NEIL ARMSTRONG & NASA - TOGETHER PERPETUATE MOON LANDING MYTH & DECEPTION
moonlandingh...@yahoo.com
Historian Douglas Brinkley calls him "our nation's most bashful
Galahad."
Author James Hansen has opened the door to Armstrong's life a little
wider with "First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong." He recorded more
than 50 hours of interviews with Armstrong and talked with about 125
family members, friends and associates.
[WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG VERY PRIVATE / SECRETIVE]
Armstrong, 75, had rejected numerous requests to write his biography.
The astronaut who once called himself a "nerdy engineer" finally
accepted a proposal from Hansen, a history professor at Auburn
University and a former NASA historian who talks his language.
Hansen said his plan for the book and his credentials helped him earn
Armstrong's trust.
[WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG NOT HUMANISTIC?]
"He can elaborate at length on technical issues," Hansen said. "When it
comes to issues that are more involving personalities or human
relationships, that's never been a great focus even from the time he
was a boy."
[WHY IS THERE SUCH ECCENTRIC ODDITY ABOUT PROCESS OF BOOK PUBLISHING
DISPAYED BY NEIL ARMSTRONG?]
Hansen said Armstrong quietly spread the word that it was OK for
friends and associates to talk freely; that Armstrong read drafts of
the book but did not demand approval rights; that he and Armstrong drew
up a contract without involving lawyers; and that Armstrong will not
personally benefit from the book.
['WHAT WOULD THEY SAY' HAD NEIL ARMSTRONG KEPT AVOIDING THE
PARTNERED BOOK?]
Armstrong's share of profits will go to his alma mater, Purdue
University, for a space program archive.
Hansen pitched the project to Armstrong in 1999. Interviews began in
2001, and the book went on sale Oct. 18. Publisher Simon & Schuster
said that more than 113,000 copies are in print.
"Readers have been eager to learn more about Neil Armstrong for years,"
said associate publisher Aileen Boyle. "As soon as the manuscript was
complete, we published it as soon as possible."
[WHAT IS NEIL ARMSTRONG HIDING - "NEVER FELT COMFORTABLE" MEETING
PRESS, WRITERS & PUBLIC?]
Armstrong has never felt comfortable with his celebrity, generated by a
moon walk seen by a worldwide television audience estimated at 1
billion.
"Friends and colleagues, all of a sudden, looked at us, treated us
slightly differently than they had months or years before when we were
working together," he told "60 Minutes" in a recent interview. "I never
quite understood that."
[WHY DOES NEIL ARMSTRONG RIGOUROUSLY PUT HEAVY DEMANDS ?]
Although CBS and Simon & Schuster, both owned by Viacom, encouraged
Armstrong to do the interview, he agreed to it only as a favor to the
author, Hansen said. A spokeswoman for the publisher said Armstrong is
refusing all other requests.
[NEIL ARMSTRONG FEARS SQUEALING ABOUT THE MOON HOAX IN UNSCRIPTED
REMARKS]
One of the reasons may be that Armstrong, a perfectionist, doesn't like
the way he comes off in unscripted remarks. He gave his performance on
"60 Minutes" a grade of C-minus, Hansen said.
[WITNESSES SAY NEIL ARMSTRONG "REMOTE" TO THEM]
In appearances just before and after the moon walk, Armstrong often
seemed remote, even boring. Author Norman Mailer, who was interested in
doing an Armstrong biography, wrote that Armstrong answered questions
"with his characteristic mixture of modesty and technical arrogance, of
apology and tightlipped superiority."
[THE SECRETIVE CHARACTER OF NEIL ARMSTRONG & A SECRET PROJECT - THE
PERFECT MATCH]
Maybe, Hansen suggests, it was that remoteness, that ice
water-in-the-veins quality, that made Armstrong the perfect choice to
be the first man on the moon.
[THE SECRET PROJECT THAT SPOILT BEIL ARMSTRONG'S FAMILY LIFE]
But those qualities also kept him from close family relationships.
Hansen's book offers the most candid look yet at situations Armstrong
had never discussed - painful events, such as the death of his
2-year-old daughter, Karen, of brain cancer in 1962, his lack of
participation while his sons were growing up and his divorce from his
first wife, Janet, after 38 years.
Hansen came to know Armstrong in a way the public hasn't seen.
["SUSPECT" !]
"He can be very sociable, very engaging," Hansen said. "He can almost
be the life of the party. You would not suspect that."
[NEIL ARMSTRONG'S 'FALSE EGO']
Armstrong doesn't see himself as a recluse, though. He makes numerous
appearances and presentations at aerospace conventions and other forums
that interest him. He took questions from the audience at one such
meeting in Malaysia in September, offering these thoughts on manned
flight to Mars.
[TAXATION, OUTSOURCING & GLOBALIZATION]
"It will be expensive, it will take a lot of energy and a complex
spacecraft," Armstrong said. "But I suspect that even though the
various questions are difficult and many, they are not as difficult and
many as those we faced when we started the Apollo (program) in 1961."
[NASA & NEIL ARMSTRONG'S FALSE PROPAGANDA WORKS ]
Hansen's book has been generally well received. At book signings in
Ohio, where Armstrong grew up, there were large crowds, heavy - in a
discouraging way, Hansen felt - in the demographic that saw the moon
walk on television.
"It's all from the generation that participated in it," Hansen said.
"There are very few young people coming."
He noted that two-thirds of the world's population was not alive in
1969.
[BOOK PERPETUATES THE MYTH & DECEPTION OF MOON LANDING]
"I wrote the book for posterity, even more so than for folks today,"
Hansen said. "I wanted a complete history, a complete record to be
there for future generations. Some reviewers have criticized the book
for being too detailed. If that's the biggest mistake I made, so be
it."
Publishers Weekly reveled in Hansen's attention to detail, such as
Armstrong's heart rate during liftoff (146 beats a minute) and what a
signed Armstrong letter fetched at auction ($2,500). "Rather than
overwhelming, this accumulation of details gives flesh-and-blood
reality to a man who is more icon than human," PW noted.
Brinkley, writing for The New York Times, praised Hansen's effort as
"brimming with groundbreaking research, fresh anecdotes and fair-minded
analysis."
"If nothing else, Hansen should be commended for decoding the enigmatic
Armstrong: a space hero short on words but sky-high on Midwestern
integrity," Brinkley wrote.
http://groups.google.com/group/FOOLED
MOON LANDING HOAX RELIGIOUS. People were fooled by higher authorities
that were motivated by religion into believing the moon landing. This
continues even to this day!
Me
> MOON LANDING HOAX RELIGIOUS. People were fooled by higher authorities
> that were motivated by religion into believing the moon landing. This
> continues even to this day!
THAT'S NOTHING! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE SANTA CLAUSE
IS NOT REAL, THE EARTH IS "ROUND" LIKE A BALL, AND LIGHTNING ISN'T
CAUSED BY ANGRY SPIRITS! HERETICS ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
George
http://www.gaiaguys.net/moontruth.mpg
Moron.
Brad Guth
our extremely reactive moon. At this point, I'm not even certain if
we've so much as managed any robotic soft landings, especially since
there were at least a good dozen viable methods and loads of
opportunities of their having easily proved otherwise.
The NASA/Apollo teams of MIB gives folks little choice, that is if the
likes of Neil Armstrong and of the whole damn original cloak and dagger
crew of our perpetrated cold-war NASA (aka MI6/NSA~CIA), along with
their extended family plus friends are to live.
-
Brad Guth
Me
> I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon
> our extremely reactive moon. At this point, I'm not even certain if
> we've so much as managed any robotic soft landings, especially since
> there were at least a good dozen viable methods and loads of
> opportunities of their having easily proved otherwise.
Hmm, let's see....
Should I take the word of tens of thousands of scientists, astronauts,
engineers, and technicians directly involved with the space program,
or....
Some kookbreath psychotic's theory?
Gee, that's a TOUGH ONE....
<snicker>
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon
>our extremely reactive moon. At this point, I'm not even certain if
>we've so much as managed any robotic soft landings, especially since
>there were at least a good dozen viable methods and loads of
>opportunities of their having easily proved otherwise.
>
Who is we in this context? The Russians would have to be part of your
supposed conspiracy because of their robot probes to the moon you
know.
>The NASA/Apollo teams of MIB gives folks little choice, that is if the
>likes of Neil Armstrong and of the whole damn original cloak and dagger
>crew of our perpetrated cold-war NASA (aka MI6/NSA~CIA), along with
>their extended family plus friends are to live.
>-
Do me a favour. This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades,
except from you and the other believers? This is all based on bogus
tabloid science and paranoia. Oh, and the desire of a few individuals
to make a fast buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement.
The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government
cancelled it.
--
Stephen Horgan
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Rand Simberg
Horgan <ste...@horgan.REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government
>cancelled it.
Well, that and the fact that it was ridiculously expensive, and cost
ineffective...
Rockett Crawford
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:43dfbceb....@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
I think you are both correct.
America had clearly won the race to the moon and there didn't appear to be
any plans to go on to Mars, so America grew bored with it and Congress
thought there were better things to do with the money.
Rockett Crawford
Shawn
with your little friends some more. Doesn't that sound nice?
life...@atlantic.net
Rockett Crawford wrote:
> >
> >>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government
> >>cancelled it.
> >
> > Well, that and the fact that it was ridiculously expensive, and cost
> > ineffective...
>
> I think you are both correct.
>
> America had clearly won the race to the moon and there didn't appear to be
> any plans to go on to Mars, so America grew bored with it and Congress
> thought there were better things to do with the money.
Then why is America racing back to the moon, in a short sighted
ridiculously expensive and cost ineffective manner (VSE and ESAS)?
Except perhaps to hide the real reason,
to kill our American space program forever.
Daniel Joseph Min
Yes indeed, the Moon is most DEFINITELY out of reach, to wit:
ALTITUDE COMPARISON CHART
SHUTTLE VS. MOON & MANMADE SATELLITES
(not to scale)
x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| |
| |
| |
| |
~ ~214,000 MILES ~
~ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ~
| |
| |
| |
x------High-altitude orbit ~25,000+ miles altitude------x
| |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
x------JPL/NASA Space Shuttle orbit ~300 miles altitude-x
x------Intl. Space Station orbit ~220 miles altitude |
x------Earth's sea level -0- miles altitude-------------x
To give you an idea of the scale involved, if each hard line
break in the chart below equals roughly 10,000 miles, to wit:
x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| 230,000 |
| 220,000 |
| 210,000 |
| 200,000 |
| 190,000 |
| 180,000 |
| 170,000 |
| 160,000 |
| 150,000 |
| 140,000 |
| 130,000 |
| 120,000 |
| 110,000 |
| 100,000 |
| 90,000 |
| 80,000 |
| 70,000 |
| 60,000 |
| 50,000 |
| 40,000 |
| 30,000 |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
Then the low-earth shuttle orbit would fit somewhere between
the center and baseline of the bottom 'x'--hardly visible at
all at this scale. And yet, that is the highest altitude any
manned flight has ever successfully sustained for any length
of time. But the "men to the moon" fairytale devotees don't
want to face up to these and other glaring facts in evidence:
*Apollo Moon Missions 1969-1972 Were *Unmanned*:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VTKA4X1O3750...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Quasi-Uncensored Apollo Moon Hoax Bookmarks:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7RL5KJIX3749...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, & Happy New Year 2006!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF13826...@anonymous.poster
On 23 Dec 2005, "moonlandingh...@yahoo.com" wrote:
>[WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG SHY]
><snipped for clarity>
>
>MOON LANDING HOAX RELIGIOUS. People were fooled by higher authorities
>that were motivated by religion into believing the moon landing. This
>continues even to this day!
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
--William of Ockham (~1300-1349)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQ6yeWJljD7YrHM/nEQJBRgCcDB29yRxA/xsk5AHTUXUXxFfnTvQAn0Kk
ul0N00swg/jN6f8joJBj4RbL
=Wyvx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
raydu...@aol.com
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
> Then the low-earth shuttle orbit would fit somewhere between
> the center and baseline of the bottom 'x'--hardly visible at
> all at this scale. And yet, that is the highest altitude any
> manned flight has ever successfully sustained for any length
> of time. But the "men to the moon" fairytale devotees don't
> want to face up to these and other glaring facts in evidence:
Yes, the shuttle can only reach low orbit. So what? The Apollo
astronauts didn't use a shuttle to go to the moon, they used a much
more powerful vehicle.
BTW, if you think the moon landing was a hoax, what makes you so sure
the shuttle really reaches orbit?
Go take your meds.
ê
Orval Fairbairn
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah, yes -- ANOTHER barking moonbat heard from!
--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.
Starlord
think NOT.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:43dfbceb....@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>
Daniel Joseph Min
"It works on the chalkboard, why not in actual practice"?
LOL! I'm glad to see that it BOTHERS you & yours so much.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, & Happy New Year 2006!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF13826...@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQ6zclJljD7YrHM/nEQK/GACfcYE9o9Sk3gy1D6D982Fk2mLAw5UAnjjt
DRxKiShEG4BRef+sUwAlhcJG
=dp3t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brad Guth
>The Russians would have to be part of your supposed conspiracy
>because of their robot probes to the moon you know.
and daggers plus lots of smoke and mirrors that most all of humanity
got to pay for, many of which with our lives.
Please feel perfectly free anytime, as to provide us with such robotic
fly-by-rocket R&D prototype expertise and of their documented
proof-testing that the USSR must still have by the absolute truck loads
to brag about.
>This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades,
>except from you and the other believers?
I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as
of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and
dumbfounded from A to Z.
>Oh, and the desire of a few individuals to make a fast
>buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement.
Please send me my first "fast buck", as I'll frame it and send you a
picture of that framed buck.
>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted
>government cancelled it.
You really are quite a throughly snookered and thus dumbfounded soul.
Our getting safely to/from the LL1/ME-L1 parking zone or nullification
sweet-spot was doable, and of having robotically orbited the moon was
also doable, including recovering of the Kodak film was entirely within
our robotic expertise of the day, After all, it was NASA/Apollo that
proved they had that much expertise under control. It's the
soft-landing upon and via our having accomplished such by our unproven
fly-by-rocket landers that wasn't quite doable, and clearly still isn't
the case as of today.
It also seems that you're the ones continually excluding your own
evidence, avoiding the topics of honest Kodak physics and of all those
fly-by-rocket landers that simply did NOT exist. Though it's entirely
possible that eventually a robotic semi-soft landing had been
accomplished but not externally spoken of. Perhaps if these missions
were called fly-by-rocket to surface soft-impactors, as that I'd have
to buy.
Here's a little recent info that makes myself think all the more that
I'm dead right, at least it doesn't exactly help the pro-NASA/Apollo
arguments.
Robotic fly-by-rocket lander R&D: "The upper limit of $750M should be
used."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18919
"The mission concept should generally follow the MSFC proposed concept,
where a CLV test flight is used to launch the lander, and a
throttleable RL-10 engine is used for the descent and landing to best
emulate the human landing approach."
"To the degree possible, the landing should be a verification test of
the human lander descent and landing guidance and flight control
algorithms, the precision landing and hazard avoidance capability,
including navigation and instruments."
-
Sounds exactly like they're having to totally reinvent those
fly-by-rocket wheels to me. Our NASA clearly wants this fly-by-rocket
robot to first prove the task is even safely doable. Personally, I
couldn't agree more, as there's next to nothing that a human interfaced
fly-by-rocket lander could possibly accomplish a better job of, than a
fully robotic lander as having a terrestrial based ground-control
interface, or as having their manned LL1/ME-L1 command platform at the
stick after having initiated a nearly zero velocity drop-away from that
very same nifty parallel parking zone that's supposedly less than
60,000 km off the deck, representing just a mere orbital velocity of
164 m/s that offers the nifty advantage of there being no good reasons
as to having to ever increase that orbital velocity factor. As for
going vertical at perhaps an average of 1.66 km/s is worth roughly 10.5
hours to reach the deck, of which this could safely place the lander
just about anywhere north, south, east or west of dead center. Of
course, if accomplished purely via fly-by-rocket, that's suggesting a
one-way ticket of 10.33 hours of dropping from dead out of the sky plus
having to safely manage a good deal of controlled down-range, which is
clearly something we can't seem to manage as of today.
It sounds as though their supposed new and improved rover capability is
also up for grabs, meaning there's nothing on the existing boards or
otherwise within prototype inventory that'll accomplish the rover task
as is. I can fully understand this need for R&D if this rover has to
manage as per fully functioning and somehow surviving with limited
traction upon and/or having to treck itself through as little as 5g/cm2
worth of bone dry quicksand surface tension, that is unless sticking to
a path of exposed solids/bedrock that isn't going to exactly represent
level or smooth lunar terrain.
Gee whiz folks, of keeping their surface tension loading below 50 kg/m2
upon whatever multiple wide and thus supportive tires and/or upon wide
traction belts of rover treds shouldn't be all that difficult.
Thinking a bit outside the box; - from the relative safety of LL1/ME-L1
they could just safely lower this robotic lander package by way of
having a fairly large ball of composite basalt string, or of some other
fiber/tether product, then sit back and watch the sparks fly.
-
Brad Guth
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>>Stephen Horgan;
>>The Russians would have to be part of your supposed conspiracy
>>because of their robot probes to the moon you know.
>Now you're talking my kind of mutually perpetrated cold-war, of cloaks
>and daggers plus lots of smoke and mirrors that most all of humanity
>got to pay for, many of which with our lives.
>
Every other country that can monitor space missions, or with any
serious intelligence gathering expertise is also involved you know.
And no-one's talking. For decades. Is that really your position?
>Please feel perfectly free anytime, as to provide us with such robotic
>fly-by-rocket R&D prototype expertise and of their documented
>proof-testing that the USSR must still have by the absolute truck loads
>to brag about.
>
So, the Russians didn't go to the moon either?
>>This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades,
>>except from you and the other believers?
>I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as
>of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and
>dumbfounded from A to Z.
>
Why haven't the Men in Black taken you away?
>>Oh, and the desire of a few individuals to make a fast
>>buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement.
>Please send me my first "fast buck", as I'll frame it and send you a
>picture of that framed buck.
>
They make the fast buck from people like you.
>>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted
>>government cancelled it.
>You really are quite a throughly snookered and thus dumbfounded soul.
>
>Our getting safely to/from the LL1/ME-L1 parking zone or nullification
>sweet-spot was doable, and of having robotically orbited the moon was
>also doable, including recovering of the Kodak film was entirely within
>our robotic expertise of the day, After all, it was NASA/Apollo that
>proved they had that much expertise under control. It's the
>soft-landing upon and via our having accomplished such by our unproven
>fly-by-rocket landers that wasn't quite doable, and clearly still isn't
>the case as of today.
>
And the evidence is?
>It also seems that you're the ones continually excluding your own
>evidence, avoiding the topics of honest Kodak physics and of all those
>fly-by-rocket landers that simply did NOT exist. Though it's entirely
>possible that eventually a robotic semi-soft landing had been
>accomplished but not externally spoken of. Perhaps if these missions
>were called fly-by-rocket to surface soft-impactors, as that I'd have
>to buy.
>
Evidence?
Technology has moved on a great deal since the 1960s. For VSE, the
idea is to land 21st century spacecraft with vastly greatly capacity
and capability on the moon, not dust off a 40 year old design. This is
also an opportunity to build space infrastructure, not a race, which
again suggests designed rather that a retrospective approach. What is
your actual point? That you disagree with NASA's approach?
>It sounds as though their supposed new and improved rover capability is
>also up for grabs, meaning there's nothing on the existing boards or
>otherwise within prototype inventory that'll accomplish the rover task
>as is. I can fully understand this need for R&D if this rover has to
>manage as per fully functioning and somehow surviving with limited
>traction upon and/or having to treck itself through as little as 5g/cm2
>worth of bone dry quicksand surface tension, that is unless sticking to
>a path of exposed solids/bedrock that isn't going to exactly represent
>level or smooth lunar terrain.
>
The missions envisaged on the moon are much longer lasting than
Apollo. It follows that the rover design will have to be different,
never mind that decades of technological advances are available.
>Gee whiz folks, of keeping their surface tension loading below 50 kg/m2
>upon whatever multiple wide and thus supportive tires and/or upon wide
>traction belts of rover treds shouldn't be all that difficult.
>
Write to the project team then and tell them your idea then. This is
not evidence of any conspiracy.
>Thinking a bit outside the box; - from the relative safety of LL1/ME-L1
>they could just safely lower this robotic lander package by way of
>having a fairly large ball of composite basalt string, or of some other
>fiber/tether product, then sit back and watch the sparks fly.
Huh? Such materials do not exist. Unless you can prove differently.
Brad Guth
>The Russians would have to be part of your supposed conspiracy
>because of their robot probes to the moon you know.
and daggers plus lots of smoke and mirrors that most all of humanity
got to pay for, many of which with our lives.
Please feel perfectly free anytime, as to provide us with such robotic
fly-by-rocket R&D prototype expertise and of their documented
proof-testing that the USSR must still have by the absolute truck loads
to brag about.
>This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades,
>except from you and the other believers?
I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as
of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and
dumbfounded from A to Z.
>Oh, and the desire of a few individuals to make a fast
>buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement.
Please send me my first "fast buck", as I'll frame it and send you a
picture of that framed buck.
>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted
>government cancelled it.
You really are quite a thoroughly snookered and thus dumbfounded soul.
Our getting safely to/from the LL1/ME-L1 parking zone or nullification
sweet-spot was doable, and of having robotically orbited the moon was
also doable, including recovering of the Kodak film was entirely within
our robotic expertise of the day, After all, it was NASA/Apollo that
proved they had that much expertise under control. It's the
soft-landing upon and via our having accomplished such by our unproven
fly-by-rocket landers that wasn't quite doable, and clearly still isn't
the case as of today.
It also seems that you're the ones continually excluding your own
evidence, avoiding the topics of honest Kodak physics and of all those
fly-by-rocket landers that simply did NOT exist. Though it's entirely
possible that eventually a robotic semi-soft landing had been
accomplished but not externally spoken of. Perhaps if these missions
were called fly-by-rocket to surface soft-impactors, as that I'd have
to buy.
Here's a little recent info that makes myself think all the more that
I'm dead right, at least it doesn't exactly help the pro-NASA/Apollo
arguments.
Robotic fly-by-rocket lander R&D: "The upper limit of $750M should be
used."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18919
"The mission concept should generally follow the MSFC proposed concept,
where a CLV test flight is used to launch the lander, and a
throttleable RL-10 engine is used for the descent and landing to best
emulate the human landing approach."
"To the degree possible, the landing should be a verification test of
the human lander descent and landing guidance and flight control
algorithms, the precision landing and hazard avoidance capability,
including navigation and instruments."
-
Don't look now, but it sounds exactly like they're having to totally
reinvent those fly-by-rocket wheels to me. Our NASA clearly wants this
fly-by-rocket robot to first prove the task is even safely doable.
Personally, I couldn't agree more, as there's next to nothing that a
human interfaced fly-by-rocket lander could possibly accomplish a
better job of, than a fully robotic lander as having a terrestrial
based ground-control interface, or as having their manned LL1/ME-L1
command platform at the stick after having initiated a nearly zero
velocity drop-away from that very same nifty parallel parking zone
that's supposedly less than 60,000 km off the deck, representing just a
mere orbital velocity of 164 m/s that offers the nifty advantage of
there being no good reasons as to having to ever increase that orbital
velocity factor. As for going vertical at perhaps an average of 1.66
km/s is worth roughly 10.5 hours to reach the deck, of which this could
safely place the lander just about anywhere north, south, east or west
of dead center. Of course, if accomplished purely via fly-by-rocket,
that's suggesting a one-way ticket of 10.33 hours of dropping from dead
out of the sky plus having to safely manage a good deal of controlled
down-range, which is clearly something we can't seem to manage as of
today.
It sounds as though their supposed new and improved rover capability is
also up for grabs, meaning there's nothing on the existing boards or
otherwise within prototype inventory that'll accomplish the rover task
as is. I can fully understand this need for R&D if this rover has to
manage as per fully functioning and somehow surviving with limited
traction upon and/or having to trek itself through as little as 5g/cm2
worth of bone dry quicksand surface tension, that is unless sticking to
a path of exposed solids/bedrock that isn't going to exactly represent
level or smooth lunar terrain.
Gee whiz folks, of keeping their surface tension loading below 50 kg/m2
upon whatever multiple wide and thus supportive tires and/or upon wide
traction belts of rover treads shouldn't be all that difficult.
My thinking a bit outside the box; - from the relative safety of
LL1/ME-L1 they could just safely lower this robotic lander package by
way of having a fairly large ball of composite basalt string, or of
some other fiber/tether product, then sit back and watch the sparks
fly.
>And I guess you have a cheaper way to get off the earth
>and to the moon? I think NOT.
At a ratio of something greater than 100:1, meaning that of that era it
should have taken more than 100 liftoff tonnes per Apollo mission
tonne, which is certainly another interesting push of faith that was
obviously to a mostly robotic extent doable, but otherwise extremely
testy for even a crew spending their mission time at LL1/ME-L1. I do
believe it takes a bit more energy going for the moon as opposed to
parking a given satellite tonnage at 36,000 km.
Apollo-17 launch mass: 2,923,387 kg / 46,825 = 62.4:1 which is
suggesting a rather impressive accomplishment without benefit of SRBs,
especially since even with massively powerful SRBs that have been
typically configured as providing ten fold the thrust capability of the
LH2/LXO rocket engines, whereas it seems there is nothing as of the
very best applied rocket launch technology of today that comes even
close to that accomplishment of getting relatively small stuff into
GSO. Has inert rocket mass and of the rocket science itself been going
backwards for all of these decades?
-
Brad Guth
john carruthers
Snip reams of fantasy;
> MOON LANDING HOAX RELIGIOUS. People were fooled by higher authorities
> that were motivated by religion into believing the moon landing. This
> continues even to this day!
>
So the samples I watched undergo isotopic analysis at UKC space sciences
dept were in fact what ? cheese ?
Numpty...
jc
raydu...@aol.com
Brad Guth wrote:
> I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as
> of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and
> dumbfounded from A to Z.
Ah, so that was when the paranoid schizophrenia first manifested
itself, eh?
Brian McDermott
are people who think we didn't go to the moon.
Cruithne3753
Cruithne3753
are DRUGGED and sent to your destination by a SUPER-HIGHSPEED
UNDERGROUND train link. The planes you see in the sky are HOLOGRAPHIC
projections. TRUE!
Cruithne3753
Cruithne3753
> [WHY IS NEIL ARMSTRONG SHY]
> Historian Douglas Brinkley calls him "our nation's most bashful
> Galahad."
Just the way Buzz is too? Maybe it's just his personality.
Rand Simberg
"Starlord" <star...@despammed.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>And I guess you have a cheaper way to get off the earth and to the moon? I
>think NOT.
Why is it necessary that *I* have one? There are certainly more
cost-effective ways than those we've chosen.
hil...@weinerboy.org
wrote:
>I'm usually not a proponent of eugenics, but then I remember that there
>are people who think we didn't go to the moon.
>
Geez you guys of course we didn't go to the moon. There is no moon.
The Feds operate huge pumping systems, like wave pools at amusement
parks, to regulate the tides, and the human female menstrual cycle is
regulated by artificial compounds covertly added to public drinking
water systems...
Get over it. There is no moon...
Sheesh...
<vbg>
Tod "I dunno, I was really drunk at the time" Hilty
--
Tod A. Hilty
Hilty Information Systems
Do not look in the direction of the flash...
Curl up in a ball as you hit the ground...
CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent
of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight
Please replace weinerboy dot org with adelphia dot net for reply.
Rockett Crawford
<hil...@weinerboy.org> wrote in message
news:43ad5dce...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> On 24 Dec 2005 04:50:53 -0800, "Brian McDermott" <bjm...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm usually not a proponent of eugenics, but then I remember that there
>>are people who think we didn't go to the moon.
>>
>
> Geez you guys of course we didn't go to the moon. There is no moon.
>
> The Feds operate huge pumping systems, like wave pools at amusement
> parks, to regulate the tides, and the human female menstrual cycle is
> regulated by artificial compounds covertly added to public drinking
> water systems...
>
> Get over it. There is no moon...
>
> Sheesh...
>
> <vbg>
>
> Tod "I dunno, I was really drunk at the time" Hilty
>
> --
>
> Tod A. Hilty
> Hilty Information Systems
Actually there's no earth either. All of what we thought we've experienced
in our lives has been projected into our minds. We need to wake up and
realize that we are all disembodied brains floating in lab jars.
<j>
Rockett Crawford
Dave Grayvis
I think brad's jar has a crack in it.
hil...@weinerboy.org
<cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
<whack>
>Actually there's no earth either. All of what we thought we've experienced
>in our lives has been projected into our minds. We need to wake up and
>realize that we are all disembodied brains floating in lab jars.
>
><j>
>
>Rockett Crawford
And, I see that the Illuminati forgot to put fresh batteries in the
Earth again, as it's rotation seems to be slowing down...
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2005_1222.htm#newyear
Geez.. Ya just can't find good help these days...
<vbg>
tah
--
Tod A. Hilty
Hilty Information Systems
Do not look in the direction of the flash...
Rockett Crawford
<hil...@weinerboy.org> wrote in message
news:43ad6659...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> And, I see that the Illuminati forgot to put fresh batteries in the
> Earth again, as it's rotation seems to be slowing down...
>
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2005_1222.htm#newyear
>
> Geez.. Ya just can't find good help these days...
>
> <vbg>
You can't trust this new fangled technology either.
Maybe they should go back to the 11 quadrillion ton mice running in tread
wheels?
Rockett Crawford
David Bacque
either. No human transportation technology exists. It's all a progressive
set of lies perpetuated to keep us happy in THE MATRIX and I have proof.
Just take a look at one of the bathtub toys that Columbus supposedly used to
discover the new world. No way it could have crossed an ocean. Columbus is
a myth.
Of course so is Darwin's voyage, just ask Tai. Since ships don't exist,
Darwin couldn't have made his journey of discovery.
"Cruithne3753" <m...@here.com> wrote in message
news:ATbrf.14268$iz3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Mij Adyaw
Mars and Saturn? Were those landings and exploratory missions also faked?
Say it isn't so!
-mij :-)
hil...@weinerboy.org
It's just too technologically difficult to land on the moon. The durn
thing's concave half of the time, and it disappears entirely once per
month. Nope.. just cannot be done...
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33010
hil...@weinerboy.org
wrote:
>I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon
>our extremely reactive moon.
<snip whatever>
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29528
Starlord
Spaceship 1 , launched from Mojave Spaceport cost over $10 million. And so
far the Space X rocket hasn't gotten off the pad either. Plus to design,
build, test, and fly something that will reach earth orbit and then reach
for the moon, you'r looking at billions.
Now, unless someone finds a stargate or something else, we're left with
ROCKETS and they are very costly. Oh, maybe we can use a big slingshot?
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:43e17f04....@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Mij Adyaw" <m...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4nerf.15682$LB5.6721@fed1read04...
> If the moon landing was hoax, what about the landing of robotic probes on
> Mars and Saturn? Were those landings and exploratory missions also faked?
>
> Say it isn't so!
Ok. It isn't so. At least as far as landing a probe on Saturn. :-)
>
> -mij :-)
>
>
Daniel Joseph Min
>If the moon landing was hoax, what about the landing of robotic probes on
>Mars and Saturn? Were those landings and exploratory missions also faked?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Beware smoky red herrings and other beclouded obfuscation tactics.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, & Happy New Year 2006!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF13826...@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQ613zJljD7YrHM/nEQLY5wCg17A+kKAjUUYvPfDcU3xyf4i9cKcAmgMN
swzHPlWjeJRt8J5ECGtb/K+j
=JMD+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
life...@atlantic.net
Starlord wrote:
> Not really, even the building, testing, and 3 sub orbilal flights of
> Spaceship 1 , launched from Mojave Spaceport cost over $10 million. And so
> far the Space X rocket hasn't gotten off the pad either. Plus to design,
> build, test, and fly something that will reach earth orbit and then reach
> for the moon, you'r looking at billions.
Ok for a really large hydrogen powered SSTO/RLV
anywhere from 1 to 15 billion. Compared to anything
else that government does, it a real good deal.
> Now, unless someone finds a stargate or something else, we're left with
> ROCKETS and they are very costly. Oh, maybe we can use a big slingshot?
But there are certainly many avenues of incremental
cost reduction, but certainly VSE via ESAS is not
a viable avenue of incremental cost reduction.
Every other phrase in ESAS is : burned up,
ejected, discarded, thrown away, junked.
On the other hand : a small kerosene TSTO.
When SpaceX tries to scale that up, they
will very quickly realize they have just another
very large, heavy, clustered rocket system.
I believe the correct approach is SSME powered
SSTO, with a new retrofittable foamless tank.
Then once that is demonstrated, full SSME RLV.
One way to reduce costs is to get rid of the
large launch gantry and the standing army.
rand...@charter.net
<hil...@weinerboy.org> wrote in message
news:43ad738c...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 08:08:36 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <m...@spam.com> wrote:
> The durn
> thing's concave half of the time, and it disappears entirely once per
> month.
That's because the Vulcan's have to work on their "blind."
The cloaking technology requires frequent maintenance.
Randy
www.vernarockets.com
Shawn
What His Minness doesn't note is that once a space craft reaches an
altitude of 4000 miles it experiences 1/4 Earth's surface gravity. At
12,000 or so miles form the surface, Earth's gravitational pull is only
1/16g. In addition, as spacecraft gets closer to the moon its gravity
helps pull the ship as well. Traveling from one interplanetary body to
another is not analogous to climbing a ladder from one body to the next.
In fact, relatively recent developments in space science have allowed
probes to move around the solar system with the expenditure of very
little fuel, at the expense of long travel time.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050416/bob9.asp
Sorry to interject some science into this philosophical debate, but it's
just my nature.
Tomorrow I'm going to a Baptist church to talk about evolution.
;-)
Shawn
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
> Yes indeed, the Moon is most DEFINITELY out of reach, to wit:
>
> ALTITUDE COMPARISON CHART
> SHUTTLE VS. MOON & MANMADE SATELLITES
> (not to scale)
>
> x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ~ ~214,000 MILES ~
> ~ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ~
> | |
> | |
> | |
> x------High-altitude orbit ~25,000+ miles altitude------x
> | |
> x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
> | |
> | |
> ~ ~10,000 MILES ~
> ~ ~
> | |
> x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
> | |
> | |
> ~ ~10,000 MILES ~
> ~ ~
> | |
> x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
> x------JPL/NASA Space Shuttle orbit ~300 miles altitude-x
> x------Intl. Space Station orbit ~220 miles altitude |
> x------Earth's sea level -0- miles altitude-------------x
rand...@charter.net
"David Bacque" <dba...@NOSPAMswbell.net> wrote in message
news:QYdrf.37143$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> You've fallen for a much older government cover-up. Trains don't exist
> either. No human transportation technology exists.
Madagascar Penguins: "You didn't see anything...."
: )
Randy
www.vernarockets.com
Derek Lyons
>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government
>cancelled it.
Is ignorance this severe painful, or do the hallucinogenics relieve
it?
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government
>>cancelled it.
>
>Is ignorance this severe painful, or do the hallucinogenics relieve
>it?
>
Is there actually a point to this, or do actually have nothing to say
on this matter beyond playground abuse?
--
Stephen Horgan
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Brad Guth
Their ratio of rocket to payload was also rather impressive.
Apparently the inert mass of each of their primary, secondary and third
rocket stages was even better off than the most advanced composites of
today, and without benefit of SRBs at that managed to obtain their
mission goals at a fantastic 62:1 ratio, meaning just 62 rocket tonnes
per tonne of spacecraft. Is that downright impressive or what?
-
Brad Guth
Bob Downonit
> I've got more proof to share that we've never set a hot moonboot upon
> our extremely reactive moon. At this point, I'm not even certain if
> we've so much as managed any robotic soft landings, especially since
> there were at least a good dozen viable methods and loads of
> opportunities of their having easily proved otherwise.
>
> The NASA/Apollo teams of MIB gives folks little choice, that is if the
> likes of Neil Armstrong and of the whole damn original cloak and dagger
> crew of our perpetrated cold-war NASA (aka MI6/NSA~CIA), along with
> their extended family plus friends are to live.
> -
> Brad Guth
You're still the biggest kook here Brad but hey, happy holidays and new
years to you anyway you fruitcake!
--
Chris: "Dad, what's a blowhole for?"
Peter: "I'll tell you what it's NOT for and then you'll know why I can
never go back to Sea World."
Bob Downonit
>
>> This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades,
>> except from you and the other believers?
> I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as
> of 6 years ago.
>
In other words, your brain has a major malfunction.....
Brad Guth
obtained from the surface of our moon, here's a wee bit of what
"Stephen Horgan" has to say, and of my edited reply;
>The Russians would have to be part of your supposed conspiracy
>because of their robot probes to the moon you know.
Now you're talking my kind of mutually perpetrated cold-war, of cloaks
and daggers plus lots of smoke and mirrors that most all of humanity
got to pay for, many of which with our lives.
Please feel perfectly free anytime, as to provide us with such robotic
fly-by-rocket R&D prototype expertise and of their documented
proof-testing that the USSR/Russia must still have by the absolute
truck loads to brag about.
>This vast conspiracy is kept secret for decades, except
>from you and the other believers?
I wasn't nearly that smart, as I only uncovered enough of the truth as
of 6 years ago. Up until then, I was every bit as snookered and
dumbfounded from A to Z.
>Oh, and the desire of a few individuals to make a fast
>buck trashing their own nation's greatest achievement.
Please send me my first "fast buck", as I'll frame it and send you a
picture of that framed buck.
>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted
>government cancelled it.
You really are quite a thoroughly snookered individual, and thus a
dumbfounded soul.
Our getting safely to/from the LL1/ME-L1 parking zone or nullification
sweet-spot was doable, and of having robotically orbited the moon was
also doable, including recovering of the Kodak film was entirely within
our robotic expertise of the day, After all, it was NASA/Apollo that
proved they had that much expertise under control. It's the
soft-landing upon and via our having accomplished such by our unproven
fly-by-rocket landers that wasn't quite doable, and clearly still isn't
the case as of today.
It also seems that you're the ones continually excluding your own
evidence, avoiding the topics of honest Kodak physics and of all those
fly-by-rocket landers that simply did NOT exist. Though it's entirely
possible that eventually a robotic semi-soft landing had been
accomplished but not externally spoken of. Perhaps if these missions
were called fly-by-rocket to surface soft-impactors, as that I'd have
to buy.
Here's a little recent info that makes myself think all the more that
others and that I'm dead right, at least this next part doesn't exactly
help the pro-NASA/Apollo arguments.
Robotic fly-by-rocket lander R&D: "The upper limit of $750M should be
used."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18919
"The mission concept should generally follow the MSFC proposed concept,
where a CLV test flight is used to launch the lander, and a
throttleable RL-10 engine is used for the descent and landing to best
emulate the human landing approach."
"To the degree possible, the landing should be a verification test of
the human lander descent and landing guidance and flight control
algorithms, the precision landing and hazard avoidance capability,
including navigation and instruments."
-
Don't look now, but it sounds exactly like they're having to totally
reinvent those fly-by-rocket wheels to me. Our NASA clearly wants this
fly-by-rocket robot to first prove the task is even safely doable.
Personally, I couldn't agree more, as there's next to nothing that a
human interfaced fly-by-rocket lander could possibly accomplish a
better job of, than a fully robotic lander as having a terrestrial
based ground-control interface, or as having their manned LL1/ME-L1
command platform at the stick after having initiated a nearly zero
velocity drop-away from that very same nifty parallel parking zone
that's supposedly less than 60,000 km off the deck, representing just a
mere orbital velocity of 164 m/s that offers the nifty advantage of
there being no good reasons as to having to ever increase that orbital
velocity factor. As for going vertical at perhaps an average of 1.66
km/s is worth roughly 10.5 hours to reach the deck, of which this could
safely place the lander just about anywhere north, south, east or west
of dead center. Of course, if accomplished purely via fly-by-rocket,
that's suggesting a one-way ticket of 10.33 hours of dropping from dead
out of the sky plus having to safely manage a good deal of controlled
down-range, which is clearly something we can't seem to manage as of
today.
It sounds as though their supposed new and improved rover capability is
also up for grabs, meaning there's nothing on the existing boards or
otherwise within prototype inventory that'll accomplish the rover task
as is. I can fully understand this need for R&D if this rover has to
manage as per fully functioning and somehow surviving with limited
traction upon and/or having to trek itself through as little as 5g/cm2
worth of bone dry quicksand surface tension, that is unless sticking to
a path of exposed solids/bedrock that isn't going to exactly represent
level or smooth lunar terrain.
Gee whiz folks, of keeping their surface tension loading below 50 kg/m2
upon whatever multiple wide and thus supportive tires and/or upon wide
traction belts of rover treads shouldn't be all that difficult.
My thinking a bit outside the box; - from the relative safety of
LL1/ME-L1 they could just safely lower this robotic lander package by
way of having a fairly large ball of composite basalt string, or of
some other fiber/tether product, then sit back and watch the sparks
fly.
>And I guess you have a cheaper way to get off the earth
>and to the moon? I think NOT.
At a ratio of something greater than 100:1, meaning that of that
mid/late 60's era it should have taken more than 100 liftoff tonnes per
Apollo mission tonne, which is certainly another interesting push of
faith that was obviously to a mostly robotic extent doable, but
otherwise extremely testy for even a crew having to spend their mission
time at LL1/ME-L1. I do believe it takes a bit more energy going for
the moon as opposed to parking a given satellite tonnage at 36,000 km
above Earth.
Apollo-17 launch mass: 2,923,387 kg / 46,825 = 62.4:1 which is
suggesting a rather impressive accomplishment without benefit of SRBs,
especially since even with massively powerful SRBs that have been
typically configured as providing ten fold the thrust capability of the
LH2/LXO rocket engines, whereas it seems there is nothing as of the
very best applied rocket launch technology of today that comes even
close to that accomplishment of getting relatively small stuff into
GSO. Has inert rocket mass and of the rocket science itself been going
backwards for all of these decades?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>So, the Russians didn't go to the moon either?
They certainly tried every trick within their perpetrated cold-war
book, but having failed at getting their robotics safely deployed.
>Why haven't the Men in Black taken you away?
I'm a bit of a recluse, thus nearly sequestered without any MIB
involvement. Would you like to attend one of my local lectures?
>They make the fast buck from people like you.
I want my fair share, thus be specific; whom is "they"?
>And the evidence is?
The lack of what should have been hard-science, including the highly
sodium rich atmosphere as having a good amount of argon plus sufficient
radon near the deck. Their physical samples should have included such
salts, titanium, iron and loads of carbon/soot mixed in with the local
secondary impact debris of basalt, plus a few viable elements of radium
and otherwise a cosmic morgue of interesting contributions of which our
atmosphere deflects or vaporises before hitting the surface of Earth.
Of course badly spectrum skewed Kodak moments should have been their
status quo norm, including a few shots as having depicted Venus and
perhaps a couple of other planets besides an extremely large diameter
worth of mother Earth, and especially including a few other frames
worth of having included the extremely vibrant and bluish skewed images
of the Sirius star system as having been somewhere above the lunar
horizon. Or was our moon surrounded by dark-matter or dark-energy that
moderated all such external items of interest, thus eliminating any
chance of their obtaining such as proof-positive images from the
surface of our moon?
>What is your actual point? That you disagree with NASA's approach?
Try thinking at least a little outside your mainstream status quo box,
of considering your having been snookered and thus ever since so easily
dumbfounded, just as I was as of 6 years ago. Stop pretending that you
do not understand whatever it is that I'm driving at.
>Write to the project team then and tell them your idea then.
>This is not evidence of any conspiracy.
You've got to be absolutely kidding your extremely brown nose off.
Informing NASA of their own moon surface related science is bogus is
like telling our resident warlord(GW Bush) there never were any WMD,
and to never mind about all the horrific collateral damage and carnage
of the innocent. Is it your mainstream lack of remorse and subsequent
disregard something that others and myself should strive for?
>Huh? Such materials do not exist. Unless you can prove differently.
Basalt fibers have existed for decades (perhaps longer than Apollo), as
being way more than capable of affording sufficient GPa for providing a
viable tether that could deploy interactive science and robotics onto
the lunar surface from the relative safety of the LL1/ME-L1 parallel
parking zone. A few other synthetic products (especially the likes of
the latest CNT technology) could also have been applied. Therefore, I
believe the proof of this deployment capability is entirely another
been there and done that, though I'd hardly expect our NASA to give an
honest tinkers damn, especially since it wasn't their idea to start
with.
-
Brad Guth
Dave Grayvis
What does Tinker bell and the rest of the fairies have to say about it?
Brad Guth
>What does Tinker bell and the rest of the fairies have to say about it?
at 82.3:1, perhaps the worlds best all around launcher might have to be
our good old (extremely old) Apollo cold-war method, of supposedly
taking merely 62:1 as being sufficient for a complex lunar mission
should therefore as is become worth way better than 50:1 as for
accomplishing somewhat massive and/or multiple GSO related deployment
functions on behalf of Earth.
With modern composites and SRBs capable of getting the fairly bulky
original inert mass way down to an even better modern day dull roar,
whereas that Apollo launch ratio along with such powerful SRBs should
thereby become well below 25:1. Meaning just 25 rocket liftoff tonnes
per payload tonne, and that's far better than three fold of what the
very best Ariane-5 has to offer. Is that good delivery GSO capability
and fly-by-rocket efficiency or what?
Since few satellite items exceed 10 tonnes (except for our planned
thermal nuclear preemptive deployments), perhaps we should just make a
smaller Apollo class of those supposed rocket launchers that didn't
even require any stinking SRBs.
Of course, Apollo methods happened to use a good amount of their cloak
and dagger smoke and mirrors of our perpetrated cold-war era, that
which have all since been lost along with all of the original engineers
and of those mad rocket scientist that made it all happen.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
What's with all of this extremely white noise?
Is your mainstream status quo having another bad day?
Just because you can't manage to prove that I'm wrong isn't a very good
reason to kill yourself, although I certainly wouldn't stand in your
way.
Would you like to contribute a link to a proof-positive image that
proves your side of the argument? I'd certainly be happy to review that
image and share alike.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
What's with all of this extremely pro-Jewish white noise?
Is your mainstream status quo boat having another bad rocking and
sinking sort of day?
Just because you can't manage to prove that I'm wrong about those Kodak
moments isn't a very good reason to off yourself, although I certainly
wouldn't stand in your way.
Would you like to contribute a link to whatever's a proof-positive
image that proves your side of the argument? I'd certainly be more than
Brad Guth
BTW; stop using used toilet paper for blowing your extremely brown
nose.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Actually, you're not very far off, especially since it was those smart
Chinks and of their little Dropa/Dzopa wizards that discovered North
America.
-
Brad Guth
Secr...@verizon.net
You need to trust your senses; it's all you have.
I've never really seen this ratio as important, normally we are
concerned about total liftoff weight, however, one reason the Saturn V
had a more favorable dry weight to payload weight ratio was because of
the fuel it used in the first stage, kerosene. Because kerosene is
much less bulky than what we normally use now, Hydrogen, the first
stage could be built much smaller, making the dry weight of the entire
vehicle much less.
Had they used Hydrogen the first stage would have to have had much
larger tanks to hold all the fuel that was needed, thereby making the
entire stack, as I just said, much larger and heavier when dry.
But dry weight doesn't really matter, unless you are talking about
just building the rocket and moving it about, what really matters is
the total liftoff off weight.
Try again kids.
Rich
wrote:
>> Columbus is a myth.
North America was "discovered" why whomever first got there,
it wasn't the Chinese. There is some evidence of European incursion
over 9000 years ago.
http://www.kennewick-man.com/
-Rich
Scott Hedrick
<hil...@weinerboy.org> wrote in message
news:43ad5dce...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Geez you guys of course we didn't go to the moon. There is no moon.
We *did* go to the moon. Remember- it was blasted out of orbit September 13,
1999, because of all the nuclear waste we deposited there.
That's when the government had to activate the tide regulating pumps and
launch the moon-painted inflatable satellite.
Brad Guth
>North America was "discovered" why whomever first got there,
>it wasn't the Chinese. There is some evidence of European incursion
>over 9000 years ago.
http://www.kennewick-man.com/
smart Chinese that learned most everything they knew from those
extremely little Dropa/Dzopa ETs that arrived (crash landed) in their
backyard some 10,000 BC.
-
Brad Guth
David Bacque
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135633942.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ETs!!!???!!! We should have known this thread would lead here.
Any proof to any of this drivel other than your saying "probably"?
So you'll believe crap with absolutely no proof but won't believe something
with volumes of proof.
What a dweeb!
Brad Guth
>ETs!!!???!!! We should have known this thread would lead here.
>Any proof to any of this drivel other than your saying "probably"?
Got proof that you're not an ET, or some halfbreed/interracial ET?
>So you'll believe crap with absolutely no proof but won't believe something with volumes of proof.
Proof is within the eye of the beholder, and I simply do not behold the
parts about landing upon and much less having walked upon the sunny
side of our highly reactive moon, that's of such a dark and nasty
composite terrain that's anything but moonsuit and/or rover friendly.
BTW; I don't consider hearsay by way of the fox that had perpetrated
cold-war motives up the kazoo, loads of means plus multiple
opportunities for having devoured all of the chickens, as a reliable
source of obtaining the truth about the rather odd lack of any
remaining chickens, as beings almost as bad off as per all of those
stealth WMD that so happened to unfortunately look exactly like
innocent Muslims sitting upon an oily rock.
The US and USSR were each playing the same lethal games, of mutually
perpetrating the holy crapolla out of humanity for all that it was
worth. Supposedly we won that game, and it only took us 5+ decades and
trillions upon trillions of dollars, plus the likes of TWA flight-800,
911 and now Iraq that's about to get us into going thermal nuclear
because most of the world simply can't afford $100+/barrel oil.
-
Brad Guth
Tank Fixer
on 26 Dec 2005 15:34:17 -0800,
Brad Guth ieisbr...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
Do you want a towel to wipe off that spittle ?
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Pat Flannery
David Bacque wrote:
>ETs!!!???!!! We should have known this thread would lead here.
>
>
Klaatu's Law?
Pat
Brad Guth
>When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
>variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
on?
Is that part of your anti-ET and therefore anti-Klingon variable
absolute religion of keeping the likes of Jesus Christ on a stick?
Are you hard-core Mormon or just another Third Reich collaborating Jew?
You know, there are good Mormons and Jews, though obviously there's
just not enough of them nice folks to go around (somewhat like we have
a global shortage of even nicer Cathars to go around), as otherwise
your sorry ass would have been less than grass by now.
-
Brad Guth
Tank Fixer
on 26 Dec 2005 17:20:41 -0800,
Brad Guth ieisbr...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
> Tank Fixer (aka ? dumbfounded spook),
> >When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> >variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
> I can't tell; "one sometimes always speaks" exactly which side are you
> on?
I take my orders from the Galactic Collective, feel better now ?
> Is that part of your anti-ET and therefore anti-Klingon variable
> absolute religion of keeping the likes of Jesus Christ on a stick?
>
> Are you hard-core Mormon or just another Third Reich collaborating Jew?
>
> You know, there are good Mormons and Jews, though obviously there's
> just not enough of them nice folks to go around (somewhat like we have
> a global shortage of even nicer Cathars to go around), as otherwise
> your sorry ass would have been less than grass by now.
You should go tell mommy it's time for milk and cookies and then a nice warm
bath. It's you're bedtime sonny
--
Brad Guth
the real world, or even which side of the line you're on. How
interesting but rather Usenet pathetic, though ideal for the likes of
being Skull and Bones as well as more than Third Reich qualified.
-
Brad guth
Brad Guth
out a given image for his rebuttal is still out to lunch. As here's at
least one proof-positive image that our warm and fuzzy NASA knew
exactly how to phony-up such an image that was by far good enough
accomplished so that without folks having access to the originals
there's no possible way of even the best experts uncovering that this
example wasn't for real:
Many others had previously discovered this following image as being
absolutely phony, and not by way of there being these two of a kind
astronauts depicted, but by way of what else wasn't making good
photographic or even astronomy sense. I and others having to uncover
the original as11-40-5903.jpg image, as it simply was not being offered
by way of any official wording associaded with promoting of the
Doble11.JPG.
A search for the following official NASA/Apollo image: "Doble11.JPG"
and of the supposed original.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903.jpg
I'll certainly have many better examples to share, however it seems
this one alone has always been sufficient proof-positive that for
decades an official Apollo image of our astronauts supposedly standing
upon the moon was in fact officially altered, and even autographed as
for representing the real thing. As for being a good sport, you'll also
have to compare the terrestrial Apollo images of moonsuits and of their
red, white and blue flag as depicted upon them, and comparing those
supposedly taken upon the moon. Notice how there's absolutely no
spectrum color differences to being found in any of those primary
colors or even with regard to their contrast. That's a damn neat
photographic trick for such unfiltered Kodak moments that supposedly
had only the singular raw solar illumination and of the nearly coal
dark and nasty lunar surface of carbon/soot, iron, titanium and local
basalt for accomplishing whatever's piss-poor reflected/secondary
light.
However, as for just knowing that mother Earth was at 65+°, and having
seen Earth being oddly depicted as 5° above the horizon was worth
discussing as to how that could be. In addition to mother Earth being
so entirely incorrect, there was the rather great deal of harsh side
illumination, as though the moon was having an unscheduled sunset, plus
then there was the rather spotty illumination of the foreground and
surrounding the astronauts, whereas most of the background was
remaining essentially way under illuminated, and there was even more so
of horrific spot illumination as clearly being depicted within the
visor. Lots of unusually good secondary fill-in illumination for
nowhere isn't exactly the norm. The NASA/Apollo Borg collective having
suggested that their clumping-moon-dirt was somehow selectively being
retro-reflective due to being so glass like is even more interesting
than just pathetic. The surface illumination/albedo as compared to
their illuminated white moon suit still clearly indicates that the
lunar surface was oddly reflecting at 55+%, which of course simply
can't be.
Besides the total lack of any bluish tint, no sign whatsoever of any
secondary/recoil worth of near-blue and zilch worth of thermal impact
or hard-X-rays. You'd think if you'd actually been to the surface of
our moon and having taken such Kodak moments by the hundreds if not
thousands of frames, why back on Earth would you have to bother with
distributing such a phony baloney image in the first place?
Remember folks, this Doble11.JPG is offering at least a triple phony
baloney image, and actually worth four times phony if you'd care to
include their final master transparency or negative. If they can pull
off accomplishing this "Doble11.JPG" degree of photographic smoke and
mirrors, they can do anything.
Why the heck did so many other publications have to doctor up whatever
else got published?
Wasn't the real thing good enough?
-
Brad Guth
Tank Fixer
on 26 Dec 2005 20:22:32 -0800,
Brad Guth ieisbr...@yahoo.com attempted to say .....
> >I take my orders from the Galactic Collective, feel better now ?
I'd say that you're tin foil hat is loose. But there is scientific evidence
that tin foil hat;s don't work so I guess you are doomed..
Orval Fairbairn
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program!
I ran the original performance calculations, using the mass properties,
propellant and motor performance. I also have a friend who was in charge
of the astronaut office at Grumman, who made the lander. He described
the Lunar Module flight as "being cat launched from a carrier, going
into combat and landing on another carrier in a craft that you had never
flown." That is why all of the early astronauts were accomplished test
piolts. They trained in test articles that simulated, as best they
could, the flight characteristics of the actual craft.
Brad is so full of fecal material that his eyes have turned brown!
The so-called "photographic errors" are simply tricks that the lens
plays. I have a recent photo of my own plane, taken in flight. Lines
that are parallel in real life (wingtip-to-wingtip and horizontal
stabilizer lines) focus on a point in space, rather than appear parallel.
Look at any aviation photo and see the same thing.
--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.
Johnny Bravo
>
><hil...@weinerboy.org> wrote in message
>news:43ad5dce...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> Geez you guys of course we didn't go to the moon. There is no moon.
>
>We *did* go to the moon. Remember- it was blasted out of orbit September 13,
>1999, because of all the nuclear waste we deposited there.
The moon got blasted. Wow, had a flashback to the 80s for a second, anyone
else remember Thundar the Barbarian and the shattered moon. <laugh>
Johnny Bravo
From the same site:
24,000 BCE - Likely early crossings of land bridge across Bering Strait.
People have been chasing bears out of caves in North America for quite some
time.
Jonathan Silverlight
<o_r_fairbairn-978...@news1.west.earthlink.net>, Orval
Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> writes
>In article <1135556326.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn,
>> What's with all of this extremely white noise?
>> Is your mainstream status quo having another bad day?
>> Just because you can't manage to prove that I'm wrong isn't a very good
>> reason to kill yourself, although I certainly wouldn't stand in your
>> way.
>>
>> Would you like to contribute a link to a proof-positive image that
>> proves your side of the argument? I'd certainly be happy to review that
>> image and share alike.
>> -
>> Brad Guth
>
>Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program!
>
>
>
>The so-called "photographic errors" are simply tricks that the lens
>plays. I have a recent photo of my own plane, taken in flight. Lines
>that are parallel in real life (wingtip-to-wingtip and horizontal
>stabilizer lines) focus on a point in space, rather than appear parallel.
>
Isn't that perspective, or something (in the artistic sense)?
Back in the 1960s various amateurs listened to the Apollo transmissions
and wrote about it in QST and other magazines.
At the time, they weren't allowed to reveal what they heard because of
FCC regulations, but did they record the transmissions and have any
survived? They'd be worth a fortune on Ebay :-)
And yet again, here's a nice page of amateur and professional
observations of the craft en route, including one from yours truly
<http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html>
Brad Guth
>Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program!
>I ran the original performance calculations, using the mass properties,
>propellant and motor performance. I also have a friend who was in charge
>of the astronaut office at Grumman, who made the lander. He described
>the Lunar Module flight as "being cat launched from a carrier, going
>into combat and landing on another carrier in a craft that you had never
>flown." That is why all of the early astronauts were accomplished test
>piolts. They trained in test articles that simulated, as best they
>could, the flight characteristics of the actual craft.
>The so-called "photographic errors" are simply tricks that the lens
>plays. I have a recent photo of my own plane, taken in flight. Lines
>that are parallel in real life (wingtip-to-wingtip and horizontal
>stabilizer lines) focus on a point in space, rather than appear parallel.
>Look at any aviation photo and see the same thing.
And what if anything does a still photo (any number of still photos)
have to do with actual prototypes and of their extensive R&D as to
fly-by-rocket landers?
I very much appreciate your soft-science an/or skewed conditional
physics of "I ran the original performance calculations". And how can
we possibly reject your "I also have a friend who was in charge of the
astronaut office at Grumman, who made the lander." and another wow once
again on your ""being cat launched from a carrier, going into combat
and landing on another carrier in a craft that you had never flown.""
and best of all is your ""The so-called "photographic errors" are
simply tricks that the lens plays."".
Tell us Sir wizard and all-knowing chief rusemaster Orval, dose this
pathetic ruse/sting of yours get any better, or is it already the
ultimate black hole that it really is?
What part if anything you've offered would hold up in a court of law,
much less of any science of proof-positive court as based upon the
regular laws of physics?
Running off calculations is not creating an actual fly-by-rocket lander
by way of any known standards of hard-science, physics or aeronautical
engineering upon this Earth. What sort of fly-by-night cloak and dagger
planet of smoke and mirrors are you actually from?
Show us your R&D plus those actual engineered and constructed
prototypes of such fly-by-rocket landers, which had to have been
created and at least AI/robotically flown if not as tethered and thus
hard-wired to remote flight controls, that which actual pilots plus
flight-data computers would have managed to learn a thing or two,
mostly of what not to do. While you're at it, share with us about those
modulated thrusters and of the required reaction wheels. Tell us about
the sodium rich lunar atmosphere, as having a good amount of argon and
a bit of radon to boot. Tell us of why your conditional laws of physics
pertaining to radiation are of no possible consideration. Tell us why
the lunar terrain lost all of the deep brownish/reddish and somewhat
dark carbon/soot composite color, then somehow gained upon depicting
itself as having an average albedo of 55+% for as far as their
unfiltered Kodak eye could see.
-
Brad Guth
Orval Fairbairn
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(garbage snipped)
> Running off calculations is not creating an actual fly-by-rocket lander
> by way of any known standards of hard-science, physics or aeronautical
> engineering upon this Earth. What sort of fly-by-night cloak and dagger
> planet of smoke and mirrors are you actually from?
Earth -- we have enough barking moonbats here to keep us laughing.
> Show us your R&D plus those actual engineered and constructed
> prototypes of such fly-by-rocket landers, which had to have been
> created and at least AI/robotically flown if not as tethered and thus
> hard-wired to remote flight controls, that which actual pilots plus
> flight-data computers would have managed to learn a thing or two,
> mostly of what not to do.
Talk to Grumman -- they built the lander. We didn't need AI to get there
-- just good pilots with good training and good autopilots (with
stability augmentation) and practice - practice - practice.
> While you're at it, share with us about those
> modulated thrusters and of the required reaction wheels.
Done with pressurized fuel tanks -- UDMH/nitric acid or a variant
thereof. What reaction wheels? Talking about inertial platform gyros?
> Tell us about
> the sodium rich lunar atmosphere, as having a good amount of argon and
> a bit of radon to boot.
No sodium-rich atmosphere -- in fact, no atmosphere at all!
> Tell us of why your conditional laws of physics
> pertaining to radiation are of no possible consideration.
No "conditional laws of physics." The ambient radiation level is low
enough for short visits -- it is solar flares that you have to monitor.
> Tell us why
> the lunar terrain lost all of the deep brownish/reddish and somewhat
> dark carbon/soot composite color, then somehow gained upon depicting
> itself as having an average albedo of 55+% for as far as their
> unfiltered Kodak eye could see.
Things look a lot different from far away -- just look at the difference
in looks between your back yard and how it looks from 1000 ft above,
then from 50 miles.
Now, Brad, go back to Mother Guth and tell her she is calling you!
Brad Guth
bigoted wizard nose sucks and blows worse off than WMD?
>No "conditional laws of physics." The ambient radiation level is low
>enough for short visits -- it is solar flares that you have to monitor.
But of course. Why don't you tell that one to Russia or even to ESA?
Apparently the square of the distance doesn't apply to our naked and
thus reactive moon.
>Things look a lot different from far away -- just look at the difference
>in looks between your back yard and how it looks from 1000 ft above,
>then from 50 miles.
But you just said "in fact, no atmosphere at all!". Is this your LLPOF
Version-2.0?
Besides Sir fool on the hill and sexual cloning rusemaster pervert to
boot, the further away I get from things upon Earth, the lighter or
more pastel of their colors, and lo and behold less contrast becomes
the norm, unless I pack on some serious spectrum band-pass filter
and/or a good near-UV cut-off filter. Of course, there's hardly any UV
upon the surface of Earth, compared to the moon which receives way more
than it's fair share of raw/unfiltered UV because there's "in fact, no
atmosphere at all!".
Without somewhat significant optical spectrum filtering, and so gosh
darn little if any atmosphere; how otherwise do you achieve a xenon
lamp illuminated scene?
-
Brad Guth
Scott Hedrick
"Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
news:o_r_fairbairn-978...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program!
Then you admit being part of the conspiracy!
Scott Hedrick
"Johnny Bravo" <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kr64r11c6rvlcc2lj...@4ax.com...
80s, hell! Try 70s- Space:1999!
Shawn
I loved that show. Damn, and I hadn't even discovered drugs yet.
Shawn
Orval Fairbairn
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(kookbabble snipped)
>
> Besides Sir fool on the hill and sexual cloning rusemaster pervert to
> boot, the further away I get from things upon Earth, the lighter or
> more pastel of their colors, and lo and behold less contrast becomes
> the norm, unless I pack on some serious spectrum band-pass filter
> and/or a good near-UV cut-off filter. Of course, there's hardly any UV
> upon the surface of Earth, compared to the moon which receives way more
> than it's fair share of raw/unfiltered UV because there's "in fact, no
> atmosphere at all!".
The xenon lamps would illuminate the lunar surface the same way the sun
does -- by radiant light. The suits had a "silver" outer layer and UV -
protective faceplates.
BTW -- the light on the lunar surface is unfiltered sunlight. The film
used had provision for UV, in addition to filters on the camera lenses.
Orval Fairbairn
"Scott Hedrick" <diespamme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which conspiracy? There are literally *hundreds* of conspiracies to go
around -- all with their following of barking moonbats.
Scott Hedrick
> In article <RKHsf.13914$dZ1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> "Scott Hedrick" <diespamme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
>> news:o_r_fairbairn-978...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>> > Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program!
>>
>> Then you admit being part of the conspiracy!
>
> Which conspiracy?
Exactly! The proof that you're part of the conspiracy is denial!
When the Zeta Reticulans arrive, the truth will be out there!
Derek Lyons
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:16:21 GMT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
>wrote:
>
>>Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government
>>>cancelled it.
>>
>>Is ignorance this severe painful, or do the hallucinogenics relieve
>>it?
>>
>Is there actually a point to this, or do actually have nothing to say
>on this matter beyond playground abuse?
Yes, there is a point. You are an utterly clueless loon.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Evil Roy
insult / discard it.
The height of arrogence in the scientific world.
Brad Guth
BTW; why haven't you contributed a NASA/Apollo Kodak moment that's
100+% proof-positive?
Why are you excluding any of the NASA/Apollo images obtained from
orbit?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Good grief, no "Zeta Reticulans", just exoskeletal Cathars from Venus,
as in really big and nasty and packing heat.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>used had provision for UV, in addition to filters on the camera lenses.
wrong once again. In other words; LLPOF wrong 2 out of 3.
Although I do like your "The xenon lamps would illuminate the lunar
surface the same way the sun does -- by radiant light. The suits had a
"silver" outer layer and UV - protective faceplates." Obviously you
don't comprehend the meaning or scope of the word 'spectrum'.
Tell me, were those suits of such a "silver outer layer" utilized by
our NASA/Apollo, or were they utilized upon some other moon as having
xenon like illumination of a very terrestrial atmospheric filtered
solar spectrum rather than what a raw solar illuminated moon would have
depicted?
-
Brad Guth
Orval Fairbairn
"Scott Hedrick" <diespamme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
> news:o_r_fairbairn-430...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <RKHsf.13914$dZ1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Scott Hedrick" <diespamme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
> >> news:o_r_fairbairn-978...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> >> > Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program!
> >>
> >> Then you admit being part of the conspiracy!
> >
> > Which conspiracy?
>
> Exactly! The proof that you're part of the conspiracy is denial!
>
> When the Zeta Reticulans arrive, the truth will be out there!
Please name the alleged conspiracy!
Are you referring to the:
"Elvis is alive" conspiracy?
"9-11 was a Mossad moment" conspiracy?
"Lunar Landing was a Hoax" conspiracy?
"LBJ had JFK shot" conspiracy?
"FDR knew about Pearl harbor beforehand" conspiracy?
"Mad Muslims didn't do 9-11" conspiracy?
"Illuminati control the world" conspiracy?
We have enough barking (and howling) moonbats out there to give life to
all of the above.
Scott Hedrick
> In article <BbKsf.14327$dZ1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> "Scott Hedrick" <diespamme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
>> news:o_r_fairbairn-430...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <RKHsf.13914$dZ1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
>> > "Scott Hedrick" <diespamme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:o_r_fairbairn-978...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>> >> > Link -- HELL! I know the people involved and worked on the program!
>> >>
>> >> Then you admit being part of the conspiracy!
>> >
>> > Which conspiracy?
>>
>> Exactly! The proof that you're part of the conspiracy is denial!
>>
>> When the Zeta Reticulans arrive, the truth will be out there!
>
> Please name the alleged conspiracy!
*That* would be telling.
Brad Guth
add the USN LIBERTY fiasco, those 6-Day war exterminations, TWA
Flight-800, our Phantom Works ABL running amuck and a few dozen more of
examples of your perpetrated cold-war crapolla that has only cost
humanity decades upon decades of having blown trillions upon trillions,
as having set the intellectual and moral worth of humanity deep into
the nearest toilet by regressing a good century in the process of
having taken our environment to it's bloody oil sucking knees.
I'll have to bet that nukes in space is next on your wish list.
Do you have an office pool for WW-III?
-
Brad Guth
Sir Douglas Bader
> >>The only problem with Apollo was that a short-sighted government
> >>cancelled it.
> >
> > Well, that and the fact that it was ridiculously expensive, and cost
> > ineffective...
>
> I think you are both correct.
>
> America had clearly won the race to the moon and there didn't appear to be
> any plans to go on to Mars, so America grew bored with it and Congress
> thought there were better things to do with the money.
ISTR fighting the losing Vietnam War was one of these 'better things'.
Doug
Brad Guth
>Should I take the word of tens of thousands of scientists, astronauts,
>engineers, and technicians directly involved with the space program,
>or....
>Some kookbreath psychotic's theory?
No contest; pick me, as I'll blow their socks off, and then some.
Oops, I forgot that you folks don't believe in using hard-science or
the regular laws of physics. So, what's the point?
Obviously you haven't squat to work with, as otherwise you'd have
posted whatever's 100+% proof-positive. Do I have to re-post all 1000+
contributions that I've managed thus far, as in walls of words along
with the hard-science links to what would hold up in a court of law?
Of course silly me, I didn't know that whatever's Kodak and the laws of
photon physics was such a "kookbreath psychotic's theory".
-
Brad Guth
Orval Fairbairn
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No. My pool is for when the guys in the white coats come and put a net
over "Brad Guth".
Brad Guth
>a net over "Brad Guth".
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>evidence that tin foil hat;s don't work so I guess you are doomed..
And this has what if anything to do with the prime topic or sub-topic
at hand?
-
I've noticed as of lately, that a good number of these incest cloned
and otherwise extremely brown-nosed and thereby butt-sucking borg
collectives of Usenet and ISP spooks, most specifically of this
GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA disinformation cesspool of topic/author stalking Aryan
species of ultra brown-noses have been into using a bit more than their
fair share of their boss's spermware/malware (aka MI6/NSA~CIA Third
Reich PC fuckware), as per getting right back into their usual
space-toilet modes of perpetrating MOS nasty sorts of their cold-war
tricks. So, I guess that I'll just have to keep doing my level 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 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
Orval Fairbairn
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes -- it is, but is only about 72 degrees this time of year.
BTW, one of my NSA friends intercepted this message that had been sent
to BG:
"Dear Mr. Guth,
The Awards Committee has reviewed your application for a second digit to
your IQ point score and, at this time, cannot justify such action.
We have, however, reviewed some of your previous material, and question
your current IQ ratings. Please be available for retesting, as we think
that you should lose at least five points (1/3 the amount you lose if
you wear a baseball cap with the brim turned backwards.
Sincerely,
The Intelligence Awards Committee"
Trane Francks
>> Columbus is a myth.
> Actually, you're not very far off, especially since it was those smart
> Chinks and of their little Dropa/Dzopa wizards that discovered North
> America.
Hahahaha. The Matrix has you, Brad.
trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks tr...@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Trane Francks
> posted whatever's 100+% proof-positive. Do I have to re-post all 1000+
> contributions that I've managed thus far, as in walls of words along
> with the hard-science links to what would hold up in a court of law?
YES! alt.test is the place to do it, too! THEY don't monitor that
newsgroup. You know who I mean, Brad.
Brad Guth
Good grief almighty. It seems we have us another pro Christ on a stick
sort of mainstream status quo rusemaster, hard at work with as much of
his/her dog-wagging spin, hype and disinformation to boot. Exactly how
much evidence exclusion are you planning upon introducing?
The one and only way of excluding intelligent design, thus excluding
ETs is to exclude evidence, just like our resident warlord(GW Bush)
excluded evidence all the time, while otherwise having invented
evidence via soft-intelligence as a mater of staying the course of his
thousand lights, meaning the pillaging and plundering lights of mostly
Muslim homes and of entire villages with whatever nearby oil fields and
infrastructure that we've directly and indirectly set on fire.
Perhaps while you're at it (brown nosing your way through life at the
demise of others), you might as well exclude our moon and the likes of
Venus entirely, as for their not even existing.
What the freaking hell is wrong with the likes of yourself? Are you
that Third Reich collaborating Jewish?
-
Brad Guth
Trane Francks
> Trane Francks,
> Good grief almighty. It seems we have us another pro Christ on a stick
ROTFL - You're a knob, dude. A total nutbar, brain-fried, whacko loon.
> What the freaking hell is wrong with the likes of yourself? Are you
> that Third Reich collaborating Jewish?
Godwin's Law invoked. Loser plonked.
Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
> On 12/31/2005 06:22 AM +0900, Brad Guth wrote:
> > Trane Francks,
> > Good grief almighty. It seems we have us another pro Christ on a stick
>
> ROTFL - You're a knob, dude. A total nutbar, brain-fried, whacko loon.
>
> > What the freaking hell is wrong with the likes of yourself? Are you
> > that Third Reich collaborating Jewish?
>
> Godwin's Law invoked. Loser plonked.
>
> trane
Not only that -- but BG's postings offer some of the finest evidence
AGAINST "Intelligent Design."