The moonless Earth and nearsighted humans / Brad Guth

[Brad Guth]

According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
moon.

There most certainly shouldn’t have been any 100% year-round overcast
sky at fault, especially of that extra crisp ice-age era with perhaps
as little as 50% average atmospheric water vapor to contend with, and
the necessary visual resolution most certainly wasn’t insufficient
when much smaller resolved details of plants and animals were so
evident in their cave paintings.

Of course, one other excuse besides their being badly nearsighted
might be that they never ventured much outside of their protective
caves, especially at night or even that of any crystal clear days when
the snowy and icy albedo of Earth was nearly 25% better suited for
planetshine illuminating the moon, which by rights should have been
quite obvious to the naked eye even by day.

As uneducated heathens surviving the best they could muster, they very
well may not have intellectually connected the dots of ocean tides,
seasonal tilt or the angular orbiting offset as to understanding why
that extremely vibrant item in size as well as its illumination
(second only to the sun) wasn’t always looking perfectly round nor
situated in the exact same location with respects to the sun which
obviously meant everything to their daily routine of survival, but
that shouldn’t have bothered any assigned or gifted artist of
historical recording their daily, weekly, monthly or annual events
within that ice-age environment that should have reliably repeated
each time, and thereby could always be reliably counted upon in times
of hunting/gathering needs. Of course there was also no indications
of animal migration issues or significant if any seasonal changes, as
though our planet of that ice-age and apparently moonless era had
perhaps only a third of its ocean tides, as well as minimal seasonal
tilt issues to speak of.

Out of all the best available geology science, it seems we still have
not nailed down the year, decade, century, millennium or even the mega-
annum in which our planet obtained the majority of its seasonal tilt,
nor having explained the formation of our roundish Arctic ocean basin
and that of Antarctica emerging from a location where such high and
dry land-mass probably shouldn’t have existed to begin with.

Understanding the geological history and formation process of our
planet and that of its extremely unusual moon should be a whole lot
better understood, especially if we’re looking for Earth like planets
or those planets technically manageable if given sufficient applied
physics and expertise. This doesn’t mean that our moon offers any
hope of sustaining us humans on its naked, physically dark and
paramagnetic basalt surface, any more so than suggesting the
geothermally heated and otherwise well insulated surface of Venus is
naked Goldilocks friendly. However, with applied technology and some
common sense intelligence interlaced, should make the innards of our
moon perfectly desirable as well as exploiting the actively heated
surface of Venus within our technological grasp.

BTW; our moon is actually quite a colorful orb of assorted raw
elements, many of which being UV reactive.

Moon color: (of course the closer you get yourself to it, the
physically darker and more of those colors/hues become apparent)
http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/moontests/raw_vs_jpeg.html
http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/moontests/moonincolor40d2007.jpg
http://www.astrophotogallery.org/member-galleries/p7362-moon-in-color.html
http://www.mikeoates.org/mas/projects/mooncolour/intro.htm
http://www.colormoon.pt.to/

Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement
software, as to viewing this one small but rather interesting
mountainous area of Venus, using your independent deductive expertise
as to enlarge or magnify upon this extensively mountainous terrain of
Venus that I’ve focused upon 13 years ago, which really shouldn’t be
asking too much. Nowadays, most of modern PhotoZoom and numerous
other photographic software variations tend to accomplish this
enlargement process automatically (including iPhone and Safari image
zooming), although some extra applied filtering and thereby image
enhancing for dynamic range compensations (aka contrast) can further
improve upon the end result (no direct pixel modifications should ever
be necessary, because it’s all a derivative from the original Magellan
radar imaging of 36 confirming radar scans/pixel, that can always be
100% verified).

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5630418595926178146

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif

https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”, GuthVenus

[David Staup]

On 5/20/2013 1:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

more meaningless gibberish

goofy, give it up. no one with even a couple more neurons than you
believes you are anything but a loon.....

even the retarded are embarrassed for you...think about it...oh yea it's
that thinking thing that gets you here...never mind umm can you never
mind if you have no mind ....damn goofy, it must really SUCK to be
you!!!!!!!!!

[Hägar]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e52f344a-91c3-4d33...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...

Why, GothBall, I take that as proof positive that the Moon was originally,
let's say 15,000 years ago, hiding out behind Venus. Benign Aliens wanted
to give the early human something to serenade, so they attempted to tow the
Moon to its logical location, L1. However, their hydrogen powered
Intergalactic Tug ran out of fuel and the Moon got stranded in its present
orbit. Some of the old songs still prevail, such as "Blue Moon" (its
original color, until the Aliens re-painted it) by the Marcels and "Harvest
Moon" by Neil Young.

So now you can tell us the story how Venus got to its present location from
the Sirius Star system. Waiting with bated breath ...

[Brad Guth]

Seems I got your attention (again), and apparently worried enough for
you to discredit not only myself but pretty much anyone that
contributes original topics and replies. You must realize that I
could know a little something that's supposed to remain taboo/
nondisclosure rated. You silly FUD-masters couldn't be any more
obvious.

[Navigator Unit]

On 2013-05-21 04:59:39 +1000, Brad Guth said:

> According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
> of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
> recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
> survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
> nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
> quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
> depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
> moon.

Have you considered that the moon was in a transparent phase during the
ice age? That would certainly explain your observations.

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
> of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
> recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
> survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
> nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
> quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
> depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
> moon.

That's a lie, pure and simple. The cave paintings at Lascaux show detailed
depictions of the phases of the moon. Perhaps you want to argue with Dr
Michael Rappenglueck who discovered them.

The original inhabitants of Cuba, the Taino, left a wealth of cave art
depicting the moon.

Dr Sada Mire of University College London discovered cave paintings of
phases of the moon at Dawa'aleh in Somalia.

Your drooling off-topic rants here serve the purpose of illustrating your
ignorance and the workings of a diseased mind. As to science and
archaeology they contribute nothing.

One wonders why you feel the need to prop up your bullshit with deliberate
lies.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Brad Guth]

On May 21, 8:10 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
> > of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
> > recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
> > survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
> > nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
> > quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
> > depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
> > moon.
>
> That's a lie, pure and simple. The cave paintings at Lascaux show detailed
> depictions of the phases of the moon. Perhaps you want to argue with Dr
> Michael Rappenglueck who discovered them.

The moon of that era wasn't an itsy bitsy tiny dot in the sky (or was
it), you freaking idiot moron.

Are you perhaps suggesting that the moon of that era was more than ten
times further away?

BTW; The phases of Venus can be seen by the naked eye, at least good
enough to be represented by dots on a cave wall.

>
> The original inhabitants of Cuba, the Taino, left a wealth of cave art
> depicting the moon.
>
> Dr Sada Mire of University College London discovered cave paintings of
> phases of the moon  at Dawa'aleh in Somalia.

My Fu*king god on a stick, those are only 5000 year old depictions.
Are you suggesting that you can't even deal with basic numbers? Are
you even potty trained?

>
> Your drooling off-topic rants here serve the purpose of illustrating your
> ignorance and the workings of a diseased mind. As to science and
> archaeology they contribute nothing.
>
> One wonders why you feel the need to prop up your bullshit with deliberate
> lies.
>
> --
> <•DarWin><|
>  _/    _/

The only context that's off-topic here, is you and your pathetic
brainfarts.

[Brad Guth]

On May 20, 2:44 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

That's actually one of your better replies, and I'll try hard to
provide that information as we go along, because our moon could have
initially belonged to the planet Venus or of something other from
Sirius(b), because there's still nothing objectively proving it was
made from part of Earth, unless you can establish that most of
terrestrial basalt is paramagnetic and worth 3.5+ g/cm3.

Are you about to suggest that moons and planets can't possibly be
captured?

[H�gar]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e3e30305-60b1-45a1...@ow4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

*** I just love reading theses from the esteemed graduated of
"Shitferbrains-U". Right up there with "older-than-coal" Ed Conrad, you
hapless imbecile.

[Brad Guth]

Glad to be of assistance, to such a ZNR/GOP oligarch approved redneck
like yourself.

[Odysseus]

In article
<54758890390841214.480735%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
>,

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
> > of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
> > recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
> > survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
> > nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
> > quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
> > depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
> > moon.
>
> That's a lie, pure and simple. The cave paintings at Lascaux show detailed
> depictions of the phases of the moon. Perhaps you want to argue with Dr
> Michael Rappenglueck who discovered them.

IIRC a reindeer antler of similar age has been found, bearing carved
notches that anthropologists have interpreted as a tally of the days in
a lunar month.

--
Odysseus

[Brad Guth]

On May 21, 8:07 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
> In article
> <54758890390841214.480735%steve%-malloc.co...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>  Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

>
> > Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
> > > of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
> > > recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
> > > survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
> > > nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
> > > quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
> > > depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
> > > moon.
>
> > That's a lie, pure and simple. The cave paintings at Lascaux show detailed
> > depictions of the phases of the moon. Perhaps you want to argue with Dr
> > Michael Rappenglueck who discovered them.
>
> IIRC a reindeer antler of similar age has been found, bearing carved
> notches that anthropologists have interpreted as a tally of the days in
> a lunar month.
>
> --
> Odysseus

Again, such very small depictions of something truly enormous and
incredibly vibrant, as big as the sun except with distinctive
contrasty patterns easily resolved by the naked eye. Go figure,
perhaps those humans were badly nearsighted.
.

[Steve Firth]

So now you admit that you lied and that the moon was depicted in cave
paintings. That's a step forward.

Now you are complaining that they did not make their drawings of a size
that you would like. Here's a clue, bozo, they didn't draw the horses,
people or other animals to scale either.

Your claim that the moon was much larger (hence closer to earth) just
20,000 years ago is more guthguff(tm).

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

In British English "guff" signifies speech that is drivel, meaningless,
empty, pure hot air useful only for inflating balloons. It seems that the
American equivalent is "guth".

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Brad Guth]

Stop already with your spin and FUD. You can't even get the intent of
this topic straight, much less correctly interpret what I've replied
to it, so instead you're the one that's making stuff up.

[Brad Guth]

On May 22, 4:16 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
> > In article
> > <54758890390841214.480735%steve%-malloc.co...@news.eternal-september.org
> >> ,
> >  Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>

> >> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
> >>> of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
> >>> recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
> >>> survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
> >>> nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
> >>> quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
> >>> depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
> >>> moon.
>
> >> That's a lie, pure and simple. The cave paintings at Lascaux show detailed
> >> depictions of the phases of the moon. Perhaps you want to argue with Dr
> >> Michael Rappenglueck who discovered them.
>
> > IIRC a reindeer antler of similar age has been found, bearing carved
> > notches that anthropologists have interpreted as a tally of the days in
> > a lunar month.
>
> In British English "guff" signifies speech that is drivel, meaningless,
> empty, pure hot air useful only for inflating balloons. It seems that the
> American equivalent is "guth".
>
> --
> <•DarWin><|
>  _/    _/

At least that's interesting, even if it's 100% off-topic and also
imposing yet another lie.

[Brad Guth]

>  http://www.astrophotogallery.org/member-galleries/p7362-moon-in-color...

>  http://www.mikeoates.org/mas/projects/mooncolour/intro.htm
>  http://www.colormoon.pt.to/
>
>  Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement
> software, as to viewing this one small but rather interesting
> mountainous area of Venus, using your independent deductive expertise
> as to enlarge or magnify upon this extensively mountainous terrain of
> Venus that I’ve focused upon 13 years ago, which really shouldn’t be
> asking too much.  Nowadays, most of modern PhotoZoom and numerous
> other photographic software variations tend to accomplish this
> enlargement process automatically (including iPhone and Safari image
> zooming), although some extra applied filtering and thereby image
> enhancing for dynamic range compensations (aka contrast) can further
> improve upon the end result (no direct pixel modifications should ever
> be necessary, because it’s all a derivative from the original Magellan
> radar imaging of 36 confirming radar scans/pixel, that can always be
> 100% verified).
>
> “GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
> question:

>  https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow...

>
>  http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
>
>  https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#
>  http://translate.google.com/#
>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/”Guth
> Venus”, GuthVenus

There are no early (10,000+ BC) human depictions of our moon to any
reasonable scale or magnitude of other items as nicely detailed in
their carvings and paintings, which leads me to perceive or interpret
that early humans of our last ice age simply didn't have that moon to
depict, and otherwise their icy Earth had very little if any
significant seasonal tilt, because there's also no indications
pertaining to seasons or animal migrations due to seasonal changes.

You’d have to think that survival instincts would most likely take
notice of seasons and especially of any enormous and vibrant moon.

[Steve Firth]

it's not off topic in this newsgroup. Your bullshit is. Why not fuck off?

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

Liar, liar pants on fire.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Brad Guth]

On May 22, 11:58 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

That's clearly more of your K-12 pornography language, proving what
your true intent actually is meant for keeping the media and K-12s
from reading these Usenet/newsgroups.

[Brad Guth]

Double LLPOF right back at you.

[Steve Firth]

Try that again, this time use English, a language you are unfamiliar with
but a language that is used in UK newsgroups.

If you can't manage that then continue to explore your interests in sex and
travel.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

> Double LLPOF right back at you.

I'm rubber and you're glue.

Any chance of you learning how to reply to a Usenet post? It's a trick a
five year old child or even a trained chimpanzee could manage but for some
reason you can't get the hang of it.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Brad Guth]

? (how's that?)

[Brad Guth]

That's a typical FUD-master reply, of ever there was. Are you being
paid per word, to keep K-12s away from Usenet/newsgroups?

Do you not know what K-12 means?

Do you not know what FUD means?

[H�gar]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a396fe0d-7468-4c4f...@wg15g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

*** He just verbally whupped your sorry Goth ass like a retarded, red-headed
step child and you didn't even catch on ??? you are one fucked-in-the-head
dude, Goth ...

[Brad Guth]

On May 24, 12:12 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Are you having yet another bad drug reaction?

[Brad Guth]

On May 20, 11:59 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
> of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
> recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
> survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
> nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
> quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
> depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
> moon.
>

reasonable scale or magnitude of other much less important items, as
having been rather nicely detailed in their carvings and paintings,

which leads me to perceive or interpret that early humans of our last

ice age (prior to 11,712 years ago) simply didn't have that big old
moon to depict, and otherwise their extra cold and icy Earth had very
little if any significant seasonal tilt to offer, because there's also

no indications pertaining to seasons or animal migrations due to

seasonal changes. In other words the path of their sun was
essentially always in the exact same location year round, and
apparently there as no perceived difference in summer daytime as
opposed to winter daytime, even though those cave were situated not
all that far down from the glacial ice-age terrain.

You’d have to think that basic survival instincts would most likely
have taken notice of seasons and especially of any enormous and
vibrant moon by which to hunt and gather by, not to mention easily
finding your way back home at night and/or having extended their range
and scope of hunting gathering by moonlight.

Apparently, most K-12s and higher educated have accepted that early
humans were not only badly nearsighted and perhaps even cross-eyed,
because the only way they could manage to ever depict our big old and
extremely vibrant moon (easily enough visible by day and extremely
vibrant by night) was to make little dots or scratch marks to
represent it, even though tenfold smaller resolution details of plants
and animals was of no problem whatsoever to depict.

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> That's a typical FUD-master reply, of ever there was. Are you being
> paid per word, to keep K-12s away from Usenet/newsgroups?

The odd thing about loons is that they habitually blame others for their
own faults. You have gibbered away here with your bizarre yammerings that
prove only that you are nuttier than an almond coated Dundee cake.

> Do you not know what K-12 means?

No idea and I don't feel any the less for not knowing.

> Do you not know what FUD means?

Yes I know what that means.

I also know that you are one of the clan of idiots who knows nothing and
who tries to hide his lack of knowledge by hiding behind a smokescreen of
acronyms and pseudo-scientific waffle. If you put the energy into doing
something worthwhile that you put into bullshit you could make some useful
contribution. As things stand all you are doing is polluting the newsgroups
you post to with irrelevant off-topic noise.

Your ideas are foolish and what is more exhibit a paucity of knowledge and
thought on the part of their proponent. You're just like dull, man.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Brad Guth]

On May 25, 3:32 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Considering the best available is a fault?

That's obviously what GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler always would
have said, and having you punished or even shot for suggesting
anything that wasn't mainstream status quo.

What is your problem, of coming up with 10,000 BC or older images of
our big old moon?

Are you suggesting that the moon of that ice-age era was only an itsy
bitsy speck in their sky (perhaps roughly the size of Venus)?

Are you suggesting that early humans had no idea nor having noticed
seasons or any change in their daytime or nighttime?

Are you suggesting that using nature to the fullest extent for hunting
and gathering wasn't important or worth their time, as to record
anything as extreme as summer/winter or that of any fully illuminated
nighttime?

Exactly how totally dumb and dumber were these early humans?

Were they genetically nearsighted, or was their sky always overcast?

[Hägar]

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:d7b5c120-40b9-4f54...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...


< snip GothBall drivel >

The gentleman verbally whupped your ass once again ... so, like the
true fucked-in-the-head Liberal you are, you'll spew the same inane
litany of acronyms and pseudo scientific babble, but hoping for a
different reaction ... Liberalism is indeed a Mental Disorder, Goth,
and you're their Poster Child.

[Brad Guth]

Indeed, your ZNR/GOP whooped redneck ass would take notice and great
pleasure in such a pathetic mainstream status-quo certified reply,
that blatantly failed to address a damn thing against what I'd
interpreted.

[Brad Guth]

There are still no early (10,000+ BC) human created depictions of our

moon to any reasonable scale or magnitude of other much less important

items as having been rather nicely detailed in their carvings and
paintings, which leads me to perceive or deductively interpret that

early humans of our last ice age (prior to 11,712 years ago) simply

weren’t alive or perhaps didn't have that big old moon to depict, and
otherwise their extra cold and icy Earth seemed to have very little if

any significant seasonal tilt to offer, because there's also no
indications pertaining to seasons or animal migrations due to seasonal
changes. In other words the path of their sun was essentially always
in the exact same location year round, and apparently there as no

humanly perceived difference in summer daytime as opposed to their
winter daytime, even though those caves were situated not all that far
down(south) from the glacial ice-age terrain.

You’d have to think that basic survival instincts would most likely
have taken notice of seasons and especially of any enormous and
vibrant moon by which to hunt and gather by, not to mention easily

finding their way back home at night, and/or having extended their
range and scope of hunting and gathering by moonlight.

Apparently, most K-12s and higher educated have been thoroughly
indoctrinated to only accept that early humans were not only badly

nearsighted and perhaps even cross-eyed, because the only way they
could manage to ever depict our big old and extremely vibrant moon

(easily enough visible by day and otherwise extremely vibrant by

night) was to make little dots or scratch marks to represent it, even
though tenfold smaller resolution details of plants and animals was of
no problem whatsoever to depict.

Even with my sorry old eyes, I can see those phases of Venus, so
imagine with having a perfectly crystal dry and clear (pollution free)
atmosphere of their cool ice-age era, as to how much clearer and
distinctive their naked eye-view of Venus should have been, as perhaps
represented by those itsy bitsy markings that some of us interpret as
representing our moon.

Good grief, if you can see the details of your thumbnail at arms
length, you sure as hell can manage to artistically carve or paint
those contrasty surface patterns of our moon with at least similar
resolution to that of your thumb, that is unless your genetics has you
badly nearsighted and/or cross-eyed or perhaps because of having
chopped your thumbs off, and otherwise this moon observation gets
especially weird whenever that moon is either orbiting nearby
(362,570 km) or getting viewed anywhere near the horizon that usually
magnifies our perceived view of that moon, along with terrestrial
items coming into play is what gives our naked eye view the added
magnification illusion, even though it’s probably only at times
getting slightly distorted and otherwise discolored by the thicker
amount atmospherics we have to look through.

At any rate, if you can see your badly smashed or bitten thumbnail
details at arms-length, and have managed to transfer any of its
observed condition over to a cave wall carving/depiction or painting
(many of such items of cave art examples having depicted much smaller
details than necessary for that of our moon), then whatever was their
insurmountable visualization problem with not being able to reasonably
depict our big old vibrant moon and even at times its oddly colorful
(reddish/orange) moon (not to mention its bold and impressive crescent
phases) shouldn’t be those of only little specks or notches, because
the eye of a beast has been frequently depicted, and that’s a lot
smaller item of more detail than any naked eye view of our moon that
should have been worth at least as good as 16 km out of a diameter
3476 km, which is hardly asking too much, especially when tenfold
worse or 160 km details would have still given us a very good moon
depiction resolution that would have positively nailed it.

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are still no early (10,000+ BC) human created depictions of our
> moon to any reasonable scale or magnitude

Lie.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

That's not what you are doing. You are making a series of ludicrous
assertions and ignoring or sneering at any contradictory evidence.

The sun is slightly more obvious than the moon. Not many cave drawings of
that either. Will you now insist that the sun did not exist 10,000 years
ago?

You claimed that there were no images of the moon from that time. That was
a lie. When u pointed out that you were telling a lie you changed your
story to be "the images of the moon aren't big enough". This shift proves
that you are a deliberate liar.

You are also clearly a whole loaf of bread, a packet of ham, pat of butter,
bottle of wine and a wicker hamper short of a picnic. You are ignorance
personified, your contribution to this newsgroup is just noise. Now do the
world a favour and fuck off.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Brad Guth]

On May 26, 7:26 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

When I'm shown clearly imaged, carved or painted examples of our moon,
as having been accomplished 10,000 BC or earlier, I'll go along with
the notion that our planet always had that enormous and vibrant moon
as of at least thousands of years prior to 10,000 BC.

Can you tell us when our planet got most of its seasonal tilt?

[Brad Guth]

The sun offers no visible features, and its daily path is nearly
identical. They also didn't depict clouds.

[HVAC]

On 5/26/2013 10:57 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> When I'm shown clearly imaged, carved or painted examples of our moon,
> as having been accomplished 10,000 BC or earlier, I'll go along with
> the notion that our planet always had that enormous and vibrant moon
> as of at least thousands of years prior to 10,000 BC.

First of all, you uneducated moron, the fossil and geological records
are clear that a moon has existed for over 3 billion years.




--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[Hägar]

"Brad Guth" wrote in message

news:489c1c6a-7b40-40ec...@li6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

< snip GothBall drivel >

Were bitch-slapped again, weren't you, doofus ...
God, I love this guy Steve ....

[Steve Firth]

You're funny. What does your shrink say?

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Brad Guth]

On a really bad day, most shrinks think I'm a whole lot more sane then
most. How about yourself, and I'm not even medicated for that to
happen.

[HVAC]

On 5/26/2013 3:07 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> On a really bad day, most shrinks think I'm a whole lot more sane then
> most.

Of *course* it would be a bad day for the shrink...He just got done
looking into the cesspool that is YOUR head.

> How about yourself, and I'm not even medicated for that to
> happen.

WTF does that mean?

[Steve Firth]

There's no such concept. You're telling lies, again.

> How about yourself,


I don't have a certificate to say that I'm sane. The only people who get
such a certificate are the mentally unstable.

> and I'm not even medicated for that to
> happen.

But clearly have been and will continue to be. You're not a good advert for
care in the community.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Odysseus]

In article <knt8dq$cvu$1...@dont-email.me>,
HVAC <harlowc...@gmail.com> wrote:

[to Brad Guth]

<snip>

> First of all, you uneducated moron, the fossil and geological records
> are clear that a moon has existed for over 3 billion years.

If you point out the geological evidence for ancient tides, he'll just
say they weren't caused by the Moon, but by Sirius C's Oort cloud. Or
something else I'm insufficiently medicated to think up.

--
Odysseus

[Brad Guth]

On May 26, 7:11 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
> In article <knt8dq$cv...@dont-email.me>,

>
>  HVAC <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [to Brad Guth]
>
> <snip>
>
> > First of all, you uneducated moron, the fossil and geological records
> > are clear that a moon has existed for over 3 billion years.
>
> If you point out the geological evidence for ancient tides, he'll just
> say they weren't caused by the Moon, but by Sirius C's Oort cloud. Or
> something else I'm insufficiently medicated to think up.
>
> --
> Odysseus

As long as Earth has orbited the sun, there has been tides.

[Brad Guth]

Since when has our government been open and perfectly honest?

What government agency hasn't been caught obfuscating or excluding the
sort of evidence that would make them accountable for their errors?

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 7:11 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>> In article <knt8dq$cv...@dont-email.me>,
>>
>> HVAC <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [to Brad Guth]
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> First of all, you uneducated moron, the fossil and geological records
>>> are clear that a moon has existed for over 3 billion years.
>>
>> If you point out the geological evidence for ancient tides, he'll just
>> say they weren't caused by the Moon, but by Sirius C's Oort cloud. Or
>> something else I'm insufficiently medicated to think up.
>

> As long as Earth has orbited the sun, there has been tides.

Ah there you go again, making a statement that ignores the evidence.
Magnitude is not a known phenomenon in your world, is it? Things either are
or they are not, the consideration that one thing could be greater, lesser,
nearer, further never enters your mind.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

>> But clearly have been and will continue to be. You're not a good advert for
>> care in the community.

> Since when has our government been open and perfectly honest?

Oh look a non sequitur. When the questioning gets too close to the truth
you wriggle away and start to mumble about something else.

It's not "our" government, it's "your" government. But I don't expect a
parochial hick to be able to work that out, suffice it to say that the
world, like science, is bigger than your broken brain can encompass.

> What government agency hasn't been caught obfuscating or excluding the
> sort of evidence that would make them accountable for their errors?

What sort of government agency has been caught obfuscating or excluding the

sort of evidence that would make them accountable for their errors?

Government agencies are accountable, here at least, and subject to the sort
of scrutiny that you dislike. Not only that but government agencies are
irrelevant to the subject of what is portrayed in cave paintings or the
history of the moon.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[HVAC]

A while back Brad Goth plonked me for asking him too many questions, so
I don't expect him to answer me at all. Directly, that is. Goth is a
weird duck....He reads everything I write and will reply, but only
through another's posts. I should expect him to reply to me using your
reply to me as a proxy. As I said, he's weird.

Any discussion with Goth is bound to end in frustration for the sane
individual. It is inevitable.

[Brad Guth]

On May 27, 2:56 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Only when caught read-handed, and usually that requires a whistle
blower that's willing to risk everything (including their life), or
via some independent investigative expertise, because our government
agencies (especially those of our military industrial complex) seldom
police their own kind.

The list of government agency wrong doings (aka screw ups) is fairly
extensive, and that's only of what they've been caught at having done
wrong or having failed to respond to any given crisis or threat
situation, most of which we never get to the bottom or top of whatever
took place because evidence is either lost, destroyed or
systematically obfuscated to suit.

Obviously you're on their payroll, and as such have no option but to
stick to your mainstream status-quo guns.

[Brad Guth]

On May 27, 2:56 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Spin and FUD is all you got.

Are you actually suggesting there is no significant sun driven tidal
issues?

Without the moon, those sun tidal factors would actually become
somewhat greater than the third they currently represent.

Parking our moon at Earth L1 would likely give us roughly half the
global tidal factors to contend with, but then you're not even half
smart enough to figure that one out, because of your naysay closed
mindset will not even allow for such a geoengineered consideration.

[HVAC]

On 5/27/2013 8:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> Parking our moon at Earth L1 would likely give us roughly half the
> global tidal factors to contend with, but then you're not even half
> smart enough to figure that one out, because of your naysay closed
> mindset will not even allow for such a geoengineered consideration.

Good idea, Goth. Of course seeing how as it would require more energy
than humans have ever produced in the entire history of life on earth
and the total destruction of life as we know it on our planet, perhaps
we should re-think this?

[David Staup]

On 5/27/2013 7:57 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 5/27/2013 8:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>> Parking our moon at Earth L1 would likely give us roughly half the
>> global tidal factors to contend with, but then you're not even half
>> smart enough to figure that one out, because of your naysay closed
>> mindset will not even allow for such a geoengineered consideration.
>
>
> Good idea, Goth. Of course seeing how as it would require more energy
> than humans have ever produced in the entire history of life on earth
> and the total destruction of life as we know it on our planet, perhaps
> we should re-think this?
>
>

re-think?

moonless earth...brainless guth

re-think???

you said WE should re-think to guthball...you got a mouse in your pocket?

[HVAC]

It was sort of a joke.

[David Staup]

On 5/27/2013 10:24 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 5/27/2013 9:19 AM, David Staup wrote:
>> On 5/27/2013 7:57 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2013 8:05 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Parking our moon at Earth L1 would likely give us roughly half the
>>>> global tidal factors to contend with, but then you're not even half
>>>> smart enough to figure that one out, because of your naysay closed
>>>> mindset will not even allow for such a geoengineered consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good idea, Goth. Of course seeing how as it would require more energy
>>> than humans have ever produced in the entire history of life on earth
>>> and the total destruction of life as we know it on our planet, perhaps
>>> we should re-think this?
>>>
>>>
>> re-think?
>>
>> moonless earth...brainless guth
>>
>> re-think???
>>
>> you said WE should re-think to guthball...you got a mouse in your pocket?
>
>
> It was sort of a joke.
>
>

now I get it...chuckle

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 07:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>On May 26, 7:26�am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > There are still no early (10,000+ BC) human created depictions of our
>> > moon to any reasonable scale or magnitude
>>
>> Lie.
>>
>> --
>> <�DarWin><|
>> �_/ � �_/
>
>When I'm shown clearly imaged, carved or painted examples of our moon,
>as having been accomplished 10,000 BC or earlier, I'll go along with
>the notion that our planet always had that enormous and vibrant moon
>as of at least thousands of years prior to 10,000 BC.

You appear to be assuming that every prehistoric painting ever made has
survived. I think that most people would consider this to be a somewhat
unwarranted assumption. You're also assuming that the things which mattered
to early humans were also the things which matter to us. That, too, is not
an entirely rational assumption.

>Can you tell us when our planet got most of its seasonal tilt?

Can you?

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[Brad Guth]

On May 27, 9:53 am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:

I'm not assuming anything, other than speculating as to a monstrous
and vibrant moon of that ice-age era (second to the sun) that seems to
be MIA as of prior to 10,000 BC, that by rights should have been
considered as really nifty and otherwise hard for early humans to
ignore, and for otherwise not having utilized its weird/variable path
and various illumination benefits along with its lunar crescent phase
method of easily timekeeping and marking of seasons (if they in fact
actually had seasons to deal with).

Do you suppose that the global weather of that ice-age era was
continually overcast?

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:39:20 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard

and typed:

>On May 27, 9:53�am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 07:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>

>> >When I'm shown clearly imaged, carved or painted examples of our moon,
>> >as having been accomplished 10,000 BC or earlier, I'll go along with
>> >the notion that our planet always had that enormous and vibrant moon
>> >as of at least thousands of years prior to 10,000 BC.
>>
>> You appear to be assuming that every prehistoric painting ever made has
>> survived. I think that most people would consider this to be a somewhat
>> unwarranted assumption. You're also assuming that the things which mattered
>> to early humans were also the things which matter to us. That, too, is not
>> an entirely rational assumption.
>>
>> >Can you tell us when our planet got most of its seasonal tilt?
>>
>> Can you?
>>

>I'm not assuming anything, other than speculating as to a monstrous
>and vibrant moon of that ice-age era (second to the sun) that seems to
>be MIA as of prior to 10,000 BC, that by rights should have been
>considered as really nifty and otherwise hard for early humans to
>ignore, and for otherwise not having utilized its weird/variable path
>and various illumination benefits along with its lunar crescent phase
>method of easily timekeeping and marking of seasons (if they in fact
>actually had seasons to deal with).
>
>Do you suppose that the global weather of that ice-age era was
>continually overcast?

No; I'm assuming that pre-historic art which has survived until now is
fairly rare, and the earliest example of any particular subject still
extent is extremely unlikely to be the earliest ever.

I'm also noting that the earliest representative art (that is, images which
clearly appear to be intended to depict other objects, as opposed to being
mere patterns and abstract designs) is overwhelmingly of animals, humans,
tools and weapons. They also created rudimentary maps. It wasn't just the
moon that they didn't draw, it was distant mountains, trees and seas as
well. So if your theory as to the absence of moon drawings is correct, then
we must also conclude that they lived in a featureless, flat unvegetated
landscape.

I actually have a different theory. My hypothesis is that they didn't draw
landscapes, or the moon, because they saw no reason to create images of
things they saw every day and for which they had no emotions. They drew
animals, because these are ephemera - you cannot be certain, as a hunter,
whether the next day will result in a catch or not, you have to wait and
see. And they drew humans, because they *were* human and representing
themselves was an expression of their humanity. They drew themselves, and
the things they interacted with. There may also have been religious
motives: we know that many of the early human representations appear to be
related to fertility, for example. Maybe they thought, too, that drawing
animals on the walls of their caves made the animals more likely to appear.

There's also another possibility. We know that abstract art preceded
representational art. But a basic representation of the moon looks an awful
lot like abstract art. How can you tell the difference between a circle
that's a drawing of the moon and a circle that's just a circle? The
earliest known drawing of the moon is known to be a drawing of the moon by
the context. Take away that context, and you wouldn't be able to tell. So
who is to say that other, context-free, drawings of the moon did not
precede it?

[David Staup]

dude they had already discovered the link between the stars and the
seasons...the moon is worthless for that anyway

as for keeping time...would you care to explain

illumination benefits??? for the predator also

oh goffy...I'd stick with the hollow moon theory.....were I you

[David Staup]

A well laid out logical argument....hmmm

Goofy's gonna have to resort to name calling.... you znr you

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 2:56 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 26, 7:11 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>>>> In article <knt8dq$cv...@dont-email.me>,
>>
>>>> HVAC <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> [to Brad Guth]
>>
>>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> First of all, you uneducated moron, the fossil and geological records
>>>>> are clear that a moon has existed for over 3 billion years.
>>
>>>> If you point out the geological evidence for ancient tides, he'll just
>>>> say they weren't caused by the Moon, but by Sirius C's Oort cloud. Or
>>>> something else I'm insufficiently medicated to think up.
>>
>>> As long as Earth has orbited the sun, there has been tides.
>>
>> Ah there you go again, making a statement that ignores the evidence.
>> Magnitude is not a known phenomenon in your world, is it? Things either are
>> or they are not, the consideration that one thing could be greater, lesser,
>> nearer, further never enters your mind.
>>
>> --
>> <•DarWin><|
>> _/ _/
>
> Spin and FUD is all you got.
>
> Are you actually suggesting there is no significant sun driven tidal
> issues?

No I made no such suggestion. Are you actually suggesting that you are a
liar?

> Without the moon, those sun tidal factors would actually become
> somewhat greater than the third they currently represent.

Absolute drivel.

> Parking our moon at Earth L1 would likely give us roughly half the
> global tidal factors to contend with, but then you're not even half
> smart enough to figure that one out, because of your naysay closed
> mindset will not even allow for such a geoengineered consideration.

More drivel backed up by waffle.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 2:56 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>> What sort of government agency has been caught obfuscating or excluding the
>> sort of evidence that would make them accountable for their errors?

> Only when caught read-handed,

<snigger> you illiterate. And as ever you duck the question.

> Obviously you're on their payroll, and as such have no option but to
> stick to your mainstream status-quo guns.

Yawn, you missed the bit where I state I don't live in your country, you
parochial hick.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[HVAC]

On 5/27/2013 6:23 PM, Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>> What sort of government agency has been caught obfuscating or excluding the
>>> sort of evidence that would make them accountable for their errors?
>
>> Only when caught read-handed,
>
> <snigger> you illiterate. And as ever you duck the question.
>
>> Obviously you're on their payroll, and as such have no option but to
>> stick to your mainstream status-quo guns.
>
> Yawn, you missed the bit where I state I don't live in your country, you
> parochial hick.

Lol!


Ouch! That must've stung, eh Goth?

[HVAC]

On 5/27/2013 6:23 PM, Steve Firth wrote:
>

>> Spin and FUD is all you got.
>>
>> Are you actually suggesting there is no significant sun driven tidal
>> issues?
>
> No I made no such suggestion. Are you actually suggesting that you are a
> liar?
>
>> Without the moon, those sun tidal factors would actually become
>> somewhat greater than the third they currently represent.
>
> Absolute drivel.
>
>> Parking our moon at Earth L1 would likely give us roughly half the
>> global tidal factors to contend with, but then you're not even half
>> smart enough to figure that one out, because of your naysay closed
>> mindset will not even allow for such a geoengineered consideration.
>
> More drivel backed up by waffle.

Brad really isn't from the US. We deny him.

I think he's from Belgium, wafflely speaking.




PS- Please pass the maple syrup.

[Brad Guth]

On May 27, 3:23 pm, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

What does your not living in the country have to do with your
supposedly not being on the payroll?

In other words, not even of the nation that you pretend to belong to,
is there any perfectly honest government agency to be found.

[Brad Guth]

My drivel still beats your drivel, at times 2:1.

[Brad Guth]

On May 27, 12:25 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

When your survival depends on something as totally weird and outright
significant as a big old moon, you'd probably make several good
carvings and/or drawings of it (probably at least tenfold larger than
life), as well as connecting it with the passage of time, seasons and
important events.

A modern-day 1st grader that has no special need of individual
survival skills, as such can draw a good representation of the moon,
and I bet there's even more than a few preschoolers that could manage
to do this as well (especially if survival motivated).

[Brad Guth]

Your intellectual flatulence is noted. Do you bully your wife and
kids the same, or do you just beat your wife like Einstein did?

[Brad Guth]

On the moon is where dust particles of all the elements and
combinations get to arrive at a terminal velocity of at least 2.4 km/
sec, and otherwise encountering dust at 60+ km/sec should be hardly
uncommon, whereas on Earth that same arriving dust as having survived
its atmospheric reentry phase is hardly moving at more than a few
meters per second (rain drops arrive at less than 10 m/sec) by the
time it hits the deck, and on Venus it might even be considered as
sufficiently near buoyant so as to barely fall to the surface. In
other words, the terminal velocity of dust and especially of anything
larger arriving on the moon is going to remain potentially lethal to
us humans and certainly not very friendly to their equipment. Even
secondary meteor and crater shards from somewhat larger items of even
1 cm3 impacting the naked surface of our physically dark moon should
be considered as potentially lethal as any IED.

Of course once those TBMs have us safely underground, it really
doesn’t matter how nasty the surface gets. TBMs digging into our moon
is also a terrific multitasking solution, not a problem unless your
naysay closed mindset implodes.

Relocating our moon as to orbiting within Earth L1 is yet another
terrific multitasking solution (actually this represents many
geoengineered solutions and numerous benefits for utilizing the moon
as well as long-term directly benefiting Earth), as such is not a
problem.

Exploiting our moon and the nearest planet for all they are each
worth, are individually providing opportunities and valid solutions,
and otherwise not negative Karma, bad consequences, needless
compromises or insurmountable problems, at least not for those of us
that actually give a tinkers damn about future generations and
salvaging the global environment as part of the package deal.

Terrestrial oligarchs are on the other hand a very big ongoing problem
of living large while creating obstructions and negative/revenge Karma
for the rest of us, along with numerous consequences and insuring our
future biodiversity demise from their sanctimonious disregard for the
environment and future generations that always get to pick up the tab
and otherwise having to pay the ultimate price, especially when faith-
based diversities are getting exploited and utilized to further
justify their actions.

Other than dealing with the naked, radiated and frequently impacted
surface of our moon as being of a physically dark paramagnetic basalt
and/or carbonado tough crust of 3.5+ g/cm3 density, the mostly robotic
TBMs really shouldn't have any insurmountable problems, especially
once working sufficiently underground and easily air-locked inside of
our moon.

The likes of our Usenet oligarch FUD-master Hagar (aka unsearchable:
Hägar) are of those either intentionally created and/or having been
indoctrinated and allowed to coexist as long as they’re doing their
intended brown-nosed job of mainstream damage-control, status-quo
applied FUD and keeping K-12s away from these public newsgroups, while
otherwise providing as much redneck oligarch Big Energy damage control
as possible without any chance of spilling those beans of truth. It
seems our Hagar doesn’t want to hold anyone accountable for their
actions or lack of taking responsibility unless they are democrats or
Muslims, and that’s especially the case if they happen to have an
ethnicity disparity factor of those genetically dark skinned, is what
apparently makes them predisposed as either dysfunctionals, unreliable
and/or untrustworthy, whereas obviously Hagar knows best.

My topics and numerous replies on behalf of terraforming the innards
of our moon isn’t intended for those of us with a black naysay heart,
content to block any possible revisions while exploiting every
terrestrial resource and ethnicity to the fullest extent and to
otherwise exploit and/or extort and punish as many humans while
trashing the environment as much as possible, and otherwise mindset as
steadfast against revising anything of recorded history as long as it
remains short-term profitable on their own behalf, so as to directly
benefit and otherwise secure their redneck oligarch generation.

Come on Hagar, to hear your blow-hard toothless version of everything,
you are supposed to know absolutely everything under the sun, and then
some, plus otherwise you are forever stuck with having to believe
absolutely everything of your pet government agencies like anything
touted by our DoD, DoE, DARPA, NASA and even our ATF have ever had to
offer because, an all American redneck like yourself can never admit
to being snookered nor much less ever dumbfounded (aka obfuscated or
lied to) by those of your own kind. Apparently the mainstream
obfuscation policy of withholding and/or selectively excluding
evidence is still redneck policy status-quo, at least as far as our
Hagar is concerned.

By way of systematically rejecting all things related to exploiting
our moon or that of the extremely nearby planet Venus(GuthVenus), are
you Hagar and fellow company of FUD-masters now suggesting that our
DARPA and NASA haven't always been 100% truthful as to our fly-by-
rocket expertise as of 4+ decades ago, that supposedly got us soft-
landing and walking harmlessly upon our naked and physically dark
moon?

Are you still suggesting that our moon isn’t the least bit physically
dark?

Are you still having to stick with the notion that our moon is hardly
dusty?

How exactly is the surface of our naked and physically dark moon kept
from being fully ionized?

Are you, Hagar, still insisting that our moon is monochromatic, inert
and not even the least bit UV reactive, radioactive or even all that X-
ray or gamma worthy?

Are you also suggesting as your NASA/Apollo supposedly confirmed that
nothing much physically interacts with the lunar surface, as to offer
any threat to astronauts or their equipment, as ever being directly or
indirectly impacted because of having no atmosphere to deflect or
mitigate any of whatever is passing by or going through?

Whatever happened to your know-it-all redneck spunk that’s supposed to
be right each and every time about everything? (unlike your parents
and grandparents that obviously were the idiots that made all of those
previous mistakes by not accomplishing their world domination)

Are you further suggesting that the world can't spare a few trillion
to pull any of this moon or Venus stuff off, but otherwise can easily
spend as much or actually a lot more on sustaining your mutually
perpetrated cold-wars plus hot proxy wars extensively fought over
faith-based and genetic ethnicity issues as well as for the sake of
resource hoarding and insider trading on behalf of market speculating
our badly depleted global resources to the highest bidders, that in
turn get to exploit and extort the rest of us?

Instead of our having to follow the applied mainstream FUD and
whatever spin in order to suit each and every whim of Hagar’s
mainstream status-quo, I've provided alternatives and a perfectly
doable future that deals fairly with ethnic and wealth diversity,
whereas Hagar’s redneck policy of obfuscation and denial of being in
denial is what hasn't worked in the past, unless you were an oligarch
or another one of their brown-nosed minions getting overpaid with
benefits and retirement COL perks contracted in.

Hagar: “And here we thought Adolf Hitler was the bad guy ...”

Unlike yourself, I have been openly outspoken about government agency
skulduggery, fraud and insider deals on behalf of pandering to the
oligarchs and special interest groups from the very get-go, especially
critical of those ZNR/GOP oligarch dominated agencies like our IRS,
SEC and Federal Reserve that get to pretty much do as they damn well
please regardless of whomever we elect or appoint, and obviously our
FBI, CIA and ATF have not been functioning much better, especially
under DHS which seems dysfunctional when held accountable for looking
after those already specifically interviewed because of perfectly good
reasons provided by others in the know of potential national,
international and even those of private self-made terrorist threats,
almost as though our DHS is actually performing as a cloak for Karma
revenge.

It’s because of yourself, Hagar, your parents and grandparents that
the likes of Monsanto and those of Big Energy get to do pretty much as
they please, and no matters how much they manage to screw up it’s
always promoted as being the fault of others, and then we the
consumers and tax payers are the ones that always get to pay.
Basically what BP did was high treason (at least against 11 Americans
that deserved a whole lot better, and otherwise just ordinary treason
against the rest of us), and the likes of Monsanto extortion is
certainly right up there along with their biodiversity tampering as
offering no assurances of avoiding future mutations of negative
consequences past the point of no return. In other words, bees and
numerous other complex forms of life which our planet can’t hardly
survive without, don’t stand a chance at surviving within our Monsanto
and BP toxic world, and for all we know us humans are next on their NO
FLY list of an expendable biodiversity going extinct because of those
new frankenbugs as potentially lethal germs, viruses and even toxic
chemicals specifically created by Monsanto and others involved with
exploiting hydrocarbons while otherwise manipulating all sorts of
molecular genetics for their own short-term profits.

You Hagar (plus numerous others of your silly redneck kind), on the
other hand seem to think that none of these government or contracted
agencies are ever too big or too out of control, nor much less having
crossed over any red lines of morality or treason regardless of the
consequences or negative Karma they’ve caused us to suffer and pay
for. Going by the way of your doublespeak, you seem to think that any
amount of their actions or reactions are always fully justified, and
that anything of Big Energy should be deregulated to do as they
please. (it all sounds pretty much about as Paperclip Nazi Skull and
Bones or simply oligarch Jewish mafia as it gets, and obviously you’re
perfectly good with that). In other words, it’s redneck assholes
exactly like yourself that create 9-11s and worse things for the rest
of us by pissing off sectors of the lower 99.9%, while keeping your
upper 0.1% caste of Skull and Bones oligarchs as happy campers.

Get this straight; Hagar’s generation and clearly that of his retard
parents and immigrant grandparents screwed off and screwed up big-
time, and no amount of Hagar’s pathetic sanctimonious spin nor FUD is
ever going to fix any of it, that is unless a mass suicide of the
upper most 0.1% is within their New World Order plans, because the
lower 99.9% of us simply can’t afford keeping those of his redneck
kind living large, as well as having to pick up the bloody tab of
negative/revenge Karma each and every time those of Hagar’s kind keep
screwing up.




On May 20, 11:59 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
> of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
> recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
> survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
> nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
> quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
> depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
> moon.
>
> There most certainly shouldn’t have been any 100% year-round overcast
> sky at fault, especially of that extra crisp ice-age era with perhaps
> as little as 50% average atmospheric water vapor to contend with, and
> the necessary visual resolution most certainly wasn’t insufficient
> when much smaller resolved details of plants and animals were so
> evident in their cave paintings.
>
> Of course, one other excuse besides their being badly nearsighted
> might be that they never ventured much outside of their protective
> caves, especially at night or even that of any crystal clear days when
> the snowy and icy albedo of Earth was nearly 25% better suited for
> planetshine illuminating the moon, which by rights should have been
> quite obvious to the naked eye even by day.
>
> As uneducated heathens surviving the best they could muster, they very
> well may not have intellectually connected the dots of ocean tides,
> seasonal tilt or the angular orbiting offset as to understanding why
> that extremely vibrant item in size as well as its illumination
> (second only to the sun) wasn’t always looking perfectly round nor
> situated in the exact same location with respects to the sun which
> obviously meant everything to their daily routine of survival, but
> that shouldn’t have bothered any assigned or gifted artist of
> historical recording their daily, weekly, monthly or annual events
> within that ice-age environment that should have reliably repeated
> each time, and thereby could always be reliably counted upon in times
> of hunting/gathering needs.  Of course there was also no indications
> of animal migration issues or significant if any seasonal changes, as
> though our planet of that ice-age and apparently moonless era had
> perhaps only a third of its ocean tides, as well as minimal seasonal
> tilt issues to speak of.
>
> Out of all the best available geology science, it seems we still have
> not nailed down the year, decade, century, millennium or even the mega-
> annum in which our planet obtained the majority of its seasonal tilt,
> nor having explained the formation of our roundish Arctic ocean basin
> and that of Antarctica emerging from a location where such high and
> dry land-mass probably shouldn’t have existed to begin with.
>
> Understanding the geological history and formation process of our
> planet and that of its extremely unusual moon should be a whole lot
> better understood, especially if we’re looking for Earth like planets
> or those planets technically manageable if given sufficient applied
> physics and expertise.  This doesn’t mean that our moon offers any
> hope of sustaining us humans on its naked, physically dark and
> paramagnetic basalt surface, any more so than suggesting the
> geothermally heated and otherwise well insulated surface of Venus is
> naked Goldilocks friendly.  However, with applied technology and some
> common sense intelligence interlaced, should make the innards of our
> moon perfectly desirable as well as exploiting the actively heated
> surface of Venus within our technological grasp.
>
> BTW;  our moon is actually quite a colorful orb of assorted raw
> elements, many of which being UV reactive.
>
>  Moon color: (of course the closer you get yourself to it, the
> physically darker and more of those colors/hues become apparent)
>  http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/moontests/raw_vs_jpeg.html
>  http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/moontests/moonincolor40d2007.jpg
>  http://www.astrophotogallery.org/member-galleries/p7362-moon-in-color...
>  http://www.mikeoates.org/mas/projects/mooncolour/intro.htm
>  http://www.colormoon.pt.to/
>
>  Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement
> software, as to viewing this one small but rather interesting
> mountainous area of Venus, using your independent deductive expertise
> as to enlarge or magnify upon this extensively mountainous terrain of
> Venus that I’ve focused upon 13 years ago, which really shouldn’t be
> asking too much.  Nowadays, most of modern PhotoZoom and numerous
> other photographic software variations tend to accomplish this
> enlargement process automatically (including iPhone and Safari image
> zooming), although some extra applied filtering and thereby image
> enhancing for dynamic range compensations (aka contrast) can further
> improve upon the end result (no direct pixel modifications should ever
> be necessary, because it’s all a derivative from the original Magellan
> radar imaging of 36 confirming radar scans/pixel, that can always be
> 100% verified).
>
> “GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
> question:
>  https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow...
>
>  http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
>
>  https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#
>  http://translate.google.com/#
>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/”Guth
> Venus”, GuthVenus

[HVAC]

O
>>> Obviously you're on their payroll, and as such have no option but to
>>> stick to your mainstream status-quo guns.
>>
>> Yawn, you missed the bit where I state I don't live in your country, you
>> parochial hick.
>>
>> --
>> <•DarWin><|
>> _/ _/
>
> What does your not living in the country have to do with your
> supposedly not being on the payroll?
>
> In other words, not even of the nation that you pretend to belong to,
> is there any perfectly honest government agency to be found.

Didn't you love his *perfect* usage of 'parochial' in this context to
launch an insult at you that went so far over your pointed head that
it reached orbit?

Let the good times roll, eh Goth?

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:29:53 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>On May 27, 12:25�pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>

>> There's also another possibility. We know that abstract art preceded
>> representational art. But a basic representation of the moon looks an awful
>> lot like abstract art. How can you tell the difference between a circle
>> that's a drawing of the moon and a circle that's just a circle? The
>> earliest known drawing of the moon is known to be a drawing of the moon by
>> the context. Take away that context, and you wouldn't be able to tell. So
>> who is to say that other, context-free, drawings of the moon did not
>> precede it?
>

>When your survival depends on something as totally weird and outright
>significant as a big old moon, you'd probably make several good
>carvings and/or drawings of it (probably at least tenfold larger than
>life), as well as connecting it with the passage of time, seasons and
>important events.

Firstly, is there any chance you could learn how to snip responses
correctly? Your inability to do so does not inspire confidence in your
intellectual capabilities.

Anyway, how is the moon essential to survival in a pre-historic society?
After all, you appear to be asserting that they managed without it for
millennia.

[HVAC]

O
>>> Obviously you're on their payroll, and as such have no option but to
>>> stick to your mainstream status-quo guns.
>>
>> Yawn, you missed the bit where I state I don't live in your country, you
>> parochial hick.
>>
>> --
>> <•DarWin><|
>> _/ _/
>
> What does your not living in the country have to do with your
> supposedly not being on the payroll?
>
> In other words, not even of the nation that you pretend to belong to,
> is there any perfectly honest government agency to be found.

[HVAC]

On 5/28/2013 2:48 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> When your survival depends on something as totally weird and outright
>> significant as a big old moon, you'd probably make several good
>> carvings and/or drawings of it (probably at least tenfold larger than
>> life), as well as connecting it with the passage of time, seasons and
>> important events.
>
> Firstly, is there any chance you could learn how to snip responses
> correctly? Your inability to do so does not inspire confidence in your
> intellectual capabilities.
>
> Anyway, how is the moon essential to survival in a pre-historic society?
> After all, you appear to be asserting that they managed without it for
> millennia.

Oops! He's got you there, Goth. Now what?

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

>
> My drivel still beats your drivel, at times 2:1.

I'm not talking drivel, you have cornered the market in pseudo-scientific
babble. Also you are still unable to correctly quote the post that you
reply to, something that a child or even a trained chimp could do.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 3:23 pm, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 27, 2:56 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> What sort of government agency has been caught obfuscating or excluding the
>>>> sort of evidence that would make them accountable for their errors?
>>> Only when caught read-handed,
>>
>> <snigger> you illiterate. And as ever you duck the question.
>>
>>> Obviously you're on their payroll, and as such have no option but to
>>> stick to your mainstream status-quo guns.
>>
>> Yawn, you missed the bit where I state I don't live in your country, you
>> parochial hick.

[snip]

> What does your not living in the country have to do with your
> supposedly not being on the payroll?

What evidence do you have that I am on any payroll? Here's a hint I haven't
been on a payroll since 1992. And that payroll was nothing to do with the
US or the US government.

You've been backed into a corner and now all you can do is to fling monkey
poo in the hope that I will get disgusted and walk away. The only person
you demean is yourself.

> In other words, not even of the nation that you pretend to belong to,
> is there any perfectly honest government agency to be found.

Can you try saying that again, but this time in English not fluent Hick?

Which country do I "pretend to belong to" Guff?

Why do you fail to answer the pertinent question and simply respond with
lies and unfounded accusations?

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[HVAC]

Aww, that's not fair. Goth *is* as smart as a chimp.

[Brad Guth]

On May 27, 11:48 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:29:53 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 27, 12:25 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> >wrote:
>
> >> There's also another possibility. We know that abstract art preceded
> >> representational art. But a basic representation of the moon looks an awful
> >> lot like abstract art. How can you tell the difference between a circle
> >> that's a drawing of the moon and a circle that's just a circle? The
> >> earliest known drawing of the moon is known to be a drawing of the moon by
> >> the context. Take away that context, and you wouldn't be able to tell. So
> >> who is to say that other, context-free, drawings of the moon did not
> >> precede it?
>
> >When your survival depends on something as totally weird and outright
> >significant as a big old moon, you'd probably make several good
> >carvings and/or drawings of it (probably at least tenfold larger than
> >life), as well as connecting it with the passage of time, seasons and
> >important events.
>
> Firstly, is there any chance you could learn how to snip responses
> correctly? Your inability to do so does not inspire confidence in your
> intellectual capabilities.
>
> Anyway, how is the moon essential to survival in a pre-historic society?

It would not have been essential, but if it had existed they would
have utilized it in order to have survived better, and it would have
been an impressive sight by any ice-age era intelligence.

Are you suggesting that early humans were simply too dumb to have
survived with or w/o a moon?

Are you suggesting that early humans didn't bother to utilize the
natural resources at hand?

>
> After all, you appear to be asserting that they managed without it for
> millennia.
>
> Mark
> --
> Please take a short survey on salary perceptions:http://meyu.eu/am
> My blog:http://mark.goodge.co.uk

Life adapts to the situations and conditions at hand. Early primitive
human life without a moon probably would have adapted as to
functioning little different than with it. However, having such an
enormous and vibrant by nighttime source of illumination would have
been indispensable for hunting and gathering, as well as for
timekeeping and otherwise defending your cave, especially in those icy
cold and otherwise tough survival times, as should have been the case
of 10,000+ BC.

If it were seriously cold and pitch black (only starlight), and you
were handed a flashlight or lantern, wouldn't you use that tool?

[Brad Guth]

How is the process of TBMs digging into our moon such a insurmountable
problem?

How is the repositioning of our moon as to orbiting within the halo of
Earth L1 a problem?

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 05:59:41 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>survived with or w/o a moon?

Are you a viatologist?

[Brad Guth]

On May 28, 1:07 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:

"Viatology is the scientific study of highways"?

Are we now into playing word games?

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 13:58:33 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard

and typed:

>On May 28, 1:07 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 05:59:41 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>> >survived with or w/o a moon?
>>
>> Are you a viatologist?
>

>"Viatology is the scientific study of highways"?
>
>Are we now into playing word games?

I was making an oblique reference to your Todgers-esque use of "w/o", as
you seem to be too lazy to write the complete word.

It isn't anything to do with roads, by the way. Here's the actual
definition:

http://www.viatology.info

None of this has anything to do with the moon, either.

[Brad Guth]

On May 28, 2:43 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 13:58:33 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >On May 28, 1:07 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 May 2013 05:59:41 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard
> >> and typed:
>
> >> >survived with or w/o a moon?
>
> >> Are you a viatologist?
>
> >"Viatology is the scientific study of highways"?
>
> >Are we now into playing word games?
>
> I was making an oblique reference to your Todgers-esque use of "w/o", as
> you seem to be too lazy to write the complete word.
>
> It isn't anything to do with roads, by the way. Here's the actual
> definition:
>
> http://www.viatology.info
>
> None of this has anything to do with the moon, either.
>
> Mark
> --
> Please take a short survey on salary perceptions:http://meyu.eu/am
> My blog:http://mark.goodge.co.uk

"w/o" saves typing, of which you're too lazy to read anyway, much less
comprehend.

[David Staup]

oooh you really got him there goofy.....lol

[Brad Guth]

As per usual, you are not helping one damn bit.

Tell us when Earth got its seasonal tilt (within +/- a million years,
unless it was more recent).

[Brad Guth]

Looks as though the ZNR redneck clowns, as our resident Usenet/
newsgroup FUD-masters, can't deal with this one. Sorry about that.

[David Staup]

you poor baby....delusions of grandeur....

from the Chinese (can't remember the name):

A man can have no greater frustration than to have much knowledge and
little power....

well you showed them goofy

no knowledge AND no power .... well except the power to amuse....sucks
to be you

[Brad Guth]

In other words, you still have no reasonable image of our moon as
dated prior to 10,000 BC. Why not just cut to the chase, and thereby
save yourself all the frustration?

[Brad Guth]

It seems our moon was either cloaked by a continuous 100% overcast sky
or otherwise somehow made invisible to those otherwise terrific
artistic capable early humans of 10,000+ BC, or perhaps as though the
human eyesight of that early phase in our physiological evolution was
entirely nearsighted (suffered from severer myopia) and simply
couldn’t focus upon anything much over a few arms length.

The considerable contrast of that moon and its spectacular surface
features easily spotted and otherwise crafted into art by those of
modern-day humanity, seems to have been something highly problematic
for those early humans that desperately needed to hunt, gather and
survive in spite of their lack of public or formal schooling (in other
words, early humans were at best animal heathens that could otherwise
accomplish a safer and better quality of life better than everything
else living in those times, by surviving in spite of their extremely
piss poor sight and apparent lack of all sorts of intellectual
capabilities).

It seems those of 10,000 to 14,000 BC that produced such terrific cave
art with details of more than sufficient resolution should have been
extremely hard pressed, as to utilize each and every available source
of illumination, as well as for sake of basic timekeeping or seasonal
recordings of whatever made their lives good or bad. In other words,
art or depictions from those early times by rights should have had
numerous incentives and/or motivations for their having taken notice
of something as enormous and nighttime illuminating as those crystal
clear and contrasty features of what the moon should have represented,
and yet there’s still nothing from that era of human survival that
most likely needed to take the fullest advantage of their environment
which apparently didn’t even seem to deal with seasonal changes.

Apparently horrific storms, droughts, floods or uncontrolled forest
fires also never happened, and/or humans that experienced such were
simply too stupid to have made any connections, notations or
depictions to such horrific matters of their having survived in spite
of whatever nature and the raw environment tossed at them.

This begs a few lingering questions, has to why such artistic and/or
depiction detail capable individuals had such a limited or restricted
(selective resolution) view or conditional perception of their world,
which either sustained them or killed them. It just seems quite odd
as to how such a significant item as that big old and extremely
vibrant moon with its considerably contrasty surface features and
spectacular phases as easily resolved by the naked human eye, was of
no apparent artistic/depiction interest or value whatsoever, even
though at times they could have easily hunted, gathered and even
defended themselves or conceivably navigated (aka migrated) about by
way of its terrific nighttime illumination.

> though our planet of that ice-age and apparentlymoonlessera had

>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth,BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/”Guth
> Venus”, GuthVenus

[David Staup]

chuckle

tis you that seems frustrated

for me this is fun :-)

[David Staup]

On 6/1/2013 5:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Jun 1, 10:50 am, David Staup <dst...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 6/1/2013 12:38 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 20, 11:59 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
>>>> of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
>>>> recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
>>>> survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
>>>> nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
>>>> quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
>>>> depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
>>>> moon.
>>

>>>> There most certainly shouldn�t have been any 100% year-round overcast

>>>> sky at fault, especially of that extra crisp ice-age era with perhaps
>>>> as little as 50% average atmospheric water vapor to contend with, and

>>>> the necessary visual resolution most certainly wasn�t insufficient

>>>> when much smaller resolved details of plants and animals were so
>>>> evident in their cave paintings.
>>
>>>> Of course, one other excuse besides their being badly nearsighted
>>>> might be that they never ventured much outside of their protective
>>>> caves, especially at night or even that of any crystal clear days when
>>>> the snowy and icy albedo of Earth was nearly 25% better suited for
>>>> planetshine illuminating the moon, which by rights should have been
>>>> quite obvious to the naked eye even by day.
>>
>>>> As uneducated heathens surviving the best they could muster, they very
>>>> well may not have intellectually connected the dots of ocean tides,
>>>> seasonal tilt or the angular orbiting offset as to understanding why
>>>> that extremely vibrant item in size as well as its illumination

>>>> (second only to the sun) wasn�t always looking perfectly round nor

>>>> situated in the exact same location with respects to the sun which
>>>> obviously meant everything to their daily routine of survival, but

>>>> that shouldn�t have bothered any assigned or gifted artist of

>>>> historical recording their daily, weekly, monthly or annual events
>>>> within that ice-age environment that should have reliably repeated
>>>> each time, and thereby could always be reliably counted upon in times
>>>> of hunting/gathering needs. Of course there was also no indications
>>>> of animal migration issues or significant if any seasonal changes, as
>>>> though our planet of that ice-age and apparently moonless era had
>>>> perhaps only a third of its ocean tides, as well as minimal seasonal
>>>> tilt issues to speak of.
>>
>>>> Out of all the best available geology science, it seems we still have
>>>> not nailed down the year, decade, century, millennium or even the mega-
>>>> annum in which our planet obtained the majority of its seasonal tilt,
>>>> nor having explained the formation of our roundish Arctic ocean basin
>>>> and that of Antarctica emerging from a location where such high and

>>>> dry land-mass probably shouldn�t have existed to begin with.

>>
>>>> Understanding the geological history and formation process of our
>>>> planet and that of its extremely unusual moon should be a whole lot

>>>> better understood, especially if we�re looking for Earth like planets

>>>> or those planets technically manageable if given sufficient applied

>>>> physics and expertise. This doesn�t mean that our moon offers any

>>>> hope of sustaining us humans on its naked, physically dark and
>>>> paramagnetic basalt surface, any more so than suggesting the
>>>> geothermally heated and otherwise well insulated surface of Venus is
>>>> naked Goldilocks friendly. However, with applied technology and some
>>>> common sense intelligence interlaced, should make the innards of our
>>>> moon perfectly desirable as well as exploiting the actively heated
>>>> surface of Venus within our technological grasp.
>>
>>>> BTW; our moon is actually quite a colorful orb of assorted raw
>>>> elements, many of which being UV reactive.
>>
>>>> Moon color: (of course the closer you get yourself to it, the
>>>> physically darker and more of those colors/hues become apparent)
>>>> http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/moontests/raw_vs_jpeg.html
>>>> http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/moontests/moonincolor40d2007.jpg
>>>> http://www.astrophotogallery.org/member-galleries/p7362-moon-in-color...
>>>> http://www.mikeoates.org/mas/projects/mooncolour/intro.htm
>>>> http://www.colormoon.pt.to/
>>
>>>> Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement
>>>> software, as to viewing this one small but rather interesting
>>>> mountainous area of Venus, using your independent deductive expertise
>>>> as to enlarge or magnify upon this extensively mountainous terrain of

>>>> Venus that I�ve focused upon 13 years ago, which really shouldn�t be

>>>> asking too much. Nowadays, most of modern PhotoZoom and numerous
>>>> other photographic software variations tend to accomplish this
>>>> enlargement process automatically (including iPhone and Safari image
>>>> zooming), although some extra applied filtering and thereby image
>>>> enhancing for dynamic range compensations (aka contrast) can further
>>>> improve upon the end result (no direct pixel modifications should ever

>>>> be necessary, because it�s all a derivative from the original Magellan

>>>> radar imaging of 36 confirming radar scans/pixel, that can always be
>>>> 100% verified).
>>

>>>> �GuthVenus� 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in

>>>> question:
>>>> https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow...
>>
>>>> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
>>
>>>> https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#
>>>> http://translate.google.com/#

>>>> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/�Guth
>>>> Venus�, GuthVenus

>>
>>> Looks as though the ZNR redneck clowns, as our resident Usenet/
>>> newsgroup FUD-masters, can't deal with this one. Sorry about that.
>>
>> you poor baby....delusions of grandeur....
>>
>> from the Chinese (can't remember the name):
>>
>> A man can have no greater frustration than to have much knowledge and
>> little power....
>>
>> well you showed them goofy
>>
>> no knowledge AND no power .... well except the power to amuse....sucks
>> to be you
>
> In other words, you still have no reasonable image of our moon as
> dated prior to 10,000 BC. Why not just cut to the chase, and thereby
> save yourself all the frustration?
>

instead of your silly quest for a painting of the moon why not check the
geologic record for evidence of tides?


opps they've already done that:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1996-07/UoA-TRTM-050796.php


"Tides Recorded The Moon's Retreat From Earth, Shorter Earth Days


Layers of sediment deposited by tides hundreds of millions of years ago
at what today are sites in the United States and southern Australia show
that 900 million years ago, a day on Earth was about 18 hours long. The
moon has been moving away from Earth at a constant rate during the past
900 million years, according to the same evidence."



again the evidence gets in the way of your fantasies


sucks to be you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike Duffy]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in news:5a4142c6-bfc5-49b3-9bc2-
5c728f...@kt20g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

> It seems our moon was either cloaked by a continuous 100% overcast sky
> or otherwise somehow made invisible to those otherwise terrific
> artistic capable early humans of 10,000+ BC,

A quick Google search "prehistoric lunar pictures" shows 28.4 million hits.


Looking at the first links few shows that people were painting the moon,
carving calendar tools, etc. much earlier than 10K BC.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 7, 6:49 pm, David Staup <dst...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 6/1/2013 5:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 10:50 am, David Staup <dst...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2013 12:38 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On May 20, 11:59 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> According to some extremely old but very good artistic representations
> >>>> of nature, and of such depictions having been confirmed as created/
> >>>> recorded on cave walls as of nearly 20,000 years ago, apparently those
> >>>> survival savvy humans of that considerable ice-age era were all badly
> >>>> nearsighted, because nowhere within any of their extremely good
> >>>> quality depictions of plants and animals was there any visually
> >>>> depicted evidence or carvings suggesting of any seriously big old
> >>>> moon.
>

> >>>> There most certainly shouldn t have been any 100% year-round overcast

> >>>> sky at fault, especially of that extra crisp ice-age era with perhaps
> >>>> as little as 50% average atmospheric water vapor to contend with, and

> >>>> the necessary visual resolution most certainly wasn t insufficient

> >>>> when much smaller resolved details of plants and animals were so
> >>>> evident in their cave paintings.
>
> >>>> Of course, one other excuse besides their being badly nearsighted
> >>>> might be that they never ventured much outside of their protective
> >>>> caves, especially at night or even that of any crystal clear days when
> >>>> the snowy and icy albedo of Earth was nearly 25% better suited for
> >>>> planetshine illuminating the moon, which by rights should have been
> >>>> quite obvious to the naked eye even by day.
>
> >>>> As uneducated heathens surviving the best they could muster, they very
> >>>> well may not have intellectually connected the dots of ocean tides,
> >>>> seasonal tilt or the angular orbiting offset as to understanding why
> >>>> that extremely vibrant item in size as well as its illumination

> >>>> (second only to the sun) wasn t always looking perfectly round nor

> >>>> situated in the exact same location with respects to the sun which
> >>>> obviously meant everything to their daily routine of survival, but

> >>>> that shouldn t have bothered any assigned or gifted artist of

> >>>> historical recording their daily, weekly, monthly or annual events
> >>>> within that ice-age environment that should have reliably repeated
> >>>> each time, and thereby could always be reliably counted upon in times
> >>>> of hunting/gathering needs.  Of course there was also no indications
> >>>> of animal migration issues or significant if any seasonal changes, as
> >>>> though our planet of that ice-age and apparently moonless era had
> >>>> perhaps only a third of its ocean tides, as well as minimal seasonal
> >>>> tilt issues to speak of.
>
> >>>> Out of all the best available geology science, it seems we still have
> >>>> not nailed down the year, decade, century, millennium or even the mega-
> >>>> annum in which our planet obtained the majority of its seasonal tilt,
> >>>> nor having explained the formation of our roundish Arctic ocean basin
> >>>> and that of Antarctica emerging from a location where such high and

> >>>> dry land-mass probably shouldn t have existed to begin with.

>
> >>>> Understanding the geological history and formation process of our
> >>>> planet and that of its extremely unusual moon should be a whole lot

> >>>> better understood, especially if we re looking for Earth like planets

> >>>> or those planets technically manageable if given sufficient applied

> >>>> physics and expertise.  This doesn t mean that our moon offers any

> >>>> hope of sustaining us humans on its naked, physically dark and
> >>>> paramagnetic basalt surface, any more so than suggesting the
> >>>> geothermally heated and otherwise well insulated surface of Venus is
> >>>> naked Goldilocks friendly.  However, with applied technology and some
> >>>> common sense intelligence interlaced, should make the innards of our
> >>>> moon perfectly desirable as well as exploiting the actively heated
> >>>> surface of Venus within our technological grasp.
>
> >>>> BTW;  our moon is actually quite a colorful orb of assorted raw
> >>>> elements, many of which being UV reactive.
>
> >>>>    Moon color: (of course the closer you get yourself to it, the
> >>>> physically darker and more of those colors/hues become apparent)
> >>>>  http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/moontests/raw_vs_jpeg.html
> >>>>  http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/moontests/moonincolor40d2007.jpg
> >>>>  http://www.astrophotogallery.org/member-galleries/p7362-moon-in-color...
> >>>>  http://www.mikeoates.org/mas/projects/mooncolour/intro.htm
> >>>>  http://www.colormoon.pt.to/
>
> >>>>    Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement
> >>>> software, as to viewing this one small but rather interesting
> >>>> mountainous area of Venus, using your independent deductive expertise
> >>>> as to enlarge or magnify upon this extensively mountainous terrain of

> >>>> Venus that I ve focused upon 13 years ago, which really shouldn t be

> >>>> asking too much.  Nowadays, most of modern PhotoZoom and numerous
> >>>> other photographic software variations tend to accomplish this
> >>>> enlargement process automatically (including iPhone and Safari image
> >>>> zooming), although some extra applied filtering and thereby image
> >>>> enhancing for dynamic range compensations (aka contrast) can further
> >>>> improve upon the end result (no direct pixel modifications should ever

> >>>> be necessary, because it s all a derivative from the original Magellan

> >>>> radar imaging of 36 confirming radar scans/pixel, that can always be
> >>>> 100% verified).
>

> >>>> GuthVenus 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in

> >>>> question:
> >>>>  https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow...
>
> >>>>  http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
>
> >>>>  https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#
> >>>>  http://translate.google.com/#

> >>>>    Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/ Guth
> >>>> Venus , GuthVenus

>
> >>> Looks as though the ZNR redneck clowns, as our resident Usenet/
> >>> newsgroup FUD-masters, can't deal with this one.  Sorry about that.
>
> >> you poor baby....delusions of grandeur....
>
> >> from the Chinese (can't remember the name):
>
> >> A man can have no greater frustration than to have much knowledge and
> >> little power....
>
> >> well you showed them goofy
>
> >> no knowledge AND no power ....   well except the power to amuse....sucks
> >> to be you
>
> > In other words, you still have no reasonable image of our moon as
> > dated prior to 10,000 BC.  Why not just cut to the chase, and thereby
> > save yourself all the frustration?
>
> instead of your silly quest for a painting of the moon why not check the
> geologic record for evidence of tides?
>
> opps they've already done that:
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1996-07/UoA-TRTM-050796.php
>
> "Tides Recorded The Moon's Retreat From Earth, Shorter Earth Days
>
> Layers of sediment deposited by tides hundreds of millions of years ago
> at what today are sites in the United States and southern Australia show
> that 900 million years ago, a day on Earth was about 18 hours long. The
> moon has been moving away from Earth at a constant rate during the past
> 900 million years, according to the same evidence."
>
> again the evidence gets in the way of your fantasies
>
> sucks to be you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since when would Earth w/o moon not have had tides?

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 7, 8:44 pm, Mike Duffy <Use.web.form@website_in_sig.com> wrote:
> Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote innews:ec00d7b1-8be6-4d5b...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Not that I can interpret as such, as everything sufficiently moon like
> > depicted seems dated as newer or more recent than 10,000 BC.
>
> Google: prehistoric lunar calendar
>
> From the 1st link:
>
> http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/cochran3.htm
>
> Here is a quote:
>
> Alexander Marshack's _The Roots of Civilization_ provides evidence that
> humans in the upper paleolithic recorded lunar cycles on bones.  Some of
> the purported "calendar sticks" Marshack considers date as far back as
> 27,000 BC.
>
> There is no lunar picture, but why would you need that as proof of lunar
> observing?
>
> The 6th link:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/975360.stm
>
> has some nice pictures, if that is what you are looking for. (~15K BC)
>
> --http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

You have totally missed the gist or intent of this topic.

Are you saying that early humans (prior to 10,000 BC) were badly
nearsighted and otherwise just as stupid as animals?

Are you saying the moon of that era was only a little black dot in
their sky?

Are you saying the moon of that era was dark and had no discernible
features?

How about, is there any objective evidence of seasons? (or wasn't
summer/winter any different?)

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:29:50 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Solar tides are far, far, weaker than lunar tides. And you can tell the
strength of the tide from the geological record.

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 8, 12:55 am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:

Solar tides are roughly a third, and more than sufficient for
accomplishing storm surges and regular tidal cycles in order to give
the exact same geological results.

You can't even tell us when our planet got most of its seasonal tilt.
What's up with that?

[David Staup]

damn goofy
seasonal tilt????

the rest of us know that the tilt of the earth on the timescale of years
does not change . There is NO SUCH THING as seasonal tilt

Dumb fuck

[David Staup]

Damn goofy, you're really good at cultivating ignorance

ahhh I get it, you use bullshit for fertilizer.

for your understanding I'll go over this slowly


D U M B F U C K

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems our moon was either cloaked by a continuous 100% overcast sky
> or otherwise somehow made invisible

[snip GuthGuff]

We've dealt with this. You're telling lies.

Just go away you deranged parochial colonial.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Brad Guth]

On Jun 8, 8:41 am, Steve Firth <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Your denial of being in denial is noted.

Try to explain why early humans were either badly nearsighted or just
utterly stupid about surviving.

[Steve Firth]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> Try to explain why early humans were either badly nearsighted or just
> utterly stupid about surviving.

Try to explain why you are a liar, without lying.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/