Brad Guth feeds the brown-nosed incest cloned clowns of usenet
Brad Guth
Deco" have intentionally bashed and having diverted my topic of: What's
actually HOT and NASTY about Venus?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/77e25d90e807f3de/ff4ebc88a0e7ac57#ff4ebc88a0e7ac57
as into their mutually brown-nosed cesspool of disinformation clubs of
"alt.fan.art-bell, alt.usenet.kooks", as for that reason alone I'll
have to repost a few of my most interesting contributions so that the
original groups of "sci.space.policy, sci.space.history, sci.physics,
sci.astro, alt.news-media" can fully appreciate all my efforts in
sharing as well as per returning the favor.
>Bookman;
>I notice that you keep snipping away those facts, Guthball. You know,
>the pictures, moonrocks, films and transmissions from the face of the
>moon, as well as the testimony of the men who walked on the moon.
Hmmmm, that's hardly sharing of news we can use.
Would you like to explain the Xenon lamp illumination of color spectrum
that's clearly the case of those Apollo/EVA unfiltered Kodak moments?
I've already given way more than the proof-positive that you're so gosh
darn stupid to realize squat when you're stepping in your own.
Therefore, how can you and of all your incest of disinformation
possibly understand squat about photons and film?
>OK, here you go: Due to the inverse square law of radiation, Venus is
>radically hotter than Earth is. And an atmosphere that is much hotter
>and denser than Earth's, and very much higher in CO2 isn't conducive
>to life as we know it.
I 100% agree, and always have.
>Oh, that's rich, Guthball - you're calling on SpongeBob Squarepants to
>support your "position"? LOLOLOL!!!
No sir fool on the hill, I'm just sharing that "SpongeBob Squarepants"
is a whole lot smarter then yourself, and has remorse to boot.
>Earth to Guthboi: Kodak doesn't claim that "Apollo didn't happen" the
>way that you k'lame it. That's because the photographic experts at
>Kodak know that the photographs taken on the moon are real. HTH.
Please quote whatever, as in share and share alike because, others and
I've looked for and still can't manage to identify any such official
Kodak coporate support whatsoever.
>I represent the scientific facts of the lunar landings, Borgboi.
Then you represent another dripping butt load of soft-science that's
remote obtained at best, and otherwise you represent conditional laws
of physics that's so gosh darn brown-nosed that it can't breath.
>Why does the truth about men walking on the moon "rock your boat",
>Guthball?
It can't be accomplished (not even robotically) with the available
technology of today, much less of the mid/late 60's. Micro/small
satellites of as little as a kg could and perhaps should have been
deployed to the lunar surface as of a couple of decades ago, but as of
today we can't even manage that much. It doesn't require a very big
fly-by-rocket effort for getting a few kg worth of a few such small
satellites into extremely low lunar orbits that'll at best soon decay
into somewhat hard-landings.
Brad Guth;
- - - - - - If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it.
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
- Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Art Deco
>Since wizards/perverts (aka MI6/NSA~CIA spooks) "Bookman" and "Art
>Deco"
Idiot. Ad hominem.
>have intentionally bashed and having diverted my topic of: What's
>actually HOT and NASTY about Venus?
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/77e25d90e807
>f3de/ff4ebc88a0e7ac57#ff4ebc88a0e7ac57
>as into their mutually brown-nosed cesspool of disinformation clubs of
>"alt.fan.art-bell, alt.usenet.kooks",
Where, as an award-winning kook, you are always on-topic.
>as for that reason alone I'll
>have to repost a few of my most interesting contributions so that the
>original groups of "sci.space.policy, sci.space.history, sci.physics,
>sci.astro, alt.news-media" can fully appreciate all my efforts in
>sharing as well as per returning the favor.
Whine some more, Brad. Froups restored.
[malformed sig flushed]
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy
"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."
"Human beings CAN NOT live in a solar system without a sun
with a ferrite core and a planet without a solid iron core."
-- Alexa Cameron, Kook of the Year 2004
"I am a sean being from another planet."
-- Darla aka Dr. Why aka Dr. Yubiwan aka Silouen aka ...
ah
Guthbooster's deuterium tanks are getting a little low, Bruce.
--
ah
Brad Guth
of whomever's "ah" doing their usual cloak and dagger contributions with
diversions into their perverted "alt.fan.art-bell and alt.usenet.kooks"
cesspools of disinformation and damage-control that accomplishes a real
good job of their brown-nosed sucking and blowing.
I'd noticed how the NASA/GOOGLE/NOVA usenet hadn't quite managed to have
placed my most recent of contributions, so I'm having an alternative
look-see via "mailgate", and lo and behold here they are, along with all
of my usual following of incest cloned borgs tagging along for the ride.
The only problem being a limitation of MAILGATE getting this applied
into the first three groups instead of the usual five means that if the
GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA usenet of applied disinformation doesn't shape up soon,
I'll have to reformat and post this information again.
BTW; Kurt Vonnegut is on my side, especially with regard to his pitching
a royal fit over our resident warlord(GW Bush).
Brad Guth;
- - - - - - If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it.
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
- Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
stalkers of "Art Deco" and of whomever's "ah", as per doing their usual
cloak and dagger contributions along with the usual diversions into
their perverted "alt.fan.art-bell and alt.usenet.kooks" cesspools of
accomplishes such a real good orchestrated job of their brown-nosed
sucking and blowing, that which in spite of all the botoxin usage still
manages to keep that smirk on the face of our resident warlord and of
his sidekick Dick Cheney.
I'd noticed how the NASA/GOOGLE/NOVA usenet hadn't quite managed to have
placed my most recent of contributions on their usnet index pile, so
that hours upon hours after the fact, I'm having to take an alternative
look-see via "mailgate", and lo and behold here they are along with all
of my usual borg following of incest cloned fools tagging along for the
ride. So, it's obviously not me, or that of my PC nor of my ISP that's
keeping the truth as sequestered as possible.
The only slight problem being a limitation of MAILGATE getting this
applied into the first four groups and of none of the alt.whatever
groups instead of the usual five means that if the GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
usenet of applied disinformation doesn't shape up soon, I'll have to
reformat and post this information again via my MAILGATE account, which
fortunately doesn't share nearly as much of that nasty spermware/malware
as per my GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA usenet account that in the recent past having
shared as much of their PC fuckware as they could muster.
BTW; Kurt Vonnegut is on my side, especially with regard to his having
been pitching a royal fit over our resident warlord(GW Bush) and of his
fornacating in the Oval Office. Much like Kurt Vonnegut said on PBS; we
need to get ourselves into a gang, and perhaps then we should kick some
of those butts that have been supposedly holding down our fort by their
having oral sex within our Oval Office, as here I'd though token blacks
had some other function as their responsibility.
Brad Guth
- - - - - - If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it.
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
- Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Art Deco
I think he's been exposed to the sulfur of the Venusian atmosphere,
Bruce.
Art Deco
Poor Brad, he's such a victim, but he melts so well.
Nice lits again, Brad, and I'm in my usual #1 ranking.
Secr...@verizon.net
Secr...@verizon.net
Brad Guth
I'm still working on this following contribution, thus I've
intentionally created some of those dyslexic mistakes that you and your
incest cloned partners in crimes against humanity seem to get your
jollies from. Since you're solely into topic/author stalking and
bashings, and otherwise into loaded questions as not intending upon
contributing squat as to the topic at hand, in which case I've got
nothing to lose. How about yourself?
It seems that you and the likes of lords/wizards Bob and Art can't
manage to accomplish any of your own 'search for' much of anything,
that is unless it's on behalf of sustaining your mutually pagan
brown-nosed and very Thrid Reich religions of knowing thy enemy and
thus screwing thy humanity. All the sudden whenever I've shared
information as to what others have accomplished, I alone have to keep
re-posting the same old links to their research as though the likes of
team KECK and numerous others having been involved with what's somewhat
if not entirely external to NASA have been contributing for decades is
WMD invisible to your incest mutated eyes. It's as though these other
science folks have absolutely no archives of their own independently
derived information to spare, it's also although the likes of Bob and
Art have each become the all-knowing experts upon everything that's
moon or Venus related (that is as long as it matches their one and only
pagan NASA Koran). Isn't that the best ever and absolutely terrific
brown-nosed butt-sucking spookology or what?
-
Here's a little more of my feeding the brown-nosed incest cloned clowns
of Usenet:
Robotically accomplishing Venus is technically simpler than doing our
moon. At least the option of getting a few science capable items safely
deployed upon the geothermally active surface hasn't been the least bit
fly-by-rocket complicated.
Such Venus missions of involving the flying robotic rigid-airships
about, as in their safely cruising under the cloud deck at perhaps an
altitude of 20 km off the deck would enable an extremely close look-see
at the Ishtar Terra terrain that's 10+km, thus giving a distance
differential of being less than 10 km from the radar and other capably
sensitive imaging systems, which shouldn't have any problems in
obtaining a resolution as tight as 0.1 meter/pixel.
Such an effort would likely involve keeping a mother-ship or two in
orbit, perhaps also having the multi-tasking TRACE-VL2 as halo station
keeping directly over the nighttime season, thus acting as the primary
packet data transfering to/from Earth.
Once these relatively small deployments are situated as per cruising
below the nasty matrix of elements that'll likely exist within such
thick clouds, as then the energy efficient operations of rigid-airship
cruising is almost effortless, that is unless intending to buck the few
meters/second of local weather, which only further diminishes in
velocity as getting closer to the surface. Shifting from a low to a
high altitude could even manage quite nicely for keeping a relatively
constant location or operational zone with minimal applied energy. The
more than toasty environment is good for the usage of most forms of
battery energy storage, the thermally conductive aspects of the mostly
dry CO2 environment is also good for most any reactor method of thermal
differential energy. Bymetals of chromel/Alumel as stacked metallic
thermal pile sources of generating electrons seems like another
perfectly viable alternative that only works if there's a warm
environment from which to create those electrons in the first place.
At nearly 65 kg/m3 represents almost no limits as to the capacity of
what the rigid-airship method could manage to haul. Whereas a 10 m3
rigid-airship might safely haul 256 kg worth of its technology, of
which these days of micro-minature everything is actually quite a great
amount of opportunity for obtaining hard-scinece for months on end if
not nearly indeffinetly.
Within the last decade there certainly hasn't been inventions nor
otherwise contrived methods that are significantly better off than what
could have been accomplished as of a decade ago. Smaller and more
energy efficient instruments that'll tolerate even greater
environmental extremes than exist upon Venus are about the only
improvements we have obtained, thus perhaps not all has been lost due
to sitting on our butts for the last couple of decade.
Robotically speaking, pressure and even temperature are non-issues, and
of the terrific buoyancy along with the 0.905 gravity are only mission
benefits that any rigid-airship cruising through such a crystal clear
and calm atmospheric environment has to work with.
Here's some actual news you can use:
"dark current noise is exponentially related to temperature - it
DOUBLES for every 6 or 8 degrees C temperature rise (depending on the
CCD)." Thus typical CCDs may not be the best alternative for the task
at hand. Even if doubling per 10°C isn't outside the ballpark, there's
other imaging technology that's doable.
http://www.extremetemperatureelectronics.com/
http://www.extremetemperatureelectronics.com/tutorial1.html
http://www.extremetemperatureelectronics.com/tutorial4.html
Extreme-Temperature Electronics Newsletter Issue #4 (22 June 2002):
"On the high end, "laboratory" operation of discrete semiconductor
devices has been reported at temperatures as high as about +700°C (for
a diamond Schottky diode) and 650°C (for a SiC MOSFET). Integrated
circuits based on Si and GaAs have operated to +400-500°C. Si ICs have
been reported to operate at +300°C for 1000 hours or longer."
"GaAs devices can operate to approximately 500°C, but specialized
metallization systems are necessary in order for a GaAs device to be
used for even a minimum practical time (~10-100 hours) at this
temperature."
"The devices themselves have been shown to operate to over 600°C, but
SiC transistors offered commercially have so far been rated to only
350°C because of the contacts and packaging."
"For example, a Ni/Ge/Au/Ni/W5Si3/Au system was used for ohmic contacts
on GaAs to attain 600 hours lifetime at 400°C [1]. What works for one
semiconductor material may not work for others."
Obviously vacuum tubes resolve all of these complications. Have we
forgotten all of the basics?
http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/~radok/physics/k10.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube
"Tube cathodes do not "wear out" as lamp filaments do"
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/data/valve/valve_theory/tube_basic_theory.php
Thermionic Valves / Thermionic Emission: I might suggest that oxide
coated filaments as cathodes have operated rather nicely at 1000-1100
K, although 875 K has also been sufficient for electron evaporating or
boiling off a few spare electrons. Obviously high power electron
emitters like it hot, as in 2000 K is considered 100% electron emission
worthy. Although, if your circuitry demands can manage with fewer than
100% electron emission is where the much cooler cathodes become viable.
The fewer electrons necessary per task, the lower the thermal cathode
boil-off emission of electrons is required, down to the point of 700 K
being adequate for the sorts of sub-microamp (picoamp) circuitry that's
in use today.
Thoria-coated Iridium Disc Cathodes or even Radium coated cathodes seem
to have rather eliminated the need for cathod heating entirely.
Basically we're talking about electron plasma emitters that'll function
quite nicely at the ambient thermal conditions of what Venus has to
offer.
http://www.kimballphysics.com/cathode/catalog_PDF/Thoria_cathode.pdf
The model ES-505 utilizes a 0.033 inch (0.84 mm) diameter iridium
disc, attached to a 0.003 inch (0.08 mm) diameter iridium heater wire.
The higher current models, ES-506 and ES-509 The Kimball Physics
Thoria-coated Iridium Disc or Filament Cathode is a rugged thermionic
emitter that resists oxidation. These iridium cathodes are quite
sturdy and provide stable and uniform electron emission for a wide
variety of electron source applications, especially where vacuum
conditions are not ideal.
Obviously there's no physical circuitry connection issues associated
with the use of vacuum tubes, whereas these items can even be made
rather small and obviously the extra energy required for getting the
cathode element into emitting those extra electrons is going to be
rather minimal. Obviously within our relatively icy cold and too often
wet and thus conductive as well as such a highly O2 and H2O corrosive
environment is, this is where you'll need to establish a vacuum
containment of a dry environment for the practical usage of the
traditional electronic valve or tube. However, upon Venus it's not so,
as such electron tubes or valves need not even require a vacuum
because, bone dry CO2 is not going to represent much of a conductor,
and there's sure as hell damn little if any O2 or H2O related corrosing
issues.
What the freaking hell was I thinking, to be suggesting that ordinary
heated cathode tubes or forbid even to suggest ambient cathods of
iridium or radium become the best tickets to ride. Christ almighty on
another stick, here I'm suggesting upon what's actually so within the
box that folks having their typical anti-everything under the sun fits
about applying such technology on behalf of accomplishing Venus are
into their usual core melt-down mode of going absolutely postal.
If you're not actually another one of those mainstream status quo fools
going absolutely postal, as such you might have some SWAG worth of
notions as to what's doable and of what's not. High temperature
circuitry and sensors simply have not been not all that insurmountable,
but if you fear for your life or simply fear your job security, what
ever you do, don't try telling any of this to our all-knowing NASA
that's so into their continued cloaking on behalf of sustaining our
MI6/NSA/CIA~DoD perpetrated cold-wars, so much so that there's no
possible way of their ever returning to the realm of honest science and
the honest exploration of space, that is unless such explorations
excludes the likes of whatever's Venus and/or of whatever our moon has
enstore.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
Art Deco
>Dear "Secret...@Verizon.net" (aka MI6/NSA/CIA~NASA spook),
>I'm still working on this following contribution, thus I've
>intentionally created some of those dyslexic mistakes that you and your
>incest cloned partners in crimes against humanity
Another opportunity for you to run away from your kook claims, Brad:
What "crimes against humanity", kook?
[guthdrool flushed]
Brad Guth
Isn't knowingly telling one lie the exact same flavor as telling any
other, and yet another after that?
I on the other hand, when given the truth that remains essentially the
same when checking the facts from all directions, whereas this is when
and where I've change my tune. Just like as of 6 years ago was when I
had to change my tune as to having previously believed that we'd walked
upon the moon, and that them dirty rotten ruskies and chinks were out
to get us, and if at all possible with our pants down.
Art Deco
>>Art Deco - What "crimes against humanity", kook?
>Isn't knowingly telling one lie the exact same flavor as telling any
>other, and yet another after that?
>
>I on the other hand, when given the truth that remains essentially the
>same when checking the facts from all directions, whereas this is when
>and where I've change my tune. Just like as of 6 years ago was when I
>had to change my tune as to having previously believed that we'd walked
>upon the moon, and that them dirty rotten ruskies and chinks were out
>to get us, and if at all possible with our pants down.
You could have just come right out and said that you were talking
through your @$$, Brad. Oh wait, you just did.
Brad Guth
those sanctimonious public prosecutors, in that regardless of after the
fact of having been given multiple forms of head-evidence, such as per
DNA and even eye-witnesses willing to stipulate along with
collaborating support that the usually poor sucker you've gotten set
for lethal injection, the electric chair or just plain old life
imprisonment is innocent, that no matters what it's not going to alter
your plan of action, other than for using your every available
expertise and resources for tossing up the usual gauntlets of evidence
exclusions and/or banishment by way of eliminating as much of whatever
evidence as possible.
I think that's pretty much what sort of happened to Jesus Christ. GOT
CROSS?
donsto...@hotmail.com
***************************
Well, the simple solution to that is for the Usenet admins to post a
sign saying :
"Do not feed the brown-nosed incest cloned clowns of usenet".
Art Deco
>As per usual, Art Deco is acting and/or reacting exactly like one of
>those sanctimonious public prosecutors, in that regardless of after the
>fact of having been given multiple forms of head-evidence, such as per
>DNA and even eye-witnesses willing to stipulate along with
>collaborating support that the usually poor sucker you've gotten set
>for lethal injection, the electric chair or just plain old life
>imprisonment is innocent, that no matters what it's not going to alter
>your plan of action, other than for using your every available
>expertise and resources for tossing up the usual gauntlets of evidence
>exclusions and/or banishment by way of eliminating as much of whatever
>evidence as possible.
>
>I think that's pretty much what sort of happened to Jesus Christ. GOT
>CROSS?
Good -- keep running away from your wild claims of "crimes against
humanity", Brad.
And another fine snip-n-run too, coward.
Art Deco
>As per usual, Art Deco is acting and/or reacting exactly like one of
>those sanctimonious public prosecutors, in that regardless of after the
>fact of having been given multiple forms of head-evidence, such as per
>DNA and even eye-witnesses willing to stipulate along with
>collaborating support that the usually poor sucker you've gotten set
>for lethal injection, the electric chair or just plain old life
>imprisonment is innocent, that no matters what it's not going to alter
>your plan of action, other than for using your every available
>expertise and resources for tossing up the usual gauntlets of evidence
>exclusions and/or banishment by way of eliminating as much of whatever
>evidence as possible.
>
>I think that's pretty much what sort of happened to Jesus Christ. GOT
>CROSS?
Brad meltsdown, again. Poor Brad, he's such a victim.
ah
I bet that really kinked his 'fro, Bruce.
--
ah
Art Deco
ah
Nope.
I did, however, Bruce, find some Extremely large Primary Structures nestled
between a Suspension/Causeway, and a Raised Platform/runway w/equip. on-deck and
w/sub-service bays.
--
ah
Art Deco
Darn, I was hoping to see a Venusian dreadnaught battlecruiser, Bruce.
Cardinal Chunder
> Since wizards/perverts (aka MI6/NSA~CIA spooks) "Bookman" and "Art
> Deco" have intentionally bashed and having diverted my topic of: What's
> actually HOT and NASTY about Venus?
Tee hee, MI6 / NSA-CIA spooks! You know you're turned into a full tilt
nutcase when you start accusing your detractors of being government
disinformation agents.
Jonathan Silverlight
<c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> writes
I've got the idiot kill filed, but is he still blaming his computer
crashes on NSA spyware?
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <IInhY2v0...@merseia.freeserve.co.uk>):
Because he's a loon, why else? NSA wouldn't need spyware, they'd just
use a hardware keylogger and a hidden camera in his room somewhere. :-)
--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
<www.angryherb.net>
Chuck Stewart
> Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>> I've got the idiot kill filed, but is he still blaming his computer
>> crashes on NSA spyware?
> Because he's a loon, why else? NSA wouldn't need spyware, they'd just
> use a hardware keylogger and a hidden camera in his room somewhere. :-)
But maybe he put a Sony music CD
in his computer... :)
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Pat Flannery
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
>Because he's a loon, why else? NSA wouldn't need spyware, they'd just
>use a hardware keylogger and a hidden camera in his room somewhere. :-)
>
>
>
You know what would be really cunning? Mount the mind control device
_inside_ the tin foil hat. ;-)
Pat
Chuck Stewart
> Herb Schaltegger wrote:
No, Pat... the tinfoil hat IS the
mind control device but don't tell
anyone, k'?
> Pat
Art Deco
wrote:
Actually, he calls it "spermware", which apparently is at least partly
biological.
Brad Guth
>crashes on NSA spyware?
Don't you know anything?
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
ah
http://www.hwaccess.net/downloads/hw2concart/hw2concart.zip
There's a prototype in there, somewhere.
--
ah
Michael Baldwin Bruce
What colours do they come in, Bruce?
Brad Guth
There's nothing much to "whine" about, except that you're the one
that's not putting up nor shutting up, and that's certainly worth a
good whine.
We'll eventually need to walk upon our earthshine illuminated moon,
thus whenever you manage to get something/anything that's NASA/Apollo
proof positive, or even if you'd care to set a hot robotic foot upon
Venus, I'll be right here.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
Art Deco
Art Deco
Another snip-n-run, coward?
>Dear Art Deco (aka MI6/NSA~CIA spook),
>There's nothing much to "whine" about, except that you're the one
>that's not putting up nor shutting up, and that's certainly worth a
>good whine.
>
>We'll eventually need to walk upon our earthshine illuminated moon,
>thus whenever you manage to get something/anything that's NASA/Apollo
>proof positive, or even if you'd care to set a hot robotic foot upon
>Venus, I'll be right here.
Yeah, you whine so well, Brad.
Art Deco
Grey and gray, Bruce.
John Griffin
> Dear Art Deco (aka MI6/NSA~CIA spook),
> There's nothing much to "whine" about, except that you're the
> one that's not putting up nor shutting up, and that's
> certainly worth a good whine.
>
> We'll eventually need to walk upon our earthshine illuminated
> moon, thus whenever you manage to get something/anything
> that's NASA/Apollo proof positive, or even if you'd care to
> set a hot robotic foot upon Venus, I'll be right here.
Your obsession with Venus is some excellent fuckin' irony. Venus
is the brightest object in Earth's sky, and you're one of the
dimmest objects in the usenet atmosphere.
Pat Flannery
John Griffin wrote:
>"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Your obsession with Venus is some excellent fuckin' irony. Venus
>is the brightest object in Earth's sky,
>
Sun and Moon?
Pat
John Griffin
Usually--but I thought it would be fun to confuse him.
Oops...wait a minute...his confusion seems to be congenital.
Damn.
>
> Pat
Jonathan Silverlight
<fla...@daktel.com> writes
donsto...@hotmail.com
Pat Flannery
John Griffin wrote:
>
>Usually--but I thought it would be fun to confuse him.
>Oops...wait a minute...his confusion seems to be congenital.
>Damn.
>
>
You probably never read my plan to screw with his already coarse
threaded mind, did you?
From back in 2003:
"I still say we go with "Operation Basilisk". From an earlier post of mine:
Further cogitation on the lizard idea has resulted in improvements to
the plan- as Venus rests low on the horizon, the first of the laser
bursts begins coming through the door of Brad's auto garage...these
pulsing in
an unearthly manner, the pulses repeating the first ten prime numbers
over and over....then, in the darkness, the soft whir of electric motors
is heard, as from the sky the ten foot long radio controlled blimp
enters the garage and reels down the unearthly looking chrome suited
green male Basilisk Lizard, it's eyes shining yellow in the darkness,
an Islamic prayer call emanating from the small solid state speaker in it's
backpack, it's crested head looking furtively about. (The male Basilisk:
http://www.geometer.org/costarica/malebasilisk.jpg)
If the prayer call isn't giveaway enough, the creatures Islamic green
coloration should remove all doubt as to it's planet of origin; and the
two-way radio feed from it should allow the beginnings of communication
with that _other_ strange species of life that is Brad Guth. If Guth
becomes threatening toward the "Venusian", a small electric shock can be
administered to the lizard via radio, and will start the bipedal running
behavior that the Basilisk Lizard is noted for- since bipedialism is
sometimes mistakenly equated with intelligence, this should remove all
doubt about the creature's sentience, and Brad will try to converse with
it- the lizard shall then tell him that "Humanity Is Not Yet Ready To
Receive The Venusian Knowledge." and that "He, As The Anointed Venusian
Prophet, Must Keep This Knowledge Forever Secret, And Not Go Spreading
It Around The Internet Until The Appointed Hour; Many, Many, Years From
Now." Then the take-up reel shall draw the lizard back into the radio
controlled blimp, which shall depart.
This should solve many "first contact" problems, but if worse comes to
worst, all we are out is a Basilisk Lizard.... if that happens, then the
blimp goes back the next day and drops off the Declaration Of War between
Venus and Earth.
Then it explodes."
Pat
Brad Guth
>is the brightest object in Earth's sky, and you're one of the
>dimmest objects in the usenet atmosphere.
That's a whole lot better off than being another Usenet disinformation
black hole like yourself. At least a dim light is suggesting a spark of
life. So, what's the pathetic reason(s) for your black hole problem?
BTW; Venus at 0.8 is only pixel per pixel or film grain per grain a
whole lot brighter than our moon, thus unavoidably being easily
photographed from the naked/raw surface of our extremely albedo dark
and reactive moon, especially if having been accomplished as per all of
those unfiltered Kodak moments.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
John Griffin
>>Your obsession with Venus is some excellent fuckin' irony.
>>Venus is the brightest object in Earth's sky, and you're one
>>of the dimmest objects in the usenet atmosphere.
>
> That's a whole lot better off than being another Usenet
> disinformation black hole like yourself. At least a dim light
> is suggesting a spark of life. So, what's the pathetic
> reason(s) for your black hole problem?
It isn't unusual for someone to say "Thanks for making my
point," but in this case, it's exactly what you did with that bit
of petulant kookslobber. Perhaps I could explain this to you.
Obviously you aren't bright enough to see the flaw in your
reasoning (charitably speaking), so I'll just direct your
pathetically limited attention to the contrast. What I said to
you was just an observation which is supported by 100% of all
relevant evidence. Actually, it's more than 100% now, relative to
the time I posted that, since your stupid reply all alone is
proof of your dimwittedness. Your tantrum declares that I have
some problem and then asks me to explain it. Terminally stupid,
Guth. That's real IQ-90 material. You need to have some sort of
external power source, because whatever internal source powers
your brain is not doing the job.
> BTW; Venus at 0.8 is only pixel per pixel or film grain per
> grain a whole lot brighter than our moon, thus unavoidably
> being easily photographed from the naked/raw surface of our
> extremely albedo dark and reactive moon, especially if having
> been accomplished as per all of those unfiltered Kodak
> moments. -
Why would someone bother to take a picture of Venus from the
moon? Hint: They wouldn't. You can get lots better pictures of
Venus from Earth often enough. I suppose you, being dimwitted,
could be fascinated by staring at a black photo with one tiny
bright point in it, but when someone carries a roll of film more
than a million miles, he wants an interesting subject in every
frame. Fool.
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
Another idiotic remark. I wasn't look for the truth about your
foolishness. To notice you is to notice that.
Brad Guth
Besides myself and corporate Kodak being photon and film physics right;
What's your pathetic point?
>Why would someone bother to take a picture of Venus from the
>moon?
This isn't the least bit of what else is skewed, but please do tell us
village idiots exactly how the sam freaking hell they could possibly
have avoided Venus, especially on two of those missions?
There's at least a couple of other photo recordable planets to boot,
and of course the Sirius star system that wasn't exactly hidden as well
as those WMD, nor was it the least bit dim to the sensitivity of those
unfiltered Kodak moments.
Obviously you're another LLPOF SOB that badly deserves a really big-ass
aircraft smashing into the building you're in.
I've also noticed that your incest cloned and extremely brown-nosed
Usenet spooks of this GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA disinformation cesspool have
been sharing their boss's spermware/malware (aka MI6/NSA~CIA PC
fuckware) again, as getting right back into their usual old
space-toilet tricks again. So, I guess that I'll just have to keep
returning the warm and fuzzy favor with as much love and affection as I
can muster.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
Michael Baldwin Bruce
Great! I'll take two.
John Griffin
> Dear John Griffin (aka fuckwad spook),
> Besides myself and corporate Kodak being photon and film
> physics right; What's your pathetic point?
>
>>Why would someone bother to take a picture of Venus from the
>>moon?
<snicker> Harebrained chickenshit Guth was compelled to snip the
answer to the rhetorical question (they wouldn't).
I guess you just wanted to save bandwidth, but for a moment
there, it appeared that you snipped it because you were able to
perceive the truth in it. (What was I thinking?!)
> This isn't the least bit of what else is skewed, but please do
> tell us village idiots exactly how the sam freaking hell they
> could possibly have avoided Venus, especially on two of those
> missions?
BT, DT. You haven't been able to understand it on any of the
dozens of occasions where people have pointed out some of the
flaws in your thinking, fool, and you won't understand it this
time.
> There's at least a couple of other photo recordable planets to
> boot, and of course the Sirius star system that wasn't exactly
> hidden as well as those WMD, nor was it the least bit dim to
> the sensitivity of those unfiltered Kodak moments.
Who cares? You can get pictures of distant objects from your
back yard.
> Obviously you're another LLPOF SOB that badly deserves a
> really big-ass aircraft smashing into the building you're in.
Damn, all that stupidity and ignorance, and you still have room
between your ears for childishness. Hell of a deal!
> I've also noticed that your incest cloned and extremely
> brown-nosed Usenet spooks of this GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA
> disinformation cesspool have been sharing their boss's
> spermware/malware (aka MI6/NSA~CIA PC fuckware) again, as
> getting right back into their usual old space-toilet tricks
> again. So, I guess that I'll just have to keep returning the
> warm and fuzzy favor with as much love and affection as I can
> muster. -
I, like you, have no fucking idea what you're babbling about in
that stupid little snit.
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
Even if you begin to look for the truth, you will not recognize
it the next time someone slaps you with it.
Watch your back, simpleton. You never know when the truth might
sneak up and try to find its way into your head, where it would
be seen as an impurity.
Brad Guth
>Who cares? You can get pictures of distant objects from your
>back yard.
>BT, DT. You haven't been able to understand it on any of the
>dozens of occasions where people have pointed out some of the
>flaws in your thinking, fool, and you won't understand it this
>time.
Please post a link because, as far as I know it hasn't ever been
resolved by others. So, it's entirely apparent that you can't explain a
damn thing either.
How true it is to have complicated matters by way of showing that of
taking pictures of an extremely dark and otherwise extremely nasty moon
as from time to time having recorded the likes of Jupiter, Mars or
Venus within the same frame, as it only proves that some of us having
"the right stuff" are simply better butt sucking liars than others.
Apparently the Sirius star system was also being just as WMD stealthy
throughout 6 out of 6 of those NASA/Apollo EVAs plus throughout any of
a good dozen other robotic missions having orbited and supposedly a few
of those having gotten safely deployed upon the surface with working
cameras that were supposedly the most spendy and thus capable of the
day, yet having failed to ever once out of the tens of thousands of
frames to have captured anything other than such a highly and thus
unusually retroreflective lunar surface that was so nicely Xenon lamp
spectrum like, never the least bit reactive nor hardly all that much
darker than a good 50/50 blend of portland cement and cornmeal or
perhaps milled rice, having been so well clumping with nearly 100 g/cm2
worth of a slightly compressed surface tension was common place, and
therefore never all that dirty and/or dusty, nor ever once recoding an
impact or the horrific aftermath transpiring.
Since you're so good at avoiding the truth, and otherwise with applying
evidence exclusions and of the required conditional laws of physics as
re-applied as for crunching whatever numbers that'll make our
government and the company they keep look so gosh darn great, perhaps
you can far better explain this little matter of the rich getting
richer, as perhaps how a CIA World Fact Book would have explained it.
Microsoft executive employee 'Jane' visits yet another local charity
function that's essentially collecting cash-cash donations for their
cause.
Jane sees that there's a bit more than $500 of cash-cash accumulated in
the donation jar.
Jane offers to kindly replace those 500 cash-cash dollars with a
personal check for $1000
The charity obviously accepts the kind offer and summarily forks over
the $500 cash-cash to Jane, in exchange for that $1000 personal check.
Jane of course is working for an upstanding company(Microsoft) that in
addition to having ripped off countless other software companies and
basically caught manipulating the market place via ENRON, WorldCom and
Arthur Andersen style of cooking their books and otherwise having been
caught red-handed with both hands in the cooky jar of life, essentially
having been taking way more than their fair share of the cookies by way
of pillaging and steeling from others, also has an in-house policy of
always compensating their executives with a 50/50 matching fund of
whatever gets donated into the local community by one of their own
kind, thus Jane forks over her cancelled check of $1000 and her
boss/MicroSoft in turn shells out the extra $500 as per the 50/50
matching fund bonus in order to fairly compensate Jane having donated
her personal check of $1000.
1) Howmuch money did this Cherity actually end up with? ($1000)
2) How much did Microsoft and Jane take as a tax deduction? ($1000)
3) How much did sweet Jane actually donate to the Charity? (-$0)
4) How much tax-free bonus cash-cash did Jane end up with? ($500)
Of course there's a pretty good chance of double-dipping as to their
taking personal and corporate taxable income deductions, and there's no
actual limits as to how often and/or for how much of this tax avoidance
and otherwise tax-free bonus money gets donated in this 2:1 manner, or
even if limited to local community involvements, and certainly
MicroSoft has a good thousand of these community do-gooders as their
representatives proving that such upstanding Microsoft employees and by
way of the company they keep are actually the good guys. In fact, as
long as you've got the tried and proven Arthur Anderson set of book
keeping skills down pat, there's almost no end as to where this simple
tax avoidance shell game can take you.
Of course, I could run the numbers off as to what these thousand
Microsoft qualified employees could collectively manage to pull off per
year after year, and I could only imagine as to what the corporate
levels could manage to shell as their part of essentially giving those
same sorts of 2:1 tax-avoidance dollars to their upper most rich,
namely themselves. Thus without even involving offshore banking and
other phony baloney corporate partners in crimes against humanity, it
seems that local companies, of which I'm fairly certain that you'd be
the type to own a good part of, can basically get a tax-free bonus
income ticket to ride, if not a whole lot better yet. Naturally we'll
expect you to put another typically positive 'Mook' like dog-wagging
spin on this.
A typically loaded question as by the following contribution is exactly
what I'd expect from such a CIA World Fact Book pagan LLPOF bigot (aka
William Mook) that cares less about humanity, that is unless it's
another working sweat-shop that's functioning dirt-cheap for his
personal benefit. I have lots of personal examples of such remorseless
folks that are actually as bad as yourself at taking from the poor and
giving to the rich (namely giving to themselves) without a stitch of
remorse.
>If you have better figures then point to them and explain why they're
>better. You did not, so I must conclude you cannot - and so don't have
>better figures and can't explain why they're better.
Since I've already posted such better numbers, as of dozens of times,
do NOT assume any such notions, as only a true pagan fool on the hill
would dare to push my lose cannon buttons. However, as to the original
topic that's clearly being avoided by way of your hijacking this topic
into your typical cesspool of 'my facts are better than your facts',
whereas instead you above all should have been the one contributing as
to the better ways and/or methods of achieving such cheap and efficient
satellites that'll basically bring home the bacon at perhaps less than
10 cents on the dollar, and actually involving far less than a cent on
the dollar if being accomplished in lue of any manned mission to/from
our moon.
>Doing something useful is something Brad Guth has repeatedly avoided
>doing - witness the fiasco with the celestial mechanics references
>after he whined about the lack of good data to compute the details of
>operating a lunar skyhook.
Usenet is supposedly a share and share alike community, therefore this
last 'Mook' statement has only created further proof positive that you
are a Third Reich member in good standing, Skull and Bones worthy and
otherwise dumbfounded to boot. Again, you haven't contributed anything
that's on the original topic, thus you seriously brown-nose suck and
blow like all the others of this disinformation cesspool of
GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA crapolla on steroids. You are a liars, your are a
perverted sicko bastard and you're obviously anti-ET as well as
anti-God while being 100+% pro Dick Cheney and GW Bush all the way. I
bet that your blood sucking soul owns a good amount of Halburton as
well.
Obviously yourself as well as lord 'Mook' and so many others are into
evidence exclusions and topic diversions, as otherwise not looking for
the truth in much of anything that's not having been published within
your CIA World Fact Book or of whatever's NASA moderated to death.
Perhaps I'll even manage to return as to extracting a few more of your
Thrid Reich notions, as I could certainly use the practice shots of
whatever my lose cannons can manage to deliver.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
John Griffin
>>John Griffin;
>>Who cares? You can get pictures of distant objects from your
>>back yard.
>
>>BT, DT. You haven't been able to understand it on any of the
>>dozens of occasions where people have pointed out some of the
>>flaws in your thinking, fool, and you won't understand it this
>>time.
> Please post a link because, as far as I know it hasn't ever
> been resolved by others. So, it's entirely apparent that you
> can't explain a damn thing either.
Thanks for the laughs. You should try to understand what it
really means for something to be "entirely apparent" to your
kind. It means absolutely nothing. Your butt has been kicked
more times than a 100-year-old soccer ball.
> How true it is to have complicated matters by way of showing
> that of taking pictures of an extremely dark and otherwise
> extremely nasty moon as from time to time having recorded the
> likes of Jupiter, Mars or Venus within the same frame, as it
> only proves that some of us having "the right stuff" are
> simply better butt sucking liars than others. Apparently the
> Sirius star system was also being just as WMD stealthy
> throughout 6 out of 6 of those NASA/Apollo EVAs plus
> throughout any of a good dozen other robotic missions having
> orbited and supposedly a few of those having gotten safely
> deployed upon the surface with working cameras that were
> supposedly the most spendy and thus capable of the day, yet
> having failed to ever once out of the tens of thousands of
> frames to have captured anything other than such a highly and
> thus unusually retroreflective lunar surface that was so
> nicely Xenon lamp spectrum like, never the least bit reactive
> nor hardly all that much darker than a good 50/50 blend of
> portland cement and cornmeal or perhaps milled rice, having
> been so well clumping with nearly 100 g/cm2 worth of a
> slightly compressed surface tension was common place, and
> therefore never all that dirty and/or dusty, nor ever once
> recoding an impact or the horrific aftermath transpiring.
You need a new "argument." That one was stupid when you started
and it's still stupid. It would still be stupid even if you had
the means to express it intelligibly.
Try again: There is no reason to take pictures of points in the
sky from the moon. It would be a waste of film.
> Since you're so good at avoiding the truth, and otherwise with
> applying evidence exclusions and of the required conditional
> laws of physics as re-applied as for crunching whatever
> numbers that'll make our government and the company they keep
> look so gosh darn great, perhaps you can far better explain
> this little matter of the rich getting richer, as perhaps how
> a CIA World Fact Book would have explained it.
That and the previous paragraph, while certainly not new from
you, establish you as Mr. Incoherence.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?!
One reason why you lurch off into unrelated topics is that you're
a dumbshit.
That's a stupid and ignorant remark. You weren't looking for
this truth, but you found it. Finding it and assimilating it
are, of course, vastly different matters in your head full of
air.
Brad Guth
As per usual, you've offered MOS lack of contributing to the topic at
hand "Brad Guth feeds the brown-nosed incest cloned clowns of usenet",
which clearly isn't intended as a topic about how warm and fuzzy this
Usenet or that of your Third Reich government is.
On top of that, you still can't manage to provide anything that'll
exclude the upon ability of common film and their unfiltered cameras
recording whatever's similar to the extremely dark albedo of our moon?
Ordinary film can't outperform the modern FBC/DR of CCDs. However, once
digitally having been scanned from the original, as such film
indirectly does provide nearly a 1024:1 (10 bit) visible light DR
factor, and that's actually even better off by quite a bit once taking
into account the near-UV and UV-a spectrum as having been so available
from the extremely dark composite surface of the moon. Jupiter and Mars
are almost the same grain per grain intensity as the extremely dark
lunar surface, and Venus is simply extremely brighter, with the Sirius
star/solar system being downright irritating to the point of causing
photographic complications unless that camera lens was continually
shaded away from their ever receiving such intensive rays and otherwise
having been optically filtered, of which they had not been the least
bit spectrum filtered.
I'm thinking that a film DR of merely 256:1 would have been more than
sufficient unless the likes of these other planets and of the Sirius
star system were simply nowhere in sight. Can you prove or otherwise
provide a link to a solar simulator that proves this was the case?
You've consistently avoided and/or excluded the hard-science that
proves I'm right.
You've continually avoided each of my sub-topics that in any way rocks
your boat.
I offer a specific item that's sharing proof-positive, and you go
absolutely postal or into ignoring and/or of excluding everything that
matters. Isn't that what Hitler was doing, and exactly what our
resident warlord(GW Bush) is doing?
In your black book of paganology, it's not the least bit important as
to prove anything that our government does or doesn't manage to
accomplish. The truth only of what's stipulated by the CIA World Fact
Book and by whatever else your NASA moderates to death prior to getting
published.
Apparently your butt to butt corporate cheating and government lying
goes hand and hand as well as brown-nose to brown-nose, along with good
healthy incest produced crowd of loyal supporters as their audience and
immoral support group. Thus your being so defensive and not otherwise
contributing to the intent of a given topic is par for staying the
course of a thousand lights until every last ship sinks into it's own
cesspool.
So, I'll just have to further improve upon and summarily re-post MOS of
whatever pisses you off, especially if it involves our NASA/Apollo
rusemastes and the sorts of WMD snipe hunting SOBs like yourself.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
Brad Guth
nukes headed my way, here's some Usenet news that you could use.
I've developed a few of the newest and improved Usenet fishing hooks
that never seem to fail at their attracting and snagging another
brown-nosed endangered species, one of such species is named "Art
Deco", another one as having been named "Bookman", along with the
brown-nosed "John Griffin" species, and there's lots more of these as
having become a vast selection of custom named fishing hooks, as having
been individually crafted as I've contributed to all of these warm and
fuzzy Usenet news forums that generally suck and blow their
mainstreamism, or else.
These are each extremely nifty and thus effective hooks that are
guaranteed to attract most any species of brown-noses, as well as
perhaps capable of snagging lots more if it's of a sufficiently butt
sucking form of a bottom scum feeding species, whereas these nifty
hooks are now individually configured and available at $1000 each (plus
S&H and local sales tax). Thus no lie folks, send roughly $1100 per
each of these impressive looking custom hooks, or if you don't actually
want your very own custom engineered and inscribed by name hook, in
which case just send me your personal gift of $1000, that I'll put to
good use.
note: Please specify if you'd rather have one of these hooks custom
designed with some other name than your own inscribed.
I've noticed as of lately, some of these incest cloned and extremely
brown-nosed borg collectives of Usenet spooks, specifically of this
GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA disinformation cesspool of topic/author stalking
species, have been into using a bit more than their fair share of their
boss's spermware/malware (aka MI6/NSA~CIA PC fuckware) again, as per
getting right back into their usual space-toilet mode of nasty tricks.
So, I guess that I'll just have to keep improving my hooks while doing
my best at returning their own warm and fuzzy flak along with as much
love and affection as I can muster.
Just kidding folks, as this amount of serious loot needs to be in the
form of an honest to God donation (via cash, check or credit card) as a
personal gift from yourself as intended for supporting my cause, and
for that effort and personal financial sacrifice I'll certainly try my
very best to send you a thank you gift that might actually represent
itself as a custom fishing hook that's very special, as something
that'll match the degree of warm and fuzzy spermware/malware (aka PC
fuckware) that I've been receiving as of lately.
Warmest regards, Brad Guth (gone brown-nose fishing)
c/o Brown Nosed Hooks - 4410 SE Nelson Rd. Olalla, WA 98359
ah
Jolly good, Bruce.
--
ah
ah
Grays are a reticent lot.
--
ah
Michael Baldwin Bruce
So I've heard.
> --
> ah
Brad Guth
alike?
Is there any Usenet point of think-tank or damage-control as to this
tactic?
Is this little insider copy/diversion of my topic just MOS sharing of
used toilet-paper for the warm and fuzzy benefit of your sharing mutual
MI6/NSA~CIA buttology and otherwise private brown-nosing for sport.
Perhaps as for the ultimate collective perk of whatever such incest
cloned borgs require?
Is this Usenet archive wordology-101?
Bookman
wrote:
>Interesting but, is there something you folks want to share and share
>alike?
It's all out there, Guthball. You can't have eny more than that.
HTH.
>
>Is there any Usenet point
Aside from entertainment and ko0ks frothing, you mean?
>of think-tank or damage-control as to this
>tactic?
What is the "damage" that you want to "control", Ko0kboi?
>
>Is this little insider copy/diversion of
Do you consider everything that isn't your "topic" to be a
"diversion", Guthko0k?
>my topic just MOS
Yes, your "topic" is indeed "more of the same" ko0ky bullshit.
Especially the parts when you reject the truth by calling facts
"lies". HTH.
>sharing of
>used toilet-paper for the warm and fuzzy benefit of your sharing mutual
>MI6/NSA~CIA buttology
Boy, you sure are obsessed with butts and fecal matter. That does
match the sewer that you use in place of a mind, though.
>and otherwise private brown-nosing for sport.
Jealous, Bratty?
>Perhaps as for the ultimate collective perk of whatever such incest
>cloned borgs require?
Since there are no "borgs", nor any "incest cloning", nothing is
required. But then you always did hate people who prefer the facts
rather than agreeing with your religion, didn't you?
>
>Is this Usenet archive wordology-101?
No, this is making fun of teh Guthball's unscientific, fact-free
religious beliefs.
>-
>
>"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
Brad Guth explains why he doesn't believe that men have
repeatedly walked on the moon, despite all that facts that
demonstrate this truth.
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
John Griffin
> Dear John Griffin (aka fool on the hill),
> As per usual, you've offered MOS lack of contributing to the
> topic at hand "Brad Guth feeds the brown-nosed incest cloned
> clowns of usenet", which clearly isn't intended as a topic
> about how warm and fuzzy this Usenet or that of your Third
> Reich government is.
Your yappy little snits are funny as hell. Good work. Your job as
a clown is to be entertaining.
> On top of that, you still can't manage to provide anything
> that'll exclude the upon ability of common film and their
> unfiltered cameras recording whatever's similar to the
> extremely dark albedo of our moon?
Try to be coherent, since you can't be knowledgeable or rational,
okay?
> Ordinary film can't outperform the modern FBC/DR of CCDs.
> However, once digitally having been scanned from the original,
> as such film indirectly does provide nearly a 1024:1 (10 bit)
> visible light DR factor, and that's actually even better off
> by quite a bit once taking into account the near-UV and UV-a
> spectrum as having been so available from the extremely dark
> composite surface of the moon. Jupiter and Mars are almost the
> same grain per grain intensity as the extremely dark lunar
> surface, and Venus is simply extremely brighter, with the
> Sirius star/solar system being downright irritating to the
> point of causing photographic complications unless that camera
> lens was continually shaded away from their ever receiving
> such intensive rays and otherwise having been optically
> filtered, of which they had not been the least bit spectrum
> filtered.
I was just wondering...is that your "answer" to my mention of the
obvious fact that no one would carry a roll of film to the moon and
then take pictures of a tiny point on a totally black background?
The reason I ask is that you have so much trouble expressing
whatever is going on in your head in lieu of thought that neither
you nor anyone else knows what the fuck you're yammering about.
> I'm thinking that a film DR of merely 256:1 would have been
> more than sufficient unless the likes of these other planets
> and of the Sirius star system were simply nowhere in sight.
> Can you prove or otherwise provide a link to a solar simulator
> that proves this was the case?
>
> You've consistently avoided and/or excluded the hard-science
> that proves I'm right.
Everyone who has ever bothered to tweak you has shown that you're
wrong.
Anyway, knucklehead, there is not, nor can there be, any "hard
evidence" that any astronaut would be dumb enough to carry a roll
of film to the moon and then waste it on a star or another planet.
> You've continually avoided each of my sub-topics that in any
> way rocks your boat.
Hilarious. I don't give a rusty fuck about your spastic
discursions ("subtopics," my ass). You can babble yourself off
into a million irrelevant directions, and it's just more
entertainment. I hope you have a bulbous fake nose and some 21-inch
bubbletoe shoes to wear while you're posting. That would certainly
fit your output.
> I offer a specific item that's sharing proof-positive, and you
> go absolutely postal or into ignoring and/or of excluding
> everything that matters. Isn't that what Hitler was doing, and
> exactly what our resident warlord(GW Bush) is doing?
Holy shit! Do you have some sort of probes inserted into your head
that cause that sort of off-the-fucking-wall idiotic remarks, or
what?!
> In your black book of paganology, it's not the least bit
> important as to prove anything that our government does or
> doesn't manage to accomplish. The truth only of what's
> stipulated by the CIA World Fact Book and by whatever else
> your NASA moderates to death prior to getting published.
No one who would be dumb enough to carry a roll of film to the moon
and then waste it by taking pictures of barely noticeable points of
light could possibly be intelligent enough to be accepted into the
astronaut program. (One non sequitur deserves another, eh? At
least mine steers back toward the only thing I've mentioned here.)
> Apparently your butt to butt corporate cheating and government
> lying goes hand and hand as well as brown-nose to brown-nose,
> along with good healthy incest produced crowd of loyal
> supporters as their audience and immoral support group. Thus
> your being so defensive and not otherwise contributing to the
> intent of a given topic is par for staying the course of a
> thousand lights until every last ship sinks into it's own
> cesspool.
Another "subtopic." <snicker>
> So, I'll just have to further improve upon and summarily
> re-post MOS of whatever pisses you off, especially if it
> involves our NASA/Apollo rusemastes and the sorts of WMD snipe
> hunting SOBs like yourself. -
Five thousand of you synergizig your stupidity and ignorance
couldn't piss me off in five thousand years.
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
If you're look for the truth, you sure as hell don't want to be
looking at Brad Guth. He's a babbling, incoherent moron.
Brad Guth
: On top of that, you still can't manage to provide anything
: that'll exclude the upon ability of common film and their
: unfiltered cameras recording whatever's similar to the
: extremely dark albedo of our moon?
>Try to be coherent, since you can't be knowledgeable or rational,
>okay?
exactly what I'm saying. You're just not smart enough as after having
taken items out of context and then having suggested that I'm the bad
guy.
What I'd meant is that the NASA/Apollo Kodak moments that were
supposedly obtained via an unfiltered lens, within such a nearly zero
atmospheric situation that would not have filtered out much if any of
the raw solar influx, nor having moderated the local secondary/recoil
worth of near-blue, near-UV and even a good portion of the UV-a
spectrum, much less having avoided the subsequent hard-X-ray dosage
factors. Images as having been mostly robotic obtained from lunar
orbit, as subsequently having been obtained from the NASA/Apollo
archives are chuck full of perfectly good examples of the extremely
dark albedo and nasty composite of local and cosmic substances covering
our darkened moon, however none of which appeared within any of their
supposed EVA adventures upon the deck. In fact, for the most part there
were few such dark and nasty moon surface images as having been
photographed by their unfiltered Kodak eye anywhere in sight, whereas
most images were of a 55+% albedo for as far off as their unfiltered
Kodak eyes could record.
BTW; there are only a few and even at that being extremely limited
zones of the lunar surface offering a 0.25 albedo, thus at most
offering 25% reflective simply is NOT the same as for having a vast
expanse of 55% albedo. Guess what Sir dumbfounded fool on the hill;
none of the landing sights were situated anywhere near those few 25%
reflective zones. Image that, snookered and re-snookered again and
again, just like we'd expect of such a typically dumb and dumber fool
that's totally dumbfounded about just nearly everything that's upon the
surface of his extremely bigoted flat Earth. Apparently your being
anti-ET, anti-Muslim and naturally anti-God just isn't brown-nose and
blood-sucking good enough these days.
Extensive portions of our moon are nearly coal-black, that in order to
have obtained a Kodak moment of such lunar terrain would have involved
a sufficient film exposure in order to have recoded such a dark and
nasty composite of rock, meteorites and of the carbon/soot infused dust
that's 10+ meters deep in places, along with any potential of recording
other planet(s) or significant star such as Sirius that so happened to
coexist within the same view. There were so many photographic frames
per missions that I'm not at all certain even that task was manageable
considering upon a reasonable timeline of affording each frame upon
average as taking a minute away from all of their other duties.
You're still into formulating your loaded response as for obtaining a
reply that you've already mindset a trap for, no matters what hard,
soft or as having been based upon whatever law of physics evidence is
provided. You also know damn good and well that I'm not even suggesting
anything except of upon those images as having included a good amount
of an absolutely crystal clear and thus pitch black sky that should
have been somewhat impossible as to not have included a few examples of
other planets and perhaps a few of the most significant illuminating
stars as being within view of the nearly coal black and nasty terrain
of a lunar horizon, especially of such film easily recording the
near-blue, near-UV and even a portion of UV-a spectrums worth of
unfiltered starshine that had to have been many fold brighter to the
sensitive Kodak film that records with greater sensitivity and quite
nicely well beyond what the human eye sees.
So that proves your LLPOF pretense that our NASA/Apollo team has been
telling us the truth and nothing but the truth is entirely bogus from
the very get-go, and then some. That's no lie folks.
>The reason I ask is that you have so much trouble expressing
>whatever is going on in your head in lieu of thought that neither
>you nor anyone else knows what the fuck you're yammering about.
That's perfectly understandable, as often I too can't figure out what
I'd just said. So I try and try again and again in order to improve
upon wordings that'll share a somewhat better look-see into whatever
I'm thinking. Of course, it would have helped if others pitched in with
their best efforts as to improve upon our understands about our moon,
Venus and even as to the Sirius star system that's so gosh darn gravity
powerful as well as somewhat having more than a fair share of energy to
spare, but obviously that's not going to happen until long after a few
of them NASA/Apollo cows manage to come home. Thus perhaps "in lieu of
thought" and otherwise as a stretch of my subjective if not dyslexic
imagination is what I'm usually thinking has been sequestered by way of
a little more than an ongoing ruse/sting of our multi-trillion dollar
perpetrated cold-war century that has most of us thinking like a highly
incest cloned collective of borgs, of individuals exactly like yourself
that wouldn't dare look outside their itsy bitsy box of whatever their
mainstream status quo has programmed for thought.
>Everyone who has ever bothered to tweak you has shown that you're
>wrong.
Please do share those examples, as I certainly can't seem to locate
where the hard-science nor the regular laws of physics as having been
accepted by the world of science and of even Kodak photon physics
that's not any part of your extremely brown-nosed NASA incest cloning
borgism, as having been the least bit wrong. Thus it's only your skewed
if not dumbfounded intellectual incest of perceptions that I'm being
proven wrong, just like it was Hitler's very own formulated infomercial
perceptions that all was going according to plan, whereas if members of
his Third Reich and of a good many collaborating Jews hadn't been into
their own spermology of pillaging and plundering for sport and for
personal profits, thus not having lied their stinking butts off to
their boss, in which case we'd all be speaking German, or otherwise
quite dead. In which case being a LLPOF bigot of such a greedy and
arrogant collective of absolute bastards is what actually is indirectly
responsible for saving our extremely pagan and thus sorry and as
equally remorseless butts. In other words, the incest paganology of the
Third Reich was actually a bit worse off than our paganology of the
time, but now I'd have to bet that our pagan Gods could seriously kick
their pagan Gods to hell and then some, with plenty of spare
brown-noses to boot.
The likes of "tj Frazir", dozens of others and myself are sharing the
truth as best can be uncovered and shared by way of the hard-science as
based entirely upon the regular laws of physics that are still
sufficiently right so as to opposing the sorts pagan spermology of such
brown-nosed and bottom scum-sucking intellectuals, as well as the sorts
of biological incest formulated perverts as yourself, which goes along
with our limited tolerance of your hard-core Third Reich paganism to
boot. It's a bloody wonder that your boss (aka Hitler) ever got as far
as he did, considering the levels of perverted incest within his ranks
and of all those having indirectly supported the cause.
BTW; - I've noticed as of lately, that some of these incest cloned and
extremely brown-nosed borg collectives of your fellow Usenet butt
sucking spooks, specifically of this GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA disinformation
cesspool of topic/author stalking and bashing species, have been into
using a bit more than their fair share of contributing their boss's
Third Reich spermware/malware (aka MI6/NSA~CIA PC fuckware) again, as
per getting right back into their usual space-toilet mode of their
perpetrating MOS nasty sorts of their cold-war tricks and subsequent
wag-the-dog worth of damage control. So, I guess that I'll just have to
keep improving upon my custom brown-nose fishing hooks, while otherwise
accomplishing my level best at returning their own warm and fuzzy flak
along with sharing as much love and affection as I can muster.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
Lola Stonewall Riot
suddenly burst out in tears, saying:
> John Griffin (aka brown-nosed fool on the hill), : On top of that, you
> still can't manage to provide anything that'll : exclude the upon
> ability of common film and their unfiltered cameras : recording
> whatever's similar to the extremely dark albedo of our moon?
>>Try to be coherent, since you can't be knowledgeable or rational, okay?
> What's incoherent about my dyslexic form of Klingon encryption.
What, you mean besides your dyslexic form of Klingon encryption?
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! Flonk Leader #2 & #11 1/9
The Discordian People's Most Powerful and Revered Being (without portfolio)
"Laws count, the US Constitution count more, and we need to have judges on
the bench who are going to Carry Out those laws, not Make Law or Interpret
Law." -- John "Easily" Shocked contradicts his own words on the overriding
importance of society's reluctance to accept homosexuality, in Message-ID:
<brIDe.67062$Qo.12613@fed1read01>
"For the most part, morality is universal." -- John "Easily" Shocked
"Bad stories are bad stories. We just call them as they are." -- DBurns
demonstrates his sheer cluelessness on Mar 9, 2002, at 6:25 pm, in
rec.arts.drwho
"Bernadette, you ignorant oaf.
Bernadette, you brainless dullard.
Bernadette, you feeble-minded wag.
Bernadette, you blathering baboon.
Bernadette, you babbling boor.
Bernadette, you depraved dolt.
Bernadette, you stinking slimeball.
Bernadette, you yammering yak.
Bernadette, you lily-livered lush.
Bernadette, you hard-hearted hulk."
-- Mother Be Strange gets very hard on herself, in
Message-ID: <94b6d5f1.02032...@posting.google.com>
"[Lurlean] would never dream of sleeping with a dog. The Bible's against
it. You don't seem to care what the Bible says, so she thought maybe you
gave that a try too -- in addition to sucking on Steve, letting him play
with your butt, and having seven different lesbian lovers in our bed." --
Sistah Moonshine shocks a.p.h. with the revelation that she got it off with
"Romaine Brooks", in Message-ID:
<1123725708.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
"I should have known my boss was evil when he called my jumping onto my
chair to praise the Lord out loud 'inappropriate behavior.'" -- Sistah
Moonshine: Oppressed Christian, in Message-ID:
<1123814023.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"I made a pact with the devil." -- Sistah Moonshine, from her dream diary,
in Message-ID:
<1124074725....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
"'drink that hooch,' they would say, 'and then smoke that joint. Bury your
head in that strange woman's crotch and bring her to a thunderous climax
with your tongue, then tell her no man could ever give her that much
pleasure in a thousand years. Tell her to leave her husband and become a
lesbian. Drip hot wax on that pervert's nutty buddies and then charge him
extra for the privilege.'" -- Sistah Moonshine is now working on an erotic
epic to outmatch Anne Rice.
"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic".
"You are the GOD-DAMNED, IGNORANT LIAR here.
Now, that is not me taking the Lord's name in vain."
-- John Wentzky: Living proof of the Death of Irony, in Message-ID:
<jljOe.5348$ZD4....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
"Maybe some day double-A someone will write a novel 'The war of the
Universes.' I would hate to go to war against Treb. I would be like
committing suicide." -- Saucerhead ga-ga from Herbert Glazier, in MID:
<24084-438...@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net>
"How true it is to have complicated matters by way of showing that of
taking pictures of an extremely dark and otherwise extremely nasty moon as
from time to time having recorded the likes of Jupiter, Mars or Venus
within the same frame, as it only proves that some of us having "the right
stuff" are simply better butt sucking liars than others." -- Guthball was
just drooling along, minding his own wacky conspiracy theory, when John
Griffin walked up and "got his nose", in MID:
<1133541974....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"What's incoherent about my dyslexic form of Klingon encryption." -- Brad
Guth suffered third-degree autoflame burns over ninety-five percent of
his body from, er, asking this in MID:
<1133648033.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
"This bandwidth has been rescued from AOL." -- mimus
John Griffin
> John Griffin (aka brown-nosed fool on the hill),
>: On top of that, you still can't manage to provide anything
>: that'll exclude the upon ability of common film and their
>: unfiltered cameras recording whatever's similar to the
>: extremely dark albedo of our moon?
>>Try to be coherent, since you can't be knowledgeable or
>>rational, okay?
> What's incoherent about my dyslexic form of Klingon
> encryption. I know exactly what I'm saying. You're just not
> smart enough as after having taken items out of context and
> then having suggested that I'm the bad guy.
You'll never have what it takes to be a bad guy. Besides, if you
could switch from your present status to bad guy status, who
could take your place in the obsessive screwball ranks?
> What I'd meant is that the NASA/Apollo Kodak moments that were
> supposedly obtained via an unfiltered lens, within such a
> nearly zero atmospheric situation that would not have filtered
> out much if any of the raw solar influx, nor having moderated
> the local secondary/recoil worth of near-blue, near-UV and
> even a good portion of the UV-a spectrum, much less having
> avoided the subsequent hard-X-ray dosage factors. Images as
> having been mostly robotic obtained from lunar orbit, as
> subsequently having been obtained from the NASA/Apollo
> archives are chuck full of perfectly good examples of the
> extremely dark albedo and nasty composite of local and cosmic
> substances covering our darkened moon, however none of which
> appeared within any of their supposed EVA adventures upon the
> deck. In fact, for the most part there were few such dark and
> nasty moon surface images as having been photographed by their
> unfiltered Kodak eye anywhere in sight, whereas most images
> were of a 55+% albedo for as far off as their unfiltered Kodak
> eyes could record.
I'm so excited about that.
> BTW; there are only a few and even at that being extremely
> limited zones of the lunar surface offering a 0.25 albedo,
> thus at most offering 25% reflective simply is NOT the same as
> for having a vast expanse of 55% albedo. Guess what Sir
> dumbfounded fool on the hill; none of the landing sights were
> situated anywhere near those few 25% reflective zones. Image
> that, snookered and re-snookered again and again, just like
> we'd expect of such a typically dumb and dumber fool that's
> totally dumbfounded about just nearly everything that's upon
> the surface of his extremely bigoted flat Earth. Apparently
> your being anti-ET, anti-Muslim and naturally anti-God just
> isn't brown-nose and blood-sucking good enough these days.
I am neither "anti-ET" nor "anti-God," and mohammedans are way
more anti-me than I am anti-them. There are no ET varmints
anywhere near this solar system, but I'd sure like to be the
first to see them if they happened to show up. As for gods, as
far as I'm concerned, those who need gods are welcome to do
whatever they want with them or to them. Speaking of moslems and
gods, I think it would have been better when The Pervert Mohammed
invented the cult's god Allah, if he had left out that part that
tells the drones they can go to paradise and get more pussy than
Frank Sinatra if they kill someone who isn't a slave of their
cult.
> Extensive portions of our moon are nearly coal-black,
Half of it at any one time, yes.
>that in
> order to have obtained a Kodak moment of such lunar terrain
> would have involved a sufficient film exposure in order to
> have recoded such a dark and nasty composite of rock,
> meteorites and of the carbon/soot infused dust that's 10+
> meters deep in places, along with any potential of recording
> other planet(s) or significant star such as Sirius that so
> happened to coexist within the same view. There were so many
> photographic frames per missions that I'm not at all certain
> even that task was manageable considering upon a reasonable
> timeline of affording each frame upon average as taking a
> minute away from all of their other duties.
When you babble, you fuckin' babble, brad!
> You're still into formulating your loaded response as for
> obtaining a reply that you've already mindset a trap for, no
> matters what hard, soft or as having been based upon whatever
> law of physics evidence is provided. You also know damn good
> and well that I'm not even suggesting anything except of upon
> those images as having included a good amount of an absolutely
> crystal clear and thus pitch black sky that should have been
> somewhat impossible as to not have included a few examples of
> other planets and perhaps a few of the most significant
> illuminating stars as being within view of the nearly coal
> black and nasty terrain of a lunar horizon, especially of such
> film easily recording the near-blue, near-UV and even a
> portion of UV-a spectrums worth of unfiltered starshine that
> had to have been many fold brighter to the sensitive Kodak
> film that records with greater sensitivity and quite nicely
> well beyond what the human eye sees.
Do you have any idea why a stark white wall doesn't appear four
times as bright at five feet as at ten feet?
> So that proves your LLPOF pretense that our NASA/Apollo team
> has been telling us the truth and nothing but the truth is
> entirely bogus from the very get-go, and then some. That's no
> lie folks.
<snicker> No, you aren't lying. You'd have to know the truth.
Anyway, it's hilarious to see that you think your desultory
gobble is proof of something.
>>The reason I ask is that you have so much trouble expressing
>>whatever is going on in your head in lieu of thought that
>>neither you nor anyone else knows what the fuck you're
>>yammering about.
> That's perfectly understandable, as often I too can't figure
> out what I'd just said. So I try and try again and again in
> order to improve upon wordings that'll share a somewhat better
> look-see into whatever I'm thinking. Of course, it would have
> helped if others pitched in with their best efforts as to
> improve upon our understands about our moon, Venus and even as
> to the Sirius star system that's so gosh darn gravity powerful
> as well as somewhat having more than a fair share of energy to
> spare, but obviously that's not going to happen until long
> after a few of them NASA/Apollo cows manage to come home. Thus
> perhaps "in lieu of thought" and otherwise as a stretch of my
> subjective if not dyslexic imagination is what I'm usually
> thinking has been sequestered by way of a little more than an
> ongoing ruse/sting of our multi-trillion dollar perpetrated
> cold-war century that has most of us thinking like a highly
> incest cloned collective of borgs, of individuals exactly like
> yourself that wouldn't dare look outside their itsy bitsy box
> of whatever their mainstream status quo has programmed for
> thought.
"Most of us" what? "Most of us obsessive screwballs"?
>>Everyone who has ever bothered to tweak you has shown that
>>you're wrong.
> Please do share those examples, as I certainly can't seem to
> locate where the hard-science nor the regular laws of physics
> as having been accepted by the world of science and of even
> Kodak photon physics that's not any part of your extremely
> brown-nosed NASA incest cloning borgism, as having been the
> least bit wrong. Thus it's only your skewed if not dumbfounded
> intellectual incest of perceptions that I'm being proven
> wrong, just like it was Hitler's very own formulated
> infomercial perceptions that all was going according to plan,
> whereas if members of his Third Reich and of a good many
> collaborating Jews hadn't been into their own spermology of
> pillaging and plundering for sport and for personal profits,
> thus not having lied their stinking butts off to their boss,
> in which case we'd all be speaking German, or otherwise quite
> dead. In which case being a LLPOF bigot of such a greedy and
> arrogant collective of absolute bastards is what actually is
> indirectly responsible for saving our extremely pagan and thus
> sorry and as equally remorseless butts. In other words, the
> incest paganology of the Third Reich was actually a bit worse
> off than our paganology of the time, but now I'd have to bet
> that our pagan Gods could seriously kick their pagan Gods to
> hell and then some, with plenty of spare brown-noses to boot.
After you finished that, you looked into a mirror and said "I
love it when you talk like that."
Did you rewrite that? It seemed just as fucking stupid as before.
"Spermware"? If your keyboard is sticky, it isn't something you
got from e-mail or a web site.
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
If you're looking for the truth, you will not find Brad Guth.
Brad Guth
>Do you have any idea why a stark white wall doesn't appear four
>times as bright at five feet as at ten feet?
and that of a highly reactive orb or not), that it does NOT get
brighter per m2, as in double duh, got yah real good that time.
The whole object brightness means only that as a whole is why something
as moon-like gives off more apparent brightness to the human eye than a
mere pixel or grain of film captured worth of the very same object.
Thus if a few nearby pixels worth of a Jupiter like object as having
been recorded coexisting within the very same frame as a solar
illuminated moon surface, that if anything the Jupiter object could
just as easily appear nearly as bright, as if not a little brighter
than portions of the dark and nasty lunar surface that's obviously of
the horizon and thus receiving it's primary illumination at a fairly
low solar angle, which in turn shares a relatively low amount of
secondary/recoil photons as for being photo recorded via film or CCD,
placing the worth of lunar albedo of such an already dark and nasty
composite of surface substances at 2~3%.
Of course, if having been actually situated upon the moon is where that
lunar horizon of sunset is going to become at an even lower solar angle
as to appearing darker yet, whereas all of this dymanic range stuff can
be and has been demonstraed by way of Kodak corporate, by independently
commercial and amateurs as well as by way of most any gradeschool class
on photography.
>> Extensive portions of our moon are nearly coal-black, (obviously I've always meant of the solar illuminated surface and not the phony baloney earthshine or nighttime surface as per what your borg like statement implies)
>John Griffin; - Half of it at any one time, yes.
The other half that's fully solar illuminated is chuck full of nearly
coal-black but deeply colorful mineral and cosmic substances that
frankly includes good old salt, along with a good dusting of solar
iron, titanium and the usual amounts of carbon/soot, all of which is
sufficiently documented as being 10+ meters deep in places, if not just
about everywhere. Due to the secondary/recoil affect of the naked lunar
surface receiving so much extra UV energy is why there's ging to be a
rather bluish shift and/or tint contributed from many natural and
artificial substances.
Actually, lord John Griffin. In addition to what we perceive as visible
photons and of various colors, it has always been the total lack of
photons that gives most of us our supposed intelligence. I bet you
can't figure that one out?
BTW; do you perchance have any of those closeup images to share, those
of our moon in natural raw color as not being capable of having also
included the likes of any Mars, Jupiter, Venus and/or perhaps a few
extremely vibrant stars like Sirius?
Poor John Griffin, I guess not.
In fact, it would have been rather difficult even with a reasonably
good set of optical spectrum cut-off filters to have excluded the likes
of Jupiter, Mars and especially Venus because, those sorts of filters
would have included their blocking out some of the very same spectrums
as per what the moon reflects. Excluding the near-UV and UV-a might
have been just the ticket for otherwise subduing them vibrant stars,
but lo and behold, it seems there were no such spectrum cut-off filters
utilized, as well as not hardly any significant amount of atmosphere as
per filtering squat, especially if we're going by the bone-dry and
apparently sodium free 3e-15 bar amount of their reported lunar
atmosphere that represents zilch worth of spectrum filtering.
Sorry John Griffin, what was I thinking. Better luck next time time
around.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
Brad Guth
sci.physics portion of what "tj Frazir" cares to contribute, such as
his replies into my topic of "Brad Guth feeds the brown-nosed incest
cloned clowns of usenet", as such I'd though that others and especially
of Usenet topic newcomers and of the few and far between news media
might care to take notice as to what's being said. It's individuals
such as "tj Frazir" that have been systematically trashed at every
opportunity, whereas the somewhat sarcastic humor and grace of
information that's within the context of having to share the "tj
Frazir" side of the story is worth getting to know. Like myself, the
english isn't what counts unless you'll out and about looking for
whatever can be extracted and poked fun at. Myself and "tj Frazir" make
more than our fair share of honest word phrasing and math mistakes,
while otherwise taking from the knowledge and expertise of others so
that our dot/pixel connecting isn't so much a personal vendetta as it's
a subjective collaboration of deductive reasoning upon delivering
what's most likely the truth upon what's the most worthy to behold.
As usual, I've edited and somewhat embellished this one another wee
bit, which hasn't been my intentions to distort upon one damn thing.
It's just another opportunity of setting the record as to what I
perceive has been the case and of sharing what has always been the
reasons as to why others and myself are being Usenet stalked, bashed
and/or banished at every turn, not to mention being continually
malware/spermware (aka PC fuckware pulverised by way of everything
MI6/NSA~CIA has to toss at us) as punishment. Whereas it's more than
obvious if the likes of "tj Frazir" and myself are taken seriously,
there's no telling what else we'd have to say, and of what others would
have to subsequent take into consideration. There's actually dozens of
nifty contribution by "tj Frazir", many others and myself that should
be indexed into a volume of Usenet pages. Together, I believe we could
plug a terabyte worth of archive storage.
tj Frazir (sci.physics only),
>Titanium iron oxide is royal blue.
>nasa missed the argon all together.
In addition to all of the titaniun, carbon/soot and iron deposits, it
seems they also entirely missed the horrific amounts of surface and
atmospheric sodium, of there being so much sodium that it still boils
off by day to such an extent of creating and sustaining the 14,000 km
atmosphere that's having been well proven to exist, enough sodium being
extracted that a 900,000 km comet like trail as blown by solar winds
has been yet another hard-science matter of fact.
There's so much salt associated with our moon that it leaves little
doubt that our moon was once upon a time offered as a much larger
sphere of an icy proto-moon, which should also account for why all of
those truly massive diameter craters were established as being so gosh
darn shallow, as though there was perhaps originally 262 km worth of
salty ice having protected the surface.
I tend to agree totally, that our NASA has been exactly the sort phony
baloney and perpetrated cold-war cloak on behalf of our MI6/NSA~CIA
daggers, as much as they were back in the beginning, and obviously
still are having to keep this to themselves, or else those men-in-black
start showing up. Our NASA is the "money laundering service" as well as
a primary disinformation resource of their having created and promoted
a vast array of spendy BBC/NOVA infomercials, thereby having snookered
the majority of humanity, many since having been dumbfounded to their
ultimate demise of what our perpetrated cold-war has managed to
deliver.
As "tj Frazir" has known for decades and I have only recently accepted
as far too many scientific reasons as to why our NASA/Apollo folks
never walked upon our moon. It's entirely possible that we had managed
to briefly orbit the moon in person, whereas I'm talking about a loop
once around that nasty sucker and then getting the hell out of that TBI
dosage situation ASAP, but I also no longer believe we've managed a
safely deployed robotic deploymant upon our moon, other than for having
creating a few artificial craters upon such efforts having impacted
and/or their sinking out of sight like all of the superior robotic USSR
best efforts managed to achieve.
Accomplishing the to/from mission(s) of our NASA/Apollo program getting
ourselves into and out of the LL1/ME-L1 of the mutual gravity-well as
sort of the ultimate park-n-ride zone was entirely within our
capability of the day, and of having sent off the remainders of each
mission as to robotically orbiting the moon and of thereby obtaining
science and all of those terrific images from orbit and subsequently
having transferred those Kodak moments back to the LL1/ME-L1 zone was
also doable, as well as their having allowed each of the robotic flown
landers to attempt their landing upon but having eventually impacted
the moon were also the doable forms of what met the degree of proven
fly-by-rocket capability that we had to work with. There was nothing
that any human crew could have accomplished better at the efforts of
getting such technology deployed safely or otherwise upon the lunar
surface. A once around the moon as keeping a much greater loop distance
would also have been doable and within the brief TBI dosage specs of
what being exposed to what that nasty orb had to deliver, especially by
what's derived off the highly reactive solar illuminated side, although
of having been coasting within the LL1/ME-L1 zone would not have
required a come-home orbit of the moon, and apparently that's why
there's been such a continual taboo/nondisclosure with regards to folks
discussing anything about that nifty location, and of what such could
have been utilized for back then as well as for benefiting the
LSE-CM/ISS.
I'm thinking that at best our NASA/Apollo crew spent the entire time
coasting within a somewhat LL1/ME-L1 station-keeping mode as offered by
the mutual gravity-well that's somewhat of an interactive zone situated
roughly 60,000 km off the deck as remaining directly aligned with
Earth, sending their supposed fly-by-rocket lander in for accomplishing
those multiple orbits as unmanned, obviously having deployed itself via
remote command as for their attempting at getting this make-do and R&D
as-built equipment onto the surface where each of those efforts
essentially impacted because we had not devised a safe fly-by-rocket
lander that could have safely managed the task, much less protected the
crew from the absolutely horrific levels of secondary/recoil hard-X-ray
dosage, nor even offering sufficient physical protection. There's also
the little matter of their "CHAPEL BELL" signal transponder that
shouldn't have been necessary if we were actually walking upon the
surface. There's also their very own unfiltered Kodak moments that
simply have not represented the raw surface, nor as having to survive
the terribly reactive nature of our extremely albedo dark and nasty
moon that actually has a fairly complex atmosphere of sodium, argon,
CO2 and deck layer Radon that's still at best offering next to nothing
of a sufficient atmospheric density for establishing all that much of
any shield.
I also agree that the "moon reflector can't reflect back to the sending
point as the earth turns", but most importantly is that such can't
manage to collectively out-reflect their natural surroundings to any
extent detectable by the very best of science instruments upon Earth or
in orbit. The math proves this being worth nearly zilch if not
impossible with the limited amount of such retroreflectors and dealing
with the tremendous width of laser beams as having been transmitted
simply can not demonstrate even so much as offering us anything that
could be isolated as retroreflector photons as opposed to those being
common lunar surface photons, of which there's simply millions more
square meters worth of 25% IR reflective lunar soil per retroreflector
that isn't worth one square meter. Even the most recent efforts of a
supposed 2 km zone that's providing 3.14e6 m2 as being illuminated is
nearly 4e6:1 of lunar surface that's going to entirely swamp the path
of whatever returning photons as having far too many of those lunar
surface reflected photons, and also because those retroreflectors were
not even band-pass coated, there's absolutely no viable way of
extracting which if any of the returning photons are not those derived
off the raw surface, a raw surface that's actually providing itself as
a fairly good IR reflector depending upon the spectrum of IR having
been utilized (generally the longer the IR wavelength the better off
the moon itself reflects).
The first few years worth of those retroreflector infomercials having
suggested upon their achieving a 20 km diameter zone of illumination is
one heck of a mission-impossible pathetic joke.
Now if instead of those pathetic passive retroreflectors that were
somewhat massive for their size, if there were even a fairly broad
100mw visible laser beam deployed as offering a 50 milliradian as a 0.1
millisecond transponder beacon, as for that sourced of focused photons
we would have easily detected such with our naked eye. Hells bells
folks, as little as deploying a one joule xenon strobe performing as a
remote triggered beacon, if having a 0.5 degree radian (500 mr) as
focused upon mother Earth would have been downright sufficient, and we
certainly had 100 joule Xenon strobes available that could have easily
replaced those retroreflectors at not 10% the mass, and of 1 joule
capable strobes at perhaps all of 1% the mass.
>The bullshit nasa landed in was coral calcium from guam.
Personally, at least to my interpretation it has always looked almost
exactly like the sort of albedo and color spectrum as having been Xenon
lamp illuminated and as having physically reacted nearly exactly like a
50/50 blend of portland cement and cornmeal, as perhaps applied along
with or just over the surface of that "coral calcium from guam", or how
about their having used the entire phosphate island nation of Nauru
that's extremely isolated and worth all of 21 km2.
I may not agree with each and every notion that "tj Frazir" has ever
proposed. However, I totally agree with most everything that "tj
Frazir" provided in the past and could likely post again and again
about our cold-war perpetrating government and of their NASA/Apollo
fiasco. However, I believe that you're still giving us too good of a
name for what our NASA represents to humanity ("nasa is a bunch of
dumbfucks"). Next step; how do we best go about nailing these absolute
heathen bastards?
Much like what BBC/NOVA/GOOGLE plus NASA have been collaborating upon
creating and promoting those horrifically spendy infomercials which
obviously only supports their moderated and thus orchestrated side of
the argument, whereas if you'll create a few external pages that I can
post links to, and in exchange you might care to accommodate the same
on my behalf. At least in that way we'd be supporting ourselves without
our getting topic trashed and or my having to deal with so much of
their MI6/NSA~CIA PC fuckware.
John Griffin
>>Do you have any idea why a stark white wall doesn't appear
>>four times as bright at five feet as at ten feet?
> How true that the closer you get to the moon (be it terribly
> darkish and reactive or not), that it does NOT get brighter
> per m2, as in double duh, got yah real good that time.
You don't get it, Brad. You will never in your life "get" anyone.
>>> Extensive portions of our moon are nearly coal-black,
>>Half of it at any one time, yes.
> The other half that's fully solar illuminated is chuck full of
> nearly coal-black substances, along with a good dusting of
> iron, titanium and the usual amounts of carbon/soot, all of
> which is sufficiently documented as being 10+ meters deep in
> places, if not just about everywhere.
The expression you were looking for is "chock-full."
The only thing that's "sufficiently documented as being 10+
meters deep" on the moon is a crater.
> Actually, John Griffin. It's always been the total lack of
> photons that gives most of us our supposed intelligence. I bet
> you can't figure that one out?
You've always been in the dark, and your intelligence is supposed
only by you.
> BTW; do you perchance have any closeup images to share, those
> of our moon as not being capable of also including the likes
> of any Mars, Jupiter, Venus and/or a few extremely vibrant
> stars like Sirius? I guess not. In fact, it would be rather
> difficult even with a good set of optical spectrum cut-off
> filters to have excluded Jupiter, Mars and Venus because,
> those would have included some of the very same spectrum as
> per what the moon reflects. Excluding the near-UV and UV-a
> might have been just the ticket for subduing them vibrant
> stars, but lo and behold, it seems there were no such spectrum
> cut-off filters utilized, as well as not hardly any
> significant amount of atmosphere as filtering squat.
More fallacious boilerplate.
> Sorry John Griffin, better luck next time.
Now, that's funny. I slap another babblefest out of you, just as
I hoped, and you wish me better luck this time. Okay, let's see
if you can be even more amusing.
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
If you were looking for truth, you could not find it, Brad Guth.
Stick to your Venus fantasies.
John Griffin
<ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>John Griffin speaks MI6/NSA~CIA spookology;
>>Do you have any idea why a stark white wall doesn't appear
>>four times as bright at five feet as at ten feet?
> How true that the closer you get to the moon (be it terribly
> darkish and that of a highly reactive orb or not), that it
> does NOT get brighter per m2, as in double duh, got yah real
> good that time.
>
> The whole object brightness means only that as a whole is why
> something as moon-like gives off more apparent brightness to
> the human eye than a mere pixel or grain of film captured
> worth of the very same object. Thus if a few nearby pixels
> worth of a Jupiter like object as having been recorded
> coexisting within the very same frame as a solar illuminated
> moon surface, that if anything the Jupiter object could just
> as easily appear nearly as bright, as if not a little brighter
> than portions of the dark and nasty lunar surface that's
> obviously of the horizon and thus receiving it's primary
> illumination at a fairly low solar angle, which in turn shares
> a relatively low amount of secondary/recoil photons as for
> being photo recorded via film or CCD, placing the worth of
> lunar albedo of such an already dark and nasty composite of
> surface substances at 2~3%.
Regardless of the surface illumination, the landscape would
provide enough photons to the film long before Jupiter or
whatever could make an impression. If you could see any distant
bright point on such a photograph, the rest of the film would be
featureless from overexposure.
> Of course, if having been actually situated upon the moon is
> where that lunar horizon of sunset is going to become at an
> even lower solar angle as to appearing darker yet, whereas all
> of this dymanic range stuff can be and has been demonstraed by
> way of Kodak corporate, by independently commercial and
> amateurs as well as by way of most any gradeschool class on
> photography.
"Dymanic," eh? With that typo, you've invented a word that fits
your more-than-manic pursuit of this stuff that you know
absolutely nothing about.
>>> Extensive portions of our moon are nearly coal-black,
>>> (obviously I've always meant of the solar illuminated
>>> surface and not the phony baloney earthshine or nighttime
>>> surface as per what your borg like statement implies)
How in hell did those last three lines get in there two days
after I replied to the first one?!
>>John Griffin; - Half of it at any one time, yes.
> The other half that's fully solar illuminated is chuck full of
> nearly coal-black but deeply colorful mineral and cosmic
> substances that frankly includes good old salt, along with a
> good dusting of solar iron, titanium and the usual amounts of
> carbon/soot, all of which is sufficiently documented as being
> 10+ meters deep in places, if not just about everywhere. Due
> to the secondary/recoil affect of the naked lunar surface
> receiving so much extra UV energy is why there's ging to be a
> rather bluish shift and/or tint contributed from many natural
> and artificial substances.
>
> Actually, lord John Griffin. In addition to what we perceive
> as visible photons and of various colors, it has always been
> the total lack of photons that gives most of us our supposed
> intelligence. I bet you can't figure that one out?
>
> BTW; do you perchance have any of those closeup images to
> share, those of our moon in natural raw color as not being
> capable of having also included the likes of any Mars,
> Jupiter, Venus and/or perhaps a few extremely vibrant stars
> like Sirius?
>
> Poor John Griffin, I guess not.
There are no vibrant stars.
> In fact, it would have been rather difficult even with a
> reasonably good set of optical spectrum cut-off filters to
> have excluded the likes of Jupiter, Mars and especially Venus
> because, those sorts of filters would have included their
> blocking out some of the very same spectrums as per what the
> moon reflects. Excluding the near-UV and UV-a might have been
> just the ticket for otherwise subduing them vibrant stars, but
> lo and behold, it seems there were no such spectrum cut-off
> filters utilized, as well as not hardly any significant amount
> of atmosphere as per filtering squat, especially if we're
> going by the bone-dry and apparently sodium free 3e-15 bar
> amount of their reported lunar atmosphere that represents
> zilch worth of spectrum filtering.
>
> Sorry John Griffin, what was I thinking. Better luck next time
> time around.
Your first attempt to reply to that one article was lots better,
but only because it was shorter. The more you squawk, the dumber
you look.
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
If you're looking for truth on usenet, you will find dozens of
disparate and even conflicting versions of it. And you aren't
even close to being astute enough to sort them out.
John Griffin
> You're starting yourself off with yet another lie, so what's
> the point?
>
> Even Jupiter would be a small dot, that dot simply isn't
> darker than the nearly coal-black surface of the moon, at
> least not grain per grain as recorded upon the unfiltered
> Kokak film, and thus you're being a certified liar. Mars,
> especially Venus and if ever the Sirius star system got
> anywhere within 30 degrees of the dark lunar horizon should
> have been nearly impossible to have avoided.
No. A picture of the surface of the moon would be overexposed by
the time it let in enough light to see a star or planet.
> Remember that the unfiltered Kodak sees and recordes of what
> is hardly visible if not invisible to the human eye, thus many
> stars that look dim are actually substantially brighter as
> having been photo recorded.
>
> Are you so dumbfounded that I actually have to post examples?
>
>>"Dymanic," eh?
> Sorry, that's just my dyslexia kicking in. At least it proves
> you're almost half a smasrt as you've claimed to be.
<snicker> Just for laughs, tell me what I said that you
misconstrued as something like that.
This might be a good time in your life to stop passing up all
learning opportunities. You really can't afford to get any
farther behind.
Brad Guth
the point?
Even though Jupiter would be represented as a small dot, that dot
simply isn't darker than the nearly coal-black surface of the moon, at
least not grain per grain as having been recorded upon such unfiltered
Kodak film, and thus proving that you're being a certified liar. Mars,
especially Venus and if ever the Sirius star system got anywhere within
30 degrees of the dark lunar horizon should have been nearly impossible
to have avoided.
Remember that the unfiltered Kodak sees and records of what is hardly
visible if not invisible to the human eye, thus many stars that look
dim are actually substantially brighter as having been photo recorded.
Try this upon the moon and it's potentially worth 256:1 brighter yet to
the unfiltered Kodak eye, as well as for being a whole lot brighter to
the human eye. The same can be said of the near-UV and UV-a that
reflected off nearby planets that are of those within camera view of
the lunar horizon.
LLPOF No.2; John Griffin; - "There are no vibrant stars."
Excluding Sirius, as not from Earth and certainly not if you've applied
a good spectrum cut-off filter, although the horrific near-blue,
near-UV and UV-a worth of many stars (such as Sirius) is going to
otherwise fill those tiny little photon buckets as grains upon all of
that unfiltered film, especially if we're talking about Sirius. Would
you like to share a moon/Sirius image that proves your point?
Are you so absolutely dumbfounded that I actually have to post
examples?
>"Dymanic," eh?
Sorry, that's just my dyslexia kicking in. At least it proves you're
almost half a smasrt as you've claimed to be.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
Brad Guth
OK folks, you've just removed all possible doubt, that you're not to
any extent snookered nor the least bit dumbfounded because, our turkey
isn't that stupid, whereas you're just another plain old LLPOF SOB that
sucks and blows like every other brown-nosed borg of your mainstream
status quo collective.
Since you're not about to post any links to whatever images that'll
prove that I'm a liar, in that case I'll start off with sharing one,
and I'll follow that with another and another, thus proving that you're
not only a pagan liar but a intellectually bigoted and extremely
remorseless sorry butt of the Third Reich and Skull and Bones which you
call home sweet home, exactly as I said that you and your rusemaster
collective of incest cloning friends were from the very get-go.
Jupiter - Moon occultation
Taken by Becky Coretti with Bill Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a
Tom O Compact Platform. A ToUCam was used with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
For some odd reason this original image file got itself improperly
named as "moon.saturn.jpg", but otherwise having been properly
published as being that of our moon and Jupiter.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
Notice how Jupiter isn't all that much less of a pixel by pixel
photographic worthy item than is the dark brownish mineral surface of
our moon, of a rich color by the way that's actually getting a whole
lot more true to life. Thus even the relatively piss poor DR of Kodak
film shouldn't have had any difficulty whatsoever with the likes of
recording a fairly dark lunar moon surface along with the likes of
Jupiter, Mars and most certainly taking on Venus should have been
nearly impossible to have excluded, and anything Sirius like would have
been nearly blinding to their UNFILTERED Kodak eye.
Double duh; it's not as though there was only one camera, of
insufficient film nor lack of time, whereas multiple cameras, of
various formats and of each utilizing nothing but the very best
available optics, except for their having no band-pass nor other
spectrum cut-off filtration.
The key word being "UNFILTERED", you freaking mainstream status quo
moron. There are hard-science and Kodak physics-101 numbers that'll
prove that I'm not a liar, subsequently proving that you and the others
you bed with are certified liars exactly like our LLPOF resident
warlord(GW Bush), another SOB that's hopefully taking the like's of
yourself deep into hell, and then some.
It seems that you and the likes of lords/wizards Bob and Art (aka
wet-bed partners in crimes against humanity) can't manage to accomplish
any of your own objectively honest 'search for' much of anything, that
is unless it's searching on behalf of sustaining your mutually pagan
brown-nosed and very Third Reich religions of knowing thy enemy and
thus screwing thy humanity. All the sudden, whenever I've shared
information as to what others have honestly accomplished, and even
though anyone other can accomplish exactly the same task (thus
eliminating fraud), I alone have to keep re-posting these same old
links as to their research, as though the likes of team KECK and
numerous others having been involved with what's somewhat if not
entirely external to NASA's skewed science, whereas these kind folks
having been contributing for decades as apparently WMD invisible to
your incest mutated eyes, and if you're being forced to look at these
honest facts is when your evidence exclusions subsequently interprets
or merely banishes such by your collective cesspool of a brown-nosed
brain. It's as though these other science folks have established
absolutely no such archives of their own independently derived
information, it's also although the likes of Bob, Art and yourself have
each become the all-knowing experts upon absolutely everything that's
moon, Venus or of absolutely anything remotely related (that is as long
as it matches to the scriptures of your one and only pagan NASA Koran).
Isn't that the best ever and absolutely terrific brown-nosed and
butt-sucking spookology or what?
In other words; you are a pagan liar and a criminal that should have
been tired and slowly (organ by organ extraction) executed for crimes
against humanity, and preferably by a friendly group of Muslims at
that.
I've noticed as of lately, that a number of these incest cloned and
otherwise extremely brown-nosed and thereby butt-sucking borg
collectives of Usenet spooks, and most specifically of this
GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA disinformation cesspool of topic/author stalking
species, have been into using a bit more than their fair share of their
boss's spermware/malware (aka MI6/NSA~CIA PC fuckware) again, as per
getting right back into their usual space-toilet mode of perpetrating
MOS nasty sorts of cold-war tricks. So, I guess that I'll just have to
keep improving upon my fishing hooks while doing my best at returning
their own warm and fuzzy flak along with as much love and affection as
I can muster.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
Michael Baldwin Bruce
> Bruce Michael Bruce Baldwin Bruce Bruce wrote in
> news:1133575720.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Lockheed won't reveal the saucer beneath Groom Lake;
> the Greys won't admit to buggery and miscegenation.
What about all the rectal probes you've had?
John Griffin
> John Griffin (aka MI6/NSA~CIA pecker-sucking and brown-nosed
> spook), OK folks, you've just removed all possible doubt, that
> you're not to any extent snookered nor the least bit
> dumbfounded because, our turkey isn't that stupid, whereas
> you're just another plain old LLPOF SOB that sucks and blows
> like every other brown-nosed borg of your mainstream status
> quo collective.
Based on the fact that tantrums are appropriately the province of
two-year-olds, yours are getting better every day.
> Since you're not about to post any links to whatever images
> that'll prove that I'm a liar,
Before doing that, I'd have to post links to prove that a sunrise
occurs somewhere in the world every day, that the sky is blue when
sunlit, that water's wet, and that bears shit in the woods.
>in that case I'll start off
> with sharing one, and I'll follow that with another and
> another, thus proving that you're not only a pagan liar but a
> intellectually bigoted and extremely remorseless sorry butt of
> the Third Reich and Skull and Bones which you call home sweet
> home, exactly as I said that you and your rusemaster
> collective of incest cloning friends were from the very
> get-go.
Why do you say the same stuff over and over?
> Jupiter - Moon occultation
> Taken by Becky Coretti with Bill Williams, using a 15"
> Obsession and a Tom O Compact Platform. A ToUCam was used with
> a TeleVue 4x Powermate. For some odd reason this original
> image file got itself improperly named as "moon.saturn.jpg",
> but otherwise having been properly published as being that of
> our moon and Jupiter.
> http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg Notice how
> Jupiter isn't all that much less of a pixel by pixel
> photographic worthy item than is the dark brownish mineral
> surface of our moon, of a rich color by the way that's
> actually getting a whole lot more true to life. Thus even the
> relatively piss poor DR of Kodak film shouldn't have had any
> difficulty whatsoever with the likes of recording a fairly
> dark lunar moon surface along with the likes of Jupiter, Mars
> and most certainly taking on Venus should have been nearly
> impossible to have excluded, and anything Sirius like would
> have been nearly blinding to their UNFILTERED Kodak eye.
That sort of stuff usually comes from the south end of a northbound
bull.
> Double duh; it's not as though there was only one camera, of
> insufficient film nor lack of time, whereas multiple cameras,
> of various formats and of each utilizing nothing but the very
> best available optics, except for their having no band-pass
> nor other spectrum cut-off filtration.
I'm glad you don't see your fallacy. You couldn't be an amusing
cretin if you weren't a cretin.
> The key word being "UNFILTERED", you freaking mainstream
> status quo moron. There are hard-science and Kodak physics-101
> numbers that'll prove that I'm not a liar, subsequently
> proving that you and the others you bed with are certified
> liars exactly like our LLPOF resident warlord(GW Bush),
> another SOB that's hopefully taking the like's of yourself
> deep into hell, and then some.
You can look up and quote a million or a billion facts, but you're
still stuck with your misconstructions, which are stupid.
If I didn't know you were hysteria-driven, I'd be amazed that you
made all that out of my mere mention of two simple facts: that no
one would be stupid enough to carry film to the moon and then waste
it on distant points, and that any film including part of the
moon's surface would die of overexposure if the shutter was open
long enough to capture such a point.
> In other words; you are a pagan liar and a criminal that
> should have been tired and slowly (organ by organ extraction)
> executed for crimes against humanity, and preferably by a
> friendly group of Muslims at that.
I have some advice for you: Since you're always at the very
earliest learning stages of whatever topic you happen to be
obsessing over, stick to it. This could lead, in the far future, to
you actually learning something.
> I've noticed as of lately, that a number of these incest
> cloned and otherwise extremely brown-nosed and thereby
> butt-sucking borg collectives of Usenet spooks, and most
> specifically of this GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA disinformation cesspool
> of topic/author stalking species, have been into using a bit
> more than their fair share of their boss's spermware/malware
> (aka MI6/NSA~CIA PC fuckware) again, as per getting right back
> into their usual space-toilet mode of perpetrating MOS nasty
> sorts of cold-war tricks. So, I guess that I'll just have to
> keep improving upon my fishing hooks while doing my best at
> returning their own warm and fuzzy flak along with as much
> love and affection as I can muster.
I think you can stop repeating that one now. Anyone who has read
one of your articles knows how fucking dumb and otherwise mentally
deficient you are, and that has no possible function other than
reaffirming it.
> -
>
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
It would be pretty damned ironic for you to look for the truth,
since you aren't equipped to recognize it and most of your miasmic
mental processes are dedicated to the task of avoiding it.
John Griffin
> As usual, you're starting yourself off with yet another lie,
> so what's the point?
>
> Even though Jupiter would be represented as a small dot, that
> dot simply isn't darker than the nearly coal-black surface of
> the moon, at least not grain per grain as having been recorded
> upon such unfiltered Kodak film, and thus proving that you're
> being a certified liar. Mars, especially Venus and if ever the
> Sirius star system got anywhere within 30 degrees of the dark
> lunar horizon should have been nearly impossible to have
> avoided.
You don't understand that except when viewed through atmosphere,
Jupiter and every other star and planet are points.
> Remember that the unfiltered Kodak sees and records of what is
> hardly visible if not invisible to the human eye, thus many
> stars that look dim are actually substantially brighter as
> having been photo recorded. Try this upon the moon and it's
> potentially worth 256:1 brighter yet to the unfiltered Kodak
> eye, as well as for being a whole lot brighter to the human
> eye. The same can be said of the near-UV and UV-a that
> reflected off nearby planets that are of those within camera
> view of the lunar horizon.
>
> LLPOF No.2; John Griffin; - "There are no vibrant stars."
> Excluding Sirius, as not from Earth and certainly not if
> you've applied a good spectrum cut-off filter, although the
> horrific near-blue, near-UV and UV-a worth of many stars (such
> as Sirius) is going to otherwise fill those tiny little photon
> buckets as grains upon all of that unfiltered film, especially
> if we're talking about Sirius. Would you like to share a
> moon/Sirius image that proves your point?
My point was that you were in error (big news) when you said some
stars are vibrant.
> Are you so absolutely dumbfounded that I actually have to post
> examples?
>
>>"Dymanic," eh?
> Sorry, that's just my dyslexia kicking in. At least it proves
> you're almost half a smasrt as you've claimed to be.
It might be amusing to see you quote something where I've said
anything remotely like that, because you'd have to invent it.
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
"Brad, here's a truth for you."
"AAAAARRGGHHHH! Get that shit away from me!"
Al Zenner
news:Xns97245B3D67E9Bth...@130.133.1.4:
> You don't understand that except when viewed through atmosphere,
> Jupiter and every other star and planet are points.
So, on average how many arc seconds wide is the sun when viewed
from earth?
There's more, but why bother.
John Griffin
> John Griffin <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
>
>> You don't understand that except when viewed through
>> atmosphere, Jupiter and every other star and planet are
>> points.
>
> So, on average how many arc seconds wide is the sun when
> viewed from earth?
Guth would have said that (in far more words, of course) but
despite his plethora of problems, he isn't that lame.
> There's more, but why bother.
<snicker> Weak. Very, very weak.
I'll tell Guth a few of the things that excite him and you can
stand in the corner belaboring the obvious. What a team.
Secr...@verizon.net
printed below, I don't even read most of your posts, I find them too
unrealistic.
<<Dear "Secret...@Verizon.net" (aka MI6/NSA/CIA~NASA spook),
I'm still working on this following contribution, thus I've
intentionally created some of those dyslexic mistakes that you and your
incest cloned partners in crimes against humanity seem to get your
jollies from. Since you're solely into topic/author stalking and
bashings, and otherwise into loaded questions as not intending upon
contributing squat as to the topic at hand, in which case I've got
nothing to lose. How about yourself? >>
Secr...@verizon.net
<<Dear "Secret...@Verizon.net" (aka MI6/NSA/CIA~NASA spook),
I'm still working on this following contribution, thus I've
intentionally created some of those dyslexic mistakes that you and your
incest cloned partners in crimes against humanity seem to get your
jollies from. Since you're solely into topic/author stalking and
bashings, and otherwise into loaded questions as not intending upon
contributing squat as to the topic at hand, in which case I've got
nothing to lose. How about yourself? >>
Who the hell do you think you are ?? I've done none of what you have
printed above, I don't even read most of your posts, I find them too
unrealistic.
bru
>Brad Guth <ieisbradg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><<Dear "Secret...@Verizon.net" (aka MI6/NSA/CIA~NASA spook),
>I'm still working on this following contribution, thus I've
>intentionally created some of those dyslexic mistakes that you and your
>
>incest cloned partners in crimes against humanity seem to get your
>jollies from. Since you're solely into topic/author stalking and
>bashings, and otherwise into loaded questions as not intending upon
>contributing squat as to the topic at hand, in which case I've got
>nothing to lose. How about yourself? >>
The Battle Of El-Teb
YE sons of Great Britain, I think no shame
To write in praise of brave General Graham!
Whose name will be handed down to posterity without any stigma,
Because, at the battle of El-Teb, he defeated Osman Digna.
With an army about five thousand strong,
To El-Teb, in the year 1884, he marched along,
And bivouacked there for the night;
While around their fires they only thought of the coming fight.
They kept up their fires all the long night,
Which made the encampment appear weird-like to the sight;
While the men were completely soaked with the rain,
But the brave heroes disdained to complain.
The brave heroes were glad when daylight did appear,
And when the reveille was sounded, they gave a hearty cheer
And their fires were piled up higher again,
Then they tried to dry their clothes that were soaked with the rain.
Then breakfast was taken about eight o'clock,
And when over, each man stood in the ranks as firm as a rock,
And every man seemed to be on his guard --
All silent and ready to move forward.
The first movement was a short one from where they lay --
Then they began to advance towards El-Teb without dismay,
And showed that all was in order for the fray,
While every man's heart seemed to feel light and gay.
The enemy's position could be seen in the distance far away
But the brave heroes marched on without delay --
Whilst the enemy's banners floated in the air,
And dark swarms of men were scattered near by there.
Their force was a large one -- its front extended over a mile,
And all along the line their guns were all in file;
But as the British advanced, they disappeared,
While our brave kilty lads loudly cheered.
Thus slowly and cautiously brave General Graham proceeded
And to save his men from slaughter, great caution was needed,
Because Osman Digna's force was about ten thousand strong;
But he said, Come on, my brave lads, we'll conquer them ere long!
It was about ten o'clock when they came near the enemy's lines,
And on the morning air could be heard the cheerful chimes
Corning from the pipes of the gallant Black Watch,
Which every ear in the British force was eager to catch.
Then they passed by the enemy about mid-day,
While every Arab seemed to have his gun ready for the fray
When a bullet strikes down General Baker by the way,
But he is soon in the saddle again without delay,
And ready for any service that he could perform;
Whilst the bullets fell around them in a perfect storm
That they had to lie down, but not through fear,
Because the enemy was about 800 yards on their left rear.
Then General Graham addressed his men,
And said, If they won't attack us, we must attack them,
So start to your feet, my lads, and never fear,
And strike up your bagpipes, and give a loud cheer.
So they leapt to their feet, and gave a loud cheer,
While the Arabs swept down upon them without the least fear,
And put aside their rifles, and grasped their spears;
Whilst the British bullets in front of them the earth uptears.
Then the British charged them with their cold steel,
Which made the Arabs backward for to reel;
But they dashed forward again on their ranks without dismay,
But before the terrible fire of their musketry they were swept away.
Oh, God of Heaven! it was a terrible sight
To see, and hear the Arabs shouting with all their might
A fearful oath when they got an inch of cold steel,
Which forced them backwards again and made them reel.
By two o'clock they were fairly beat,
And Osman Digna, the false prophet, was forced to retreat
After three hours of an incessant fight;
But Heaven, 'tis said, defends the right.
And I think he ought to be ashamed of himself;
For I consider he has acted the part of a silly elf,
By thinking to conquer the armies of the Lord
With his foolish and benighted rebel horde.
>
>
>Who the hell do you think you are ?? I've done none of what you have
>printed above, I don't even read most of your posts, I find them too
>unrealistic.
>
--
Brugman Mooivinger
Scott Hedrick
<Secr...@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1133965253....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't care what he wrote. He keep reading and replying to Guth, which
makes him too stupid to read anymore.
<plonk>
Al Zenner
> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> flounced a couple of times and wrote:
>> John Griffin <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
>>> You don't understand that except when viewed through
>>> atmosphere, Jupiter and every other star and planet are
>>> points.
>> So, on average how many arc seconds wide is the sun when
>> viewed from earth?
> Guth would have said that (in far more words, of course) but
> despite his plethora of problems, he isn't that lame.
Lame is calling things points that are not.
>> There's more, but why bother.
> <snicker> Weak. Very, very weak.
Not even a good offense. Hop into the neophyte box. Now there's
a good boy. I'm going to close the lid now so you'll be safe.
> I'll tell Guth a few of the things that excite him and you can
> stand in the corner belaboring the obvious. What a team.
It isn't as though you have a working relationship with "obvious."
Go back to watching _Tripping the Rift_ and leave sci.* newsgroups
to those who have a capacity to post rationally.
John Griffin
> John Griffin <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
>
>> Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> flounced a couple of times and
>> wrote:
>
>>> John Griffin <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote
>
>>>> You don't understand that except when viewed through
>>>> atmosphere, Jupiter and every other star and planet are
>>>> points.
>
>>> So, on average how many arc seconds wide is the sun when
>>> viewed from earth?
>
>> Guth would have said that (in far more words, of course) but
>> despite his plethora of problems, he isn't that lame.
>
> Lame is calling things points that are not.
Puffing yourself up over an instance of belaboring the obvious is
extra lame. I suppose you thought "Oh, boy, my big chance to
shine!"
>>> There's more, but why bother.
>
>> <snicker> Weak. Very, very weak.
>
> Not even a good offense. Hop into the neophyte box. Now
> there's a good boy. I'm going to close the lid now so you'll
> be safe.
Are you going to pretend, punk, that posting your followup little
whimper was "closing a lid"?! HAHAHAHA!
Punchinello here seems to be quite impressed with himself, in
contrast to his actual self.
>> I'll tell Guth a few of the things that excite him and you
>> can stand in the corner belaboring the obvious. What a team.
>
> It isn't as though you have a working relationship with
> "obvious." Go back to watching _Tripping the Rift_ and leave
> sci.* newsgroups to those who have a capacity to post
> rationally.
<snicker> It's hilarious when a mouthy little fop preens and
slobbers but posts his followup in a newsgroup where the poster
who whopped the first whimper out of him won't see it. (No, you
don't understand, so I'll explain: I repaired your puerile
followups game on your first little fit. Clearly and somewhat
surprisingly, even you were able to perceive that, punk.)
What the fuck is "Tripping the Rift," chump?
Let's see some more of your funny little flounces.
Brad Guth
That's it? - you've got no imaging examples or any hard-science numbers
in support of your conditional laws of physics?
Just MOS "John Griffin" style of dripping brown-nosed LLPOF crapolla?
What's the matter this time, John? - I just proved that yourself and
all of your friends are nothing but brown-nosed LLPOF rusemasters
without a pegleg nor a pecker to sand on.
By the hard numbers and by way of example after example, there's no
possible way that a few out of the thousands of frames of those
supposed EVAs avoided their getting the likes of a planet and
especially of having avoided the Sirius star system from becoming a
part of the image. Sufficient exposure as would have been required for
recording the nearly coal-black lunar terrain simply would have
included a good number of other items upon film that capable of having
nearly a 1024:1 dynamic range, which would have thereby placed the
photographer as being somewhere upon the moon. Besides Kodak corporate
being on my side of this argument, thousands of others can share their
expertise as to what's doable from the extremely dark and nasty surface
of our moon, especially as looking away from the harsh solar
point-source of solar illumination and having incorporated a polarising
filter to boot.
You know damn good and well, that their individual point-size of a
given planet or even a significant star that should have been within a
given image isn't what matters, not that Venus would have been all that
small. The photons/grain is all that matters unless you're talking
about whatever's representing less than a grain of film. Of what's
captured from a terrestrial based camera isn't going to be nearly as
good as per not having the thick and photon filtering via our polluted
atmosphere of Earth to deal with.
The available UV-a, near-UV and even the near-blue photons are simply
going to be extremely vibrant to the naked/unfiltered Kodak eye, as
opposed to a terrestrial look-see examples that are essentially being
photon moderated to death. Don't bother giving me any of your crapolla
that you've somehow misunderstood what I'm saying, or of what I'm
intending to say.
Of course, you first have to get that camera and film safely onto the
lunar deck, and it seems that you can't even manage that part of the
task. The fact of operating such cameras and their plastic film at
250°C and on such a highly reactive lunar surface that absolutely
chuck full of secondary/recoil hard-X-rays is just adding insult to
injury. There's so much that's dead wrong and putrid about your
NASA/Apollo fiasco that it sucks worse off then the phony baloney WMD
that you and your bed partners invented.
I've noticed that as of lately I've become a little better lose-cannon
target worthy of my actually hitting more than my fair share of tender
private parts associated with whatever the mainstream status quo holds
dear. However, some of these incest cloned and extremely brown-nosed
borg collectives of Usenet spooks, and specifically of this
GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA disinformation cesspool of topic/author stalking
species of brown-nosed rusemasters have been dipping into using a bit
more than their fair share of their boss's spermware/malware (aka
MI6/NSA~CIA PC fuckware) again, as per getting right back into their
usual space-toilet mode of their perpetrating MOS nasty sorts of
cold-war tricks. So, I guess that I'll just have to keep improving upon
my custom hooks while doing my best at returning their own warm and
fuzzy flak along with as much love and affection as I can muster.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Brad Guth
>Who the hell do you think you are ?? I've done none of what you have
>printed above, I don't even read most of your posts, I find them too
>unrealistic.
best thing to God. Therefore, pay closer attention when I say that
you're nothing but another dripping butt load of crapolla. Either that
or perhaps you're so pathetically dumb and dumber, as in snookered and
dumbfounded that you can't figure anything out for yourself.
Too unrealistic?
Other significant life coexisting on Venus isn't nearly as
"unrealistic" as walking upon the moon.
However, obviously you're not out and about looking for the truth; so
what's the difference?
Being a little subjectively "unrealistic" is my middle name whenever
I'm not being a little honestly exaggeration prone, thus if you can't
manage to extract a few out-of-context tidbits of information as to
making heads nor tails out of whatever it is that I have to say, then
it's clearly yourself that's mentally deficient and/or without vision.
Only a certified fool can't ask an honest question nor otherwise
contribute something to the topic at hand, like all of the contrived
and ulterior motivated contributions of so many others has been another
example of what Usenet sucks and blows big-time.
Of course, we seem to have ourselves an extremely brown-nosed Usenet
collective that's chuck full of disinformation as word vending
rusemasters, offering their infomercials as spewing lies based upon
conditional laws of physics and as having been backed up with their
evidence exclusions and soft-science to boot, of which you've bought
entirely into their hook, line and sinker.
-
BTW; I've noticed that as of lately I've become a little more
lose-cannon target worthy of actually hitting more than my fair share
donsto...@hotmail.com
best thing to God. Therefore, pay closer attention when I say that
you're nothing but another dripping butt load of crapolla. Either that
or perhaps you're so pathetically dumb and dumber, as in snookered and
*****************
You're not paranoid if they're really after you.
John Griffin
> John Griffin (aka rusemaster fool on the hill),
> That's it? - you've got no imaging examples or any
> hard-science numbers in support of your conditional laws of
> physics?
Hilarious...dumbshit here snips everything and then asserts that
I've said something that can be characterized as "conditional
laws of physics."
Guth, one of your best attributes is your reading comprehension
problem--if you could get over it, you'd only be about half as
funny.
> Just MOS "John Griffin" style of dripping brown-nosed LLPOF
> crapolla?
>
> What's the matter this time, John? - I just proved that
> yourself and all of your friends are nothing but brown-nosed
> LLPOF rusemasters without a pegleg nor a pecker to sand on.
You can find the word "prove" in just about any English language
dictionary. Too bad you aren't bright enough to understand that
definition once someone looks it up for you.
> By the hard numbers and by way of example after example,
> there's no possible way that a few out of the thousands of
> frames of those supposed EVAs avoided their getting the likes
> of a planet and especially of having avoided the Sirius star
> system from becoming a part of the image.
Therefore (in Guth/Cretin "logic"), no one went to the moon.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>Sufficient exposure
> as would have been required for recording the nearly
> coal-black lunar terrain simply would have included a good
> number of other items upon film that capable of having nearly
> a 1024:1 dynamic range, which would have thereby placed the
> photographer as being somewhere upon the moon.
Here comes imbecile Guth's most amusing remark...
> Besides Kodak
> corporate being on my side of this argument,
Hilarious. The fucking idiot is fucking delusional.
> thousands of
> others can share their expertise as to what's doable from the
> extremely dark and nasty surface of our moon, especially as
> looking away from the harsh solar point-source of solar
> illumination and having incorporated a polarising filter to
> boot.
>
> You know damn good and well, that their individual point-size
> of a given planet or even a significant star that should have
> been within a given image isn't what matters, not that Venus
> would have been all that small. The photons/grain is all that
> matters unless you're talking about whatever's representing
> less than a grain of film. Of what's captured from a
> terrestrial based camera isn't going to be nearly as good as
> per not having the thick and photon filtering via our polluted
> atmosphere of Earth to deal with.
What the world needs now is an intelligible version of that
yapping. (Just kidding. It would still be just more yapping.)
> The available UV-a, near-UV and even the near-blue photons are
> simply going to be extremely vibrant to the naked/unfiltered
> Kodak eye, as opposed to a terrestrial look-see examples that
> are essentially being photon moderated to death. Don't bother
> giving me any of your crapolla that you've somehow
> misunderstood what I'm saying, or of what I'm intending to
> say.
You misunderstand what you're trying to say.
> Of course, you first have to get that camera and film safely
> onto the lunar deck, and it seems that you can't even manage
> that part of the task.
<snicker>
>The fact of operating such cameras and
> their plastic film at 250°C and on such a highly reactive
> lunar surface that absolutely chuck full of secondary/recoil
> hard-X-rays is just adding insult to injury. There's so much
> that's dead wrong and putrid about your NASA/Apollo fiasco
> that it sucks worse off then the phony baloney WMD that you
> and your bed partners invented.
You were trying to say "chock full," but that isn't anywhere near
the funniest part of your stupid "250 degrees C," "highly
reactive lunar surface" blather. The moon's surface is saturated
with reflected X-rays?! It's really cool when you go into your
uneducable punchinello act, Guth. It would be interesting to
know whether you ever, just for a moment, perceive that the
universe you live in isn't real--it's your private internal
fantasyland.
> I've noticed that as of lately I've become a little better
> lose-cannon target worthy of my actually hitting more than my
> fair share of tender private parts associated with whatever
> the mainstream status quo holds dear.
You can notice anything you wish to see, as long as you don't
step outside that fantasy world.
> yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap...
You remind me of a guy who calls himself "prien." (Former poster
in a far distant newsgroup.) Here are some sample quotes
(essentialized) from him that will explain why you could be
prien. "The speed of an individual vehicle can be uniquely
determined by knowing the traffic volume." "The bruise inside
Nicole Brown's skull was a thumbprint." "You can change anything
on a magnetic tape with a few keystrokes." "A 60 mile trip is
equivalent to 90 miles." So, first we have quotes that show that
he's a fucking idiot, and then there's the quote that ties you
and prien together: "If NASA scientists and engineers disagree
with prien, it's because they don't understand the problem." He
hasn't said that it's impossible for NASA scientists and
engineers to get a man onto the surface of the moon, so he's just
a tad smarter than you are.
Anyway, don't forget that without magnification everything out
there appears to the eye or the camera as a point,
notwithstanding the flouncing and simpering of any other twits
like you who might read this.
Brad Guth
Too bad that you haven't posted one image that proves me wrong, not
posted one set of numbers that proves me wrong, not shared a
hard-science matter of fact that proves me wrong.
You're just into criticising my usage of words and otherwise into as
much evidence exclusions as to wherever suits your ruse/sting of the
century. It seems that within John Griffin's skewed world of
politically correct soft-science and conditional laws of physics is
where the hard-science and regular laws of physics used by others is
simply unacceptable (not Jewish and/or Third Reich enough).
BTW; I've never stipulated "it's impossible for NASA scientists and
engineers to get a man onto the surface of the moon", as some day I'm
fairly certainly that'll happen once we've actually mastered the
necessary fly-by-rocket landers. There's nothing delusional about Kodak
corporate being on my side of these arguments, that is unless you're
going to rewrite the laws of photon and film physics in order to suit
the obvious matters of hard-science facts about the extremely dark and
nasty surface of our moon that's mostly of basalt covered meters deep
in a fine composite dust of sodium, iron, titanium plus loads of
carbon/soot to boot that's anything but clumping, along with all of the
absolutely nasty meteorites and their impact related shards to being
found upon each and every m2 and/or within every m3.
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust
"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree far beyond; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of honest
folks having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing
by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident warlord(GW Bush).
Brad Guth
Speaking of fishing for brown-nosed fools. For God's sake and for
hopefully preventing the next Christ on a stick, you're not supposed to
reuse the same old toilet paper.
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
What are you spewing about now, Brad?
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy
"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."
"Human beings CAN NOT live in a solar system without a sun
with a ferrite core and a planet without a solid iron core."
"...the poles of Earth are tipped further away from the sun
now, because the use of EM weaponry caused the Earth's
mantle to shift."
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>Wow, John Griffin goes absolutely postal.
Wrong! Fake moonbreath. That's MY job.
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"I have become a Clown"
-Protobrain (getting honest)
John Griffin
> Wow, John Griffin goes absolutely postal.
I wondered if I could slap an idiotic remark out of you, but I
didn't imagine it would be that weak.
> Too bad that you haven't posted one image that proves me
> wrong, not posted one set of numbers that proves me wrong, not
> shared a hard-science matter of fact that proves me wrong.
I don't have to prove that you're wrong. You're wrong. If you were
right, you'd be able to prove it. Since you've made if
extraordinarily clear that you don't understand the concepts of
evidence and proof, you have no hope of doing so.
> You're just into criticising my usage of words and otherwise
> into as much evidence exclusions as to wherever suits your
> ruse/sting of the century. It seems that within John Griffin's
> skewed world of politically correct soft-science and
> conditional laws of physics is where the hard-science and
> regular laws of physics used by others is simply unacceptable
> (not Jewish and/or Third Reich enough).
The things you dream up about people who are laughing at you are
even more amusing than your idiotic gobble about the moon, Kodak,
etc.
> BTW; I've never stipulated "it's impossible for NASA
> scientists and engineers to get a man onto the surface of the
> moon", as some day I'm fairly certainly that'll happen once
> we've actually mastered the necessary fly-by-rocket landers.
It doesn't matter what you are certain of. It already happened, and
you're an idiot.
> There's nothing delusional about Kodak corporate being on my
> side of these arguments, that is unless you're going to
> rewrite the laws of photon and film physics in order to suit
> the obvious matters of hard-science facts about the extremely
> dark and nasty surface of our moon that's mostly of basalt
> covered meters deep in a fine composite dust of sodium, iron,
> titanium plus loads of carbon/soot to boot that's anything but
> clumping, along with all of the absolutely nasty meteorites
> and their impact related shards to being found upon each and
> every m2 and/or within every m3. -
The engineers and scientists at Kodak are laughing at you.
Your yapping about the imaginary sea of dust gets funnier every
time you augment it.
> "If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
> -Brad Guth
What passes for truth in the fantasyland you live in is far
different from truth.
Brad Guth
I've more than proven my points. I've posted dozens of external pages
and dozens upon dozens more into these Usenet cesspools that lie their
stinking Arian butts off whenever the truth gets anywhere near their
mainstream status quo surface.
You're the Arian fool on the hill that hasn't proven squat.
Kodak doesn't lie (they don't have to), their film certainly doesn't
lie and the laws of physics pertaining to the visible and invisible
photons do NOT lie.
Our moon is an extremely dark and nasty orb that's extra lethal by day.
The natural color and intensity of raw elements and/or photographic
contrast of the moon does NOT become different to the point of such
views being washed out from merely being situated upon what should have
been the dark and nasty deck. If anything, being situated upon the deck
should have obtained images that would have recorded as a darker moon
horizon. There are NO such colorless zones of 55+% albedo as depicted
by those EVA obtained Kodak (unfiltered) moments. The raw solar
illuminated surface is highly reactive in terms of producing a lethal
bath of secondary/recoil hard-X-rays. There's sodium in the air and
everywhere else, there is titanium to being found everywhere, there is
iron deposited everywhere, there are dark and nasty meteorites and of
their secondary shards strewn everywhere. The thin atmosphere includes
argon and radon. The typical horizon as spot illuminated by the raw sun
of typically 45° or less is representing something less than a 6%
albedo to work with. All natural Kodak images should have been
absolutely awash in a nasty skew of bluish tint due to all of the
near-UV and UV-a energy having created their near-blue photons, that
plus having been hard-X-ray impacted and otherwise noticeably affected
by having been summarily roasted at 250°C. The dust should have been
carbon/soot dark and nasty, as well as meters deep, having perhaps at
best a 5 g/cm2 worth of surface tension capability.
The truth is what any primary/grade-school kid in photography-101 can
easily duplicate any day of week. Such as, any damn fool of a sub-level
moron capability can use a xenon lamp for accomplishing the necessary
spot-source of illumination in order to create the very same
terrestrial looking exposures of color spectrum as depicted by all of
the NASA/Apollo EVA related Kodak moments. Any damn fool can mix up a
50/50 composition of cornmeal and portland cement as phony moon dirt
for their required shots. Any damn fool can use blue-screen methods in
order to create absolutely any desired photographic affect you'd like
to see. However, keeping of nearby planets and the likes of the Sirius
star system entirely out of frame is a wee bit easier said than
accomplished, thus how the heck did our Arian NASA/Apollo freaks manage
that task?
Why are there blue-screen errors in the official archives?
I'd gladly point to those sorts of photographic errors, but then I'd
have to kill you, and not so much because of any taboo/nondisclosure
factors, but because you're just too God damn stupid to live. Just like
I'd have to kill you if I'm having to explain how taking a butt naked
(meaning unfiltered) photo upon the moon is going to record a whole lot
different spectrum of exposures than if accomplishing the same task
here upon Earth.
Most folks seem to have been pointing out those multiple errors within
the contents of a given image (after all, there are so many to pick
from), whereas I could care less about whatever's being taken a picture
of, as it's the total lack of there being any color skew and then
absolutely zero amounts of secondary/recoil photons that actually
matters, plus then it's the 55+% albedo that simply can not have
existed any more so than the thin cornmeal and portland cement layer of
moon dust.
BTW; where's your fly-by-rocket lander?
Where are those necessary reaction wheels as part of the lander?
How about you post an original NASA/Apollo archive picture, and I'll
pick it apart?
-
"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
tinplated
wrote:
<snip>
>
>"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
>-Brad Guth
>
OK. I'm gonna take this to the next level here, Brad. Should you
choose to answer this, I'd consider it a sign of your good faith to do
so _without_ calling me names.
How about I grant you your entire argument? The moon landings were
faked. Granted. NASA has been lying to us for years. Given. The whole
damn thing is nothing more than a giant hoax. Concluded.
Ok. You've convinced me. Now...
What next?
Is there any, _ANY_ plan for the next step? Do you intend to *do*
anything other than posting angry screed to Usenet? So you have the
truth, as you say in your signature. What do you want to do with this
truth that you have?
Now what?
JD "you always need to ask the next question" S
Brad Guth
>What next?
>Is there any, _ANY_ plan for the next step? Do you intend to *do*
>anything other than posting angry screed to Usenet? So you have the
>truth, as you say in your signature. What do you want to do with this
>truth that you have?
>Now what?
resources on pretending that we've been there and done that moon
walking thing. Getting ourselves past all of that pretentious cold-war
gauntlet should allow folks to focus upon delivering a slew of smaller
satellites, and the likes of getting those LUNAR-A impact probes
deployed.
Of course, this would also represent that whenever ideas as to
alternative methods of accomplishing our moon or whatever else becomes
posted, that as such they're given the royal treatment of positive
respect as shared along with all the think-tank talent and expertise
instead of being summarily bashed because they're a little outside the
NASA/Apollo box.
For example; - Deploying a serious batch of microsatellites should soon
become the relatively cheap and fast-track deployment alternative to
the otherwise typically big and complex multi-tonne sorts of satellites
that could never get safely onto the lunar deck, whereas getting
smaller is potentially what's capable of affording these much lower
density items into surviving after their orbit decay which leaves us
with but one final alternative, of our actually getting a few of these
interactive instruments deployed into if not situated upon the dark and
nasty surface of such a moon-dust covered terrain.
I'm thinking along the lines of creating 100 units of a 618 mm thick
and 2 meter diameter saucer shaped microsatellite of perhaps an
elliptosphere or that of an elliptoid flying saucer, as per each having
a cubic meter in volume, of their shape based upon a ratio of 2 Phi
(3.236068:1), thus lots of interior space for the sorts of tough basalt
micro balloon packing and composite reinforcements that shouldn't
hardly weigh anything. Perhaps as little as 309 mm by one meter
diameter might get interesting.
There are countless expansive lunar terrain areas and even of
sufficiently large diameter craters hosting miles upon miles of their
relatively smooth moon-dust filled ponds that'll make for a little
interesting micro-lithobreaking form of a final moon-dust landing. I'll
suggest a 10 kg satellite that's taking up a cubic meter by volume just
might represent a surface tension compression factor of less than 0.325
g/cm2, thus actually end up floating itself on top of that nasty
moon-dust. I can think of all sorts of drag inducing methods of getting
such low density items down to a reasonable final landing velocity
that's sufficient as to surviving their arrivals upon such a low
surface-tension capable substance. These days, of satellites that could
become their own surface probes need not be large and bulky items,
whereas 10 kg is actually affording quite a bit of a viable satellite
package that's capable of obtaining a good deal of science and even
multiple camera instruments within.
Until we have achieved a proven set of fly-by-rocket landers (robotic
as well as manned) under our moonsuit belts, whereas even the notions
of an earthshine illuminated landing site is going to remain testy if
not physically taboo. Therefore, the only manned applications I foresee
are those related to our accomplishing a little preliminary
station-keeping and thus all around butt-saving mission critical
location claiming at LL1/ME-L1 (that's supposedly a sweet-spot 60,000
km above the lunar deck, as per that zone remaining gravity-well
aligned as keeping relatively in dead-center alignment with Earth, +/-
a certain amount of the interactive gravity-well halo/parallel parking
factor).
So, there's a lot to do and a great deal at stake for whomever gets to
hold onto this one and only LL1/ME-L1 worthy zone, especially since
there can be only one such LSE-CM/ISS. If that's not good enough, in
which case I have lots of other affordable and obtainable plans of
action that are absolute win-win opportunities for our futures.
-
Brad Guth
John Griffin
Meanwhile, back on Earth...
The moon in your fantasyland is sure as hell different from
Earth's.
John Griffin
> John Griffin (aka Arian fool),
<snicker>
> I've more than proven my points. I've posted dozens of
> external pages and dozens upon dozens more into these Usenet
> cesspools that lie their stinking Arian butts off whenever the
> truth gets anywhere near their mainstream status quo surface.
You really need to stop using the word "proven" and every word
that even looks like it. You have no idea what it means.
> You're the Arian fool on the hill that hasn't proven squat.
I don't know what an "Arian fool on the hill" is, and it's a
complete mystery how you decided I'm one of them, but I do know
that I haven't tried to prove anything.
> Kodak doesn't lie (they don't have to), their film certainly
> doesn't lie and the laws of physics pertaining to the visible
> and invisible photons do NOT lie.
I've been trying to tell you that. You're making progress?
> Our moon is an extremely dark and nasty orb that's extra
> lethal by day.
That, of course, is bullshit, but the funnier part is that you
discovered the word "nasty" and can't stop repeating it.
> The natural color and intensity of raw elements and/or
> photographic contrast of the moon does NOT become different to
> the point of such views being washed out from merely being
> situated upon what should have been the dark and nasty deck.
> If anything, being situated upon the deck should have obtained
> images that would have recorded as a darker moon horizon.
> There are NO such colorless zones of 55+% albedo as depicted
> by those EVA obtained Kodak (unfiltered) moments. The raw
> solar illuminated surface is highly reactive in terms of
> producing a lethal bath of secondary/recoil hard-X-rays.
That was dumb yesterday and it's dumb today.
> There's sodium in the air and everywhere else, there is
> titanium to being found everywhere, there is iron deposited
> everywhere, there are dark and nasty meteorites and of their
> secondary shards strewn everywhere. The thin atmosphere
> includes argon and radon. The typical horizon as spot
> illuminated by the raw sun of typically 45° or less is
> representing something less than a 6% albedo to work with. All
> natural Kodak images should have been absolutely awash in a
> nasty skew of bluish tint due to all of the near-UV and UV-a
> energy having created their near-blue photons, that plus
> having been hard-X-ray impacted and otherwise noticeably
> affected by having been summarily roasted at 250°C. The dust
> should have been carbon/soot dark and nasty, as well as meters
> deep, having perhaps at best a 5 g/cm2 worth of surface
> tension capability.
"There's sodium in the air (on the moon)." Good one, Brad.
> The truth is what any primary/grade-school kid in
> photography-101 can easily duplicate any day of week.
You're envious of them, then.
> Such as,
> any damn fool of a sub-level moron capability can use a xenon
> lamp for accomplishing the necessary spot-source of
> illumination in order to create the very same terrestrial
> looking exposures of color spectrum as depicted by all of the
> NASA/Apollo EVA related Kodak moments. Any damn fool can mix
> up a 50/50 composition of cornmeal and portland cement as
> phony moon dirt for their required shots. Any damn fool can
> use blue-screen methods in order to create absolutely any
> desired photographic affect you'd like to see. However,
> keeping of nearby planets and the likes of the Sirius star
> system entirely out of frame is a wee bit easier said than
> accomplished, thus how the heck did our Arian NASA/Apollo
> freaks manage that task?
I don't know of any "Arian NASA/Apollo freaks," but I do know
that by the time a star delivered enough photons to its one grain
on the film, the film would have been wrecked by a flood of light
from the moon's surface.
> Why are there blue-screen errors in the official archives?
To err is human. You, of all people, need to learn that.
> I'd gladly point to those sorts of photographic errors, but
> then I'd have to kill you, and not so much because of any
> taboo/nondisclosure factors, but because you're just too God
> damn stupid to live. Just like I'd have to kill you if I'm
> having to explain how taking a butt naked (meaning unfiltered)
> photo upon the moon is going to record a whole lot different
> spectrum of exposures than if accomplishing the same task here
> upon Earth.
You seem to be getting rather excited here. Maybe you should
take up a better hobby than spewing nonsense on the internet.
> Most folks seem to have been pointing out those multiple
> errors within the contents of a given image (after all, there
> are so many to pick from), whereas I could care less about
> whatever's being taken a picture of, as it's the total lack of
> there being any color skew and then absolutely zero amounts of
> secondary/recoil photons that actually matters, plus then it's
> the 55+% albedo that simply can not have existed any more so
> than the thin cornmeal and portland cement layer of moon dust.
>
> BTW; where's your fly-by-rocket lander?
> Where are those necessary reaction wheels as part of the
> lander? How about you post an original NASA/Apollo archive
> picture, and I'll pick it apart?
Sure, ya will...hahahahahahahahaha
Keep on picking yourself apart. You remind me of some
"creationists" who say "You can't prove <some made up creationist
hogwash>, therefore evolution is false and God created the
fucking universe in seven days!"
Brad Guth
>The moon in your fantasyland is sure as hell different from Earth's.
physics work just fine and dandy.
My moon has one hell of a sodium rich, plus argon, radon and a touch of
CO2 atmosphere to work with. It's also an extremely reactive place
since not having a magnitosphere nor enough of an atmosphere in order
to prevent the cosmic and solar influx from doing a real number upon
creating all of those lethal secondary/recoil photons. It's also a
physically lethal place to be if so much as an arriving dust-bunny
clocks itself through your moonsuit butt at 30+km/s, whereas the KE
worth from a speck of sand ott to tear your entire butt off.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>You really need to stop using the word "proven" and every word
>that even looks like it. You have no idea what it means.
You really need to stop being such a born again Aryan liar.
>"There's sodium in the air (on the moon)." Good one, Brad.
Now you're excluding hard-science that's been universally accepted as a
matter of fact.
Obviously on behalf of your moon, you have to utilize lots of evidence
exclusions and conditional laws of physics. In other words, lying your
status quo butt off just like our resident Third Reich warlord(GW
Bush).
I'd asked; Why are there blue-screen errors in the official archives?
>To err is human. You, of all people, need to learn that.
This is suggesting that whatever blue-screening is just another
perfectly normal NASA/Apollo mission attribute, as in fine and dandy by
your soft-science and conditional laws of physics high standards and
accountability, thus entirely belongs within the official archives as
being found within the middle of film that was supposedly involved with
our landing upon the moon.
I'd asked; where's your fly-by-rocket lander?
Where are those necessary reaction wheels as part of the
lander? How about you post an original NASA/Apollo archive
picture, and I'll pick it apart?
Your pathetic reply: "Sure, ya will...hahahahahahahahaha"
I guess that says a whole lot more than I'd expected of yourself.
-
Brad Guth
tinplated
wrote:
>>tinplated; - Ok. You've convinced me. Now...
>>What next?
>>Is there any, _ANY_ plan for the next step? Do you intend to *do*
>>anything other than posting angry screed to Usenet? So you have the
>>truth, as you say in your signature. What do you want to do with this
>>truth that you have?
>>Now what?
>The "next step" is for others to stop wasting time, talents and
>resources on pretending that we've been there and done that moon
>walking thing. Getting ourselves past all of that pretentious cold-war
>gauntlet should allow folks to focus upon delivering a slew of smaller
>satellites, and the likes of getting those LUNAR-A impact probes
>deployed.
>
>Of course, this would also represent that whenever ideas as to
>alternative methods of accomplishing our moon or whatever else becomes
>posted, that as such they're given the royal treatment of positive
>respect as shared along with all the think-tank talent and expertise
>instead of being summarily bashed because they're a little outside the
>NASA/Apollo box.
>
<clip>
So, in other words, you want to go to the moon? And that would
accomplish, exactly what? In your opinion... By your own description
the moon is "nasty", "lethal", "toxic", et.al. Seems like an awful
waste of your time to be advocating a trip to this hideous place.
Or am I missing some salient point of your argument?
JD "still looking for 'the right stuff' here" S
Cardinal Chunder
Thank you for that textbook example of pure unadulterated gibberish.
Brad Guth
-
Brad Guth