vast majority of those having been tossing flak and digging my grave.

2) My formal education is limited to public high school, plus having accomplished a trade school in electronics. The rest is self taught, as well as trial and error (emphases upon error). Is any of this a problem? (if so I could just lie exactly like most everyone else) 3) As to peer reviewed papers; I've been reviewed to death for better than five testy years worth.

Specifically (meaning not another one of these 20 part questions), of what would you like to peer review? 4) An early and somewhat negative experience involved getting my butt somewhat burned by an employer that sucked (I sued, I won), whereas I've since worked mostly for myself, accomplishing marine electronics plus learning hydraulics along the way of accomplishing installations, servicing and then into my accomplishing custom modifications as well as having created a good many nifty items that I had to R&D, proof test and 100% responsibly install from scratch, which also meant that I had to invest into myself by way of having a good range of spendy instruments and tools. This curve eventually included a fair amount of medium format photographic investments that required yet another great deal of expertise, by which I never made a living at, but otherwise having enjoyed and proven to myself (rather than merely by book) as to what could or could not be photographed, as well as my having developed said films and having made my very own enlargements. 5) as to publishing; clearly it's not my strong suit. Other than what I've poorly accomplished in a few too many pages as having been posted within this absolute crazy zoo of an internet, and of otherwise my having contributed into this Usenet that seriously sucks and blows, of which I hadn't even so much as considered doing until 6 months after the fact of my dealing directly with NASA seemed unlikey to bear fruit, especially foiled after NASA channeled me into their cult of mostly scripted hype, spin, damage-control and infomercials-R-us. I'm proud to say, that fiasco was my first of many banishments.

6) My background is actually complex, though having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what's capable of existing upon Venus. After all, I didn't invent all the lose dots of reasonably good science, nor did I create those nifty radar impages of 36 looks/pixel, any more so than my having invented physics.

My somewhat extra usage of deductive reasoning as to dot/pixel connecting isn't the least bit intentionally skewed nor hocus pocus like all of those WMD, thus folks haven't died as a result (as far as I know of), and I haven't cost the public or private sectors one red cent (yet). 7) As to where has my research been conducted; Do I have to say it? (Earth!), and as otherwise specifically from my home office that's really been getting overloaded with documents, books and you name it. Although, I do have a large minion staff of -0. As to my profusions of those walls of words; That's simply my lose cannon way of saying whatever it is that I have to say, though somewhat dyslexic encrypted along with a fair share of my having returned the stalking and bashing favor to the best of my limited abilities. You obviously are not smart enough to have once noticed whenever I've been extra nice to the folks as having been nice to me, which doesn't represent that they had to entirely agree with me (I'd appreciate 10% acceptance as being good enough, whereas it's the zero acceptance lot of spooks, moles and freelance pro-NASA or bust types that I can't hardly stand, much less understand). Since I'm not the least bit all-knowing; Tell me whatever it is that I need to know, and then I'll know it.

I believe it's called learning from others, as based upon a share and share alike plan of action. No sharing, no learning is somewhat like energy-in = energy-out, whereas it has to happen, or else. >those who have proven themselves in the scientific or academic world You've got to be a little more specific than 'those', as well as 'scientific or academic world' that are all in the eye of the beholder. Right now I behold that way too many nice folks have been snookered and thus having to remain somewhat sequestered as for their being dumbfounded, especially when I'm pushing my LSE-CM/ISS or of the VL2-TRACE and especially of there being perfectly good odds of other intelligent life as having coexisted upon Venus, most all of which is clearly over the top and way outside of their mainstream box. Sorry about that. BTW; your carefully worded/scripted topic is a little worrisome. Besides all of the built in word/syntax traps, is there something you'd like to share before I discover your true motives and intentions?

Sorry if I've unintentionally missed a key word, syntax or phrase that was imperative that I answer by your standards. I may even further pick away at your carefully worded wall of question(s), that is unless you'd care to being truly specific instead of all over the place with you next question. BTW No.2; Since I'm not the least bit all-knowing, as such I'm looking NOT for having to answer such endless questions, but rather for obtaining answers, as well as I'm looking for the talents and expertise of others. Since I'm willing to share and share alike, thus are you in or out? - Brad Guth George 06.01.06 03:04.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >>David Bacque wrote: >>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have >>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >>theories.

>>>>>>Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has >nothing to do with credentials. That is just about the dumbest thing you >can ask on the usenet. If you have a problem with someones evidence, >let's see your evidence.

>What kind of freak was that? Can you reproduce the evidence?? (;_) Me 06.01.06 05:44. In article, Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >David Bacque wrote: >>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have >>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >>theories. >>Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak.

It has >nothing to do with credentials. FYI: using foul language really destroys your creditbility.

Foul language strongly indicates that you have nothing real to say, and that you wish to hide that fact. And if you respond to this with more foul language, you merely comfirm that I'm right. >That is just about the dumbest thing you can ask on the usenet. If you >have a problem with someones evidence, let's see your evidence. Unk.@googlegroups.com 06.01.06 10:19 Jonathan Silverlight 06.01.06 11:25.

Rhjuli, Your beloved pagan God (aka MI6/NSA~CIA-->NASA) that's residing over all the brown-nosed minions upon your flat Earth can't seem to offer squat worth of 'reproducibility' with regard to our supposed fly-by-rocket attributed expeditions of and upon our moon. Why are those unfiltered Kodak laws of photon physics so gosh darn indifferent upon our dark and nasty moon, as opposed to their being exactly like a xenon spectrum illuminated terrestrial environment? They(aka NASA/Apollo) nor can you even so much as honestly stipulate as to the required rocket/payload ratio.

>Here's a novel idea: How about Guth and his buddies giving up some >take-it-to-court-proof that we haven't landed on the moon? (note bene: >a video file of sibrel's ilk counts towards NGI status, not proof for >their argument.) I've already been there and done that for years. Do you really want to drag all their perpetrated cold-war dirty laundry back out upon center stage, again and again? You do realize that I've gotten somewhat better at arguing my case before the court of humanity. - Brad Guth George 06.01.06 13:40. David Bacque, That's perfectly good enough by way of what I've been trying to accomplish from my initial interpretations, that which I'd mistakenly shared with our warm and fuzzy NASA as of 6 years ago.

God forbid they'd actually do anything constructive. If you can focus upon something fairly specific (there's certainly lots to pick from), and share whatever information and/or expertise you've got. As such I'd be perfectly glad to share alike, as well as to insure that you and/or your team receives all the credits they're entitled to. I'm thinking there's sufficient billions if not trillions worth of credits to go around.

Many of my theories and subsequent notions are nothing but a win-win for science, plus having to do with benefiting our environment and thereby improving the quality and longevity of life for those of us village idiots as having been sequestered upon this Earth that has seen better days. - Brad Guth MikeA 06.01.06 14:40. >>I'll try to sort the bulk of this 'question' of your's out, and if >possible without my going postal.

>>1) Credentials: I use my real name, a for real street and email >address, as well as phone number that I'll answer, thus that's at least >four fold better off credentials than the vast majority of those having >been tossing flak and digging my grave. >>2) My formal education is limited to public high school, plus having >accomplished a trade school in electronics. The rest is self taught, as >well as trial and error (emphases upon error). Is any of this a problem >? (if so I could just lie exactly like most everyone else) >>3) As to peer reviewed papers; I've been reviewed to death for better >than five testy years worth. Specifically (meaning not another one of >these 20 part questions), of what would you like to peer review? >>4) An early and somewhat negative experience involved getting my butt >somewhat burned by an employer that sucked (I sued, I won), whereas >I've since worked mostly for myself, accomplishing marine electronics >plus learning hydraulics along the way of accomplishing installations, >servicing and then into my accomplishing custom modifications a.

D&JWatkins 06.01.06 14:43. I believe the credential crap is a blind appeal to authority. Alleged experts screw up too. Go ask the South Koreans. AKS Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >Starlord wrote: >>>I would ask the very same question as David.

>>>>And that makes you a credentialist as well. Credentialism went the way >of absolutism with the advent of the internet. Therefore, since you >provide us with no evidence, no entertainment, abundant spam via a vain >.sig, and are top posting as well, without further discussion - the >evidence: >>>>>You are the lord of nothing. >>>>rand.@charter.net 06.01.06 15:55. What exactly is this intellectual incest of a mainstream status quo collective you have dredged up for us to ponder? I've noticed how most folks like yourself (aka whomever David Bacque really is) seem to propose the sorts of damage-control topics that insist upon answering to most any given research/discovery that's sharing a series of could-be, what-if and should-be topics with your fairly complex and polished line of question(s), that's not actually contributing a damn thing to the root topic(s) at hand, though clearly as having been intentionally naysay formulated.

You've certainly done this all along, as rather than on-topic sharing and contributing from whatever it is that your supposed talent and expertise has to offer, instead you've basically tossed out the fist and nastiest of flak at each and every one of my statements, or otherwise having questioned the questions that I've posted (why is that?). Since I'm not a stealth WMD, and you've clearly admitted to having read and thus having reviewed my stuff for years (perhaps from the very get go), yet you haven't contributed squat (Why is that?). It's as though you have some kind of deeply rooted ulterior motives, along with a hidden agenda or two, whereas otherwise if you're actually as all-knowing and wizardly smart of your domain, in which case you should have impressing us village idiots by way of your contributing to our limited knowledge, rather than having subjected it to the water torture of whatever the boxed limitations of your mindset had to offer. I'm clearly a very outside the box sort of edgy guy that has a lose cannon on my deck, as having a moving target of a mindset which clearly doesn't know all there is to know. How about yourself? Is there absolutely nothing you neeed to learn, much less share and share alike?

My deductive interpretations and subsequent therories and/or conjectures are those based almost entirely upon your very own hard-science, plus backed up with your regular laws of physics. So please do tell, where's the big and insurmountable problem here?

Is there something perceived as ulterior or otherwise hidden agenda about whatever I've been in. Rhjuliano 06.01.06 17:53. Brad, Why yes, I AM a pagan rocketeer. Did your venusian buddies tell you this?

You have still chosen to with-hold from us your great and gracious pearls of wise evidence that would prove that NASA is evil, nasty, bad, and mean. All you have done is used rhetoric, obfuscation, and attempted to throw up smoke screens. How about some proof? Remember, guthie-kins, that you are accusing NASA of committing a cover-up of vast proportions. As you are the accuser, the burden of proof is on you. YOU must prove your accusations.

So far, You're coming across as expected: a Newsloon with a handy dictionary to attempt dominance by eloquence. You have failed utterly to snow me into believing you have a shadow of a clue.

So, got any proof of any sort? Or are you just going to try and use insult and feeble attempts at rhetoric, again? Bob Brad Guth wrote: >rhjuli, >Your beloved pagan God (aka MI6/NSA~CIA-->NASA) that's residing over >all the brown-nosed minions upon your flat Ear. Paul Schlyter 07.01.06 01:43. In article, Eric Chomko wrote: >Paul Schlyter () wrote...

>>Therefore it makes a lot of sense to ask for someone's publications >>in peer-reviewed journals when judging how credible some new theory >>from that person is. >>Agreed, but it doesn't mean if one is unpublished that they are wrong. True fo course -- however for every genuine unpublished misunderstood 'Copernicus' or 'Galileo' out there, there are thousands and thousands of others who believe they also are suppressed 'Galileos' or 'Copernicuses' but who actually aren't. They consider themselves 'suppressed by the establishment' (i.e. In the peer-reviewed journals) but fail to realize that they are suppressed for a very good reason: for being wrong.

>Guth has passion for his beliefs and a fairly decent vocabulary for >one with a vocational background. But he is more a dreamer than >scientist and his writing is really more poetic (if you can call it. Paul Schlyter 07.01.06 01:43. In article, Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >Paul Schlyter wrote: >>>>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >>>>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >>>>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have >>>>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >>>>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >>>>theories. >>>>>>>Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has >>>nothing to do with credentials.

>>>>FYI: using foul language really destroys your creditbility. >>It's a word, get over it.

A sequence of symbols representable by >integers. It's more than just a series of characters which can be represented by integers. Ever heard about semantics? Without semantics, our words would be useless as a means of communication. That foul word you used is intended to insult, t.

Unk.@googlegroups.com 07.01.06 06:33 unk.@googlegroups.com 07.01.06 06:38 unk.@googlegroups.com 07.01.06 06:40 D&JWatkins 07.01.06 07:14. >I've noticed how most folks like yourself (aka whomever David Bacque >really is) David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real job in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to flying model rockets which has been hijacked as your personal publication system. I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people hearing your ideas.

But if the people that you flood with this cross posting can't ask a few simple questions of you, you'd best get used to people refusing to listen to you. So if someone who has read much what you have posted on rec.models.rockets gets snubbed for civilly asking a genuinely relevant question, then why don't you quit your cross posting here and find a group of people who will accept what you so liberally spoon feed them without ask why you are qualified to position yourself as researcher and teacher. Dave Thomas Lee Elifritz 07.01.06 07:55. David Bacque wrote: >>I've noticed how most folks like yourself (aka whomever David Bacque >>really is) >>David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real job >in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to Thank you so much for contributing to our corrupt government, and also thank you so much for contributing greenhouse gases. The hot air feels good this time of year too. >flying model rockets which has been hijacked as your personal publication >system.

I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people >hearing your ideas. But if the people that you flood with this cross >posting can't ask a few simple questions of you, you'd best get used to >people refusing to listen to you. Right, it's called a filter file. Even an idiot like you can learn to use one. >So if someone who has read much what you have posted on rec.models.rockets >gets snubbed for civilly asking a genuinely relevant quest. Fred Wallace 07.01.06 08:06.

'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:43BFE46B.2E827461@lifeformitis.org. >>David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real >>job >>in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to >>Thank you so much for contributing to our corrupt government, >and also thank you so much for contributing greenhouse gases. I build flight simulation trainers for the aerospace industry.

So use of my products for training pilots and astronauts has saved untold billions of barrels of jet fuel and rocket fuel from being used unnecessarily in addition to extending the useful life span of the world's fleet of aircraft and spacecraft. >Wow, solid rocket fuel in toy rockets. >>That's so.

How about designing rockets that fly faster than mach and reach high G numbers? How about doing structural analysis, drag calculations, aerodynamic design and systems design for reaching a selected flight profile goal? Me 07.01.06 09:31. 'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:43BFE46B.2E827461@lifeformitis.org. >>flying model rockets which has been hijacked as your personal publication >>system. I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people >>hearing your ideas. But if the people that you flood with this cross >>posting can't ask a few simple questions of you, you'd best get used to >>people refusing to listen to you.

>>Right, it's called a filter file. >Even an idiot like you can learn to use one. But it would be much easier if idiots like YOU would just go away. But like the street bums who pester passers-by for spare change, then when confronted on their behavior, merely state 'if you don't like it, just ignore me', I have a feeling you won't. Thomas Lee Elifritz 07.01.06 09:40. David Bacque wrote: >'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message >news:43BFE46B.2E827461@lifeformitis.org.

>>>>David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real >>>job >>>in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to >>>>Thank you so much for contributing to our corrupt government, >>and also thank you so much for contributing greenhouse gases. >>I build flight simulation trainers for the aerospace industry. So use of my >products for training pilots and astronauts has saved untold billions of >barrels of jet fuel and rocket fuel from being used unnecessarily in >addition to extending the useful life span of the world's fleet of aircraft >and spacecraft. Which explains all those aircraft sitting in the desert. Tell it to homeland security, I feel so safe this them burning all that fuel tracking down all those tourists in the middle of the atlantic.

>>Wow, solid rocket fuel in toy rockets. Thomas Lee Elifritz 07.01.06 09:43. Me wrote: >'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:43BFE46B.2E827461@lifeformitis.org. >>>>flying model rockets which has been hijacked as your personal publication >>>system.

I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people >>>hearing your ideas. But if the people that you flood with this cross >>>posting can't ask a few simple questions of you, you'd best get used to >>>people refusing to listen to you. >>>>Right, it's called a filter file. >>Even an idiot like you can learn to use one. >>But it would be much easier if idiots like YOU would just go away. This is the usenet, we have fundamental freedoms here, far more freedom than the fascist police state you have created in the former great nation of yours.

>But like the street bums who pester passers-by for spare change, >then when confronted on their behavior, merely state 'if you don't >like it, just ignore me', I have a feeling you won't. Sure, I'll ignore you, once you start acknowledging freedom, truth and scientific methods.

It's the sifting and winnowing. Thomas Lee Elifritz 07.01.06 10:12. Fred Wallace' wrote: >>Wow, solid rocket fuel in toy rockets. >>>>That's so. >>>>Another moron has surfaced. However, your advise on using filter files >has merit.

Of course it does. You guys are unbelieveable.

Not a single one of you has actually *asked* to have your beloved newsgroups removed from the headers, nor have you even bothered to manually remove them from the crosslist. It's very easy, just as easy as a filter file. If you had even bothered to ask, you will most likely find that even the trolls and kooks will do it for you. >'PLONK' That's the spirit. You may now return to your important business of building toy SRBs, and burning your grandchildren's plastic insulation recklessly.

The rest of us will continue discussing real hydrogen rockets, and the very difficult questions and problems of life in space. David Bacque 07.01.06 10:45. >>Until those rockets use liquid hydrogen and reach orbit, >it's just more primitive ape man shit from cretins. >>Children, playing with fire. >So is reaching orbit with liquid hydrogen the only useful goal for a rocket?

How about instilling a love of science and engineering in your son, having him learn basic aerodynamics and the laws of motion by age 10, successfully design, fly and recover a mach 1.7 rocket by age 15, making straight A's in all math and science courses, graduating high school with honors and having him studying computer science, math and physics on a full academic scholarship? Would this be a worthwhile goal? Or wouldn't you want the youth of the world gaining the background necessary to real science? On top of all that, what's wrong with doing something that you enjoy? Fred Wallace 07.01.06 11:01.

David Bacque wrote: >>>How about instilling a love of science and engineering in your son, having >him learn basic aerodynamics and the laws of motion by age 10, successfully >design, fly and recover a mach 1.7 rocket by age 15, making straight A's in >all math and science courses, graduating high school with honors and having >him studying computer science, math and physics on a full academic >scholarship? Would this be a worthwhile goal? >>I don't know.what if he becomes bent on world conquest? We'll all have you to thank as his nuclear powered cyber-rockets charged with atom brains fill the darkening sky, and then the world, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. If Fu Manchu had never gotten that chemistry set for his sixth birthday the world would have been a better place. >On top of all that, what's wrong with doing something that you enjoy? >>That's just what Fu Manchu said!

Then he released the plague carrying Zombie Bats.;-) Pat Tank Fixer 07.01.06 15:30. In article, on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:32:01 GMT, Paul Winalski attempted to say. >On 6 Jan 2006 02:19:36 -0800, 'Brad Guth' >wrote: >>>Brad Guth's Credentials >>>>Good grief, David.

Now I've got 'Credentials'? >>No, apparently you don't. >>Instead you've resorted to 'the establishment is persecuting me', >which is the first refuge of the crackpot.

>Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. Unk.@googlegroups.com 07.01.06 16:35 D&JWatkins 07.01.06 18:50. Well shoot if us really bad Americans had just left the world alone and not produced such terrible weapons then all of Europe could be speaking German. At least the ones not gassed in camps. Or even if they managed to get past that then Russian for those who survived the gulags!

As far as pollution goes, any Volcanic eruption does more of that than all of humanity. Dennis 'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:wwWvf.490$ve2.401@fe23.lga. >David Bacque wrote: >>>Wow Thomas, >>>>Only an idiot would find so much wrong with helping the youth learn math >>and science.

>>>I'm all for math and science education David, but not at the expense of >the environment, using primitive explosives, creating mathematicians and >scientists schooled in the development of weapons, which is exactly what a >solid fueled toy rocket is. >>>I give up. You're right. The entire world IS out to get you. >>>>No, that's Brad.

I'm a physicist. It's the whole universe against me. >>My immediate problem is weapons and hydrocarbons. >>And people like you who promote them.

>>unk.@googlegroups.com 07.01.06 19:17 the notorious t-e-d 07.01.06 20:51. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:35:25 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >Greg Heilers wrote: >>>>I give up. You're right. The entire world IS out to get you. >>>>>>>>>>Probably not the *entire* world.but he sure makes me want >>to make it the *main* goal in *my* life.

>>>>Zieg Heil! >>Another America fascist. I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian, the furthest thing from the Socialist that describes most NAZI's.

And I thought all good goose-stepping Liberals, such as yourself.were supposed to embrace diversity and all the world's different wonderful belief systems.*including* Fascism. >(The above site is a finalist for the 2005 Absurdity in Cyberspace Awards.) -- Greg Heilers Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 9.1. 'The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had something to do with it.' George Pickett, when asked where the fault lie for the Confederacy's loss at Gettysburg Secr.@Verizon.net 07.01.06 07:24.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >It's quite obvious you guys aren't doing any acual science. Greg Heilers wrote: >>>>I give up. You're right. The entire world IS out to get you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Probably not the *entire* world.but he sure makes me want >>>to make it the *main* goal in *my* life. >>>>>>>Zieg Heil! >>>>Another America fascist.

>>>>Hardly. I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian, Heil the feeble dollar! >the furthest thing from the Socialist that describes >most NAZI's. And I thought all good goose-stepping >Liberals, such as yourself.were supposed to embrace >diversity and all the world's different wonderful >belief systems.*including* Fascism. Including any old kook's right to post nonsense on the usenet. To which you respond with threats of stalking.

>Pat Flannery 08.01.06 05:50. D&JWatkins wrote: >As far as >pollution goes, any Volcanic eruption does more of that than all of >humanity. >>>That's what Ronald Reagan said about Mount St. Helens.but he was way wrong. His statement was: 'I have flown twice over Mt St.

Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about.' Actually, at the peak of its eruption Mount St. Helens was turning out around 1/40th as much sulfur dioxide per day as automobiles do each day.

Here's another way of looking at it; the total world population is around 6,490,115,551 as of this morning: The total surface area of the earth is 196,940,400 square miles:. D&JWatkins 08.01.06 07:32. 'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:dw%vf.442$hf2.441@newsfe20.lga. >Do you always talk out your ass?

Or do you have a defect? >>>>Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time That paper does not have any proof, only someones self declared guess. The volume of CO2 from volcanoes is unknown at the present time. That says it all. Someone else, with some credential can not just guess and it be declared correct, as it is not known. MikeA 08.01.06 15:57. >David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real job >in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to >flying model rockets which has been hijacked as your personal publication >system.

I'm glad to hear that you're actually one of the good guys that really exist. However, all I did was respond to YOUR topic. So, do tell what's your actual agenda or plan of action? I've noticed how you've attracted a bit more than your fair share of the mainstream status quo flak. Damn nasty stuff, isn't it?

>I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people >hearing your ideas. Of this topic, I never cross posted to one other group (unless provoked, I don't do those sorts of things, and you haven't exactly provoked me). Of my very own topics, I usually have cross posted to the maximum of five in order to obtain the widest or perhaps weirdest audience, but not always. Often I'm having to respond to others that take to topic hijacking by way of their taking over the cross posting and even having renamed the original topic in order to suit their ulterior motives, such as taking my topics on another joy-ride as one of their normal methods of hopefully skewing the author and of his/her topic to death. Seldom if ever have these folks cross posted for valid reasons of benefiting the original or even of some related sub-topic.

Brad Guth 08.01.06 20:00. >David Bacque; I give up.

You're right. The entire world >IS out to get you. >Thomas Lee Elifritz; No, that's Brad. I'm a physicist. >It's the whole universe against me. >My immediate problem is weapons and hydrocarbons. >And people like you who promote them.

My dear Thomas Lee Elifritz, Perhaps the very last thing you'll want to hear is that I'm on your side. However, our much nicer than average topic originator (aka David Bacque) isn't exactly pulling off crimes against humanity, or having created more than his fair share of global warming, at least not by what I've heard thus far. Do you know of something about our David that I should realize? Your being one of those all-knowing physicist and all, I don't suppose that you could offer us village idiots some taboo/nondisclosure info as to raw ice coexisting in nearby space?

Let us say a fairly clean cubic meter worth of sub-frozen freshwater or perhaps another frozen block of saltwater for starters. How long would it last in the sun at 1-AU? - Brad Guth Secr.@Verizon.net 07.01.06 22:16.

Paul Schlyter wrote: >In article, >Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >>>David Bacque wrote: >>>>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a >>>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what >>>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have >>>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your >>>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your >>>theories.

>>>>Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has >>nothing to do with credentials. >>FYI: using foul language really destroys your creditbility. Foul >language strongly indicates that you have nothing real to say, and >that you wish to hide that fact. And if you respond to this with more >foul language, you merely comfirm that I'm right. 'Profanity is the attempt of a weak and feeble mind to express itself forcefully.'

Lensm.@hotmail.com 08.01.06 01:30. Secret237 wrote: What exactly are you saying this picture proves?? Pictures are doctored up all the time. Whose signature is that?? Ttyl - Brads reply: Dear snookered and dumbfounded to death Bob (aka ttyl), As per usual, you're sucking again. Get a new grip.

Get the freaking hell out of my email. At least go far away until you've discovered a way out of that mainstream status quo and otherwise extremely brown-nosed box that you're continually stuck within. I'm not going to answer to such totally dumbfounded questions. - Brad Guth Just like I said, he will not answer my questions. Secr.@Verizon.net 08.01.06 08:19.

Another message from Brad: Secret237 wrote: >- Dear snookered and dumbfounded to death Bob (aka ttyl), As per usual, you're sucking again. Get a new grip. Get the freaking hell out of my email. At least go far away until you've discovered a way out of that mainstream status quo and otherwise extremely brown-nosed box that you're continually stuck within. I'm not going to answer to such totally dumbfounded questions.

- Brad Guth As I said, he does not answer my questions. I think I'm starting to annoy him. Grin Eric Chomko 09.01.06 09:47. Paul Schlyter () wrote:: In article,: Eric Chomko wrote:: >Paul Schlyter () wrote:...: >>Therefore it makes a lot of sense to ask for someone's publications: >>in peer-reviewed journals when judging how credible some new theory: >>from that person is.: >: >Agreed, but it doesn't mean if one is unpublished that they are wrong.: True fo course -- however for every genuine unpublished misunderstood: 'Copernicus' or 'Galileo' out there, there are thousands and: thousands of others who believe they also are suppressed 'Galileos': or 'Copernicuses' but who actually aren't. They consider themselves: 'suppressed by the establishment' (i.e. In the peer-reviewed: journals) but fail to realize that they are suppressed for a very: good reason: for being wrong. I believe you have summed up Guth well.: >Guth has passion for his beliefs and a fairly decent vocabulary for: >one with a voca.

Eric Chomko 09.01.06 09:59. Thomas Lee Elifritz () wrote:: Paul Schlyter wrote: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: [.]: >>If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put a women on the moon?: >>: >>: >: >Wrong (and stupid) question! Of course we can put a woman on the: >moon if we can put a man on the moon.: >: >: So far the evidence seems to contradict your baseless claim.: The kooks demand proof. Okay, I'll give you a kooky proof or force you to admit that you're a sexist! The Russians put a woman in space in 1963. At that time we were behind in the 'Space Race'.

We landed on the moon in 1969, putting us ahead of the Russians in the 'Space Race'. Being ahead of the Russians by 1969 and that they had put a woman into space in 1963, we could have put a woman on the moon as we were ahead of the Russians by that time and thus could do what they could do, but chose not to do it. If you don't believe that, then you believe that the Russians didn't go to the moon and lost the 'Space Race' because in fact they were the first to put a woman in space and that cost then the 'Moon Race', you space case! Eric: Eric Chomko 09.01.06 10:32. David Bacque (XXdbacqueXX@XXswbell.netREMOVEALLUPPERCASE) wrote: [.]: I build flight simulation trainers for the aerospace industry. So use of my: products for training pilots and astronauts has saved untold billions of: barrels of jet fuel and rocket fuel from being used unnecessarily in: addition to extending the useful life span of the world's fleet of aircraft: and spacecraft. Not to mention make for cool rides like they have at Universal Studios in FLA and CA.

I even rode in one while touring Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Flight Simulators. There not only for pilots and astronauts. Think of them as a poor man's space tourism. Eric Eric Chomko 09.01.06 10:56. Eric Chomko wrote: >Being ahead of the Russians by 1969 and that they had put a woman into >space in 1963, we could have put a woman on the moon as we were ahead of >the Russians by that time and thus could do what they could do, but chose >not to do it. >>The problem with female astronauts (or cosmonauts) revolved around urination.

In the case of males, a simple condom type covering for the penis with an attached tube would suffice for urination- although the Apollo solution of one end of the tube being attached to your penis and the other being attached to the vacuum of space made me quesy.although I'll bet it was great for completely emptying your bladder in a hurry! In the case of females this was nowhere near as simple; you were pretty much limited to inserting a catheter, which was both uncomfortable and could lead to irritation and infection if kept in for a few days. Pat Jerry Irvine 09.01.06 14:27. In article, Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >'W. Fred Wallace' wrote: >>>>Wow, solid rocket fuel in toy rockets. >>>>>>That's so. >>>>>>>Another moron has surfaced.

However, your advise on using filter files >>has merit. >>Of course it does.

You guys are unbelieveable. Not a single one of you has >actually >*asked* to have your beloved newsgroups removed from the headers, nor have >you even >bothered to manually remove them from the crosslist. It's very easy, just as >easy >as a filter file. If you had even bothered to ask, you will most likely find >that >even the trolls and kooks will do it for you. >>>'PLONK' >>That's the spirit.

You may now return to your important business of building >toy >SRBs, and burning your grandchildren's plastic insulation recklessly. >>The rest of us will continue discussing real hydrogen rockets, >and the very difficult questions and problems of life in space. >>>You get it. -- Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. Please bring GROWTH back to consumer rocketry. Produce then publish.

Jerry Irvine 09.01.06 14:32. Dear David Bacque (aka semi-nice person of interest), plus all other MIB or otherwise not so nice folks as having been snookered and thus about as dumbfounded as humanity gets, that's gotten as of lately so pagan brown-nosed that you poor folks simply don't know which way is up. Thus how the heck are you ever going to manage getting the return of Christ or any other DoGooder back up on another stick if you haven't a freaking clue as to which way is up?

Seriously folks, that's exactly what I'm thinking. What's the point of sharing my deductive honesty upon whatever's most likely having coexisted upon and quite possibly still surviving upon Venus, especially if so many of you folks can't even deal with whatever's supposedly situated or perhaps NOT having been situated upon our extremely nearby moon? How much in 'credentials' would it take as to convey how badly you've been lied to, thereby having been snookered and subsequently dumbfounded for the past 4+ decades by those supposedly having 'the right stuff'? Kodak photon physics simply doesn't have to lie, nor does it lie to the extent and perpetrated cold-war bigotry formula of what your pagan NASA/Apollo or bust cultism represents. However, in addition to all of those unfiltered Kodak moments that clearly do NOT depict the nasty environment of our moon, here's a bit more of what's been skewed to death. Besides all of your obvious brown-nosed sucking and blowing of having wagged all of those nice dogs to death worth of mainstream spin, hypology and infomercial damage control, as in telling us and/or having accepted such lies upon lies as having inferred that terrestrial instruments (including impressive radar imaging technology) si.

Brad Guth 09.01.06 15:29. >Remember, guthie-kins, that you are accusing NASA of committing a >cover-up of vast proportions.

As you are the accuser, the burden of >proof is on you. YOU must prove your accusations. I've been there and done that dozens of times.

Therefore, clearly it is yourself having been excluding evidence and thus in denial for so long that you haven't a freaking clue as to which way is up. I think that was one of Hitler's problems, and now being most of what our resident warlord(GW Bush) has to deal with. >So, got any proof of any sort? Or are you just going to try and use >insult and feeble attempts at rhetoric, again? Only the regular laws of physics, of your very own rocket-science that simply doesn't add up, plus all of those unfiltered Kodak moments that suck and blow way past the brown-nosed point of no return. Your asking me to repeat myself for the hundredth time isn't going to change anything.

- Brad Guth Brad Guth 10.01.06 01:47. Dear David Bacque (aka certified mad rocket-scientist), Brad Guth's Credentials may soon have to include that I'm becoming just as sorry as hell. So, if yourself and others would be so kind as to if need be asking of your fellow pro-NASA/Apollo or bust cult, as to please do tell and thus share with us uneducated (mostly non Jewish) village idiots, as to why this utmost modern day Proton/Breeze (with all of it's four stages) is so absolutely payload 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? 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 becau.

Bob352 10.01.06 06:17. Guthie-kins, 1.) The mere fact that you'd bring in hitler, and then start in on GW Bush, would perhaps suggest that you don't have any verifiable evidence. 2.) you've mentioned some interesting - though specious to the extreme - questions, worthy of sibrel in their epic willful denial of facts.

3.) You keep saying you've stated facts proving the NASA cover up. It would appear that you kep stating convoluted questions, to somehow prove that you are smarter than others. 4.) I'll cut through the rest and say: 4A.) If there are so many MIB types running around, to stop word of the conspiracy leaking out, why are you still breathing? 4B.) Some of your posts have shown a marked lack of knowledge in chemistry, yet you use this marked lack of chemistry to somehow 'prove' that we never made it to the moon. 4C.) Why is it that everybody keeps bringing up venusians, when you post? Were I to lower myself to the level of Ad hominem attacks, I'd probably say something li. Pat Flannery 10.01.06 09:53.

Robert Juliano wrote: >>>>4A.) If there are so many MIB types running around, to stop word of >the conspiracy leaking out, why are you still breathing? Because he's an Agente-Provocateur controlled by the International Freemasonic/Illuminati/Skull and Bones/Zionist/Communist/Rockefeller/Bilderberger/Opus Dei/NSA/CIA/FBI/NASA/FDA/IRS/AMA/M-O-U-S-E Conspiracy to discredit Moon hoaxers and advance _Their_ filthy agenda! Well, he hasn't fooled this True-Blue Patriot!and when I get done writing this posting, I am _not_, repeat _NOT_, going to visit Disneyland, and fall into its Satanic clutches! Soon the world will learn the truth about 'Walt' (World And Lucifer Together) 'Disney' (Deity Is Satan Now Earth Yells)!!!!!!!!;-) Pat Brad Guth 10.01.06 10:36. >bob352 >So, summarily, what you're saying is.since you are incapable of >calculating how this was accomplished, it couldn't have been done. No Sir, bob352. I'm simply stipulating that you'll need to be telling us village idiots what's what.

As it was your pagan NASA/Apollo cult having claimed what's still so unbelievably fantastic to start with. Instead of using my numbers, I'm 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 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 capab. Orval Fairbairn 10.01.06 11:48. In article, 'Brad Guth' wrote: >>bob352 >>So, summarily, what you're saying is.since you are incapable of >>calculating how this was accomplished, it couldn't have been done.

>No Sir, bob352. I'm simply stipulating that you'll need to be telling >us village idiots what's what.

As it was your pagan NASA/Apollo cult >having claimed what's still so unbelievably fantastic to start with. >>Instead of using my numbers, I'm 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 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. Robert Juliano 10.01.06 12:10. I realize that everyone is entitled to his opinion, and I respect this. I also hope that you will all respect mine as you read this letter. To plunge right into it, if Brad Guth can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. If some people are offended by my mentioning that I am skeptical of efforts to produce a clueless definition of 'schizosaccharomycetaceae', then so be it.

While we all despair over his bloodthirsty monographs, we must also remember the principles that will guide our better behaviors and higher aspirations. My dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to free people from the fetters of terrorism's poisonous embrace. Why does credentialism exist?

What causes it? And does Brad realize he's more disruptive than a randy sideshow barker?

To understand the answers to those questions, you first have to realize that by Brad's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children -- let alone teach them to be morally fit -- you're definitely a reprehensible sponger. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from his. For instance, I suspect that if we don't complain about choleric, conniving sybarites right now, then Brad's outbursts will soon start to metastasize until they mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against Brad's adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass.

Every time Brad tells his votaries that anarchism is the only alternative to adversarialism, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that there is clearly no limit to his impudence. What I mean is that Brad's manifestos should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, 'Warning: It has been determined that Brad's ful.

Unk.@googlegroups.com 10.01.06 12:57 Brian McDermott 10.01.06 13:00. 'Thomas Lee Elifritz' wrote in message news:HpVwf.106294$826.46497@fe16.lga. >>Hmmm, what kind of idiot answers a post which has obviously been created >>by an automatic complaint generator? >>>Let's see, I snipped the irrelevant parts, ignored the link and answered the relevant questions, since the subject matter itself, >not Brad Guth or his prolific posting history, interests me, and is highly relevant to constantly evolving scientific methods.

It >works for me. You are almost as entertaining an idiot as the Guthinator!to see you STILL flailing around, trying to explain away your ineptitude, LOL! America's BEST entertainment value! Unk.@googlegroups.com 10.01.06 14:48 Dave Grayvis 10.01.06 15:11. Brian McDermott wrote: >If some people are offended by my mentioning that I am skeptical of efforts to produce a >clueless definition of 'schizosaccharomycetaceae', then so be it.

There are people who have a decreased capacity to distinguish imaginary diabetic whales from those that exist in reality? >Why does credentialism exist?

Because our schools need an alternative to the godless Darwinist theory that posits credentials as evolving from single-degree diplomas arising from the primordial soup of usenet. >And does Brad realize he's more disruptive than a randy sideshow barker? He doesn't offer up as much in the 'nekkid chicks' dept. >(snip) That's why I laugh when I hear Brad's apologists go on and on about alarmism. Who are Brad's apologists, anyway?

Robert Juliano 10.01.06 17:40. 'Robert Juliano' wrote in message news:VtYwf.1399$kJ1.741@fe15.lga. >Me, >>it's getting to the point that I'm actually looking forward to the fervid, futil flailings of our friends known as Elifritz, and >his great mentor, Guthy-kins.

>>I have gathered a supreme monster express pizza, chips, and a few chilled beers, waiting for hte next epic installment of. >>Net.kooks: the series! A TV show where a special team of cops accompanied by psychiatric workers and James Randi searches out and busts various moon-landing-hoax theorists, self-proclaimed alien contactees, and alternate-cosmology-of-the-month whackjobs? Robert Juliano 10.01.06 21:00.

Robert Juliano () wrote:: Dave,: Damn. Oh well, I was too young for Star Trek, the original series. Maybe: I can still enjoy the episodes ala MST3K, or not unlike the old star: trek parties in the late 70's.: This saturday, I'm celebrating 40 years on this earth, and so I hope: that our dear and dedicated thespian friends (guth and elifritz) are: going to put on a tragi-comedy.

(they almost always do.) I'd rather watch the NFL playoffs. Go Redskins!!! Eric: Bob: Dave Grayvis wrote:: >Robert Juliano wrote:: >: >>Me,: >>: >>it's getting to the point that I'm actually looking forward to the: >>fervid, futil flailings of our friends known as Elifritz, and his: >>great mentor, Guthy-kins.: >>: >>I have gathered a supreme monster express pizza, chips, and a few: >>chilled beers, waiting for hte next epic installment of.: >>: >>Net.kooks: the series!: >>: >>Bob: >>: >: >Unfortunately, the rest of the episodes are all reruns. Robert Juliano 11.01.06 10:16. TLE, the problem is. Credentials mean that some group thinks that the reporter of an event/thing/person, actually knows what they are talking about.

Mind you, there is the idea of personal standards in credentials: If fred from 28th street says that I can replace the oil in a cessna with grease paint, and still have the thing fly. Nay, even perform better than with the original oil.

I'm gonna want to see righteous proof. His proof run doesn't get to use any of my engines. If Doctor Flight-Boy of the EAA makes that statement, I'll want to see the write-up. I'll give more credence to the Doctor, as he's staking his rep on that statement. If Fred makes a statement, and it goes bad, he doesn't lose all that much (save for the price of the engine he's killed.) As we are only able to use (hopefully) logical arguments and rhetoric, only past performance (our credentials), and our 'social standing' in this community can have any weight.

Admittedly, once I've got my shop u. Unk.@googlegroups.com 11.01.06 10:34 Robert Juliano 11.01.06 11:27. 'science is easy, software is hard'??? Please tell me that you are being facetious. Software is little more than a form of advanced play-writing (admittedly, the playwrights make a heck of a lot more than the broadway folks do.) SCIENCE requires controls, test groups, and challenge groups. Software doesn't. Science states that a number 2 pencil cannot acelerate to mach 2, unless there is a force added to that pencil.

Software requires merely changing a few parameters. As to why I track down some of the wierdo groups: watching meme-movements is a sometimes hobby. The whole idea of 'pictures wouldn't be enough, we want to see the actual models' might proved problmeatic, and yet illustrate the credentialing problem perfectly. As most people don't have the time to make the trek up to my place, nor do I have the room space to handle that many people, most folks use the method of 'get a trusted friend.'

They go to someone they trust, who knows the subject, to go and check it out. That's credentialling. (also called applied social networks based on reptutation, if you want to get fancy.) As to the 'fierce debates regarding whether or not we want to the moon.' # Debate is a formalized system of (usually) logical argument. Rules governing debate allow groups and individuals to discuss and decide issues and differences.

Debate is a common process in deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts. 1.) what would accept as evidence?

2.) what would you consider 'doing science?' 3.) You confirmed a guess of mine. I was figuring that you were a programmer, I was jut unsure which type. Expansion of above: 1.) while I didn't keep my class records, Westport Public School System in Westport, CT should still have copies of my High School science notes. I built a hopped up negative ion generator in senior year.

Would that count? How about making plastics in junior year chemistry? Would building my own telescope (admittedly, only a refractor) count? How about doing chem analysis on the neighborhood creek, in 4th grade? 1.1.) If you only consider first hand personal eyewitness as evidence, then We've got a problem. Based on the evidencne of your own writings, I consider you to be a jerk. Actually, let me go a bit further and state: I consider you to be a jumped up immature, foul mouthed, badly trained.

Therefore, I don't see much reason in invitin. Robert Juliano 11.01.06 15:49. Robert Juliano, How's your body armor holding up, Bob? After all, incoming mainstream status quo flak is rather nasty, isn't it? Apparently their pagan God (aka Einstein) never once connected the dots, or otherwise used a stitch worth of deductive reasoning, much less shared upon whatever was WYSIWYG. Same goes for their pagan good book (aka Koran) that sucks and blows upon your sorry butt if you don't happen to agree with whatever their MI6/NSA~CIA spooks and MIB have to say.

Einstein SWAG simply wasn't allowed in those good old days when perpetrated cold-wars were all the rage. Thus being a born again liar was perfectly acceptable and even touted to the point of phony baloney folks obtaining their Nobel Prize.

>What does Guth have to support him? How about the regular laws of physics, along with the hard-science of others and my nifty observationology that's certainly a whole lot better off than any WMD that snookered most every one that had a sufficiently brown-nose. Me 11.01.06 16:47.

'Brad Guth' wrote in message news.380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com. >Einstein SWAG simply wasn't allowed in those good old days when >perpetrated cold-wars were all the rage. Thus being a born again liar >was perfectly acceptable and even touted to the point of phony baloney >folks obtaining their Nobel Prize. Um, Guthy baby - no one is naming any High Schools, Observatories, or buildings after you.

Nobody is writing any books on your life. No one has explored any theory of yours and found that it satisfactorily explains the mysteries of the universe. Your tombstone is going to read 'Loser'. Maybe 'Kook'.

Get used to it. Brad Guth 11.01.06 17:40. >Your tombstone is going to read 'Loser'. Maybe 'Kook'.

Is this what you'd call being 'killfiled'? >Um, Guthy baby - no one is naming any High Schools, >Observatories, or buildings after you. Nobody is >writing any books on your life. No one has explored >any theory of yours and found that it satisfactorily >explains the mysteries of the universe. Perhaps that's their own little secret, or problem.

A mindset is a good thing to waste, don't you think? - Brad Guth unk.@googlegroups.com 11.01.06 18:23 Me 11.01.06 18:51. 'Brad Guth' wrote in message news.510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com.

>Perhaps that's their own little secret, or problem. Speaking of problems, has your caseworker been reading your posts lately? It might help her to adjust your dosage properly.

We (meaning the secret CIA black ops team that is assigned to monitor you night and day and record your life) planted thousands of tiny nanobots disguised as tiny bedbugs into your bedroom today. They're designed to attach themselves to your hair follicles, and will enable us to selectively cause a terrible itching rash whenever and wherever we want! So you'd better behave!

Sleep tight Guthy baby! Brad Guth 11.01.06 19:07. Guth isn't a very good name for a textbook, school or much of anything else that's terrestrial. Although, I might like a township having a tarmac and a really nifty bridge in my name, such as the township w/tarmac and nearby bridge that's already on Venus. After all, the name 'Guth' is actually a Mennonite meaning as supposedly being 'good'. Apparently something went terribly wrong along the DNA path that produced my Mennonite mindset. Sorry about that.

I'm not even exactly sure if Allen Guth is another one of us Mennonites that's just a whole lot smarter than most the rest of us village idiots. - Brad Guth Secr.@Verizon.net 11.01.06 20:04. Guthy-kins, actually, one of my projects is to build some body armor. I need it for shop safety. So far, the project is going rather well.

I've got the face shielded helmet, the neck, and upper body, the legs, and the start of stomach/crotch area. I still need to add in the water supply, and a headphone patchm but I'm picky when it comes to audio systems. The splicing has to hook my phone, my ipod, and a walkie talkie system into the one earphone. I already have a 10 LED flashlight to hook into the helmet, for close in work, and in case my shop loses power.

Thanks for asking. The rest of your screed was interesting, but ultimately. Bob Brad Guth wrote: >Robert Juliano, >How's your body armor holding up, Bob? >Robert Juliano 11.01.06 21:12. Eli-phant, 1.) I would be glad to post my shop and project results, as I work on my projects. I'll title these posts as 'Bob's shop notes' in the header.

2.) Staples High School, in Westport, CT should still have copies of my project report on building high voltage wireless transmission sources (it was my final project for physics class.) 2.2.) little troll, a few things: I never brought up violence. I would be happy to spend some time sparring with you IRL both as an attitude adjuster for your behavior, and to try some new techniques I've watched via krav maga tapes (way too much anime for this geek. I gotta try them.) Telling someone to get over something is either insensitive, or it shows that you know you've stepped over the line. 3.) while I do intend to play with some code, I leave that to a few friends that like the stuff. (personally, I would prefer either a good dedicated circuit, or a nice ANN circuit via the BEAM robotics.

Ehy use more computational power than you absolutely need? Wastes mass ratio, power, and volume.) as to the rest of it. *PLONK* Bob Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >Robert Juliano wrote: >>>Okay. >>>>1.) what would accept as evidence? >>>Numbers, equations, experimental data, theoretical formulations, >computational code, numerical simulations, models, hardware, software, >units, components, devices, systems, observatio.

Unk.@googlegroups.com 12.01.06 07:18 Pat Flannery 12.01.06 09:14. Thomas Lee Elifritz () wrote: [.]: Forth, assembly, opcodes, hexadecimal, binary, mathematics and some: higher level languages.: Here's one assembler I wrote long ago which I found very useful::: Not ADA though. I also hate flash, javascript, CSS, PHP, XML and DOM,: which currently are causing me lots of problems. Like I said, I have: serious issues. I don't touch JAVA, but I do drink coffee. All you really need is C and Perl, after first learning BASIC.

Eric Eric Chomko 12.01.06 09:26. Thomas Lee Elifritz () wrote:: Me wrote:: >no one is naming any High Schools, Observatories,or buildings after you.: Of course, that's the ultimate goal of science, to get things named: after you. No, but that IS what usually happens for those that actually do produce great science.: >Nobody is writing any books on your life.: That's why scientists do science obviously, for the glory. Some obviously, because they are willing to fudge the data to get recoginition.

Eric: It must be the steroids.: again.: Robert Juliano 12.01.06 10:11. Flannery, You've helped make my birthday a brighter day! After the safety suit is completed, perhaps adding a snazzy bit of spandex, for styling? (a friend of mine was suggesting that I add a cape, paint it very dark grey, and add a bat.) Actually, I was thinking of using a few cheap robots for the dangerous work.

(In deference to heap-big-coder-monkey named elifritz: non-RAM centered subsumation architechture robotics.) I have tenatively named them 'the scratch monkey series.' This was at the orders of my Range Safety Officer, better known as my wife. Something about not repeating the accident with the missing shed. Bob Robert Juliano 12.01.06 10:13. Eric, Good point!

Watching the playoffs would be a lot more fun. However, I would be remiss in my duties as a teacher/instructor, if I didn't try and include our thespian friends. After all, the idea is to include the slow. (I know I'm giving them a straight line, but what the hell.) Bob Eric Chomko wrote: >Robert Juliano () wrote: >: Dave, >>: Damn.

Oh well, I was too young for Star Trek, the original series. Maybe >: I can still enjoy the episodes ala MST3K, or not unlike the old star >: trek parties in the late 70's.

>>: This saturday, I'm celebrating 40 years on this earth, and so I hope >: that our dear and dedicated thespian friends (guth and elifritz) are >: going to put on a tragi-comedy. (they almost always do.) >>I'd rather watch the NFL playoffs. Go Redskins!!! >>Eric >>: Bob >>: Dave Grayvis wrote: >: >Robert Juliano wrote: >: >>: >>Me, >: >>>: >>it's getting to the point that I'm actually looking forwa. Robert Juliano 12.01.06 10:18. Dave, As my mom is moving out to the LA area, I hope to visit her, and put in a pilgrimage to the holy site of JPL. I'll have to figure out what else there is to do in the LA area.

Bob Dave Grayvis wrote: >Pat Flannery wrote: >>>>>>>Robert Juliano wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>4A.) If there are so many MIB types running around, to stop word of >>>the conspiracy leaking out, why are you still breathing? >>>>>>>>>>Because he's an Agente-Provocateur controlled by the International >>Freemasonic/Illuminati/Skull and >>Bones/Zionist/Communist/Rockefeller/Bilderberger/Opus >>Dei/NSA/CIA/FBI/NASA/FDA/IRS/AMA/M-O-U-S-E Conspiracy to discredit >>Moon hoaxers and advance _Their_ filthy agenda! >>Well, he hasn't fooled this True-Blue Patriot!

>.and when I get done writing this posting, I am _not_, repeat >>_NOT_, going to visit Disneyland, and fall into its Satanic clutches! >>Soon the world will learn the truth about 'Walt' (World And Lucifer >>Together) 'Disney' (Deity Is Satan Now Earth Yells)!!!!!!!!;-) >>>>Pat >>>I guess 'California Adventure' is a no go then? David Erbas-White 12.01.06 10:24. Robert Juliano wrote: >>>This was at the orders of my Range Safety Officer, better known as my >wife. Something about not repeating the accident with the missing shed. >>My error was faulty reloading procedure of a homemade siege mortar; this led to one pound of black powder detonating in my right hand, and a stay in the hospital. Did you know that the front of polyester pants will literally vaporize under a 4,200 degree Fahrenheit heat?

Not just burn or melt, but completely vaporize into gas and just vanish, leaving only the zipper intact and everything in your front pockets in two neat piles of your feet? That really impressed me. It really impressed the emergency room staff also.:-) Pat Brad Guth 12.01.06 12:54. David Bacque, Here's a few more contributions of my ongoing buildup of SWAG or bust credentials: Ariane-5.5 = 100t GSO (50t~75t LL-1) means that a highly composite scaled-down solution for getting microsatellites into a sufficiently close to the deck, as to formations worth of such nearby lunar orbits, has been more than affordably doable.

Reusable SRBs somewhat suck at their being a bit extra massive, whereas the composite encased disposable SRBs are truly impressive. Although, even the reusable SRBs still outperform the disposable LOX/RP-1 alternative, whereas if to be using disposable SRBs would far more than outperform even H2O2/C3H4O as the ultimate do-everything of a combined kick-ass solution for getting whatever tonnage into lunar orbit (of course that's certainly inclusive of having easily established LL-1, which by the way should have been accomplished decades ago if we were so absolutely dumb and dumber as being so totally dumbfounded by what all of our perpetrated cold-war fiascos created). If the Ariane-5 reusable SRBs with their inert 37t each were replaced with the likes of disposable composite SRBs offering less than a inert mass of 7t each, obviously the existing 9.6t to GSO should advance to 60t. With less inert mass of what their current 275t worth of SRB amounts to, clearly this represents extra volumes and/or extended capacity for the solid fuel to be making up a portion of their potentially 30t individual net worth savings. In addition to packing disposable SRBs along for the initial ride, if the Ariane-5 liquid fueled first stage of LXO/LH2 were replaced with H2O2/C3H4O, as this would likely place their GSO payload at nearly 100t with energy to spare.

Clearly this is suggesting as to what could become translunar worthy of deploying somewhat better than 50t into lunar LL-1 (more tonnage yet if it's not having to get there overnight or even via 2nd day delivery). Unfortunately, this freaking God forsaken need-to-know GOOGLE/Usene. Brad Guth 12.01.06 16:01. >I think the original Tacoma Narrows bridge would fit that billing?? I'll take that one into consideration. At least it'll be a thousand fold better off than anything you've got to show. As per usual, the likes of yourself as well as other wizards and lords (aka all-knowing) lensman1955, Bookman, Fart Deco and their entire incest cloned borg collective of brown-nosed kind are still sucking and blowing big-time.

Proof being is that whenever they're not into sharing Usenet malware/fuckware they so often hijack my topics into their personal Usenet disinformation infomercial (aka Christ on another stick) pagan cesspools of alt.fan.art-bell and alt.usenet.kooks. For an example of their pathetic off-topic actions, whereas I've responded to one of his most civil collections of words, as provided by Bookman. >Bookman; >Yes, he is that stupid.

Supporting evidence: Based on his own >(predetermined) 'calculations', the Apollo missions never happened, >and based on his photoshop manipulations, he's concluded that there >are 'alien structures on Venus'. HTH As per usual you're out of context, along with another helping of LLPOF brown-nosed pie and ice-cream on the side. The following is actually a good portion of yet another Guth encrypted form of a 'serious question', of another somewhat extrapolated form of my reverse-engineering notions, whereas I would gladly accept the information of others (aka rocket scientist) as taken into good faith account, without my even sharing another word of my having to return the warm and. EatMe 12.01.06 17:22. >Orval Fairbairn; Sheer nonsense!

Not really, because I've looked it up. Seems most satellites simply do not rewuire GSO, thus the rockets utilized are those specifically configured for getting the most deployment bang for their buck, which clearly represents using only as much rocket as necessary. >Again, the '58:1' ratio includes the S0IVB stage.

In other words, that was their 4th stage as utilized for getting that tonnage so quickly past the LL-1 zone? If so, I'm absolutely seriously impressed with what that LOX/RP-1 first stage made possible. So, might I ask as to why haven't other missions utilized the LOX/PR-1 as their first stage? >The best Isp for SRB's is around 320; whereas the F-1 LOX/kerosene) >engines had an Isp of around 365. The J-2 (H2/LOX) engines in the upper >stages had around 400. That good information that I'll take to my offshore bank.

>SRBs are also finicky and are difficult to man rate. They also require >heavy cases to withstand the heat and chamber pressure of the motors. >(Think Challenger). I totally agree that there's probably no such thing as a user friendly or much less safe solit rocket, or for that matter any other form of rocket.

However, that's not quite the case any more, such as for the SBRs intended to help launch the NEW HORIZONS mission. Disposible SRBs that'll kick serious rocket butt: Centaur/Aerojet SRB = 46.3t/3.65 = 12.685:1 thrust/inert ratio 168.7t/3.65t =.

Pete 12.01.06 20:57. In sci.space.policy, on Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:39:56 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz sez: ` Robert Juliano wrote: ` >` >'science is easy, software is hard'??? ` >` >Please tell me that you are being facetious.

` Obviously you've never written any mission critical software. ` Let me guess, you've never actually done any science either. ` Evidence only please.

Not that it matters, as I have almost no interest in this thread, nor this poster, and likely won't respond further, but I will try to paraphrase, from my second year physics, first day of class: 'You will also be required to do some computer analysis and numeric modelling this year, which will require that you be able to program, in FORTRAN and BASIC [this was quite a while ago]. We will not be providing any tutoring in this skill; if you really feel you need it, you can try to find a night course or pick up a text. However, as honours physics students, we expect that you should be able to pick this stuff up in a few minutes in your. Brad Guth 12.01.06 21:30. >Brad, get a clue, a lot of people are calling you a Kook, >A LOT of people. >>A mindset is a good thing to waste, don't you think?? So, what exactly does that mean: 'A LOT of people'?

I suppose it certainly could represent that you're just every bit as totally snookered, thus screwed, blued and tattooed as they get, thereby so totally dumbfounded past the point of no-return that your pathetic mindset is already wasted beyond being space-toilet worthy. A lot of folks (millions more so than bashing and calling me a Kook) voted for your pagan born again warlord (GW Bush), and what the hell does that have to say? - Brad Guth Brad Guth 12.01.06 21:41. Brad Guth wrote: >>Remember, guthie-kins, that you are accusing NASA of committing a >>cover-up of vast proportions. As you are the accuser, the burden of >>proof is on you. YOU must prove your accusations. >I've been there and done that dozens of times.

Therefore, clearly it is >yourself having been excluding evidence and thus in denial for so long >that you haven't a freaking clue as to which way is up. I think that >was one of Hitler's problems, and now being most of what our resident >warlord(GW Bush) has to deal with.

You've thrown numbers at us. I asked you once where you got those numbers from and you went on a tirade about how my status as a member of the 'incest clone Borg conspiracy.'

>>>So, got any proof of any sort? Or are you just going to try and use >>insult and feeble attempts at rhetoric, again? >Only the regular laws of physics, of your very own rocket-science that >simply doesn't add up, plus all of those unfiltered Kodak moments that >su. Lensm.@hotmail.com 13.01.06 02:24. Brad Guth wrote: >Think about it, folks; If you had been biologically evolved and/or >otherwise somewhat physically deposited and subsequently sequestered >upon the likes of Venus, wouldn't you have to think that your somewhat >unfortunate (aka toasty) existence would have greatly depended upon >having been on the good side of your God/creator? I mean, exactly how >much bad news can a Venusian soul take? >- >Brad Guth If you had been biologically evolved on Venus, it wouldn't be 'unfortuate' or 'toasty' to you.

There would be Venusians sitting around arguing about the possibilty of life on the next planet over where it's so cold and the air is so thin. Lensm.@hotmail.com 13.01.06 03:01. Brad Guth wrote: >Guth isn't a very good name for a textbook, school or much of anything >else that's terrestrial. Although, I might like a township having a >tarmac and a really nifty bridge in my name, such as the township >w/tarmac and nearby bridge that's already on Venus. After all, the name >'Guth' is actually a Mennonite meaning as supposedly being 'good'. And this is what it all boils down to people. NASA won't consider Brad's argument that something in the Venus photos constitutes proof of intelligence on Venus.

Thus anything they've done is subject to question and ridicule. Unk.@googlegroups.com 13.01.06 06:05 Peter Skelton 13.01.06 06:40. On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:05:40 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: >>>pete wrote: >>>` >'science is easy, software is hard'??? >>` >>>` >Please tell me that you are being facetious.

>>>>` Obviously you've never written any mission critical software. >>>>` Let me guess, you've never actually done any science either.

>>>>` Evidence only please. >>>>Not that it matters, as I have almost no interest in this thread, >>nor this poster, and likely won't respond further, but I will >>try to paraphrase, from my second year physics, first day of class: >>'You will also be required to do some computer analysis and >>numeric modelling this year, which will require that you be >>able to program, in FORTRAN and BASIC [this was quite a while >>ago]. We will not be providing any tutoring in this skill; >>if you really feel you need it, you can try to find a night course >>or pick up a text. However, as honours physics students, we >>expect that you s. Unk.@googlegroups.com 13.01.06 07:29 Dave Grayvis 13.01.06 07:45.

Robert Juliano () wrote:: Eric,: Good point! Watching the playoffs would be a lot more fun. However, I: would be remiss in my duties as a teacher/instructor, if I didn't try: and include our thespian friends. After all, the idea is to include the: slow. (I know I'm giving them a straight line, but what the hell.) First there is this talk about a spandex outfit, which makes me think you walk on the wild side, a la Lou Reed.

But as Seinfeld would add, 'not that there is anything wrong with that'. Then you mention your programmer wife, and this discussion of thespians. I'd say you demonstrate the most crooked aspects of a straight line, but in a jovial way.

Eric: Bob: Eric Chomko wrote:: >Robert Juliano () wrote:: >: Dave,: >: >: Damn. Oh well, I was too young for Star Trek, the original series. Maybe: >: I can still enjoy the episodes ala MST3K, or not unlike the old star: >: trek parties in the late 70's.: >. Eric Chomko 13.01.06 11:36.

Robert Juliano () wrote:: Dave,: As my mom is moving out to the LA area, I hope to visit her, and put in: a pilgrimage to the holy site of JPL. Don't expect much! You'll get to the front gate and the entrance building and JPL sign and that's it! No visitors center, rocket garden or bus ride. Of the NASA centers I have visited, GSFC, KSC, JSC, and JPL, JPL had the least to do. KSC had the most closely followed by JSC. GSFC being close to the National Air and Space Museum, didn't have much of a vistors center but it sure beats the heck out of JPL!

I found this link that might help: If you do visit JPL, then set something up in advance.: I'll have to figure out what else there is to do in the LA area. There is loads to do in LA! Disney Land, Universal Studios, Dodgers game, Angels game, tour San Pedro, drive to Hermosa Beach, walk the Strand. If you're lucky they'll be having a beach volleyball tournament!

Eric Chomko 13.01.06 11:49. Thomas Lee Elifritz () wrote:: Eric Chomko wrote:: >: >no one is naming any High Schools, Observatories,or buildings after you.: >: >: Of course, that's the ultimate goal of science, to get things named: >: after you.: >: >No, but that IS what usually happens for those that actually do produce: >great science.: >: >: No, science is one method. Other methods may be used to produce great: results How does one produce scientific results without using science?: It's the results we are after, not the glory, honors or credentials. Yes, yes I know. My point is that those that produce results tend to get the glory.: If a kook produces a useful or even great result, that's great.

Can you provide an example? Surely you have heard, 'treason does never prosper, for it to, none dare call it treason'.

Well, kooks never create or produce results, for them to, none would claim that they are kooks!: >: >Nobody is writing any books on your life.:. Eric Chomko 13.01.06 11:55. >Eric Chomko >: No, science is one method. Other methods may be used to produce >: great results. Im'm not exactly certain whom contributed what, although so far so good, as I certainly can't possibly argue againt such perfect logic. >How does one produce scientific results without using science?

I believe you also meant to convey: How does one produce scientific results without using other science? >My point is that those that produce results tend to get the glory. Results are all that counts, as long as those having contributed are given full credits for their part in the results of what others having connected a few scattered dots of information, that obviously no one was previously paying any attention to as is. Dot connecting is somewhat like plugging in the lamp, now the light comes on. >>: If a kook produces a useful or even great result, that's great. If a village idiot moron produces a useful or even great result, that's great, if not a whole lot better off bec. Brad Guth 13.01.06 13:11.

>lensman1 >If you had been biologically evolved on Venus, it wouldn't be >'unfortuate' or 'toasty' to you. There would be Venusians sitting >around arguing about the possibilty of life on the next planet over >where it's so cold and the air is so thin. Earth would be extremely lethal to most forms of Venus ETs. For starters, they'd most likely drown or freeze to death upon impact since our atmosphere is so wossy and our planet is so covered in water, snow and ice. There's actually only 10% of Earth that's providing suitable dry land that's by some standards survivable, and most all of that is chuck full of the sorts of village idiot heathens that would just as soon kill first and ask questions later (after they've eaten ETs for dinner).

Then there's biological warfare that'll pretty much infect and most likely kill off the few ETs that didn't drown or freeze to death upon their arrival, not to mention spontaneous internal biological combustion because of our having an e. Dave Grayvis 13.01.06 13:56. A good many things trick me, like prior to 6 years ago I'd still thought we'd walked upon the moon, and better than 5 years ago I had no good idea that the cold-war was totally perpetrated. Actually, the list of what has tricked me is rather extensive. How about yourself, ever been snookered and dumbfounded ever since?

Stop giving me so much credit for being all that smart. I see what I see and then I think what I think (I believe that's pretty deep shit for most folks), and thereby I don't seem to have a very good box (aka mindset).

I was just asking, since 99.9% of nearly everything this Usenet has previously had to offer, such as over the past few years, has been a nasty black and ugly pot load of disinformation, and/or intentional rusemastering along with bashings and banishments like none other. Should I have looked up whatever has been posted with/by 'Dave Grayvis', in order to get a feel for the bumpy road ahead, or are you going to become open minded (meaning less mindset) and sufficiently honest from here on out?

- Brad Guth Havr.@aol.com 13.01.06 16:56. Brad Guth wrote: This series of nearly 200 e-mails has demonstrated to me that SAA is not on;y defunct but useless because a serious question did not solicit a serious answer. What is troublesome is that all of you who responded including me paricipate in a waste of time. >>lensman1 >>If you had been biologically evolved on Venus, it wouldn't be >>'unfortuate' or 'toasty' to you.

There would be Venusians sitting >>around arguing about the possibilty of life on the next planet over >>where it's so cold and the air is so thin. >Earth would be extremely lethal to most forms of Venus ETs. For >starters, they'd most likely drown or freeze to death upon impact since >our atmosphere is so wossy and our planet is so covered in water, snow >and ice. There's actually only 10% of Earth that's providing suitable >dry land that's by some standards survivable, and most all of that is >chuck full of the sorts of village idiot heathens that would just as >soon kill first. Lensm.@hotmail.com 14.01.06 07:39. Eric Chomko wrote: >Thomas Lee Elifritz () wrote: >>>: Eric Chomko wrote: >>: >: >no one is naming any High Schools, Observatories,or buildings after you. >: >>: >: Of course, that's the ultimate goal of science, to get things named >: >: after you.

>: >>: >No, but that IS what usually happens for those that actually do produce >: >great science. >: >>: >>: No, science is one method. Other methods may be used to produce great >: results >>How does one produce scientific results without using science? He didn't say 'scientific' results, he said 'great' results. There are people in all walks of life who have done great things and had honorariams (sp) given in their name without having to be scientists. And someday, Brad Guth may read about them!

Lensm.@hotmail.com 14.01.06 07:44. Eric Chomko wrote: >Thomas Lee Elifritz () wrote: >Yes, yes I know. My point is that those that produce results tend to get >the glory. >>: If a kook produces a useful or even great result, that's great. >>Can you provide an example?

Surely you have heard, 'treason does never >prosper, for it to, none dare call it treason'. Well, kooks never create >or produce results, for them to, none would claim that they are kooks! To be fair, there are things we take for granted today the people who discovered them were labeled 'kook' over. (What comes to mind would be powered flight, and Continental Drift.) OTOH, there are things that are just kooky and will always remain so. Lensm.@hotmail.com 14.01.06 07:48. Brad Guth wrote: >>A cheater doesn't have to be a kook, all they have to be is dishonest. >Are you talking about the likes of Einstein, or as to so many others >that took whatever they could from others and never had a shred of >remorse?

(their since being dead doesn't count as remorse) Einstein took what had been discovered and ran it through his brain until he came up with theories that had never been considered before. As Asimov says; 'We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.' Quite frankly, you don't have the right to even consider critizing Einstein. He actually developed real, viable theories. All you've ever done is rant like a random sentence generator. >>>True science (which is redundant) operates from the evidence and >>creates the belief based upon the properties of the evidence.

>Eric, was this some part of a complex trick question? >- >Brad Guth Probably, and the sad thing is you will never understand it. Lensm.@hotmail.com 14.01.06 07:51. Brad Guth wrote: >A good many things trick me, like prior to 6 years ago I'd still >thought we'd walked upon the moon, and better than 5 years ago I had no >good idea that the cold-war was totally perpetrated. Actually, the >list of what has tricked me is rather extensive. How about yourself, >ever been snookered and dumbfounded ever since? >>Stop giving me so much credit for being all that smart.

Trust me, no one has ever given you credit for being all that smart! Secr.@Verizon.net 14.01.06 09:04.

Lensman1 wrote: >I agree, a typical Brad response, no answer to the question as well. >The Saturn V ratio can be proven, but only with numbers that Brad will not believe, if that is the case, then why try??

>It's not dark, just go outside and look. It is hot and nasty, that's why they took along those really neat suits. >He is wrong, just typing it out and saying things do not make them right, no matter how many times you say it. He has not convinced me and I have kept an open mind.

>He is most definitely confused. >This is worth repeating as many times as Brad posts and I agree. The most unbelievable thing to me is that he can look at a fuzzy picture of Venus and somehow see signs of life. Secr.@Verizon.net 14.01.06 09:18.

With the likes of loaded questions from Dave Grayvis (aka whomever); 'What does GW Bush have to do with you being a Kook?' I guess that I should have looked up whatever has been posted with/by 'Dave Grayvis', in order to get an honest feel for the bumpy road ahead, especially since I'd been asking whomever Dave Grayvis is; are you going to become open minded (meaning less mindset) and sufficiently honest from here on out? Clearly 'Dave Grayvis' represents ulterior motives and hidden agendas, as another Usenet spook that isn't whomever he/she/they is pretending to be. These were just the first four topics which seems to represent that we have ourselves another wee bit of a reality problem.

Perhaps 'Dave Grayvis' is merely another borg like incest cloned brown-nose, and perhaps pro-Jewish at that? [Dave Grayvis] Brian Teeling Dave Grayvis (aka Brian Teeling) NEEDS Jerry Who is Dave Grayvis and Why is he Stalking Jerry Irvine? What I've never quite understood is why the. Secr.@Verizon.net 14.01.06 09:31. Brad Guth wrote: >What I've never quite understood is why the vast majority of all of the >truly good and supposedly intelligent Jews simply don't bother to >police their own kind, and especially of filtering and/or moderating >those merely sucking up to other Jewish bad apples seems to impose the >notions of there being little if any Jewish standards as to what they >have allowed to being associated with their religion.

Seems that if it >weren't for these few bad apples, things wouldn't be nearly as bad off >for the Jewish collective, or for that matter the same can be said of >Muslims not having policed their own kind has recently gotten things >seriously out of control. At this ongoing tit-for-tat rate of allowing >these few DNA failures run us amuck, as such we'll be into WW-III in no >time at all. >- >Brad Guth >Apparently, for brad, it's all about being a racist, anti-Semite. Secr.@verizon.net 14.01.06 09:46. Secret, You'll need to speak with the likes of 'loote' or someone else that's sufficiently all-knowing other than myself, that's on a sufficient par with such off-topic bashing upon your level of such a denial (aka naysay) mindset basis that'll just a soon exclude evidence on the fly as not, and without a stitch of remorse, just exactly as to what your warm and fuzzy resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) did with nearly each application of his supposed 'high standards and accountability', plus his 'so what's the difference' policy. >Once again I say, 'Get a clue' it says, simply, that the more popular, >probably better, candidate won, what are you trying to twist it into >meaning?? Once again I say, more than half of this nation are apparently born again extremist (aka terrorist) if they're into such brown-nose sucking up to that perverted bastard, that which you've admired and obviously you love with all of your brown-nose and pagan black heart combined, and there's no 'pro.

Secr.@Verizon.net 14.01.06 15:07. >What is that supposed to mean, or ask?? >Sheer non-sense, you've just accused fully one half of the people in this country to be terrorists. Totally absurd statement, how do you know if I even voted for 'W'??

You have no idea, you are just making crazy claims about things you know nothing about; this seems to be normal for you. Totally absurd, you are just making wild crazy statements because you are trying to connect me with something that is viewed as bad, it does NOT, it's not even good grammar. I have found this tactic to be common for you, making everything you say suspect.

I don't know why I even bother, I must have way too much time on my hands. In plain words Brad, you are being laughed. Secr.@Verizon.net 14.01.06 16:48. What is this?? Brad wrote: >You write 'Unlikely' (you misspelled advanced by the way) >What do you mean Unlikely??

You have made it a point to make sure we all know that it is impossible, not unlikely for the Saturn V to have done what it did do. Why are you not saying 'unlikely'?? This has been a main point in your argument and now you're saying Maybe?? This just proves that you do not know what you are talking about. You talk about how you want numbers and answers and you yourself do not even know.

You've just been making wild guesses haven't you?? Robert Juliano 14.01.06 18:10. Eric, actually, the matter of spandex has more to do with the fact that my friends and I have mis-spent much of our youth in that horrible activity called reading comics. When I was in High School, I was in Special Ed classes, and the school placed me in the theater department for more socialization, outside of the usual sped/non-sped groupings. I hung out with a bunch of young actors, got drunk with them and the tech crews, and dated a few of the young actresses. That made this learning disabled boy very happy.

(save for that one time on a birthday of mine, when I woke up with a red head and a blonde, who's parents were extremely naive about their daughters' activities.) My wife did 'applied cognitive science' as an undergraduate major. Bob Eric Chomko wrote: >Robert Juliano () wrote: >>: Eric, >>: Good point! Watching the playoffs would be a lot more fun. However, I >: would be remiss in my duties as a teacher/instructor, if I didn't try. Robert Juliano 14.01.06 18:12. Eric, Okay, C it is. I happen to have the books here.

I believe that I have the installation software around here somewhere. Bob Eric Chomko wrote: >Robert Juliano () wrote: >: Eric Chomko wrote: >: >Thomas Lee Elifritz () wrote: >: >[.] >: >>: >: Forth, assembly, opcodes, hexadecimal, binary, mathematics and some >: >: higher level languages. >: >>: >: Here's one assembler I wrote long ago which I found very useful: >: >>: >: >: >>: >: Not ADA though. I also hate flash, javascript, CSS, PHP, XML and DOM, >: >: which currently are causing me lots of problems. Like I said, I have >: >: serious issues.

I don't touch JAVA, but I do drink coffee. >: >>: >All you really need is C and Perl, after first learning BASIC. >: >>: >Eric >>: I did basic in junior high.

It was a reuired course, even for us in >: special ed. >>: I still play with basic.

>>: Now for the perl. >>The things I used to do in BASIC I do in Perl, except for those that >require more computation rather than text prcessing, for that I use C. >>Eric >>: Bob (who usually leaves the programming to his better half) Robert Juliano 14.01.06 18:17.

Pat, my problem was trusting that the sign labeled 'disposal for non-hydrocarbons only' would be obeyed. I survived that little incident without a scratch. The person who put straight motor oil in that barrel (and shoved the octane booster near the barrel to save room.) apologized, and bought a new shed. I was fine, the other person was fine. My wife read me out for 8 hours. (She went to our lady of psychological warfare.) Bob Pat Flannery wrote: >>>Robert Juliano wrote: >>>>>>>This was at the orders of my Range Safety Officer, better known as my >>wife. Something about not repeating the accident with the missing shed.

>>>>>>My error was faulty reloading procedure of a homemade siege mortar; this >led to one pound of black powder detonating in my right hand, and a stay >in the hospital. Did you know that the front of polyester pants will >literally vaporize under a 4,200 degree Fahrenheit heat? Not just burn >or melt, but completely vaporize into gas and just vanish, leaving only >the zipper intact and everything in your front pockets in two neat piles >of your feet? That really impressed me. It really impressed the >emergency room staff also.:-) >>Pat Pat Flannery 15.01.06 06:44. Robert Juliano wrote: >>>actually, the matter of spandex has more to do with the fact that my >friends and I have mis-spent much of our youth in that horrible >activity called reading comics. When I was in High School, I was in >Special Ed classes, and the school placed me in the theater department >for more socialization, outside of the usual sped/non-sped groupings.

>I hung out with a bunch of young actors, got drunk with them and the >tech crews, and dated a few of the young actresses. That made this >learning disabled boy very happy. (save for that one time on a >birthday of mine, when I woke up with a red head and a blonde, who's >parents were extremely naive about their daughters' activities.) See.spandex. Birthday.redhead and blonde at once: this is code! Wolverine is going to find out his true origin and make it with _both_ Jean Grey and Rogue in the next movie! YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST, KIDS!;-) Pat Brad Guth 15.01.06 09:28. >>Sorry folks, as you know I could go on and on.

>>- >lensman1;.and you have been known to. But none of this actually offers up any >proof that what you've noticed in the photos of Venus constitutes >artificial constructions. Nor have you offered up any factual, >verifiable evidence that your constant ravings about the impossibility >of the Moon landings is anything but the 'nonsensical ravings of a >lunatic mind!'

I think not so fast, my naysay friend. I'm especially not going to bother repeating myself on behalf of someone that's so mindset that a 90 mph freight train cutting directly through your MIB office or your home wouldn't mean a damn thing.

The fact that there's a seriously big entry and exit hole and scores of dead bodies strewn everywhere obviously wouldn't mean a damn thing to yet another damn mindset fool on the hill like yourself. Secret237, Getting 15t into lunar orbit via the Saturn-V is perhaps LIKELY, although I can't seem to find the math or other supportive rocket-science that'll even support that much if we're talking about accomplishing a 2.5 day translunar voyage with nearly 50t worth of baggage. Getting nearly 50t into lunar orbit via Saturn-V is UNLIKELY if not impossible, especially within the given time frame, especially more so unlikely since by today's standards the Saturn-V represents one hell of a slug of an inefficient rocketship. Thus having robotically deployed whatever actually obtained all of those terrific close-up images from orbit should have been doable, and certainly far better than the USSR/German efforts that actually had the better rocket-science on their side, so much so better and more reliable that much of what we're still using as of today is Russian or having been derived from their expertise. - Brad Guth Eric Chomko 17.01.06 10:04.

Wrote:: Brad Guth wrote:: >>A cheater doesn't have to be a kook, all they have to be is dishonest.: >Are you talking about the likes of Einstein, or as to so many others: >that took whatever they could from others and never had a shred of: >remorse? (their since being dead doesn't count as remorse): Einstein took what had been discovered and ran it through his brain: until he came up with theories that had never been considered before.: As Asimov says; 'We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before: us.' Asimov may have said it, but I think Issac Newton first said it.: Quite frankly, you don't have the right to even consider critizing: Einstein. He actually developed real, viable theories. All you've ever: done is rant like a random sentence generator.

Worse, Guth thinking that using sound science which came before as a form of cheating when I meant the actual fudg. Eric Chomko 17.01.06 10:27. Hi David Bacque, Thanks for the terrific vote of confidance that I supposedly have credentials worthy of this topic, much less of such Usenet groups. However, I'm into building yet another new and hopefully improved topic, that for the moment is less stalked and summarily bashed than of this one that's clearly running itself amuck. Check out this new and improved topic, and please do bother yourself to contributing whatever's sufficiently on-topic or of whatever's 'credential' worthy by your high standards and accountability upon such important matters.

Compact Translunar Rockets for Microsatellites This next part is merely an extract of what I've replied to Michael Gallagher, as having been contributed within this follow topic that's supposedly overloaded with the sorts of certified 'credentials' up the kazoo that yourself and most others of your br. Brad Guth 17.01.06 19:30.

Lensman1, But my ranting has been a direct result of my having discovered other intelligent life as having at one time or another existed/coexisted upon Venus (by all the regular laws of physics should still be there to behold), and at least my subsequent ranting has more than proven we simply haven't walked upon our moon. There's another dozen or so of my rant based (aka loose cannon) descoveries that I believe kicks serious butt (as per having provided 'theories that had never been considered before'). All that I've ever done is my independent research (aka deductive reasoning and sharing my above average subjective observationology) as per having stood upon the shoulders of those who came before. Besides youself being yet another rusemaster naysayer, How about yourself? Matt Wiser has contributed yet another one of his topic diversions: >Dammit, just killfile Brad Guth and BE DONE WITH HIM, people! >If you can't killfile him, just ignore the loon and leave him to his delusions. Apparently my 'delusions' so happens to include the whole truth about what it actually takes for getting a given payload into orbiting our moon, as well as it's my 'delusions' as to what other sort of things our moon is actually good for.

Further 'delusions' come by way of my not having a sufficient masters degree in those conditional laws of physics, or for that matter in rusemaster-101 (aka MI6/NSA~CIA spookology). Here's yet another one of my perfectly nifty (aka Matt Wiser 'loony') reasons for our going back to the moon, at least robotically and then eventually stepping onto the somewhat testy earthshine illuminated deck. For another example; There's simply not a great deal of spore populated dust that'll have survived the trauma of having coexisted within the nearly cosmic vacuum of space, unless having been contained sufficiently deep within solids (including ice). There have been ESA affiliated notions and even a sufficient degree of soft-science pointing out that a stiff solar wind could manage to deposit already tuff little Venus spores as is, roughly each and every 19 months (+/- a week or so).

After all, at those times when Venus is just a bit further off than 100 fold the distance to our moon, whereas a modest solar wind of just 400 km/s is good for a spore delivery within 27 hours, whereas doing the math on a bad solar day gets downright interesting as to wondering, just how long might a Venus spore or even a diatom manage to hold it's little breath? However folks, please do tell us village idiots, what's all the freaking big deal (not to mention spendy, time consuming and having been responsible for pollut.

Lensm.@hotmail.com 18.01.06 02:10. Eric Chomko wrote: >wrote: >>: Brad Guth wrote: >: >>A cheater doesn't have to be a kook, all they have to be is dishonest. >: >Are you talking about the likes of Einstein, or as to so many others >: >that took whatever they could from others and never had a shred of >: >remorse? (their since being dead doesn't count as remorse) >>: Einstein took what had been discovered and ran it through his brain >: until he came up with theories that had never been considered before.

>: As Asimov says; 'We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before >: us.' >>Asimov may have said it, but I think Issac Newton first said it. >It's possible Asimov was quoting Newton at the time. I don't remember all the particulars of the quote except that I read it in one of Isaac's books.

>>: Quite frankly, you don't have the right to even consider critizing >: Einstein. He actually develop. Brad Guth 18.01.06 02:30. What a dumbfounded fool on the hill, and as pathetic as they come. Why don't you choak on this: 8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony by MARGARET WERTHEIM Michael Gallagher, Thanks much for all the educational feedback. I appreciate it very much. Whereas the mostly SRB/SRM assisted (all-solid) launch as having accomplished the deployment of Lunar Prospector at merely 158 kg within 4 days is certainly more like it.

According to 'Astronautica / Athena-2' as having total Mass of 120,700 kg / 158 kg (via Wikipedia) is merely a 764:1 accomplishment as of 1998, thus merely 30 years after the Saturn-V slug w/o benefit of SRBs nor SRMs is certainly taking the rocket/payload ratio in the right direction, that is if you'd take 764:1 at 33% extra time as long for getting there as supposedly being better off than 64:1. Brad Guth 18.01.06 16:07. Hey Brad, I just found your picture of the developments on Venus BWAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA H! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

That's a good one! Who did the analysis on this ph. Brad Guth 18.01.06 18:09.

David Bacque, Is that the very best wall of naysay words (apparently the only ones you know of) representing the best incest cloned brown-nosed flak you've got to offer? In that case, I'll gladly share a wee bit of my dyslexic editing and repost my much better wall of many more and far better words than yours. 'Brad Guth' wrote in message news.0@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com. >David Bacque, >Is that the very best wall of naysay words (apparently the only ones >you know of) representing the best incest cloned brown-nosed flak >you've got to offer?

Come on Brad, tell us about how that photo was analyzed instead of calling names and pasting in your latest pile. How did you come to the conclusions as to what the marks on that photo are and where did you learn to analyze such photos or do you just make it up? Really, why don't you answer that? Dave Brad Guth 18.01.06 20:15.

I see that you can't be all that bothered to read through much of anything of the tens of thousands of words as having specifically answered such questions as of years ago. Therefore, I'll edit an existing external page or two, then I'll post links to those pages so that the truly extreme dimwits like yourself can get the honest first hand words, that I'll actually try my level best at conveying as to how that image has been interpreted by way of my three remaining dyslexic brain cells. No kidding David, I'll do that much just for your sake. - Brad Guth Robert Juliano 19.01.06 08:27. 'Robert Juliano' wrote in message news:C5Pzf.28872$kz6.20886@fe15.lga. Let me see if I can correctly predict Guthy's response: 1. You're a 'brown-nosed naysaying (something-or-other to do with the third reich)'.

The payload-to-fuel ratio is insufficient because (insert incomprehensible litany of bullshit here). You need to be hit on the head with a 2x4. You (and hundreds of thousands of 'so-called' professors and scientists) are just plain too stupid to comprehend his meaningless gibberish. You're an agent of the MI6/NSA~CIA spookology conspiracy.how close do you think I'll hit the mark?;-) Brad Guth 19.01.06 09:41. Orval, 6.) 'conditional laws of physics???' What are those, pray tell? 7.) Friend Guth might want to remember that casting aspersions on someone's breeding can get one into street fights.

8.) I seem to remember voting for the other guy, but maybe the highly esteemed rusemaster Guth is correct. After all, he seems to have a copy of my voting record. Perhaps he can tell me where that lady I sat in latin class with, now lives. Is she married? Bob Orval Fairbairn wrote: >In article, >'Me' wrote: >>>>'Robert Juliano' wrote in message >>news:C5Pzf.28872$kz6.20886@fe15.lga.

Let me see if I can correctly predict Guthy's response: >>>>1. You're a 'brown-nosed naysaying (something-or-other to do with the third >>reich)'. The payload-to-fuel ratio is insufficient because (insert >>incomprehensible >>litany of bullshit here). You need to be hit on the head with a 2x4. You (and hundreds of thousands of 'so-called. RAMa.@aol.com 19.01.06 11:57.

'Robert Juliano' wrote in message news:C5Pzf.28872$kz6.20886@fe15.lga. >>Guthie-kins, >>I've got a great idea. Challenge Serial On Sony Tv. Instead of polluting the bandwidth of this group >with your less than proven ideas. >>Go to venus and prove us all wrong. I plan on going to the moon, mars, and possibly the asteroids myself. But maybe I dont qualify, since i am not as much of a Nutball as him >>You want to show how smart you are?

Go to venus, contact your venusian >friends, and prove us all wrong. >>If you're right, think of the book and movie rights. If we're right, we'll >shed a tear for your acid washed cinders. >>Bob >>Brad Guth wrote: >>I see that you can't be all that bothered to read through much of >>anything of the tens of thousands of words as having specifically >>answered such questions as of years ago. Therefore, I'll edit an >>existing external page or two, then I'll post links to those pages so >>that the truly extreme dimwits like yourself can get the honest first >>hand words, that I'll actually try my level best at conveying as to how >>that image has been interpreted by way of my three remaining dyslexic >>brain cells.

>>>>No kidding David, I'll do that much just for your sake. >>- >>Brad Guth >>Robert Juliano 19.01.06 15:45. Tater Schuld, Your warm and fuzzy nutballs are perfectly fine and dandy, as long as those are associated with your private parts, whereas it'll take a great deal more than such nutball brains in order to survive on Venus, or didn't your nutballs realize that it's a wee bit toasty hot and perhaps even somewhat nasty on Venus. The sufficiently elevated nighttime season is perhaps at best still kicking serious butt at 525 K(425°F), although being at such good pressure is where even that amount of heat isn't all that technically insurmountable because, it's existing well below the boiling point of plain old water, lower yet below the BP of blood, and much lower yet below the BP likes of H2O2, and/or perfectly safe for most open pit or reservoir petrols, of various muds flows and most all of the supposed acids to boot.

So, exactly where's the big ass insurmountable problem? You do realize there's unlimited green/renewable energy to burn? Do you or your nutballs have any idea.

Brad Guth 20.01.06 02:44. Robert Juliano, Fortunately, my going off to visit the wizard of Oz upon Venus isn't a tenth the task nor 1% the risk of folks doing Mars, whereas Venus gets itself to within 100 fold the distance to our moon at roughly 19 month intervals, not to mention hosting the very same surface as sequestered within the somewhat cooler nighttime season that's offering nearly the exact same face that's looking towards Earth (I think that's the one and only Earthly tidal locked planet within our solar system). Being that the atmosphere is so buoyancy capable, plus providing such a terrific radiation shield, this means many good sorts of nifty things to many good folks that still have half a brain. Would you like a short 100 item listing? >If you're right, think of the book and movie rights. If we're right, >we'll shed a tear for your acid washed cinders. I am right, as in right as acid rain that never falls upon Venus, and I truly believe that I've been more than sufficiently right a.

Lensm.@hotmail.com 20.01.06 09:08. >Robert Juliano; Sadly, I believe that you'll be right on all >points. The esteemed gentleman from loon-land known as Brad Guth >seems to suffer from a bad case of repeat-until-they-go-away. Change out 'Brad Guth' with just about any mainstream status quo naysayer (including yourself), and you've got that right. BTW; How the heck does a 40 year old 64:1 (all-liquid plus a sub-frozen ice loaded rocket/payload ratio) of such translunar capability exist? If it does and/or once did, then I seriously want to locate upon the new and extensively improved efficiency (via much less inert mass due to extensive composite usage and of a mostly SRB/SRM all-solid disposables with possibly an h2o2/c3h4o core or mid/upper stage) capability of a translunar 32:1 capability.

Although my warm and fuzzy friend, I'd certainly take a shine to the old 64:1 and run like a bat out of hell to my offshore bank with it. Otherwise, it seems perfectly clear that relatively newish Athena-2 (LLV 2 / M. Pat Flannery 20.01.06 15:51.

Robert Juliano wrote: >>Tater, >>I plan on getting there, at some point. Some of the CV rocks could be >useful for a society living in space. I wrote a paper on volitiles >mining on Asteroids, about 10 years ago, for a continuing ed class. >>Bob What particular volatiles do you expect to find; ice and methane ice?

I still think we should send a lander probe to either Ceres, Pallas, or Vesta just to get an idea about what one of the larger ones is like. Judging by the fact that we have a meteorite that seem to originate from Vesta.they may well have rocky surfaces rather than be aggregates of loose material as some asteroids seem to be. It would be fun to know how exactly a rock made from solidified magma occurred on an object only 333 miles in diameter.

Pat Robert Juliano 20.01.06 16:53. Jonathan Silverlight wrote: >>Meteorite, surely?:-) Meteors have more in common with cometary >particles, AIUI, but the rocks that fall to Earth are just very small >asteroids (there's some overlap between comets and asteroids, too). Assuming that an impact on a asteroid sprays off debris, then a lot of it is probably in the form of particles that are small enough to burn up on hitting Earth's atmosphere, particularly from the surface of small asteroids that appear in a lot of cases to be covered with different sized rock and dust particles held in place by a very weak gravity field. Pat Chris L Peterson 21.01.06 17:05. On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:59:59 +0000, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: >Meteorite, surely?:-) Meteors have more in common with cometary >particles, AIUI, but the rocks that fall to Earth are just very small >asteroids (there's some overlap between comets and asteroids, too). Most (but not all) meteor showers are associated with cometary debris.

But it is likely that most sporadic meteors are of asteroidal origin. It is largely assumed (but by no means absolutely certain) that all meteorites (other than lunar or martian ones) are asteroidal. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory Pat Flannery 21.01.06 18:23. Chris L Peterson wrote: >On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:59:59 +0000, Jonathan Silverlight >wrote: >>>>>Meteorite, surely?:-) Meteors have more in common with cometary >>particles, AIUI, but the rocks that fall to Earth are just very small >>asteroids (there's some overlap between comets and asteroids, too).

>>>>>>Most (but not all) meteor showers are associated with cometary debris. >But it is likely that most sporadic meteors are of asteroidal origin. >>It is largely assumed (but by no means absolutely certain) that all >meteorites (other than lunar or martian ones) are asteroidal. >>I think I came at this from a different direction. I know that the meteor showers are due to the dust trails of the comets, both active and dead (I'm still waiting for the day a dead comet nucleus arrives at Earth, and always had a sneaking suspicion that's what hit Tunguska) but was referring to debris generated by impacts on asteroids which probably generates a lot. Chris L Peterson 21.01.06 18:39.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:23:29 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote: >I think I came at this from a different direction. I know that the >meteor showers are due to the dust trails of the comets, both active and >dead (I'm still waiting for the day a dead comet nucleus arrives at >Earth, and always had a sneaking suspicion that's what hit Tunguska) but >was referring to debris generated by impacts on asteroids which >probably generates a lot of particles that aren't big enough to make it >to Earth's surface- besides, all meteorites get started as meteors, just >as all lava gets started as magma. Hi Pat- Yes, I understood your point. I was just suggesting to Jonathan that plenty of meteors are of asteroidal, not cometary origin (these are the types of meteors you were referring to). I thought he might be suggesting that most meteors are cometary, but that only applies to those that are part of showers. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory Pat Flannery 21.01.06 19:45. Chris L Peterson wrote: >Hi Pat- >>Yes, I understood your point.

I was just suggesting to Jonathan that >plenty of meteors are of asteroidal, not cometary origin (these are the >types of meteors you were referring to). I thought he might be >suggesting that most meteors are cometary, but that only applies to >those that are part of showers. >>I don't know if I ever saw figures on the total number of meteors hitting Earth's atmosphere in any given year and what proportion of those are part of showers. I just recently found out that there are a lot more showers in any given year than I thought, in fact around 120 showers in total if you count all the minor ones: Pat Brad Guth 21.01.06 20:28. David Bacque, Somehow this nifty topic of your's as having my good name associated has run itself amuck, with folks communicating about all sorts of sub-topics having little if anything to do with my 'credentials'. Here's my latest reply to the sorts of brown-nosed folks like Robert Juliano, the sort of MIB fool on the hill that believes in our resident warlord(GW Bush) but doesn't believe in ETs, nor in any God (aka intelligent designer/creator) you'd care to associate yourself with, but otherwise sticks entirely with the old 64:1 or even better ratio of 62:1 as to what their Saturn-V managed to get such horrific volume and tonnage into orbiting our moon at less than a third of what it should have taken if going by their own numbers.

Enough Already!!! >lensman1; And this is what it all boils down to people. >NASA won't consider Brad's argument that something in the >Venus photos constitutes proof of intelligence on Venus. >Thus anything they've done is subject to question and ridicule. That's about it in a nutshell, but it's certainly a big and spacious nutshell that seems to have something say about our once upon a time icy proto-moon, and of what our moon is actually good for that's being ignored as well, plus tossing in something about the Sirius star/solar system that's taboo/nondisclosure and you've got yourself a Cuban cigar.

I'm just glad to be of service by way of returning the warm and fuzzy topic/author bashing and banishment favors with all the heart and soul I can muster. - Brad Guth Brad Guth 22.01.06 21:38. >Tank Fixer; NASA doesn't even know you exist No wonder shuttles and their crews have been like great balls of fire falling out of the sky. I'm afraid they do know that I exist, or perhaps merely having wished the hell they didn't know about me. Originally (before having posted one damn image or word into the internet or any Usenet or other group) I'd called and spoken directly with several nice folks employed within NASA. Of course, that'll be up to the LD telephone records to prove, and not just my silly words. BTW; a couple of extra calls had been placed to the office of NIMA, and even out to a couple of externals that were once related with the Magellan mission imaging interpretation and subsequent publications upon such.

With the same old regard to what's looking seriously in rocket-science error with those Saturn-V deployed Apollo missions, at least for there having accomplished much better off than 15t, is still on the table. According to William Mook, actually that old 64:1 rocket/payload ratio has become more like nearly 50:1 for what the Saturn-V having gotten 58.3t sufficiently past LL-1 (the nullification sweet spot that's roughly 60,0. Richard Lamb 23.01.06 01:44. What, Richard Lamb? Is it that you've got absolutely nothing on rocket-science that comes even remotely close to the 64:1 (within little over 3 days), or how about going for the 57:1 as recently posted by NASA's stipulating of their Saturn-V managing 51t into lunar orbit, or perhaps far better yet is the 58.3t contributed by William Mook as getting that tonnage past LL-1 with retrothrust fuel to spare, which makes it close to a 50:1 ratio.

I guess I still can't understand as to how these deployment tonnage numbers are continually all over the place. None the less, I'm certainly impressed as all get out at even the old 64:1 ratio. - Brad Guth Eric Chomko 23.01.06 09:25. Wrote:: Eric Chomko wrote:: >wrote:: >: >: Brad Guth wrote:: >: >>A cheater doesn't have to be a kook, all they have to be is dishonest.: >: >Are you talking about the likes of Einstein, or as to so many others: >: >that took whatever they could from others and never had a shred of: >: >remorse? (their since being dead doesn't count as remorse): >: >: Einstein took what had been discovered and ran it through his brain: >: until he came up with theories that had never been considered before.: >: As Asimov says; 'We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before: >: us.' : >: >Asimov may have said it, but I think Issac Newton first said it.: >: It's possible Asimov was quoting Newton at the time.

I don't remember: all the particulars of the quote except that I read it in one of: Isaac's books. Perhaps in some self-fulfilling manifestation Asimov improved on Newton's original quote? Eric Eric Chomko 23.01.06 09:30. Brad Guth () wrote:: Go right ahead and question myself up against your Einstein that never: for a moment believed in any singular BIG-BANG. So he believed in the Steady-State Theory or the Oscillating one? Which one and be specific.: Watch out folks, as I totally agree with most of everything that's: Einstein, including the lack of any stinking BIG-BANG. Okay, if NOT the Big Bang, then what?

Again, be specific.: BTW; How's your Einstein on intelligent design? Einstein has been dead for 50 years and ID is basically DOA. Eric: -: Brad Guth Eric Chomko 23.01.06 09:40.

Brad Guth () wrote:: What, Richard Lamb?: Is it that you've got absolutely nothing on rocket-science that comes: even remotely close to the 64:1 (within little over 3 days), or how: about going for the 57:1 as recently posted by NASA's stipulating of: their Saturn-V managing 51t into lunar orbit, or perhaps far better yet: is the 58.3t contributed by William Mook as getting that tonnage past: LL-1 with retrothrust fuel to spare, which makes it close to a 50:1: ratio.: I guess I still can't understand as to how these deployment tonnage: numbers are continually all over the place. I think you first must understand the idea of rocket stages. Initial thrust to reach orbit, then followon stages to reach the moon. Haven't you ever seen a whole Saturn V? Eric: None the less, I'm certainly impressed as all get out at even the old: 64:1 ratio.: -: Brad Guth Chris L Peterson 23.01.06 10:45. On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:26:30 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: >I was following alone with comet trails and meteors, but you lost me with >meteorites starting out as meteors.

>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that meteors are what we >call shooting stars, debris that gets burned up in the earth's atmosphere. >An actual meteorite makes it through the earth's atmosphere without >burning up and leaves something behind, usually a dense metal that we can >actually pick up. Basically correct. The body that creates a meteor is called a meteoroid.

The visual effect created by its burning in the atmosphere is called a meteor (or a fireball if it is brighter than magnitude -4). Any pieces that survive to the ground are called meteorites. It is probably safe to say that all meteorites (other than micrometeorites) started as meteors, in the sense that the meteoroids from which they came must have visibly burned in the atmosphere before th.

William Mook 23.01.06 14:34. David, As you can see, even a simple, civilized, question does not warrant a simple civilized response on usenet. My theory is that there is a cabal of disinformation specialists that are organized by the CIA to make sure the sci.space. Newsgroups don't become a vehicle whereby useful and credible knowledge of any sort about missile technology escapes the confines of the missile proliferation policies of the US. After all, how do you explain such a uniformly hostile response to a simple serious question? Except to point out that there are those out there that do not want *any* serious conversation on *any* topic in these newsgroups. This policy has an analogue in history.

England has a long history of free speech. And for many generations anyone could stand on a soapbox in Hyde Park and spout off about anything. Including verboten subjects, like one's opinion of the royals.

Well, while it wasn't custom to arrest someone for speaking their mind in Hyde Park, the King wouldn't stand by and let someone run royals down. He would hire provocateurs to circulate through the park and shout down any anti-royal speaker who gathered too much of a following. If that didn't work to discourage, discredit, and demoralize the speaker these undercover agents would follow the speaker home and beat them up in a way that made it seem they had been attacked by an angry pro-royal, who of. Tank Fixer 23.01.06 20:23. In article, on 22 Jan 2006 21:38:13 -0800, Brad Guth attempted to say.

>>Tank Fixer; NASA doesn't even know you exist >No wonder shuttles and their crews have been like great balls of fire >falling out of the sky. I'm afraid they do know that I exist, or >perhaps merely having wished the hell they didn't know about me.

Well I guess that solves why they crashed. I take it you are taking credit for sabotage? >>Originally (before having posted one damn image or word into the >internet or any Usenet or other group) I'd called and spoken directly >with several nice folks employed within NASA. Of course, that'll be up >to the LD telephone records to prove, and not just my silly words. It's funny but I have field odd calls from strangers at my facility.

Never paid much attention to the ranting voice though. They were rarely coherent >BTW; a couple of extra calls had been placed to t. William Mook 23.01.06 20:50.

Eric, Brad is crazy as far as I can tell. When projecting something from the surface of the Earth escape velocity is 11.2 km/sec. A lunar-free return trajectory is around 10.85 km/sec More at; Projecting at higher speeds means you have a hyperbolic excess velocity. So, a 9 hour transit time requires something like 20 km/sec velocity at Earth's surface. Now, the speed of a rocket propelled projectile is given by; Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) So, with different Ve, you obtain different u for a given Vf. So, 10.85 - lunar free return minimum speed 11.20 - escape 20.00 - hyperbolic 9 hr transit For Propellants, we have; Ve = 2.6 - Solids = 3.4 - Hyergolics = 4.4 - Cryogens = 8.5 - Nuclear So, we have the following table Mass ratio table 10.85 11.20 20.00 ------------------------------------------------------------- 2.6 64.91.43 3.4 24.32 26.95 358.65 4.4 11.77 12.75 94.20 8.6 3.53 3.68 10.23 Of course these are for single stage rockets, and as a practical matter we have structure to worry about.

But its easy to see that a variety of rockets with a variety of properties can carry out a variety of missions and have widely varying mass ratios. The implication that rockets carrying out different sorts of missions to the moon using different propulsion systems, different propellants and so forth should all have comparable overall mass ratios - is idiotic. Eric Chomko wrote: >Brad Guth () wrote: >: >Tank Fixer; NASA doesn't even know you exist >: No wonder shuttles and their crews have been like great balls of fire >: falling out of the sky.

I'm afraid they do know that I exist, or >: perhaps merely having wished the hell they didn't know about me. >>: Originally (before having posted one damn image or word into the >: internet or any Use. Pat Flannery 24.01.06 06:35. Eric Chomko wrote: >>Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that meteors are what we >call shooting stars, debris that gets burned up in the earth's atmosphere.

>An actual meteorite makes it through the earth's atmosphere without >burning up and leaves something behind, usually a dense metal that we can >actually pick up. >I always assumed that when it was zipping through in the sky it was a meteor, and turned into a meteorite when it reached the ground. >>>Perhaps all meteorites are asteroidal in nature, whereas >all meteors are either cometary or asteroidal and depending on size, >and the angle of entry into the earth's atmosphere burn up.

And only the >larger, more direct entry meteors, from asteriods, actually become >meteorites. Has there been any proof that any comet has a metallic core? >Aren't most asteroids metallic?

The point is, can cometary debris EVER >strike the earth before it burns up? >>You mention Tunguska, other than burned up forest what did we find?

Whatever it was apparently completely disintegrated into very fine. Brad Guth 24.01.06 11:32. >Eric; Are you claiming that New Horizons is also a fake? That it DIDN'T >fly past 250K miles in 9 hours? Though I find it hard to understand how you came to that interpretation. >Eric; prove that Apollo couldn't make it to the moon in the alotted time, >if you can.

Their own rocket science tends to prove that 15 tonnes to the moon via that extremely old and seriously outdated formula of their inert massive Saturn-V method was most likely then and still is obtainable within 3 days at the ratio of nearly 200:1. Pat Flannery () wrote:: Eric Chomko wrote:: >: >Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that meteors are what we: >call shooting stars, debris that gets burned up in the earth's atmosphere.: >An actual meteorite makes it through the earth's atmosphere without: >burning up and leaves something behind, usually a dense metal that we can: >actually pick up.: >: I always assumed that when it was zipping through in the sky it was a: meteor, and turned into a meteorite when it reached the ground. If and when it reached the ground. But, yes, we agree.: >: >: >Perhaps all meteorites are asteroidal in nature, whereas: >all meteors are either cometary or asteroidal and depending on size,: >and the angle of entry into the earth's atmosphere burn up. And only the: >larger, more direct entry meteors, from asteriods, actually become: >meteorites. Has there been any proof that any comet has a metallic core?: >Aren't most asteroids metallic?

The point is, can cometary debris EVER: >strike the earth before it burns up?: >: >You mention Tunguska, other than burned up forest what did we find?: >: >: Zip. Whatever it was apparently completely disintegrated into very fine: particles before. Chris L Peterson 24.01.06 14:11.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:34:22 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Chomko) wrote: >Thanks for the clear explanation. Stony as in rocks? Silica or other >minerals? Is there a specific geological, or mineralogical makeup? Or does >it vary a lot from meteorite to meteorite?

In general, silicates. There is a wide range of mineralogic variation. >I think that the Deep Impact chemical analysis will be telling regarding >meteorites' makeup. Actually, it will provide information about a comet's makeup. There are a small number of anomalous meteorites that have long been considered possible cometary debris. Deep Impact, and even more so Stardust, will provide evidence for or against this idea.

>I would have thought the opposite (i.e. Small asteroids are mostly iron as >the stony material being less dense would be the first to go rather than >the more dense iron). Large bodies cool slowly, can support radiation heating, and have high gravity. The result of that is that they end up separating heavy and light elements. Iron (the heaviest abundant element) ends up in the center. Small bodies never differentiate in this way.

Whatever iron they contain remains mixed into the stony matrix. Some small bodies are the remnants of larger ones. These have a makeup that depends on where in the parent they originated. But in terms of volume, there is much more si. Henry Spencer 24.01.06 18:52.

In article, Pat Flannery wrote: >>You mention Tunguska, other than burned up forest what did we find? Whatever it was apparently completely disintegrated into very fine >particles before it reached the ground.

In this case, 'very fine' doesn't have to be all that fine. Remember that it was years before a scientific expedition reached the area, and they thought that meteorite fragments would be huge chunks -- they weren't looking for scattered pebbles. Given the likely size -- tens of meters across -- almost anything *but* a nickel-iron meteorite would have exploded in mid-air and been reduced to small bits. The fragmentation process doesn't stop with the first few splits; it's an exponential process with strong positive feedback, because deceleration forces grow as surface area grows.

The thing really does reduce itself to pebbles. If memory serves, a stony meteorite fits the known explosion height best, at least according to one set of models. -- is temporarily off the air; Henry Spencer mail to henry at instead. Pat Flannery 25.01.06 06:52. Henry Spencer wrote: >In this case, 'very fine' doesn't have to be all that fine. Remember that >it was years before a scientific expedition reached the area, and they >thought that meteorite fragments would be huge chunks -- they weren't >looking for scattered pebbles. >But some of those particles should have stuck in the toppled trees surrounding ground zero under the blast site; and AFAIK the more recent trips to the site did look for small debris and didn't find anything. The fact that the night sky was illuminated after the impact over a wide area and that the Earth's atmosphere was reduced in transparency for a few months is highly reminiscent of the effect a volcanic eruption's high altitude ash particles refracting sunlight; and this also suggests very fine particles- it also suggests a fairly large object to generate enough particles to have that effect.

James Oberg mentions the odd atmospheric effects in his article:. Chris L Peterson 25.01.06 07:42. On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:52:53 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote: >But some of those particles should have stuck in the toppled trees >surrounding ground zero under the blast site. Probably not. If the object fragmented into small pieces (which the large energy release suggests), those pieces will burn up completely in a fraction of a second.

There is nothing left but dust; certainly nothing with enough kinetic energy to embed itself in trees. >Are we sure that there was a solid object that exploded in mid-air? Or >was it a mass of very fine particles from some extremely fragile object >that either broke up on first hitting the atmosphere or possibly even >before that- due to being disrupted by tidal stresses of Earth's >gravity, and then hit the atmosphere as a column of superheated dust and >gas that drove itself down to low altitude before dissipating, pushing a >mass of superheated air in a shockwave ahead of it that caused the >actual explosion effect? Eric Chomko 25.01.06 08:48. Brad Guth () wrote:: >Eric; Are you claiming that New Horizons is also a fake? That it DIDN'T: >fly past 250K miles in 9 hours?: Not at all. Though I find it hard to understand how you came to that: interpretation.: >Eric; prove that Apollo couldn't make it to the moon in the alotted time,: >if you can.: Their own rocket science tends to prove that 15 tonnes to the moon via: that extremely old and seriously outdated formula of their inert: massive Saturn-V method was most likely then and still is obtainable: within 3 days at the ratio of nearly 200:1.

William Mook, Finally, a good amount of what you've just contributed makes perfect sense. Keep up the good work and we might actually survive this Usenet from hell fiasco. Good grief, Eric. There are so many pro-Royals (aka brown nosed minions) as stipulated by William Mook, as saturated within this Usenet of disinformation-R-us, that without question it sucks and blows big-time. Mook's reply to David Bacque, >My theory is that there is a cabal of disinformation specialists that >are organized by the CIA to make sure the sci.space. Newsgroups don't >become a vehicle whereby useful and credible knowledge of any sort >about missile technology escapes the confines of the missile >proliferation policies of the US. Another portion of Mook's reply, >This is analogous to the type of response you just got, namely, you got >shouted down, and someone got into a fist fight, so that another >provocateur is protected from being unmasked!

>Eric; >The irony here of course is that you DO believe that Apollo 8 circled the >moon, but we didn't land and that is because Apollo 11 couldn't do what >you believe Apollo 8 did!!! Which is it Brad, we couldn't get there or we >could get there and land? The real irony here is that of Apollo 8 having made the rounds doesn't in any fashion insure or otherwise qualify that so much as 15t or even 5t was involved with that task. It's only the words of the fox as having eaten all your chickens that's stipulating they had managed to accommodate a full package of whatever the real thing was supposed to represent.: Eri. Pat Flannery 25.01.06 17:16. Chris L Peterson wrote: >Probably not.

If the object fragmented into small pieces (which the >large energy release suggests), those pieces will burn up completely in >a fraction of a second. There is nothing left but dust; certainly >nothing with enough kinetic energy to embed itself in trees. >>That was my original assertion; whatever it was expeditions over the years have found no trace of it, despite having done a lot of searching. The ground is very swampy, but you would expect to find something if you looked hard enough.

I'm still personally favoring something cometary in nature. There is a book 'The Big Splash' by Dr. Frank and Patrick Huyghe that hypothesis that very small minicomets hitting the Earth's atmosphere are the cause of noctilucent clouds, and that these minicomet impacts are fairly common, in fact occurring at the rate of around twenty per minute worldwide. The comets would be basically balls of snow with a thin dark organic covering over them, and descending into the inner area of the Earth's gravity field or touching the outer atmosphere would cause them to disrupt into a cloud of dust and ice crystals. He based his theory on odd spots that appeared on the images from Dynamics Explorer 1. These had been dismissed as noise in the data return or bad pixels in the CCD on the satellite.but he noted that they appeared in the same spot over a number of image scans, and sometimes covered more than one pixel. The images of the 'what's its' were very near the level one would expect from signal noise, but they also appeared near the Earth's edge in the images, suggesting something in the extreme upper atmosphere.

You can read up more on this here: and here: The theory is still very controversial, but if it has some basis in fact, and a bigger one of these things hit the atmosphere at an angle, you could neatly account for the effects noted in the Tunguska blast. The oddly lit nighttime sky would be caused by sunlight striking a giant noctilucent cloud at extremely high altitude caused by the disrupted comet, yet it would be far to diffuse to generate any fragments once the column of dust and water vapor was superheated by atmospheric impact. If these things do exist it behooves us to find out about them in detail, as they are a potential threat to spacecraft in LEO, getting hit by one at higher altitude is extremely unlikely due to the low number and small size of the objects; but once disrupted into a large cloud of vapor by tidal forces as they approach LEO altitudes they present a far larger area of threat.

>>>>Are we sure that th. Chris L Peterson 25.01.06 22:55.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:16:36 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote: >That was my original assertion; whatever it was expeditions over the >years have found no trace of it, despite having done a lot of searching. >The ground is very swampy, but you would expect to find something if you >looked hard enough. Not necessarily. With most of the material in the form of dust several kilometers high, it would have been dissipated over a huge area.

Add to that the fact that the material itself may not have been particularly exotic, and that most of the science conducted in the area (which isn't much) was probably pretty poor quality, and it isn't surprising nothing conclusive has been found. >I'm still personally favoring something cometary in nature.

>There is a book 'The Big Splash' by Dr. Frank and Patrick >Huyghe that hypothesis that very small minicomets hitting the Earth's >atmosphere are the cause of noctilucent clouds, and that these minicomet >impacts are fairly. Jonathan Silverlight 26.01.06 00:42.

In message, Pat Flannery writes >>>Chris L Peterson wrote: >>>Probably not. If the object fragmented into small pieces (which the >>large energy release suggests), those pieces will burn up completely in >>a fraction of a second. There is nothing left but dust; certainly >>nothing with enough kinetic energy to embed itself in trees.

>>>That was my original assertion; whatever it was expeditions over the >years have found no trace of it, despite having done a lot of searching. >The ground is very swampy, but you would expect to find something if >you looked hard enough. >I'm still personally favoring something cometary in nature. >There is a book 'The Big Splash' by Dr.

Frank and Patrick >Huyghe that hypothesis that very small minicomets hitting the Earth's >atmosphere are the cause of noctilucent clouds, and that these >minicomet impacts are fairly common, in fact occurring at the rate of >around twenty per min. Eric Chomko 26.01.06 09:46.

Brad Guth () wrote:: Good grief, Eric.: There are so many pro-Royals (aka brown nosed minions) as stipulated by: William Mook, as saturated within this Usenet of disinformation-R-us,: that without question it sucks and blows big-time.:: Mook's reply to David Bacque,: >My theory is that there is a cabal of disinformation specialists that: >are organized by the CIA to make sure the sci.space. Newsgroups don't: >become a vehicle whereby useful and credible knowledge of any sort: >about missile technology escapes the confines of the missile: >proliferation policies of the US. I don't doubt they listen in to who wants rocket technology for the wrong reasons, but I'd say that the cabal/CIA still mostly wants cheap access to oil.: Another portion of Mook's reply,: >This is analogous to the type of response you just got, namely, you got: >shouted down, and someone got into a fist fight, so that another: >provocateur is protected from being unmasked!: >Eric;: >The irony here of course is that you DO believe that Apollo 8 circled the: >moon, but we didn't land and that is because Apollo 11 couldn't do what: >you believe Apollo 8 did!!!

Which is it Brad, we couldn't get there or we: >could get there and land?: The real irony here is that of Apollo 8 having made the rounds doesn't: in any fashion insure or otherwise qualify that so much as 15t or even: 5t was involved with that task. It's only the words of the fox as: having eaten all your chickens that's stipulating they had managed to: accommodate a full package of whatever the real thing was supposed to: represent. The above is the verbal equivalent to how R. Henry Spencer 26.01.06 08:38. In article, Pat Flannery wrote: >There is a book 'The Big Splash' by Dr.

Frank and Patrick >Huyghe that hypothesis that very small minicomets hitting the Earth's >atmosphere are the cause of noctilucent clouds, and that these minicomet >impacts are fairly common, in fact occurring at the rate of around >twenty per minute worldwide. >The theory is still very controversial. It's not just 'very controversial'; essentially nobody but Frank believes it. His stealth minicomets have properties remarkably precisely tuned so that they're undetectable except by their atmospheric effects. For example, if they're that numerous, then no matter how dark they are, they ought to be visible crossing Hubble images now and then by accident; people have gone through the Hubble archives looking for them, and have found nothing.

There's no sign of them in the ALSEP seismometer data, which toward the end could hear a basketball-sized meteorite hit anywh. Eric Chomko 26.01.06 10:43. Brad Guth wrote: >William Mook, >Finally, a good amount of what you've just contributed makes perfect >sense.

That's a very strong indicator that I've made entirely the wrong impression! >Keep up the good work and we might actually survive this Usenet from >hell fiasco. Only if you stop posting Brad. >I don't doubt they listen in to who wants rocket technology for the wrong >reasons, but I'd say that the cabal/CIA still mostly wants cheap access to >oil. I agree that cheap oil, such as the $1/barrel that we're paying for Iraq's oil as of today is a good example of what pay-back w/interest means.

>Who the heck knows? Maybe they were afriad the Russians would get the >technology. It was a mutually perpetrated and spendy as all get-out of a cold-war game, thus you could be right about our part of the snooker thy humanity game needed to be kept as taboo/nondisclosure as possible until those NASA/Apollo cows came home. After all, if we didn'y actually accomplish what we've been told, then it's just as likely them dirty rotten Russians didn't accomplish whatever they'd been telling their own folks back home. >You still haven't explained why we'd go through the 'charade' 7 times.

If >we had never left LEO and then declared he had hit the moon, and only >once, then you might have a point. But why fake docking, rendezvous, etc.

>all just to BS th. Brad Guth 26.01.06 14:17. >William Mook; What you call 'brown-nosed-minions' are not >'pro-royals' they're sane, decent people with a life. That's right, a very brown-nosed life that's as far as the lower 99.9% of humanity is concerned of what by far sucks and blows the most at the expense and demise of others, and having clearly sucked the life out of our global warming environment at the same time.

Clearly you're Mr. Anti (aka Mr. Naysay) upon whatever's green/renewable. You're also anti-LRB, especially if it's h2o2/c3h4o formulated. >It is you that are the insane agent provocateur that gives the entire >topic of space travel a bad name. We would all be better off if you >would do us the service of dying and never visiting these newsgroups again.

>I am certain there are many here who would be more than happy to help you in >that regard. All you have to do is ask. Others you've supposedly admired have stipulated that no one of any importance reads anything of Usenet. Brad Guth 26.01.06 14:38. William Mook (aka MI6/NSA~CIA rusemaster spook No.###), >Only if you stop posting Brad.

I'll do that just as soon as those Jewish NASA/Apollo cows of your's come home. >You look a lot like that wild-eyed revolutionary, and I don't >want you anywhere near my soapbox! Too late, as I took a hard-copy of your words of wisdom to reflect upon, and reflect I shall. >I think anything you have to say, anything that you support, and >anything that you think about is seriously flawed at many levels. That's OK because, we already know for a matter of fact as to what a phony baloney rusemaster of a brown-nosed and extremely pro-Jewish spook (aka Skull and Bones) you really are. Clearly you're Mr. Anti (aka Mr.

Naysay) upon whatever's green/renewable. You're also extremely naysay-LRB, especially if it's h2o2/c3h4o formulated. BTW; my soapbox is soooo much bigger and taller than your's, and I haven't even exterminated my fair share of Muslims or taken their oil like you have.

BTW No.2: 'You look a lot like that wild-eyed revolutionary'? Can I please have a similar spook obtained look-see at yourself? - Brad Guth Scott Hedrick 26.01.06 20:18. Scott Hedrick wrote: >>Nothing of importance.

>>I killfiled Brad Guth because he's a moron. You insist on quoting him, >instead of also killfiling him.

So, looks like I have to killfile you. >>If I wanted to read Brad's crap, I'd take a dump and read that- it would be >more enlightening.

The ancient art of telling the future by examining turds. It was told that the ancients could look at a turd and by examining the size, colour, consistency, smell and taste determine events in the future. You are truly wise to know this. Perhaps you should mail your turds to others who offend you so that they may find the truth of their existence. E-mail will not work, use snail mail for your 'gift' to those who deserve it.

Tom the Canuck. I am fond of using a long wooden stick to stir the organic fertilizer contained in a ceramic vessel.

This activity seems to upset those in the corporate environment who wear suits. TRUE STORY: A friend of mine did this in a meeting where a suit was attending. He turned to the suit and asked, 'What is the difference between a tie and the tail of a cow?' The suit replied 'I don't know.

What is the difference?' My friend replied 'The tail of the cow hides the complete asshole.' Brad Guth 26.01.06 22:58. In order to save yourself and whomever else is within your brown-nosed borg collective from having to read any further, this following contribution is essentially my revised Klingon encrypted code for: William Mook, the disinformation spook that out-sucks GW Bush (aka our resident provocateur of crimes against humanity). >William Mook; It is you that are the insane agent provocateur that >gives the entire topic of space travel a bad name. We would all be >better off if you would do us the service of dying and never visiting >these newsgroups again. I am certain there are many here who would be >more than happy to help you in that regard.

All you have to do is ask. >William Mook; I think anything you have to say, anything that you support, >and anything that you think about is seriously flawed at many levels. First of all, other than LEO and possibly (though unproven) a few LL-1 rendezvous stints, there is no apparent 'space travel' capability of any personal spacecraft that's sufficiently fly-by-rocket/lander capable, by which to give any such a 'topic of space travel a bad name' to start with. Even robotuically we still have nothing that's sufficiently AI/robotic that'll manage getting itself via fly-by-rocket safely onto our extremely dusty and reactive moon, that is without creating a rather nasty down-range trough, a deep and dusty pit or that of a nifty crater in the process. When you're stipulating that 'We would all be better off if you would do us the service of dying and never visiting these newsgroups again' is perhaps very true that such rusemasters as yourself do not seem to appreciate my form of sick humor that's based upon the regular laws of physics, the regular hard-science of others, or even of what's NASA if it should involve too much truth and nothing but the truth that isn't helping the NASA/Apollo ruse of the century. Thus I can understand your not wanting such interruptions that'll negatively affect your brown-nosed game plans, that includes the entire butt sucking borg collective of whomever 'we' of your's stands for. Pat Flannery 27.01.06 05:50.

Chris L Peterson wrote: >No doubt. The mountains are full of meteorites that are never found. >Good hunting grounds are farm fields, lake beds, deserts, and other >places that are flat and without a lot of rocks (especially dark colored >rocks). >>I saw a television show once where a professional meteorite collector and salesman flies over the desert at low altitude in a ultralight aircraft with a magnetic anomaly detector mounted on it. Any blip on the detector has a good chance of being a nickel-iron meteorite, and he has found a lot of them this way. Pat Robert Juliano 27.01.06 06:17.

'Tom the Canuck' wrote in message news:YfiCf.25085$ve.553315@news20.bellglobal.com. >Perhaps you should mail your turds to others who offend you so >that they may find the truth of their existence. E-mail will not work, >use snail mail for your 'gift' to those who deserve it. What's your address? >TRUE STORY: >A friend of mine did this in a meeting where a suit was attending.

>He turned to the suit and asked, 'What is the difference between >a tie and the tail of a cow?' >The suit replied 'I don't know. What is the difference?'

>My friend replied 'The tail of the cow hides the complete asshole.' We must find a cow tail for Brad. Pat Flannery 27.01.06 06:20. Chris L Peterson wrote: >>>>>I'm still personally favoring something cometary in nature. >>There is a book 'The Big Splash' by Dr. Frank and Patrick >>Huyghe that hypothesis that very small minicomets hitting the Earth's >>atmosphere are the cause of noctilucent clouds, and that these minicomet >>impacts are fairly common, in fact occurring at the rate of around >>twenty per minute worldwide. >>>>>>A theory that has taken a severe beating in recent years.

>>They does go way overboard in the book, having his minicomets responsible for everything from Triton's ice geysers to the spokes in Saturn's rings. >In any case, a 100m diameter ball of talcum powder traveling at >hypersonic speeds would hit the ground without even noticing the >atmosphere. Whatever the Tunguska parent body was, I don't see how it >could be larger than a few tens of meters. Material strength is >important when considering small bodies; it is much less so with large >ones. >>For starters the 100 meter ball of talcum powder might well be torn apart by tidal forces. Pat Flannery 27.01.06 06:36.

Henry Spencer wrote: >>>>There is a book 'The Big Splash' by Dr. Frank and Patrick >>Huyghe that hypothesis that very small minicomets hitting the Earth's >>atmosphere are the cause of noctilucent clouds, and that these minicomet >>impacts are fairly common, in fact occurring at the rate of around >>twenty per minute worldwide. >>The theory is still very controversial. >>>>>>It's not just 'very controversial'; essentially nobody but Frank believes >it. >He admits that in the book. Frankly I think his guesstimate of the numbers is completely crazy, but there should be some minicomets flying around the solar system, and every now and then we should run into one. And I still think that Tunguska sounds more comet than meteorite related especially given the nighttime illumination over Europe.

>His stealth minicomets have properties remarkably precisely tuned so >that they're undetectable except by their atmospheric effects. For >example, if they're that.

Chris L Peterson 27.01.06 07:00. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:50:42 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote: >I saw a television show once where a professional meteorite collector >and salesman flies over the desert at low altitude in a ultralight >aircraft with a magnetic anomaly detector mounted on it. Any blip on the >detector has a good chance of being a nickel-iron meteorite, and he has >found a lot of them this way. Do you have any references?

I've heard this sort of thing before, but I'm not aware of any meteorites that have been found this way. The magnetic anomaly of a typical iron meteorite is unlikely to be detectable from more than a few meters away. Some hunters use metal detectors, and it's a miserable business: outside of rich, mapped strewn fields you can expect thousands of false positives, each of which must be dug up. Even if you could make a magnetic map from the air (which I doubt) I don't know how you could really use it to find anything. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory Chris L Peterson 27.01.06 07:24. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:20:25 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote: >For starters the 100 meter ball of talcum powder might well be torn >apart by tidal forces before it ever reached the atmosphere; also once >it did hit it would it become a cloud of superheated material rather >than a single body. That is what I doubt.

First, tidal forces on something only 100m across are tiny. Even something very fragile and fluffy should survive intact.

Second, if it was disrupted sufficiently for most of its interior to be exposed to aerodynamic forces, everything would burn up above 50km. There might be all sorts of visual effects, but no significant energy would be dissipated at ground level.. The Tunguska witnesses saw the object come >down out of the sky and detonate. I pretty much discount witness reports. Having collected thousands, I know just how unbelievably bad they usually are for fireballs. And I do mean _unbelievably_ bad, such as estimating the duration of a 5 second event at 2 minutes, or the distance as ten feet. These kinds of errors are.

Jonathan Silverlight 27.01.06 10:55. In message, Tom the Canuck writes >Scott Hedrick wrote: >>>>Nothing of importance. >>>>I killfiled Brad Guth because he's a moron. You insist on quoting him, >>instead of also killfiling him.

So, looks like I have to killfile you. >>>>If I wanted to read Brad's crap, I'd take a dump and read that- it would >be >>more enlightening. >>>>>Ah, yes.

The ancient art of telling the future by examining turds. >It was told that the ancients could look at a turd and by examining >the size, colour, consistency, smell and taste determine events in >the future. Weird coincidence department - I'm reading a story by Joe Haldeman where he uses this word, which is how I know it.

Bob Kaplow 27.01.06 12:48. In article, Pat Flannery writes: >I saw a television show once where a professional meteorite collector >and salesman flies over the desert at low altitude in a ultralight >aircraft with a magnetic anomaly detector mounted on it. Any blip on the >detector has a good chance of being a nickel-iron meteorite, and he has >found a lot of them this way.

Any idea who this was. I know someone who is a serious meteorite collector that's taken expeditions to the poles looking for them. After a career finding stuff thousands of years old, he got his hands on the recent south Chicago suburbs meteorite while it was still warm.

-- Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>>To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! Chris L Peterson wrote: >>>>I saw a television show once where a professional meteorite collector >>and salesman flies over the desert at low altitude in a ultralight >>aircraft with a magnetic anomaly detector mounted on it.

Any blip on the >>detector has a good chance of being a nickel-iron meteorite, and he has >>found a lot of them this way. >>>>>>Do you have any references? >I saw it on TV- it may have been on National Geographic Explorer, but I'm not sure. He can't be too difficult to track down as he sells them worldwide - and he has some real nice ones for sale.

>I've heard this sort of thing before, but >I'm not aware of any meteorites that have been found this way. The >magnetic anomaly of a typical iron meteorite is unlikely to be >detectable from more than a few meters away. >He was flying at around 20 feet altitude, basically terrain following to find them in a grid flight pattern; he stated he had had very good luck with the technique. Chris L Peterson 28.01.06 07:31. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:30:08 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote: >Key to this technique was where he did it- in the middle of a desert >with no nearby roads, so that metallic objects would be few and far >between, vastly upping the chances of the object being a meteorite.

Try >this just about anywhere else than a pretty desolate area and you are >going to be locating nuts, bolts, and nails, old chains, and the >occasional car engine block. However, I've used a metal detector for meteorite hunting in areas without artifacts, and you still get regular false alarms from high iron rocks. There aren't many places where you don't find naturally occurring iron in high enough concentrations to trigger metal detectors. >Now that I think about this more I wonder if he wasn't flying over the >Australian outback? If you are going to fly an ultralight 20 feet over the ground, that's a pretty good place to do it. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory Brad Guth 28.01.06 13:00.

>Tom the Canuck; >Ah, yes. The ancient art of telling the future by examining turds. >It was told that the ancients could look at a turd and by examining >the size, colour, consistency, smell and taste determine events in >the future. You are truly wise to know this. >Perhaps you should mail your turds to others who offend you so >that they may find the truth of their existence. E-mail will not work, >use snail mail for your 'gift' to those who deserve it. I'm not sure that such incest cloned brown-nose folks actually have turds.

Since they're continually brown-nosing one another, chances are that such disinformation crapolla usually gets recycled long before it hits the ground. - Brad Guth Eric Chomko 30.01.06 08:45. Brad Guth () wrote:: >I don't doubt they listen in to who wants rocket technology for the wrong: >reasons, but I'd say that the cabal/CIA still mostly wants cheap access to: >oil.: I agree that cheap oil, such as the $1/barrel that we're paying for: Iraq's oil as of today is a good example of what pay-back w/interest: means.: >Who the heck knows?

Maybe they were afriad the Russians would get the: >technology.: It was a mutually perpetrated and spendy as all get-out of a cold-war: game, thus you could be right about our part of the snooker thy: humanity game needed to be kept as taboo/nondisclosure as possible: until those NASA/Apollo cows came home. After all, if we didn'y: actually accomplish what we've been told, then it's just as likely them: dirty rotten Russians didn't accomplish whatever they'd been telling: their own folks back home.

Ah, but you miss a huge subtly. Why would the Russians go along with our Apollo charade? I mean don't you think if YOU figured it out, then the Russians did as well?: >You still haven't explained why we'd go through the 'charade' 7 times.

If: >we had never left LEO and then declared he had hit the moon, and only: >once, then you might have a point. But why fake docking, rendezvous, etc.: >all. Eric Chomko 30.01.06 09:13. Pat Flannery () wrote:: Chris L Peterson wrote:: >: >: >>I saw a television show once where a professional meteorite collector: >>and salesman flies over the desert at low altitude in a ultralight: >>aircraft with a magnetic anomaly detector mounted on it. Any blip on the: >>detector has a good chance of being a nickel-iron meteorite, and he has: >>found a lot of them this way.: >>: >>: >: >Do you have any references?: >: I saw it on TV- Great song by John Fogarty: even a reference to landing on the moon! Worth a listen. Eric: it may have been on National Geographic Explorer, but: I'm not sure.: He can't be too difficult to track down as he sells them worldwide - and: he has some real nice ones for sale.: >I've heard this sort of thing before, but: >I'm not aware of any meteorites that have been found this way.

The: >magnetic anomaly of a typical iron. Brad Guth 31.01.06 02:44.

>Please define 'uplink' in this context? 'uplink' as in NASA's is their version if the NASA usenet that sucks and blows. BTW; JFK was going to pull the plug on NASA, before more innocent folks got exterminated over the efforts that were ongoing for keeping the newest perpetrated cold-war lids on tight. He realized the multi-trillion dollar fiasco was going to transpire almost entirely out of his control. JFK had come to realize that he was being used in order to suit the Skull and Bones (aka Third Reich) Jewish agenda of global domination.

Clue No.1; JFK wasn't sufficiently pro-Jewish. - Brad Guth Robert Juliano 31.01.06 05:54.

Brad Guth () wrote:: >Ah, but you miss a huge subtly. Why would the Russians go along with our: >Apollo charade? I mean don't you think if YOU figured it out, then the: >Russians did as well?: What part about 'it takes two to tango' is over your head? So the Russians were in on the conspiracy to fale lunar landings by us so we could claim we won the space race with them? And our payoff to them was? Look, I don't doubt that we had backchannel discussions with the Russians (in fact I know! -and first hand at that!).

All that out of the way of the press, etc. But for you to claim that the Russians helped up perpetuate fake lunar landings is simply false on its face.: Is your being so terribly dumb and dumber the best part of your being: so totally dumbfounded by your own kind? Brad, you're a legend in your own mind. You've taken some science lingo that you yourself really don't understand and then try and project it on to some fantasy and outland. Brad Guth 31.01.06 10:56. >Robert Juliano; I'd mock you, but the thrill is gone. That's too bad because, the truth is just what it is, the matter of fact that humanity is more into brown-nose sucking and blowing isn't anything new.

How many thousands of cloak and dagger years would you like to go back to see that I'm right? How about just appreciating the mutually perpetrated cold-war decades that only cost humanity trillions upon trillions and, having set the advancement of humanity back by a good ten fold to boot, while managing to pollute our environment to a fairlywell and having exhausted most of the affordable energy reserves in the process. Are we good or what? If there's a religious cult involved (aka Third Reich's Skull and Bones), it's going to be a tough road to follow since the truth can't be shared without things getting a wee bit lethal. BTW; I've added to my 'Compact Translunar Rockets for Microsatellites' topic. - Brad Guth Eric Chomko 31.01.06 11:01. Brad Guth () wrote:: >Please define 'uplink' in this context?: 'uplink' as in NASA's is their version if the NASA: usenet that sucks and blows.

I'll check out the URL. In reality, 'uplink' is often the same as commanding, at least from a remote sensing point-of-view. In terms of comsats, uplink is what is done from the source to be broadcast to others via downlink. Downlink, interms of remote sensing is captured data via instrumenst to me used for scientific purposes such as weather and land/ocean use. RS has uplink as only low rate (commanding) and downlink as both high and low rate. Comsats tends to have up and down link as both high rate.: BTW; JFK was going to pull the plug on NASA, before more innocent: folks got exterminated over the efforts that were ongoing for keeping: the newest perpetrated cold-war lids on tight. He realized the: multi-trillion dollar fiasco was going to transpire almost entirely out: of his contro.

Eric Chomko 31.01.06 11:09. >Eric Chomko; how the hell are the Jews connected to Skull and Bones? >Are Bush, Taft, Pillsbury, Lodge, etc., Jewish? Seems quite more a >protestant bunch than Jewish.

Their collaboration with the Third Reich continues as of today. Jews were not the sort of dumb and dumber souls, whereas it took a good deal of collaboration for the SS minions of the Third Reich to round up most all of the Jewish wealth. Jews of the day were NOT the least bit poor, nor were they uneducated fools. Many had a staff of Germans as their minion servants and/or as personal slaves by any sweatshop standards that we know of. The Skull and Bones cult is chuck full of Third Reich members and of their brown-nosed minions, like GW Bush.

JFK wasn't nearly as dumb either. JFK also knew of the rocket-science matter of hard truths that couldn't be publicly spoken of because of our perpetrated cold-war(s). Once the ball was rolling, there was no stopping it unless he could have eliminated the funding goin. Jonathan Silverlight 31.01.06 14:27.

In message, Eric Chomko writes >Brad Guth () wrote:: BTW; JFK was going to pull the plug on NASA, before more innocent: folks got exterminated over the efforts that were ongoing for keeping: the newest perpetrated cold-war lids on tight. He realized the: multi-trillion dollar fiasco was going to transpire almost entirely out: of his control. >>Show me evidence JFK was going to pull out of NASA. There just might be an atom of truth in that. I've seen a claim that JFK quickly cooled toward Apollo, and it's LBJ's enthusiasm that kept it going (because it poured money into the South, and specifically into Texas). If JFK hadn't been assassinated, would Apollo have reached its goal?

But I'm amused to see that Usenet's village idiot doesn't know what a trillion is. Me 31.01.06 18:36. 'Jonathan Silverlight' wrote in message news:x2spq4LLR+3DFwK8@merseia.freeserve.co.uk. >But I'm amused to see that Usenet's village idiot doesn't know what a trillion is.

That's a trillion VENUSIAN* dollars! So technically Guth is correct. *adjusted for inflation and doppler shift. Brad, in your Venusian photo reconnaisance diagram, how come you missed the Hugh Hefner love palace with the swimming pool shaped like a Zetan reproductive orifice? PosterBoy 31.01.06 18:42. Me wrote: >p.s.

Brad, in your Venusian photo reconnaisance diagram, >how come you missed the Hugh Hefner love palace with the >swimming pool shaped like a Zetan reproductive orifice? >>Time to visit the Firewomen again: 'They are all dead drunk down at the Sappho Speakeasy, and dancing wildly. They, like the Venusian Pterodactyl Corps are just flappers at heart: Here we see Banggalore getting ready to mix the planet's driest martini: The crew of The First spaceship On Venus were greeted enthusiastically.until the girls discovered that the Earthmen have no intention of putting the moves on them: Meanwhile, under Venus' storm-swept skies, two of the Venusian Zebra Men debate whether they are white, with black stripes, or black.with an. Brad Guth 01.02.06 06:59.

>>Show me evidence JFK was going to pull out of NASA. >Jonathan Silverlight; There just might be an atom of truth in that. >I've seen a claim that JFK quickly cooled toward Apollo, and it's LBJ's >enthusiasm that kept it going (because it poured money into the South, >and specifically into Texas). If JFK hadn't been assassinated, would >Apollo have reached its goal? >But I'm amused to see that Usenet's village idiot doesn't know what a >trillion is.

I'm glad to see that you have contributed a wise sense of humor that's worthy of sharing, as to the fact that JFK was in a serious pickle about what to do with the NASA/Apollo fiasco he'd started. BTW; NASA/Apollo did reach it's goal of knowing thy enemy and of snookering thy humanity far better off than our USSR partners in crimes against humanity, and we even went a bit further than they've been. However, that accomplishment doesn't place our foot upon the moon, just at most having orbited that nasty sucker from a safe distance in person but, more than likely having accomplished such primarily via robotics, as unmanned satellites before and after have in fact accomplished. Unfortunately, we still haven't a prototype demo worth of. Brad Guth 01.02.06 07:04.

David Bacque, It seems that any damn fool on the hill can ask the sorts of naysay loaded questions, whereas an actual wizard that claims via their words and previous actions as being all-knowing should have lots of answers. Since I'm not an all-knowing wizard, I do not have all the answers. How about yourself? (GOT ANSWERS!) It's being suggested that 'Belief in God is NOT incompatible with science!!' Brad Guth () wrote: Eric Chomko wrote: [.]: >Show me evidence JFK was going to pull out of NASA.: I believe the last speach which JFK never got the opportunity to: personally contibute his thoughts and plans for the near furure, would: have accomplished just that.

No, he was going to reiterate parts of his Rice University speech where he said we must go forward, and that included the moon. You seem to forget what JFK said to Congress in early 1961 and to Rice Unversity students during graduation in 1962 (i.e. 'we choose to go to the moon.' ).: BTW; Show me the proof that WMD ever existed, or that TWA flight-800: wasn't shot down? Totally unrelated events, and both have evidence, unlike your claim about JFK wanting to cut NASA, of which the exact opposite has supporting evidence.: >It wasn't until Apollo/Soyuz (you do believe we docked with the: >Russians via Apollo/Soyuz, right, Brad?).in 1974 that we got: >our first US/USSR mission..

Eric Chomko 01.02.06 09:36. Jonathan Silverlight (jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid) wrote:: In message, Eric Chomko Maybe JFK's commitment to the moon became stronger after his death, due to his death. I have ofthen thought that. But what indication in any writings and speeches do you have from JFK himself, that would indicate his backing off his commitment to go to the moon from speeches of 1961 and 1962?: But I'm amused to see that Usenet's village idiot doesn't know what a: trillion is.amoung many other things as well. Eric Eric Chomko 01.02.06 09:40. Brad Guth () wrote:: >>Show me evidence JFK was going to pull out of NASA.: >Jonathan Silverlight; There just might be an atom of truth in that.: >I've seen a claim that JFK quickly cooled toward Apollo, and it's LBJ's: >enthusiasm that kept it going (because it poured money into the South,: >and specifically into Texas).

If JFK hadn't been assassinated, would: >Apollo have reached its goal?: >But I'm amused to see that Usenet's village idiot doesn't know what a: >trillion is.: I'm glad to see that you have contributed a wise sense of humor that's: worthy of sharing, as to the fact that JFK was in a serious pickle: about what to do with the NASA/Apollo fiasco he'd started. The only thing obvious here is that you don't despise JFK like you do others and since you don't hate him you must have his thinking inline with your own (i.e. Apollo was bad, therefore JFK must have thought against, when the opposite is true.).: BTW; NASA/Apollo did reach it's goal of knowing thy enemy and of: snookering thy humanity far better off than our USSR partners in crimes: against humanity, and we even went a bit further than they've been.: However, that accomplishment doesn't place our foot upon the moon, just: at most having orbited that nasty sucker from a safe distance in person: but, more than likely having accomplished su. Everyone 01.02.06 10:37. Brad, There is a difference in a) asserting that the US and other nations engage in activities that control the spread of missile and nuclear weapons technologies, and b) asserting that these same nations engage in activities that control the nature of reality. The first assertion is defensible.

The second assertion is not. And, the US sent astronauts to the moon during the Apollo program, just like everyone believes. Nothing you have said convinces otherwise. And, anything you've said that I knew anything about - such as mass ratios and rocket performance - I was able to show to my satisfaction was absolutely bogus on your part.

So, relax, take a Xanax, and accept reality the way it is, and quit blaming people for your thoughts. That'll be $120 - Robert, you must not have been to a therapist recently!:) - but I will accept a $20 copay!:) Robert Juliano 01.02.06 20:19.

'PosterBoy' wrote in news:ieVDf.521519$ki.204528@pd7tw2no: >>Is this Brad Guth really such an idiot? >Or is this just a game played by a crew of idiots?

He's almost certainly not an 'idiot' in the strict definition of the term; if anything, he's fairly intelligent. But he does seem to have serious issues best explained by a professional analysis. I'd number paranoia, psychosis and cognitive disabilities among them, but I'm not a professional anything. While I wouldn't rule out a hoax, he's been going on like this for several years. That's a pretty long time for an individual or a group to sustain a hoax. At any rate, we don't have many facts to go on other than his own words.

Since he exhibits such irrational thoughts in any attempt to have a serious dialog, it's best to just ignore him. I suspect he's very frustrated since most of us simply can't see things the way he does. I think he needs professional intervention and help, but as long as he's not viole. Brad Guth 01.02.06 23:29. : Too bad we don't have another LBJ that'll kick us out of Iraq and: otherwise onto the moon, or at least into establishing the one and only: interactive LSE-CM/ISS at LL-1/ME-L1 before China accomplishes and lays: claim to that one. >Where they'll see our rovers and lower LEMs, complete with Flags and >footprints. Eric Chomko (aka LLPOF), Not nearly as good from 60,000 km as from the existing NASA/Apollo 10X telephoto images obtained from 100+km that are already archived, as having flown directly over their supposed landing sites dozens of times, yet unfortunately those Kodak moments show absolutely nothing that's the least bit bright and shiny.

That's not even to mention the 100% phony baloney EVA obtained images that are NOT of our moon. Once again your extremely brown-nose is sucking and blowing like there's no tomorrow because, KECK and now a couple of others with their latest 10X optical magnification boost, plus 1.75 micron/pixel imaging and image stacking sti. Brad Guth 02.02.06 00:07. William Mook; >a) asserting that the US and other nations engage in activities >that control the spread of missile and nuclear weapons technologies, >and >b) asserting that these same nations engage in activities that >control the nature of reality.

>The first assertion is defensible. The second assertion is not. You can't possibly perpetrate a cold-war without having to employ part b). Controlling reality is a bloody LLPOF matter of fact, and it's exactly what America and the likes of yourself accomplishes best. You're so totally pagan brown-nosed that you can't breath between the cheeks of our resident warlord's butt, yet there you are having yourself yet another good Skull and Bones butt snort. You're one sick puppy, Mook.

- Brad Guth Brad Guth 02.02.06 00:12. >Are you saying the moon doesn't have 1/6th G? Isn't 1/81 the volume of >earth and is 1/4 the diameter? Brad, stop the name calling and actually >look at the data! If you feel the data is wrong then let's discuss it, >otherwise keep the political BS out of a scientific NG. NO, you fool.

I'm saying that less than 5g/cm2 of surface tension isn't very much substance to stand upon without sinking your sorry moonsuit butt out of sight, in places being greater than 10 meters deep. The NASA/Apollo data is not only wrong, as in bogus, lies and worse. Our moon is not lightly dusted with a 50/50 blend of portland cement and cornmeal that clumps rather nicely into a solid support of nearly 100 g/cm2.

There is no Kodak moment on record that's telling us the truth and nothing but the truth because, WE HAVEN'T BEEN THERE! You're just every bit as bogus because, no one can be that pathetically stupid to think otherwise.

You have no physics nor hard-science that puts us upon the moon. Brad Guth 02.02.06 09:51. Eric Chomko, What part of the mutually perpetrated cold-war ruse/sting don't you get? Do you have the USSR smoking gun, or for that matter any other smoking cold-war gun?

Do you even realize the implications of what I mean by the term 'smoking gun'? Because I'm a positive sort of thinking chap, as such I can think of all sorts of nifty and highly profitable things to get away with, especially if I had the fool-proof inside advantage and locality of brown-nosed minions like yourself, plus knowing that all of the nondisclosure was enforced to the ultimate/lethal extent by all of those MIB. There's no easy nor sane way that JFK could have 'pulled the plug' without taking a few bullets in the head. Even to be talking of such action would have meant a death sentence for whomever realized what the truth of the badly going and 10 fold spendy situation was about. This NASA/Apollo moon thing was simply so much bigger than a bread box, and so very much more profitable to boot on both sides of the pretend space-race DMZ.

Of actually setting foot upon t. Eric Chomko 03.02.06 09:34. Brad Guth () wrote:: >Are you saying the moon doesn't have 1/6th G? Isn't 1/81 the volume of: >earth and is 1/4 the diameter? Brad, stop the name calling and actually: >look at the data! If you feel the data is wrong then let's discuss it,: >otherwise keep the political BS out of a scientific NG.: NO, you fool. I'm saying that less than 5g/cm2 of surface tension: isn't very much substance to stand upon without sinking your sorry: moonsuit butt out of sight, in places being greater than 10 meters: deep.: The NASA/Apollo data is not only wrong, as in bogus, lies and worse.: Our moon is not lightly dusted with a 50/50 blend of portland cement: and cornmeal that clumps rather nicely into a solid support of nearly: 100 g/cm2.

There is no Kodak moment on record that's telling us the: truth and nothing but the truth because, WE HAVEN'T BEEN THERE! I watched all over again on my DVD.

No way that could have been faked. It would have actual. Eric Chomko 03.02.06 09:47.