Water on the moon or Mars, part-2
Brad Guth
Newsgroups: sci.space.science
From: "Seth" <king.s...@gmail.com>
Date: 20 Dec 2005 09:02:31 -0800
Local: Tues, Dec 20 2005 9:02 am
Subject: Water on the moon or Mars
I was just wondering about this. I remember checking the daily updates
with my office mates about the two rovers on Mars. We were really
disappointed by the amount or quailty of information that was coming
out of NASA from the rovers. We heard all about minerals that might
have been formed in a water solution way back when and this chemical
compound and that. With all of the scientific equipment on the rovers
has NASA said we have found a h20 molecule. It seems that hydrogen is
going to be very important for moon and mars exploration and i would
think that we would want hard evidence before we send a colony or
longer mission.
Thoughts??
----------------------------------
Dear Seth,
Over the past 40 years, it seems that we have established absolutely no
hard-science of water nor of raw ice, and much less upon the salty ice
that's within space or having been upon or within our moon. Oddly we
have established absolutely no such water or otherwise of whatever ice
related hard-science as for coexisting upon the surface of our moon or
even outside of ISS as it's being fully solar illuminated. Thus
anything of whatever science dealing with water or ice in space or upon
Mars and our moon remains as entirely taboo/nondisclosure. Go figure.
-
Brad Guth
jonathan
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135292633.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> As a topic offered by; Seth / Dec 20, 9:02 am
> Newsgroups: sci.space.science
> From: "Seth" <king.s...@gmail.com>
> Date: 20 Dec 2005 09:02:31 -0800
> Local: Tues, Dec 20 2005 9:02 am
> Subject: Water on the moon or Mars
>
> I was just wondering about this. I remember checking the daily updates
> with my office mates about the two rovers on Mars. We were really
> disappointed by the amount or quailty of information that was coming
> out of NASA from the rovers. We heard all about minerals that might
> have been formed in a water solution way back when and this chemical
> compound and that. With all of the scientific equipment on the rovers
> has NASA said we have found a h20 molecule. It seems that hydrogen is
> going to be very important for moon and mars exploration and i would
> think that we would want hard evidence before we send a colony or
> longer mission.
>
> Thoughts??
> ----------------------------------
>
Sure there's plenty of evidence of water on Mars. How about an
entire frozen ocean presently existing on the surface of Mars!
How about that !
Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005) 1741.pdf
EMBARGOED BY NATURE MAGAZINE UNTIL MID MARCH
EVIDENCE FROM HRSC MARS EXPRESS FOR A FROZEN SEA CLOSE
TO MARS' EQUATOR.
"We present evidence for a presently-existing frozen sea, with surface
pack-ice, at 5Ā°N, 150Ā°E, age ca. 5 million years. It measures ca. 800
Ć 900 km and averages ca. 45 m deep. It has probably been protected
from complete sublimation by ash and a sublimation lag of exposed
sediment."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1741.pdf
And for a detailed science review of the latest Opportunity
rover results read Dr Farmer. You should read his resume to
see this is the guy with all things Mars and astrobiology.
http://geology.asu.edu/~jfarmer/biography/pro.html
An astrobiological perspective on Meridiani Planum
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~kaufman/ppt/G436/G436_PDF_library/Knoll_05.pdf
And here's a nice lecture
Potential resources of Mars.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture19.pdf
And here's a few sinkholes found near Endurance crater at
Meridiani. Followed by a few others.
Sinkholes
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/093/1N136441478EFF1800P1829L0M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/088/1P135996874EFF1413P2285L7M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/072/1P134586308EFF0972P2416R7M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/074/1P134753252EFF10CGP2591R3M1
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/057/1N133253122EFF0800P1907R0M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/599/1P181358663ESF6247P2531L7M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/601/1N181537110EFF62AFP1600L0M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/601/1N181537008EFF62AFP1600L0M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/616/1N182873454EFF62N8P1600R0M1.HTML
Vents
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/642/1P185180567EFF6444P2416R1M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/592/1P180737473EFF6100P2590R5M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/591/1N180654561EFF6100P0183R0M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/592/1N180739894EFF6200P0720L0M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/592/1N180739996EFF6200P0720L0M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/642/1N185180088EFF6444P0725L0M1.HTML
And if there's any doubt concerning how long ago water/steam boiled to
the surface at Meridiani, this comparison should make it clear it's
very recent.
Compare the delicate erosion pattern in the ..../shadows/....of each pic.
Yellowstone mudpot
http://www.nps.gov/yell/slidefile/thermalfeatures/mudpots/midwaylower/Images/05402.jpg
Endurance mudpot
http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/opportunity/pancam/2004-07-16/1P143185259EFF3221P2397R1M1.JPG
On a planet that does this...
http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20041105a.html
jonathan
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135292633.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Newsgroups: sci.space.science
> From: "Seth" <king.s...@gmail.com>
> Date: 20 Dec 2005 09:02:31 -0800
> Local: Tues, Dec 20 2005 9:02 am
> Subject: Water on the moon or Mars
>
> I was just wondering about this. I remember checking the daily updates
> with my office mates about the two rovers on Mars. We were really
> disappointed by the amount or quailty of information that was coming
> out of NASA from the rovers. We heard all about minerals that might
> have been formed in a water solution way back when and this chemical
> compound and that. With all of the scientific equipment on the rovers
> has NASA said we have found a h20 molecule. It seems that hydrogen is
> going to be very important for moon and mars exploration and i would
> think that we would want hard evidence before we send a colony or
> longer mission.
>
> Thoughts??
> ----------------------------------
How about that !
>
jonathan
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135292633.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Newsgroups: sci.space.science
> From: "Seth" <king.s...@gmail.com>
> Date: 20 Dec 2005 09:02:31 -0800
> Local: Tues, Dec 20 2005 9:02 am
> Subject: Water on the moon or Mars
>
> I was just wondering about this. I remember checking the daily updates
> with my office mates about the two rovers on Mars. We were really
> disappointed by the amount or quailty of information that was coming
> out of NASA from the rovers. We heard all about minerals that might
> have been formed in a water solution way back when and this chemical
> compound and that. With all of the scientific equipment on the rovers
> has NASA said we have found a h20 molecule. It seems that hydrogen is
> going to be very important for moon and mars exploration and i would
> think that we would want hard evidence before we send a colony or
> longer mission.
>
> Thoughts??
> ----------------------------------
Sure there's plenty of evidence of water on Mars. How about an
How about that !
>
George
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qGJqf.22763$aS5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Umm, I think you need to check the definition of ocean, Johnny. Even LPI
doesn't call it an ocean, so why do you?
>
> And for a detailed science review of the latest Opportunity
> rover results read Dr Farmer. You should read his resume to
> see this is the guy with all things Mars and astrobiology.
> http://geology.asu.edu/~jfarmer/biography/pro.html
Umm, why would you ask someone to check his resume? Aren't you certain of
his conclusions?
<snip> While you are at it, why don't you explain your Martian sponge
theory as well? I'm sure Brad will be mildly amused.
George
jonathan
"George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:lBKqf.426945$084.261541@attbi_s22...
Oh ya a sea. Sorry. I was born and raised in Michigan.
We only know lakes there.
>
> >
> > And for a detailed science review of the latest Opportunity
> > rover results read Dr Farmer. You should read his resume to
> > see this is the guy with all things Mars and astrobiology.
> > http://geology.asu.edu/~jfarmer/biography/pro.html
>
> Umm, why would you ask someone to check his resume? Aren't you certain of
> his conclusions?
He's a geologist and a biologist. Which means he's not likely
to build a highly contrived explanation to keep the observed
within a certain field, say, geology for instance. Like the
folks you quote do.
>
> <snip> While you are at it, why don't you explain your Martian sponge
> theory as well? I'm sure Brad will be mildly amused.
What is amusing is watching the geologists struggle to explain the
spheres. They are too symmetrical to have formed in water so
it must be an impact that formed them.
When you can explain how one sphere after another can have the
very same ...single...dimple and off-center slash by any means, volcanic
impact or concretions, then we can talk. A sponge gemmule and microbial
concretions demonstrates how the simplest life ...can...explain those asymmetrical
features. And life that thrives in low oxygen high saline environments.
If you would read Dr Farmers recent analysis, you'll see he concludes
with the remarks 'half full/half empty. Or in short, it's a near perfect
tie. Perfectly inconclusive....'again' he says. Just like with Viking
and the AHL meteor.
I've been consistent for some time in saying I believe the spheres
are a transitional form of life. The first step or 'missing link' between
geology and biology. A form representing the initial phase transition
between the physical and living worlds. Based on that, such a form
should have exactly equal properties of ...both...geology and life.
While being neither exactly.
The debate should be an exact tie....if...the spheres are first life.
The geologists and biologists should debate endlessly if the
spheres represent first life.
And if this is correct, and I believe it's justifiable speculation, then
the rovers have done far more than just the discovery of the heralded
second biological data point
The have discovered Creation itself.
Something absolutely incredible. A discovery of the ages
that transcends mere scientific curiosity. But re-defines
science and religion....at once.
This could be the discovery of all time.
Maybe I just want it to be, but ya know, the more I dig and read
the more of a tie, the more inconclusive, the more perfect and
consistent with this idea it becomes.
Most of the papers released so far are based on rather early
data releases as these things take time. And the rover just
might yet make it to jaw-dropping Victoria crater.
This story is just beginning to unfold.
Jonathan
s
>
> George
>
>
George
Umm, ok. So why call it an ocean? And why not point out that it is
frozen, not liquid?
>>
>> >
>> > And for a detailed science review of the latest Opportunity
>> > rover results read Dr Farmer. You should read his resume to
>> > see this is the guy with all things Mars and astrobiology.
>> > http://geology.asu.edu/~jfarmer/biography/pro.html
>>
>> Umm, why would you ask someone to check his resume? Aren't you certain
>> of
>> his conclusions?
>
>
> He's a geologist and a biologist. Which means he's not likely
> to build a highly contrived explanation to keep the observed
> within a certain field, say, geology for instance. Like the
> folks you quote do.
I'm not sure why you think it is important to point this out. Just because
you tend to build highly contrived explanations doesn't mean everyone else
does.
>> <snip> While you are at it, why don't you explain your Martian sponge
>> theory as well? I'm sure Brad will be mildly amused.
>
> What is amusing is watching the geologists struggle to explain the
> spheres. They are too symmetrical to have formed in water so
> it must be an impact that formed them.
>
> When you can explain how one sphere after another can have the
> very same ...single...dimple and off-center slash by any means, volcanic
> impact or concretions, then we can talk.
I don't need to explain this because it simply isn't true. In order to
establish this as fact, you have to examine an overwhelmingly large sample
(because there are, after all, billions lying on and within the plain at
Meridiani) in minute detail, contuct morphological and chemical analyses of
many specimens, a prospect which is not likely in our lifetime. So what we
are left with are your unsubstantiated, unqualified rantings that because
you see a few dimples and off-center slashes in a select few specimens seen
in a handful of photographs (nevermind that specimens that are broken open
show crystaline, not biologic, structure), you proclaim them to be 'Martian
sponges'. I attribute this more to your maryjane-induced hallucinogenic
state than anything else.
> A sponge gemmule and microbial
> concretions demonstrates how the simplest life ...can...explain those
> asymmetrical
> features. And life that thrives in low oxygen high saline environments.
I would bet anyone dinner at a five-star restaraunt that you couldn't
identify a fossil sponge of the same size as the Martian blueberries in the
field if your life depended on it. In fact, I suspect that you would be
surprised indeed to find what a fossil sponge actually looks like in
outcrop. Remember, your life would depend on it, so if you were to get it
wrong, I'd have to shoot you. lol Occum's razor, Johnny. I've explained
this to you before.
> If you would read Dr Farmers recent analysis, you'll see he concludes
> with the remarks 'half full/half empty. Or in short, it's a near perfect
> tie. Perfectly inconclusive....'again' he says. Just like with Viking
> and the AHL meteor.
Perhaps you could post a link.
> I've been consistent for some time in saying I believe the spheres
> are a transitional form of life.
And you've been consistently wrong, and consistently unqualified to make
such a claim.
> The first step or 'missing link' between
> geology and biology. A form representing the initial phase transition
> between the physical and living worlds. Based on that, such a form
> should have exactly equal properties of ...both...geology and life.
> While being neither exactly.
And you wonder why you have no credibility in these newsgroups. Jeez.
> The debate should be an exact tie....if...the spheres are first life.
> The geologists and biologists should debate endlessly if the
> spheres represent first life.
Occum's razor, Johnny. There is no question that these spheres are mineral
concretions (hematite -
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/earlymars2004/pdf/8074.pdf). The only
question is how they formed. My contention is that they were formed as a
result of the many impacts that litter Meridiani Planum. It is the
simplist explanation, and explains their uniform sphericity and size. Of
course, I also admit that I could be wrong. There simply isn't yet enough
data to make a definitive conclusion as to their ultimate origin. Others
suggest that they formed as a result of chemical reactions within the
enclosing formation as a result of percolation of acidic groundwater. The
only way this will be definitively determined is when samples are brought
back to earth, where they can receive rigorous examination. And that is
not likely to happen any time soon.
Morphological properties of the Martian "blueberries, according to the
link, above:
* Dominantly spherical or sub-spherical
* Some are split, and can exhibit angular or irregular shapes (at least one
specimen I've seen contained a grainy to crystaline structure - george)
* Appear loose on top of outcrop materials, plains units, and crater
interiors
* Appear in various stages of erosion from within outcrop materials
* Cross layers within finely bedded sedimentary structures
* Are split by fractures in surrounding host rock
* Occur primarily as single berries, but can be connected as composite
grains or strings
* Occasional presence of latitudinal grooves either parallel or at an angle
to bedding (read that again - occasional, and may be related to diagenesis
of host rock)
* Surrounding sediment is more coarsely crystalline than in the outcrops in
general
* Appear weathered and in some cases coated by brighter materials
* Are not aggregated along bedding planes, which might be expected for
lapilli or impact spherules (which is one reason why I admit that I may be
wrong in contending that they are of impact origin)
> And if this is correct, and I believe it's justifiable speculation, then
> the rovers have done far more than just the discovery of the heralded
> second biological data point
> The have discovered Creation itself.
Religious statement not substantiated by scientific evidence. But then,
you knew this when you posted it. The fact is, you want these to be life
forms so badly that you make the data fit your own pre-conceived theory
(theory influences observations), and that is taboo in the annals of
science, and will get you many raised eyebrows, a lot of ridicule (well,
that has already happened), and not much more.
George
Brad Guth
Terrific feedback that has absolutely nothing to do with my quest. The
surface of our moon is not ice friendly, not even salt-ice friendly,
and we supposedly had 6 out of 6 times by which to have proven that
science once and for all.
Why is it that my topics only attract the sorts of folks focused upon
taking whatever out of context, as then implying damage-control on
behalf of whatever's stipulated in your NASA/Apollo bible?
I have few doubts that our soft-science as pertaining to our moon as
having a degree of sequestered salt water and thus potentially salty
ice within is just fine and dandy, just as I'm fairly certain that Mars
represents an even better host for plain old water-ice that's likely
sequestered by a layer of dry-ice and/or beneath continually frozen
ground, forcing such to becoming a bit if not a whole lot of a
freeze-dried salty-ice or perhaps at best a thick brine.
However, you know darn good and well that's not what I meant by our not
having hard-science pertaining to water or ice surviving in space.
Hard-science meaning actual data obtained form first hand experiments
with the real gosh darn thing. In other words of my limited wisdom, you
can't tell me how long a cubic meter(m3) worth of raw ice would survive
in space, as fully solar illuminated and having to reside somewhere
between Earth and the moon (I'd even accept the daytime ISS orbit).
Upon our moon where salt has been so hot that it remains as an
atmospheric vapor is where whatever ice upon the dark and nasty surface
couldn't possibly survive for one hundredth as long as for being
situated in space, as far away from our reactive and IR reflective
moon. Solar influx plus secondary/recoil worth of IR photons should
make for a rather impressive ice-->atoms of energy release that could
easily be directed as thrust.
At one bar, sodium begins to melt and thus starts becoming a gas at
208Ā°F (371 K).
Rock Salt (NaCI) Sodium Chloride actually has a fairly high boiling or
vapor phase shift point of 1621Ā°F (883Ā°C or 1156 K), of which our
moon is quite nicely surrounded by 14,000 km worth of that sodium vapor
substance, along with supplying a solar wind excavated comet like trail
of sodium that's good for 900,000 km. Of course within a nearly perfect
vacuum represents an entirely different vapor-phase point that should
require substantially less temperature. The point being is that such
salt/sodium vapor is being derived from our moon, thereby implying a
good supply of that element which should be sequestered underground in
the form of a thick brine and otherwise possibly as geode pockets of
salty-ice.
Therefore, once again I have little doubt of there being salty-ice
associated within sufficient orbs of mass such as our moon and Mars,
which in of itself doesn't qualify as to the nature of raw ice having
to survive within space or even as upon the lunar surface, as being
rather impossible by the regular laws of physics unless there's
actually a great deal of an argon, radon plus a few other elements of
an atmospheric layer as a protective shield that supposedly our moon
doesn't have to work with.
Without our knowing the rate by which raw ice is vaporised in the fully
solar illuminated vacuum of space, as such we have no actual
hard-science basis for understanding or otherwise appreciating whatever
ice might coexist within our moon, or even within Mars.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
I'm not exactly certain why you've reposted the list of hot-links over
and over. It's all very interesting and, I certainly do feel there's
good merit in the likelihood of there being substantial volumes of
sequestered ice somewhere other than Earth, which has nothing to do
with raw ice surviving in space. So, I'll repost what I'd just
provided.
Terrific feedback that has little if absolutely nothing to do with my
quest. The surface of our moon is not ice friendly, not even salty-ice
friendly, and to think that we supposedly had 6 out of 6 times by which
to have easily proven that science once and for all.
Without our knowing the rate by which raw ice is vaporised(sublimes) in
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>Without our knowing the rate by which raw ice is vaporised(sublimes) in
>the fully solar illuminated vacuum of space, as such we have no actual
>hard-science basis for understanding or otherwise appreciating whatever
>ice might coexist within our moon, or even within Mars.
What is the 'fully solar illuminated vacuum of space'? You do know
that parts of the moon never see sunlight don't you?
--
Stephen Horgan
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Brad Guth
>What is the 'fully solar illuminated vacuum of space'?
ISS is fully illuminated as being sufficient. Put the cube of ice (1
m3) out there and give us the results of how many ms it manages to
survive.
>You do know that parts of the moon never see sunlight don't you?
Yes. So what's your point?
Lunar nighttime and/or perpetual shade isn't worth much better than
hosting the likes of dry-ice and perhaps the likes of LRn, and I'm
certainly not speaking about CO2 as in the form of dry-ice that has to
be highly compressed into a near solid to start with. Just regular old
water-ice or perhaps salty-water as somewhat better ice that's having
to survive in free space (as not associated with any moon or planet) is
what I talking about.
Why are you avoiding the prime question as to raw ice surviving in
space?
Key word "space" is not speaking of raw ice situated upon our moon or
Mars. How can supposedly smart folks like yourself possibly keep
interpreting that differently?
-
Brad Guth
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>>Stephen Horgan;
>>What is the 'fully solar illuminated vacuum of space'?
>Like I'd said, I would accept the sunny side and thus of whatever time
>ISS is fully illuminated as being sufficient. Put the cube of ice (1
>m3) out there and give us the results of how many ms it manages to
>survive.
>
So, you mean out to Earth or Mars Orbit? Presumably, you aren't
disputing the presence of water ice among the outer planets and bodies
in the Solar system?
>>You do know that parts of the moon never see sunlight don't you?
>Yes. So what's your point?
>
>Lunar nighttime and/or perpetual shade isn't worth much better than
>hosting the likes of dry-ice and perhaps the likes of LRn, and I'm
>certainly not speaking about CO2 as in the form of dry-ice that has to
>be highly compressed into a near solid to start with. Just regular old
>water-ice or perhaps salty-water as somewhat better ice that's having
>to survive in free space (as not associated with any moon or planet) is
>what I talking about.
>
So, water ice of cometary origin in a lunar crater that never sees
sunlight is plausible?
>Why are you avoiding the prime question as to raw ice surviving in
>space?
>
Because space is a very loose term. Most of the Solar system is
permanently at temperatures at which water's natural state is ice.
>Key word "space" is not speaking of raw ice situated upon our moon or
>Mars. How can supposedly smart folks like yourself possibly keep
>interpreting that differently?
What do you actually mean by space? What distance from the Sun?
George
jonathan,
Terrific feedback that has absolutely nothing to do with my quest. The
surface of our moon is not ice friendly, not even salt-ice friendly,
and we supposedly had 6 out of 6 times by which to have proven that
science once and for all.
Why is it that my topics only attract the sorts of folks focused upon
taking whatever out of context, as then implying damage-control on
behalf of whatever's stipulated in your NASA/Apollo bible?
Umm, run Forrest, run.
George
Brad Guth
>So, you mean out to Earth or Mars Orbit? Presumably, you aren't
>disputing the presence of water ice among the outer planets and bodies
>in the Solar system?
pretending at being off track.
>So, water ice of cometary origin in a lunar crater that never sees
>sunlight is plausible?
Personally, I do not think so, unless it's been covered by a fairly
thick fluffy layer of dry-ice, plus having another thick topping of
moon dust (meaning solar/cosmic deposits in addition to a slue of local
debris elements). I believe the only hope for somewhat salty ice is
within a geode pocket or some other underground hollow that has been
sufficiently pressure scealed.
>Because space is a very loose term.
It's only lose and/or conditional if you're having to 100% support the
one and only NASA/Apollo bible.
>What do you actually mean by space? What distance from the Sun?
Earth/moon distance from the sun. I believe it's called 1 AU.
Why are you trying to make this as difficult and/or as complex as
possible, and/or by way of pretending that you're so dumb and dumber?
Just inform us village idiots how long a cubic meter of plain old naked
ice would last at 1 AU, as not situated within some polar crater or
otherwise shaded by any moon or Earth.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
I just now realized what you and your spook friends have been doing, by
way having stripped out my original crossposting in order to suit your
ulterior motives. That explains as to why you've reposted the list of
all those nifty hot-links over and over. It's perfectly interesting
and, I certainly do feel there's good deal of merit in the likelihood
of there being substantial volumes of sequestered ice somewhere other
local 1-AU space. So, I'll return the favor by accomplishing another
edit and repost what I'd previously provided, including all of my
original crosspost.
It seems that you've offered us feedback that has little if absolutely
nothing to do with my topic or at least my sub-topic quest. The surface
of our moon simply is not all that ice friendly, not even salty-ice
friendly, and to think that we supposedly had 6 out of 6 times by which
to have easily proven that degree of hard-science once and for all.
Why is it that my topics only attract the sorts of folks as focused
upon taking whatever out of context, as then implying damage-control on
behalf of whatever's stipulated within your NASA/Apollo bible?
I personally have few doubts that our soft-science as pertaining to our
moon as having a degree of sequestered saltwater and thus potentially
salty ice within is just fine and dandy, just as I'm fairly certain
that Mars represents an even better host for plain old water-ice that's
likely sequestered by a layer of dry-ice and/or beneath continually
frozen ground, forcing such to becoming a bit if not a whole lot of a
freeze-dried form of salty-ice or perhaps at best a thick sodium brine.
However, you know darn good and well that's not what I meant by our not
having hard-science pertaining to water or ice surviving in space.
Hard-science meaning actual data obtained form first hand experiments
with the real gosh darn thing. In other words of my limited wisdom, you
probably can't tell me how long a cubic meter(m3) worth of raw/naked
ice would survive in local space, as fully solar illuminated and
especially as having to reside somewhere between Earth and the moon
(I'd even accept the daytime ISS orbit). Upon our moon where salt has
been so hot that it remains as providing a substantial atmospheric
vapor is where whatever ice upon the dark and nasty surface couldn't
possibly survive for one hundredth as long as for being situated in
space, as far away from our reactive and IR reflective moon as
possible. Solar influx plus secondary/recoil worth of IR photons should
make for a rather impressive ice-->atoms of a horrific energy release
that could easily be directed as thrust.
At one bar, upon Earth sodium begins to melt and thus starts becoming a
gas at 208Ā°F (371 K).
Rock Salt (NaCI) Sodium Chloride actually has a fairly high boiling or
vapor phase shift point of 1621Ā°F (883Ā°C or 1156 K), of which our
moon is quite nicely surrounded by 14,000 km worth of that sodium vapor
substance, along with supplying a solar wind excavated comet like trail
of sodium that's good for 900,000 km. Of course within a nearly perfect
vacuum represents an entirely different vapor-phase point that should
require substantially less temperature. The point being is that such
salt/sodium vapor is being derived from our moon, thereby implying a
good supply of that element which should be sequestered underground in
the form of a thick brine and otherwise possibly as geode pockets of
salty-ice.
Therefore, once again I'll offer that I have little doubt of there
being salty-ice associated within sufficient orbs of mass such as our
moon and Mars, which in of itself doesn't qualify as to our
understanding the nature of raw ice having to survive within space or
especially most anywhere as upon the lunar surface, as being rather
impossible by the regular laws of physics unless there's actually a
great deal more of an argon, radon plus a few other elements worth of
an atmospheric composite layer as providing a protective shield that
supposedly our moon doesn't have to work with.
Without our knowing the rate by which raw ice is vaporised(sublimes) in
the fully solar illuminated vacuum of 1-AU space, as such we have no
actual hard-science basis for understanding or otherwise appreciating
whatever ice might have managed to coexist within our moon, or even
within Mars. Unfortunately, our scientific knowledge of the surface
environment and especially of the innards of our own moon is zilch.
-
Brad Guth
jonathan
>
> "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:veLqf.9$dZ...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
> > news:lBKqf.426945$084.261541@attbi_s22...
> > When you can explain how one sphere after another can have the
> > very same ...single...dimple and off-center slash by any means, volcanic
> > impact or concretions, then we can talk.
>
> I don't need to explain this because it simply isn't true. In order to
> establish this as fact, you have to examine an overwhelmingly large sample
> (because there are, after all, billions lying on and within the plain at
> Meridiani) in minute detail, contuct morphological and chemical analyses of
> many specimens, a prospect which is not likely in our lifetime. So what we
> are left with are your unsubstantiated, unqualified rantings that because
> you see a few dimples and off-center slashes in a select few specimens seen
> in a handful of photographs (nevermind that specimens that are broken open
> show crystaline, not biologic, structure), you proclaim them to be 'Martian
> sponges'. I attribute this more to your maryjane-induced hallucinogenic
> state than anything else.
You haven't been looking at the pics very closely. In the fields the
spheres are far more weathered, and the dimples and off-center
slash are rare. But once the rover arrived at Erebus they
both returned. It's clear from the pics the spheres are less
eroded at the craters. Which also shows they are associated
with water that flows from them. If Opportunity makes it
to the much deeper Victoria crater that should make a third
confirmation of this. Next week I'll go back and find the
pics from Erebus showing the return of the dimples and
slashes.
I realize this kind of analysis has it's limitations. But we
should be able to trust of eyes and logic when the detailed
data isn't available.
In addition, returning a sphere to earth would help little if
at all ...if...this idea of a transitional life form is correct.
Life is self-similar across scale, which means if we can't
recognize it at this scale, we won't at any other. So an
electron microscope won't change the outcome of the
debate, it'll still be a tie.
After all, we have the AHL meteorite on earth for the
very closest analysis, and guess what? That's a tie
between the 'just a rock' and 'structure of life' crowds.
And how long has the Viking data been argued over?
If I'm right, it'll always be a tie when using detailed
objective means. So we are forced to look for an
alternative method of figuring this out.
We can't rely only on the detailed data, we have to
logically figure it out. Those spheres are clearly NOT
geology as we know it due to their structure. They are
clearly NOT life as we know it due to their composition.
And in an environment of periodic hot water, diverse minerals
and thermal gradients.
The primordial soup.
In this case, context is the defining data, not charts and graphs.
There is only one explanation possible, and it should be obvious
is we trust our eyes and minds.
Jonathan
s
>
> > A sponge gemmule and microbial
> > concretions demonstrates how the simplest life ...can...explain those
> > asymmetrical
> > features. And life that thrives in low oxygen high saline environments.
>
> I would bet anyone dinner at a five-star restaraunt that you couldn't
> identify a fossil sponge of the same size as the Martian blueberries in the
> field if your life depended on it. In fact, I suspect that you would be
> surprised indeed to find what a fossil sponge actually looks like in
> outcrop. Remember, your life would depend on it, so if you were to get it
> wrong, I'd have to shoot you. lol Occum's razor, Johnny. I've explained
> this to you before.
I don't think sponges fossilize all that well. If at all. Just the spicules and they
would mineralize pretty quickly. We don't see that so I don't believe
two celled life ever evolved there. I've been talking about hydrothermal
systems and single celled life, microbrial concretions, for a year and half
now.
>
> > If you would read Dr Farmers recent analysis, you'll see he concludes
> > with the remarks 'half full/half empty. Or in short, it's a near perfect
> > tie. Perfectly inconclusive....'again' he says. Just like with Viking
> > and the AHL meteor.
>
> Perhaps you could post a link.
I just found this the other day. It explains away your olivine
assertion I believe. This is an environment that alternates
between very dry and wet at time. So evidence of both
wet and dry are found. It also reads like a ping-pong match.
Conditions for life that are unlikely...maybe...possible....
unlikely...maybe...possible. In every respect incredibly inconclusive.
That in itself ....is....data you know. It's a huge clue.
An astrobiological perspective on Meridiani Planum
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~kaufman/ppt/G436/G436_PDF_library/Knoll_05.pdf
>
> > I've been consistent for some time in saying I believe the spheres
> > are a transitional form of life.
>
> And you've been consistently wrong, and consistently unqualified to make
> such a claim.
And Nasa has had two years to identify the spheres George. If you remember
their identification of them as hematite concretions was retracted after
about a week. They still....to this day...only offer a generic description
as hematite rich spheres. Which is a lawyerly way of saying......
....DON"T KNOW.
After two years the single biggest mystery....ever....returned from
our exploration of the solar system and they don't even try anymore
to explain it. This debate over the spheres has gone on for so
long it's already showing up in the textbooks. Here's a question from
a midterm exam in astrobiology I found from Berkeley.
43. In image to the right, Opportunity Rover recorded round objects, dubbed
"blueberries". These indicate
A. C, O, Fe, and U must be present.
B. the possible former presence of water because they are the mineral hematite,
which forms in water.
C. the chemicals of life are present in order to make blueberries..
D. concretions made by microorganisms.
http://learning.berkeley.edu/astrobiology/2004ppt/midterm2.doc
They gave the correct answer as B, the lawyerly Nasa response which
isn't an identification. Notice they ask questions about stromatolites
and sea-ice life in the test also.
Jonathan
s
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>>Stephen Horgan;
>>So, you mean out to Earth or Mars Orbit? Presumably, you aren't
>>disputing the presence of water ice among the outer planets and bodies
>>in the Solar system?
>No and No. However, you're keeping this way off track, or at least
>pretending at being off track.
>
So, now we have established that ice can exist in most of the solar
system.
>>So, water ice of cometary origin in a lunar crater that never sees
>>sunlight is plausible?
>Personally, I do not think so, unless it's been covered by a fairly
>thick fluffy layer of dry-ice, plus having another thick topping of
>moon dust (meaning solar/cosmic deposits in addition to a slue of local
>debris elements). I believe the only hope for somewhat salty ice is
>within a geode pocket or some other underground hollow that has been
>sufficiently pressure scealed.
>
That is not the majority scientific opinion, which considers the
presence of water ice possible. Several complex and expensive missions
are planned to determine for certain.
>>Because space is a very loose term.
>It's only lose and/or conditional if you're having to 100% support the
>one and only NASA/Apollo bible.
>
>>What do you actually mean by space? What distance from the Sun?
>Earth/moon distance from the sun. I believe it's called 1 AU.
>
Not even out to Mars.
>Why are you trying to make this as difficult and/or as complex as
>possible, and/or by way of pretending that you're so dumb and dumber?
>
Seeking clarity.
>Just inform us village idiots how long a cubic meter of plain old naked
>ice would last at 1 AU, as not situated within some polar crater or
>otherwise shaded by any moon or Earth.
It would sublime fairly quickly. So what?
Brad Guth
>So, now we have established that ice can exist in
>most of the solar system.
whatever deductive reasoning that water-ice should coexist elsewhere,
just as I've agreeded if it's well enough sequestered and/or otherwise
having been protected by good enough layer(s) of atmosphere plus
perhaps benefiting from a few other physical sorts of composite or
matrix elements such as sodium, and as having become associated with a
good enough amount of gravity so that it doesn't simply sublime itself
away due to there being such a surounding vacuum. I'd have to say that
a Sedna like orb would qualify, and certainly of a much larger icy
proto-moon orb of originally hosting perhaps 262 km worth of an ice
covered surface would also have to qualify as originally being
sufficiently surrounded by a Titan like atmosphere, an atmosphere
continually produced as that thick layer of salty ice sublimes due to
having become so much closer to our sun, plus associated with the tidal
forces of Earth, that which should have been at least ten fold greater
tidal forces when our moon had been originally situated so much closer
to the terrifically thick and dense atmosphere of Earth that has been
suggested by others as once upon a time representing greater than 50
bar.
>That is not the majority scientific opinion, which considers the
>presence of water ice possible. Several complex and expensive missions
>are planned to determine for certain.
My point exactly, that we've had the local opportunities as to
accomplishing hard-science as thereby establishing proof-positive as to
an understanding of raw ice in space for nearly five decades, yet we
still have absolutely no such hard-science under our moonsuit belt or
under any other belt, nor is there a science team planning upon ever
accomplishing this simple experiment (perhaps not so simple if dealing
with salty ice). I've proposed accomplishing a hard-science experiment
upon both a plain water-ice and another one of an extremely salty-ice
rate of sublime, and obviously you see absolutely no point in
accomplishing and thus establishing such hard-science matter of fact.
Your "not even out to Mars" statement qualifies as to where your
mainstream status quo mindset is situated, and upon your avoiding the
sub-topic that I'd asked a question as to raw/naked ice in space.
Obviously the further you get from the Sun the better chances of such
raw ice surviving without benefit of being sequestered upon or within a
given moon or planet. Jupiter's moons should have lots of composite
surface ice, meaning ice that's chuck full of sodium, titanium, carbon,
iron and many other interesting elements, which hasn't a freaking damn
thing to do with just plain old ice, or even surviving as icy comets or
as cosmic snowballs. Didn't the spendy and time consuming mission of
impacting with Temple-1 tell you anything, such as how gosh darn little
H2O ice was associated with even that fairly sizable item?
Temple-1 seems to be telling us that smaller items of mass simply can't
so easily be associated with having plain old water-ice unless it's
sequestered within whatever other solids, thus raw/naked sorts of ice
needs an association with a considerably larger mass in order to
survive, such as Sedna should represent such a viable surface for the
likes of raw salty ice.
As to ice vanishing before our dumbfounded eyes:
>It would sublime fairly quickly. So what?
Double duh and no kidding folks. That's being rather unspecific and
being info illusive as hell. Excluding whatever factors of secondary
reflected IR energy from Earth or our moon, could you get a wee bit
more specific as to the worth of a timeline by which a m3 of ice would
survive as within 1-AU, as getting fully solar plus cosmic illuminated
(meaning as being naked, out there in wide open space and most likely
rotating on it's own). Are we talking about seconds/m3, a few ms/m3 or
perhaps a bit less than a ms?
Unfortunately, my PC is getting the usual daily dosage of
malware/fuckware as I'm being MI6/NSA~CIA spermed to death, which
happens each and every time I'm into Usenet or most any other
space/science related internet research. I don't suppose that you'd
have a good answer or resolve for any of that?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
has some ulterior motives and hidden agenda which excluded all of the
crosspost links that my original topic involved. Obviously folks like
"Stephen Horgan" have a great deal to hide if they're into excluding
all but one Usenet group, such as "sci.space.policy". So, if you'd
like to read whatever the likes of rusemaster "Stephen Horgan" has to
say, for that you'll have to access this topic as it's posted within
"sci.space.policy". It's a typical Usenet game the mainstream status
quo keeps playing in spite of whatever the original author had in mind.
George
Actually, I have.
> In the fields the
> spheres are far more weathered, and the dimples and off-center
> slash are rare.
Johnny, they are more weathered in the fields because the fields are
composed of wind-blown dunes, the material components of which are going to
be more weathered due to abrasion.
> But once the rover arrived at Erebus they
> both returned.
> It's clear from the pics the spheres are less
> eroded at the craters.
Well, duh, the bedrock is better exposed at the craters, and so any spheres
that get eroded out of the bedrock there are going to be less weathered,
and show more original structure because they have not traveled very far
from their source rock. This is a basic concept in sedimentology, which,
if you had ever taken a geology class in your life, you would understand
without question.
> Which also shows they are associated
> with water that flows from them.
Nonsense. The association is a myth of your own mind. You tend to take
data and make it fit your theory instead of doing the reverse, which is
what real scientists do.
> If Opportunity makes it
> to the much deeper Victoria crater that should make a third
> confirmation of this.
When Opportunity makes it ot Victoria crater, if there are spheres, they
are likely to look just like all the other ones we've already seen. Why
you think finding spheres there will confirm anything other than what has
already been confirmed is a mystery. What they hope to find there is what
exists below what they have already seen. They want to examine more
strata, Johnny.
> Next week I'll go back and find the
> pics from Erebus showing the return of the dimples and
> slashes.
There is nothing unusual or special about the dimples and slashes. They
are artifacts of the diagenesis process of rock formation. Nothing more.
> I realize this kind of analysis has it's limitations.
No, I don't think you realize at all how limited the analysis really is.
> But we
> should be able to trust of eyes and logic when the detailed
> data isn't available.
And this is your flaw. Seeing isn't always believing. What your eyes see
is filtered by what your brain is telling you that you are seeing. If you
think you will see Martian sponges, you will see martian sponges. This is
why scientists use mechanical and electronic instruments as "extensions" of
our senses, to better ascertain what is the data is actually telling us.
> In addition, returning a sphere to earth would help little if
> at all ...if...this idea of a transitional life form is correct.
> Life is self-similar across scale, which means if we can't
> recognize it at this scale, we won't at any other. So an
> electron microscope won't change the outcome of the
> debate, it'll still be a tie.
You really are clueless. You believe that diagenetic features of spherules
seen in mundane photographic images are showing you a lifeform, and then
say that detailed chemical and physical measurements with sophisticated
scientific instruments will not be able to determine the difference. You
want your cake and eat it too. This is a common logical fallacy that
undisciplined people like you often make. You set up an either/or argument
so that if one is untrue, the other has to be true, when the fact remains
that if your "theory" is indeed superior, it must explain both the "normal"
data explained by the old theory and the "anomalous" data not explained by
the old theory. In other words, you have to rule out other causes and
explanations, and you haven't done that at all.
> After all, we have the AHL meteorite on earth for the
> very closest analysis, and guess what? That's a tie
> between the 'just a rock' and 'structure of life' crowds.
A tie? Johnny, most scientists DON'T think that the structures in th AHL
meteorite are evidence of life. This has already been refuted, but there is
naturally going to be diehards like you who don't get it.
> And how long has the Viking data been argued over?
Irrelevant to your argument about Martian sponges, Johnny. NOONE but you
is arguing that the spherules are a lifeform.
> If I'm right, it'll always be a tie when using detailed
> objective means. So we are forced to look for an
> alternative method of figuring this out.
Either/or argument - a classic creationist argument.
> We can't rely only on the detailed data, we have to
> logically figure it out.
Johnny, if you don't have detailed data, there is nothing to figure out.
Without detailed data, all you have is idle speculation.
> Those spheres are clearly NOT
> geology as we know it due to their structure.
And you clearly aren't a geologist, and clearly aren't qualified to make
such a claim. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.
>> > A sponge gemmule and microbial
>> > concretions demonstrates how the simplest life ...can...explain those
>> > asymmetrical
>> > features. And life that thrives in low oxygen high saline
>> > environments.
>>
>> I would bet anyone dinner at a five-star restaraunt that you couldn't
>> identify a fossil sponge of the same size as the Martian blueberries in
>> the
>> field if your life depended on it. In fact, I suspect that you would be
>> surprised indeed to find what a fossil sponge actually looks like in
>> outcrop. Remember, your life would depend on it, so if you were to get
>> it
>> wrong, I'd have to shoot you. lol Occum's razor, Johnny. I've
>> explained
>> this to you before.
>
> I don't think sponges fossilize all that well.
> If at all. Just the spicules and they
> would mineralize pretty quickly.
Is that a fact? Umm, explain this large Ordovician-aged sponge:
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/webfossl/pages/sponges.htm
Care to rephrase your bullshit statement? Sponges have been commonly found
in rock formations from the Edicaran all the way to the present. They are
one of the most pervasive, wide-ranging lifeforms on the ocean floor, and
have been since the earliest Cambrian period.
> We don't see that so I don't believe
> two celled life ever evolved there. I've been talking about hydrothermal
> systems and single celled life, microbrial concretions, for a year and
> half
> now.
So you admit that Martian sponges were a figment of a one of your
drug-induced hallucinations? So what other hallucinations do you have? As
for your hydrothermal system hypothesis, see my response, below.
>>
>> > If you would read Dr Farmers recent analysis, you'll see he concludes
>> > with the remarks 'half full/half empty. Or in short, it's a near
>> > perfect
>> > tie. Perfectly inconclusive....'again' he says. Just like with Viking
>> > and the AHL meteor.
>>
>> Perhaps you could post a link.
>
>
> I just found this the other day. It explains away your olivine
> assertion I believe. This is an environment that alternates
> between very dry and wet at time. So evidence of both
> wet and dry are found. It also reads like a ping-pong match.
> Conditions for life that are unlikely...maybe...possible....
> unlikely...maybe...possible. In every respect incredibly inconclusive.
> That in itself ....is....data you know. It's a huge clue.
What inconclusive means is that the what the data is telling us is
uncertain. It is not an either/or situation, Johnny. You really should
take a science class, or at least a logic class.
> An astrobiological perspective on Meridiani Planum
> http://www.geol.umd.edu/~kaufman/ppt/G436/G436_PDF_library/Knoll_05.pdf
>
Gee, the very first sentence blows your "hydrothermal" theory right out of
the water, and says exactly what I said a long time ago:
"Sedimentary rocks exposed in the Meridiani Planum region of Mars record
aqueous and aeolian deposition in ancient dune and interdune playa-like
environments that are arid, acidic, and oxidizing."
What's this? No Yellowstone-style hydrothermal deposits? Umm, care to
rephrase your long-running bullshit story?
As for "Farmer's recent analysis, I see that there were multiple authors
for that paper, so assigning an individual claim for any conclusion posited
there is disingenuous. In addition, these authors doesn't use a
half-empty/half-full scenario, since they are REAL scientists, unlike you.
What they are saying is that the environmental conditions that existed at
Meridiani when these sediments were laid down were extreme and "would have
posed a challange for pre-biotic chemical reactions thought to have played
a role in the origin of life on earth." Then they suggest that because
"sulfates and iron oxides ***can*** preserve geochemical records of
environmental history as well as chemical, textural, and microfossil
signatures of biological activity, Meridiani Planum is an attractive
candidate for a sample return." So what they are saying is that although
the conditions there would have been extreme (i.e., not an ideal place for
life to start out), conditions found on Earth indicate that it is possible
that they were favorable enough for lifeforms to have formed there (a
conclusion that I dispute). In order to determine if this actually
occurred there, they suggest that the site would be a great place to return
samples for closer scrutiny (the exact opposite of the argument you made
above when you dismissed the idea of doing more detailed, earth-bound
analysis, as I suggested was necessary).
I agree that the region would be a great starting point for collecting
samples for detailed earth-bound analysis. Having said that, as I've
pointed out before, one problem I have with the notion that extremophiles
represent "ancient life" is that the extremophiles that exist on Earth have
not been shown to have an ancient lineage. In fact, if you look at the
question carefully, you realize that these lifeforms have likely adapted to
these extreme environments, which logically means that in order for them to
have adapted, they had to have pre-existed in an earlier form, and most
likely in a much less extreme environment. That they "appear" primitive
may merely be an artifact and evidence of recent adaptation to a harsh
environment, or it may be that the harsh environment limits their
complexity. Secondly, the earliest known lifeforms found on Earth have
been recovered from metamorphosed cherts, the source rock of which occur
primarily in cold, deep water environments, not around hot springs and
black smokers. Life prefers the easy road, Johnny (Occum's Razor), not the
road less traveled. Life is much more likely to have first occurred where
conditions were ideal and then adapted to less ideal environments than the
other way around. So while I think that samples need to be collected at
Meridiani in order to rule out the possibility that life may have evolved
there (real scientists rule out all possibilities before making bold
statements), I personally find it unlikely that they will find the evidence
for life there that they are looking for.
>> > I've been consistent for some time in saying I believe the spheres
>> > are a transitional form of life.
>>
>> And you've been consistently wrong, and consistently unqualified to make
>> such a claim.
>
>
> And Nasa has had two years to identify the spheres George. If you
> remember
> their identification of them as hematite concretions was retracted after
> about a week. They still....to this day...only offer a generic
> description
> as hematite rich spheres. Which is a lawyerly way of saying......
> ....DON"T KNOW.
Yes, because, unlike you, they are more careful in the conclusions that
they make. But even scientist can make mistakes. At least they are
willing to admit when they do make them. That NASA has had two years to
identify the spherules and still haven't reached definite conclusions
should come as no surprise to anyone. After all, the rovers are not a
complete analytical package. They were never designed specifically to
conduct detailed analysis to determine whether Martian blueberries are a
form of life or just another rock. They were designed to look at mineral
signatures specifically related to iron, and to collect a photographic and
spectral record of the areas they traverse. Considering their original
design, they have performed remarkably well, and given us more information
that anyone expected they would. But they have not given anyone a "smoking
gun", and are not expected to. But what they have determined is that the
spherules are mineral concretions. No one but you (an unqualified pothead)
is arguing any differently.
> After two years the single biggest mystery....ever....returned from
> our exploration of the solar system and they don't even try anymore
> to explain it. This debate over the spheres has gone on for so
> long it's already showing up in the textbooks. Here's a question from
> a midterm exam in astrobiology I found from Berkeley.
>
>
> 43. In image to the right, Opportunity Rover recorded round objects,
> dubbed
> "blueberries". These indicate
>
> A. C, O, Fe, and U must be present.
> B. the possible former presence of water because they are the mineral
> hematite,
> which forms in water.
> C. the chemicals of life are present in order to make blueberries..
> D. concretions made by microorganisms.
>
> http://learning.berkeley.edu/astrobiology/2004ppt/midterm2.doc
>
> They gave the correct answer as B, the lawyerly Nasa response which
> isn't an identification. Notice they ask questions about stromatolites
> and sea-ice life in the test also.
And this proves, what, exactly?
George
George
gas at 208č (371 K).
Rock Salt (NaCI) Sodium Chloride actually has a fairly high boiling or
vapor phase shift point of 1621č (883č or 1156 K), of which our
Hi Brad. The ultimate source of sodium is volcanic rock (specifically mafic
rock since it is most abundant in that igneous rock type). The moon is
abundant in mafic rock. Much of that mafic rock is in the form of basalt,
of which a minor constituent is sodium in the form of tertiary feldspar.
Since the lunar soil contains abundant fragments and particles of basalt
rock that have been pulverized nearly to a powder by bombardment, and due
to the fact that the moon has no atmosphere to prevent ionization from the
solar wind, it should come as no surprise to anyone that it has a tenous
vapor trail of ions which contains sodium.
What is most telling about lunar composition is the utter lack of hydrogen
in lunar rock and soil. This lack of hydrogen is strong evidence that the
moon never had water in any significant quantities, if at all, throughout
it's history. Even if a brine existed in the subsurface, it would leave
some trace in the surface composition because of the extreme bombardment it
has undergone, which would have brought some of it to the surface, where it
would have reacted with the local rock and left a hydrogen signature in
them (i.e, pyroxene alters to amphibole in the presence of water; olivine
alters to serpentine in the presence of water). In addition, the lunar
basalts, being mafic, originated from a deep enough source that had water
or even brine been present in the subsurface when they were extruded onto
the surface, we would see a much different mineral composition than we do.
The fact is that we don't see evidence for chemical alteration of lunar
materials as a result of any interaction with water in any of the moon
samples that have been returned to Earth, nor in any of the data that has
been collected to date by either space probes (such as clementine) or by
earth-based observations. Clementine is thought to have detected water/ice
in a crater at the south pole, but that is thought to be a result of a
collision with a relatively recent body such as a comet, and has survived
because of it's location in the cold shadow of the crater.
Here is a link to lunar sample mineralogy. Note the lack of hydrogen or
the hydroxide radical in all the samples:
http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/lunar/letss/Mineralogy.pdf
George
George
<Snip>
> Unfortunately, my PC is getting the usual daily dosage of
> malware/fuckware as I'm being MI6/NSA~CIA spermed to death, which
> happens each and every time I'm into Usenet or most any other
> space/science related internet research. I don't suppose that you'd
> have a good answer or resolve for any of that?
> -
> Brad Guth
Perhaps you are frequenting the wrong websites, or else haven't learn how
to use your computer sufficiently well enough to know about using
firewalls, anti-spyware programs, etc. At any rate, I would attribute your
problems with malware to operator error before I would attribute them to
MI6/NSA~CIA. Otherwise, you just look like a paranoid luny tune. But
that's just my own opinion.
Cheers,
George
Pat Flannery
George wrote:
>You really are clueless. You believe that diagenetic features of spherules
>seen in mundane photographic images are showing you a lifeform, and then
>say that detailed chemical and physical measurements with sophisticated
>scientific instruments will not be able to determine the difference. You
>want your cake and eat it too. This is a common logical fallacy that
>undisciplined people like you often make. You set up an either/or argument
>so that if one is untrue, the other has to be true, when the fact remains
>that if your "theory" is indeed superior, it must explain both the "normal"
>data explained by the old theory and the "anomalous" data not explained by
>the old theory. In other words, you have to rule out other causes and
>explanations, and you haven't done that at all.
>
>
The blueberries may be once-molten meteorite ejecta splash according to
this: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-water-science-05s.html
Pat
George
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:11qt7m5...@corp.supernews.com...
I've been saying this since the first picture of them was published. This
is what I've been arguing with him about.
George
Pat Flannery
George wrote:
>I've been saying this since the first picture of them was published. This
>is what I've been arguing with him about.
>
>
Of course that's not what NASA thought. They also see what they want to
in the pictures, and they want to see a Mars that had a long wet period
where strange bacteria could grow and be blasted to Earth in meteorites.
:-)
"jonathan" has had at least three different email addresses so far, and
if that doesn't whisper the word "troll" in your ear nothing will.
I did like his honesty in admitting that he fabricates his own
background and doesn't necessarily believe in what he writes though.
The White House should be so honest.
Pat
life...@atlantic.net
Pat Flannery wrote:
> The blueberries may be once-molten meteorite ejecta splash according to
> this: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-water-science-05s.html
That has been so thoroughly debunked enough to make it laughable.
Brad Guth
>Since the lunar soil contains abundant fragments and particles of basalt
>rock that have been pulverized nearly to a powder by bombardment, and due
>to the fact that the moon has no atmosphere to prevent ionization from the
>solar wind, it should come as no surprise to anyone that it has a tenous
>vapor trail of ions which contains sodium.
>The ultimate source of sodium is volcanic rock (specifically mafic
>rock since it is most abundant in that igneous rock type).
I'll have to totally agree that the relatively small percentage of
sodium within basalt as having been "pulverized" into freedom buy the
30+km/s of debris and by the solar gauntlet that's capable of reaching
2,400 km/s is perhaps why such a good amount of sodium gets vaporised
into becoming a fairly significant lunar atmosphere of sodium, and by
way of those very same strong solar winds that are so horrific that can
apparently manage to excavate physical debris out from deep within rock
crevasse and pockets as were photographed as being not only bone dry
but as entirely having been picked clean. Imagine that, a solar wind so
physically tough that you'd think that at times it must have been a
little difficult standing on the moon.
BTW; the vast bulk of the sodium upon Earth is not derived from basalt.
It's has been my conjecture that salt upon Earth as derived from our
salty oceans having arrived via an extremely icy proto-moon, or
otherwise as from out of nowhere. Thus our moon was acquired, as in
possibly running itself directly into our 50+bar atmospheric surrounded
proto-Earth. If having arrived along with the planet Venus would
certainly help to further explain the orbital transfer possibilities.
Of course, if sodium has been getting pulverised and otherwise ionized
into existence by way of debris plus the extremely hot solar wind, as
such it stands to good reason that the 50+% of basalt that's O2 has
been getting released as well. Of course O2 is a much heavier element
than sodium. Apparently it was this high concentration of the near
surface O2 that kept the sodium elements from being detected by all of
those NASA/Apollo missions.
However, 14,000 km worth of a sustained sodium atmosphere, pus hosting
a rather horrific 900,000 km comet like trail of sodium seems a bit
much for the 2.5% worth of sodium contained within basalt. Perhaps you
can give us the daily basalt pulverization tonnage requirement.
>This lack of hydrogen is strong evidence that the
>moon never had water in any significant quantities
Are you talking about those pathetic NASA/Apollo samples, or are you
speaking of the megatonnes worth of actual moon rock that's being found
upon Earth as we speak?
Where else do you suppose those massive crater displacements of such
gigatonnage went besides a good portion of which landing upon Earth?
Obviously, if you're on the government payroll or had ever been
employed by such, even indirectly associated with government funding or
even so much as third party sub-contracted goods and services in any
way, clearly you'd have no viable/survivable alternatives whatsoever
but to work with whatever your cloak and dagger cultism has to offer,
as accepting whatever's derived as coming from the same Skull and Bones
mindset that created and perpetrated a multi-trillion dollar and
multi-decade cold-war that still isn't over until our fat lady sings.
Sorry if I can't accept whatever your fox that devoured the chickens
has to say about reasons why there are so few if any remaining
chickens.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Try to get real. It's not me you fool on the hill, it's your MIB or
MI6/NSA~CIA spooks and/or of their freelance partners in crimes against
humanity that are hard at work. Now I know that you're a spook because,
only such a certified spook would have to lie about such matters. Your
"I would attribute your problems with malware to operator error" is
extremely proof-positive that I'm right, that you are either badly
snookered and thereby dumbfounded or, you're one of them, and perhaps
simply too dumbfounded to even realize it.
>Perhaps you are frequenting the wrong websites, or else haven't learn how
>to use your computer sufficiently well enough to know about using
>firewalls, anti-spyware programs, etc. At any rate, I would attribute your
>problems with malware to operator error before I would attribute them to
>MI6/NSA~CIA. Otherwise, you just look like a paranoid luny tune. But
>that's just my own opinion.
I'm actually not that pathetic. As you can stop by and see for
yourself, that is unless you're afraid of being made as an even bigger
dumb and dumber fool on the hill than imagined. Obviously my old PC and
Microsoft operating system isn't malware/fuckware poof.
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
>Sorry if I can't accept
No one cares what you can or can't accept, Brad.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"I am a sean being from another planet."
-- Darla aka Dr. Why aka Dr. Yubiwan aka Silouen aka ...
Art Deco
>Obviously my old PC and
>Microsoft operating system isn't malware/fuckware poof.
Got any evidence yet that I sent your computer a virus, Brad?
Condeleeza Rice
Brad Guth
Why are you hiding yourself as a token black bitch?
-
Brad Guth
Sister...@aol.com
Aaron Henne: I torture for Microsoft.
Brad Guth
bad Bruce doesn't actually know anything about rockets, fly-by-rocket
landers, Kodak film as exposed to raw solar illumination or especially
about saltwater-ice or even plain old water-ice coexisting in space or
upon our moon.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
why they keep taking this topic off-topic, and dragging it into their
personal Usenet cesspools of their mainstream disinformation, which is
a dead give away.
Obviously they know absolutely nothing of the physics pertaining to
salty ice surviving in space, or as having existed upon our moon.
Their anti-ET and thus anti-God (aka anti intelligent design) cards are
face up, yet their poker faces are each hosting an extremely brown nose
that's dripping from butt to butt.
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
Nice of you to expose your racist and sexist facets again, Brad.
Bookman
wrote:
>> No one cares what you can or can't accept, Brad.
>Obviously usenet spook "Condeleeza Rice" cares a great deal.
>
>Why are you hiding yourself as a token black bitch?
Have you always been such a bigot, Brad, or is this little ray of
mindless hatred a new thing for you?
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
Monthly Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
"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
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html
ro...@telus.net
<DieKo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And it's "Condoleezza."
-- Roy L
Pat Flannery
ro...@telus.net wrote:
Every time I see that name, I keep picturing a conversation that went
like this:
"Honey, I've got great news... I'm pregnant!"
"I have great news also....remember that condo we were looking at? Well,
we've got it! I have the lease right here!"
"Wonderful! Now we have to come up with a name for the baby...."
"I know....how about....." :-)
Pat
aozo...@aol.com
Hey Condi Rice has been way successful! Way above any abilities she
has or has demonstrated! That is something way above being a mere
Token! Both she and Bush are Corporate Whores and not much more!
Neither could have achieved anything without Corporate Sponsorship!
And I know for a know a few other Denver University Graduates Like
Condi and they are idiots and economical basketcases until hooked up as
corporate whores!
Art Deco
Art Deco
Still no evidence that I sent a virus to your computer, Brad? No
surprise there, really.
SisterIl...@aol.com
real focus, on what you do.
war game and torture research, eh DOod?
Brad Guth
>entire frozen ocean presently existing on the surface of Mars!
>How about that !
I never stipulated there wasn't soft-science pointing to potential
water remaining somewhere upon Mars or even within our moon. So what's
your point of otherwise avoiding the real topic question as to
raw/naked ice in 1-AU space, as surviving without having a planet or
moon to reside upon or being sequestered within?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
understand is the part of her getting sufficiently brown-nosed in the
process.
Perhaps it one of those top-secret Skull and Bones cult tricks.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Wow! what an impressive group of incest cloned bigots and borgs of
their own mainstream status quo MIB damage control squad, the new and
improved Third Reich as never before. For such an honestly simple topic
and as having been nicely worded as offering an entro and sub-topic of
asking folks to discuss the truth and nothing but the hard-science
truth about ice, instead brings out the bad and the ugly of Usenet.
I guess the topic of raw/naked water-ice and/or especially of salty ice
as supposedly having previously existed as nearly anywhere within open
space is still topic taboo/nondisclosure. Perhaps a preschool in
Russia, China or perhaps India can answer to some if not all of these
hard-science questions.
Unfortunately, try talking about any thick or thin coating of salty ice
upon the surface of our moon is every bit as good as starting WW-III.
Clearly raw/naked ice in 1-AU space isn't a viable option without
having a significant moon or a planet to being sequestered upon
because, there's still absolutely nothing within their NASA/Apollo
Koran or any other "Fact Book" that shares anything on that topic of
raw/naked ice in space. It's almost as though we haven't actually been
to the moon, or at least not in person much past the cozy LL1/ME-L1
parallel parking zone, whereas at least robotics have orbited and
summarily impacted upon our moon. I can't even locate sufficient proof
that we've managed to accomplish any manned orbits of the moon,
although at least technically speaking a few orbits from a sufficiently
safe distance should have been doable.
-
Brad Guth
George
I'm aware of what NASA first thought of them. They wewre so anxious to get
something into the press, that I think they went with the first good idea
they could come up with. Others, and I'm not the only one, thought from
the beginning that they could have either volcanic or meteoritic origins.
Considering the abundance of impact craters in the region, I think it would
be foolish not to consider an impact origin for these spherules.
George
Brad Guth
managed to create the likes of spheres. Since Mars has developed into
having such a thin atmosphere, this represents that most of whatever's
physically incoming is going to have a fairly high degree of final
impact energy. Millions of freeze-dry cycles with little if any chance
of 100% thawing out might also have contributed to developing those
little spheres. Evaporation as expedited by such a near vacuum upon
whatever remainders of water that's was sequestered underground or at
least under a deep layer of a lose powder of dry-ice(sub-frozen CO2) is
certainly another possible source of whatever slight amounts of
water-ice that may have once upon a time coexisted upon the Mars
surface.
>From what I can tell so far, Mars is much older than Earth and, at some
point it had a viable core of geothermal heat to work with. Core heat
which might have sustained a greater atmospheric blanket of insulating
and thus warming Mars to a sufficient point of sustaining open water
upon the surface. Therefore, a little of each may be the case for
having created those spheres.
Too bad it's impossible to deploy a robotic carbon-14 instrument upon
Mars. Perhaps because of the cold and there being simply too much
foreground and background radiation would skew whatever test readings.
If raw water-ice or even salty ice can't manage to coexist within a
1-AU environment of open space, then I'd have to say of ice being on
Mars isn't exactly a whole lot better off.
I also agree that our NASA was grasping for straws, taking a wild swing
at anything that would keep the new and public academic media focus
away from Venus and even further away from our moon. The more
infomercial inches and artificially colorized images of
wagging-their-dogs worth of spin and hype the better.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Terrific information that looks perfectly viable for ice upon Mars.
However, where's my argument against such being the case?
My SWAG is perfectly OK with extremely old and sub-frozen saltwater
upon Mars. Just not as coexisting upon the open surface, as it'll
require a layer or blanket of something in order to keep the status
quo.
Obviously you're remaining as too dumbfounded as to share upon anything
as to raw/naked ice in space without benefit of such being sequestered
upon a given planet or moon.
-
Brad Guth
Mike Lorrey
Brad Guth
I certainly agree that something other than surface water could have
managed to create the likes of spheres. Since Mars has developed into
whatever's physically incoming is going to have a fairly high degree of
cycles with little if any chance of 100% thawing out might also have
contributed to developing those little spheres. Evaporation as
of water that's was sequestered underground or at least under a deep
possible source of whatever slight amounts of water-ice that may have
>From what I can tell so far, Mars is simply much older than Earth and,
at some point it obviously had a viable core of geothermal heat to work
with. Core heat which might have sustained a greater atmospheric
blanket of insulating and thus warming on behalf of Mars to a
sufficient point of sustaining bits of open water upon the surface.
Therefore, a little of each may be the case for having created those
spheres that could be millions of years old.
Too bad we still don't seem to have a sufficiently AI/robotic
fly-by-rocket lander option, therefore it's impossible to deploy a
robotic carbon-14 instrument upon Mars. Perhaps it's also because of
the extreme cold and there being simply too much foreground and
background radiation would skew whatever test readings.
If raw water-ice or even salty ice can't manage to coexist within a
1-AU environment of open space, then I'd have to say of whatever ice
being situated on Mars isn't exactly a whole lot better off. Of ice
upon our moon isn't even physics-101 possible unless being sequestered
deep underground or within geode like pockets. The word vacuum and ice
are not exactly compatible, especially of most anywhere within 2 AU,
whereas it takes a great deal of gravity and having a reasonable amount
of an atmospheric shield in order to covet they ice. At this point and
time, Mars sucks the H2O life out of whatever, including out of
whatever's raw/naked ice.
I also agree that our NASA has been grasping for straws, taking a wild
swing at anything that would keep the news and public academic media
Brad Guth
accommodating ice upon Mars. However, where's my argument(s) against
such being the case?
Oddly, it seems that I've never insisted that Mars water was
impossible. In fact, for the most part I've supported the notions of
there being underground sequestered ice water, perhaps salty ice as
more likely than not.
Unlike the seemingly all-knowing "George" and a few too many other
lords and rusemasters of this Usenet that sucks and blows, My honest
SWAG is perfectly OK with extremely old and sub-frozen saltwater as
once upon a time having coexisted upon Mars. Just not as for recently
coexisting upon the open surface, as it'll require a healthy layer or
blanket of something in order to keep the status quo.
Obviously you're remaining as too mindset dumbfounded as to investigate
and share upon anything as to raw/naked ice as surviving in open space
without benefit of such ice being sequestered upon a given planet or
moon. Why is that?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
I certainly agree that something other than surface water could have
Mars has developed into having a rather thin atmosphere, this alone
represents that most of whatever's physically incoming is going to have
Millions of freeze-dry cycles with little if any chance of such 100%
thawing out might also have contributed to developing those little
spheres. Evaporation as expedited by such a nearly vacuum environment
upon whatever remainders of water that's was sequestered underground or
at least under a deep layer of lose powder dry-ice(sub-frozen CO2) is
certainly another possible source of whatever slight amounts of
water-ice that may have once upon a time coexisted upon the Mars
surface for a brief time.
>From what I can tell so far, Mars is simply much older than Earth and,
at some point it obviously had a perfectly viable core of geothermal
heat to work with. Core heat which should have sustained a greater
atmospheric blanket of insulating and thus warming on behalf of Mars to
a sufficient point of sustaining bits of open water upon the surface.
Therefore, a little of each may be the case for having created those
spheres that could be millions of years old.
Too bad we still don't seem to have a sufficiently AI/robotic
fly-by-rocket lander option, therefore it's impossible to deploy a
robotic carbon-14 instrument upon Mars. Perhaps it's also because of
the extreme cold and there being simply too much foreground and
background radiation would skew whatever test readings.
If raw water-ice or even salty ice can't manage to coexist within a
1-AU environment of open space, then I'd have to say of whatever ice
being situated on Mars isn't exactly a whole lot better off. Of ice
upon our moon isn't even physics-101 possible unless being sequestered
deep underground or within geode like pockets. The word vacuum and ice
are not exactly compatible, especially of most anywhere within 2 AU,
whereas it takes a great deal of gravity and having a reasonable amount
of an atmospheric shield in order to covet they ice. At this point and
time, Mars sucks the H2O life out of whatever, including out of
whatever's raw/naked ice.
I also agree that our NASA has been grasping for straws, taking a wild
swing at just about anything that would keep the news and public
Brad Guth
somewhat, most of these extra post are apparently because I've broken
their precious GOOGLE (aka MI6/NAS~CIA) Usenet interface that sucks and
blows.
At least as of December 26/midnight is roughly when all the most recent
topic viewing lights went out for those of us using the GOOGLE/Usenet
interface. Our contributions apparently having been going in to the
GOOGLE/Usenet black hole, whereas nothing was coming back out.
After it's fixed, I'll certainly go back into those over-posted topics
and try to remove whatever's extra.
Between GOOGLE/Usenet being situated right back in the nearest
space-toilet again, my PC is still receiving more than my fair share of
their warm and fuzzy malware/fuckware, as well as are the PCs of those
contributing the least bit on my behalf.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Art Deco
Translation: Brad has no evidence for his theories, so instead he
yells "Conspiracy!" at the top of his voice inside the crowded theater.
Art Deco
Art Deco
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
"Art Deco" <art_...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:271220051945076102%art_...@127.0.0.1...
> Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Sorry for all my extra posting. Even though each time I've edited
>>somewhat, most of these extra post are apparently because I've broken
>>their precious GOOGLE (aka MI6/NAS~CIA) Usenet interface that sucks and
>>blows.
>>
>>At least as of December 26/midnight is roughly when all the most recent
>>topic viewing lights went out for those of us using the GOOGLE/Usenet
>>interface. Our contributions apparently having been going in to the
>>GOOGLE/Usenet black hole, whereas nothing was coming back out.
>>
>>After it's fixed, I'll certainly go back into those over-posted topics
>>and try to remove whatever's extra.
>>
>>Between GOOGLE/Usenet being situated right back in the nearest
>>space-toilet again, my PC is still receiving more than my fair share of
>>their warm and fuzzy malware/fuckware, as well as are the PCs of those
>>contributing the least bit on my behalf.
>
> You're still an idiot, Brad.
He really is, if he doesn't know to
(1) Get an XPSP2 or later
(2) patched up with Windows Update
(3) turn on firewall
(4) set to block popups.
What an idiot!!!
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
May be he's getting used to the level of harrassment. Shame on you, getting
ignored.
OM
Ranger" <yyyiii...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[tons of Guth's nazi crap deleted]
...Would you twits *PLEASE* remove .history from your followups. We've
all killfiled Guth over here, and really don't want to see any of his
bigoted bullshit, whether direct or quoted.
Please. Enough's enough.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
news:bkg4r1le9r9tmuke0...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:01:58 -0800, "Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> Ranger" <yyyiii...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [tons of Guth's nazi crap deleted]
>
> ...Would you twits *PLEASE* remove .history from your followups. We've
> all killfiled Guth over here, and really don't want to see any of his
> bigoted bullshit, whether direct or quoted.
Thank you for letting us know. I will make a rule to remove
sci.space.history next time when I see it. For return, you shouldn't call us
'twits'.
OM
Ranger" <yyyiii...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thank you for letting us know. I will make a rule to remove
>sci.space.history next time when I see it. For return, you shouldn't call us
>'twits'.
...Fair enough. Be advised that several of us have filed formal
complaints on Guth over his racist, nazi tact of late. It used to be
he was just a net.kook, now he's a bigot and totally contemptable.
Ridicule isn't enough, he has to be excised from usenet by whatever
means necessary. We suggest you file the same complaints and push for
his ISP to ban him. As it stands now, the public ridicule you're
giving him could be better spent on the other .kooks who are more
deserving and not quite as despicable :-)
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:58:37 -0800, "Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> Ranger" <yyyiii...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Thank you for letting us know. I will make a rule to remove
>>sci.space.history next time when I see it. For return, you shouldn't call
>>us
>>'twits'.
>
> ...Fair enough. Be advised that several of us have filed formal
> complaints on Guth over his racist, nazi tact of late. It used to be
But it's USENET. How would you win any lawsuit over freedom of speech?
> he was just a net.kook, now he's a bigot and totally contemptable.
> Ridicule isn't enough, he has to be excised from usenet by whatever
> means necessary. We suggest you file the same complaints and push for
> his ISP to ban him.
Are several of you coordinating an effort to silence a poster?
>As it stands now, the public ridicule you're
> giving him could be better spent on the other .kooks who are more
> deserving and not quite as despicable :-)
Would sci.space.policy like to be informed of such progress?
George
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135666953....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I certainly agree that something other than surface water could have
> managed to create the likes of spheres. Since Mars has developed into
> having such a thin atmosphere, this represents that most of whatever's
> physically incoming is going to have a fairly high degree of final
> impact energy. Millions of freeze-dry cycles with little if any chance
> of 100% thawing out might also have contributed to developing those
> little spheres. Evaporation as expedited by such a near vacuum upon
> whatever remainders of water that's was sequestered underground or at
> least under a deep layer of a lose powder of dry-ice(sub-frozen CO2) is
> certainly another possible source of whatever slight amounts of
> water-ice that may have once upon a time coexisted upon the Mars
> surface.
This would be relatively easy to verify in a lab. I know of no one who has
done so.
>>From what I can tell so far, Mars is much older than Earth and, at some
> point it had a viable core of geothermal heat to work with. Core heat
> which might have sustained a greater atmospheric blanket of insulating
> and thus warming Mars to a sufficient point of sustaining open water
> upon the surface. Therefore, a little of each may be the case for
> having created those spheres.
Umm, care to post a valid link for the claim that Mars is much older than
Earth? The Martian spherules found at Meridiani are believe to have formed
sometime during the Noachian period, which is the earliest known period on
Mars.
> Too bad it's impossible to deploy a robotic carbon-14 instrument upon
> Mars. Perhaps because of the cold and there being simply too much
> foreground and background radiation would skew whatever test readings.
Umm, carbon 14 dating will only tell you the age of organic remains in the
last 50,000 years. But first, you have to find the organic remains on
Mars!!!
> If raw water-ice or even salty ice can't manage to coexist within a
> 1-AU environment of open space, then I'd have to say of ice being on
> Mars isn't exactly a whole lot better off.
Umm, are you saying that there is no water-ice on Mars?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/28may_marsice.htm
> I also agree that our NASA was grasping for straws, taking a wild swing
> at anything that would keep the new and public academic media focus
> away from Venus and even further away from our moon. The more
> infomercial inches and artificially colorized images of
> wagging-their-dogs worth of spin and hype the better.
> -
> Brad Guth
Umm, Brad, they provided an interpretation based on the earliest results.
As nearly always happens in science, those results are always subject to
review pending the availability of more data. And the fact is that their
interpretation may still be found to be valid.
As for 'colorized' images, most of those 'colorized' images are made using
red, green, and blue color filters of specific spectral qualities, the
resulting images of which are layered to create true color images(images
that are true enough for most human eyes). This has been standard fair for
many scientific investigations for many many years. Astronomers have been
doing it for decades. The spectrums are well known. And those spectrums
can give them detailed scientific information on what they are looking at.
I do amateur astronomy, and use the same filters to obtain color images of
astronomic objects. There is nothing mysterious about them. If you truly
believe the colors shown in these images are wrong, I challange you to send
up your own space ship to Mars and prove them wrong. :-))
Here is detailed information on how those color images are created:
http://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/mer00.html
http://www.atsnn.com/story/30048.html
George
George
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d5cb39ec6f7556b4ea...@mygate.mailgate.org...
No offense, but if you want to post on the newsgroups, my advice is to get
a real ISP that provides REAL newsgroup access. You'll be glad you did.
George
George
Brad, as a hydrogeologist, I recommend you read up on exactly how
groundwater occurs on earth. Other than the lack of a heavy atmosphere,
the extreme cold at the surface/near surface, and the lower gravity, there
in no reason to expect that ground water on Mars won't behave just as it
does on Earth. Once it percolated into the subsurface, there in no reason
why a lot of it wouldn't still be there, especially if there is a
'permafrost' zone above it preventing it from evaporating away.
Impermeable layers deposited above it, or in which it is sandwiched can
also protect it from loss to the atmosphere. If there is any life
currently on Mars, I believe it will be found in liquid water within the
subsurface.
George
George
> George (aka nicer fool on the hill),
> Try to get real. It's not me you fool on the hill, it's your MIB or
> MI6/NSA~CIA spooks and/or of their freelance partners in crimes against
> humanity that are hard at work. Now I know that you're a spook because,
> only such a certified spook would have to lie about such matters. Your
> "I would attribute your problems with malware to operator error" is
> extremely proof-positive that I'm right, that you are either badly
> snookered and thereby dumbfounded or, you're one of them, and perhaps
> simply too dumbfounded to even realize it.
Yawn. I rarely get malware. The fact that you apparently have a big
problem with it says more about you and the sites you are frequenting than
it does about me.
George
George
> For some reason Bruce (aka Art Deco) is making more white noise. Too
> bad Bruce doesn't actually know anything about rockets, fly-by-rocket
> landers, Kodak film as exposed to raw solar illumination or especially
> about saltwater-ice or even plain old water-ice coexisting in space or
> upon our moon.
> -
> Brad Guth
Of course, none of that has anything to do with the problem ou have with
malware. But I think you knew that already.
George
George
"Mike Lorrey" <mlo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135688924....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, Brad, lay off the pr0n sites, you won't get so much malware.
Uh-oh! Bad move, Brad. Billy Graham has your address now.
George
Jonathan Silverlight
<geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> writes
>
>"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1135666953....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Mars. Perhaps because of the cold and there being simply too much
>> foreground and background radiation would skew whatever test readings.
>
>Umm, carbon 14 dating will only tell you the age of organic remains in the
>last 50,000 years. But first, you have to find the organic remains on
>Mars!!!
Impossible? That usually means "I know damn all about it, so no-one else
does either".
I've got Brad kill filed, as you should, but while there are no plans to
do cabon-14 dating on Mars AFAIK, a mass spectrometer is definitely in
the plans because of the different isotope ratios (C12 vs. C13, for
instance) in the products of living things.
There was one on Beagle 2 :-(
Jonathan Silverlight
<geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> writes
Not necessarily. He could be stupid enough to open all those messages
that say "you visit illegal web sites".
Must admit I did the same, the first time I saw one :-)
George
"Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid>
wrote in message news:TPHxUOKJ...@merseia.freeserve.co.uk...
The implication was that he apparently isn't too experienced where
computers are concerned. But then again, he doesn't appear to be too
bright in other areas as well.
George
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <ozusf.439335$084.74096@attbi_s22>):
> Brad, as a hydrogeologist, ...
(snipped)
Stop arguing with the troll. He's clearly a loon and all you're doing
is giving him the attention he craves.
--
Herb
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
~ RAH
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>
>...Fair enough. Be advised that several of us have filed formal
>complaints on Guth over his racist, nazi tact of late.
>
This is of course assuming that anyone can make heads or tails of what
exactly he's trying to say as it seems mostly incomprehensible to me.
> It used to be
>he was just a net.kook, now he's a bigot and totally contemptable.
>Ridicule isn't enough, he has to be excised from usenet by whatever
>means necessary. We suggest you file the same complaints and push for
>his ISP
>
I think his specific impulse is around 450 on the crazy scale. :-)
Pat (running)
Brad Guth
>a real ISP that provides REAL newsgroup access. You'll be glad you did.
I think you're absolutely right, especially because during the time
when I'd apparently taken their MI6/NSA~CIA GOOGLE/Usenet interface to
it's knees, there was next to nothing of the usual malware/fuckware
getting through to my computer, and that's including all the time I had
been using my alternate "mailgate.org" account, that via the very same
ISP was operating just fine and dandy, while the GOOGLE/Usenet was
brown-nose stuck way deep within their nearest space-toilet mode.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
ice coexisting upon our moon, Mars or much less within the near vacuum
of outer-space, but it's just seemingly interesting to note how
absolutely chuck full of it some Usenet folks really are.
Contributed by "Bunn E. Rabbit" (now there's a Usenet name we can all
trust),
>It would have been nearly impossible with 1960s' technology to
>fake the moon landings, so they just went ahead and did it.
If you don't quite have a viable fly-by-rocket lander that you'd care
to trust with your life:
What's so complex or the least bit difficult about creating phony
baloney Kodak moments?
What's complex or the least bit difficult of those "Chapel Bell" data &
voice transponders?
What's so gosh darn hard about gathering up a few lunar samples that
are just about everywhere upon Earth?
What's difficult about creating science information (especially when
you're the one and only source), then paying others to publish such as
NASA/Apollo infomercials?
Whom within the publishing realms (government as well as public and of
private institutions) was going to dare risk their job security if not
their entire livelihood by turning down those nifty government
publishing dollars and subsequent grants, plus ignore all of the
secondary related commercial hype benefits?
You folks can't possibly tell me that such money (cold-war dirty or
otherwise) doesn't talk. I bet you'd get exactly whatever you were
paying for, especially if there was a lethal nondisclosure policy
enforced by those warm and fuzzy MI6/NSA~CIA MIB.
Perhaps what we need is another typically NASA/Apollo infomercial
solution as to creating the new and improved hard-science of "raw/naked
ice in space". At least we could just as easily pretend as though
walking upon the moon or as having been snipe hunting for WMD, thus
pretend as to know what's likely the case of such ice (salty or not)
surviving within the near vacuum of space, of such raw ice being
situated within 2-AU as fully solar illumination might have to spare.
Obviously you can't have the likes of underground water or even
water-ice unless there's a viable method of transport within the cards,
of getting such ice collected upon and/or subsequently deployed upon
such planets or moons in the first place.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>Umm, care to post a valid link for the claim that Mars is much older than
>Earth? The Martian spherules found at Meridiani are believe to have formed
>sometime during the Noachian period, which is the earliest known period on
>Mars.
Link: NASA/ESA, as having looked at their raw data that has a mostly
sub-frozen to death Mars hosting those multi-million year old dead
volcanos, along with a nearly sub-frozen core gives me a vague clue as
to the likelihood of Mars being somewhat older than Earth. Certainly
your Mars is not less old than Earth.
My SWAG tells me that suns tend to collect things, especially whenever
the likes of two significant suns of hosting a collective of planets
and moons get into a sufficient nearby gravity tit for tat as to being
mutually associated with one another, exactly how we're being dragged
about by the massive Sirius solar system, with us orbiting Sirius every
105,000 some odd years to boot.
Do you happen to have access to a spare super-computer that's just
sitting around with having nothing important to do?
>But first, you have to find the organic remains on Mars!!!
What's wrong or nondisclosure/taboo this time with testing those little
spheres?
>Umm, are you saying that there is no water-ice on Mars?
NO. Can't you read? Why would you have bothered asking such a totally
pathetic question unless you have an ulterior motive and/or a hidden
agenda?
>Umm, Brad, they provided an interpretation based on the earliest results.
>As nearly always happens in science, those results are always subject to
>review pending the availability of more data. And the fact is that their
>interpretation may still be found to be valid.
Umm, isn't your butt getting a bit sore, from going back and forth on
top of that fence?
>Here is detailed information on how those color images are created:
Double duh, as in no kidding folks, whereas there's absolutely nothing
there that I didn't aready know of a good decade before anything was
moving upon Mars. Why are you so dumbfounded and/or otherwise disabled
at getting the punch line?
Why are you so deeply stuck within the Mars or bust rut, or rather upon
the anything sort of rut that manages to keep the media focus away from
our moon and Venus?
Why are you so into avoiding anything that's related to our moon, and
of avoiding the far more likely to host intelligent life as situated
upon Venus?
Is the new and improved science to soon be derived from the Venus
Express mission going to become yet another nondisclosure/taboo topic?
>I do amateur astronomy, and use the same filters to obtain color images of
>astronomic objects.
Can you share an unfiltered look-see at a frame that includes a shot of
our moon along with the Sirius star system?
Best image would be via CCD as having a good many pixels and better
than film DR to work with. However, just plain old color film (aka
Kodak Supra 800) is sufficient.
-
Brad Guth
George
Ok, first of all, I see that having anything resembling an intelligent
conversation with you is out of the question. Secondly, I use a Cannon
300D DLSR camera mounted to an 8" newtonian scope on a German equatorial
clock drive mount for my astrophotos. Having said that, I'm finished with
this conversation. Bye.
George
Brad Guth
>conversation with you is out of the question. Secondly, I use a Cannon
>300D DLSR camera mounted to an 8" newtonian scope on a German equatorial
>clock drive mount for my astrophotos. Having said that, I'm finished with
>this conversation. Bye.
rusemaster),
Sorry you haven't half a peg-leg to sand upon. It seems any time that
I've introduced the hard-science and regular laws of physics with
regard to our moon, or God forbid the likes of Venus, it's that usually
the all-knowing folks like yourself that can't take the heat, or rather
wouldn't dare if you knew what was good for yourself and those close
members of your family that would vanish off the face of your flat
Earth.
Your ulterior motives and hidden agenda really wasn't all that
difficult to figure out. I just went along for this silly ride to see
if you'd slip something nondisclosure, like Mormon Jay and his
apollohoax Mormon friend Bob did a while back.
I guess this means that you're not about to share a link to any of your
300D DLSR and 8" newtonian accomplished astrophotos including our moon
along with the likes of other planets, and especially of avoiding any
frame hosting an extremely bright and reasonably bluish Sirius?
I don't suppose you'd even care to roughly speculate as to where above
the lunar horizon Sirius was throughout all of those NASA/Apollo
missions. Is imaging of other planets and/or Sirius along with our moon
still top-secret, as in nondisclosure/taboo, or else?
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
>>Ok, first of all, I see that having anything resembling an intelligent
>>conversation with you is out of the question. Secondly, I use a Cannon
>>300D DLSR camera mounted to an 8" newtonian scope on a German equatorial
>>clock drive mount for my astrophotos. Having said that, I'm finished with
>>this conversation. Bye.
>Dear easily snookered and thereby dumbfounded George (aka MI6/NSA~CIA
>rusemaster),
>Sorry you haven't half a peg-leg to sand upon. It seems any time that
>I've introduced the hard-science and regular laws of physics with
>regard to our moon, or God forbid the likes of Venus, it's that usually
>the all-knowing folks like yourself that can't take the heat, or rather
>wouldn't dare if you knew what was good for yourself and those close
>members of your family that would vanish off the face of your flat
>Earth.
>
>Your ulterior motives and hidden agenda really wasn't all that
>difficult to figure out. I just went along for this silly ride to see
>if you'd slip something nondisclosure, like Mormon Jay and his
>apollohoax Mormon friend Bob did a while back.
Translation: Brad Guth's kookspiracies still melt like Oleo on a
summer day when exposed by the facts documented on
<http://www.clavius.org/>.
>
>I guess this means that you're not about to share a link to any of your
>300D DLSR and 8" newtonian accomplished astrophotos including our moon
>along with the likes of other planets, and especially of avoiding any
>frame hosting an extremely bright and reasonably bluish Sirius?
>
>I don't suppose you'd even care to roughly speculate as to where above
>the lunar horizon Sirius was throughout all of those NASA/Apollo
>missions. Is imaging of other planets and/or Sirius along with our moon
>still top-secret, as in nondisclosure/taboo, or else?
Idiot. Do you know what an f-stop is, Guth?
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Art Deco
>I also agree that our NASA was grasping for straws, taking a wild swing
>at anything that would keep the new and public academic media focus
>away from Venus and even further away from our moon. The more
>infomercial inches and artificially colorized images of
>wagging-their-dogs worth of spin and hype the better.
All those thousands of Apollo images really chap your hide, Brad.
OM
<geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>Ok, first of all, I see that having anything resembling an intelligent
>conversation with you is out of the question.
...Then quit responding to the Nazi fuckwit troll and put him in your
goddamn killfile and PUT HIM OUT OF OUR MISERY!!
Enough is enough, people. Just killfile the bastard until our formal
complaints get through and his usenet access is nuked. Especially when
those complaints from the NAACP and the JDL start hitting his ISP...
Art Deco
>Obviously you're remaining as too dumbfounded as to share upon anything
>as to raw/naked ice in space without benefit of such being sequestered
>upon a given planet or moon.
You forgot to include any meaning in this word salad, Brad.
Brad Guth
a dozen times, saying that whatever water-ice or most likely
saltwater-ice needed to be underground, or at least well protected
under something. So, other than our agreeing with one another, what's
your point?
If there's any liquid water to being had within Mars, that would have
to represent a geothermal core, of which no such thermal dynamics has
been identified, suggesting perhaps a somewhat icy brine at best, if
not a reasonably sold form of an icy core. Fortunately, certain forms
of life can coexist within ice, especially within salty ice.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
that's dripping all over the place.
-
Brad Guth
George
"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:22:01 GMT, "George"
> <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>
>>Ok, first of all, I see that having anything resembling an intelligent
>>conversation with you is out of the question.
>
> ...Then quit responding to the Nazi fuckwit troll and put him in your
> goddamn killfile and PUT HIM OUT OF OUR MISERY!!
>
> Enough is enough, people. Just killfile the bastard until our formal
> complaints get through and his usenet access is nuked. Especially when
> those complaints from the NAACP and the JDL start hitting his ISP...
>
> OM
I have already. And keep your pantyhose on.
George
OM
<geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>I have already. And keep your pantyhose on.
...You wouldn't have gotten your in a wad thanks to my foot up your
ass if you hadn't started arguing with the psychotic nazi troll in the
first place. Let this be a lesson to you: when everyone else tells you
just to killfile someone and be done with him, *DO IT*. Don't argue,
just do it. When that many people tell you someone needs to be simply
killfiled, rest assured he's already justified the reasons himself
with his trolling long before you got involved.
George
"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:32:38 GMT, "George"
> <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>
>>I have already. And keep your pantyhose on.
>
> ...You wouldn't have gotten your in a wad thanks to my foot up your
> ass if you hadn't started arguing with the psychotic nazi troll in the
> first place. Let this be a lesson to you: when everyone else tells you
> just to killfile someone and be done with him, *DO IT*. Don't argue,
> just do it. When that many people tell you someone needs to be simply
> killfiled, rest assured he's already justified the reasons himself
> with his trolling long before you got involved.
In the first place, I didn't know that he was a complete wack job (though I
had suspicions) when I first started to talk to him. I give people a
benefit of a doubt (even you) before I pass judgement. And secondly, you
are the only one who has suggested to me to killfile him (after I already
did, mind you), so who "everyone" is remains to be defined. Third, you are
not my old lady, so don't pretend that you can tell me what to do. And
fourth, you are close to being killfiled yourself.
George
Art Deco
>Troll to Herb. Suck it up, then wipe off your extremely brown nose
>that's dripping all over the place.
What a lovely sentiment, Brad. He must have laughed at your
over-processed radar images.
Art Deco
Brad is an award-winning kook:
<http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/search.php?query=guth>
>
>George
Pat Flannery
George wrote:
>In the first place, I didn't know that he was a complete wack job (though I
>had suspicions) when I first started to talk to him.
>
He has gotten a lot more eloquent (okay, maybe "wordy" would be more
accurate) with his writing over the years, but there is still hot nut
fudge cooking under that thin cracked skull.*
Still, he can do turns of phrase that have to be read to be believed;
it's been speculated that if you were to get a whole roomful of William
Shakespeares frantically typing away, they would eventually reproduce
all of Guth's postings.
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him Horatio: he was an incest cloned borg. He
hath reported me to the NSA a thousand times. How long must a man lie
upon Venus ere he rots?"
It might help to know that at last check Guth was living above a filling
station and gasoline fumes are suspected to play some part in his
posting style.
> I give people a
>benefit of a doubt (even you) before I pass judgement. And secondly, you
>are the only one who has suggested to me to killfile him (after I already
>did, mind you), so who "everyone" is remains to be defined.
>
I've got him killfiled also, but if you need a daily unhinged posting to
liven up your life, Guth is the dadaist equivalent of a daily vitamin
supplement.
* Thank you, National Lampoon.
Pat
Brad Guth
bed partners in crimes against humanity.
Good grief almighty, Art Deco. As per usual, it seems we still have
your warm and fuzzy pro Christ on a stick sort of mainstream status quo
rusemaster buttology to deal with, keeping a hard line at work with
delivering as much of your pro-NASA dog-wagging spin, hype and
disinformation crapolla to boot. Exactly how much of your off-topic and
with whatever evidence exclusions are you planning upon introducing, or
rather excluding as based upon your nondisclosure and/or need-to-know
basis?
The one and only viable way of folks like yourself excluding what
clearly didn't happen upon the dark and nasty surface of our moon is
the same as those excluding upon intelligent design, thus excluding ETs
is to exclude whatever evidence (meaning the lack of any dot
connections, thus no deductive reasoning whatsoever, much less showing
any stitch of remorse), just like our resident warlord(GW Bush) having
excluded evidence all the time, while otherwise having invented and
perpetrated WMD evidence via soft-intelligence as a mater of staying
the course of his perverted thousand lights, meaning the ongoing
pillaging and plundering lights of mostly Muslim homes and of entire
villages along with whatever nearby oil fields and infrastructure that
we've directly and/or indirectly set on fire.
Perhaps while you're at it (brown nosing your almighty way through your
incest cloned life at the demise of others), perhaps you might as well
exclude our moon and the likes of Venus entirely, as for their not even
existing.
What the freaking sam hell is wrong with the mutated DNA/RNA likes of
yourself? Are you insisting upon remaining as that Skull and Bones and
thereby Third Reich collaborating Jewish until the very last drop of
bloody Islamic/Muslim oil is extracted, or what's your next brown-nosed
plan of action (perhaps nukes in space)?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
Nice snip-n-run, coward. And please keep the sewage flowing, Brad,
I've got a little reward in mind for you.
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>What the freaking sam hell is wrong with the mutated DNA/RNA likes of
>yourself? Are you insisting upon remaining as that Skull and Bones and
>thereby Third Reich collaborating Jewish until the very last drop of
>bloody Islamic/Muslim oil is extracted, or what's your next brown-nosed
>plan of action (perhaps nukes in space)?
Do you realize that no one is laughing with you?
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULTĀ® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in you."
- Leon Trotsky
George
"Art Deco" <art_...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:301220051136390022%art_...@127.0.0.1...
> George <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>
>>"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
>>news:fgbar1tnpj7ltdaf2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:32:38 GMT, "George"
>>> <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have already. And keep your pantyhose on.
>>>
>>> ...You wouldn't have gotten your in a wad thanks to my foot up your
>>> ass if you hadn't started arguing with the psychotic nazi troll in the
>>> first place. Let this be a lesson to you: when everyone else tells you
>>> just to killfile someone and be done with him, *DO IT*. Don't argue,
>>> just do it. When that many people tell you someone needs to be simply
>>> killfiled, rest assured he's already justified the reasons himself
>>> with his trolling long before you got involved.
>>
>>In the first place, I didn't know that he was a complete wack job (though
>>I
>>had suspicions) when I first started to talk to him. I give people a
>>benefit of a doubt (even you) before I pass judgement. And secondly, you
>>are the only one who has suggested to me to killfile him (after I already
>>did, mind you), so who "everyone" is remains to be defined. Third, you
>>are
>>not my old lady, so don't pretend that you can tell me what to do. And
>>fourth, you are close to being killfiled yourself.
>
> Brad is an award-winning kook:
Umm, I've come across many kooks on usenet over the years, and I must say,
he's quite sub-par compared to others (Ed Conrad, and Jean Paul Turcard
being the more memorable ones). There is still room for the Guth to grow,
unfortunately. I don't think we've seen his worst.
George
George
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:11rb4d6...@corp.supernews.com...
You give him too much credit. He's not even a very original kook as far as
I'm concerned.
George
Evil Roy
Pat Flannery wrote:
> He has gotten a lot more eloquent (okay, maybe "wordy" would be more
> accurate) with his writing over the years, but there is still hot nut
> fudge cooking under that thin cracked skull.*
He also should learn how to punctuate, and make smaller - coherent -
sentences. Amazing how he can write 5000 word essay with only two
sentences - and still say nothing.
I suppose I should have done this earlier when people like OM warned me
to "killfile" him, but I did a google lookup on him.
(rolls eyes)
To call him a whacko nutjob is an insult to the insane.
I also found a wonderful rebuttal to him done by Jay Windley. I don't
think Jay has it on any of his sites, but it's preserved in the BABB
(now BAUT) archives. Well worth reading.
Art Deco
I agree, his recent material is more and more of the sewer variety.
As for the two notorious cases you cite, both of them are VVFWS alums:
<http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/search.php?query=conrad>
<http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/search.php?query=jean>