India... life on Moon?
Pat Flannery
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_indian-scientists-detect-signs-of-life-on-moon_1322785
Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.
Pat
BradGuth
> Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
>
> Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
> fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.
>
> Pat
Yes, there's loads of carbon/soot as well as many precious metals and
raw elements on our moon(Selene), almost as though it came to us from
Sirius(B).
~ BG
jacob navia
<quote>
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
<end quote>
And why not?
What the hell do we know?
small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...
Who could say that it is impossible?
Damon Hill
news:VbKdnQc4xfuDz7vW...@posted.northdakotatelephone:
Yeah, I'd call it jumping to a conclusion faster than a Sprint launch.
--Damon
Pat Flannery
> <quote>
> Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned
> Moon landing mission, the Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar
> soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of sophisticated equipment
> then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
> <end quote>
>
> And why not?
>
> What the hell do we know?
>
> small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...
>
> Who could say that it is impossible?
You forgot...very high temperatures during daylight, very cold
temperatures at night, hard vacuum, hard UV sunlight, and high radiation
during solar storms.
Any life that could evolve and survive in those conditions would have to
be wildly different from anything on Earth and more like the Andromeda
Strain.
So I'm saying it's wildly improbable, and since something like that
could easily survive being blown to Earth via a meteoric impact on the
Moon, if it had evolved it would probably be the dominant form of life
on Earth right now, due to its incredible toughness.
Pat
BradGuth
> Pat Flannery a écrit :
>
> > Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
> > news like this is:
>
> > Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
> > fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.
>
> > Pat
>
> <quote>
> Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
> Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
> sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
> <end quote>
>
> And why not?
>
> What the hell do we know?
>
> small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...
>
> Who could say that it is impossible?
Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.
~ BG
BradGuth
A km of robust basalt crust is a hundred fold better protection than
any atmosphere and magnetosphere combined. That moon has a minimum of
50 km in mineral saturated basalt crust to work with, so where's the
problem?.
~ BG
Alain Fournier
Pat Flannery wrote:
It seems to me that the Indian scientists reported the detection of organic
material. Then somewhere maybe a translator from Hindi to English, or
maybe a journalist trying to write "organic material" in laymen terms
put in signs of life. So I doubt very much that the scientists actually
said anything about life on the Moon. In any case, many humorists
trying to be funny can't get to be as funny as the guy who wrote that.
Alain
Eric Chomko
So you think that the LRO images of the lunar landing sites are
faked?
Eric Chomko
> [sci.space.history deleted]
>
> Pat Flannery wrote:
> > Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
> > news like this is:
>
> > Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
> > fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.
>
> It seems to me that the Indian scientists reported the detection of organic
> material. Then somewhere maybe a translator from Hindi to English, or
> maybe a journalist trying to write "organic material" in laymen terms
> put in signs of life. So I doubt very much that the scientists actually
> said anything about life on the Moon. In any case, many humorists
> trying to be funny can't get to be as funny as the guy who wrote that.
>
> Alain
Yep, the Bible went through the same "translations" and we have Jesus
walking on water, turning water into wine and feeding thousands with
only a few fish.
BradGuth
Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.
We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.
Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)
Where's the other 99.9% of the LRO mission science?
~ BG
Eric Chomko
Has is your hatred of all things good and just.
>
> We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
> Nazis did.
American engineers, Guth.
> Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
> than Kodak or anyone else does.
Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?
> Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
> (our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)
>
> Where's the other 99.9% of the LRO mission science?
>
It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.
BradGuth
> On Dec 18, 10:26 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 8:42 am, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 12:48 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 14, 11:50 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > Pat Flannery a écrit :
>
> > > > > > Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
> > > > > > news like this is:
> > > > > >http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_indian-scientists-detect-signs...
>
> > > > > > Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
> > > > > > fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.
>
> > > > > > Pat
>
> > > > > <quote>
> > > > > Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
> > > > > Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
> > > > > sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
> > > > > <end quote>
>
> > > > > And why not?
>
> > > > > What the hell do we know?
>
> > > > > small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...
>
> > > > > Who could say that it is impossible?
>
> > > > Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.
>
> > > faked?
>
> > Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
> > noted.
>
> Has is your hatred of all things good and just.
>
>
>
> > We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
> > Nazis did.
>
> American engineers, Guth.
>
> > Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
> > than Kodak or anyone else does.
>
> Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
> website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
> shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
> anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
> photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
> shutters open for seconds, right?
Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).
If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?
>
> > Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
> > (our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)
>
> > Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?
>
> It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.
Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.
~ BG
BradGuth
> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote innews:VbKdnQc4xfuDz7vW...@posted.northdakotatelephone:
Internally wet and complex meteorites should cover the surface of our
naked moon(Selene), along with loads of dark carbonado plus loads of
other nifty minerals.
For some reason our LRO UV florescence imaging is either broken or
classified as nondisclosure data, right along with all the gamma
spectrometry that's excluded.
~ BG
Eric Chomko
Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.
>
> If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
> that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?
The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.
>
>
>
> > > Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
> > > (our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)
>
> > > Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?
>
> > It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.
>
> Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. Now, deliver the
> objective proof-positive.
>
Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.
Eric
Wayne Throop
:: exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
:: extremely bright).
: Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
: planet.
I don't have too much problem with that, in principle. In taking pictures
of the moon from earth, you mainly have to remember that it's exposed to
full sunlight; fractional second exposures for earthtime daylight scenes
work. Venus should be similar-but-brighter; the main difference would
be how much film area the image covers, and venus would very likely be
wide enough to expose multiple grains (though not clear about the others).
But more important imo, afaik, Guth has never demonstrated that any
of those objects would have been in-frame for any of the images from
the moon. Venus, for example, would be a bit surprising, since it ought
to have been be quite high in the sky, and the interesting images are
towards the horizon. And there's no particular reason to suppose they
would be, unless they were attempting specifically to *put* them in-frame;
which they may well not have bothered.
And of course the bizarre thing is, what is the motive for this
alleged conspiracy, and even if the thousands upon thousands of
people who worked on the project were in on it, what motive did
folks in other countries have to go along with it?
And *most* important, if the whole world really is ruled by a conspiracy
that could cover this up, let me take this opportunity to request
(hey, they monitor usenet, right) they censor Guth more thoroughly
than he thinks they already are? Thankyouverymuch.
Well, unless Guth is actually their stooge and/or sockpuppet, intended
to perpetuate the conspiracy by "exposing" it in such a way as to
discredit anybody who actually finds out about it and leaks.
In which case, "nevermind".
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
BradGuth
Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.
Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).
btw, countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.
Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's shit
from shinola. Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.
>
> > If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
> > that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?
>
> The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
> from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.
Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.
>
> > > > Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
> > > > (our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)
>
> > > > Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?
>
> > > It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.
>
> > Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. Now, deliver the
> > objective proof-positive.
>
> Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
> time and for public consumption.
>
> Eric
Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
missing in action.
~ BG
Eric Chomko
There is no mistaking when including other plenets from other
missions. For you to think NASA is haphazard about such things makes
you even dumber than you already appear to be.
> There's even some old
> Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
> same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
> any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
> capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
> with).
Do you have the results of the Navy mission?
>
> btw, countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
> of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.
With long exposures you doofus!
> Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's shit
> from shinola. Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
> an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
> far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
> (including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.
>
LRO has proven Apollo to even the most feeble minded. Sorry you missed
it.
>
> > > If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
> > > that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?
>
> > The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
> > from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.
>
> Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.
Your inablility to grasp basic concepts is noted.
> > > > > Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
> > > > > (our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)
>
> > > > > Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?
>
> > > > It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.
>
> > > Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. Now, deliver the
> > > objective proof-positive.
>
> > Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
> > time and for public consumption.
>
> > Eric
>
> Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
> missing in action.
>
You imply you know what 100% of what the mission should be. Where do
you get that data?
You are a charlatan and everyone knows it. You wouldn't even make
Snake Oil Salesman from the Old West, as your line of bullshit is very
easily seem. Still trying to figure out how to detect 105,000 year
"annual rings" from the Earth's geology basic upon your bizarre Sirius/
Sol cycle?
hahahahahahaha
At some point you MUST adopt a static frame of reference because you
weren't here from the beginning. Your dymanic frame of reference has
made you a tad mad...
Have a Merry Christmas, Grinch, err Guth...
BradGuth
Your belief that our government agencies are never the least bit faith-
based, never make mistakes, cover their public funded butts or
otherwise pull off any mutually perpetrated cold-war stings, nor ever
use spendy wool to cover our eyes, is noted.
~ BG
Eric Chomko
Our govt. was designed NOT to be faith-based. Adminstrations are
another matter. Thank God we have term limits.
BradGuth
There's no such thing as "designed NOT to be faith-based", other than
pretend government.
BTW; what good is "term limits" when we couldn't manage to get rid of
GW Bush and Dick Cheney until it was too late. (I mean too late to
have easily prevented the grand ruse/sting of 9/11)
~ BG
BradGuth
> :: Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed no such extra
Your persistent mainstream status quo obfuscation is noted.
I've posted hundreds of links to images proving that I'm right, and
you've posted squat outside of whatever's NASA/Apollo approved. So,
where's the other 99.9% of our spendy LRO science that's mostly via
images other than all their narrow monochrome crap that tells us
almost nothing about our physically dark moon?
Also, where's the objective science pertaining to the moon L1(Selene
L1)?
~ BG
BradGuth
> > news like this is:
>
> > Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
> > fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.
>
> > Pat
>
> <quote>
> Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
> Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
> sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
> <end quote>
>
> And why not?
>
> What the hell do we know?
>
> small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...
>
> Who could say that it is impossible?
Under a few meters of that mineral saturated basalt crust, there could
be all sorts of life to behold. Too bad we still don't have
sufficient technology for deploying active surface probes.
~ BG
Eric Chomko
Separation of church and state, and many have practiced it, but not
Bush.
>
> BTW; what good is "term limits" when we couldn't manage to get rid of
> GW Bush and Dick Cheney until it was too late. (I mean too late to
> have easily prevented the grand ruse/sting of 9/11)
We manage despite having had them. Just be lucky you don't die in an
auto accident or
from colon cancer, as both of those kill ~50,000 per year.
BradGuth
In that case, those WTC structures, including WTC7, were of no
importance other than making the truly rich and powerful all the more
rich and powerful. Whatever insurance fraud need not be investigated.
So what if we caused another spendy round of global inflation?
There's a significant waiting list of cash-cash clients trying to get
their greedy bailout and offshore tax avoidance hands their next 15+
gallons/nm megayacht. These offshore registered Yachts idle along at
3+ gallons/nm, and max out at 20+ gal/nm. Their smallest auxiliary
generators are 100 KW, main generators are <250 KW. They seldom if
ever pay property or sales tax, as well as no employment taxes or
cover any unemployment benefits, and they usually avoid most other
taxations or end-use fees because of their offshore status.
~ BG
Eric Chomko
I think your buddies, the Chinese, have more control over that than we
do.
>
> There's a significant waiting list of cash-cash clients trying to get
> their greedy bailout and offshore tax avoidance hands their next 15+
> gallons/nm megayacht. These offshore registered Yachts idle along at
> 3+ gallons/nm, and max out at 20+ gal/nm. Their smallest auxiliary
> generators are 100 KW, main generators are <250 KW. They seldom if
> ever pay property or sales tax, as well as no employment taxes or
> cover any unemployment benefits, and they usually avoid most other
> taxations or end-use fees because of their offshore status.
By off-shore, do you mean China?
BradGuth
Offshore registered yachts, jets and other spendy toys plus lavish
estates for an American means tax and multiple other fee avoidance.
There are specialty nations that provide this kind of private niche
financial protection service for a reasonably small set-up and annual
service fee. Until lately our IRS has looked the other way, because
it was always so much easier to tax and levy fees upon the rest of us
village idiots. (president BHO has been making some discrete and
perfectly legit interpretation revisions to such matters, that are
nailing a few of those disloyal American perverts [treasonous
bastards] that have seldom paid their fair share)
I think putting them all in prison is a way better idea, and letting
them weither away unless they pay us back every cent along with
penalties and compounded interest.
~ BG
BradGuth
> Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
> news like this is:http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_indian-scientists-detect-signs...
>
> Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
> fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.
>
> Pat
For some reason our spendy LRO mission can't accomplish what a Earth
bound astronomy class of color imaging can (in spite of our polluted
atmosphere) by Filipe Alves, including picking up those secondary/
recoil UV fluorescent colors of lunar surface minerals that by right
from the crystal clear low orbit of 50 km should be at least ten fold
better.
http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm
~ BG