SECRET MILITARY Apollo Missions AFTER Apollo 17
rem...@aol.com
SECRET MILITARY Apollo Missions AFTER Apollo 17
TO: Richard C. Hoagland, and Mike Bara,
Authors of "Dark Mission", 2007
Way back in 1967 when I was attending the U.S. Army
Signal School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, I vaguely
remember seeing RECRUITING brochures in a barracks
lounge and gameroom promoting a MILITARY space program
and showing an illustration of a MILITARY astronaut
riding inside an orbiting space capsule.
After Apollo 17, the Apollo program became
COMPLETELY MILITARY, and the launches were moved to the
Island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian
Ocean. This is the REAL reason why all of the native
inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forced off the Island
paradise and moved to a hellish place on the mainland,
so there would be NO civilian witnesses to the launches.
A primary purpose was to establish a beam weapons
base in Copernicus Crater on the Moon. But on 9-27-
1977, just before it could become operational, the base
was WIPED OUT by a Russian NUCLEAR-powered Cosmos
Interceptor MANNED killer satellite in Earth orbit
firing a NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM continuously whenever the
base was in line of sight. See
http://www.etext.org/Politics/Beter.Audio.Letter/dbal26 ,
Topic 1;
and
http://www.etext.org/Politics/Beter.Audio.Letter/dbal64
or http://members.aol.com/rem460/beter64.txt
or http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/beter64.txt
See also:
http://members.aol.com/rem547/starwars.htm or
http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/starwars.html .
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
ALSO http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
>
Sylvia Else
> SECRET MILITARY Apollo Missions AFTER Apollo 17
>
> TO: Richard C. Hoagland, and Mike Bara,
> Authors of "Dark Mission", 2007
>
> Way back in 1967 when I was attending the U.S. Army
> Signal School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, I vaguely
> remember seeing RECRUITING brochures in a barracks
> lounge and gameroom promoting a MILITARY space program
> and showing an illustration of a MILITARY astronaut
> riding inside an orbiting space capsule.
>
>
> After Apollo 17, the Apollo program became
> COMPLETELY MILITARY, and the launches were moved to the
> Island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian
> Ocean. This is the REAL reason why all of the native
> inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forced off the Island
> paradise and moved to a hellish place on the mainland,
> so there would be NO civilian witnesses to the launches.
So having just mastered the art of putting a couple of astronauts and a
a moon buggy onto the moon for a week or so, they were ready to build
and maintain a base?
Give me a break.
Sylvia.
steve
news:47171c08$0$18984$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> rem...@aol.com wrote:
>
> So having just mastered the art of putting a couple of astronauts and a a
> moon buggy onto the moon for a week or so, they were ready to build and
> maintain a base?
>
> Give me a break.
>
> Sylvia.
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
BradGuth
from Earth.
Add in the honest all-inclusive (birth to grave) 10X factor of what
our government actually spends, as then you'll soon enough realize how
many of those perpetrated cold-war jobs are at risk, and most would
obviously kill in order to keep those nifty jobs and vast benefits.
Not only the cat but the dog as well as most everything else is out of
the bag, and David Groves doesn't even take into account the unusually
missing Venus, that which is technically impossible if actually
orbiting and/or taking those EVAs upon our moon. There's also that
pesky matter of artificial xenon lamp spectrum illumination.
Others of NASA's all-knowing rusemaster kind obviously have nothing of
honest physics or science to contribute about our hocus-pocus NASA/
Apollo missions. Why is it that such silly folks can't even tell us
where the heck that extremely vibrant Venus was hiding as of each and
every hour of those supposed EVAs, and apparently as being so well
hidden from any orbital view as well?
These folks don't even need a supercomputer for sharing the truth from
that 3D interactive orbital simulator, although we the public seem to
own dozens of such spendy supercomputers, as well as having paid for
all the necessary simulation software several times over. Go right
ahead and place yourself as though situated on that physically dark
moon and looking at the horizon, and then tell us village idiots
whatever you might see of Venus, and even of Earth and Venus as easily
being within the same FOV(frame of view).
Should I suggest taking a good look-see at missions A-11, A-14 and
A-16 to start off with? (where's Venus?)
- Brad Guth -
Douglas Berry
into the hard stone of alt.conspiracy
>
> TO: Richard C. Hoagland, and Mike Bara,
> Authors of "Dark Mission", 2007
>
> Way back in 1967 when I was attending the U.S. Army
> Signal School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, I vaguely
> remember seeing RECRUITING brochures in a barracks
> lounge and gameroom promoting a MILITARY space program
> and showing an illustration of a MILITARY astronaut
> riding inside an orbiting space capsule.
>
>
> After Apollo 17, the Apollo program became
> COMPLETELY MILITARY, and the launches were moved to the
> Island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian
> Ocean. This is the REAL reason why all of the native
> inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forced off the Island
> paradise and moved to a hellish place on the mainland,
> so there would be NO civilian witnesses to the launches.
>
> A primary purpose was to establish a beam weapons
> base in Copernicus Crater on the Moon. But on 9-27-
> 1977, just before it could become operational, the base
> was WIPED OUT by a Russian NUCLEAR-powered Cosmos
> Interceptor MANNED killer satellite in Earth orbit
> firing a NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM continuously whenever the
> base was in line of sight.
Nice theory, except for a few problems.
1. Diego Garcia is a terrible place for launches.
2. We know what happened to the boosters for Apollo 18-20. SA-513 was
used for Skylab, SA-514 and -515 were used for static displays. No
other Saturn V boosters were built. The Apollo-Soyuz flight in 1975
used a surplus Saturn IB booster.
3. Trans-lunar burns are easily visible from the ground. Considering
the low mass allowed by the Saturn stack, there would have needed to
be *hundreds* of flights to build and supply a moon base.
4. Why the fuck build a base on the moon to cover the Earth? And what
beam weapon?
5. Everyone knows the only Moonbase in the seventies was operated by
SHADO.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
Frogwatch
I'd say this the basis of a good "airplane sci-fi book". This is the
sort of book one buys in an airport to read on a long flight and for
no other reason. You do not expect it to be plausible.
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
>Not a human soul has ever walked on the moon, at least not of anyone
>from Earth.
Hi, Brad - you're still frantically denying the facts, i see.
>
>Add in the honest all-inclusive (birth to grave) 10X factor of what
>our government actually spends, as then you'll soon enough realize how
>many of those perpetrated cold-war jobs are at risk, and most would
>obviously kill in order to keep those nifty jobs and vast benefits.
Interesting fantay you got there, Guthball.
>
>Not only the cat but the dog as well as most everything else is out of
>the bag, and David Groves doesn't even take into account the unusually
>missing Venus, that which is technically impossible if actually
>orbiting and/or taking those EVAs upon our moon. There's also that
>pesky matter of artificial xenon lamp spectrum illumination.
I see you're still pretending to understand photography, especially as
applicable to the photographs and films that were taken on the moon.
>
>Others of NASA's all-knowing rusemaster kind obviously have nothing of
>honest physics or science to contribute about our hocus-pocus NASA/
>Apollo missions. Why is it that such silly folks can't even tell us
>where the heck that extremely vibrant Venus was hiding as of each and
>every hour of those supposed EVAs, and apparently as being so well
>hidden from any orbital view as well?
I see that you still don't comprehend exposer and shutter speed.
>
>These folks don't even need a supercomputer for sharing the truth from
>that 3D interactive orbital simulator, although we the public seem to
>own dozens of such spendy supercomputers, as well as having paid for
>all the necessary simulation software several times over. Go right
>ahead and place yourself as though situated on that physically dark
>moon and looking at the horizon, and then tell us village idiots
>whatever you might see of Venus, and even of Earth and Venus as easily
>being within the same FOV(frame of view).
But Brad, you already asserted that "no human can walk on the moon",
and now you're directing people to do what you assert is impossible.
>
>Should I suggest taking a good look-see at missions A-11, A-14 and
>A-16 to start off with? (where's Venus?)
You'd know if you understood thing one about exposure times.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425
#14 People ruining UseNet lits
#9 Top Assholes on the Net lits
#11 Most hated Usenetizens of all time lits
#11 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler.
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.
WWFSMD?
ray
> SECRET MILITARY Apollo Missions AFTER Apollo 17
>
> TO: Richard C. Hoagland, and Mike Bara,
> "EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
> "The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
> "The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
> "OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
> "The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>>
>>
>
Richard C. Hoagland is the same nutter who brought you the infamous Face
On Mars based on a fuzzy and noisy Viking Orbiter photo. For once, I
agree with Sylvia. You're also assuming a lot of this technology would
have actually worked back in the 1970s, which a lot of it just didn't.
Brian Thorn
>>
> SECRET MILITARY Apollo Missions AFTER Apollo 17
Clive Cussler beat you to this fiction by about 20 years.
Brian
Glen Overby
> After Apollo 17, the Apollo program became
> COMPLETELY MILITARY, and the launches were moved to the
> Island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian
> Ocean. This is the REAL reason why all of the native
> inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forced off the Island
> paradise and moved to a hellish place on the mainland,
> so there would be NO civilian witnesses to the launches.
I looked at the satellite imagry of Diego Garcia on Google Maps, and saw no
sign of anything I would call a launch pad. Could you give us exact lat/lon
of the launch pad on the island? Or a direct link to it on Google Maps.
>"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
So, 2+2 is really 5? Pi is really 3?
Pat Flannery
A. Nalorafice wrote:
>
>
>
> Don't you fucking retards ever stop?
This idea is obviously BS, but I was going to pull up the satellite
images of Diego Garcia on Google maps and link to it to show the lack of
Saturn V pads and a VAB... There are no close-up images of that island
on Google maps.
Pat
Fred J. McCall
:
:This idea is obviously BS, but I was going to pull up the satellite
:Saturn V pads and a VAB... There are no close-up images of that island
:on Google maps.
<snicker>
I've got lots of close up images ... which any good conspiracy
theorist would tell you is proof of the conspiracy; that they've so
cleverly faked the imagery...
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
BradGuth
In the near future it's plausible, with either rad-hard improved human
DNA or tonnes of added shielding, and perhaps having an actual proof-
tested kind of fly-by-rocket lander might be a good thing to resolve
prior to our brave folks landing upon our physically dark, extremely
crystal dry kind of dusty, somewhat salty, highly electrostatic and
unavoidably anticathode worthy moon that's saturated in gamma and X-
rays.
Too bad we still haven't accomplished any viable platform of science
instruments as efficiently existing within the moon's L1 (perhaps
China will soon enough fix that).
BTW, what's sci-fi about the unobstructed views of Venus from the
moon?
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:53:45 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Not a human soul has ever walked on the moon, at least not of anyone
> >from Earth.
>
> Hi, Brad - you're still frantically denying the facts, i see.
At least my facts are based entirely upon the regular laws of physics,
as well as taken from the best available science that's easily
replicated, such as those fully interactive 3D orbital simulators seem
to be telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to the
actual location of Venus that's clearly situated above the moon's
physically dark horizon, as well as at times appearing as though near
enough to Earth for a nifty side-by-side Kodak moment, as should have
been rather easily obtained within the same unfiltered FOV.
Therefore, why are you and others of your silly faith-based kind being
such born-again liars?
- Brad Guth -
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
>On Oct 18, 11:00 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:53:45 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Not a human soul has ever walked on the moon, at least not of anyone
>> >from Earth.
>>
>> Hi, Brad - you're still frantically denying the facts, i see.
>
>At least my facts are based entirely upon the regular laws of physics,
The regular laws of physics placed men on the moon, Brad. What you
base your "moon hoax" babble upon is based in you delusions and
misunderstanding of science - especially to 'cherry picking' the tiny
fraction of stuff that you believe 'supports' your conclusion, and
ignoring the _vast_ majority that disproves your conclusions -
definite ko0ksign on your part.
>as well as taken from the best available science that's easily
>replicated,
Such as stars (and local planets such as Venus) not being
photographable in high-light environments, such as on the surface of
the moon?
>such as those fully interactive 3D orbital simulators seem
>to be telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to the
>actual location of Venus that's clearly situated above the moon's
>physically dark horizon, as well as at times appearing as though near
>enough to Earth for a nifty side-by-side Kodak moment, as should have
>been rather easily obtained within the same unfiltered FOV.
Tsk, you still haven't figured out lighting, exposure, and sutter
speed.
>
>Therefore, why are you and others of your silly faith-based kind being
>such born-again liars?
Typical Guthball - when he's cornered bby facts, all he's got left is
ad hominems.
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>:
>:This idea is obviously BS, but I was going to pull up the satellite
>:images of Diego Garcia on Google maps and link to it to show the lack of
>:Saturn V pads and a VAB... There are no close-up images of that island
>:on Google maps.
>:
>
><snicker>
>
>I've got lots of close up images ... which any good conspiracy
>theorist would tell you is proof of the conspiracy; that they've so
>cleverly faked the imagery...
But, but...it's so much _easier_ to form your conclusions first! That
limits your "research" (and in Guthball's case, I use that term _very_
loosely indeed) to sifting for supporting "evidence", and explaining
away the mountain of stuff that disproves those conclusions. Much
more convenient than actually doing the hard work of research.
Pat Flannery
Glen Overby wrote:
> I looked at the satellite imagry of Diego Garcia on Google Maps, and saw no
> sign of anything I would call a launch pad. Could you give us exact lat/lon
> of the launch pad on the island? Or a direct link to it on Google Maps.
>
I saw very little sign of anything called Diego Garcia; the island
proper shows up as around the size of a unshelled peanut on my monitor
at highest available magnification.
Pat
Willie...@gmail.com
then it never appeared. What's up with that?
Anyway, as always, I think my best postings are the one's that got
away! haha..
Since I have a few minutes I'll re-create it.
The reason for a moon base is the big killer for me. Why would we
build it? (more on that below) there's really no good answer.
Then, the next big killer - is the launch complex. You don't send off
a moonship without stomping the Earth pretty damn hard. I think
seismologists around the world could tell when a Saturn V was going
off. So, there's that. But that is addressed to.
As for the base itself - I think we could have done it rather easily.
The manned orbiting labs were studied to death by the military - maybe
there were programs that were more than studies. Skylab certainly
went together quickly and cheaply by Apollo standards. This suggested
that an SIVB based moonbase would have gone together quickly as well.
Skylab masses about 150,000 lbs. That's the big issue. Landing
150,000 lbs on the moon.
But the size of the Saturn V is a function of engine performance.
Increase specific impulse from 400 seconds to something like 4,000
seconds and you reduce the mass of the vehicle from 6,000,000 lbs to
something like 600,000 lbs - and go from four stages to one stage.
And all of a sudden you have a rocket that you can launch in the dead
of night from Area 51 straight to the moon - so that by the time the
ship rises above the horizon its so far away as to be undetectable.
Line of sight laser communications help secure data and voice link to
the craft.
Can we build a 4,000 sec Isp rocket engine? Well, in the 1950s we
built Kiwi A reactor and the ROVER and NERVA systems were built around
that. These were 1,000 second Isp engines. On the drawing boards
there were plans to use the magnetic containment systems designed for
fusion reactors to contain fissile plasmas capable of producing far
higher power levels in a gas core reactor.
I would say its far more reasonable to believe that the US spent $8
billion or so in secret to build a small fleet of interplanetary
cruisers around a gas core nuclear rocket - and used Skylab era
technology to put 5 or 6 SIVB module on the far side of the moon -
than it is to maintain we didn't go to the moon.
Its a far out proposition, don't get me wrong. But its a believable
far out proposition.
I imagine something like the Helios booster being built. A 4,000 sec
Isp sustainer stage, with two 400 sec booster rockets. All highly
thorttable. A solid core nuclear reactor on board for power in the
same gamma ray shield. The boosters take off, and the sustainer keeps
going. the boosters land on the moon so that the moon base isn't
radiated during take off and landing.
This would all work.
But why build it?
Well, for that you need some sort of compelling reason to have a base
on th efar side of the moon. And the only thing I can think of is
UFOs.
Which puts it beyond the pale in my book.
But what is the MOST reasonable explanation of UFOs?
(assuming one is needed!! haha)
There are two that appeal to me.both based on the obvious fact that
when astronomers look across the cosmos they see a universe devoid of
life.
(1) The further we look out in space the further back in time we see.
So the reason we see a universe devoid of life is that it was devoid
of life until recently and that life just now is blooming across the
universe - and the only way we'll contact it is when we are overrun by
their spaceships. That is, we have to look closely at our nearest
neighbors to see evidence of life. Think about this idea the way you
think about flowers in the desert. Most of the year the desert
appears barren. But during the rainy season it springs to life - into
a riot of color and life - all at once. That's the way life is, it
arises to take advantage of conditions and then goes away. So, this
is one explanation (if any are needed) But why would a host of
dozens or hundreds of distinct species care at all about what people
of Earth want? Why would they cooperate with Earth authorities to any
degree? It doesn't make sense - I'm not saying that - I'm just saying
is makes some sort of consistent story.
(2) Archeologists tell us that we're the first technical species to
arise on Earth and that none came before who were as successful or has
achieved as much as we in our modern age. This could be in error.
What if a high technology culture existed on Earth 50,000 years ago?
What if like Planet of the Apes astronauts were sent out on distant
voyages of discovery to return to their home world 50,000 years after
they left, only to find their society collapsed and not even their
memory remains, and a new sort of creature arising from the ashes?
So, over the course of this ancient civilization assuming they were
just slightly in advance of us at their peak, dozens if not hundreds
or thousands of interstellar voyages were sent out,to return.. with
varying half lives - ranging from 10 years to 100,000 years - and we
are getting a steady stream of folks who are returning home all from
the same epoch. What would returning human astronauts do? Well,
they'd likely look up ancient ruins, ancient cities and ancient bases
wherever they existed, and establish a base there. The most logical
base, and the one most likely to be preserved in the vacuum of space -
is one on the far side of the moon. So, the way I envision this
playing out is that you have a Charlton Heston from a pre-human
species leaving Earth 50,000 years ago at the speed of light to travel
on a voyage of exploration 25,000 light years from Earth. He, she it,
carries out his mission and returns to Earth today, only to find these
humans in charge. What do you do? Well, you see that there is an old
base on the lunar far side, in fact other returnees have got the
lights working and growing a few of the old plants and they even have
a cup of grog for you - so you put down there. They seize your ship,
and put you to work, and give you the grog later. They'd be in
contact with Earth and likely tell them whatever story worked to get
the humans to help them out. Under these circumstances I can see the
US and perhaps others jointly and secretly building alunar base to
keep tabs on these assholes. (I think that should be their formal
name)
chatnoir
They must have had expert alien help Sylvia!
Sylvia Else
I guess. Though I'd have to wonder why they wouldn't get their bug-eyed
buddies to just zap the Ruskies (or was it the French?) there and then
rather than messing about with beam weapons.
Sylvia.
BradGuth
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:46:57 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 18, 11:00 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:53:45 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Not a human soul has ever walked on the moon, at least not of anyone
> >> >from Earth.
>
> >> Hi, Brad - you're still frantically denying the facts, i see.
>
> >At least my facts are based entirely upon the regular laws of physics,
>
> The regular laws of physics placed men on the moon, Brad. What you
> base your "moon hoax" babble upon is based in you delusions and
> misunderstanding of science - especially to 'cherry picking' the tiny
> fraction of stuff that you believe 'supports' your conclusion, and
> ignoring the _vast_ majority that disproves your conclusions -
A 60:1 ratio of GLOW/payload rocket that started off at nearly 30%
inert did not get nearly 50 tonnes into orbiting our moon within 3
days, along with fuel and payload to spare. Perhaps at best half that
that amount of payload was doable.
There is still no such viable fly-by-rocket lander that has any kind
of worthy R&D as documented proof of its capability.
Venus was clearly above the moon's physically dark horizon, and at
times viewed as though situated right next to Earth, yet not one naked/
unfiltered Kodak moment (from EVAs or from orbit) has any such Venus
or any other than Earth planet to behold.
According to the regular laws of physics and via the best available
science, the moon is somewhat salty, as well as being naked and thus
unavoidably anticathode saturated in gamma and X-rays. Go figure
otherwise.
>
> >as well as taken from the best available science that's easily
> >replicated,
>
> Such as stars (and local planets such as Venus) not being
> photographable in high-light environments, such as on the surface of
> the moon?
That's where yourself and other Zion Yids are liars, as in big time
liars without a speck of remorse (just like your having put Christ on
a stick). Of course you can always provide your supercomputer
generated worth of a 3D interactive orbital simulator any time you
like.
>
> >such as those fully interactive 3D orbital simulators seem
> >to be telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to the
> >actual location of Venus that's clearly situated above the moon's
> >physically dark horizon, as well as at times appearing as though near
> >enough to Earth for a nifty side-by-side Kodak moment, as should have
> >been rather easily obtained within the same unfiltered FOV.
>
> Tsk, you still haven't figured out lighting, exposure, and sutter
> speed.
As I'd said before; put up or shut up. Besides loads of posted images
that more than proves you're a born-again liar, why not give us your
best 3D interactive orbital simulator's hour by hour look-see as from
being situated upon our moon?
>
> >Therefore, why are you and others of your silly faith-based kind being
> >such born-again liars?
>
> Typical Guthball - when he's cornered bby facts, all he's got left is
> ad hominems.
You mean typical truth is what's rocking your good ship LOLLIPOP (aka
USS LIBERTY).
- Brad Guth -
Brian Thorn
wrote:
Maybe he means Google Earth. You can zoom in quite close on that
(pretty much as close as most places in the U.S.). The runways with
B-52s and KC-135s parked on the ramp are clearly visible. There are
trucks/carts/people all around a couple of the B-52s.
Go to the Indian Ocean and find "British Indian Ocean Territory" south
of the India/Pakistan border at the end of that long north/south chain
of islands (the Maldives), zoom in and you'll see one of them is
labeled "Diego Garcia" and you can zoom in on it.
Brian
Glen Overby
>I saw very little sign of anything called Diego Garcia; the island
>proper shows up as around the size of a unshelled peanut on my monitor
>at highest available magnification.
I can only assume you've got the wrong island, or the wrong planet ;-)
I looked up "Diego Garcia" on Gooogle and of course it gave me a link to
Wikipedia. I think all google searches link to wikipedia. Anyway, the
wikipedia page said the coordinates were 7 deg 19min S, 72 deg 25 min E. I
pasted that into the search bar for Gooooogle Maps and got nice high-res
imagery. The KC135 tankers and B52 bombers are clearly visible on the ramp,
along with the four B2 shelters. If you want the funny looking objects
identified, look at the "imagry" section of the D.G. page on
globalsecurity.org.
But you have to look really really really closely to see the secret prisons
and launch pads :)
Glen Overby
Twin Cities, MN
Pat Flannery
Glen Overby wrote:
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>> I saw very little sign of anything called Diego Garcia; the island
>> proper shows up as around the size of a unshelled peanut on my monitor
>> at highest available magnification.
>>
>
> I can only assume you've got the wrong island, or the wrong planet ;-)
>
> I looked up "Diego Garcia" on Gooogle and of course it gave me a link to
> Wikipedia. I think all google searches link to wikipedia. Anyway, the
> wikipedia page said the coordinates were 7 deg 19min S, 72 deg 25 min E. I
> pasted that into the search bar for Gooooogle Maps and got nice high-res
> imagery. The KC135 tankers and B52 bombers are clearly visible on the ramp,
> along with the four B2 shelters. If you want the funny looking objects
> identified, look at the "imagry" section of the D.G. page on
> globalsecurity.org.
>
A-ha! I was zooming in on the wrong section of the atoll. They only have
high res stuff of the airbase islet proper, not the whole atoll.
I did find something space related; if you go here: -7.277426,72.364106
and zoom in, I think those are either small radar domes or the
protective domes over optical telescopes for tracking satellites.
What this is, I don't know: -7.265943,72.364824
Pat
Scott Hedrick
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:403fh35p4cuvng3q8...@4ax.com...
> 2. We know what happened to the boosters for Apollo 18-20. SA-513 was
> used for Skylab, SA-514 and -515 were used for static displays. No
> other Saturn V boosters were built.
Well, sure, *that we know of*.
Classic cartoon from the Tampa Tribune- lots of people lined up on the
beach, facing away, while a shuttle launches, next to a sign that says
"Secret Shuttle Launch, Please Do Not Watch".
Doc Smartass
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
> SECRET MILITARY Apollo Missions AFTER Apollo 17
>
> TO: Richard C. Hoagland, and Mike Bara,
> Authors of "Dark Mission", 2007
>
> Way back in 1967 when I was attending the U.S. Army
> Signal School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, I vaguely
> remember seeing RECRUITING brochures in a barracks
> lounge and gameroom promoting a MILITARY space program
> and showing an illustration of a MILITARY astronaut
> riding inside an orbiting space capsule.
>
>
> After Apollo 17, the Apollo program became
> COMPLETELY MILITARY, and the launches were moved to the
> Island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian
> Ocean. This is the REAL reason why all of the native
> inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forced off the Island
> paradise and moved to a hellish place on the mainland,
> so there would be NO civilian witnesses to the launches.
>
> A primary purpose was to establish a beam weapons
> base in Copernicus Crater on the Moon. But on 9-27-
> 1977, just before it could become operational, the base
> was WIPED OUT by a Russian NUCLEAR-powered Cosmos
> Interceptor MANNED killer satellite in Earth orbit
> firing a NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM continuously whenever the
> base was in line of sight.
You left out the part where the Ewoks throw in and help the MILITARY
ASTRONAUTS repel an evil Commie insurgency on the island.
You do know that Commie headgear could be tuned to act as proper
percussion instruments in case of a drum solo, right?
Tin foil's your friend, pal. Invest.
--
Doc Smartass
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
trigonom...@gmail.com
> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :This idea is obviously BS, but I was going to pull up the satellite
> :images of Diego Garcia on Google maps and link to it to show the lack of
> :Saturn V pads and a VAB... There are no close-up images of that island
> :on Google maps.
> :
>
> <snicker>
>
> I've got lots of close up images ... which any good conspiracy
> theorist would tell you is proof of the conspiracy; that they've so
> cleverly faked the imagery...
There are many areas that Google earth has blurred.
Take a look at Richland, Washington State and then
look as the nuclear reservation just to the
north. You go from a razor sharp view to a big
blur. Still anybody with a spy sat would know
most of the score, when they looked down on
the island.
Fred J. McCall
:On Oct 18, 10:15 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :This idea is obviously BS, but I was going to pull up the satellite
:> :images of Diego Garcia on Google maps and link to it to show the lack of
:> :Saturn V pads and a VAB... There are no close-up images of that island
:> :on Google maps.
:> :
:>
:> <snicker>
:>
:> I've got lots of close up images ... which any good conspiracy
:> theorist would tell you is proof of the conspiracy; that they've so
:> cleverly faked the imagery...
:
:There are many areas that Google earth has blurred.
:
But Diego Garcia isn't one of them.
--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
>On Oct 19, 12:23 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:46:57 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 18, 11:00 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:53:45 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Not a human soul has ever walked on the moon, at least not of anyone
>> >> >from Earth.
>>
>> >> Hi, Brad - you're still frantically denying the facts, i see.
>>
>> >At least my facts are based entirely upon the regular laws of physics,
>>
>> The regular laws of physics placed men on the moon, Brad. What you
>> base your "moon hoax" babble upon is based in you delusions and
>> misunderstanding of science - especially to 'cherry picking' the tiny
>> fraction of stuff that you believe 'supports' your conclusion, and
>> ignoring the _vast_ majority that disproves your conclusions -
>> definite kooksign on your part.
>
>A 60:1 ratio of GLOW/payload rocket that started off at nearly 30%
>inert did not get nearly 50 tonnes into orbiting our moon within 3
>days, along with fuel and payload to spare. Perhaps at best half that
>that amount of payload was doable.
"GLOW", Guthball? Who made up that acronym? You, perhaps?
As for the rest, you're still pretending that the technology existed
to fake the Moon Landing footage, when it didn't. Among other things,
like prete4nding that the lunar rocks brought back could be either
found on Earth, or manufactored so well as to be able to fool dozens,
if not hundrreds of geologists. IOW, you have no clue what you're
babbling about.
Oh, and the rated payload of Apollo 8 was just under 40 tones, so your
delusional accusations are more than a little off.
>
>There is still no such viable fly-by-rocket lander that has any kind
>of worthy R&D as documented proof of its capability.
Only in your muddled opinion, since men walked on the moon several
times. Your unsupported onager assertion is REjected.
>
>Venus was clearly above the moon's physically dark horizon, and at
>times viewed as though situated right next to Earth, yet not one naked/
>unfiltered Kodak moment (from EVAs or from orbit) has any such Venus
>or any other than Earth planet to behold.
Thanks for continuing to prove that you know little or nothing about
photography.
>
>According to the regular laws of physics and via the best available
>science, the moon is somewhat salty, as well as being naked and thus
>unavoidably anticathode saturated in gamma and X-rays. Go figure
>otherwise.
OOOOooh, more "Teh moon is deadly" babble! Too bad that yo9u haven't
clue one on the subject matter.
>
>>
>> >as well as taken from the best available science that's easily
>> >replicated,
>>
>> Such as stars (and local planets such as Venus) not being
>> photographable in high-light environments, such as on the surface of
>> the moon?
>
>That's where yourself and other Zion Yids are liars,
Bigotry noted, as Bratty's substitute for the science which he is
unable to comprehend.
>as in big time
>liars without a speck of remorse (just like your having put Christ on
>a stick). Of course you can always provide your supercomputer
>generated worth of a 3D interactive orbital simulator any time you
>like.
No "supercomputers" back in the late 60s/early 70s, Guthball.
>
>>
>> >such as those fully interactive 3D orbital simulators seem
>> >to be telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to the
>> >actual location of Venus that's clearly situated above the moon's
>> >physically dark horizon, as well as at times appearing as though near
>> >enough to Earth for a nifty side-by-side Kodak moment, as should have
>> >been rather easily obtained within the same unfiltered FOV.
>>
>> Tsk, you still haven't figured out lighting, exposure, and sutter
>> speed.
>
>As I'd said before; put up or shut up. Besides loads of posted images
>that more than proves you're a born-again liar,
Those "loads" are a drop in the bucket compared to the supporting
evidence that men (as a matter of fact, as opposed to your delusions)
walked on the moon.
>why not give us your
>best 3D interactive orbital simulator's hour by hour look-see as from
>being situated upon our moon?
Why don't you build a case for us[tinu] to prove your point based on
_Positive_ evidence? Why not, because you _can't_. Despite the fact
that hundreds of people would have _had_ to be "in on it" to achieve
your k'lames, 'Apollo hoax' ko0ks like you _cannot_ build a positive
case, because you have _no_ positive evidence, just lame "I (as a
non-expert, and an idiot) believe I found 'flaws'!" arguements.
>
>>
>> >Therefore, why are you and others of your silly faith-based kind being
>> >such born-again liars?
>>
>> Typical Guthball - when he's cornered bby facts, all he's got left is
>> ad hominems.
>
>You mean typical truth is what's rocking your good ship LOLLIPOP (aka
>USS LIBERTY).
No, I have no problem at all with truth, it's just that I find your
non-truthful delusions amusing, Guthbigot.
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
> Well, sure, *that we know of*.
>
> Classic cartoon from the Tampa Tribune- lots of people lined up on the
> beach, facing away, while a shuttle launches, next to a sign that says
> "Secret Shuttle Launch, Please Do Not Watch".
>
It would be fun to figure out where stage one and two of a Saturn V
would come down from a Diego Garcia launch.
If you are going to build a secret rocket launch base, stick it on
Christmas Island, not Diego Garcia.
Pat
rich...@usa.com
>On Oct 18, 10:15 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> :This idea is obviously BS, but I was going to pull up the satellite
>> :images of Diego Garcia on Google maps and link to it to show the lack of
>> :Saturn V pads and a VAB... There are no close-up images of that island
>> :on Google maps.
>> :
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> I've got lots of close up images ... which any good conspiracy
>> theorist would tell you is proof of the conspiracy; that they've so
>> cleverly faked the imagery...
>
>There are many areas that Google earth has blurred.
>Take a look at Richland, Washington State and then
>look as the nuclear reservation just to the
>north. You go from a razor sharp view to a big
>blur.
It's not blurred on my computer. "They" must be after you.
Art Deco
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:06:25 -0700, BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Oct 19, 12:23 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:46:57 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Oct 18, 11:00 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:53:45 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >Not a human soul has ever walked on the moon, at least not of anyone
>>> >> >from Earth.
>>>
>>> >> Hi, Brad - you're still frantically denying the facts, i see.
>>>
>>> >At least my facts are based entirely upon the regular laws of physics,
>>>
>>> The regular laws of physics placed men on the moon, Brad. What you
>>> base your "moon hoax" babble upon is based in you delusions and
>>> misunderstanding of science - especially to 'cherry picking' the tiny
>>> fraction of stuff that you believe 'supports' your conclusion, and
>>> ignoring the _vast_ majority that disproves your conclusions -
>>> definite kooksign on your part.
>>
>>A 60:1 ratio of GLOW/payload rocket that started off at nearly 30%
>>inert did not get nearly 50 tonnes into orbiting our moon within 3
>>days, along with fuel and payload to spare. Perhaps at best half that
>>that amount of payload was doable.
>
>"GLOW", Guthball? Who made up that acronym? You, perhaps?
Brad likes tossing acronyms out, they make him look all technical and
stuff.
>
>As for the rest, you're still pretending that the technology existed
>to fake the Moon Landing footage, when it didn't. Among other things,
>like prete4nding that the lunar rocks brought back could be either
>found on Earth, or manufactored so well as to be able to fool dozens,
>if not hundrreds of geologists. IOW, you have no clue what you're
>babbling about.
>
>Oh, and the rated payload of Apollo 8 was just under 40 tones, so your
>delusional accusations are more than a little off.
>
>>
>>There is still no such viable fly-by-rocket lander that has any kind
>>of worthy R&D as documented proof of its capability.
>
>Only in your muddled opinion, since men walked on the moon several
>times. Your unsupported onager assertion is REjected.
Translation from Brad-Speak: he saw the old movies of Neil Armstrong
ejecting from the Flying Bedsprings, therefore it isn't possible to
land any rocket-powered craft without crashing. He neglects to mention
the hundreds of times Armstrong and the other LM pilots landed the
craft safely during training.
>
>>
>>Venus was clearly above the moon's physically dark horizon, and at
>>times viewed as though situated right next to Earth, yet not one naked/
>>unfiltered Kodak moment (from EVAs or from orbit) has any such Venus
>>or any other than Earth planet to behold.
>
>Thanks for continuing to prove that you know little or nothing about
>photography.
Brad should be able to explain why the photographs and motion pictures
of Ed White's 1965 Gemini spacewalk (in Earth orbit) do not have
visible stars or planets (except for Earth itself, of course).
>
>>
>>According to the regular laws of physics and via the best available
>>science, the moon is somewhat salty, as well as being naked and thus
>>unavoidably anticathode saturated in gamma and X-rays. Go figure
>>otherwise.
>
>OOOOooh, more "Teh moon is deadly" babble! Too bad that yo9u haven't
>clue one on the subject matter.
He needs a way to boost his tired, tread-bare moon hoax claims, so he
distorts some facts he found somewhere into claims that humans would
die within 6 seconds of getting anywhere near the Moon.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >as well as taken from the best available science that's easily
>>> >replicated,
>>>
>>> Such as stars (and local planets such as Venus) not being
>>> photographable in high-light environments, such as on the surface of
>>> the moon?
>>
>>That's where yourself and other Zion Yids are liars,
>
>Bigotry noted, as Bratty's substitute for the science which he is
>unable to comprehend.
>
>>as in big time
>>liars without a speck of remorse (just like your having put Christ on
>>a stick). Of course you can always provide your supercomputer
>>generated worth of a 3D interactive orbital simulator any time you
>>like.
>
>No "supercomputers" back in the late 60s/early 70s, Guthball.
And no need for one in any event; no one is claiming Venus wasn't
visible from the Lunar surface -- only that it could not be captured in
photographs because the exposure settings did not let enough light into
the cameras.
Also, why would anyone spend a bazillion dollars to build a 300-ft+
tower bomb to travel 250,000 thousand miles in order to land on the
pristine, unexplored Moon, just to take pictures of Venus? I don't get
it.
Amusing yes, but he needs some new ones at this point. His material is
getting stale.
Hey, Brad, demonstrate a single lie I've put into this post. I dare
you.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
COOSN-266-06-39716
Willie...@gmail.com
More information on this hypthetical moonship.
600,000 lbs lift-off weight
360,000 lbs propellant
180,000 lbs lox
180,000 lbs lh
30,000 lbs booster
150,000 lbs sustainer
150,000 lbs payload weight
90,000 lbs structural weight
45,000 lbs of this is the gas core nuclear fission engine
900,000 lbs thrust at lift off
(2x 300,000 lbs - lox/lh liquid fuele booster0
(1x 300,000 lbs - lh fueled gas core fission rocket)
Chemical booster 450 sec Isp
Gas core nuclear susteainer 4,000 sec Isp
Top speed;
Booster: Vf = 450*9.82*LN(600,000/(600000-210000))
=1,910 m/sec (4,256 mph)
Sustainer Vf = 4000*9.82*LN(390,000/(390,000-150,000))
= 19,070 m/sec (45,642 mph)
The volume of hydrogen is 1,168 cubic meters (41,277 cf)
The volume of oxygen is 68 cubic meter (2,386 cf)
total propellant volume is 1,236 cubic meters (43,663 cf)
This is about the same volume as the S-II second stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-II
So, one can imagine a reduced oxygen tank size for the SII, and
increasing the hydrogen tank by moving the bulkhead between the two -
which achieves the 405,000 lb mass with the appropriate mass ratios.
Remove the centrally located J2 and add the 45,000 lb weight and
300,000 lb thrust gas core nuclear sustainer in its place. Drop 2 of
the 4 remaining J2 engines, keep 2 J2s at boosters at lift off from
Earth. Add 4 RL10S clusters (8 total) at 2 of the of old J2 locations
for take off landing and meneuvering around the moon.
The SIVB is configured for a moonbase module.
Apollo hardware could also be added atop the SIVB - evenincluding a
LEM/CSM combination to retrun to Earth after deployment of the SIVB on
the lunar surface.
Deploying the SIVB atop the SII could occur in a number of ways. One
would be to leave the SII in place and use its wet volume and power
reactor to expand the habitable volume. Anotehr would be to build a
separate landing stage for the SIVB and leave it in place, letting the
gas core component do a lunar free return and fly back to Earth. The
most satisfying approach to me is to equip the SII with a simple
loading crane to erect on the lunar surface and then to lift the SIVB
out of its position atop the SII and put it in place near the landing
point. Apollo 14 landing next to the Surveyor spacecraft on the moon
shows that even in Apollo days you could land pretty accurately on the
moon. With a radio transponder the SII-GC version could land at the
same point precisely each time. So, the crane could be erected after
each landing to remove an additional payload bay. After a half dozen
flights a base would be established and the personnel carrier version
of the SIVB large enough to carry a crew of 30 - or 10 plus supplies
- for crew rotations - would maintain the base after it was
completed.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/winturnv.htm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8947&start=1
The Model 979 flyback booster for the Saturn SIC - the first stage,of
the Saturn V - could easily be adapted for the SII second stage. A
large nose cone with cargo doors would carry the SIVB inside - and
house a modified Apollo Command Module for a crew of 3 at the tip. The
CM could be equipped with a service module, which could eject in an
emergency - and take the crew back to Earth.
.
chatnoir
You wound not want to give the Naked Apes that have these and other
ideas in the minds any further help!
Revision
> Richard C. Hoagland is the same nutter who brought you the infamous
> Face On Mars
I read a few of the Dr. Beter essays.... gets me how someone has
credentials like that and then goes off the wagon.
But yeah, Hoagland. Really don't like the guy. Too earnest. Immature.
It would take a trained head doctor to really figure it out in detail,
but the dude is not a nice person. Ditto Hoagland's wife. A similar
fraud. Calls herself Doctor because she took a two week course in the
Cayman Islands on how to make herb tea. Good god. I mean the pathology
of each is so obvious.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Martin
>
>
> After Apollo 17, the Apollo program became
> COMPLETELY MILITARY, and the launches were moved to the
> Island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian
> Ocean. This is the REAL reason why all of the native
> inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forced off the Island
> paradise and moved to a hellish place on the mainland,
> so there would be NO civilian witnesses to the launches.
You've got the wrong message dumbass! Now get on message and quit trying
to usurp the Real Conspiracy Theorists or we'll have to terminate you.
As you're well aware, the official line is that noone has ever set foot
on the moon due to the radiation belts giving anyone passing through
them radiation sickness.
Get with the program or pay the consequences.
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
Well, I suppose that's better, in his opinion, than actually
_learning_ something.
>>
>>As for the rest, you're still pretending that the technology existed
>>to fake the Moon Landing footage, when it didn't. Among other things,
>>like prete4nding that the lunar rocks brought back could be either
>>found on Earth, or manufactored so well as to be able to fool dozens,
>>if not hundrreds of geologists. IOW, you have no clue what you're
>>babbling about.
>>
>>Oh, and the rated payload of Apollo 8 was just under 40 tones, so your
>>delusional accusations are more than a little off.
>>
>>>
>>>There is still no such viable fly-by-rocket lander that has any kind
>>>of worthy R&D as documented proof of its capability.
>>
>>Only in your muddled opinion, since men walked on the moon several
>>times. Your unsupported onager assertion is REjected.
>
>Translation from Brad-Speak: he saw the old movies of Neil Armstrong
>ejecting from the Flying Bedsprings, therefore it isn't possible to
>land any rocket-powered craft without crashing. He neglects to mention
>the hundreds of times Armstrong and the other LM pilots landed the
>craft safely during training.
As I say elsewhere: he's 'cherry-picking' stuff that agrees with his
preconceived conclusion, rather than assessing the entire volume of
data.
>>
>>>
>>>Venus was clearly above the moon's physically dark horizon, and at
>>>times viewed as though situated right next to Earth, yet not one naked/
>>>unfiltered Kodak moment (from EVAs or from orbit) has any such Venus
>>>or any other than Earth planet to behold.
>>
>>Thanks for continuing to prove that you know little or nothing about
>>photography.
>
>Brad should be able to explain why the photographs and motion pictures
>of Ed White's 1965 Gemini spacewalk (in Earth orbit) do not have
>visible stars or planets (except for Earth itself, of course).
My guess is that he would k'lame that those pix are also "faked".
>>
>>>
>>>According to the regular laws of physics and via the best available
>>>science, the moon is somewhat salty, as well as being naked and thus
>>>unavoidably anticathode saturated in gamma and X-rays. Go figure
>>>otherwise.
>>
>>OOOOooh, more "Teh moon is deadly" babble! Too bad that yo9u haven't
>>clue one on the subject matter.
>
>He needs a way to boost his tired, tread-bare moon hoax claims, so he
>distorts some facts he found somewhere into claims that humans would
>die within 6 seconds of getting anywhere near the Moon.
Well, he's got to bolster a limp, threadbare argument, so what do you
expect?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >as well as taken from the best available science that's easily
>>>> >replicated,
>>>>
>>>> Such as stars (and local planets such as Venus) not being
>>>> photographable in high-light environments, such as on the surface of
>>>> the moon?
>>>
>>>That's where yourself and other Zion Yids are liars,
>>
>>Bigotry noted, as Bratty's substitute for the science which he is
>>unable to comprehend.
>>
>>>as in big time
>>>liars without a speck of remorse (just like your having put Christ on
>>>a stick). Of course you can always provide your supercomputer
>>>generated worth of a 3D interactive orbital simulator any time you
>>>like.
>>
>>No "supercomputers" back in the late 60s/early 70s, Guthball.
>
>And no need for one in any event; no one is claiming Venus wasn't
>visible from the Lunar surface -- only that it could not be captured in
>photographs because the exposure settings did not let enough light into
>the cameras.
>
>Also, why would anyone spend a bazillion dollars to build a 300-ft+
>tower bomb to travel 250,000 thousand miles in order to land on the
>pristine, unexplored Moon, just to take pictures of Venus? I don't get
>it.
They[itctIat] should have "known" (40 years beforehand) that thousands
of pictures, hours of motion pictures, many pounds of rocks & soil
samples, plus the unfakable directionality of their transmissions from
the moon would not be enough - only pictures of Venus would prove that
they were on the moon.
(Bs pbhefr, vs gurl unq qbar fb gru Thguonyy, rg nyvn, jbhyq whfg
qernz hc nabgure negvsvpvny qrznaq, evtug?)
It's not like he either bright or creative - cut him some slack, hey?
>
>Hey, Brad, demonstrate a single lie I've put into this post. I dare
>you.
I predict he'll tap the Great Retuftor for that project.
BradGuth
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:06:25 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 19, 12:23 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:46:57 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 18, 11:00 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:53:45 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Not a human soul has ever walked on the moon, at least not of anyone
> >> >> >from Earth.
>
> >> >> Hi, Brad - you're still frantically denying the facts, i see.
>
> >> >At least my facts are based entirely upon the regular laws of physics,
>
> >> The regular laws of physics placed men on the moon, Brad. What you
> >> base your "moon hoax" babble upon is based in you delusions and
> >> misunderstanding of science - especially to 'cherry picking' the tiny
> >> fraction of stuff that you believe 'supports' your conclusion, and
> >> ignoring the _vast_ majority that disproves your conclusions -
> >> definite kooksign on your part.
>
> >A 60:1 ratio of GLOW/payload rocket that started off at nearly 30%
> >inert did not get nearly 50 tonnes into orbiting our moon within 3
> >days, along with fuel and payload to spare. Perhaps at best half that
> >that amount of payload was doable.
>
> "GLOW", Guthball? Who made up that acronym? You, perhaps?
Try NASA.
>
> As for the rest, you're still pretending that the technology existed
> to fake the Moon Landing footage, when it didn't. Among other things,
> like prete4nding that the lunar rocks brought back could be either
> found on Earth, or manufactored so well as to be able to fool dozens,
> if not hundrreds of geologists. IOW, you have no clue what you're
> babbling about.
>
> Oh, and the rated payload of Apollo 8 was just under 40 tones, so your
> delusional accusations are more than a little off.
Wasn't ever talking about Apollo 8, only about those missions claiming
to have so quickly gotten to, landed and walked upon our moon, then
safely having returned home without so much as a scratch or any
measurable loss of DNA.
Never once said there were, but there were in fact human
supercomputers via those semitic Third Reich wizards.
>
> >> >such as those fully interactive 3D orbital simulators seem
> >> >to be telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to the
> >> >actual location of Venus that's clearly situated above the moon's
> >> >physically dark horizon, as well as at times appearing as though near
> >> >enough to Earth for a nifty side-by-side Kodak moment, as should have
> >> >been rather easily obtained within the same unfiltered FOV.
>
> >> Tsk, you still haven't figured out lighting, exposure, and sutter
> >> speed.
>
> >As I'd said before; put up or shut up. Besides loads of posted images
> >that more than proves you're a born-again liar,
>
> Those "loads" are a drop in the bucket compared to the supporting
> evidence that men (as a matter of fact, as opposed to your delusions)
> walked on the moon.
>
> >why not give us your
> >best 3D interactive orbital simulator's hour by hour look-see as from
> >being situated upon our moon?
>
> Why don't you build a case for us[tinu] to prove your point based on
> _Positive_ evidence? Why not, because you _can't_. Despite the fact
> that hundreds of people would have _had_ to be "in on it" to achieve
> your k'lames, 'Apollo hoax' ko0ks like you _cannot_ build a positive
> case, because you have _no_ positive evidence, just lame "I (as a
> non-expert, and an idiot) believe I found 'flaws'!" arguements.
In other words, you've still got nothing.
>
> >> >Therefore, why are you and others of your silly faith-based kind being
> >> >such born-again liars?
>
> >> Typical Guthball - when he's cornered bby facts, all he's got left is
> >> ad hominems.
>
> >You mean typical truth is what's rocking your good ship LOLLIPOP (aka
> >USS LIBERTY).
>
> No, I have no problem at all with truth, it's just that I find your
> non-truthful delusions amusing, Guthbigot.
So, the regular lays of physics and the best available science is
still "non-truthful delusions"? (isn't that a Yiddish thing?)
APOLLO HOAX !!!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/ef033169347f02b3/c64af0242a3f215e#c64af0242a3f215e
There's a whole lot more to our moon landing hoax than being told by
those semitic insiders in the know.
Add in the honest all-inclusive (birth to grave) 10X factor of
whatever our government actually spends, as then you'll soon enough
realize how many of those perpetrated cold-war jobs related to
everything NASA/Apollo are at risk, and most of those folks would
obviously kill in order to keep those nifty jobs and vast benefits.
Not only is the cat but the dog as well as most everything else has
gotten out of the bag, and the likes of "David Groves" doesn't even
take into account the unusually missing Venus, that which is
technically impossible if actually orbiting and/or taking those EVAs
upon our salty old naked moon that's also unavoidably saturated in
gamma and X-rays. There's also that pesky matter of artificial xenon
lamp spectrum worth of their modified guano island's simulated
illumination.
Others of NASA's all-knowing rusemaster kind obviously have nothing of
honest physics or science to contribute about our hocus-pocus NASA/
Apollo missions. Why is it that such silly folks can't even tell us
where the heck that extremely vibrant Venus was hiding as of each and
every hour of those supposed EVAs, and apparently as being so well
hidden from any orbital view as well?
These folks don't even need a supercomputer for sharing the truth from
that 3D interactive orbital simulator, although we the public seem to
own dozens of such spendy supercomputers, as well as having paid for
all the necessary simulation software several times over. Go right
ahead and place yourself as though situated on that physically dark
moon and looking at the horizon, and then tell the rest of us village
idiots whatever you might see of Venus, and even of Earth and Venus as
easily being within the same FOV(frame of view).
Orbital simulators don't lie, or do they?
Art Deco
Hoagie does have an award named in his honor -- the alt.fan.art-bell
Angstrom Award and Medal for Advances in Hyperdelusional Physics (in
honor of Richard CEEE Hoagland).
Art Deco
The Apollo astronauts who walked and drove across the lunar surface are
now almost 80 years old, Brad. So much for that silly claim.
BradGuth
In addition to those nasty badlands of the 70,000 km magnetosphere,
it's actually the saturated gamma and X-rays of the naked/anticathode
moon itself that's not exactly human DNA or Kodak film friendly.
- Brad Guth -
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
National Aeronautics & Space Administration. Since you didn't make it
up, "NASA" is easy to define. Your turn : BGIAVLK.
>
>>
>> As for the rest, you're still pretending that the technology existed
>> to fake the Moon Landing footage, when it didn't. Among other things,
>> like prete4nding that the lunar rocks brought back could be either
>> found on Earth, or manufactored so well as to be able to fool dozens,
>> if not hundrreds of geologists. IOW, you have no clue what you're
>> babbling about.
>>
>> Oh, and the rated payload of Apollo 8 was just under 40 tones, so your
>> delusional accusations are more than a little off.
>
>Wasn't ever talking about Apollo 8, only about those missions claiming
>to have so quickly gotten to, landed and walked upon our moon, then
>safely having returned home without so much as a scratch or any
>measurable loss of DNA.
Apollo 8 orbited the moon, Guthball - and returned safely. And DNA
wasn't terribly "measurable", back in the early 70s. HTH.
Uh-huh. Suuuuure there were, Guthball.
But your "3D interactive orbital simulator" delusions still don't
prove reality wrong.
>
>>
>> >> >such as those fully interactive 3D orbital simulators seem
>> >> >to be telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to the
>> >> >actual location of Venus that's clearly situated above the moon's
>> >> >physically dark horizon, as well as at times appearing as though near
>> >> >enough to Earth for a nifty side-by-side Kodak moment, as should have
>> >> >been rather easily obtained within the same unfiltered FOV.
>>
>> >> Tsk, you still haven't figured out lighting, exposure, and sutter
>> >> speed.
>>
>> >As I'd said before; put up or shut up. Besides loads of posted images
>> >that more than proves you're a born-again liar,
>>
>> Those "loads" are a drop in the bucket compared to the supporting
>> evidence that men (as a matter of fact, as opposed to your delusions)
>> walked on the moon.
>>
>> >why not give us your
>> >best 3D interactive orbital simulator's hour by hour look-see as from
>> >being situated upon our moon?
>>
>> Why don't you build a case for us[tinu] to prove your point based on
>> _Positive_ evidence? Why not, because you _can't_. Despite the fact
>> that hundreds of people would have _had_ to be "in on it" to achieve
>> your k'lames, 'Apollo hoax' ko0ks like you _cannot_ build a positive
>> case, because you have _no_ positive evidence, just lame "I (as a
>> non-expert, and an idiot) believe I found 'flaws'!" arguements.
>
>In other words, you've still got nothing.
Projection noted.
>
>
>>
>> >> >Therefore, why are you and others of your silly faith-based kind being
>> >> >such born-again liars?
>>
>> >> Typical Guthball - when he's cornered bby facts, all he's got left is
>> >> ad hominems.
>>
>> >You mean typical truth is what's rocking your good ship LOLLIPOP (aka
>> >USS LIBERTY).
>>
>> No, I have no problem at all with truth, it's just that I find your
>> non-truthful delusions amusing, Guthbigot.
>
>So, the regular lays of physics and the best available science is
>still "non-truthful delusions"? (isn't that a Yiddish thing?)
The regular laws a physics prove you wrong all the time, Bratty. The
regular laws of physics (as opposed to the Guthball delusions of
physics) placed men on the moon, several times.
>
>APOLLO HOAX !!!
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
The "hoax" being perpetrated is by non-scientists such as yourself.
>
>There's a whole lot more to our moon landing hoax than being told by
>those semitic insiders in the know.
You hatred of teh Jooooz is well-know, bigot.
Nice word salad. Meaningless, but nice.
>
>Orbital simulators don't lie, or do they?
When you're the one interpreting them, they do.
>
>Should I suggest taking a good look-see at missions A-11, A-14 and
>A-16 to start off with? (where's Venus?)
Venus is in orbit around the Sun, Guthball.
BradGuth
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:29:46 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You'd maks a good semitic Third Reich w/o boot camp, because you're
over qualified as is.
BTW, as of A-11, A-14 and A-16, where's Venus?
- Brad Guth -
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
>> -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>You'd maks a good semitic Third Reich w/o boot camp, because you're
>over qualified as is.
Poor Guthball. I see that you still can't pass a Turing test.
>
>BTW, as of A-11, A-14 and A-16, where's Venus?
Orbiting the Sun, of course.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425
#14 People ruining UseNet lits
#9 Top Assholes on the Net lits
#11 Most hated Usenetizens of all time lits
#11 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
Matt Wiser
Orbiting the sun? Now THAT's a great answer to the Guthball's lunacy. Still, why is anyone
still responding to this refugee from a lunatic asylum? He really belongs in a) a padded cell,
b) a straightjacket, with c) appropriate medications, and d) strict medical supervision and
help. Notice he never provides any link to any scientist anywhere who supports his lunacy,
namely because there isn't any such support. Typical conspiro-nut: picks and chooses those
bits of information that support his delusions, and ignores what contradicts his precious
"theory" (more like delusions). And when somebody points out his defects (many) he resorts
to shreiking insults and personal attacks, since to admit he's wrong on one thing means he's
wrong on all of his delusions. The guys in the white coats and bearing a large butterfly net
really need to pay this lunatic a visit, and take him where needed psych help is available.
BradGuth
>
> The Model 979 flyback booster for the Saturn SIC - the first stage,of
> the Saturn V - could easily be adapted for the SII second stage. A
> large nose cone with cargo doors would carry the SIVB inside - and
> house a modified Apollo Command Module for a crew of 3 at the tip. The
> CM could be equipped with a service module, which could eject in an
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What! no usenet takers. Aren't you the lest bit suprised?
Obviously your atomic thrusted craft isn't the lest bit based upon
anything Saturn V that used a great many mirrors along with all of
that smoke for getting nearly 50 tonnes into orbiting our moon within
only 3 days, along with fuel and payload to spare. Not bad for a mere
60:1 ratio of rocket per payload that started off at nearly 30% inert
GLOW.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:36:28 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >over qualified as is.
>
> Poor Guthball. I see that you still can't pass a Turing test.
??? a "Turing test" ???
>
> >BTW, as of A-11, A-14 and A-16, where's Venus?
>
> Orbiting the Sun, of course.
Now that's exactly what a certified Zion rusemaster would have to
say.
- Brad Guth -
Quadibloc
> Way back in 1967 when I was attending the U.S. Army
> Signal School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, I vaguely
> remember seeing RECRUITING brochures in a barracks
> lounge and gameroom promoting a MILITARY space program
> and showing an illustration of a MILITARY astronaut
> riding inside an orbiting space capsule.
This is clearly a lie. Humans never walked the Earth at the same time
as DynaSoars, it's just a creationist hoax.
>
> After Apollo 17, the Apollo program became
> COMPLETELY MILITARY, and the launches were moved to the
> Island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian
> Ocean.
They were obviously trying to find the "blue area" of the Moon, so
they could swipe the Ultimate Annihilator!
John Savard
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
>On Oct 25, 11:58 pm, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:36:28 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >You'd make a good semitic Third Reich w/o boot camp, because you're
>> >over qualified as is.
>>
>> Poor Guthball. I see that you still can't pass a Turing test.
>
>??? a "Turing test" ???
Try to become educated, Guthball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
>
>>
>> >BTW, as of A-11, A-14 and A-16, where's Venus?
>>
>> Orbiting the Sun, of course.
>
>Now that's exactly what a certified Zion rusemaster would have to
>say.
Now that's exactly what a certified blabbering ko0kboi would have to
say.
BradGuth
system, besides the sun itself or perhaps the planet Mercury, is our
moon.
Besides the naked anticathode worth of those unavoidable cosmic, solar
plus local gamma and X-rays, whereas neutrino influx in such open
space can also be greater to deal with, unless there's a substantial
amount of artificial mass or natural shielding (such as being
underground or safely within the 256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS).
John Schilling:
"What is a problem in space, are charged particles. High-energy
charged
particles in the form of cosmic rays, and lower-energy charged
particles
produced by solar storms and trapped in planetary magnetospheres.
These
are not gamma rays, not neutrinos, and not magnetic field
disturbances.
They are something completely different."
"I think as far as the space radiation is concerned, hard drives are
less likely to have a problem than the competing solid-state memory
technologies, that if a hard drive suffers a radiation-induced
failure
it would most likely be due to radiation effects on the solid-state
electronics of the drive controller rather than the disk itself."
John Schilling wrote:
> There are not enough gamma rays in space to matter.
Mark Adler wrote:
"Hopefully it stays that way. If one of these things
http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/nnp/grbphys.html ever goes off nearby,
pointed even a little in our direction, we'd be in deep shit."
Of course our naked and somewhat salty old moon itself is but a
physical cosmic morgue (best ever magnetosphere replacement), of
having been rather extremely electrostatic charged and thus directly
collecting upon everything that it runs into or even passes nearby, as
its significant gravity and lack of atmosphere allows most of
everything to get rather nicely collected onto and obviously into
reacting with that extremely dusty surface without such influx having
been in any way moderated or modified by way of what an Earth like
magnetosphere or that of what our atmosphere has to offer, which
explains why that moon of ours is continually saturated in local and
secondary gamma plus those pesky X-rays by day. Even the moon's L1 is
not all that human DNA friendly, because there's simply insufficient
natural mass between your frail DNA and that naked anticathode worthy
moon, as well as for your being nearly fully solar exposed and
unavoidably getting the full secondary/recoil worth of the moon's IR
albedo, meaning that in addition to having to incorporate a great deal
of physical shielding, that a pair of artificial thermal shades are
always going to be required.
So, those other interesting notions of creating a terrestrial robust
100 mile tall structure that'll get our frail human DNA and loads of
science related stuff into the realm of LEO without our having to
actually orbit our badly poluted planet that's going WWIII postal over
global fossil and yellowcake energy reserves, might not be such a bad
idea, as well as being a whole lot cheaper than our trying to
exterminate all of those nice Muslims that are apparently sitting on
our oil.
-
BTW, is there actual NASA/Apollo mission/EVA film to behold, or isn't
there?
How much if any original NASA/Apollo EVA related film is ever going to
publicly exist, as thus far not even Ken Johnston has been given that
much to work with. However, of what Ken has to offer might actually
provide a little of something that'll included Venus within a given
FOV that'll also included our physically dark moon, as being of the
natural solar and earthshine illuminated lunar surface and otherwise
of those absolutely vibrant (somewhat violet color skewed) Venus
clouds, as can only have been obtained from lunar orbit. There's no
question or argument from myself that at least via robotically we
actually should have multiples of those kinds of orbital obtained
images to work with, along with those 10X telephoto closeups as
originally recorded onto Kodak's large format and high resolution spy-
film, that were subsequently processed and digital scanned on the fly,
of best sharing in whatever that physically dark, dusty and nasty
lunar anticathode surface had to offer.
Hoagland Attacks JimO over Apollo Coverup!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/6aa5088518b01239
"" JPL's ultimate decision to fire Dr. Johnston was initiated,
according to
Ferrari's phone call, "by an initial inquiry to JPL from James Oberg,
of NBC
News." Oberg is a former NASA contractor and a colleague of
Johnston's at
NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center during the Apollo Program in the
1970's.
According to Ferrari, Oberg, in his e-mails, raised "serious issues
regarding Johnston's credentials" and his "crackpot accusations"
against the
agency. Oberg's NASA contractor history begs ethical questions
regarding his
efforts to get Johnston terminated, based on Johnston's testimony in
"Dark
Mission" and intention to present further "missing" Apollo images and
data
at the National Press Club. ""
"Dr. Johnston will present documentation of his claims, credentials
and key
role at NASA October 30th."
You kind and supposedly all-knowing folks recall what happened to that
certain NASA safety engineer and his entire family, don't you?
Not only did they manage to arrange that rather unfortunate encounter
with a locomotive, but also having scrubbed out his entire safety
report, as well as that of his field office and most of everything
else got scrubbed, almost like he never existed.
Perhaps something similar as orchestrated by DHS/NSA/CIA~NASA (aka MIB
spooks) will happen to Dr. Ken Johnston. (does Ken Johnston have a
reliable posse that's packing heat?)
- Brad Guth -
BDK
brad...@gmail.com says...
I think the only one "certified" here is you Brad.
A certified whack job.
BDK
BradGuth
> In article <1193438871.790768.74...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> bradg...@gmail.com says...
Why thank you very much.
Lord all-knowing Google/NOVA most certainly has its own fair share of
evil potential, although nothing all that special compared to this
anti-think-tank of such a naysay usenet cesspool of spooks, moles and
rusemasters from hell.
Is there perchance actual NASA/Apollo mission/EVA film to behold, or
isn't there?
How much if any original NASA/Apollo EVA related film is ever going to
publicly exist, as thus far not even NASA's own Ken Johnston has been
given that much to work with other than secondary or third generation
film. However, of what Ken has to offer might actually provide a
little of something that'll included Venus within a given FOV that'll
also included our physically dark moon, as being of the natural solar
and earthshine illuminated lunar surface and otherwise of those
absolutely vibrant (somewhat violet color skewed) Venus clouds, as can
only have been obtained from lunar orbit. There's no question or
argument from myself that at least via robotically we actually should
have multiples of those kinds of orbital obtained images to work with,
along with those 10X telephoto closeups as originally recorded onto
Kodak's large format and high resolution spy-film, that were
BradGuth
- Brad Guth -
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
>Most likely worse place for human DNA to survive within the solar
>system, besides the sun itself or perhaps the planet Mercury, is our
>moon.
>
>Besides the naked anticathode worth of those unavoidable cosmic, solar
>plus local gamma and X-rays, whereas neutrino influx in such open
>space can also be greater to deal with, unless there's a substantial
>amount of artificial mass or natural shielding (such as being
>underground or safely within the 256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS).
>
>John Schilling:
"What is a problem in space, are charged particles. High-energy
charged
particles in the form of cosmic rays, and lower-energy charged
particles
produced by solar storms and trapped in planetary magnetospheres.
These
are not gamma rays, not neutrinos, and not magnetic field
disturbances.
They are something completely different.
And while they are a danger, they are a danger that can be measured,
quantified, planned for, and dealt with. **They do not prevent us from
sending people, or electronics, into deep space**. In particular, they
do not prevent us from sending hard drives into deep space. In fact,
I think as far as the space radiation is concerned, hard drives are
less likely to have a problem than the competing solid-state memory
technologies, that if a hard drive suffers a radiation-induced failure
it would most likely be due to radiation effects on the solid-state
electronics of the drive controller rather than the disk itself."
<Guthballs omissions corrected.>
Gee, that's some creative editing you do there, Guthball. You like to
lie by leaving out stuff that undermines your preconceived notions,
don't you?
Heh, you get less coherent with every poast, Bratty. But you forgot
to rant about the Jooooz in this poast - you're slipping.
BradGuth
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:09:33 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
You folks allow Dick Cheney, GW Bush and their Zion puppeteers to get
as creative as they want, so what's the difference?
BTW, there's nothing about our anticathode moon that's sturated in
gamma and X-rays that's a lie. Besides, where's Venus?
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
I forgot to mention that computer hard drives don't have frail DNA to
worry about rejecting their own kind once damaged. I think there's a
slight difference between such inert hard drives and human DNA.
- Brad Guth -
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
I don't quote any of them, Guthliar. More to the point, I don't quote
them and _cut out the inconvenient stuff_, the way that you do.
>
>BTW, there's nothing about our anticathode moon that's sturated in
>gamma and X-rays that's a lie.
The only liar here, is you, ko0kboi. It's pathetic that you have to
lie to lamely perpetuate your delusion that "men didn't walk on the
moon", et alia, and you can't even post your lies coherently, at that.
>Besides, where's Venus?
Still orbitting the Sun. HTH.
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
>On Oct 27, 9:04 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since you call DNA "frail", it's clear that you not only don't
understand the difference, you also don't understand the subjects.
HTH.
BradGuth
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 04:10:51 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
There's a numerical limit as to how many times human DNA can be
repaired or rather replaced, as it's also why we naturally grow old
and die.
Got that NASA/Apollo look-see at Venus yet? (didn't think so)
What's the matter with all of that nifty Kodak film, as to why if
optically unfiltered wasn't there any hint of secondary/recoil bluish
or otherwise of raw solar violet saturation as a color tint (similar
to what Selene's HDTV is having to deal with), much less any speck
worth of EVA gamma or X-rays recorded?
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
>
> The only liar here, is you, ko0kboi. It's pathetic that you have to
> lie to lamely perpetuate your delusion that "men didn't walk on the
> moon", et alia, and you can't even post your lies coherently, at that.
No Third Reich boot camp for you, as being already an over-qualified
Yid as is.
- Brad Guth -
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
So?
>
>Got that NASA/Apollo look-see at Venus yet? (didn't think so)
Still demaning that someone travells back in time to one of the Apollo
landing to remind the men one the moon to take a whole bunch of
pictures just for you?
>
>What's the matter with all of that nifty Kodak film, as to why if
>optically unfiltered wasn't there any hint of secondary/recoil bluish
>or otherwise of raw solar violet saturation as a color tint (similar
>to what Selene's HDTV is having to deal with), much less any speck
>worth of EVA gamma or X-rays recorded?
Tsk, why should I bother explaining to you, Guthball? You'll never
accept any truth that upsets your ko0ky little red wagon fantasies,
after all.
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
>On Oct 27, 10:22 pm, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
I'm still not Jewish, Guthliar. I see that you're still suffering
from the delusion that teh Nazis were "jewish", though. LOL!
BradGuth
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:09:33 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 27, 10:22 pm, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
>
> >> The only liar here, is you, ko0kboi. It's pathetic that you have to
> >> lie to lamely perpetuate your delusion that "men didn't walk on the
> >> moon", et alia, and you can't even post your lies coherently, at that.
>
> >No Third Reich boot camp for you, as being already an over-qualified
> >Yid as is.
>
> I'm still not Jewish, Guthliar. I see that you're still suffering
> from the delusion that teh Nazis were "jewish", though. LOL!
They sure as hell were not being puppeteered by Muslims, or as having
been educated by Muslims or even via Catholics. What's left to pick
from? (Mormons? scientology? Quakers? Buddhist monks? or perhaps
most likely pretend atheists like yourself?)
- Brad Guth -
BDK
brad...@gmail.com says...
What's a pretend atheist, Brad?
BDK
Jeff Findley
"BDK" <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2190012e2...@news.buckeye-express.com...
>> been educated by Muslims or even via Catholics. What's left to pick
>> from? (Mormons? scientology? Quakers? Buddhist monks? or perhaps
>> most likely pretend atheists like yourself?)
>> - Brad Guth -
>>
>>
>
> What's a pretend atheist, Brad?
Doesn't matter. He's a known net kook. Killfile him and put him out of our
misery.
Jeff
--
"When transportation is cheap, frequent, reliable, and flexible,
everything else becomes easier."
- Jon Goff
BradGuth
> In article <1193684898.610961.292...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> bradg...@gmail.com says...
I've told you and others of this before, which means that you're being
a pretend something or another, arnt you.
Most often in usenet it's a cloaked Zion Yid or some kind of born-
again whatever, that's pretending at being anything but what they
really are, so that as much fence jumping as possible can be
accommodated without their ever being associated with the mindset and
ulterior motives of those pesky Zions that still intend to accomplish
global domination at any cost, including the puppeteering of warlords
and putting their own kind on another stick if need be.
Too bad that most all of the good Yids have no apparent intentions of
ever policing their own bad kind, because otherwise we could have put
a lid on this kind of faith-based crapolla as of decades ago. Of
course that would only have saved millions upon millions of mostly
innocent lives, avoided countless billions upon billions in collateral
damage, and otherwise having altogether diverted trillions upon
trillions of our hard earned loot, plus having salvaged those wasted
decades that could have gone into constructive and most likely
productive investments, that with any kind of dumb luck would have by
now corrected and/or compensated for much of our badly failing
environment, along with having created multiple other kinds of liquid
synfuels that are clean and renewable to boot. Other than all of
that, not much would have changed.
Why don't you start off by telling us what BDK stands for.
- Brad Guth -
BDK
jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com says...
>
> "BDK" <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2190012e2...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > In article <1193684898.6...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > brad...@gmail.com says...
> >> They sure as hell were not being puppeteered by Muslims, or as having
> >> been educated by Muslims or even via Catholics. What's left to pick
> >> from? (Mormons? scientology? Quakers? Buddhist monks? or perhaps
> >> most likely pretend atheists like yourself?)
> >> - Brad Guth -
> >>
> >>
> >
> > What's a pretend atheist, Brad?
>
> Doesn't matter. He's a known net kook. Killfile him and put him out of our
> misery.
>
> Jeff
>
Nahh, I don't believe in killfiles. I love reading kookposts too much.
BDK
BDK
brad...@gmail.com says...
> On Oct 29, 11:40 am, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
> > In article <1193684898.610961.292...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > bradg...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 29, 8:59 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:09:33 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > >On Oct 27, 10:22 pm, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
> >
> > > > >> The only liar here, is you, ko0kboi. It's pathetic that you have to
> > > > >> lie to lamely perpetuate your delusion that "men didn't walk on the
> > > > >> moon", et alia, and you can't even post your lies coherently, at that.
> >
> > > > >No Third Reich boot camp for you, as being already an over-qualified
> > > > >Yid as is.
> >
> > > > I'm still not Jewish, Guthliar. I see that you're still suffering
> > > > from the delusion that teh Nazis were "jewish", though. LOL!
> >
> > > They sure as hell were not being puppeteered by Muslims, or as having
> > > been educated by Muslims or even via Catholics. What's left to pick
> > > from? (Mormons? scientology? Quakers? Buddhist monks? or perhaps
> > > most likely pretend atheists like yourself?)
> > > - Brad Guth -
> >
> > What's a pretend atheist, Brad?
> >
> > BDK
>
> I've told you and others of this before, which means that you're being
> a pretend something or another, arnt you.
Really Brad? Well, you'll have to excuse me if I can't remember an odd
loon raving here or there. I'm a real one, atheist, by the way.
>
> Most often in usenet it's a cloaked Zion Yid or some kind of born-
> again whatever, that's pretending at being anything but what they
> really are, so that as much fence jumping as possible can be
> accommodated without their ever being associated with the mindset and
> ulterior motives of those pesky Zions that still intend to accomplish
> global domination at any cost, including the puppeteering of warlords
> and putting their own kind on another stick if need be.
WTF is wrong with you? I wonder how does someone get so messed up? Rave
on..
>
> Too bad that most all of the good Yids have no apparent intentions of
> ever policing their own bad kind, because otherwise we could have put
> a lid on this kind of faith-based crapolla as of decades ago. Of
> course that would only have saved millions upon millions of mostly
> innocent lives, avoided countless billions upon billions in collateral
> damage, and otherwise having altogether diverted trillions upon
> trillions of our hard earned loot, plus having salvaged those wasted
> decades that could have gone into constructive and most likely
> productive investments, that with any kind of dumb luck would have by
> now corrected and/or compensated for much of our badly failing
> environment, along with having created multiple other kinds of liquid
> synfuels that are clean and renewable to boot. Other than all of
> that, not much would have changed.
Religion is a bad thing in many ways, but blaming the victim of
prejudice is a kook thing, I guess.
>
> Why don't you start off by telling us what BDK stands for.
> - Brad Guth -
>
Well, it's not my initials or anything like that. Why do you care what I
call myself? For all I know "Brad Guth" isn't your real name, it's some
name you are using to post your whacky ass bullshit. I don't really care
at all anyway, it means nothing. Like your loony moon postings.
BDK Bringing Da Knowledge?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> Nahh, I don't believe in killfiles. I love reading kookposts too much.
Honestly, like you, I don't do killfiles. So keep reading, but do us a
favor, don't respond to the kooks (at least over here in sci.cpace.history
or policy). Thanks.
>
> BDK
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
BradGuth
> In article <1193701250.750162.158...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
You mean that you'll jump any old fence, as long as you land on the
winning side each time. Isn't that exactly what warlords pretty much
count on?
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
<mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote:
> "BDK" <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.21906a876...@news.buckeye-express.com...
>
> > Nahh, I don't believe in killfiles. I love reading kookposts too much.
>
> Honestly, like you, I don't do killfiles. So keep reading, but do us a
> favor, don't respond to the kooks (at least over here in sci.cpace.history
> or policy). Thanks.
Now that's not being very nice, is it. I bet you'd allow Dick Cheney
or GW Bush to post whatever, and we all know as a matter of proven
fact that they're each born-again liars.
- Brad Guth -
BDK
brad...@gmail.com says...
What "fence" am I exactly supposed to be jumping?
What "side" am I supposed to be winning on?
What "warlords" are you talking about?
As usual, you are traveling to another galaxy..far far away.
BDK
BDK
mooregr_d...@greenms.com says...
> "BDK" <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21906a876...@news.buckeye-express.com...
>
> > Nahh, I don't believe in killfiles. I love reading kookposts too much.
>
> Honestly, like you, I don't do killfiles. So keep reading, but do us a
> favor, don't respond to the kooks (at least over here in sci.cpace.history
> or policy). Thanks.
>
>
> >
> > BDK
>
>
I'll try to remember..
BDK
BradGuth
> In article <1193719063.109392.135...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
You know, without your kind of infowar/infomercial spewing mindset the
likes of Hitler couldn't have gotten 10% as far as they did, and the
likes of Jesus Christ wouldn't as likely have been put on that stick.
Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy all over, as a brown-
nosed minion of a pretend-atheists should feel, because you folks that
claim to associate with none other always get to pick and choose the
winning side, including while on the fly if need be. When your Hitler
puppet was winning, you were big-time on his side, weren't you, even
if it meant those unavoidable mass exterminations of your own kind.
- Brad Guth -
thebo...@kc.rr.comnull
wrote:
"Pretend atheists"? That's rich, Guthball. Nice to see that you
can't eve keep your lies straight, though - can't you make up (what
passes for) your mind as to whether you're gonna call me "jewish" or
"pretend atheist"?
As for muslims, quite a few of them joined the Nazi SS, and "Mein
Kampf" has been rather popular amongst muslims, over the years. But
your delusion that the jew-oppressing Nazis were "controlled by the
jews" is amusing as hell.
BradGuth
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:08:18 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 29, 8:59 am, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:09:33 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 27, 10:22 pm, thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL wrote:
>
> >> >> The only liar here, is you, ko0kboi. It's pathetic that you have to
> >> >> lie to lamely perpetuate your delusion that "men didn't walk on the
> >> >> moon", et alia, and you can't even post your lies coherently, at that.
>
> >> >No Third Reich boot camp for you, as being already an over-qualified
> >> >Yid as is.
>
> >> I'm still not Jewish, Guthliar. I see that you're still suffering
> >> from the delusion that teh Nazis were "jewish", though. LOL!
>
> >They sure as hell were not being puppeteered by Muslims, or as having
> >been educated by Muslims or even via Catholics. What's left to pick
> >from? (Mormons? scientology? Quakers? Buddhist monks? or perhaps
> >most likely pretend atheists like yourself?)
>
> "Pretend atheists"? That's rich, Guthball. Nice to see that you
> can't eve keep your lies straight, though - can't you make up (what
> passes for) your mind as to whether you're gonna call me "jewish" or
> "pretend atheist"?
>
> As for muslims, quite a few of them joined the Nazi SS, and "Mein
> Kampf" has been rather popular amongst muslims, over the years. But
> your delusion that the jew-oppressing Nazis were "controlled by the
> jews" is amusing as hell.
I honestly didn't know that Muslims were so physics and science smart,
as well as in charge of so much private, corporate and gonernment
loot. Got any list of such impressive expertise and worldly Muslim
connections?
- Brad Guth -
BDK
brad...@gmail.com says...
LOL. Do you think Jesus on the stick was a good or bad thing? It was one
of the most important parts of the story, if you believe the story was
true in the first place. Since it was a recycled fable in the first
place, why would anyone believe it?
> Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy all over, as a brown-
> nosed minion of a pretend-atheists should feel, because you folks that
> claim to associate with none other always get to pick and choose the
> winning side, including while on the fly if need be.
Umm, uh, please translate to nonkook English please? If I'm pretending
to be an atheist, what religion do you think I really believe in?
A hint, the answer isn't Jew.
And what exactly are the "sides" fighting over? And who exactly are the
"sides"?
> When your Hitler puppet was winning, you were big-time on his side, weren't you, even
> if it meant those unavoidable mass exterminations of your own kind.
LOL, how old do you think I am? Even assuming I was alive in WWII,
Hitler was not someone I, or any sane person, would have been on the
same side of. You seem to think, as many of your fellow kooks do, that
anyone who isn't a jew hating loon is jewish themselves.
You really think Hitler was a puppet of the Jews?
BWHAHAHA! Wow, you are a kook's kook all right.
Not that there was any doubt, but I had no idea your kookery was so far
reaching.
Across the universe it would seem..
BDK
> - Brad Guth -
>
>
BradGuth
> SECRET MILITARY Apollo Missions AFTER Apollo 17
>
> TO: Richard C. Hoagland, and Mike Bara,
> Authors of "Dark Mission", 2007
>
> Way back in 1967 when I was attending the U.S. Army
> Signal School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, I vaguely
> remember seeing RECRUITING brochures in a barracks
> lounge and gameroom promoting a MILITARY space program
> and showing an illustration of a MILITARY astronaut
> riding inside an orbiting space capsule.
>
> After Apollo 17, the Apollo program became
> COMPLETELY MILITARY, and the launches were moved to the
> Island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian
> Ocean. This is the REAL reason why all of the native
> inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forced off the Island
> paradise and moved to a hellish place on the mainland,
> so there would be NO civilian witnesses to the launches.
>
> A primary purpose was to establish a beam weapons
> base in Copernicus Crater on the Moon. But on 9-27-
> 1977, just before it could become operational, the base
> was WIPED OUT by a Russian NUCLEAR-powered Cosmos
> Interceptor MANNED killer satellite in Earth orbit
> firing a NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM continuously whenever the
> base was in line of sight. Seehttp://www.etext.org/Politics/Beter.Audio.Letter/dbal26,
> Topic 1;
> andhttp://www.etext.org/Politics/Beter.Audio.Letter/dbal64
> orhttp://members.aol.com/rem460/beter64.txt
> orhttp://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/beter64.txt
>
> See also:
> http://members.aol.com/rem547/starwars.htmor
> http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/starwars.html.
>
> Robert E. McElwaine
> B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
> http://members.aol.com/rem547PLUS
> http://members.aol.com/rem460
> Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
> ALSOhttp://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/
>
> P.S.: PASS IT ON !
>
> "EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
> "The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
> "The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
> "OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
> "The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There may have been ETs once upon a time onboard our interstellar
migrating icy proto-moon, as that's technically doable for the likes
of our frail DNA having survived such an exposed trek.
This following press event should have been at least half over by now,
with at the very least some viable info along with one good NASA/
Apollo image that we've never before seen, for getting usenet posted.
I wonder what's taking so long?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/f326915ff445ad01/85a4f5446390fdcc#85a4f5446390fdcc
Interesting as to how GOOGLE/NOVA sci.space.history and any other
usenet group as hosting this topic was so quick to cut us off at the
pass, and just in time before this "NASA Cover-Ups Continue" of their
National Press Club thing got underway. I'm also getting summarily
traumatised by those extra butt-loads of their PC spermware/fuckware
that's trying every other dirty trick in their Old Testament book in
order to terminate my usenet access. Meanwhile, other usenet groups
without having this topic have been much less affected.
I have no personal doubts as to the possibility of there having been
"ancient artificial ruins and technology on the Moon," as discovered
by our orbiting Apollo robotics (thought not as via astronauts) and
perhaps as such having been legally classified under the 1958 Space
Act by NASA for over 40 years.
As to the demonstration and analyzing one of those supposed secret
technologies retrieved by the Apollo crews, relating to the artificial
control of gravity, is entirely proof positive of the ongoing ruse/
sting nature of this forever hocus-pocus fiasco, of the silly hype
worth of infowar/infomercial spewing that's at the very disinformation
root of most all things NASA and pretend-atheists at the same time.
There is simply no possible way that Ken or Richard are actually rogue
agents working outside of MI5/NSA/CIA~NASA orchestration or
moderation, and still alive to be sharing such supposed secrets (far
less crimes would get such folks put into our secret prisons and if
need be waterboarded to death without so much as any speck of due
process). I would believe that it does our NASA much good having such
a insider ruse/sting ongoing, because it only makes everything else
NASA look all that more believable. However, if this press event
brings further attention to our physically dark and somewhat salty old
moon that's always saturated in gamma, plus especially X-ray and
double IR nasty by day, then so be it.
BTW, you folks do recall what happened to that certain other original
NASA safety engineer whistleblower and of his entire family, don't
you?
Not only did those pesky MIB manage to arrange that rather unfortunate
encounter with a locomotive, but also having scrubbed out his entire
safety report, as well as that of his field office and most of
everything else got scrubbed off the face of Earth, almost like he
never existed.
Perhaps something similar will happen to Dr. Ken Johnston. (does Ken
Johnston have a reliable posse that's packing heat?) Or, is this
simply another pretend sort of whistleblower ruse thing that our
government and NASA are really good at pulling off. (at least if I
were NASA, it's exactly what kind of stealth damage-control that I'd
be doing right about now)
It seems as though anything that further supports the notions of our
NASA/Apollo astronauts actually walking moonsuit butt naked on that
moon of ours is good enough, even if it comes by way of other
rusemasters trying to pull off whatever can suggest that we'd walked
on that dusty old moon with our unfiltered optics and Kodak film that
was somehow immune to such raw UV or even UV secondary/recoil photons,
and otherwise simply couldn't notice or much less record Venus.
It'll be downright interesting as to a head count and ID of those
attending this Enterprise Mission news event. I wonder what sort of
back page of which obscure newspaper or publication it'll get reported
upon? (perhaps Play Boy or LeapFrog will run something in pop-up
format)
- Brad Guth -