Brad Guth's Credentials
David Bacque
I've read a great deal of your postulating with interest and must ask one
simple question. It's the same question I tell my son he must ask of his
sources when doing research. This is not a flame. It's a serious question
asked in a civil manner and as such I expect a serious answer given in a
similar civil manner. Any serious research scientist would not hesitate to
answer this question openly, honestly and without hostility.
If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
theories. Basically, what is your background and why should we accept the
profusion of words that flow from your computer over those of anyone else
who happens to have an internet connection or, more importantly, over those
who have proven themselves in the scientific or academic world.
A serious answer to this question would do more for your believability than
anything else you could say.
Dave
Starlord
whatever they thing they know and a lot of it is pure hot air.
--
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
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:fXkvf.415$hf2...@newsfe20.lga...
> David Bacque wrote:
>
>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
>>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
>>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
>>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
>>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
>>theories.
>>
>
> Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has
> nothing to do with credentials. That is just about the dumbest thing you
> can ask on the usenet. If you have a problem with someones evidence, let's
> see your evidence.
>
> Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility.
>
> But then again, who needs credibility here?
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org.
Sam Wormley
We thank Brad for registering at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=guth+site%3Awww.crank.net
Michael Rhino
> Starlord wrote:
>
>>I would ask the very same question as David.
>
> absolutism with the advent of the internet. Therefore, since you provide
> us with no evidence, no entertainment, abundant spam via a vain .sig, and
> are top posting as well, without further discussion - the evidence :
Credentials by themselves are not sufficient, because a respected scientist
can go senile. You can also have someone who is good at digging up bones,
but isn't all that bright. I think that it is reasonable to ask about
credentials. One of David's questions concerned peer reviewed papers. Has
anyone verified Brad Guth's research? It's a rhetorical question, because
we know the answer, but it is OK to ask.
Most Democrats didn't bother attacking Harriet Myers and David seems to be
taking the same approach with Brad Guth. David's approach may be different
from your approach, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong.
nitram578
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:fXkvf.415$hf2...@newsfe20.lga...
> David Bacque wrote:
>
>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
>>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
>>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
>>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
>>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
>>theories.
>>
>
MikeA
"David Bacque" <XXdba...@XXswbell.netREMOVEALLUPPERCASE> wrote in message
news:HBkvf.1174$fb4...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Who the hell is Brad Guth?
MikeA
> Starlord wrote:
>
>>I would ask the very same question as David.
>>
>
> absolutism with the advent of the internet. Therefore, since you provide
> us with no evidence, no entertainment, abundant spam via a vain .sig, and
> are top posting as well, without further discussion - the evidence :
>
>
> You are the lord of nothing.
>
Yep, the guy is a complete wackjob.
MikeA
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:nLlvf.687275$_o.159151@attbi_s71...
> David Bacque wrote:
>> Hi SAM,
>>
>> I've read a great deal of your postulating with interest and must ask one
>> simple question. It's the same question I tell my son he must ask of his
>> sources when doing research. This is not a flame. It's a serious
>> question asked in a civil manner and as such I expect a serious answer
>> given in a similar civil manner. Any serious research scientist would
>> not hesitate to answer this question openly, honestly and without
>> hostility.
>>
>> If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
>> little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
>> degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers
>> have you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
>> articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
>> theories. Basically, what is your background and why should we accept
>> the profusion of words that flow from your computer over those of anyone
>> else who happens to have an internet connection or, more importantly,
>> over those who have proven themselves in the scientific or academic
>> world.
>>
>> A serious answer to this question would do more for your believability
>> than anything else you could say.?
David Bacque
> David Bacque wrote:
>
>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
>>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
>>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
>>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
>>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
>>theories.
>>
>
> nothing to do with credentials. That is just about the dumbest thing you
> can ask on the usenet. If you have a problem with someones evidence, let's
> see your evidence.
>
> Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility.
>
> But then again, who needs credibility here?
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org.
Reproducibility of evidence is where peer review comes in. Again, no
serious scientist would take offense at answering this question. Why are
you taking offense of my asking it of someone else?
I don't need credibility here. I'm not postulating an unusual theory. The
theorist is the one that needs to establish his credibility and that's where
credentials come in. It's like if your doctor says he thiks arsenic would
help your headaches. Asking to see his medical license and if anyone else
has reviewed his theory wouldn't destroy your credibility. It would only
show your sensibility.
Dave
Thomas Lee Elifritz
David Bacque wrote:
> "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
> news:fXkvf.415$hf2...@newsfe20.lga...
> > David Bacque wrote:
> >
> >>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
> >>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
> >>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
> >>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
> >>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
> >>theories.
> >>
> >
> > Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has
> > nothing to do with credentials. That is just about the dumbest thing you
> > can ask on the usenet. If you have a problem with someones evidence, let's
> > see your evidence.
> >
> > Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility.
> >
> > But then again, who needs credibility here?
> >
> > http://cosmic.lifeform.org.
>
> Reproducibility of evidence is where peer review comes in.
No, last time I checked, reviewing my peers did not reproduce any evidence. It
just gathered previously existing evidence.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put a woman on the moon?
> Again, no
> serious scientist would take offense at answering this question. Why are
> you taking offense of my asking it of someone else?
I didn't take any offence, the only entertainment I could derive from his
idiotic question was the manner in which it was phrased, an individual seeking
correspondence with a kook, on a usenet science newsgroup no less, and then
asking for the kooks credentials. That was hilarious.
> I don't need credibility here. I'm not postulating an unusual theory. The
> theorist is the one that needs to establish his credibility and that's where
> credentials come in. It's like if your doctor says he thiks arsenic would
> help your headaches. Asking to see his medical license and if anyone else
> has reviewed his theory wouldn't destroy your credibility. It would only
> show your sensibility.
You're a kook.
Phil Wheeler
>
> If we are expected to take your position seriously,
Unlikely to ever happen: Can you spell "Min"?
> could you tell us a
> little about your credentials.
So who really cares?
Starlord
--
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
"Michael Rhino" <news...@alexanderpics.com> wrote in message
news:PSlvf.27762$pE4....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
> news:uElvf.417$hf2...@newsfe20.lga...
> >
Starlord
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
"MikeA" <M...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:UWlvf.38090$AP5.4251@edtnps84...
>
Phil Wheeler
> Who is Harriet Myers ? Name means nothing to me.
>
>
GWBush's first Supreme Court nominee, I believe. She was not qualified
and opted out.
Mij Adyaw
G.T.
> Who left the door open at the insane asylum?
>
It wasn't the same door you used?
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
rhju...@yahoo.com
You're right. Science is about reproducibility. Friend Guth has accused
all of NASA, and the supporting groups invovled, in a cover up so
massive in population, that it would dwarf any other kook-conspiracy
theory I've ever heard of. (CFR? small timers! Gnomes of Zurich? bush
league! Skull and Bones? tell 'em to go home and bring friends!)
Here's a novel idea: How about Guth and his buddies giving up some
take-it-to-court-proof that we haven't landed on the moon? (note bene:
a video file of sibrel's ilk counts towards NGI status, not proof for
their argument...)
Bob
Bob
Brad Guth
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/640a6a1c5c79ef5d/c460f1188fe72272#c460f1188fe72272
Good grief, David. Now I've got "Credentials"?
Here I'd thought I was just being darn good at my observationology, as
to better than average dot/pixel connecting upon what's situated upon
Venus, and secondly of what's not situated upon our moon. Trust me,
it's not much more complicated than that.
Most everything else has been my somewhat dyslexic way of pushing as
many of those Do-NOT-Push buttons, plus having sometimes required
excessive use of my lose cannon.
As a result, it seems that I've remained on the receiving end of more
than my fair share of topic/author stalking, bashings and otherwise
wherever possible I've received banishment. As perhaps equally, it
seems that you could soon be taking on a bit of flak for having simply
included my name within your topic that's got my attention, none the
less.
Besides your capability of asking such a multi-tasking question; might
I inquire as to what focus or level of talent and/or expertise that you
yourself have to offer?
>Any serious research scientist would not hesitate to answer
>this question openly, honestly and without hostility.
Have you considered applying that very same rule or standard and
accountability upon those having stalked and bashed my every move from
the very get go, as of nearly 6 years ago?
>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
>theories. Basically, what is your background and why should we accept the
>profusion of words that flow from your computer over those of anyone else
>who happens to have an internet connection or, more importantly, over those
>who have proven themselves in the scientific or academic world.
First of all, that's not a question, rather more like a complex
gauntlet of questions that seem rather ulterior motivated if not
potentially intended to disqualify rather than support (meaning there's
far more negatives than positives cloaked within that question).
I'll try to sort the bulk of this "question" of your's out, and if
possible without my going postal.
1) Credentials: I use my real name, a for real street and email
address, as well as phone number that I'll answer, thus that's at least
four fold better off credentials than the vast majority of those having
been tossing flak and digging my grave.
2) My formal education is limited to public high school, plus having
accomplished a trade school in electronics. The rest is self taught, as
well as trial and error (emphases upon error). Is any of this a problem
? (if so I could just lie exactly like most everyone else)
3) As to peer reviewed papers; I've been reviewed to death for better
than five testy years worth. Specifically (meaning not another one of
these 20 part questions), of what would you like to peer review?
4) An early and somewhat negative experience involved getting my butt
somewhat burned by an employer that sucked (I sued, I won), whereas
I've since worked mostly for myself, accomplishing marine electronics
plus learning hydraulics along the way of accomplishing installations,
servicing and then into my accomplishing custom modifications as well
as having created a good many nifty items that I had to R&D, proof test
and 100% responsibly install from scratch, which also meant that I had
to invest into myself by way of having a good range of spendy
instruments and tools. This curve eventually included a fair amount of
medium format photographic investments that required yet another great
deal of expertise, by which I never made a living at, but otherwise
having enjoyed and proven to myself (rather than merely by book) as to
what could or could not be photographed, as well as my having developed
said films and having made my very own enlargements.
5) as to publishing; clearly it's not my strong suit. Other than what
I've poorly accomplished in a few too many pages as having been posted
within this absolute crazy zoo of an internet, and of otherwise my
having contributed into this Usenet that seriously sucks and blows, of
which I hadn't even so much as considered doing until 6 months after
the fact of my dealing directly with NASA seemed unlikey to bear fruit,
especially foiled after NASA channeled me into their uplink.space.com
cult of mostly scripted hype, spin, damage-control and
infomercials-R-us. I'm proud to say, that fiasco was my first of many
banishments.
6) My background is actually complex, though having absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with what's capable of existing upon Venus. After all,
I didn't invent all the lose dots of reasonably good science, nor did I
create those nifty radar impages of 36 looks/pixel, any more so than my
having invented physics. My somewhat extra usage of deductive reasoning
as to dot/pixel connecting isn't the least bit intentionally skewed nor
hocus pocus like all of those WMD, thus folks haven't died as a result
(as far as I know of), and I haven't cost the public or private sectors
one red cent (yet).
7) As to where has my research been conducted; Do I have to say it?
(Earth!), and as otherwise specifically from my home office that's
really been getting overloaded with documents, books and you name it.
Although, I do have a large minion staff of -0-.
As to my profusions of those walls of words; That's simply my lose
cannon way of saying whatever it is that I have to say, though somewhat
dyslexic encrypted along with a fair share of my having returned the
stalking and bashing favor to the best of my limited abilities. You
obviously are not smart enough to have once noticed whenever I've been
extra nice to the folks as having been nice to me, which doesn't
represent that they had to entirely agree with me (I'd appreciate 10%
acceptance as being good enough, whereas it's the zero acceptance lot
of spooks, moles and freelance pro-NASA or bust types that I can't
hardly stand, much less understand).
Since I'm not the least bit all-knowing; Tell me whatever it is that I
need to know, and then I'll know it. I believe it's called learning
from others, as based upon a share and share alike plan of action. No
sharing, no learning is somewhat like energy-in = energy-out, whereas
it has to happen, or else.
>those who have proven themselves in the scientific or academic world
You've got to be a little more specific than "those", as well as
"scientific or academic world" that are all in the eye of the beholder.
Right now I behold that way too many nice folks have been snookered and
thus having to remain somewhat sequestered as for their being
dumbfounded, especially when I'm pushing my LSE-CM/ISS or of the
VL2-TRACE and especially of there being perfectly good odds of other
intelligent life as having coexisted upon Venus, most all of which is
clearly over the top and way outside of their mainstream box. Sorry
about that.
BTW; your carefully worded/scripted topic is a little worrisome.
Besides all of the built in word/syntax traps, is there something you'd
like to share before I discover your true motives and intentions?
Sorry if I've unintentionally missed a key word, syntax or phrase that
was imperative that I answer by your standards. I may even further pick
away at your carefully worded wall of question(s), that is unless you'd
care to being truly specific instead of all over the place with you
next question.
BTW No.2; Since I'm not the least bit all-knowing, as such I'm looking
NOT for having to answer such endless questions, but rather for
obtaining answers, as well as I'm looking for the talents and expertise
of others. Since I'm willing to share and share alike, thus are you in
or out?
-
Brad Guth
George
<rhju...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136516893.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Guth has delusions of granduer. And he's practically illiterate to boot.
George
Me
> Guth has delusions of granduer.
That is completely untrue.
Guth has delusions of ADEQUACY.
AM
>
> Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility.
Well at least he is not a foul mouthed wanker
like you.
{PLONK}
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
Linux CentOS 4.2, KDE 3.3
Pat Flannery
MikeA wrote:
>
>Who the hell is Brad Guth?
>
>
Don't ever ask a question you don't really want to know the answer to.
Pat
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Who the hell is Brad Guth?
He appears to be another conspiracy nut.
Paul Schlyter
Thomas Lee Elifritz <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> David Bacque wrote:
>
>> If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
>> little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
>> degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
>> you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
>> articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
>> theories.
>
> nothing to do with credentials.
language strongly indicates that you have nothing real to say, and
that you wish to hide that fact. And if you respond to this with more
foul language, you merely comfirm that I'm right.
> That is just about the dumbest thing you can ask on the usenet. If you
> have a problem with someones evidence, let's see your evidence.
publish reproducible evidence in peer reviewed journals of some new
phenomenon. Some of our greatest scientists started out by publishing
reproducible evidence (or testable predictions which later succeeded
when being tested) and only afterwards they got their formal degrees.
Albert Einstein was one of them.
Therefore it makes a lot of sense to ask for someone's publications
in peer-reviewed journals when judging how credible some new theory
from that person is.
> Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Jonathan Silverlight
<geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> writes
>
>
>Guth has delusions of granduer. And he's practically illiterate to boot.
>
>George
>
>
Eric Chomko
: In article <fXkvf.415$hf2...@newsfe20.lga>,
: Thomas Lee Elifritz <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
:
: > David Bacque wrote:
: >
: >> If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
: >> little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
: >> degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
: >> you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
: >> articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
: >> theories.
: >
: > Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has
: > nothing to do with credentials.
:
: FYI: using foul language really destroys your creditbility. Foul
: language strongly indicates that you have nothing real to say, and
: that you wish to hide that fact. And if you respond to this with more
: foul language, you merely comfirm that I'm right.
:
:
: > That is just about the dumbest thing you can ask on the usenet. If you
: > have a problem with someones evidence, let's see your evidence.
:
: There's really no better credentials than having been the first to
: publish reproducible evidence in peer reviewed journals of some new
: phenomenon. Some of our greatest scientists started out by publishing
: reproducible evidence (or testable predictions which later succeeded
: when being tested) and only afterwards they got their formal degrees.
: Albert Einstein was one of them.
Perfect example. Also, Einstein's 9th grade math teacher told him that
he'd never amount to anything. So, spoken or written, "credentials" are a
matter of interpretation to some degree. Theories and the discovery of
physical laws, which can be proven, ARE inherent credentials that are not
open for interpretation. Einstein's math teacher's opinion means very
little as compared to the Theory of Relativity, at least from a scientific
point-of-view.
:
: Therefore it makes a lot of sense to ask for someone's publications
: in peer-reviewed journals when judging how credible some new theory
: from that person is.
:
Agreed, but it doesn't mean if one is unpublished that they are wrong.
Guth has passion for his beliefs and a fairly decent vocabulary for one
with a vocational background. But he is more a dreamer than scientist and
his writing is really more poetic (if you can call it that?!) than it is
factual.
Eric
: > Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility.
Paul Winalski
wrote:
>Brad Guth's Credentials
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/640a6a1c5c79ef5d/c460f1188fe72272#c460f1188fe72272
>Good grief, David. Now I've got "Credentials"?
No, apparently you don't.
Instead you've resorted to "the establishment is persecuting me",
which is the first refuge of the crackpot.
PLONK
-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
Brad Guth
Your beloved pagan God (aka MI6/NSA~CIA-->NASA) that's residing over
all the brown-nosed minions upon your flat Earth can't seem to offer
squat worth of "reproducibility" with regard to our supposed
fly-by-rocket attributed expeditions of and upon our moon. Why is that?
Why are those unfiltered Kodak laws of photon physics so gosh darn
indifferent upon our dark and nasty moon, as opposed to their being
exactly like a xenon spectrum illuminated terrestrial environment?
They(aka NASA/Apollo) nor can you even so much as honestly stipulate as
to the required rocket/payload ratio. Why is that?
>Here's a novel idea: How about Guth and his buddies giving up some
>take-it-to-court-proof that we haven't landed on the moon? (note bene:
>a video file of sibrel's ilk counts towards NGI status, not proof for
>their argument...)
I've already been there and done that for years. Do you really want to
drag all their perpetrated cold-war dirty laundry back out upon center
stage, again and again?
You do realize that I've gotten somewhat better at arguing my case
before the court of humanity.
-
Brad Guth
George
"Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid>
wrote in message news:sj$+fIWnQ...@merseia.freeserve.co.uk...
No, that means that I have a slight case of dyslexia. Thanks for pointing
that out.
George <dyslexics of the world, untie>
David Bacque
I do appreciate your somewhat direct reply. As for ulterior motives and
scripted traps, nope I didn't have any. I was mostly interested to see if
you would be as willing to share your background as you are to share your
ideas.
Dave
Dave Grayvis
UNTIE!
Brad Guth
That's perfectly good enough by way of what I've been trying to
accomplish from my initial interpretations, that which I'd mistakenly
shared with our warm and fuzzy NASA as of 6 years ago. God forbid
they'd actually do anything constructive.
If you can focus upon something fairly specific (there's certainly lots
to pick from), and share whatever information and/or expertise you've
got. As such I'd be perfectly glad to share alike, as well as to insure
that you and/or your team receives all the credits they're entitled to.
I'm thinking there's sufficient billions if not trillions worth of
credits to go around. Many of my theories and subsequent notions are
nothing but a win-win for science, plus having to do with benefiting
our environment and thereby improving the quality and longevity of life
for those of us village idiots as having been sequestered upon this
Earth that has seen better days.
-
Brad Guth
MikeA
In other words a BLITHERING FREAK RUNNING LOOSE !! Sad to say you are far
from alone!
D&JWatkins
"Me" <diespa...@diediedie.com> wrote in message
news:spidneQ-38uj6SPe...@adelphia.com...
are out to get him. This also leads one to believe he is also parinoid.
Dennis
Kurt
Alleged experts screw up too. Go ask the South Koreans.
AKS
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> Starlord wrote:
>
>> I would ask the very same question as David.
>>
>
> And that makes you a credentialist as well. Credentialism went the way
> of absolutism with the advent of the internet. Therefore, since you
> provide us with no evidence, no entertainment, abundant spam via a vain
> .sig, and are top posting as well, without further discussion - the
> evidence :
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?enc_author=7uF17hYAAAAZgaNYMhFKCZrIc2RRKmt_Pa9NT2iiFLgw79_evPFERQ&scoring=d&hl=en
>
>
> You are the lord of nothing.
>
> <plonk>
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
rand...@charter.net
"Dave Grayvis" <davegr...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:i4Cvf.1642$xz....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> UNTIE!
Dave, you're killing us over here. ; )
Randy
www.vernarockets.com
Fred Garvin
> rhjuli,
> Your beloved pagan God (aka MI6/NSA~CIA-->NASA) that's residing over
> all the brown-nosed minions upon your flat Earth can't seem to offer
> squat worth of "reproducibility" with regard to our supposed
> fly-by-rocket attributed expeditions of and upon our moon. Why is that?
Brad talks a lot but says nothing. It's like magic!
George
"Dave Grayvis" <davegr...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:i4Cvf.1642$xz....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Hee-Yahh!
George
George
"D&JWatkins" <dennis...@onemain.com> wrote in message
news:foCvf.3797$%W1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Hence, his delusions of grandeur (note, my spelling correction). And it's
paranoid, not parinoid. We have another dyslexic.
UNTIE!
George
Secr...@verizon.net
After all, if you look at this picture:
http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/images/guth-venus-180-info.jpg
and see a community of Et's living on Venus.
Then look at these pictures:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-117-18825.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0012/lunarscape_apollo17_big.jpg
and then to say that we have not had humans walking on our Moon ...
it's not unusual for others to ... at best ... question your
credentials.
Brad Guth
worthy in your good book.
Apparently, hard-science and of the regular laws of physics are also
out your window.
What else don't you accept?
-
Brad Guth
bob352
make...too I am lysdexic..my parents knew it all along, thus they named
me Bob...oops, sorry about the spelling...I mean Bob.
Bob (oops, my shoes are united) 352
Brad Guth
collective you have dredged up for us to ponder?
I've noticed how most folks like yourself (aka whomever David Bacque
really is) seem to propose the sorts of damage-control topics that
insist upon answering to most any given research/discovery that's
sharing a series of could-be, what-if and should-be topics with your
fairly complex and polished line of question(s), that's not actually
contributing a damn thing to the root topic(s) at hand, though clearly
as having been intentionally naysay formulated. You've certainly done
this all along, as rather than on-topic sharing and contributing from
whatever it is that your supposed talent and expertise has to offer,
instead you've basically tossed out the fist and nastiest of flak at
each and every one of my statements, or otherwise having questioned the
questions that I've posted (why is that?).
Since I'm not a stealth WMD, and you've clearly admitted to having read
and thus having reviewed my stuff for years (perhaps from the very get
go), yet you haven't contributed squat (Why is that?).
It's as though you have some kind of deeply rooted ulterior motives,
along with a hidden agenda or two, whereas otherwise if you're actually
as all-knowing and wizardly smart of your domain, in which case you
should have impressing us village idiots by way of your contributing to
our limited knowledge, rather than having subjected it to the water
torture of whatever the boxed limitations of your mindset had to offer.
I'm clearly a very outside the box sort of edgy guy that has a lose
cannon on my deck, as having a moving target of a mindset which clearly
doesn't know all there is to know. How about yourself? Is there
absolutely nothing you neeed to learn, much less share and share alike?
My deductive interpretations and subsequent therories and/or
conjectures are those based almost entirely upon your very own
hard-science, plus backed up with your regular laws of physics. So
please do tell, where's the big and insurmountable problem here?
Is there something perceived as ulterior or otherwise hidden agenda
about whatever I've been into researching and sharing the best that I
can, or is there something taboo, nondisclosure or need-to know within
whatever I've been trying to learn about and thus improve upon my
research quest?
Are you so dumbfounded that you do you not yet understand whatever it
is that I truly believe in, and of what I'm otherwise questioning as to
what your status quo has had to say?
Such as I'll keep sharing; Venus is only a wee bit toasty hot for life
as we know it, though fortunately it wasn't always that hot, as well as
according to your hard-science it's been cooling itself quite nicely as
of lately (meaning the latest thousand(s) or so years worth).
Therefore, I say to all of the internet/Usenet and mainstream media
naysayers; so what? Technically and without question we can do Venus,
at least via the VL2-TRACE and of deployed interactive kiosk methods of
our remote/robotically interacting with whatever's there is to react
with. Therefore, what the heck are you folks so afraid of?
Just because my observationology has interpreted a given radar image as
having indications of a fairly large scale and complex community by
whomever's having existed upon or having otherwise visited Venus, and
that clearly you don't agree with any of that. Whereas I say that's
just fine and dandy that you can't manage to tell a natural pattern of
terrain from that of what's been modified into a highly artificial
looking community of structures and perfectly rational infrastructure.
In my book there's always room within the fabric of life as we know it
for those of us that are intellectually deficient, as well as
biologically blind or simply having chosen to being indifferent
(intellectually bigoted) regardless of whatever's matter of
hard-science and supported by the regular laws of physics, as opposed
to my having appreciated what's to being seen. In other words, instead
of my having accepted the collective (peer review) mainstream status
quo, it's all about your all or nothing focus upon bashing and/or
banishment of my deductive version of WYSIWYG meets my deductive SWAG
without my having involved a cloak, a smoky mirror or even a wagged
dog, isn't it?
I also happen believe that our extremely nearby moon is worthy of
receiving it's fair share of robotics and of eventually getting the
LSE-CM/ISS up and running, thus accommodating folks as having to access
onto and thus safely to/from the surface of our dark and nasty moon
(preferably during solar quiet times or within lunar nighttime seasons
of earthshine), and of that effort is certainly going to be extremely
risky, spendy and perhaps worth every dollar and TBI plus pulverised
body invested if there's but 10% of the expected He3 to behold. In case
you haven't noticed, terrestrial energy extractions and usage has been
extremely spendy, more so polluting and subsequently global warming
than you'd care to admit, and simply way too lethal for countless tens
of thousands of us each and every year after year.
Since folks of this Usenet and of those associated with NASA clearly do
not wish to apply existing technology that could have had those 25
kw/m2 footprints of green/renewable energy producing installations as a
done deal, especially as not anywhere in their backyard, whereas the
prospects of He3/fusion is about the one and only viable alternative
that'll save us and our Earth from ourselves.
Good grief folks, it's simply not that complicated, nor have I been
chuck full of ulterior motives or hidden agendas. Get over the fact
that our MI6/NSA~CIA (aka NASA) isn't actually all-knowing or without
error, and it's certainly not worthy of their being our pagan God
that's worth your continued support of their past, present and future
agendas that seem to be focused upon nearly anything except what's
extremely nearby or upon Venus that could best save us from ourselves.
Since you're so gosh darn good with polished words; Would you care to
compose a nifty infomercial on my behalf? (I'll make it worth your
while).
-
Brad Guth
rhjuliano
Why yes, I AM a pagan rocketeer. Did your venusian buddies tell you
this?
You have still chosen to with-hold from us your great and gracious
pearls of wise evidence that would prove that NASA is evil, nasty, bad,
and mean. All you have done is used rhetoric, obfuscation, and
attempted to throw up smoke screens. How about some proof?
Remember, guthie-kins, that you are accusing NASA of committing a
cover-up of vast proportions. As you are the accuser, the burden of
proof is on you. YOU must prove your accusations.
So far, You're coming across as expected: a Newsloon with a handy
dictionary to attempt dominance by eloquence. You have failed utterly
to snow me into believing you have a shadow of a clue.
So, got any proof of any sort? Or are you just going to try and use
insult and feeble attempts at rhetoric, again?
Bob
Brad Guth wrote:
> rhjuli,
> Your beloved pagan God (aka MI6/NSA~CIA-->NASA) that's residing over
> all the brown-nosed minions upon your flat Earth can't seem to offer
> squat worth of "reproducibility" with regard to our supposed
> fly-by-rocket attributed expeditions of and upon our moon. Why is that?
>
> Why are those unfiltered Kodak laws of photon physics so gosh darn
> indifferent upon our dark and nasty moon, as opposed to their being
> exactly like a xenon spectrum illuminated terrestrial environment?
>
> They(aka NASA/Apollo) nor can you even so much as honestly stipulate as
> to the required rocket/payload ratio. Why is that?
>
Paul Schlyter
Eric Chomko <echom...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter (pau...@saaf.se) wrote:
...................
>> Therefore it makes a lot of sense to ask for someone's publications
>> in peer-reviewed journals when judging how credible some new theory
>> from that person is.
>
> Agreed, but it doesn't mean if one is unpublished that they are wrong.
True fo course -- however for every genuine unpublished misunderstood
"Copernicus" or "Galileo" out there, there are thousands and
thousands of others who believe they also are suppressed "Galileos"
or "Copernicuses" but who actually aren't. They consider themselves
"suppressed by the establishment" (i.e. in the peer-reviewed
journals) but fail to realize that they are suppressed for a very
good reason: for being wrong.
> Guth has passion for his beliefs and a fairly decent vocabulary for
> one with a vocational background. But he is more a dreamer than
> scientist and his writing is really more poetic (if you can call it
> that?!) than it is factual.
Which means that what Guth writes isn't science, it's something else.
Perhaps some variety of science fiction?
Of course poetic visions can serve as inspiration to what to
investigate scientifically. But to get from the visionary phase to
being real science, somebody must do the hard core work of actually
performing the observations or experiments and analysing the
measurements, or of actually developing the theory and issuing
testable predictions. And if the visionary idea doen't hold the
scrutinuity, it should be discarded. There's no shortcut past that.
Unfortunately, a lot of formerly discarded scientific ideas are later
revived by crackpots and then enter the realm of pseudo-science....
Paul Schlyter
>
>>>>If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
>>>>little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
>>>>degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
>>>>you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
>>>>articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
>>>>theories.
>>>>
>>>Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has
>>>nothing to do with credentials.
>>
>>FYI: using foul language really destroys your creditbility.
>
> integers.
It's more than just a series of characters which can be represented
by integers. Ever heard about semantics? Without semantics, our words
would be useless as a means of communication.
That foul word you used is intended to insult, to divert attention, and
possibly to also boost your ego (although the latter will happen only in
your own mind).
> You still haven't anwered my question. These are science newsgroups. We
> question evidence, not credentials. We provide links to evidence, citations
> and scholarly references, whether they be certified or not. You don't need
> credentials to be credible. You're just too fucking dumb to spot a kook.
> Where are you from, Earth?
More foul language from you, confirming that I was right.
Anyway, on to your question:
> If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put a women on the moon?
Wrong (and stupid) question! Of course we can put a woman on the
moon if we can put a man on the moon.
The problem is that we can neither put a man nor a woman on the moon
now, or in the relatively near future. We could in the late 60's
and early 70's, but not now. The Saturn V is out of production since
decades, and there is no booster available now which could replace it.
And the Saturn V's which still remain on the Earth are not in working
condition.
In 10 years or so we'd be able to put men and women on the moon again,
if we decided to do it and are determined to do so. But today the
situation is different, compared to the 60's: today there is no cold
war and no space race.
Perhaps China will be the next country putting a man or woman on the
moon? China certianly has the motivation to show the world it can do
it, so it's a matter of whether China has the resources to actually
do it.
Tom Randy
Your bullshit.
D&JWatkins
Dennis
David Bacque
> really is)
David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real job
in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to
flying model rockets which has been hijacked as your personal publication
system. I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people
hearing your ideas. But if the people that you flood with this cross
posting can't ask a few simple questions of you, you'd best get used to
people refusing to listen to you.
So if someone who has read much what you have posted on rec.models.rockets
gets snubbed for civilly asking a genuinely relevant question, then why
don't you quit your cross posting here and find a group of people who will
accept what you so liberally spoon feed them without ask why you are
qualified to position yourself as researcher and teacher.
Dave
Thomas Lee Elifritz
David Bacque wrote:
> > I've noticed how most folks like yourself (aka whomever David Bacque
> > really is)
>
> David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real job
> in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to
Thank you so much for contributing to our corrupt government,
and also thank you so much for contributing greenhouse gases.
The hot air feels good this time of year too.
> flying model rockets which has been hijacked as your personal publication
> system. I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people
> hearing your ideas. But if the people that you flood with this cross
> posting can't ask a few simple questions of you, you'd best get used to
> people refusing to listen to you.
Right, it's called a filter file.
Even an idiot like you can learn to use one.
> So if someone who has read much what you have posted on rec.models.rockets
> gets snubbed for civilly asking a genuinely relevant question, then why
> don't you quit your cross posting here and find a group of people who will
> accept what you so liberally spoon feed them without ask why you are
> qualified to position yourself as researcher and teacher.
Wow, solid rocket fuel in toy rockets.
That's so ... chinese.
W. E. Fred Wallace
Another moron has surfaced. However, your advise on using filter files
has merit.. "PLONK"
W. E. Fred Wallace
Another moron has surfaced. However, your advise on using filter files
has merit.. "PLONK"
David Bacque
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosm...@lifeformitis.org> wrote in message
news:43BFE46B...@lifeformitis.org...
>> David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real
>> job
>> in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to
>
> Thank you so much for contributing to our corrupt government,
> and also thank you so much for contributing greenhouse gases.
I build flight simulation trainers for the aerospace industry. So use of my
products for training pilots and astronauts has saved untold billions of
barrels of jet fuel and rocket fuel from being used unnecessarily in
addition to extending the useful life span of the world's fleet of aircraft
and spacecraft.
> Wow, solid rocket fuel in toy rockets.
>
> That's so ... chinese.
How about designing rockets that fly faster than mach and reach high G
numbers? How about doing structural analysis, drag calculations,
aerodynamic design and systems design for reaching a selected flight profile
goal? How about complex electronics for control of on board systems and
data gathering to be used for flight analysis? How about construction
techniques that include composite construction to withstand the forces of
Mach 2 flight? How about being involved in the beta testing of the first
commercially available hybrid motors with liquid oxidizers that made the
SpaceShipOne flight possible and show promise of being the future of civil
space flight? Model rocketry. It's real rocket science!
Dave
Me
>> flying model rockets which has been hijacked as your personal publication
>> system. I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people
>> hearing your ideas. But if the people that you flood with this cross
>> posting can't ask a few simple questions of you, you'd best get used to
>> people refusing to listen to you.
>
> Right, it's called a filter file.
> Even an idiot like you can learn to use one.
But it would be much easier if idiots like YOU would just go away.
But like the street bums who pester passers-by for spare change,
then when confronted on their behavior, merely state "if you don't
like it, just ignore me", I have a feeling you won't.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
David Bacque wrote:
> "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosm...@lifeformitis.org> wrote in message
> news:43BFE46B...@lifeformitis.org...
>
> >> David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real
> >> job
> >> in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to
> >
> > Thank you so much for contributing to our corrupt government,
> > and also thank you so much for contributing greenhouse gases.
>
> I build flight simulation trainers for the aerospace industry. So use of my
> products for training pilots and astronauts has saved untold billions of
> barrels of jet fuel and rocket fuel from being used unnecessarily in
> addition to extending the useful life span of the world's fleet of aircraft
> and spacecraft.
Which explains all those aircraft sitting in the desert.
Tell it to homeland security, I feel so safe this them burning all that
fuel tracking down all those tourists in the middle of the atlantic.
> > Wow, solid rocket fuel in toy rockets.
> >
> > That's so ... chinese.
>
> How about designing rockets that fly faster than mach and reach high G
> numbers?
No thanks, we need hydrogen rockets that reach LEO and GEO.
> How about doing structural analysis, drag calculations,
> aerodynamic design and systems design for reaching a selected flight profile
> goal? How about complex electronics for control of on board systems and
> data gathering to be used for flight analysis? How about construction
> techniques that include composite construction to withstand the forces of
> Mach 2 flight? How about being involved in the beta testing of the first
> commercially available hybrid motors with liquid oxidizers that made the
> SpaceShipOne flight possible and show promise of being the future of civil
> space flight? Model rocketry. It's real rocket science!
Until those rockets use liquid hydrogen and reach orbit,
it's just more primitive ape man shit from cretins.
Children, playing with fire.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Me wrote:
> "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosm...@lifeformitis.org> wrote in message news:43BFE46B...@lifeformitis.org...
>
> >> flying model rockets which has been hijacked as your personal publication
> >> system. I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people
> >> hearing your ideas. But if the people that you flood with this cross
> >> posting can't ask a few simple questions of you, you'd best get used to
> >> people refusing to listen to you.
> >
> > Right, it's called a filter file.
> > Even an idiot like you can learn to use one.
>
> But it would be much easier if idiots like YOU would just go away.
This is the usenet, we have fundamental freedoms here,
far more freedom than the fascist police state you
have created in the former great nation of yours.
> But like the street bums who pester passers-by for spare change,
> then when confronted on their behavior, merely state "if you don't
> like it, just ignore me", I have a feeling you won't.
Sure, I'll ignore you, once you start acknowledging freedom,
truth and scientific methods. It's the sifting and winnowing.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote:
> > Wow, solid rocket fuel in toy rockets.
> >
> > That's so ... chinese.
> >
>
> Another moron has surfaced. However, your advise on using filter files
> has merit.
Of course it does. You guys are unbelieveable. Not a single one of you has actually
*asked* to have your beloved newsgroups removed from the headers, nor have you even
bothered to manually remove them from the crosslist. It's very easy, just as easy
as a filter file. If you had even bothered to ask, you will most likely find that
even the trolls and kooks will do it for you.
> "PLONK"
That's the spirit. You may now return to your important business of building toy
SRBs, and burning your grandchildren's plastic insulation recklessly.
The rest of us will continue discussing real hydrogen rockets,
and the very difficult questions and problems of life in space.
Me
>> But it would be much easier if idiots like YOU would just go away.
>
> This is the usenet, we have fundamental freedoms here,
> far more freedom than the fascist police state you
> have created in the former great nation of yours.
Funny, that's almost EXACTLY what the street bums/kooks (see below) say!
>> But like the street bums who pester passers-by for spare change,
>> then when confronted on their behavior, merely state "if you don't
>> like it, just ignore me", I have a feeling you won't.
>
> Sure, I'll ignore you, once you start acknowledging freedom,
> truth and scientific methods. It's the sifting and winnowing.
LOL!
Mr. Thomas Lee Elifritz, meet my kook filter... kook filter, meet Mr. Thomas Lee Elifritz!!!
David Bacque
>
> Until those rockets use liquid hydrogen and reach orbit,
> it's just more primitive ape man shit from cretins.
>
> Children, playing with fire.
>
So is reaching orbit with liquid hydrogen the only useful goal for a rocket?
How about instilling a love of science and engineering in your son, having
him learn basic aerodynamics and the laws of motion by age 10, successfully
design, fly and recover a mach 1.7 rocket by age 15, making straight A's in
all math and science courses, graduating high school with honors and having
him studying computer science, math and physics on a full academic
scholarship? Would this be a worthwhile goal? Or wouldn't you want the
youth of the world gaining the background necessary to real science?
On top of all that, what's wrong with doing something that you enjoy?
Dave
W. E. Fred Wallace
Another moron has surfaced. However, your advise on using filter files
has merit.. "PLONK"
W. E. Fred Wallace
Steven P. McNicoll
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136581038.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nobody that understands the laws of physics disputes the moon landings.
David Bacque
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:60Wvf.628$Js7...@fe19.lga...
<snip>
Wow Thomas,
Only an idiot would find so much wrong with helping the youth learn math and
science.
I give up. You're right. The entire world IS out to get you.
Dave
Greg Heilers
Probably not the *entire* world...but he sure makes me want
to make it the *main* goal in *my* life.
:o)
--
Greg Heilers
Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1
.....
"The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had
something to do with it."
- Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked
where the fault lie for the Confederacy's
loss at Gettysburg
Pat Flannery
David Bacque wrote:
>
>
>How about instilling a love of science and engineering in your son, having
>him learn basic aerodynamics and the laws of motion by age 10, successfully
>design, fly and recover a mach 1.7 rocket by age 15, making straight A's in
>all math and science courses, graduating high school with honors and having
>him studying computer science, math and physics on a full academic
>scholarship? Would this be a worthwhile goal?
>
>
I don't know...what if he becomes bent on world conquest? We'll all have
you to thank as his nuclear powered cyber-rockets charged with atom
brains fill the darkening sky, and then the world, including all that we
have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age,
made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of
perverted science.
If Fu Manchu had never gotten that chemistry set for his sixth birthday
the world would have been a better place.
>On top of all that, what's wrong with doing something that you enjoy?
>
>
That's just what Fu Manchu said! Then he released the plague carrying
Zombie Bats..... ;-)
Pat
Tank Fixer
on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:32:01 GMT,
Paul Winalski pr...@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com attempted to say .....
> On 6 Jan 2006 02:19:36 -0800, "Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Brad Guth's Credentials
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/640a6a1c5c79ef5d/c460f1188fe72272#c460f1188fe72272
> >Good grief, David. Now I've got "Credentials"?
>
> No, apparently you don't.
>
> Instead you've resorted to "the establishment is persecuting me",
> which is the first refuge of the crackpot.
>
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.....
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
W. E. Fred Wallace
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>
> Greg Heilers wrote:
>
> >>I give up. You're right. The entire world IS out to get you.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Probably not the *entire* world...but he sure makes me want
> >to make it the *main* goal in *my* life.
> >
>
> Zieg Heil! Herr Heiler.
>
> Another America fascist. Who knew!
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
D&JWatkins
not produced such terrible weapons then all of Europe could be speaking
German. At least the ones not gassed in camps. Or even if they managed to
get past that then Russian for those who survived the gulags! As far as
pollution goes, any Volcanic eruption does more of that than all of
humanity.
Dennis
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:wwWvf.490$ve2...@fe23.lga...
> David Bacque wrote:
>
>>Wow Thomas,
>>
>>Only an idiot would find so much wrong with helping the youth learn math
>>and science.
>>
> I'm all for math and science education David, but not at the expense of
> the environment, using primitive explosives, creating mathematicians and
> scientists schooled in the development of weapons, which is exactly what a
> solid fueled toy rocket is.
>
>>I give up. You're right. The entire world IS out to get you.
>>
>
> No, that's Brad. I'm a physicist. It's the whole universe against me.
>
> My immediate problem is weapons and hydrocarbons.
>
> And people like you who promote them.
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
George
Oops. No offense.
George
Greg Heilers
> Greg Heilers wrote:
>
>>>I give up. You're right. The entire world IS out to get you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Probably not the *entire* world...but he sure makes me want
>>to make it the *main* goal in *my* life.
>>
>
> Zieg Heil! Herr Heiler.
>
> Another America fascist. Who knew!
>
Hardly. I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian,
the furthest thing from the Socialist that describes
most NAZI's. And I thought all good goose-stepping
Liberals, such as yourself...were supposed to embrace
diversity and all the world's different wonderful
belief systems...*including* Fascism.
I guess not...
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
(The above site is a finalist for the 2005
Absurdity in Cyberspace Awards.)
--
Greg Heilers
Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 9.1
Secr...@verizon.net
> It's quite obvious you guys aren't doing any acual science.<
True, us people, including Brad. That's one reason why the topic of
"Moon Hoax" is a waste of time.
This is also one reason we have repeatedly asked Brad not to post here,
it servers no good at all ... and he posts soo much of it.
We have tried to respond to his statements, but he does not answer them
one at a time, he goes off on some 1000 word essay that, frankly, I
have a hard time following, so I don't even read them much anymore.
I am now embarrassed to respond to Brad, so I will not. In fact I've
gotten in trouble with others here for breaking that promise so I will
try all that much harder not respond to him.
He is admittedly not well educated so obviously he should not be taken
very seriously.
We have responded to his evidence many times, only to be shown a
picture of Jupiter being occulted by our Moon ... we ask "What does
this prove??" and we get no answer.
How can anything be established in this manner ... obviously it cannot
and it's him failing to respond, not us.
Davids question is right on the mark, you should know who you are
dealing with and Brad has nothing.
There are countess pictures of humans on our Moon and he does not
believe it, so I say once again, the burden of proof is upon him to
prove that we did not go. Perhaps he could show us a person who was
involved in the Apollo missions, who claims it was faked, maybe Chris
Kraft, or perhaps he could show us a photo studio where the fake
pictures were taken, but he does not, all he does is exclaim wildly
"There are no stars in the photos".
The cameras and films the Apollo missions took with them were designed
to photograph activities on the moon's surface. They were not designed
to take photographs of the stars. It doesn't mean the stars weren't
there, just that the photographs did not capture them. The exposures
were set to work with the brightly light surface so the shutter times
were fast.
But he will not listen, all he can say is: "They SHOULD have been
able to take pictures of the stars" Sure they could have, but why ??
To prove to Brad they were actually there ?? I think they had better
things to do, like the real science Thomas Lee seems to be looking for.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Greg Heilers wrote:
> >>>I give up. You're right. The entire world IS out to get you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Probably not the *entire* world...but he sure makes me want
> >>to make it the *main* goal in *my* life.
> >>
> >
> > Zieg Heil! Herr Heiler.
> >
> > Another America fascist. Who knew!
> >
>
> Hardly. I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian,
Heil the feeble dollar!
> the furthest thing from the Socialist that describes
> most NAZI's. And I thought all good goose-stepping
> Liberals, such as yourself...were supposed to embrace
> diversity and all the world's different wonderful
> belief systems...*including* Fascism.
Including any old kook's right to post nonsense on the usenet.
To which you respond with threats of stalking.
That's so ... NAZI ... er ... American!
Pat Flannery
D&JWatkins wrote:
> As far as
>pollution goes, any Volcanic eruption does more of that than all of
>humanity.
>
>
>
That's what Ronald Reagan said about Mount St. Helens...but he was way
wrong:.
His statement was: "I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our
west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have
a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more
sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released
in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that
people are so concerned about."
Actually, at the peak of its eruption Mount St. Helens was turning out
around 1/40th as much sulfur dioxide per day as automobiles do each day.
Here's another way of looking at it; the total world population is
around 6,490,115,551 as of this morning:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
The total surface area of the earth is 196,940,400 square miles:
http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qland2.html
So if we take divide that population by that surface area we end up with
an average of around 33 people per square mile of the Earth's surface.
Now there are a total of 27,878,400 square feet in a mile, so we end up
with one person for around every 844,800 square feet of the Earth's
surface, or to put it another way, around one person for every 8.5 city
blocks, which although they vary wildly in size tend to cover around
100,000 square feet total on average (assuming they are a tad over 300
feet on a side)
Now ask yourself...if you put your mind to it, could you personally
change the environment some in an area around three blocks on a side,
with you in the center? Say by storing up a year's worth of trash and
burning it all at once? Or setting out with a chain saw and lawn mower
to cut all the vegetation in that area down? Yes you could.
And humans can indeed affect the environment of the Earth, despite its size.
Pat
D&JWatkins
Dennis
AlMax
> Do you always talk out your ass? Or do you have a defect?
>
> http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
>>Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine
volcanoes are uncertain at the present time
That paper does not have any proof, only someones self declared guess.
The volume of CO2 from volcanoes is unknown at the present time. that
says it all.
Someone else, with some credential can not just guess and it be declared
correct, as it is not known.
MikeA
"David Bacque" <XXdba...@XXswbell.netREMOVEALLUPPERCASE> wrote in message
news:HBkvf.1174$fb4...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Hi Brad,
unbelievable you losers have nothing better to do here
than create a thread about an even bigger loser!
Brad Guth
I'll try posting this again.
>David Bacque is a real name of a real person in a real city with a real job
>in the real aerospace industry who reads a real usenet group dedicated to
>system.
exist. However, all I did was respond to YOUR topic. So, do tell what's
your actual agenda or plan of action?
I've noticed how you've attracted a bit more than your fair share of
the mainstream status quo flak. Damn nasty stuff, isn't it?
>I assumed the point of your cross posting was to have more people
>hearing your ideas.
Of this topic, I never cross posted to one other group (unless
provoked, I don't do those sorts of things, and you haven't exactly
provoked me). Of my very own topics, I usually have cross posted to the
maximum of five in order to obtain the widest or perhaps weirdest
audience, but not always. Often I'm having to respond to others that
take to topic hijacking by way of their taking over the cross posting
and even having renamed the original topic in order to suit their
ulterior motives, such as taking my topics on another joy-ride as one
of their normal methods of hopefully skewing the author and of his/her
topic to death. Seldom if ever have these folks cross posted for valid
reasons of benefiting the original or even of some related sub-topic.
Why is that?
>if the people that you flood with this cross posting can't ask
>a few simple questions of you, you'd best get used to people
>refusing to listen to you.
Good grief, David; What's your silly point? Obviously you're the one
that's starting to have ulterior motives and hidden agendas. First of
all, I don't exactly want your kind listening to me. What I want is the
honest contributions of those with whatever supposed talent(s) plus
whatever actual expertise goes along for the ride. Unlike yourself, I'm
not nearly as all-knowing, especially about rocket-science. Therefore,
I'd appreciate whatever truly smart folks have to contribute. Thus far
your topic contributions to even this discussion are getting a bit
derailed if not pathetic, plus absolutely chuck full of primary as well
as secondary flak that's entirely your own damn fault. Via email or
simply by telephone we could bypass this sort of Usenet cloak and
dagger (aka spookology) fiasco.
>So if someone who has read much what you have posted on rec.models.rockets
>gets snubbed for civilly asking a genuinely relevant question, then why
>don't you quit your cross posting here and find a group of people who will
>accept what you so liberally spoon feed them without ask why you are
>qualified to position yourself as researcher and teacher.
I certainly didn't snub, though it's seemingly getting around to being
worth giving it a shot.
How about this placebo snub; Now you're the one that's talking Klingon
gibberish. What side of the fence are you on? (or doesn't it matter?)
BTW; Other than sharing public information, I've never once created a
topic that I'd cross posted into your precious 'rec.models.rockets'.
What exactly does that say to us village idiots about your
intelligence, or perhaps lack thereof?
If folks are so mainstream status quo mindset (much like yourself), no
matter how much I feed them to the best of my capabilities in order to
share the truth and nothing but the truth, it simply isn't going to
change their position, and that's even if it's to advise them of an
impending bullet that's headed directly for their sorry butt if they
don't stand aside, or at least duck. They'd obviously much rather die
as is where is, and every bit as dumbfounded to boot is apparently just
perfectly fine and dandy by their high standards and accountability.
BTW No.2; Unlike all the naysayers and of whatever their nearly
continual flak has to say. I'm extremely interested in whatever a
small/compact two-stage rocket (3 stage if that's the one and only
viable alternative) can mange to get into lunar orbit. The smaller the
better.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>IS out to get you.
>Thomas Lee Elifritz; No, that's Brad. I'm a physicist.
>It's the whole universe against me.
>My immediate problem is weapons and hydrocarbons.
>And people like you who promote them.
My dear Thomas Lee Elifritz,
Perhaps the very last thing you'll want to hear is that I'm on your
side. However, our much nicer than average topic originator (aka David
Bacque) isn't exactly pulling off crimes against humanity, or having
created more than his fair share of global warming, at least not by
what I've heard thus far. Do you know of something about our David that
I should realize?
Your being one of those all-knowing physicist and all, I don't suppose
that you could offer us village idiots some taboo/nondisclosure info as
to raw ice coexisting in nearby space?
Let us say a fairly clean cubic meter worth of sub-frozen freshwater or
perhaps another frozen block of saltwater for starters. How long would
it last in the sun at 1-AU?
-
Brad Guth
Secr...@verizon.net
Secr...@verizon.net
Secr...@verizon.net
Secr...@verizon.net
Secr...@verizon.net
lensman1955
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <fXkvf.415$hf2...@newsfe20.lga>,
> Thomas Lee Elifritz <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > David Bacque wrote:
> >
> >> If we are expected to take your position seriously, could you tell us a
> >> little about your credentials. What type of education do you have, what
> >> degrees do you hold, where have you worked, what peer reviewed papers have
> >> you written, where has your research been conducted, where have your
> >> articles been published, what organizations recognize your work and your
> >> theories.
> >
> > Science is about reproducibility of evidence you fucking freak. It has
> > nothing to do with credentials.
>
> FYI: using foul language really destroys your creditbility. Foul
> language strongly indicates that you have nothing real to say, and
> that you wish to hide that fact. And if you respond to this with more
> foul language, you merely comfirm that I'm right.
"Profanity is the attempt of a weak and feeble mind to express itself
forcefully."
> > That is just about the dumbest thing you can ask on the usenet. If you
> > have a problem with someones evidence, let's see your evidence.
>
> There's really no better credentials than having been the first to
> publish reproducible evidence in peer reviewed journals of some new
> phenomenon. Some of our greatest scientists started out by publishing
> reproducible evidence (or testable predictions which later succeeded
> when being tested) and only afterwards they got their formal degrees.
> Albert Einstein was one of them.
>
> Therefore it makes a lot of sense to ask for someone's publications
> in peer-reviewed journals when judging how credible some new theory
> from that person is.
>
> > Congratulations, you just destroyed your credibility.
> >
> > But then again, who needs credibility here?
> >
> > http://cosmic.lifeform.org.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
lensman1955
Secr...@verizon.net
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG
What exactly are you saying this picture proves ??
Pictures are doctored up all the time.
Whose signature is that ??
ttyl
-
Brads reply:
Dear snookered and dumbfounded to death Bob (aka ttyl),
As per usual, you're sucking again. Get a new grip. Get a life. Get the
freaking hell out of my email. At least go far away until you've
discovered a way out of that mainstream status quo and otherwise
extremely brown-nosed box that you're continually stuck within.
I'm not going to answer to such totally dumbfounded questions. Would
you?
-
Brad Guth
Just like I said, he will not answer my questions.
Secr...@verizon.net
Secret237 wrote:
<< http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG
What exactly are you saying this picture proves ??
Pictures are doctored up all the time.
Whose signature is that ??
ttyl>>
-
Dear snookered and dumbfounded to death Bob (aka ttyl),
As per usual, you're sucking again. Get a new grip. Get a life. Get the
freaking hell out of my email. At least go far away until you've
discovered a way out of that mainstream status quo and otherwise
extremely brown-nosed box that you're continually stuck within.
I'm not going to answer to such totally dumbfounded questions. Would
you?
-
Brad Guth
As I said, he does not answer my questions.
I think I'm starting to annoy him.
Grin
Eric Chomko
: In article <dpmijo$2u6p$1...@news.ums.edu>,
: Eric Chomko <echom...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote:
: > Paul Schlyter (pau...@saaf.se) wrote:
: ...................
: >> Therefore it makes a lot of sense to ask for someone's publications
: >> in peer-reviewed journals when judging how credible some new theory
: >> from that person is.
: > Agreed, but it doesn't mean if one is unpublished that they are wrong.
: True fo course -- however for every genuine unpublished misunderstood
: "Copernicus" or "Galileo" out there, there are thousands and
: thousands of others who believe they also are suppressed "Galileos"
: or "Copernicuses" but who actually aren't. They consider themselves
: "suppressed by the establishment" (i.e. in the peer-reviewed
: journals) but fail to realize that they are suppressed for a very
: good reason: for being wrong.
I believe you have summed up Guth well.
: > Guth has passion for his beliefs and a fairly decent vocabulary for
: > one with a vocational background. But he is more a dreamer than
: > scientist and his writing is really more poetic (if you can call it
: > that?!) than it is factual.
: Which means that what Guth writes isn't science, it's something else.
: Perhaps some variety of science fiction?
With the emphasis on "fiction", as I have stated previously.
: Of course poetic visions can serve as inspiration to what to
: investigate scientifically. But to get from the visionary phase to
: being real science, somebody must do the hard core work of actually
: performing the observations or experiments and analysing the
: measurements, or of actually developing the theory and issuing
: testable predictions. And if the visionary idea doen't hold the
: scrutinuity, it should be discarded. There's no shortcut past that.
: Unfortunately, a lot of formerly discarded scientific ideas are later
: revived by crackpots and then enter the realm of pseudo-science....
Agreed.
Eric
: --