Venus/Moon - to Terraform, DNA seed or Not - in spite of whatever you've been told, there's other intelligent life on Venus. Venus simply is NOT insurmountably too hot and nasty.
Brad Guth
you've been told, there's other intelligent life on Venus. Venus
simply is NOT insurmountably too hot and nasty.
The notions of terraforming doesn't have to represent running yourself
butt naked across the surface of our moon, or especially that of a
geothermally toasty surface of Venus.
Surface and underground habitats are just fine and dandy, and every bit
as good as it needs to get. Going by way of rigid-airship is yet
another win-win, accomplishing whatever's your business of cruising
through the crystal clear and relatively calm soup of the Venus
atmosphere that affords 65 kg/m3 seems rather obvious of what can be
managed. However, it seems the taboo/nondisclosure worth of the
LSE-CM/ISS isn't exactly such a bad place to start off from.
Fortunately, there's already intelligent life on Venus, or at the very
least it had once upon a time been there in a very big way. The last
time I'd checked, mother nature doesn't construct massive tarmacs that
have sub-service bays, along with having created a rational complex of
a large and sophisticated community of nifty structures as situated
right next door, nor has mother nature produced the likes of such a
nifty bridge plus just about every imaginable attribute that's every
bit as artificial(aka man/et made) as it gets.
Good Christ almighty on another stick, there has been other significant
intelligent life identified as existing/coexisting upon Venus. It's
that freaking simple, and I as well as the regular laws of physics can
prove it, not to mention the observationology of my having interpreted
as to what the Magellan mission affords as a perfectly honest look-see,
as to further supporting and sharing in what I've been talking about
for the past 6 years and counting.
Venus is only perceptively too hot and nasty for those too dumbfounded
to realize that for the past 4+ decades they've been summarily
snookered by those folks claiming as having "the right stuff".
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
donsto...@hotmail.com
donsto...@hotmail.com
Art Deco
Have you seen any of those alien Venusian dirigibles lately, Brad?
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald KarczewskiŠ, usenet "christ"
"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming from
someone who obviously has no understanding of what a signature is. Tell me,
Haslam, do you sign your checks as 'Can't you show a little restraint?'"
-- David Tholen, Clueless Newbie of the Month, February 2003
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
"Art Deco" <art_...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:290120062024505745%art_...@127.0.0.1...
You must like to read this screed over and over without a new trick to put
him to astop?
Brad Guth
and his wet and sticky bed partner "Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Ranger") doing their usual Third Reich duties of topic/author stalking
and bashing (that which any good incest cloned brown-nosed borg worth
his/her salt would have to do, or else), whereas such I'll have to
update and repost this entire topic with some of my usual additions and
improvements that'll return the warm and fuzzy favor of what these sick
puppies flatulate out of instinct because they haven't been house
broken.
BTW; any one out there got a copy of the since retracted words that
"donstockba" contributed?
-
Brad Guth
Ian Stirling
> Nude.
>
That's impossible unaided - molten lead is too heavy.
I volunteer to assist him, with a long pole.
Art Deco
>Due to the usual Usenet fuckology of MI6/NSA~CIA spooks (aka "Art Deco"
>and his wet and sticky bed partner "Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>Ranger") doing their usual Third Reich duties of topic/author stalking
>and bashing (that which any good incest cloned brown-nosed borg worth
>his/her salt would have to do, or else), whereas such I'll have to
>update and repost this entire topic with some of my usual additions and
>improvements that'll return the warm and fuzzy favor of what these sick
>puppies flatulate out of instinct because they haven't been house
>broken.
Hi, Brad! Still spewing your bigoted bile, I see.
>
>BTW; any one out there got a copy of the since retracted words that
>"donstockba" contributed?
Yer an idiot, Brad.
Brad Guth
alt.fan.art-bell, alt.usenet.kooks spook) is hard at his usual
anti-truth, anti-ET, anti-God and otherwise pro Christ upon a stick
usual self, of staying the course of whatever his brown-nosed status
quo collaboration with his Jewish Third Reich has need of his sorry
soul.
Too bad that the majority of good Jews don't bother to police their own
kind, as it makes them all look every bit as bigoted and as arrogant as
their incest cloned "Art Deco" represents on their behalf.
As I said before; I'll be reposting this topic a good number of times,
so get used to seeing the mutated/defective likes of Art and his incest
cloned friends, doing their usual brown-nose blowing and mainstream
butt sucking until long after those NASA/Apollo cows come home.
-
Brad Guth
donsto...@hotmail.com
7. Brad Guth
Jan 31, 4:35 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.space.history, sci.astro,
uk.sci.astronomy, uk.philosophy.humanism
From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradg...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: 31 Jan 2006 02:35:18 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 31 2006 4:35 am
Subject: Re: Venus/Moon - to Terraform, DNA seed or Not - in spite of
whatever you've been told, there's other intelligent life on Venus.
Venus simply is NOT insurmountably too hot and nasty.
original | Report Abuse
*******************
Such hostility is bad for the heart.
Are ewe any relation to Alan???????
Art Deco
*ding* <tips sombrero>
Your obsession with me grows, Brad, and I see your bigoted racist spew
hasn't lost any content yet.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"
NoTroll
> Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I see that our topic/author stalking friend Art Fucko (aka
>>alt.fan.art-bell, alt.usenet.kooks spook) is hard at his usual
>>anti-truth, anti-ET, anti-God and otherwise pro Christ upon a stick
>>usual self, of staying the course of whatever his brown-nosed status
>>quo collaboration with his Jewish Third Reich has need of his sorry
>>soul.
>>
>>Too bad that the majority of good Jews don't bother to police their own
>>kind, as it makes them all look every bit as bigoted and as arrogant as
>>their incest cloned "Art Deco" represents on their behalf.
>>
>>As I said before; I'll be reposting this topic a good number of times,
>>so get used to seeing the mutated/defective likes of Art and his incest
>>cloned friends, doing their usual brown-nose blowing and mainstream
>>butt sucking until long after those NASA/Apollo cows come home.
>
> *ding* <tips sombrero>
>
> Your obsession with me grows, Brad, and I see your bigoted racist spew
> hasn't lost any content yet.
>
> --
He's just one more Bush loving red necked trailer cracker.
Brad Guth
Wow! how absolutely impressive of this usenet brown-nosed spook
"NoTroll", for having suggested that in spite of all the proof-positive
that I'm NOT another GW Bush butt-sucker like Art Deco, is absolutely
proof positive that the real incest buttology and fuckology expertise
that's here to stay is "NoTroll", along with all the other incest
cloned disinformation fuckologest that are now trying like hell to get
as much distance as possible between themselves and our Muslim
exterminating resident warlord(GW Bush) that's pushing for nukes in
space plus another 500+ nuclear power plants that'll subsequently
create another 5 fold as much weapons grade materials for those nukes
in space. Thus it's another mainstream status quo win-win for screwing
humanity as well as the environment.
Perhaps their personal cesspools of "alt.fan.art-bell" and
"alt.usenet.kooks" need another one of "alt.usenet.fuckologest", and/or
"alt.jewish.thirdreich", whereas at least then we'd know what's what.
Can't you just feel the love?
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
Assuming that Brad will get steamrolled by Goofy for the Busted Urinal
Award in January (as the early exit polls are now indicating is
likely), I renominate Brad Guth for the BUA for February on the basis
of his continued vile, racist, delusional spews such as this one.
Any seconds?
[uk.* groups snecked]
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald KarczewskiŠ, usenet "christ"
Bookman
wrote:
>Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>NoTroll; He's just one more Bush loving red necked trailer cracker.
>>Wow! how absolutely impressive of this usenet brown-nosed spook
>>"NoTroll", for having suggested that in spite of all the proof-positive
>>that I'm NOT another GW Bush butt-sucker like Art Deco, is absolutely
>>proof positive that the real incest buttology and fuckology expertise
>>that's here to stay is "NoTroll", along with all the other incest
>>cloned disinformation fuckologest that are now trying like hell to get
>>as much distance as possible between themselves and our Muslim
>>exterminating resident warlord(GW Bush) that's pushing for nukes in
>>space plus another 500+ nuclear power plants that'll subsequently
>>create another 5 fold as much weapons grade materials for those nukes
>>in space. Thus it's another mainstream status quo win-win for screwing
>>humanity as well as the environment.
>>
>>Perhaps their personal cesspools of "alt.fan.art-bell" and
>>"alt.usenet.kooks" need another one of "alt.usenet.fuckologest", and/or
>>"alt.jewish.thirdreich", whereas at least then we'd know what's what.
>>Can't you just feel the love?
>
>Assuming that Brad will get steamrolled by Goofy for the Busted Urinal
>Award in January (as the early exit polls are now indicating is
>likely), I renominate Brad Guth for the BUA for February on the basis
>of his continued vile, racist, delusional spews such as this one.
>
>Any seconds?
Seconded. Teh Guthball's seething hatred is getting uglier by the
day.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Monthly Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html
Brad Guth
Why are these brown-nosed spooks, moles and otherwise incest cloned
bigots of this Usenet from hell having such a bother with the likes of
myself?
Apparently, if you're the least bit anti-warmonger, anti perpetrated
cold-war and thus anti upon crimes against humanity, much less
anti-collaboration via their Third Reich partnerships as having taken
profits at the demise of their own kind, whereas such that's apparently
a very bad sort of thing for myself to be doing, especially by way of
the anti-Christian and thus anti-humanity high standards and
accountability of Art Deco that knows all about "continued vile,
racist, delusional spews", whereas his avoidance upon sharing
information that shouldn't be all that taboo/nondisclosure is the sort
of evidence that I'm right, far more often than not.
Meanwhile, the likes of Lawrence ben' Franklin seems to have provided
some further insight into the ongoing fiasco of our relations with
Israel and of their obviously Jewish owned and operated infrastructure
that's American invested and thereby protected. Their being Skull and
Bones certified and as close to being Third Reich as it gets without
their being blue-eyed and blonde (aka Aryan) like the Jesus Christ
they'd placed on a stick via their Roman partners in crimes against
humanity (is there any question, or better yet is to ask why should
anyone have to make up or otherwise skew the actual eye and hair color
of such a trouble maker that most certainly wasn't all that Jewish).
Perhaps those most upset are merely the folks having emerged as
sprouting from a defective evolutionary branch, of an incest mutated
DNA code that's a bit off from their otherwise being blue-eyed and
blonde Aryans?
As of lately, in my having further taken consideration as to the rather
substantial LRB(liquid rocket booster) potential via h2o2/c3h4o. I was
wondering about the petrochemical and other industrial class of
suppliers for such specific items as h2o2 and c3h4o, as to why all the
Usenet topic banishment as well as other internet taboo/need-to-know
with regard to the bulk availability and of course the end-user cost
per tonne is an even bigger secret.
For good measure, I'd also like to know about the required energy that
it takes in order to produce the likes of h2o2 and c3h4o by the tonnage
or per kg. By way of realizing the amount of auxiliary energy, one can
estimate what potential the 25 kw/m2 of green/renewable energy can
manage to produce. It seems if taking 50% of this 2.5 TW capability is
1.25 TW of absolutely clean energy that could be wisely diverted into
the continuous productions of h2o2/c3h4o.
I guess that I hadn't realized exactly how Jewish owned and operated
these petrochemical and biochemical establishments were, as for their
having dated all the way back as prior to their collaboration with the
Third Reich, and as of today being every bit as Skull and Bones
entitled as they can get. Perhaps this is why it depends entirely upon
whom you are and/or of what your social/political/religious mindset
supports, as being the criteria as to how much you'll get to pay, or
even if you can obtain a drop.
Perhaps the likes of the all-knowing Art Deco or even rocket-wizard
William Mook can manage to explain all of this hocus pocus, as to the
need-to-know about the bulk price/cost of h2o2 and c3h4o?
Possibly Howard Stern or even a pro-Jewish Rush Limbaugh can be a whole
lot more informative then the usual collective of Usenet individuals
that continually claim to know all there is to know, but otherwise
having no intensions of their ever sharing squat, especially off-limits
if that'll help others than their own kind. Of course, other than the
cult followings of such individuuals, I'm not exactly certain of what
"their own kind" represents, whereas it usualy means that even if you
agree with these folks, no matters what you're dead wrong by default,
anf that's simply because it wasn't their topic or focus of interest to
start off with (I actually know of lots of folks that are that way, so
much so that it must be the norm).
-
Brad Guth
William Mook
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/ph121/l13.html
The surface temperature of Venus is high enough to melt aluminum. So,
the idea that there are cities on Venus is a load of horseshit.
We don't need to rely on NASA or spacecraft or the Russiand and US
governments for this information. We can take a small telescope with a
spectrophotometer properly equipped, and figure out a range of surface
temperatures for Venus for ourselves.
In fact, graduate courses in astronomy train students with just such an
experiment. So, you can go out and convince yourself that the surface
temperature of Venus is so high that it precludes any possibility of
life right now if you wish.
Don't trust the governments of Russia or the US. Trust your own
observations of Venus. Let Venus tell you herself what her surface
temperature is - and put to rest finally - the insane notions of Mr.
Guth.
The way people came to this conclusion about surface temperature of
Venus is given in summary at the URL noted above. Please note that it
has nothing to do with any of the things Brad talks about in his post.
About the changes Brad cites in design for proposed rockets - assuming
he's correct about those changes please note that rocket design is a
complicated issue, and the reasons people build rockets of different
design have far less (nothing!) to do with the politics Brad cites, and
far more to do with the complex technical issues involved.
As far as the idea that we burn enough rocket fuel to make an iota of
difference to the greenhouse gas 'problem' is ludicrous. This is
easily proven.
Consider, that humanity burns around 30 billion barrels of oil per
year. Each barrel contains 42 gallons of crude oil, weighing a total
of 310 pounds per barrel. This is 9.3 trillion pounds of oil per year.
That's 4.27 billion metric tons of crude oil burnt per year. Add to
that another 2 billion metric tons of coal burnt each year - and you
get an idea of the size of humanity's appetite for carbon. Each ton of
carbon burnt produces 3 and 2/3 tons of carbon dioxide - so humanity
generates about 23 billion tons of carbon dioxide to feed its appetite
for low-cost energy.
Now there are about 23 launches per year of spacecraft into space.
These launchers range in size from 100 tons to 710 tons of propellant.
So, let's say each launch consumes 1,000 tons equivalent of oil. So,
this totals 23,000 tons of crude oil equivalent per year - or less.
Compared to the 4,270,000,000 tons of crude oil consumed by humanity
each year, this is as nothing. less than 6 parts per million of our
total energy consumption! It amounts at most to the output of 10,000
cars.
Now, the POWER RATING of a rocket is HUGE but it only lasts minutes,
while the average power consumption on Earth lasts for over half a
million minutes per year.
Someone looked at a variety of options for a space launcher design -
hydrogen peroxide was considered if we're to believe Brad - and another
oxidizer was chosen instead. SO WHAT?
Hydrogen peroxide is not used as an oxygen source in rockets for one
very good reason - low performance. Cost has little to nothing to do
with it.
You get far higher performance out of LOX and similar oxidizers. Why?
well, H2O2 has that extra oxygen - but it carries around that water
molecule - reducing the performance of the oxidizer accordingly.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/conghand/propelnt.htm
Note that hydrogen peroxide - hydrocarbon bipropellant combo is listed
as a LOW ENERGY combination. Clearly, if a high energy combination is
called for - you don't use a low energy one! DUH!
What am I to say about Guth's virulent anti-semitic remarks?
<sigh>
This is saddest of all...
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm
http://www.hec.ohio-state.edu/fambus/natlstudy.htm
Three quarters of all business owners in the US profess a strong
religious affiliation. One quarter of all business owners do not. Of
those who profess a strong religious affiliation, fewer than 1 in 12
(8%) are Jewish. The vast majority of business owners who profess a
strong religious affiliation are Christian.
And yes, there are Jewish organizations that operate to fight the very
real threat to the Jewish community of anti-semitic feelings. But the
idea that these organizations somehow control the largely Christian
dominated business structure in the US is again ludicrous.
In Brad's demented view of things, anyone who says an American has a
right to worship God in any manner he desires, is pro-Jewish. What a
loon! lol
William Mook
either. You can go out with a telescope and prove to yourself that the
Apollo missions took place yourself. How? Ping the laser
retroreflectors left by the Apollo astronauts when they last visited
the moon.
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/readings/apollo_laser_ranging.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/399468.stm
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/99/lunarlaser.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features-print.cfm?feature=605
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Check this out;
>
> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/ph121/l13.html
>
> The surface temperature of Venus is high enough to melt aluminum. So,
>
Claudio Grondi
the American and British English diverging into two separate languages.
Claudio
Brad Guth
>melt aluminum. So, the idea that there are cities on Venus is a
>load of horseshit.
Fine and dandy, as I'll have that as a quotation engraved on your
tombstone.
>William Mook; Oh yeah, you don't have to take anyone's word about the
>Apollo missions either. You can go out with a telescope and prove to
>yourself that the Apollo missions took place yourself. How? Ping the
>laser retroreflectors left by the Apollo astronauts when they last visited
>the moon.
Christ almighty on another stick, if you believe any of that crapolla
you'll need to get yourself into yet another pagan religion, plus a new
World Fact Book that wasn't published by other pagan bigots. Sorry
folks, but the laser cannon numbers simply are not there to behold.
Any geophysics of laser-ranging is simply getting the surface reflected
IR and even green photons to count, and there's certainly no accuracy
difference with or w/o retroreflector(s). They'd have to cut that 1.5
km diameter down to 150 meters, although the atmosphere distortions of
Earth makes the illuminated spot extremely fuzzy for nearly 10 fold
greater than the reported 1.5 km, therefore we're actually illuminating
upon 15 km worth of a highly(25~33%) IR albedo reflective and otherwise
12% green lunar surface. Their focus would become so much better off
at 400~450 nm, and actually from the elevated KECK or similar elevated
site is where a 375~425 nm beam would be best.
In other words, you don't need any stinking retroreflectors in order to
get an accurate range. There's at least one worthy spot or small zone
that's going to offer a 25+% worth of green albedo.
Of course, if you were any more anti-physics (aka pro conditional
physics) and otherwise anti-ET and just good old evidence excluding, in
which case you'd implode to such an extent that there'd be a new black
hole or at least nothing left of your intellectual flatulence spewing
butt to identify as Mook DNA.
If the likes of GW Bush claimed to being the next born-again son of
God, you'd buy it hook line and sinker that's attached to your
extremely long and brown nose.
>As far as the idea that we burn enough rocket fuel to make an iota of
>difference to the greenhouse gas 'problem' is ludicrous. This is
>easily proven.
Sorry, I obviously forgot to mention that you're also a intellectual
LLPOF bigot as to pollution and global warming that apparently doesn't
exist any more so than all of the WMD that you and your good Third
Reich (aka Jewish and pro-Jewish) Skull and Bones friends decided to
invent. Once again you're into using Arthur Andersen accounting and
ENRON screw-thy-humanity and as always to hell with the environment.
I'll be sure to fork over your good name and address to the ELF and
Osama bin Laden while I'm at it.
Apparently your pagan God that has absolutely no associations with the
likes of Jesus Christ or Cathars isn't at all pleased with the matter
of facts, as to how horrifically bad your "1 in 12 (8%)" has trashed
mother Earth and most anyone that wasn't sufficiently Jewish, although
most of the WW-II Jews had been exterminated by their own kind. Hitler
wasn't exactly a dummy, fore knowing how greedy and arrogant the
powerful German Jews already were, as such they needed little if any
reason to follow Hitler's lead, as it was clearly a win-win situation
that's now Skull and Bones established as the mainstream status quo of
America and American/Jewish composite interest.
>In Brad's demented view of things, anyone who says an American has a
>right to worship God in any manner he desires, is pro-Jewish. What a
>loon! lol
Did you get that silly robo-script out of your CIA World Fact Book?
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
Nice snip-n-run of his links that demonstrate your abject folly, Brad:
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/readings/apollo_laser_ranging.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/399468.stm
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/99/lunarlaser.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features-print.cfm?feature=605
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
[restored]
Brad Guth
A UV laser of 337 nm might become rather interesting, especially at
good wattage and 300 microradians (0.3 mr). Actually, up to the UV-b
spectrum where the atmospheric absorbson starts getting the best of
such things, making the likes of UV-c somewhat laser useless, whereas
otherwise the higher the frequency and/or the lower the nm number the
better off for getting through our atmosphere and for getting the most
photons delivered on target with the least amount of added divergence
is what it's going to take.
ABLs being mostly deep IR tend to suffer from atmospheric induced
divergence, thus would also be the case with the initial lunar IR
ranging, and still remains as a factor with their subsequent
visible/green (532 nm) lunar ranging efforts.
SMART-1 has the IR Laser Link (aka laser-radar) capability, designed
primarily for testing a terrestrial to satellite data link, however
having being as close as it's been to the moon and having flown
directly over those supposed Apollo landing sites hasn't materialized
one extra photon that's identified as having been derived from any of
the multiple Apollo retroreflectors.
Even the Clementine spacecraft was 3-axis stabilized in lunar orbit via
reaction wheels, having a 4 mr 532 nm laser beam/radar (LIDAR system)
that accomplished not one Apollo reflector result. Having a 171 mJ
IR(1064 nm) and 9 mJ Green(532 nm)pulse with a 4 millirad divergence is
sufficiently impressive, and for as close as it got it should have
worked like a dream, but it didn't.
For the task of getting the laser beam away from Earth represents an
optical absorbson factor as well as a focus distortion that's somewhat
of a divergence gauntlet that's anything but stable, whereas refractive
atmospheric turbulence will randomly deflect and thus diverge that
beam. An extremely small added amount of divergence will cause a great
deal of increased spot size as illuminating upon the moon, thus
contributing fewer photons per retroreflector.
The Basics of Lunar Ranging
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
"the turbulent atmosphere distorts the beam, imparting a divergence"
"Atmosphere causes beam to diverge by one arcsecond or more"
"at the moon, 1 arcsecond is 1.8 km, so the beam is about 2 km across"
Since a 2 km illumination zone is about as good as it gets, and perhaps
a 20 km illuminated zone is about as bad off as it gets, and there's
certainly no difference in the range accuracy as taken off moon-rock
and/or moon-dust reflected photons as opposed to the supposed
retroreflector contributed photons, therefore there's no possible way
of telling which of the few returning photons is which. In other
words, there's been no published science recordings of such photons to
share that any independent researcher could possibly identify a given
photon or any batch of photons as being specifically retroreflector
contributed or not, especially since m2 by m2 the lunar surface is
hardly offering anything but a constant as far as the albedo is
considered. A somewhat recent crater might just as easily exceed 30%,
whereas a darkish carbon/soot plus having titanium and iron dust
covered zone of basalt might get down to reflecting as little as 2~3%,
thus we have greater than a 10:1 ratio right off the bat to contend
with.
The Aristarchus crater is nearly the brightest spot on the Moon, having
by way of some observations a maximum floor brightness of 50% and
otherwise 20~25+% for the bulk of the associated area, thereby
indicating this as a fairly recent crater that hasn't become covered in
any composite layers of carbon/soot blended with basalt, iron and
titanium dust.
Even if the given retroreflector amounted to a full m2, the minimal 2
km illuminated zone makes the ratio of 3.142e6:1 look downright
pathetic. Actually, the original combined 100X retroreflecting
apertures amounted to 0.1134 m2, thus the photon look-see ratio is more
like a minimum of 28e6:1 of whatever deflects exactly as though off the
raw surface, with the largest of such retroreflectors at 300 apertures
giving 0.34 m2 is still at best 9.25e6:1 if there's no excessive
atmospheric distortion factors nor jitter involved. In fact,
considering that a good many of those supposed Kodak moments upon the
surface as having depicted as a somewhat natural surface
retroreflective glass like nature, that which oddly reflected at nearly
75% (almost as intense as having reflected off their 80+% white
moonsuits), with the background for as far as the unfiltered Kodak eye
could see as having a reflectance of 55+% (that's along with their
having the polarised optical benefit which if anything should have
reduced that surface reflectance). Would you like a few official image
links?
BTW; if the moon only offers but a thin layer of nearly colorless
(portland cement and cornmeal like) substance that so nicely clumps
with such terrific surface tension, yet isn't the least bit
electrostatic or otherwise dark and nasty, therefore either the moon
simply hasn't been around for all that long, or else, perhaps some of
that 2400 km/s solar wind is what kept blowing it all away. Would you
care to review a few of those official image links?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/22dec_lunartaurid.htm
December 23, 2005: NASA scientists have observed an explosion on the
moon. The blast, equal in energy to about 70 kg of TNT, occurred near
the edge of Mare Imbrium (the Sea of Rains) on Nov. 7, 2005, when a
12-centimeter-wide (900 cm3) meteoroid slammed into the ground
traveling 27 km/s.
"ground-shaking impacts could kick up moondust, possibly over a wide
area. Moondust is electrostatically charged and notoriously clingy."
BTW No.2; the vast majority of such impacts have gone unrecorded, and
of those being caused by modus items of less than 128 cm3 are seldom if
ever noticed unless via earthshine and/or having been exceeding 72
km/s. However, a 100+km/s impactor from a nice little palm/finger
sized rock of 96 cm3 might become sufficiently recorded upon impacting
a fully solar illuminated surface.
The entire topic of moon-dust and of it's depth or lack thereof is
rather odd, especially since the moon represents more than enough
gravity that would have collected pretty much upon anything that's
within 2r (1738 km off the deck) that should have sooner or later
arrived, and otherwise of just whatever's running into or being run
over by the moon has got to have amounted to a minimum of a micron per
year, whereas a billion years is worth a full 1000 m that's not going
to hardly compact upon itself within that sort of a bone dry vacuum, of
alternating freeze-dry and/or scorching hotter than hell environment.
I'd say a surface tension holding capacity of 5 g/cm2 is about as good
as it gets until you sink out of sight. Obviously there's sufficient
bedrock and/or of crater deformations plus secondary shards that should
be too steep to have retained all that much dust, although all rock and
terrain crevasse should be nearly chuck full to their brims. Would
you care to review a few official image links?
Which is it; is our moon extremely old or is it relatively new to our
vicinity?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
That melting of aluminum (aka Aluminium) at 92+ bar and without hardly
a stitch of O2 is actually a good thing. At least molten aluminum is a
whole lot safer to be around than molten mercury is here on Earth.
At 92+ bar, at what point does blood boil at?
Of course, I'd be smart enough to be cruising about at perhaps as great
as 35 km off the deck by the season of day, and otherwise 25 km by
season of nighttime, thereby my rigid-airship being so much cooler and
drawing upon unlimited local energy could go just about anywhere,
including down to the local tarmac for obtaining another Venus
HAPPY-MEAL.
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Did the little Venusians wave as you went by, Brad?
William Mook
the surface of the moon doesn't make any difference in a lunar laser
range-finding experiement. Why? Because a retro-reflector returns one
photon every second or so. Now, it is true that the retro-reflector
returns about 1 photon every second or so from the moon. Absolutely
true. You can calculate why that is so, given the physics of the
situation.
Now, do the analysis WITHOUT a retro-reflector! The lunar surface is
specular. In fact you've said in other posts that it was very dark and
scattered light efficiently. Use that surface - and figure out what
you'd get back. Better yet, do the expermient - point your 4 mile
diameter beam somewhere else on the moon - to a place where the
retroreflectors are not. Then count the photons coming back. I'll
tell you something - you'll wait a long time -because you'll get
nothing back sir. Your analysis is a load of horseshit - and if you
don't know it - you're insane. Go see a therapist about your issues.
Don't post here.
Pat Flannery
Claudio Grondi wrote:
>>>
>>> The surface temperature of Venus is high enough to melt aluminum. So,
>>>
>> 'Aluminium' you probably mean.
>>
> That's not an error, that's only the effect of the difference between
> the American and British English diverging into two separate languages.
So let's get up to speed on English english:
http://www.businessballs.com/cockney.htm
Pat :-)
William Mook
So, you're saying you agree the surface temperature and pressure on
Venus is high enough to cause any organic material to instantly
denature and aluminum to melt.. But that's not a problem because the
pressure is really really high and the atmosphere is highly reducing!
And, high temperature and pressure highly reducing atmosphere doesn't
strike you as being a lethal combination because????? Water's boiling
point changes with pressure???
Idiot.
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/clausius.html
Tell you what, let's do an experiment shall we?
Let's build a pressure vessel and stock it with a Venusian atmosphere
and heat and pressurize it so that it matches the conditions on the
Venusian surface - conditions we both agree exist on the Venusian
surface - which you've just admitted.
This vessel will be equipped with an airlock. So, you can step into
it, and expose yourself to the conditions within - and demonstrate the
non-lethatlity of these conditions. You must wear normal street
clothes.
If you last an hour I will accept that there is a possibility life
could exist on Venus.
If you leave before the hour is up, refuse to enter the pressure
vessel, or die or are harmed by the conditions - then you must accept
that you are a raving loon.
If you agree to the experiment, and to have a webcam broadcast, I will
arrange to build the pressure vessel.
Sounds like fun doesn't it?
lol
Brad Guth
>William Mook; point your 4 mile diameter beam somewhere else
>on the moon - to a place where the retroreflectors are not.
>Then count the photons coming back. I'll tell you something -
>you'll wait a long time -because you'll get nothing back sir.
moron of a village idiot than I'd thought. Therefore, "your analysis
is a load of horseshit - and if you don't know it - you're insane. Go
see a therapist about your issues. Don't post here."
I do appreciate your efforts that are in vain, as per MIB limited to
suggesting that only via the retroreflectors that were placed upon our
moon in person are of what's reflecting photons. It seems that low
power satellite range/altitude finding lasers have been in use for more
than a decade (Clementine 9 mJ Green @532 nm @4 mr), as having no such
retroreflector basis by which they've operated just fine and dandy.
Sorry Sir Mook, I didn't buy it as of 6 years ago and I'm still not
buying it, although prior to 6 years ago I bought into just about
everything our NASA/Apollo and their pagan government had to say.
However, for benefit of the doubt, I've given this laser range thing
another consideration.
BTW; when I said the moon surface was very dark, that wasn't per say of
each and every cm2 by cm2, whereas upon most places there are more than
a few chunks of glassified and/or sufficiently white substances that'll
reflect photons quite nicely. A recent crater can offer a good amount
of extra albedo area that's worth 50%, therefore hosting glassified
chunks of nearly mirror-like substances wouldn't be unexpected.
Basically, millions of m2 of what's even 12% reflective on average
beats your less than m2 retroreflector that's somehow remained squeaky
clean and as such perhaps 99% reflective. Thus laser photons as
reflected off any given impacted landing (aka crater) site shouldn't be
all that dark and nasty. Actually, vaporised aluminum ott to do quite
nicely.
Just like there's still no ice-in-space as hard-science, out of all the
spendy infomercial hype and wag-thy-dogs to death, as to NASA's best
ever spin of their never ending damage control, there's still no
supportive hard-science that retroreflectors have ever managed as to
their having been placed upon our moon by brave folks in moonsuits, as
well as still no fly-by-rocket documented R&D worth of AI/robotic (US
or USSR) capability that's viable as of today. However, for less than
half the volume and a tenth the mass is where a powerful robotic strobe
transponder having a +/- 1 degree of focus could have been established.
One more time for good measure;
Instead of the 532 nm(green) laser cannon shots, a UV laser of 337 nm
might become rather interesting, especially at good wattage and 300
microradians (0.3 mr). Actually, there should become a few
secondary/recoil (near-blue) returning photons, and otherwise of usable
laser applications up to the UV-b(315 nm) spectrum where the
atmospheric absorbson starts getting the best of such things, making
the likes of UV-c(280 nm) somewhat laser useless since so much of what
280 nm or shorter wavelenght gets absorbed within our upper atmosphere,
whereas otherwise the higher the frequency and/or the lower the nm
number the better off for getting through our atmosphere and for
accomplishing the most photons delivered on target within the least
amount of added divergence is what it's going to take. It's certainly
unfortunate that such supposed retroreflectors were not even band-pass
coated.
ABLs (aka YAL-1A) being mostly mid/deep IR(1315 nm) tend to suffer from
atmospheric induced divergence (operating at 40,000' somewhat minimizes
that situation), thus would also be the case with the initial lunar IR
ranging, and still remains as a contributing divergence factor with
their subsequent visible/green (532 nm) lunar ranging efforts.
SMART-1 has the IR Laser Link (aka laser-radar) capability, designed
primarily for testing a terrestrial to satellite data link, however
having being as close as it's been to the moon and having flown
directly over those supposed Apollo landing sites hasn't materialized
one extra photon that's identified as having been derived from any of
the multiple Apollo retroreflectors.
Even the Clementine spacecraft was 3-axis stabilized in lunar orbit via
reaction wheels, having a 4 mr 532 nm laser beam/radar (LIDAR system)
that accomplished not one Apollo reflector result. Having a 171 mJ
IR(1064 nm) and 9 mJ Green(532 nm) pulse driven with a 4 millirad
divergence is sufficiently impressive, and for as close as it got, it
should have worked like a dream, but it didn't.
For the task of getting the laser beam away from Earth represents an
optical absorbson factor as well as a focus distortion that's somewhat
of a divergence gauntlet that's anything but stable, whereas refractive
atmospheric turbulence will randomly deflect and thus diverge that
beam. An extremely small added amount of divergence will cause a great
deal of increased spot size as illuminating upon the moon, thus
contributing fewer photons per retroreflector, while giving lots more
photons upon the raw surface to reflect..
The Basics of Lunar Ranging
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
"the turbulent atmosphere distorts the beam, imparting a divergence"
"Atmosphere causes beam to diverge by one arcsecond or more"
"at the moon, 1 arcsecond is 1.8 km, so the beam is about 2 km across"
Since a 2 km illumination zone is about as good as it gets, and perhaps
a 20 km illuminated zone is nearly as bad off as it gets, and there's
certainly no difference in the range accuracy as taken off moon-rock
and/or moon-dust reflected photons as opposed to the supposed
retroreflector contributed photons, therefore there's no possible way
of telling which of the few returning photons is which. In other
words, there's been no published science recordings of such photons to
share that any independent researcher could possibly identify a given
photon or any batch of photons as being specifically retroreflector
contributed or not, especially since m2 by m2 the lunar surface is
hardly offering anything but a constant as far as the albedo is
considered. A somewhat recent crater might just as easily exceed 30%,
whereas a darkish carbon/soot plus having titanium and iron dust
covered zone of basalt might get down to reflecting as little as 2~3%,
thus we have greater than a 10:1 ratio right off the bat to contend
with.
The Aristarchus crater is offering nearly the brightest spot on our
salty Moon, having by way of some observations a maximum floor
brightness of 50% and otherwise 20~25+% for the bulk of the associated
area, thereby indicating this as a fairly recent crater that hasn't
become covered in the usual composite layers of carbon/soot blended
with basalt, iron and titanium dust.
Even if the given retroreflector amounted to a full m2, the minimal 2
km illuminated zone makes the ratio of 3.142e6:1 look downright
pathetic. Actually, the original combined 100X retroreflecting
apertures amounted to 0.1134 m2, thus the photon look-see ratio is more
like a minimum of 28e6:1 of whatever deflects exactly as though off the
raw surface, with the largest of such retroreflectors at 300 apertures
giving 0.34 m2 is still at best 9.25e6:1 if there's no excessive
atmospheric distortion factors nor jitter involved. In fact,
considering that a good many of those supposed Kodak moments upon the
surface as having depicted as a somewhat natural surface
retroreflective glass like nature, that which oddly reflected at nearly
75% (almost as intense as having reflected off their 80+% white
moonsuits), with the background for as far as the unfiltered Kodak eye
could see as having a reflectance of 55+% (that's along with their
having the polarised optical benefit which if anything should have
reduced that surface reflectance). Would you like a few official image
links?
BTW No.2; if the moon only offers but a thin layer of nearly colorless
(portland cement and cornmeal like) substance that so nicely clumps
with such terrific surface tension for suppoeting each 375 cm2
moonboot, yet isn't otherwise the least bit electrostatic or even dark
and nasty, therefore either the moon simply hasn't been around for all
that long, or else, perhaps some of that 2400 km/s solar wind is what
kept blowing the dust away (as in clean off the moon). At least if you
exclude the surface EVA obtained images, and if sticking with the 10X
telephoto shots from orbit is where the areas and amounts of dust seems
nearly insurmountable. Would you care to review a few of those
official image links?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/22dec_lunartaurid.htm
December 23, 2005: NASA scientists have observed an explosion on the
moon. The blast, equal in energy to about 70 kg of TNT, occurred near
the edge of Mare Imbrium (the Sea of Rains) on Nov. 7, 2005, when a
12-centimeter-wide (900 cm3) meteoroid slammed into the ground
traveling 27 km/s.
"ground-shaking impacts could kick up moondust, possibly over a wide
area. Moondust is electrostatically charged and notoriously clingy."
BTW No.3; the vast majority of such impacts have gone unrecorded, and
of those being caused by modus items of less than 128 cm3 are seldom if
ever noticed unless via earthshine and/or having been exceeding 72
km/s. However, a 100+km/s impactor from a nice little palm/finger
sized rock of 96 cm3 might become sufficiently recorded upon impacting
a fully solar illuminated surface.
The entire topic of moon-dust and of it's depth or lack thereof is
rather odd, especially since the moon represents more than enough
gravity that would have collected upon most anything that's passing by
within 2r(1738 km off the deck G = 0.40575 and such items have to be
moving better than 1.25 km/s in order to avoid being sucked in) that
should have sooner or later arrived, and otherwise of just whatever's
running into or being run over by the moon has got to have amounted to
a minimum of a micron per year, whereas a billion years is worth a full
1000 m that's not going to hardly compact upon itself within that sort
of a 1/6th gravity of a bone dry vacuum, of alternating between
freeze-dried and/or scorching hotter than hell environment. I'd say a
surface tension holding capacity of 5 g/cm2 is about as good as it gets
until you sink out of sight. Obviously there's sufficient bedrock
and/or of crater deformations plus secondary shards that should be too
steep to have retained all that much dust, although of all rock and
terrain crevasses should be nearly chuck full to their brims. Would
you care to review a few official image links?
Which is it; is our moon extremely old or is it relatively new to our
vicinity?
How about considering that it's both quite old as well as new to being
our moon?
The really good secondary news to all of this remains with the supposed
better than 62:1 of such badly outdated rocket/payload deploymants.
Whereas instead of the 764:1 of the Lunar Prospector that took nearly
half again as long getting itself there, if such Apollo missions
actually transpired as reported is the best ever proof positive that a
32:1 ratio of getting microsatellites deployed should become doable as
of today, especially with the h2o2/c3h40 LBRs and the new and improved
LO2/LH2 composite mid/upper stage, plus taking advantage of those
really nifty disposible composite solids as getting the overall inert
mass down to demanding less than half the ratio of what the Apollo
missions had to deal with, and especially if we're in no such hurry for
getting those microsatellites there should more than make up for the
remaining issues.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<010220061907148827%art_...@127.0.0.1>:
> Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I see that our topic/author stalking friend Art Fucko (aka
> >alt.fan.art-bell, alt.usenet.kooks spook) is hard at his usual
> >anti-truth, anti-ET, anti-God and otherwise pro Christ upon a stick
> >usual self, of staying the course of whatever his brown-nosed status
> >quo collaboration with his Jewish Third Reich has need of his sorry
> >soul.
> >
> >Too bad that the majority of good Jews don't bother to police their own
> >kind, as it makes them all look every bit as bigoted and as arrogant as
> >their incest cloned "Art Deco" represents on their behalf.
> >
> >As I said before; I'll be reposting this topic a good number of times,
> >so get used to seeing the mutated/defective likes of Art and his incest
> >cloned friends, doing their usual brown-nose blowing and mainstream
> >butt sucking until long after those NASA/Apollo cows come home.
>
> *ding* <tips sombrero>
>
> Your obsession with me grows, Brad, and I see your bigoted racist spew
> hasn't lost any content yet.
Yeah, but wait until he finds out that *he* is Jewish.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
--
V.G.
"i would blame them it they went on a holy jhiad and killed off all the infidels, would you?"
- AssLexa's "200+" alien-implanted IQ jumps the rails and crashes into a grade school, killing all inside.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Art Deco
Spanked and exposed as pseudoscientific crackpot again, Brad responds
with another load of screed.
>~
>
>Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
>The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
>Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
>
Nice kooklinks, Brad.
Pat Flannery
Alan LeHun wrote:
>If liquid water can exist on Venus, then life can exist on Venus. We
>have life on earth that exists at +300C because the water is still
>liquid.
>
>
We looked into this a few years back. If the "pressure cooker effect"
allowed water to exist on Venus despite its high temps then you could
have a very interesting situation.
Unfortunately at those temps and pressures the water can only exist as
something like dense steam, not liquid as such.
Pat
William Mook
vessel that reproduces the conditions found on the surface of Venus,
and you can enter that environment and see how long you last. As I
said, if you last an hour I will concede that there is a remote
possibility that life could exist on Venus!
hahahahahahahaha
Of course I'd want to webcast the proceedings...
William Mook
my responses. The phase diagram of water guarantees that the surface
of Venus is free of life as we know it.
William Mook
Venus is too hot and nasty to support life. Brad, you have already
admitted that the conditions on the surface of Venus are hot and nasty,
as anyone with a spectrophotometer and a telescope on Earth can find
out for themselves any night Venus is in their sky. So, now we're
insanely arguing that life can exist at temperatures that melt Aluminum
and pressures that crush and destroy things like the Venera probe.
Now, to settle this disagreement, I have kindly proposed an experiment
where we reproduce in a laboratory the conditions which you and I both
agree is found on the surface of Venus. I have proposed that you enter
this laboratory environment and rest there for an hour and emerge
again.
If you survive unscathed, I will admit the remote possibility of life
existing on the surface of Venus. If you do not survive unscathed, or
refuse to enter the environment, or ignore this offer - then you at
some level know of the insanity of what you continually propose before
us here. So, I would ask you unless you wish to carry out the
experiment I propose _ and will pay for if you agree to let me webcast
it_ that you stop posting your insanity.
LUNA
The presence of retroreflectors of the deposited by the lunar explorers
during the Apollo expeditions at the end of the 1960s can be found and
operated today by anyone on Earth who possesses a telescope, a laser,
and a laser detector - proving conclusively that the Apollo Expeditions
took place and left retroreflectors where they said they did.
You have already admitted that graduate students and scientists the
world over have used those retroreflectors to do important science.
So, now we're insanely arguing that plain ass dirt on the lunar surface
which you have also described as being as dark as a coal mine, reflects
sufficient light to do rangefinding without retroreflectors!!!!!
I propose that we do an experiment where we direct a laser rangefinder
system to a point on the moon where retroreflectors are known NOT to
exist - and count the return photons. I will pay for the experimental
time if you agree to a webcast, and provide me with your expected
return rate - BEFORE THE EXPERIMENT. If the return rate is less than
your figure, I ask you to stop posting your bullshit. If you fail to
come up with your expected return rate for plain ass lunar dirt, then
you at some level know the insanity of what you constantly write about.
If the return rate is anything other than ZERO - I will admit the
remote possiblity that we were fooled by Apollo.
If both experiments fail - and failure also means you not responding
positively to my offers - then I would expect you to do something for
me... which I've outlined below.
Brad, I don't expect you to take up any of my offers - because I know
at core, you know you're insane.
Really, you need to go see a therapist about your ideas. That's the
only useful audience for them. S/he will tell you things that will be
quite liberating - of this I'm sure.
And that's what I would ask of you.
Tater Schuld
"William Mook" <willia...@mokindustries.com> wrote in message
news:1139153565.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> VENUS:
>
> Now, to settle this disagreement, I have kindly proposed an experiment
> where we reproduce in a laboratory the conditions which you and I both
> agree is found on the surface of Venus. I have proposed that you enter
> this laboratory environment and rest there for an hour and emerge
> again.
I'd be temped to volunteer.
on the other hand, Mr. Guth WILL chicken out, but you can always put a lab
rat or some equal to Brad in the chamber
William Mook
Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <1139152137.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> willia...@mokindustries.com says...
> > Well, alan, I propose the same experiment for you. I'll create a
> > vessel that reproduces the conditions found on the surface of Venus,
> > and you can enter that environment and see how long you last. As I
> > said, if you last an hour I will concede that there is a remote
> > possibility that life could exist on Venus!
> >
>
No, you are.
> I didn't say anything about Human life,
But that's what Brad and I are arguing about. Why aren't you
listening?
> or even multicellular life. I didn't even state that water /could/ exist
> on Venus in a liquid state.
In the context of the ongoing discussion you are being disingenous.
Why is that?
>
> I simply said that if it could, so can life.
And if the queen had balls she'd be king! The fact remains that the
queen doesn't have balls, and water cannot exist on Venus - so why
postulate what might be if things were different than they actually
are?
You are being disingenous in saying that you didn't say there was water
on Venus, and you didn't say that there was life, or multicellular
life, or human life - because you know full well you are making your
statement about water and life on Venus in the context of an ongoing
discussion where precisely this is being argued. Shame on you.
> --
> Alan LeHun
William Mook
I wouldn't want to kill an innocent lab rat!
Brad Guth
>> Now, to settle this disagreement, I have kindly proposed an experiment
>> where we reproduce in a laboratory the conditions which you and I both
>> agree is found on the surface of Venus. I have proposed that you enter
>> this laboratory environment and rest there for an hour and emerge
>> again.
>I'd be temped to volunteer.
>on the other hand, Mr. Guth WILL chicken out, but you can always put a lab
>rat or some equal to Brad in the chamber
Not so fast guys. My chickens have a rigid airship that's so buoyant
that they'll have to take on several tonnes of easily extracted H2O
from those relatively cool nighttime season clouds in order to get this
rigid airship anywhere near the deck. That plus my chickens have
thermal suits and their onboard thermalpiles of chromel/alumel alloy
batteries that'll take care of the CO2-->CO/O2 and of otherwise
extracting a few VTUs(Venus Thermal Units) away from that chicken suit.
Secondly, I never insisted that we humans need set a hot foot upon that
geothermally toasty planet. After all, there's actually quite a good
number of volcanic and/or S8 gas vents that'll kick as well as roast
serious butt.
For the moment, the most I'd expect is the VL2-TRACE station keeping
platform, along with a few interactive audio/video kiosks (Venusian
end-user friendly) as deployed upon the surface.
Volcanoes on Venus are not exactly few and far between.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/planet_volcano/venus/intro.html
Venusian Volcanic Features
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/venvolc.htm
Venus displays unique forms of volcanism that could easily be the likes
of what S8 and CO2 gas vents would represent.
John Ackerman's few words of wisdom about Venus isn't exactly painting
a humanly survivable alternative, especially if you're planning upon
going butt naked as well as for being the dumb and dumber fools that
you are.
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/103091sci-nasa-venus.html
"Venus has apparently been completely resurfaced by volcanic eruptions
and its second-highest mountain seems to be covered with fresh lava
from an active volcano"
However, not every m2 is so hot and nasty, and fortunatly there's
elevated sites where it's a bit cooler by a good -10 K/km, and there's
certainly more green/renewable energy that's easily available, and of
so much so available energy that it's more than all of us put together
can shake our fist full of flaming sticks at. With said energy, I
suppose you could make things hotter yet, or perhaps if you insisted a
bit cooler seems doable, not to mention wasting some of that spare
energy upon the the process of CO2-->CO/O2.
BTW; France already has the test cells of better than Venus pressure
and if need be the same degree of temperature to work with. There's
also terrestrial proof-positive that as little as 0.1% O2 would keep
the likes of us humans alive until we ran out of cold beer and ice.
ESA's Venus Express and JAXA's Planet-C are a just a couple of missions
that'll tell us a great deal more about what's hot and what's not quite
so hot.
Even my little observationology of a contribution upon what's perfectly
natural as to what's associated with a rather substantial tarmac and
nearby community of structures and a rather nifty bridge has what looks
as though it's an active volcanic flow of something that's horrific and
likely geothermally alive, having created an interestingly large
fluid-arch, along with having it's beginning erosions and termination
erosion patterns that begs to being that of at least a serious mud-flow
that which energy wise should be highly beneficial to the nearby
township of Guth-Venus.
Of course, the likes of Mook are so hot and bothered by the fact that
I'm not exactly convinced we've actually landed and much less walked
upon our hot and nasty moon, especially via better than a 60:1
rocket/payload ratio, that which oddly as of today can't be obtained,
especially within 3 days unless we're talking about using Mook's
nuclear/U235 boosted rockets. Though after all, you can't be going too
fast past the LL-1 point unless you've got spare retro-thrusting energy
in order to keep from zipping yourself past the moon. Actually, an
all-stop within the LL-1/ME-L1 zone isn't such a bad notion.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>world over have used those retroreflectors to do important science.
quote where I said that, or ever implied such nonsense.
I have no problems with the counting of photons that are derived off
the raw surface of the moon, as opposed to counting those reflected off
the vaporised aluminum remains of whatever robotic Lander that bit the
dust.
Chances are that there's still no viable method of telling with any
certainty as to which photons are those reflected off a recent crater
that's coated with an amount of vapourised aluminum, as opposed to
those reflected off whatever retroreflector that technically needn't
have to be placed there in person.
Therefore I'll gladly post your results upon my external pages as well
as within Usenet, and I'll give lord/wizard Willian Mook all the credit
for accomplishing the very first independent laser-->retroreflector and
of subsequently counting those returning photons as opposed to the
laser-->moon surface that should be contributing a few less photons,
especially much fewer photons if looking at the darker zones of the
lunar surface, that which unless you're using an IR laser is not going
to return all that many photons.
How about using the 337 nm laser and getting that illuminated spot down
to something well below a few hundred meters?
Actually, you should be able to give us a nifty laser/radar like image
of the surface of the moon that's rather impressive. Matching that up
with the 10X optical magnification upon the best of what the pair of
KECK instruments using the 1.75 micron CCDs or better yet upon a
positive plate of film can muster as offering so much better
resolution. In fact, as long as you're there, why not use the KECK 10
m instrument as the laser transmitting as well as receiving site?
Other than the atmospheric distortions and subsequent beam divergence
factors, the elevation and of the KECK instrument should get that 337
nm illuminated spot down to well below 100m, and then optically
receiving at a resolution that's down to just a few meters worth.
>If the return rate is anything other than ZERO - I will admit the
>remote possiblity that we were fooled by Apollo
Trust me Sir Mook, it will not be "ZERO", especially since raw aluminum
reflects at something better than 80% (a bit better yet if it's
vaporised aluminum that's somewhat spread out), whereas the dark and
nasty moon is typically worth less than 11%.
>Brad, I don't expect you to take up any of my offers - because I know
>at core, you know you're insane.
Obviously you're dead wrong again because, I just did take your offer
and gave it one better yet, whereas I'll help promote your efforts with
all due respect. I'll even give it my best SWAG as to what we'd expect
to see, though I'd need to know of the beam spectrum and of the likely
illuminated zone diameter.
BTW; there still is other intelligent life upon Venus. It's just that
you're too Jewish dumbfounded to admit that I'm right, thet the laws of
physics are right, and that a good many folks having their hard-science
that further establishes the capability of ETs camping out upon Venus
as being doable is only adding further proof-positive that I'm right as
acid-rain that never falls on Venus, not even within the somewhat
cooler nighttime season of Venus.
-
Brad Guth
Tater Schuld
> Do you have a death wish? LOL
>
> I wouldn't want to kill an innocent lab rat!
>
I didn't say I would try it without a hard suit custom designed for the
environment.
the scary thing is, I think brad *might* be right.
life on Venus. maybe. life as we know it? of course not.
5 years ago there were places on the bottom of the sea that we were POSITIVE
did not have life.
Art Deco
>>You have already admitted that graduate students and scientists the
>>world over have used those retroreflectors to do important science.
>Well gosh damn lord Mook, isn't that another lie. Please feel free to
>quote where I said that, or ever implied such nonsense.
>
>I have no problems with the counting of photons that are derived off
>the raw surface of the moon,
Which will be zero.
>as opposed to counting those reflected off
>the vaporised aluminum remains of whatever robotic Lander that bit the
>dust.
"This is my kooky delusion and I'm sticking with it, no matter what."
-- Brad Guth
>
>Chances are that there's still no viable method of telling with any
>certainty as to which photons are those reflected off a recent crater
>that's coated with an amount of vapourised aluminum, as opposed to
>those reflected off whatever retroreflector that technically needn't
>have to be placed there in person.
So you admit you didn't understand very much of what he wrote, Brad.
>
>Therefore I'll gladly post your results upon my external pages as well
>as within Usenet, and I'll give lord/wizard Willian Mook all the credit
>for accomplishing the very first independent laser-->retroreflector and
>of subsequently counting those returning photons as opposed to the
>laser-->moon surface that should be contributing a few less photons,
>especially much fewer photons if looking at the darker zones of the
>lunar surface, that which unless you're using an IR laser is not going
>to return all that many photons.
>
>How about using the 337 nm laser and getting that illuminated spot down
>to something well below a few hundred meters?
Still stuck on the lunar "atmosphere" delusion, Brad?
>
>Actually, you should be able to give us a nifty laser/radar like image
>of the surface of the moon that's rather impressive. Matching that up
>with the 10X optical magnification upon the best of what the pair of
>KECK instruments using the 1.75 micron CCDs or better yet upon a
>positive plate of film can muster as offering so much better
>resolution. In fact, as long as you're there, why not use the KECK 10
>m instrument as the laser transmitting as well as receiving site?
>
>Other than the atmospheric distortions and subsequent beam divergence
>factors, the elevation and of the KECK instrument should get that 337
>nm illuminated spot down to well below 100m, and then optically
>receiving at a resolution that's down to just a few meters worth.
>
>>If the return rate is anything other than ZERO - I will admit the
>>remote possiblity that we were fooled by Apollo
>Trust me Sir Mook, it will not be "ZERO", especially since raw aluminum
>reflects at something better than 80% (a bit better yet if it's
>vaporised aluminum that's somewhat spread out), whereas the dark and
>nasty moon is typically worth less than 11%.
>
>>Brad, I don't expect you to take up any of my offers - because I know
>>at core, you know you're insane.
>Obviously you're dead wrong again because, I just did take your offer
>and gave it one better yet, whereas I'll help promote your efforts with
>all due respect. I'll even give it my best SWAG as to what we'd expect
>to see, though I'd need to know of the beam spectrum and of the likely
>illuminated zone diameter.
Sorry Brad, no one is going to fund a test of your insane delusions.
>
>BTW; there still is other intelligent life upon Venus.
A lie.
>It's just that
>you're too Jewish dumbfounded to admit that I'm right,
A lie plus a racist ad hominem lame.
>thet the laws of
>physics are right,
Which you have no understanding of.
>and that a good many folks having their hard-science
Do these "folks" support you in email, Brad?
>that further establishes the capability of ETs camping out upon Venus
Another lie.
>as being doable is only adding further proof-positive that I'm right as
>acid-rain that never falls on Venus, not even within the somewhat
>cooler nighttime season of Venus.
You're an idiot, Brad.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Brad Guth
flatulence wind-breaking fartology of intellectual Jew spewing
suckology and blowology being contributed by our very own brown-nosed
Art Deco?
I guess loard and all-knowing Fart Deco is now our resident photon
expert, as well as a defender of his Jewish collaborations with the
Third Reich. And to think, if it wasn't for the likes of good old Art,
I would never have bothered to having a look-see into the petrochemical
and other complex chemical suppliers, as I had no idea that so many
have long been and still are Jewish owned and operated, just like in
the good old and extremely profitable Third Reich glory days of all
that's Hitler. Imagine that, Jews exactly like Art Deco responsible
for the using and exterminating of other Jews for a piece of the
action, and otherwise everything being just exactly as it should be
according to the way Art Deco that would gladly without a stitch of
remorse do it all over again, exactly like getting Jesus Christ placed
right back on that stick.
Keep up the good work, Art.
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
>Gee whiz folks, check it out;
>flatulence
>wind-breaking
>fartology
>intellectual Jew
>spewing
>suckology
>blowology
>brown-nosed
>Art Deco
>
>Fart Deco
>Jewish collaborations
>Third Reich
>likes
>Art
>Jewish owned and operated
>Third Reich glory days
>Hitler
>Jews
>Art Deco
>fexterminating of other Jews
>Art Deco
>remorse
>Jesus Christ
>stick
>
>Art
You are slime, Brad.
Brad Guth
I've been re-thinking about William Mook's plan of action for his
independently counting photons as reflected off our moon, of the areas
w/o retroreflector and of those spots having the supposed
retroreflector instead of just the vaporised aluminum coated craters
that should be associated with the NASA/Apollo impact landings.
Obviously the moon upon average already offers a fairly good IR photon
reflector as is, whereas the green(532 nm) spectrum is more aligned
with what we see as various albedo zones from coal like darkness of
less than 1.5% to medium tones that represents the 12~20% albedo, with
a few exceptions exceeding 25% and of one significant salty crater
giving back 30+%.
Here's one more shot at this argument for good measure;
Instead of the 532 nm(green) laser cannon shots, how about using
instead a UV laser of 337 nm might become rather interesting,
especially at good wattage and 300 microradians (0.3 mr) that shouldn't
be all that difficult getting such focused down to a forth that amount,
thus 0.075 mr. Actually, via 337 nm there should become a few
secondary/recoil (near-blue) worth of returning photons
It's certainly unfortunate that such supposed retroreflectors were not
the least bit optically band-pass coated as to favoring the 532 nm and
shorter wavelengths, therefore making it all the more capable as to
identifying which returning photons are which.
Since the natural terrain offers a good range of albedo to deal with,
whereas a ratio as great as 20:1 results from whatever's of a dark
basalt coated by a graphite like soot, to the brighter exposed and thus
cleaner surfaces of the most recent craters is what's suggesting that
something better than a 25:1 ratio of returning photons would be
necessary if to suggest that a retroreflector was or was not involved.
If to be including the likes of an aluminized coated crater should push
that ratio a bit greater, though not likely past the 50:1 mark.
For an example, if using the 532 nm laser upon the supposed
retroreflector zone contributed 50 fold as many photons as for a
similar 2 km target zone that's known as not having a retroreflector,
whereas this result would pretty much confirm upon the likelihood of
there being a retroreflector involved with the target zone that's
giving back 50 fold greater photons. A 100 fold improvement would be
without a doubt of what's getting efficiently retroreflected instead of
simply as a batch of aluminized reflected photons.
However, since the hard-science as to reflected photons has never been
published in any format that's understandable by us village idiots, and
there's been no public infomercial hype as to having obtained a 100:1
or even a 50:1 ratio as being the case, this makes myself think we
haven't quite established a sufficient focus of transmitted photons
that can deliver the goods. However, the 337 nm and 0.075 mr beam as
transmitted from a terrestrial GSO satellite should do the trick, and
obviously even so much better off from the lunar GSO of LL-1 (roughly
60,000 km away from the target) would be absolutely ideal at providing
a 0.16 km illuminated target zone or resolution of 20,106 m2.
I hope this gives folks an open mindset of an idea or two as to what's
doable and of what isn't. As I've said before, that even as little as
a one joule xenon photon strobe as focused to +/- one degree upon
mother Earth would have easily accomplished the lunar surface response
to a given microwave signal or even if triggered via laser beam, at not
half the volumetric demand and not a tenth the mass of one of those
passive retroreflectors. At the time of those NASA/Apollo missions we
had 10 joule and even 100 joule strobe alternatives, whereas the 100
joule strobe if pulsed at 0.1 ms would have given back a million joule
beam of easily identified xenon white plus a few UV photons.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Don't be too hard on Sir lord/wizard William Mook, whereas this guy is
about as anti-ET as they get. He's been so anti-truth that at any
moment he and of his brown-nosed collective of all-knowing minions are
going to implode as they fall off the edge of his mostly Jewish flat
Earth.
BTW; the French have had a high pressure science environment with as
high of thermal environment necessary, of test cells for terrestrial
life research. However, according to the likes of William Mook,
apparently the French do not exist any more so than WMD.
-
Brad Guth
William Mook
Tater Schuld wrote:
> "William Mook" <willia...@mokindustries.com> wrote in message
> news:1139207475.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Do you have a death wish? LOL
> >
> > I wouldn't want to kill an innocent lab rat!
> >
>
> I didn't say I would try it without a hard suit custom designed for the
> environment.
Well, that's different - and not what Brad is talking about.
>
> the scary thing is, I think brad *might* be right.
Life forms might exist, sure, lots of things MIGHT be right. But Brad
is saying that intelligent life forms are presently inhabiting Venus
without the benefit of hardsuits and the like and have built huge
cities there. And, that's what I was resopnding to. So, you like Alan
earlier are changing the context of the conversation when you bring
these things up.
>
> life on Venus. maybe. life as we know it? of course not.
The weird part is that life as we know it might be able to exist on
Venus.
>
> 5 years ago there were places on the bottom of the sea that we were POSITIVE
> did not have life.
Not true... you're referring to hydrothermal vents on the sea floor
http://www.resa.net/nasa/ocean_hydrothermal.htm
These were discovered in 1977 - and the life cycle was worked out for
the ecologies found around these vents. Prior to this scientists
thought only scavenger life forms could exist on the ocean floor. Life
forms that ate stuff that settled to the bottom. Now, scientists
understand that bacteria can take the heat and sulfur in the
hydrothermal vents, and grow there. This bacteria can feed a wide
range of indigenous life forms that have adapted to eat the bacteria
and other things that eat bacteria.
The interesting thing here is that these life forms are largely adapted
from surface life forms. We see crabs, lobsters and the like. But, we
also see things that were never seen on the surface! And those are
most interesting.
So, bacteria as we know it MIGHT have adapted on Venus. In fact, my
friend, Carl Sagan has even suggested that WE might adapt life to Venus
in order to terraform it.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2003/TM-2003-212310.pdf
Which is all very possible.
What is not possible - or unlikely to the point of impossibility - is
the existence of cities on the surface of Venus built by intelligences
from other stars who inhabit the surface unprotected from the
environment we find there today.
William Mook
at the OSU Radio Observatory. That radio telescope had the longest
running SETI program in history before it was torn down to make way for
a golf course. So, Brad's breathless accusation that I'm anti ET is
absurd! Equally absurd is his assertion that I claim high pressure
high temperature test cells don't exist. They do exist. The question
I have for Brad is he willing to step into one that reproduces the
environment of Venus? If so, I'll arrange for the use of one, and if
he emerges unscathed, I might admit he's possibly right about there
being cities on the surface of the planet. hahaha...
William Mook
of the RATE he thinks photons will bounce off of lunar dirt to be
detected back at the instrument on Earth - without benefit of
retroreflector. Once he posts a rate of photon return, I will arrange
instrument time to point the beam at dirt - and we'll see!
Remember Brad, if you agree to this experiment, and lose, you agree to
visit a psychiatrist a half dozen times in as many weeks, and have
heart to heart talks with him or her about your ideas posted here.
I'll pay for that too if you don't have medical insurance.
William Mook
you seem to think the only requirement is that the surface be shiny.
This is not the case. The surface must be shiny certainly, but it also
must form a RETROREFLECTOR. See, a shiny surface that isn't PRECISELY
SHAPED - will very likely not - to the point of saying never - reflect
a photon back to its source. A properly shaped surface, precisely
shaped, as in a retroreflector - WILL reflect photons back. The only
limit being the RAYLEIGH LIMIT.
So, the ONLY way to get ANY photons back, is to have a sufficiently
large RETROREFLECTOR ARRAY on the lunar surface, pointed back at Earth
- the size of the array can even be inferred from the rate of photon
return - given the size of the telescope used, and the wavelength
used, knowing how to apply the Rayleigh Limit.
DrPostman
<willia...@mokindustries.com> in accordance with The Prophecy
scribed:
You are only going to confuse Brad with factual data.
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"I am the one they call Jesus."
- Warhol tries to compete with Ray.
Art Deco
>On 8 Feb 2006 10:55:32 -0800, "William Mook"
><willia...@mokindustries.com> in accordance with The Prophecy
>scribed:
>
>>Brad,
>>
>>you seem to think the only requirement is that the surface be shiny.
>>This is not the case. The surface must be shiny certainly, but it also
>>must form a RETROREFLECTOR. See, a shiny surface that isn't PRECISELY
>>SHAPED - will very likely not - to the point of saying never - reflect
>>a photon back to its source. A properly shaped surface, precisely
>>shaped, as in a retroreflector - WILL reflect photons back. The only
>>limit being the RAYLEIGH LIMIT.
>>
>>So, the ONLY way to get ANY photons back, is to have a sufficiently
>>large RETROREFLECTOR ARRAY on the lunar surface, pointed back at Earth
>>- the size of the array can even be inferred from the rate of photon
>>return - given the size of the telescope used, and the wavelength
>>used, knowing how to apply the Rayleigh Limit.
>
>
>You are only going to confuse Brad with factual data.
I predict he'll reply with brown-nosed Third Reich Jewish Guth lames.
Brad Guth
bait that your Third Reich collaborating butts are cooked, but good.
You give me a 100 fold improvement in photons with retroreflector and
you're home free, and I'm off visiting "a psychiatrist a half dozen
times in as many weeks". I've already advised that you should use the
latest 337 nm laser and the KECK instrument as your transmitter and
receiving station. Thus what the hell are you waiting for?
Good Christ almighty upon another stick. These incest cloned
brown-nosed and otherwise Third Reich collaborators (aka DrPostman,
William Mook, Art Deco and the likes of those having similar incest
mutated DNA) actually want folks to think that the raw surface of the
moon is incapable of reflecting artificial photons, especially off a 2
km diameter illuminated zone of 3.14e6 m2 when that's pretty much all
that their single channel CCD outfitted telescope is focused upon,
especially odd of these days when the CCD pixel get down to 1.75 micron
would actually require a minimum of 10X10 = 17.5 by 17.5 microns in
order to cover the 2km target zone, or if using KECK we talking about
at least 100X100 = 175 by 175 micron array of pixels.
That's really odd when it's been well understood by at least most
nonjewish scientist and astronomers as having realized that a good many
portions of the lunar surface are nearly 50% IR reflective as is, and
otherwise there's a good many visually reflective targets worthy of
hosting a 2 km target that'll shed nearly 33% of the 532 nm(aka green)
spectrum.
Yah right folks, and the sun orbits their pagan flat Earth to boot. No
wonder they'd gotten the likes of Christ on that stick, as for being
the village idiot trouble maker of the day that Jesus was is what
apparently served that not so poor do-gooder right by the incest
mindset of those money grubbing Jews that were encharge of extracting
whatever revenue the Roman government overlooked.
Of course, a somewhat smaller artificial crater of a hundred or so
meters should have exposed the somewhat salty and of other light
colored composites of cosmic and local minerals, plus having received a
good alluminized vapor dusting from the impacted lunar lander should be
capable of offering nearly an albedo of 50% within the visual spectrum.
It's quite true that it's not hardly focused directly at Earth, but
then again it doesn't have to be if the detection instrument is focused
upon that one small spot.
Being that a 2 km diameter is offering so gosh darn many m2 to start
with, as such you'll not need any stinking retroreflector within that
zone in order to get a sufficient number of detected photons as
secondary illumination derived off the otherwise earthshine illuminated
surface that's normally rather coal and graphite/soot like dark and
nasty.
Actually, just the extremely bright aluminum structures of the Apollo
landers should represent a sufficient visual target as is for bouncing
a few photons off. After all, the surrounding raw lunar surface is
rather dark and anything but shinny. The visual micron detector is
better off than 1 micron, which should get the likes of the optically
10X boost-magnified KECK down to less than 2 meters (makes you wonder
as to why they're not being funded to imaging the moon via that
option).
Thus once again the incest cloned bigots as Usenet clowns and
brown-nosed at that are going to have to get right back into another
one of their warm and fuzzy butt-sucking think-tanks in order to figure
out what sort of damage-control tactic to try out next.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>If liquid water can exist on Venus, then life can exist on Venus. We
>have life on earth that exists at +300C because the water is still
>liquid.
can even have been imported water as long as we're not talking about
sustaining millions of folks. You shouldn't need all that much H2O if
there's merely a few hundred souls toughing it out. Fortunately, like
most other raw elements, there's actually no shortage of water within
that toasty environment, some of which within the thick upper clouds
and otherwise within the active lava and especially mud-flows that do
seem to exist. There's also no shortage of locally provided
green/renewable energy by which to process upon anything, including the
CO2-->CO/O2 requirement.
I do manage say things that keeps pissing these Usenet status quo or
bust sorts of folks off to no end. However technically speaking, from
the intelligent ET point of view (we being those ETs), in spite of
whatever the all-knowing lord/wizard William Mook (aka naysayer) has to
say, Venus is quite doable as is.
It also easy to prove that Venus wasn't always so hot and nasty, at
least there was a significant run of time when there wasn't nearly as
much atmospheric density and/or depth of atmosphere to deal with.
Like yourself, I've never insisted that whatever's of other life upon
Venus was human like, or even all that human friendly, although I can
see where some genetic mutations or perhaps intelligent design upon our
DNA could have made a big difference, if need be in short order.
Unfortunately, I have at least a thousand questions for every tidbit
worth of what I think I know is the case. Too bad these Usenet folks
are so intellectually if not biologically bigoted to share and share
alike. In which case, could I ask an honest question or two that you
might share some expertise or at least share an honest SWAG worth of a
viable notion upon?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
As I'd badly said before, in that I do manage to say a few things that
keeps pissing off these mostly Jewish with the likes of Mormons picking
up the slack of Usenet status quo or bust sorts of folks that can't
seem to deal with my lose cannon, much less having any sense of humor
with regard to my deductively dot and pixel connecting on behalf of the
positive side of any given argument. However, at least technically
speaking, from the intelligent and thus positive thinking ET point of
view (perhaps we humans being those ETs), in spite of whatever the
all-knowing lord/wizard William Mook (aka commander in chief naysayer)
has to naysay, Venus is quite doable as is.
In spite of all the usual topic/author flak that's continually headed
my way, I'd like to know exactly how exoskeletal can a human like form
of a suitably tough external body/shell improved individual come about,
either via evolution and/or through intelligent design in order to
manage those improvements without going over the line?
I'm thinking these exoskeletal Venusians need not be intellectually
superior to us humans, they just have to be a whole lot less arrogant
and thereby less bigoted in order to have been able to have thought
independently for themselves. Whereas instead of being sequestered
within some status quo collective toilet of disinformation, and/or
limited by some cult like need-to-know, taboo/nondisclosure and/or
moderated to death via continual naysayism (aka Usenet via William
Mook), they advance biologically as will as technically exceed upon
what matters the most if your home world is gradually getting hotter
than hell.
-
Brad Guth
Willia...@gmail.com
http://www.edu.pe.ca/southernkings/Venus.htm
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/121/lecture-9/venus.html
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/GeorgeRyabov.shtml
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html
The temperature on the surface of Venus AVERAGES 480C (900F)
HOTTER THAN MOST OVENS!
The atmosphere of Venus is heavier than that of any other planet. It
consists primarily of carbon dioxide, with small amounts of nitrogen
and water vapor. The planet's atmosphere also contains minute traces of
argon, carbon monoxide, neon, and sulfur dioxide.
So, very hot carbon dioxide with no let up in temperature and traces of
sulfer dioxide and carbon monoxide, is what Brad is claiming a liveable
condition on the surface of Venus.
Now the hydrothermal vents;
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/ps_vents.html
The hottest part of a thermal vent approaches 400C (760F) - but life
doesn't exist in these hottest parts - life scavenges the chemical
reactions of these hot parts - and dances around in the vent, dancing
around the edges of the hot regions;
>From the NASA article;
"Water pouring out of vents can reach temperatures up to about 400 C;
the high pressure keeps the water from boiling. However, the intense
heat is limited to a small area. Within less than an inch of the vent
opening, the water temperature drops to 2 C, the ambient temperature of
deep seawater. Most of the creatures that congregate around vents live
at temperatures just above freezing. Thus chemicals are the key to vent
life, not heat"
Clearly, the life found at the hydrothermal vents, even the high
temperature bacteria that loves sulfur/water of the hydrothermal vents,
would not survive on the surface of Venus. It may survive,if we
adapted it to survive, in the upper atmosphere of Venus, and if we do
things right, we could convert the largely CO2 atmosphere to O2 - and
nitrogen - like Earth - over time. But this is speculative.'
What is not speculative - to the point of certainty - is that there is
NO intelligent life building cities on the surface of Venus.
.
Brad Guth
>is NO intelligent life building cities on the surface of Venus.
I'll have to SWAG that this time around you're speaking for your 'blind
as a bat' as well as bigoted brown-nosed self.
Technically there's nothing stopping even the likes of yourself from
surviving upon Venus. However, being that you're so dumb and dumber,
thus snookered into being dumbfounded about most anything that's not
published within your CIA World Fact Book, in which case while on Venus
we'd have to assign a personal keeper that'll be encharge of the likes
of yourself, whereas otherwise you'd be the type that would jump off
the nearest cliff in order to prove that folks can die by doing such
things, or you'd run around butt-naked while on Venus just to prove
that it's hotter than hell.
Of course, that would also be like strolling outside of ISS without a
spacesuit, which would certainly prove that we humans are not very well
suited to surviving in space, any more so than be can survive
butt-naked at 1 km under water, or within a solid block of ice seems to
have some negative aspects that I certainly wouldn't have to personally
test in order to appreciate the likely consequences.
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
>Taking the bait my ass. You freaks can't take a hint much less the
>bait that your Third Reich collaborating butts are cooked, but good.
>
>You give me a 100 fold improvement in photons with retroreflector and
>you're home free, and I'm off visiting "a psychiatrist a half dozen
>times in as many weeks". I've already advised that you should use the
>latest 337 nm laser and the KECK instrument as your transmitter and
>receiving station. Thus what the hell are you waiting for?
>
>Good Christ almighty upon another stick. These incest cloned
>brown-nosed and otherwise Third Reich collaborators (aka DrPostman,
>William Mook, Art Deco and the likes of those having similar incest
>mutated DNA) actually want folks to think that the raw surface of the
*ding* Nice LITS, Brad!
Got any evidence that I've ever sent a virus into your computer yet,
Brad?
Art Deco
William Mook
lunar surface is shiny and smooth at long wavelengths, and detectors
can amplify radio signals very very efficiently, and we can generate
kilowatts to megawatts of radio power or more to reflect off the moon,
so can easily overcome the fourth power drop off at the distances
involved.
This has been known since the 1950s.
Now...
Brad Guth said, "it's been well understood by at least most nonjewish
scientist and astronomers as having realized that a good many portions
of the lunar surface are nearly 50% IR reflective as is,"
Which is utter bullshit given the reality of just WHO did the first
radar ranging experiments
http://www.infoage.org/tjs-08-16-2002.html
hahaha... Brad you're ignorance knows no bounds. Do YOURSELF a favor
and shut the f**k up! haha..
What an asshole.
Brad Guth
Mook.
Now go back into your Jewish CIA World Fact Book and of your black hole
of pretencious three faced world of knowing thy enemy so that you can
continue snookering thy humanity, promoting whatever it is that your
favorite mainstreamism of whatever suits your pro Third Reich
collaboration, of essentially reinforcing whatever your Skull and Bones
club has to say until them NASA/Apollo cows come home.
It looks as though you're still into the usual space-toilet infomercial
mode of having to divert the topic at hand, which also involves a good
deal of evidence exclusions as per example avoiding what can be
reflected off the raw surface of moon w/o retroreflector, whereas
obviously you're even into excluding as to what a 337 nm laser beam as
using the focused optics of KECK could have easily accomplished with
photons to spare, especially if there actually were a retroreflector
within the given target area of what would be of a much smaller
illuminated zone than of previously IR illuminated efforts, and even
quite a bit smaller diameter and thus better resolution capability than
the most recent of 532 nm laser applications.
However, if using a fairly long IR wave (mid-IR of say 1500~2500 nm) as
reflected off the hard and nearly coal dark and nasty surface of our
moon isn't exactly unknown or otherwise unproven science. I'll even
post a few lunar albedo links to prove that I'm right and therefore
proving that you're a certified LLPOF brown-nose .
of Radar and IR imaging isn't exactly new, nor is it of hocus pocus
science.
Pre-Apollo Exploration of the Moon
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/Sect19_3.html
The typically visual spectrum albedo (aka NORMAL ALBEDO) is between 9%
and 13%, thus giving the overall Earth-facing average being accepted as
11%, therefore even a visual spectrum laser of 532 nm should reflect at
least 11%. This however is not per say focused upon specific
bright-spots nor of the nearly pitch black zones since the visual
resolution demand simply wasn't intended as being that detailed. The
overall front to back and top to bottom visual albedo is actually
somewhat closer to the average of 7%, of which only goes down-hill as
the illuminated phase angle is shifted away from being "0" degrees. In
other words, the moon is extremely dark and as such best reflects the
IR spectrum of light, which isn't a good thing if you're using the IR
laser beam method of looking for those secondary retroreflector
contributed photons that are derived from such an extremely slight
proportion of total illuminated target zone.
http://www.tak2000.com/data/planets/luna.htm
The albedo of of our Moon's average reflectivity is even worth a
near-IR value of 28% at 800 nm, whereas the UV-a spectrum offers far
less than 5% albedo, which actually brings the UV reflectance down to
offering less than 0.5% as derived off the least worthy (graphite
dusted coal like) surfaces, that is unless of course there's a
substantial retroreflector involved and the target illuminated zone
isn't too large an area to start with.
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/p/151.pdf
At 1210~1220 nm is where the IR albedo can be going off the chart at
well above 50%, but then above 1800 nm it's getting well beyond being
just a little reflective. Of cource, as usual such reports have been
moderated in order to suit the NASA/Apollo missions, thus clearity of
extracting the science information is not one of their intended
features.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1269.pdf
Above 2500 nm the average albedo of the top highland solids is upon
average exceeding 35%, but this again isn't per say upon a tight 2 km
resolution of what's perfectly capable of reflecting this longer
wavelength of IR at better than 50%.
Even within the conservative ratings of the visual albedo have often
been reported as offering the following semi-bright lunar targets:
Aristarchus interior A40km: 22%
Multi km bright spot within Deslandres: 24%
Proclus E wall @28 km: 28%
Stevinus A, Abulfeda E @65 km: 30%
At 11%, the moon's visual albedo is actually quite similar to that of
viewing a lump of coal, whereas the brightest of fresh snow upon Earth
can become worth nearly 95% that's obviously nowhere to being found
upon our moon. Unfortunately, playing the sorts of evidence excluding
mind games by way of excluding the IR and UV spectra and/or reflectance
of the IR/UV lunar albedo is just one of the tools by which we've been
snookered to death by those having the "right stuff".
Of course, the Lunar spectrographic information as to the salty/sodium
lunar atmosphere that's actually fairly thick/populated near the solar
illuminated and summarily roasted surface isn't exactly invisible, just
invisible (aka WMD stealth like) to all of the supposed robotic landing
missions as well as for each of the 6 NASA/Apollo teams, and as for
otherwise related topics getting ignored, bashed and/or banished by the
likes of those playing the deadly game of life that's not intended to
being at all fair, much less honest.
Oddly, most of the lunar IR albedo documents have recently been removed
and/or blocked from public view. I wonder what's to hide?
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
100 lines of Guthspew to state that you still don't understand what
specular reflectance is, nor what a retroreflector is.
Go Brad, Go!!
Brad Guth
and/or shared an honest thought within is still attracting the usual
naysayism of those intent upon promoting their usual disinformation,
and otherwise operating as their typical need-to-know crapolla as per
usual. The likes of their cult "Art Deco" being almost exactly like
having a nasty fuggy that's stuck in your wedgy that'll need to be
mechanically removed, is proof that the system is chuck full of
ulterior motives and hidden agendas. After all, the cold-war was
mutually 100% perpetrated, as in phony baloney.
Actions and not mere words are what counts. Thus far the naysay
actions of others having excluded evidence is what proves my point,
that their previous and ongoing actions are what's driving the source
code of their Usenet and other forums of words that are essentially
lies.
Doing a search for their positions on the bad sorts of government
actions is null, meaning that whatever's government (aka
MI6/NSA/CIA/FBI/DoD and so forth) is just status quo perfectly fine and
dandy by the actions and subsequent words of these folks that are
otherwise opposed to whatever's of open and honest science might have
to offer. Their naysayism is actually all about promoting, hyping and
accomplishing infomercials on behalf of damage-control and of promoting
their mainstream establishments, and otherwise naysayism is on behalf
of topic/author stalking, bashing and wherever possible banishment is
obvious, such as NASA's uplink.space.com is their private Usenet forum
which accepts only those being positive and of reinforcement upon
whatever NASA has ever accomplished, or having plans of accomplishing.
Saying a bad word about NASA is taboo/nondisclosure because it's
strictly their own forum that sucks and blows as is,
Essentially <http://Uplink.space.com> provides their own best examples
of what they'll allow are actually examples of their being far worse
off suppression of intellectual and even suppressive of religious and
social/political rights than Hitler or even of his much nastier Third
Reich and/or GW Bush had ever accomplished. These born-again pagan
liars and of their continual lies have also been providing endless
examples of their Usenet malware/fuckware efforts, as to allowing the
necessary source code through that'll terminate my PC or any others
that create the sorts of waves that rock their mainstream status quo
boats.
Usenet servers, including channels provided through GOOGLE know exactly
what's going and coming throughout their nodes, if they didn't the
internet/usenet simply wouldn't function. Therefore especially if it's
of bad code, as well as from wherever such bad code originated isn't
exactly rocket science these days. Local ISPs are equally aware of the
good, the bad and the ugly code and of the origin of such and of
exactly where it's going, whereas again, their ISP couldn't hardly
function if it didn't know. The same goes for an intranet, whereas
each of these methods simply have elected to ignore and/or banish the
truth for their next buck, and/or for the matter of promoting their
actual agenda which is as invasive and ulterior motivated as it gets.
Thus forcing the individuals as internet/usenet users and of their
sometimes necessary lose cannons to fend for themselves. Do you think
that MI6/NSA~CIA doesn't know this?
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
>I see that this topic as well as most any other topic that I've created
>and/or shared an honest thought within is still attracting the usual
>naysayism of those intent upon promoting their usual disinformation,
>and otherwise operating as their typical need-to-know crapolla as per
>usual. The likes of their cult "Art Deco" being almost exactly like
>having a nasty fuggy that's stuck in your wedgy that'll need to be
>mechanically removed, is proof that the system is chuck full of
>ulterior motives and hidden agendas. After all, the cold-war was
>mutually 100% perpetrated, as in phony baloney.
*ding* Hi, Brad!
Nice spew, Brad! Paranoid delusions are your only friend?
Brad Guth
The only "Paranoid delusions" are via those introduced by folks
hijacking topics into their intellectual cesspools of
"alt.fan.art-bell" and "alt.usenet.kooks".
Too bad that crapolla actually runs up-hill within this Usenet that
sucks and blows specifically because of the brown-nosed incest cloning
that created the mutated DNA likes of Art Deco. You'd think his own
kind would deal with the infection that's in the process of bringing
down their entire Skull and Bones cultism (aka Third Reich) before
their dumbfounded eyes.
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
<tips sombrero>
Thank you for repoasting more of your paranoid delusions, Brad! Got
any evidence yet that I've ever sent a virus into your computer, Brad?
Brad Guth
in spite of whatever you've previously learned and been told over and
over, I can prove that there's been other intelligent life on Venus.
For starters, Venus simply is NOT insurmountably too hot and nasty.
The notions of terraforming or rather DNA seeding doesn't have to
represent running yourself butt naked across the surface of our moon,
or especially that of a geothermally toasty but otherwise harmlessly
dry surface of Venus (that is as long as you can manage to not step in
the lava or somewhat nasty mud flows).
Moon or Venus; Surface and underground habitats are going to be just
fine and dandy, and perhaps every bit as good as it needs to get.
However, exploring Venus by way of rigid-airship is yet another
win-win, of accomplishing whatever's your business of getting safely
from place to place via cruising efficiently through the crystal clear
and relatively calm soup of the Venus atmosphere that affords 65 kg/m3,
seems rather obvious of what can be technically managed. However, I'm
also thinking the taboo/nondisclosure worth of what the LSE-CM/ISS has
to offers isn't exactly such a bad place to start towards accomplishing
such nearby planetary expedition. At least the amount of applied
rocket energy as necessary from LL-1/ME-L1 to Venus is almost a free
ride, where as coming back within 19 months after the fact of trecking
towards Venus isn't going to transpire without a good deal of a CO/O2
powered shuttle/rocketship, although the LBR of h2o2/c3h4o could remain
as plan-B, with the ABR/U235 kicker option as plan-C.
Fortunately, there's already been intelligent (aka ET) life on Venus,
or at the very least it had once upon a time been there in a very big
way. The last time I'd checked, mother nature doesn't generally
construct massive tarmacs that have complex sub-service bays, along
with having created a rational complexity of infrastructure of having
such large and sophisticated community of nifty structures as situated
right next door to that tarmac, nor has mother nature produced the
likes of such a nifty bridge plus just about every imaginable civilized
attribute that's looking every bit as artificial(aka man/et made) as it
gets.
Good Christ almighty on another stick, without much question there has
been other significant and entirely intelligent other life identified
as existing/coexisting upon Venus. It's that freaking simple, and I as
well as the regular laws of physics can prove it, not to mention the
observationology of my having interpreted a 36 look per pixel image as
to what the Magellan mission affords as a perfectly honest and nearly
3D look-see, as to further supporting and sharing in what I've been
talking about for the past 6 years and counting.
Venus is only perceptively too hot and nasty for those of us having to
remain as too mainstream dumbfounded (aka box sequestered) to realize
that for the past 4+ decades they've been summarily snookered by those
folks claiming as having "the right stuff". Apparently as of lately
their original "right stuff" has been superseded by our "so what's the
difference" policy of pagan born-again iars telling us lies which only
begets more lies than we can shake our fist full of flaming sticks at.
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Bookman
wrote:
>Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Art Deco; Nice spew, Brad! Paranoid delusions are your only friend?
>>
>>The only "Paranoid delusions" are via those introduced by folks
>>hijacking topics into their intellectual cesspools of
>>"alt.fan.art-bell" and "alt.usenet.kooks".
>>
>>Too bad that crapolla actually runs up-hill within this Usenet that
>>sucks and blows specifically because of the brown-nosed incest cloning
>>that created the mutated DNA likes of Art Deco. You'd think his own
>>kind would deal with the infection that's in the process of bringing
>>down their entire Skull and Bones cultism (aka Third Reich) before
>>their dumbfounded eyes.
>>-
>>Brad Guth
>>
>
><tips sombrero>
>
>Thank you for repoasting more of your paranoid delusions, Brad! Got
>any evidence yet that I've ever sent a virus into your computer, Brad?
You are erreneously presupposing that Teh Guthball deals with facts
and/or evidence, Deco.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Monthly Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html
Art Deco
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:57:02 -0700, Art Deco <art_...@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Art Deco; Nice spew, Brad! Paranoid delusions are your only friend?
>>>
>>>The only "Paranoid delusions" are via those introduced by folks
>>>hijacking topics into their intellectual cesspools of
>>>"alt.fan.art-bell" and "alt.usenet.kooks".
>>>
>>>Too bad that crapolla actually runs up-hill within this Usenet that
>>>sucks and blows specifically because of the brown-nosed incest cloning
>>>that created the mutated DNA likes of Art Deco. You'd think his own
>>>kind would deal with the infection that's in the process of bringing
>>>down their entire Skull and Bones cultism (aka Third Reich) before
>>>their dumbfounded eyes.
>>>-
>>>Brad Guth
>>>
>>
>><tips sombrero>
>>
>>Thank you for repoasting more of your paranoid delusions, Brad! Got
>>any evidence yet that I've ever sent a virus into your computer, Brad?
>
>You are erreneously presupposing that Teh Guthball deals with facts
>and/or evidence, Deco.
Brad Guth spent nearly all of December accusing me of implanting
"spermware" and "fuckware" into his Windows box, so I am merely giving
him some gentle reminders of his obsession. Of course he has no
evidence of such.
Art Deco
>Version 1.1: Venus/Moon - to Terraform and/or DNA seed or Not -
>in spite of whatever you've previously learned and been told over and
>over, I can prove that there's been other intelligent life on Venus.
>For starters, Venus simply is NOT insurmountably too hot and nasty.
Any evidence for your claim yet, Brad?
>
>The notions of terraforming or rather DNA seeding doesn't have to
>represent running yourself butt naked across the surface of our moon,
>or especially that of a geothermally toasty but otherwise harmlessly
>dry surface of Venus (that is as long as you can manage to not step in
>the lava or somewhat nasty mud flows).
How do you know this, Brad? Have you been there?
>
>Moon or Venus; Surface and underground habitats are going to be just
>fine and dandy, and perhaps every bit as good as it needs to get.
>However, exploring Venus by way of rigid-airship is yet another
>win-win, of accomplishing whatever's your business of getting safely
Brad's Venusian dirigibles are back, he must be hard up for attention.
>from place to place via cruising efficiently through the crystal clear
>and relatively calm soup of the Venus atmosphere that affords 65 kg/m3,
>seems rather obvious of what can be technically managed. However, I'm
>also thinking the taboo/nondisclosure worth of what the LSE-CM/ISS has
>to offers isn't exactly such a bad place to start towards accomplishing
>such nearby planetary expedition. At least the amount of applied
>rocket energy as necessary from LL-1/ME-L1 to Venus is almost a free
>ride, where as coming back within 19 months after the fact of trecking
>towards Venus isn't going to transpire without a good deal of a CO/O2
>powered shuttle/rocketship, although the LBR of h2o2/c3h4o could remain
>as plan-B, with the ABR/U235 kicker option as plan-C.
>
>Fortunately, there's already been intelligent (aka ET) life on Venus,
Any evidence for your claim yet, Brad?
>or at the very least it had once upon a time been there in a very big
>way. The last time I'd checked, mother nature doesn't generally
>construct massive tarmacs that have complex sub-service bays, along
>with having created a rational complexity of infrastructure of having
>such large and sophisticated community of nifty structures as situated
>right next door to that tarmac, nor has mother nature produced the
>likes of such a nifty bridge plus just about every imaginable civilized
>attribute that's looking every bit as artificial(aka man/et made) as it
>gets.
>
>Good Christ almighty on another stick, without much question there has
>been other significant and entirely intelligent other life identified
>as existing/coexisting upon Venus. It's that freaking simple, and I as
>well as the regular laws of physics can prove it,
You have a funny way of proving things, Brad.
>not to mention the
>observationology of my having interpreted a 36 look per pixel image as
>to what the Magellan mission affords as a perfectly honest and nearly
>3D look-see, as to further supporting and sharing in what I've been
>talking about for the past 6 years and counting.
You misspelled "spewing", Brad.
>
>Venus is only perceptively too hot and nasty for those of us having to
>remain as too mainstream dumbfounded (aka box sequestered) to realize
>that for the past 4+ decades they've been summarily snookered by those
>folks claiming as having "the right stuff".
Please post a list of all the conspirators involved in covering up
these important facts about Venus, Brad.
>Apparently as of lately
>their original "right stuff" has been superseded by our "so what's the
>difference" policy of pagan born-again iars telling us lies which only
>begets more lies than we can shake our fist full of flaming sticks at.
You forgot to whine about virii in your computer in this post, Brad.
>~
>
>Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
>The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
>Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Nice kooklinks, Brad. Here's a link you always run away from:
<http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1468>
Brad Guth
>high temperature test cells don't exist. They do exist.
>The question I have for Brad is he willing to step into one
>that reproduces the environment of Venus?
>If so, I'll arrange for the use of one, and if he emerges
>unscathed, I might admit he's possibly right about there
>being cities on the surface of the planet. hahaha...
William Mook (aka all-knowing naysayer),
What's my limited human DNA limited biology got to do with other
intelligent life (that's obviously a whole lot DNA tougher and
otherwise smarter than yourself) having coexisted upon Venus?
BTW; pressure is nearly meaningless if you've physically adapted (aka
equalized) inside and out, and surviving temperature is directly
proportional to pressure, meaning the greater the pressure the greater
the tolerance for other adapted life surviving within that environment,
and the much less percentage of O2 demand. Of course applied
technology can overcome nearly any amount of such pressure and
temperature, especially when there's such unlimited local energy that's
about as green and renewable as it gets.
What part of sufficiently "intelligent" other life is not getting
understood by lord Mook?
What part of the regular laws of physics are you excluding away from
other life on Venus?
Why would you be opposed to promoting the Venus-L2 (VL-2) station
keeping platform as perhaps the new and greatly improved replacement
for the TRACE team, and otherwise on behalf of whatever's worthy for
the continued science of otherwise appreciating whatever Venus has to
offer?
After all, it seems that we have unlimited time, talents and resources
for exploring the likes of Mars, Mercury and Pluto, either of which
offers humanity zilch worth of anything even if each of those orbs were
made entirely of liquid gold (aka oil), plus real gold and diamonds.
There's supposedly a nifty cash of He3 within the easily accessible
surface of our extremely nearby moon, and otherwise mega tonnes worth
of extremely nifty elements to boot, yet according to your own
hard-science and of the regular laws of physics (including via proven
rocket-science) we can't even walk upon it.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
prove that you're nothing but a certified Usenet liar.
>Life forms might exist, sure, lots of things MIGHT be right. But Brad
>is saying that intelligent life forms are presently inhabiting Venus
>without the benefit of hardsuits and the like and have built huge
>cities there. And, that's what I was resopnding to. So, you like Alan
>earlier are changing the context of the conversation when you bring
>these things up.
I never once insisted nor otherwise inferred as to the lack of whatever
"hardsuits", as would be humanly necessary, just as I've never once
stipulated that local Venusians as having "built huge cities there"
were populated by the sorts of butt naked Earthly fools that obviously
represent the likes of what William Mook associates with.
BTW; I've never even once stipulated "huge cities", thus where are you
getting this disinformation crapolla from? (obviously you're making it
all up as you go along)
Instead of lord/wizard Mook being your typically naysaying bigot on
steroids, try an open mindset as to comprehending on behalf of visiting
ETs, as having built sufficiently large establishments, at least at
three locations and of perhaps hosting a few other sufficiently
elevated sites (aka Ishtar Tera should certainly be worthy of a viable
site or two) seems perfectly doable as based upon the one best image
that beholds as to what looks far more artificial than not.
I'm not even the village idiot that's insisting whomever/whatever
created such a large infrastructure of what looks perfectly rational as
a compact township or ET outpost of what their home away from home
might look, that such has to represent these folks are still alive and
kicking. Although, being situated where there's literally unlimited
green/renewable energy to burn is what makes it entirely likely that
folks with half a fired brain could still be toughing it out, or
perhaps not even so tough if every soul had access to and/or received
benefit from few MW worth of such spare energy.
>Tater Schuld; The weird part is that life as we know it might be able
>to exist on Venus.
Within some degree of long-term adaptations and perhaps if necessary a
little of applied butt-saving intelligent design plus technology, I
think it is possible for a degree of life as we've know it to have
adjusted to an obviously bad situation. After all, it took thousands
if not tens of thousands of years for Venus to have recently gotten
itself so hot and nasty (much longer yet if it were merely solar
induced), much like it's taking thousands of years for humanity to
summarily destroy the most livable and thus survivable environment of
Earth, although our resident born-again warlord(GW Bush) might go
thermal nuclear postal at any moment. Venus could have easily been
nailed by a motherload of a nasty asteroid that was packing some
serious density, enough for causing a total global reset and otherwise
having entered and expanded it's inner core to the unfortunate point of
geologically having to get rid of the physically added energy, which
takes time.
Speaking of life as we know it surviving in spite of having been
situated where it's humanly too damn hot and nasty upon Earth, not to
mention under too much pressure and obviously too wet.
>The interesting thing here is that these life forms are largely adapted
>from surface life forms. We see crabs, lobsters and the like. But, we
>also see things that were never seen on the surface! And those are
>most interesting.
>So, bacteria as we know it MIGHT have adapted on Venus. In fact, my
>friend, Carl Sagan has even suggested that WE might adapt life to Venus
>in order to terraform it.
If there's "bacteria as we know it" (which I'm thinking there is), then
there's a good chance that we'll uncover intelligent life as we know
it. Keeping in mind that I don't consider the vast bulk of humanity
worthy of being classified as intelligent life, especially since so
many of us are too much like our William Mook, or otherwise a little
too much like our resident warlord(GW Bush). Thus intelligence is
within the eye of the surviving beholder, of which we humans may not
survive ourselves.
>What is not possible - or unlikely to the point of impossibility - is
>the existence of cities on the surface of Venus built by intelligences
>from other stars who inhabit the surface unprotected from the
>environment we find there today.
There you folks go again, with lord Mook insisting that it's got to be
all as to whatever's your pathetic interpretation or nothing, whereas I
never once insisted that ETs accomplished a freaking damn thing,
whereas it could be just plain old normal (terrestrial Earth like)
evolution as having accomplished such other life as having since become
the required intelligent Venus style of adapted life, which by the way
as absolutely nothing to do with their being the least bit radio smart
or otherwise of the sorts of butt-ugly bigoted mindset smarts as
imposed by the likes of such all-knowing fools, such as the likes of
William Mook that represents himself as being the 99.9% of what this
Usenet that absolutely sucks and blows is all about.
Instead of my being any sort of intellectual bigot, especially because
I'm such an all around nice sort of positive thinking and considerate
messenger from hell, in which case I just gave the open-door benefit of
doubt that interstellar ETs having perhaps at least once upon a few
times (every 100,000 some odd years or so) that at such intervals
haven't been exactly all that far away from our solar system, whereas
these good folks could have managed to have at least transferred their
DNA and/or of whatever was their best efforts of having deployed their
best intelligent design alternatives that were suited to the Venus
environment, as in double duh and gee whiz in the same exact way that
our probes are managing to place technology and optionally some of our
terrestrial DNA upon other nearby planets and moons, with the exception
of our own naked moon, of which apparently we haven't quite achieved
the sufficient fly-by-rocket technology in order to master such on
behalf of our own shadow.
BTW; Such large and perfectly rational structures certainly indicate
as though offering a substantial degree of "hardsuit" or whatever you'd
care to interpret as having provided a sufficiently protective shell,
as being exactly what's interpreted as to being seen within the primary
image of what's looking quite robustly township and nearby tarmac
worthy, not to mention multiple reservoirs, a nifty bridge and even
perfectly rigid airship like (as in how else would you get yourself
around Venus?).
At least "Tater Schuld" has been coming around to sharing upon his
realizing that technically and even a bit biologically there's no
actual limitations as to accomplishing such facilities of sufficiently
R-1024/m insulated abodes, or even of having created the likes of rigid
airships is the least bit impossible. As I've said at least a thousand
times, there's absolutely NO LIMITS as to the available green/renewable
energy that's upon Venus. So, what's your pathetic naysay bigoted (aka
evidence excluding) intellectual flatulence blasting problem this time,
lord/wizard Mook?
Astrobiology: The Case for Venus by; Geoffrey A. Landis
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2003/TM-2003-212310.pdf
Of "what is not possible - or unlikely to the point of impossibility -"
is the likes of Mook having an open mindset upon anything that'll rock
his mostly Jewish boat (aka pro Third Reich / Skull and Bones good ship
LOLLIPOP), thus Mook is sequestered within his very own imoral cesspool
of a box, as being anti-ET as well as his anti-Christ and forever
naysayism upon anything that's not published within his CIA World Fact
Book, remains forever as his one and only status quo or bust
alternative until them NASA/Apollo cows come home.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
stalking and bashing along with hijacking into alt.whatever groups that
suit the ulterior motivated likes of Art Deco remains as the Usenet
norm.
On one face these all-knowing Usenet folks talk as though they know
absolutely all there is to know (aka NASA insiders), with their second
face being one of offering a total lack of viable knowledge (aka
naysay/dumbfounded), and then a third face being one of where they are
pretending at being patriotic and/or religious (aka GW Bush brown-nose
minions). Of course there's a fourth face of the very same Usenet
individual that keeps telling the likes of myself that no one important
ever bothers to read of anything or otherwise interprets information as
extracted out of Usenet. Yet these all-knowing Usenet folks of four or
more faces keep introducing and discussing topics as though they are in
fact speaking above God and/or on behalf of their pagan warlords, in
such a manner that is undeniably telling us village idiots that Usenet
is actually being read by many folks that never contribute squat upon
their own behalf, but they do in fact read and otherwise intercept and
subsequently interpret information out of the important comments.
Besides all of that, it seems that in addition to their having four or
more faces, most Usenet contributors (especially of those intent upon
stalking and bashing topics and authors) are not at all whom they claim
to be. It's as though being a certified liar from the very get-go is
all that really matters in addition to their being pro status quo,
meaning pro-war, pro-global expansion and usage of everything in sight,
and otherwise anti-environmental as well as anti-truth as you can get.
Thus without exception, of those accomplishing the most topic/author
stalking and bashing are every bit as anti-ET and anti-intelligent
design and thus anti-truth as you can possibly get, especially if it's
related to anything that close to home.
Thus we're being told over and over that we have the unlimited time,
talents and resources for having a look-see at Mercury, Pluto or any
other distant planet or moon as long as these are farther away than
humanity can possibly accomplish anything with, no matters what's
discovered.
Oddly, our own moon is taboo/nondisclosure, and especially need-to-know
as to the LL-1/ME-L1 (aka mutual gravity-well) zone is still as
off-limits as it gets. My having discovered that something that was at
least once upon a time alive and intelligently responsible for having
created significant structures plus rational infrastructure upon Venus
is totally banished. Yet the perpetrated cold-war that has cost
humanity countless millions of lives, taken decades upon decades of
wasted time, talents and resources to the tune of trillions upon
trillions is perfectly fine and dandy, as is the physics and science
disinformation and lies contributed by all that's NASA/Apollo are
somehow above God and of all that's worthy of being worshiped.
The harsh naked surface of our moon isn't nearly as moonsuit friendly
as we've been informed, and it takes a whole lot more than a Saturn-V
for getting that sort of tonnage so expeditiously into orbiting our
moon. We simply haven't the fly-by-rocket expertise, nor have we
currently the degree of applied technology by which to humanly explore
the surface of our own moon, yet we're being told otherwise, just like
we've been told otherwise as to so many things our government has been
involved with that just are not so.
There's so much pretentious arrogance within Usenet, so much so that
they're into a collective bigotry and od such lies upon lies that we
can't even save ourselves from our own artificially induced wrath of
mother nature, much less from those we've provoked into being angry
Islamic types that have a notion that they've been lied to once and
thousand times too often. It seems that our naysayism isn't per say
into sharing squat of anything that matters, especially if that gives a
gram of an advantage to those we're trying to moderate into an early
grave. We're into the taking of what's not ours and/or of otherwise
controlling of it's global distribution so that only the most rich and
most powerful remain encharge of the global energy based economy. It's
all about the money and the power that's orchestrated as to further
insuring that the money keeps arriving into the offshore banking
accounts of those opposing the truth. It's that simple, folks.
Besides having a perfectly good picture and the regular laws of physics
plus numerous hard-science by many that supports as to what the picture
of what's situated upon Venus has to show, what more proof you need?
I've certainly got tonnes more proof-positive than all of what our
resident warlord(GW Bush) and of his brown-nosed minions had with
regards to WMD, plus an ongoing fiasco that stemmed directly from his
having created 911 in the first place, that has cost our world tens of
thousands of mostly innocent lives, plus costing thousands of our own
kind, not to mention the collateral damage and global impact that has
cost us and of humanity trillions upon trillions, plus having taken the
some of the best talents and resources away from the realms of science,
and thereby away from having explored and capitalized upon our own moon
and of the LL-1/ME-L1 zone, much less having experienced any other
nearby planet and of a few other moons. In other words, these Usenet
folks that are encharge of keeping the status quo are by far the worse
possible forms of Third Reich bigots and otherwise sadistic and
perverted souls upon Earth.
Topic/author banishment and of all the incoming Usenet flak plus loads
of having received their malware/fuckware that's continually trying to
block and/or terminate my PC is simply further proof-positive that my
lose cannons are still sufficiently right on target.
-
Brad Guth
Bookman
wrote:
>Bookman <thebo...@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:57:02 -0700, Art Deco <art_...@127.0.0.1>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Art Deco; Nice spew, Brad! Paranoid delusions are your only friend?
>>>>
>>>>The only "Paranoid delusions" are via those introduced by folks
>>>>hijacking topics into their intellectual cesspools of
>>>>"alt.fan.art-bell" and "alt.usenet.kooks".
>>>>
>>>>Too bad that crapolla actually runs up-hill within this Usenet that
>>>>sucks and blows specifically because of the brown-nosed incest cloning
>>>>that created the mutated DNA likes of Art Deco. You'd think his own
>>>>kind would deal with the infection that's in the process of bringing
>>>>down their entire Skull and Bones cultism (aka Third Reich) before
>>>>their dumbfounded eyes.
>>>>-
>>>>Brad Guth
>>>>
>>>
>>><tips sombrero>
>>>
>>>Thank you for repoasting more of your paranoid delusions, Brad! Got
>>>any evidence yet that I've ever sent a virus into your computer, Brad?
>>
>>You are erreneously presupposing that Teh Guthball deals with facts
>>and/or evidence, Deco.
>
>Brad Guth spent nearly all of December accusing me of implanting
>"spermware" and "fuckware" into his Windows box,
Yep, I remember. He's accused me of the same, if you recall.
>so I am merely giving
>him some gentle reminders of his obsession.
By all means, carry on, carry on.
>Of course he has no
>evidence of such.
Naturally. But it's never a waste to remind Brad and the listening
audience(tinla) that evidence isn't his strong suit. Please don't
take my reminder personally on your own part.
And don't forget, Brad: Science, facts, and evidence all demonstrate
that men really did walk on the moon. OTOH, there is _no_ evidence of
any "conspiracy" to "fake a moon landing".
Art Deco
Yes, now that you mention it, I do remember.
>
>>so I am merely giving
>>him some gentle reminders of his obsession.
>
>By all means, carry on, carry on.
Thank you, sir.
>
>>Of course he has no
>>evidence of such.
>
>Naturally. But it's never a waste to remind Brad and the listening
>audience(tinla) that evidence isn't his strong suit. Please don't
>take my reminder personally on your own part.
Indeed, none was.
>
>And don't forget, Brad: Science, facts, and evidence all demonstrate
>that men really did walk on the moon. OTOH, there is _no_ evidence of
>any "conspiracy" to "fake a moon landing".
>
I want to see pics of his Venusian dirigibles.
Art Deco
>The phony baloney faces of Usenet are so many, plus topic/author
>stalking and bashing along with hijacking into alt.whatever groups that
>suit the ulterior motivated likes of Art Deco remains as the Usenet
>norm.
*ding* Hi, Brad!
Nice meltdown, Brad.
>-
>Brad Guth
>
>Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
>The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
>Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
>
Nice kooklinks, Brad.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald Karczewski©, usenet "christ"
William Mook
Brad isn't even self-consistent - let along being consistent with what
is generally known by his betters. Check it out;
Brad said he never claimed there were cities on Venus.
But, in his rant on the subject;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
He clearly states the following;
"13+ years have gone by since we've acquired this image of their city "
Brad Guth
alt.usenet.kooks),
Dear lord Mook,
Now you're saying that I have "betters"?
You've certainly got me there, as I must have clearly slipped another
cog really good with another one of my lose cannons. Though I've never
have stipulated "large cities" as you had originaly proposed, however I
also badly used the general phrase "we've acquired", meaning actually a
fairly large group of NSA/CIA engineers, scientist and the entire
Magellan team of wizards along with a few NASA types that were 100+%
publicly funded is what the rest of us village idiots had to pay for.
The other possible interpretation of "we" as referring to the general
population of humanity have technically had access to this public
archive of such images, plus most all the other images obtained by the
Magellan team as of 13+ years ago and counting.
I believe the mission ran itself out of gas and was dumped into the
Venus atmosphere near the end of 1994, whereas most of the radar
imaging had been obtained by mid 1991, thus actually it's 15 years
since the raw data was obtained, then a couple of years of essentially
a radar to digital form of PhotoShop was applied in order to construct
each of the GFI public images, with the final image mapping catalog of
Venus as per having been imaged by the Magellan mission and polished up
as of just a few years ago is a done deal. Fortunately, all the raw
information is exactly the same as from the very start, thereby it's
essentially impossible to modify/distort an image without easily being
caught.
However, as to a township is actually NOT a city, no more than a
temporary boy scout camp is worthy of being called a township.
Although a Venusian "city" is something that is entirely possible
(perhaps most likely situated upon Ishtar Terra), however a few
extremely large structures near a complex tarmac, along with a few
interesting reservoirs and that nifty bridge for getting stuff across
that canyon/rille like extremely nasty ditch might not even qualify as
a township. It's more or less like a base establishment on behalf of
mining operations, although that fairly large fluid-arch seems rather
interesting in a perfectly natural way, at least it's almost as
interesting as per taking a gander at their massive rigid airship
that's perhaps 2/3 exposed, as parked sufficiently nearby, having those
two aligned rows of storage like items recessed into the mountain are
looking somewhat cruise-ship impressive.
The elevated terrain of Ishtar Terra is roughly the size of the
continental United States and Aphrodite Terra is nearly the size of
Africa. Highlands of Venus are obviously where it's going to be
somewhat cooler, especially the nothern Ishtar Terra and by the season
of nighttime unless you've situated yourself upon any number of
volcanic and/or mud flows that'll be real nasty.
This is such an interesting geological site, whereas this might
otherwise be a destination resort?
Quite possible this primary site could also be a little bit like a
science research facility, whereas Venusians have been using that
massive airship for their extremely high altitude nighttime flights
above those nasty clouds, and/or having been using thse massive
parabolic items in efforts focused upon their trying to figure out why
Earth has been getting so polluted and absolutely so chuck full of the
sorts of dumb and dumber fools than all of the other life within the
known universe.
My SWAG as to the possible population may also be conservative as to
suggesting upon something less than a city, whereas a few thousand
folks might be the case, although with good automation and applications
of rigid airships, there's probably no demanding requirement for more
than a few hundred souls. What do you think?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
the existing piles of information that's already sufficiently telling
us that other life as situated upon Venus has been doable, and that it
is possibly still alive and kicking, and that my observationology as of
6 years ago and counting has been right on the mark of being the
hard-scientific truth and nothing but the truth as to what's to being
seen that's ET or otherwise artificial as existing in plain sight.
This will also continue to prove that I'm more than sufficiently right
as to what others have been doing to obscure, bash, banish and/or
otherwise hide this truth via evidence exclusions, as to not only about
Venus but otherwise about our extremely salty and once upon a time icy
proto-moon.
In addition to the above, we should be asking; Why is there still no
mention of LL-1, ME-L1 or EM-L2 as associated rocket-science or of
satellite station-keeping information tagged along with anything that's
NASA or Apollo?
Why are the LRBs of h2o2/c3h4o off-limits, as in topic
taboo/nondisclosure?
Why is our moon and of anything remotely related so
taboo/nondisclosure?
Why is the TRACE-VL2 platform so topic taboo/nondisclosure?
Why is the LSE-CM/ISS concept so topic taboo/nondisclosure?
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
>William Mook (aka Usenet wizard of cesspools alt.fan.art-bell and
>alt.usenet.kooks),
One can always tell a decent Brad Poast(tm) when they start off with a
nice plateful of ad hominems like these.
>>Brad isn't even self-consistent - let along being consistent with what
>>is generally known by his betters. Check it out;
>
>>Brad said he never claimed there were cities on Venus.
>>But, in his rant on the subject;
>http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
>>He clearly states the following;
>"13+ years have gone by since we've acquired this image of their city"
Prepare thyself for reams of kookdrool necessary to paper over the
blatant contradiction.
>
>Dear lord Mook,
>Now you're saying that I have "betters"?
>You've certainly got me there, as I must have clearly slipped another
>cog really good with another one of my lose cannons. Though I've never
>have stipulated "large cities" as you had originaly proposed, however I
>also badly used the general phrase "we've acquired", meaning actually a
>fairly large group of NSA/CIA engineers, scientist and the entire
>Magellan team of wizards along with a few NASA types that were 100+%
>publicly funded is what the rest of us village idiots had to pay for.
>The other possible interpretation of "we" as referring to the general
>population of humanity have technically had access to this public
>archive of such images, plus most all the other images obtained by the
>Magellan team as of 13+ years ago and counting.
Brad is jus getting warmed up.
>
>I believe the mission ran itself out of gas and was dumped into the
>Venus atmosphere near the end of 1994, whereas most of the radar
>imaging had been obtained by mid 1991, thus actually it's 15 years
>since the raw data was obtained, then a couple of years of essentially
>a radar to digital form of PhotoShop was applied in order to construct
>each of the GFI public images, with the final image mapping catalog of
>Venus as per having been imaged by the Magellan mission and polished up
>as of just a few years ago is a done deal. Fortunately, all the raw
>information is exactly the same as from the very start, thereby it's
>essentially impossible to modify/distort an image without easily being
>caught.
>
>However, as to a township is actually NOT a city, no more than a
>temporary boy scout camp is worthy of being called a township.\
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
>
>Although a Venusian "city" is something that is entirely possible
>(perhaps most likely situated upon Ishtar Terra), however a few
>extremely large structures near a complex tarmac, along with a few
>interesting reservoirs and that nifty bridge for getting stuff across
>that canyon/rille like extremely nasty ditch might not even qualify as
>a township. It's more or less like a base establishment on behalf of
>mining operations, although that fairly large fluid-arch seems rather
>interesting in a perfectly natural way, at least it's almost as
>interesting as per taking a gander at their massive rigid airship
>that's perhaps 2/3 exposed, as parked sufficiently nearby, having those
>two aligned rows of storage like items recessed into the mountain are
>looking somewhat cruise-ship impressive.
Weasel on, Brad!
>
>The elevated terrain of Ishtar Terra is roughly the size of the
>continental United States and Aphrodite Terra is nearly the size of
>Africa. Highlands of Venus are obviously where it's going to be
>somewhat cooler, especially the nothern Ishtar Terra and by the season
>of nighttime unless you've situated yourself upon any number of
>volcanic and/or mud flows that'll be real nasty.
>
>This is such an interesting geological site, whereas this might
>otherwise be a destination resort?
At the end of the rant, Brad isn't even bothering to try answering his
contradiction, and instead has wandered off to YANS (yet another non
sequitur, Brad).
>
>Quite possible this primary site could also be a little bit like a
>science research facility, whereas Venusians have been using that
>massive airship for their extremely high altitude nighttime flights
>above those nasty clouds, and/or having been using thse massive
>parabolic items in efforts focused upon their trying to figure out why
>Earth has been getting so polluted and absolutely so chuck full of the
>sorts of dumb and dumber fools than all of the other life within the
>known universe.
Like the author of this post.
>
>My SWAG as to the possible population may also be conservative as to
>suggesting upon something less than a city, whereas a few thousand
>folks might be the case, although with good automation and applications
>of rigid airships, there's probably no demanding requirement for more
>than a few hundred souls. What do you think?
I don't know, tell me what your "SWAG" acronuym means first and perhaps
I'll give an answer, Brad.
Art Deco
Jorge R. Frank
127.0.0.1:
> Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>My SWAG as to the possible population may also be conservative as to
>>suggesting upon something less than a city, whereas a few thousand
>>folks might be the case, although with good automation and applications
>>of rigid airships, there's probably no demanding requirement for more
>>than a few hundred souls. What do you think?
>
> I don't know, tell me what your "SWAG" acronuym means first and perhaps
> I'll give an answer, Brad.
WAG = "Wild-Assed Guess"
SWAG= "Scientific Wild-Assed Guess"
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Art Deco
>Art Deco <art_...@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:150220061908150190%art_deco@
>127.0.0.1:
>
>> Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>My SWAG as to the possible population may also be conservative as to
>>>suggesting upon something less than a city, whereas a few thousand
>>>folks might be the case, although with good automation and applications
>>>of rigid airships, there's probably no demanding requirement for more
>>>than a few hundred souls. What do you think?
>>
>> I don't know, tell me what your "SWAG" acronuym means first and perhaps
>> I'll give an answer, Brad.
>
>WAG = "Wild-Assed Guess"
>SWAG= "Scientific Wild-Assed Guess"
Ah, thanks, it always helps to have a Bradlish<-->English translation
at hand when attempting to decipher his posts.
Jorge R. Frank
127.0.0.1:
> Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>
>>Art Deco <art_...@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:150220061908150190%art_deco@
>>127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Brad Guth <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>My SWAG as to the possible population may also be conservative as to
>>>>suggesting upon something less than a city, whereas a few thousand
>>>>folks might be the case, although with good automation and applications
>>>>of rigid airships, there's probably no demanding requirement for more
>>>>than a few hundred souls. What do you think?
>>>
>>> I don't know, tell me what your "SWAG" acronuym means first and perhaps
>>> I'll give an answer, Brad.
>>
>>WAG = "Wild-Assed Guess"
>>SWAG= "Scientific Wild-Assed Guess"
>
> Ah, thanks, it always helps to have a Bradlish<-->English translation
> at hand when attempting to decipher his posts.
Actually, in this case it's not as much a pure Bradlish word as a (mis)
appropriation of a common engineering slang term. Engineers often use SWAG
as shorthand for "I don't have the time or the data to come up with the
real answer now, but my engineering judgment tells me it's roughly this."
Implicit with that is the promise, if the precision of the answer is
important, to go back and do the analysis to clean up the SWAG once more
time and better data is available.
To complete the translation from Bradlish, feel free to change the "S" from
"scientific" to something more appropriate.
William Mook
Ass Guess
hahahahahahaha
Art Deco
In other words, Brad is attempting to appear knowledgable by (mis)using
jargon. He seems to be a magnet for just about any acronym ever
employed in aerospace technology.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald KarczewskiŠ, usenet "christ"
Art Deco
>Ah yes, and one more appropriate term would be S=shit for brains Wild
>Ass Guess
>
>hahahahahahaha
I am finding myself in agreement with this sentiment.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Have patience. First I shall deal with the State of Oregon
and County of Josephine, Then the AFAB, government/media
disinformation Agents with whom you conspire to libel me and my
family. Your time will come."
-- Raymond Ronald KarczewskiŠ, usenet "christ"
Bookman
wrote:
>Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
The other part of understanding Bradlish is to keep in mind that
whatever he believes to be true is "hard science", no matter if he
found it in his fevered dreams or calculated that 2 + 2 = 5.
Otherwise, Bradlish does not allow for facts, evidence, reseach,
peer review, or any other aspect of science to be "hard science"
if it happens to disagree with his conclusions. HTH.
Art Deco
No wonder Brad has such a hard time getting anywhere, he's trying to
use the cart out in front to steer the oxen.
Brad Guth
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/browse_frm/thread/640a6a1c5c79ef5d/059e06acf5a5c7f7?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1&hl=en#059e06acf5a5c7f7
This topic has really been hit by such a tonne of bicks and
subsequently getting downright pathetic, of receiving so much naysayism
and status quo or bust crapolla that it's nearly impossible to share
upon much of anything that actually matters. In spite of all the
topic/author stalking and bashing that's just as obvious as there not
being any WMD, I'd thought that sharing upon a few words as to whom's
capable of seeing what's existing upon Venus that's most likely of
what's artificial/intelligent based, isn't as such limited to the likes
of myself. And you certainly don't have to be another Einstein in
order to appreciate what's entirely possible about other intelligent
life coexisting upon Venus.
David Bacque,
Basically you'll have to be smart enough in order to tell by way of
looking at a photo of what's fat and of what's not, and of the same
applied effort of going in for the kill as to interpreting the likes of
realizing upon whatever's afforded by a very big and perfectly natural
terrain that's offering piles of nasty hot rock (aka mountains of rock)
and of what's otherwise not so typically random of geological,
meteorological and subsequently erosion formed patterns.
Obviously a 90 degree down-looking and thus very 2D limited spy-plane
like image isn't hardly worth squat, and worth much less if such were
being solar and secondary terrain illuminated is simply adding further
interpretive insult to injury.
Even Einstein wouldn't be any better off at the expertise of
observationology than a one-eyed old fart of a village idiot that still
can't tie his/her own shoe laces. In fact, an Einstein type would
likely over-analyze to the point of no return, especially if there were
any social/political and religious implications.
I'm certainly not that sort of a village idiot that's insisting upon
the one and only image interpretation as being all there is to say
about what's sufficiently depicted within the primary image that looks
as though it's containing a whole lot more of what's artificial and
thus intelligent (aka perfectly rational) looking than not. Though I'd
be glad to share much more of what I've interpreted if it weren't for
all the continual flak coming my way.
The likes of David Bacque are ones with all of the mainstream or bust
mindset of continually going naysay postal without a stitch of remorse
nor ever once sharing one supportive image that's in behalf of
depicting whatever else provides such examples of what looks as though
artificial (aka intelligent/rational) but has been clearly establish as
bing 100% natural. You're the one(s) that's talking your intellectual
butt off as though you're the all-knowing observationology expertise
when it comes down to image interpretation, thus you and of your fine
collective of such high standards and accountability as per the best
ever brown-nosed wizards must have those volumes of examples as to
whatever's the raw basis for establishing your all-knowing expertise.
Therefore, please do share and share alike by way of forking over such
image examples. After all, I always wanted to see whatever it was that
you thought were WMD, but obviously weren't worth squat.
It's your pagan religion of naysayism and mainstream status quoism or
bust is what sucks and blows big-time. You're the ones having to use
those conditional laws of physics and of whatever evidence exclusion
suits your ulterior motives and hidden agenda, and as such represents
the extent of what isn't exactly helping us village idiots to
appreciate as to where and how you've become so gosh darn all-knowing.
>You brought up your assertion that this photo proves that there's
>life on Venus so you should expect people to question how you reach these
>conclusions and if you're qualified in your supposed field of research.
There's actually quite a bit more to it then just based upon what the
image beholds. However, if ETs obtained a similar format of radar
image that included Area-51, of depicting those massive structures and
of the rational infrastructure to boot, and otherwise due to the
limited resolution having few other factors to go by. Chances are that
their interpretation of that image is going to suggest that some form
of intelligent life had coexisted and certainly may yet exist upon
Earth.
>Come on Brad. Cut the crap and answer the long standing question.
>Tell us why we should believe you.
Firstly; you don't have to believe me. Besides accomplishing your
very own photographic interpretations, try going through your NIMA.MIL
for their expertise and ten fold better PhotoShop software, accepting
their best proof-positive efforts that I can't sufficiently deliver, or
better yet is to take the German side of that same SAR image
interpretive team that's capable of offering yet another ten fold
better results.
Secondly; I'm not looking for having to continually prove that I exist
as a real person, or that I actually give a tinkers damn about our
environment or that of the sequestered humanity within. Instead, I
have hundreds if not thousands of questions (some complex and some not
so complex), and unlike yourself I've not the all-knowing expertise nor
resources to devote for resolving such. Therefore, I'm quite
interested in knowing what expertise the likes of yourself or of
whomever you can recruit has to offer.
>we'll have to believe that, as you say, you took a guess and that the
>photo is still open to other interpretations. Like geological and
>meteorological forming of the surface.
Exactly my point, in that there's even room for your naysay/negative
input as well as for those considering upon the positive side of
sharing the what-if Brad Guth was actually right all along, and those
of the 'what the sam hell have folks been waiting for' mindset.
Since my first interpretation of what looks worthy of being seriously
considered for the very first time ever, as per the notion that Venus
may have been and may yet be hosting other intelligent life, I've
learned a great deal more than I'd thought necessary about the planet
Venus, as well as about the laws of physics and somewhat nifty stuff of
biology, and otherwise having greatly appreciated the hard-science and
even the best SWAG efforts of what others seem to have accomplished
without benefit of anyone like myself connecting their somewhat random
dots of information, that have essentially been there all along. The
ESA Venus Express mission should contribute dozens if not hundreds of
such new and improved info dots, and possibly even a few interesting
nighttime images that'll likely knock a few of our socks off.
Too bad our NASA is too MI6/NSA~CIA dumbfounded if not MIB sequestered
to budge an inch off their spendy space-toilet, that's essentially the
necessary mainstream butt sitting that's encharge keeping all of their
perpetrated cold-war Apollo crapolla in check. As otherwise Venus
should prove as rather interesting to those accomplishing what's
supposedly not worth doing by the mindset of those encharge of
sustaining our cloak and dagger agenda.
-
BTW; If you have even one such example of an interesting image via
satellite that looks as though there's something within that's
sufficiently depicting as a community of whatever's
artificial/intelligent to behold, that's proven as not actually being
the case, then please do share. After all, as apparently I'm not at
all like yourself, in that I'm not the least bit all-knowing.
-
Perhaps you folks should trust me the way you might trust a jewboy like
Kinky Friedman, simply because I'm actually one of those few and far
between good guys. As such, I'm sufficiently human and thus I've made
more than my fair share of mistakes, with likely more of such mistakes
to come. Though I seriously try to not make the same mistakes over and
over like a certain resident warlord has managed to accomplish. How
about yourself?
----------
>So let's get this straight. Your ability to look at a photo of a person and
>decide that they're fat is what you hold out to prove your skill of
>"observationalogy"?
Good grief almighty upon another stick, Bacque.
What's to get straight? I've interpreted upon a given image of a
sufficiently fat guy that goes by the name of David, that's
sufficiently true to life of having actually been a sufficiently fat
guy that does in fact exist (you do exist, don't you?). That's
proof-positive that I at least know enough of the basics of
interpreting from such a flat 2D image that hasn't even the superior
SAR imaging benefits nor having the 43° view perspective advantage.
>You again say that your interpretation isn't the only possible
>interpretation of the photo of Venus. So you agree that your
>analysis is without merit.
NO, I don't agree one damn bit. Clearly it is your continual naysay
contribution that's in favor of being "without merit".
My image interpretation is very much subjectively my honest
interpretation. What's your status quo interpretation got to share?
Are you so intellectually bigoted and otherwise naysay that you do not
even see the "Fluid-Arch"?
BTW No.2; Thanks once again, to all of your warm and fuzzy
GOOGLE/Usenet team of MI6/NSA~CIA fuckology spooks and of their warm
and fuzzy incest of malware/fuckware, as having remotely taken my PC
down for the third time today. I don't suppose that you and of your
naysayism Skull and Bones collective of expertise would care to suggest
otherwise?
proteus_t...@hotmail.com
are relying on you Mr. Guth, to get to the bottom of things, especially
THE BIG LIE.
http://kal007mystery.tripod.com/satellite-escapades.html
PROTEUS
Brad Guth
It's a wee bit more complex than just a big-ass lie. It's somewhat of
serious piles upon piles of lies being told to us by some of the worse
possible Third Reich incest of intellectual as well as mutated DNA
clones upon Earth.
The mutually perpetrated cold-war that was mostly promoted by the
American agenda is what brought us into several wars since WW-II,
including the likes of 9/11 and now Iraq, along with nukes going into
space as we speak.
Our supposed space-race (aka moon-race) was just the best tool at the
time for getting trillions (not merely billions) away from humanity,
and of otherwise having diverted every available resource and supposed
talent into that process of knowing thy supposed enemy and of
subsequently snookering thy humanity at the demise of whomever got in
our way, including our publicly having raped and pillaged mother nature
right in front of the kids, that which now have only to look forward to
a good century worth of toxic pollution with run-away global warming
plus a few too many unhappy Muslim campers to boot. Gee whiz, I wonder
what could possibly go wron, and I can't but wonder how much that's
going to cost us?
BTW; since I'm not the least bit all-knowing, nor have I the necessary
resources as to personally nuke the likes of GW Bush and his trigger
happy sidekick (aka bed partner in crimes against humanity), if you
could find it within your heart as to taking on a few of the most
interesting topics or even related subtopics, as this would go a long
ways towards helping my end of having to survive this ongoing gauntlet
of mainstream status quo flak. Otherwise, you could send whatever
other form of support directly to my attention:
Brad Guth
4410 SE Nelson Rd.
Olalla, WA 98359
Or simply call first for instructions: (253) 857-6061
-
Art Deco
>Brad Guth's Credentials (aka TOPIC RESTART),
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/browse_frm/thread/640a6a1c5c79
>ef5d/059e06acf5a5c7f7?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1&hl=en#059e06acf5a5c7f7
>This topic has really been hit by such a tonne of bicks and
>subsequently getting downright pathetic, of receiving so much naysayism
>and status quo or bust crapolla that it's nearly impossible to share
>upon much of anything that actually matters. In spite of all the
>topic/author stalking and bashing that's just as obvious as there not
>being any WMD, I'd thought that sharing upon a few words as to whom's
>capable of seeing what's existing upon Venus that's most likely of
>what's artificial/intelligent based, isn't as such limited to the likes
>of myself. And you certainly don't have to be another Einstein in
>order to appreciate what's entirely possible about other intelligent
>life coexisting upon Venus.
Nice whine, Brad, but you still didn't provide any credentials.
[guthdrool flushed]
Karla Rove
your flak jacket but you have thousands of very protective friends out
there whose names you don't know yet.
THE FORCE IS WITH YOU.
FOREVER.
Screw the piggies.
In addition, your long tracts on VENUS are truly inspired. How you
walk the line without losing your balance makes you who you are.
Salutes! The part on xenon is specatacular!
-----------------
Art Deco, are you saying that the US Army Corp of Engineers, with their
stranglehold on mitigation bank vouchers for billions in harbors and
surrounding wetlands, is in league with Rumsfeld, GW, Cheney, Rove, et
al ... in a swindle with Dubai Ports World?
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/mitigationbanks.html
Brad Guth
>In addition, your long tracts on VENUS are truly inspired. How you
>walk the line without losing your balance makes you who you are.
>Salutes! The part on xenon is specatacular!
treatment as these warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo folks (aka rusemasters)
deserve.
Xenon lamp illuminated scenes is only a good portion of their ruse that
sucks and blows. Fortunately, all we have to accomplish is proving one
point and it's all over for these LLPOF piggies. I have a good dozen
image related points, with another dozen or so tagged specifically to
their inert massive Saturn-V and of that supposed fly-by-rocket lander.
Hopefully some of those "protective" troops you've mentioned are going
to pitch in with their words of wisdom, or possibly a few bucks so that
I can employ a professional word generating pro that knows more about
delivering the best form of screwing thy pigs than I do.
As to what I believe is existing on Venus is exactly what I've said
from the very get-go, although there may not actually be that Venusian
HOOTERS Bar and Grill like I'd thought. There's room for a little
image interpretive give and take, although if I went all out, you'd be
further impressed with what's possible.
Extremophiles or those of exoskeletals that are sufficiently smart
enough to have survived their world getting so freaking hot isn't the
limitation as to what could have created such significant structures.
I'd actually like to hear a few positive words on behalf of ETs that
could be raping and pillaging Venus for all she's worth. Actually,
since I'm not nearly as all-knowing as I'd like to be, in which case
I'll like to see a list of the expertise that's supposedly out there in
pro-Guth land, just so that I might ask specific questions or bounce
specific notions off thy wall.
Walking the line between all the incoming mainstream status quo flak
and of what there is of the truth and nothing but the truth hasn't been
as easy as I'd thought it was going to be. Being on the need-to-know
and/or on their taboo/nondisclosure no-fly list is a bitch.
BTW; lord/wizard William Mook and a few others were going to get me
into a laser cannon that I could try out for a while. Oddly, they
somewhat lost interest once they realized that I was dead serious.
Thanks for the positive feedback. The more the better, especially it
they're associated with a box insider.
-
Brad Guth
William Mook
kind of person who likes to pull wings off of flies. Shame on you!
hahaha..
<sigh>
Brad Guth wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> As to what I believe is existing on Venus is exactly what I've said
> from the very get-go, although there may not actually be that Venusian
> HOOTERS Bar and Grill like I'd thought. There's room for a little
> image interpretive give and take, although if I went all out, you'd be
> further impressed with what's possible.
>
Brad, if you look at enough clouds you can sometimes see all sorts of
interesting patterns in them - like faces. But to believe that a cloud
is a face is insanity. Surely you agree with that.
Well, imagine its the same with your image analysis of the surface of
Venus. There are no cities there dude, even though it might look like
it sometimes.
I'm glad to see that you have moved your belief system away from a
Venusian HOOTERS and toward something more reasonable. But, lets take
the next step. Lets come up with an experiment we can both agree would
conclusively prove or disprove the existence of aliens on Venus, an
experiment we both agree is feasable, and one that we can do without
beaucoup bucks. If we can do that, then we'll arrange to carry it out
and see.
We've made a lot of progress together. The nasty conditions don't
bother you as they bother every other sane person, although you now
agree things are rather nasty on the surface of Venus, just not nasty
enough in your view to make life impossible.
The lack of any sort of organized electromagnetic energy doesn't bother
you, because you believe electromagnetic energy is too primitive. This
despite the fact that humans still use fire 30,000 years after its
first use and will likely be using electromagnetics for just as long
going forward.
So, lets put those easily observable things aside - heat and radio.
What else can we do that would convince you that your interpretation of
satellite images might be wrong?
How about scale?
You know the pixels in the Magellan images and Venera images at highest
resolution are nearly a kilometer across! So, the purported cityscapes
on your website must be HUGE! Doesn't that suggest to you they might
not be buildings constructed by Venusians? Doesn't a building dozens
of kilometers tall, or a square hundreds of kilometers across, or a
road kilometers wide, seem a little too big to be constructed by aliens
that are about the same size as we?
> Extremophiles or those of exoskeletals that are sufficiently smart
> enough to have survived their world getting so freaking hot isn't the
> limitation as to what could have created such significant structures.
So, now you're saying that the cities you think you see on Venus are
made by intelligent creatures that evolved there rather than deposited
there as a result of an interstellar voyage? Why is that?
Are you saying that Venus got hot recently? Dude, Venus has been hot
for a long long time. Why do you think it was recent?
> I'd actually like to hear a few positive words on behalf of ETs that
> could be raping and pillaging Venus for all she's worth.
Didn't you just say a few posts back that the structures you saw on the
surface of Venus were not cities but outposts built from the remains of
an interstellar vessel? This after you said they were cities?
I guess I'm not keeping up with your thought process.
Now you're saying native Venusians are reforming their planet with
advanced technology on a massive scale? Why say that?
Dude, make up your mind.
> Actually,
> since I'm not nearly as all-knowing as I'd like to be,
Dude, you don't know shit! That's the problem. And you're too damned
proud to understand that the only way to know something is to learn it
from those who do know it.
> in which case
> I'll like to see a list of the expertise that's supposedly out there in
> pro-Guth land, just so that I might ask specific questions or bounce
> specific notions off thy wall.
Dude, there is no 'pro-Guth land' - even in your own head! You're not
even consistent with yourself for more than a week. So, its hard to
find someone else who might by random chance be in your court on a
consistent basis week after week.
> Walking the line between all the incoming mainstream status quo flak
You mean knowledge generally accepted as true, right?
> and of what there is of the truth and nothing but the truth hasn't been
You mean what you believe to be true this week, right?
> as easy as I'd thought it was going to be.
Is that a suprise for you? hahaha...
Its never easy if you are a) irrational, b) illogical, c) inconsistent,
d) emotionally driven, and e) at variance with easily demonstrable
facts. Need I go on? The ease with which you progress is entirely up
to you, and depends on no one else.
If you were to use easily demonstrated facts in a rational logical and
consistent way devoid of emotionalism, you might find your row a little
easier to hoe.
> Being on the need-to-know
> and/or on their taboo/nondisclosure no-fly list is a bitch.
Can't you see you say things like this to feel self-important? This is
an example of an entirely emotion driven statement having no basis in
reality whatever. You are on no one's need to know list. You are to
unimportant to be on any sort of list whatever. The only thing you've
done is cause a lot of people to killfile you because you're rude and
hold insane beliefs.
> BTW; lord/wizard William Mook and a few others were going to get me
> into a laser cannon that I could try out for a while.
Dude, you're making shit up. Let me restate, I said I would arrange
observing time at an existing retroreflector setup if you clearly
stated the return you expected from plain ass lunar dirt, to see the
accuracy of your prediction. You didn't clearly give me a rate.
> somewhat lost interest once they realized that I was dead serious.
To be serious you'd have to answer my question. What rate of photon
return do you expect from a laser pointed at lunar dirt?
> Thanks for the positive feedback.
No problem - just give me the number of reflected photons you expect to
be detected and I'll call to arrange the experiment at one or more
universities.
[snip]
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>I happen to like your pig screwing notion,
We know, Brad, we know.
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"I am the one they call Jesus."
- Warhol tries to compete with Ray.
Brad Guth
Obviously you're stuck in naysayvill, thus anything you have to
contribute isn't hardly worth considering.
I've said it a thousand times that the observationolgy of what's
situated upon Venus is my best subjective interpretation, and that it
also so happens to fit rather nicely along with the existing laws of
physics, and even keeps up with a good number of other hard-science
that relates to Venus.
If you're so intent upon stalking and bashing the likes of myself,
you'll have to include the likes of team KECK, ESA's Venus Express and
even reject the entire lot of those Magellan images of Venus.
>No problem - just give me the number of reflected photons you expect to
>be detected and I'll call to arrange the experiment at one or more
>universities.
I believe that I'd already stipulated 100:1, meaning that your laser
illuminated target zone of 2 km as containing one retroreflector should
easily create 100 extra of those 532 nm photons over each of those
reflected off the raw lunar surface w/o benefit of retroreflector. Of
course, if we're using IR the ratio or difference simply couldn't be
nearly as good since the raw moon itself is such a terrific IR
reflector as is.
Why don't you tell me what their best pixel resolution is going to be?
For example, I believe that KECK can be modified to obtaining better
than one m2. Therefore the photon count difference should become
terrifically better yet. In fact, if need be KECK-I can be the laser
cannon transmitter and KECK-II the receiving instrument, each modified
to suit the task at hand. Though I'd even settle for their existing 90
meter resolution as being way better than good enough for this task.
Supposedly the same instrument can function as transmitter and
receiver, thus only one of the KECK units need be utilized with their
latest 15 micron CCD and the f40 secondary mirror having that 395 meter
FL.
If team KECK isn't up for the job, there's another nearby instrument
worth it's salt:
Canada-France-Hawaii telescope (CFHT)
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/AOB/best_pictures.html
The CFHT Adaptive Optics Bonnette : Best Pictures Gallery
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/AOB/Images/ngc7469_blue_notext.gif
The field of view is 10x10 arc seconds. The so-called angular
resolution is 0.13 arcsec in the left-hand image: NGC7469
-
Brad Guth