Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / August 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

LRO;  Apollo impacts and their debris soon to be identified

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
BradGuth - 19 Jun 2009 00:28 GMT
LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.
The undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should knock our
socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be entirely
sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation at less
resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally assign
false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer >0.5
meter resolution.  Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

~ BG
Warhol - 20 Jun 2009 00:21 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

We'll see if they make it. Right now, they can't figure out how they
made it the first time. No doubt.
BradGuth - 20 Jun 2009 00:39 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> We'll see if they make it. Right now, they can't figure out how they
> made it the first time. No doubt.

I'd bet there's some kind of technical malfunction that limits or
restricts their camera resolution, just enough to make it difficult or
nearly impossible to clearly identify the remains of our Apollo stuff.

As I'd said before, I'll buy into those robotic one-way hard landings,
but that's about it as long as so much of our Apollo R&D plus
subsequent documentation is missing in action, so to speak.

The search for surface or near surface ice is just another ruse.
However, within that unusually thick and mascon populated crust should
be a few geode pockets of some kind of mineral brines, and of course
the solid basalt itself should still contain microscopic amounts (<46
ppm) of water, or one tonne of water from 46 million tonnes worth of
vaporized basalt.

~ BG
Warhol - 22 Jun 2009 04:25 GMT
> > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

where  is that Japanese probe that was entented to crash on the moon
one of this days? would we see that explosion from Earth?
BradGuth - 22 Jun 2009 05:09 GMT
> > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> where  is that Japanese probe that was entented to crash on the moon
> one of this days? would we see that explosion from Earth?

I'll have to recheck and see exactly what happened.  Their intended
impact should have been in plain view, and a fairly impressive impact
at that.

At just one degree, it should have bounced a few times.  Instead it
just kind of sank out of sight.

~ BG
Warhol - 23 Jun 2009 03:45 GMT
> > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...

Last footage of Japan's Satellite as it Crashes Into the Moon
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f48_1245714968

this is the Japanese proof that they went too the Moon... While I am
still wondering how they got throe the Van Allen belt... Van Allen
Belt radiation would destroy all electronics...

It seems the Chinese also crashed a space vehicle on the Moon a few
months ago... and now the Nasa promised us to do the same in search
for water...

Well I can already tell them(NASA) there aint no water on the moon...

Conclusion: Space travel and science remains a fake Miracle... a world
wide Hoax.
BradGuth - 23 Jun 2009 04:53 GMT
> it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...
>
> Last footage of Japan's Satellite as it Crashes Into the Moon
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f48_1245714968

> this is the Japanese proof that they went too the Moon... While I am
> still wondering how they got throe the Van Allen belt... Van Allen
> Belt radiation would destroy all electronics...

2e3 Sv/year is not all that insurmountable for robust and rad-hard
electronics. However, double IR heating is another consideration
that's not as easily resolved unless the electronics are either
artificially shaded and/or artificially cooled.

> It seems the Chinese also crashed a space vehicle on the Moon a few
> months ago... and now the Nasa promised us to do the same in search
> for water...
>
> Well I can already tell them(NASA) there aint no water on the moon...

I agree, although within the moon is entirely another matter.

> Conclusion: Space travel and science remains a fake Miracle... a world
> wide Hoax.

The WWH is perhaps true to some extent, especially of their Apollo era
that employed smoke and mirrors more than anything else.

~ BG
Warhol - 23 Jun 2009 05:33 GMT
> > it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

It was fake in 1969. They boxed themselves into a corner, 40 years
later.

They couldnt go then, and cant go now.

No amount of astronauts being held up by wires in movie sets will
change that.

All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.

Read the NASA Act of 1958:
Search in Google: The National Aeronautics and Space Act

You will find buried written in this Act:
"TITLE I--SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE"

"DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE"

Sec. 102. (f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the
United States requires that the unique competence of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and engineering
systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research,
development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and
minimize the effects of disability.
---------------------

These words, "The Congress declares that the general welfare of the
United States requires that.......demonstration programs designed to
alleviate and minimize the effects of disability."

People may on the surface of it, may take this reference to mean one
of the Main aims of NASA is to help develop technology to help
disabled people with new technology. But this reference in this NASA
foundation document would be absurd.

The real meaning of the above reference is that "demonstration programs
(Fake Simulations) designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of
disability"(making NASA appear that they can do, and achieve much more
than they are actually capable of)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6jRPpHzwCE
Hagar - 23 Jun 2009 20:51 GMT
On Jun 23, 5:53 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:45 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> ~ BG

It was fake in 1969. They boxed themselves into a corner, 40 years
later.

They couldnt go then, and cant go now.

No amount of astronauts being held up by wires in movie sets will
change that.

All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.

Read the NASA Act of 1958:
Search in Google: The National Aeronautics and Space Act

You will find buried written in this Act:
"TITLE I--SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE"

"DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE"

Sec. 102. (f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the
United States requires that the unique competence of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and engineering
systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research,
development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and
minimize the effects of disability.
---------------------

These words, "The Congress declares that the general welfare of the
United States requires that.......demonstration programs designed to
alleviate and minimize the effects of disability."

People may on the surface of it, may take this reference to mean one
of the Main aims of NASA is to help develop technology to help
disabled people with new technology. But this reference in this NASA
foundation document would be absurd.

The real meaning of the above reference is that "demonstration programs
(Fake Simulations) designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of
disability"(making NASA appear that they can do, and achieve much more
than they are actually capable of)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6jRPpHzwCE

       ****************************************
I just love it when 2 bona-fide loons carry on a conversation, outdoing
each other in their stupidity and totally nonsensical drivel.
Keep it up boys, you're living proof that evolution can also work in
reverse.
BradGuth - 23 Jun 2009 22:28 GMT
> On Jun 23, 5:53 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 79 lines]
> Keep it up boys, you're living proof that evolution can also work in
> reverse.

Stop speaking for yourself, because it's giving yourself bad Karma.

~ BG
radian - 23 Jun 2009 22:30 GMT
> All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.

Oops, your GPS doesn't actually work. It is faked.

Damn funny how accurate it is for being a fake.
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 00:16 GMT
> > All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
>
> Oops, your GPS doesn't actually work. It is faked.
>
> Damn funny how accurate it is for being a fake.

They are only the false miracles of our times.

I think it's about time you post evidence for your wacky
GeoPositioningSystem claims, or stop wasting our time. So, now's your
chance to post evidence how they got up there.

Never did any Soviet Union or US "spacecraft" leave the orbit of the
Earth.

I Don't Have Faith to Believe in fake Miracles... Science Tricks of
the Anti Christ
Androcles - 24 Jun 2009 00:46 GMT
On Jun 23, 11:30 pm, radian <radian@don't-drool.com> wrote:
> Hagar wrote:
> > All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
>
> Oops, your GPS doesn't actually work. It is faked.
>
> Damn funny how accurate it is for being a fake.

They are only the false miracles of our times.

I think it's about time you post evidence for your wacky
GeoPositioningSystem claims, or stop wasting our time. So, now's your
chance to post evidence how they got up there.

Never did any Soviet Union or US "spacecraft" leave the orbit of the
Earth.

I Don't Have Faith to Believe in fake Miracles... Science Tricks of
the Anti Christ

=================================================
*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
radian - 24 Jun 2009 00:58 GMT
>>> All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
>> Oops, your GPS doesn't actually work. It is faked.
>>
>> Damn funny how accurate it is for being a fake.
>
> They are only the false miracles of our times.

Funny how well "false miracles" work though!

> I think it's about time you post evidence for your wacky
> GeoPositioningSystem claims, or stop wasting our time. So, now's your
> chance to post evidence how they got up there.

I don't have to prove any of it. Use your GPS and
tell us about its accuracy. Then post some new
conspiracy theory about how it works off earth
based signals.

> Never did any Soviet Union or US "spacecraft" leave the orbit of the
> Earth.

You, the god of space, have spoken!

> I Don't Have Faith to Believe in fake Miracles... Science Tricks of
> the Anti Christ

Use your GPS in good health.
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 01:22 GMT
> >>> All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
> >> Oops, your GPS doesn't actually work. It is faked.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Use your GPS in good health.

GPS works through a system of towers, planes, and high altitude blimps

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking

Mobile phone tracking tracks the current position of a mobile phone
even on the move. To locate the phone, it must emit at least the
roaming signal to contact the next nearby antenna tower, but the
process does not require an active call. GSM localisation is then done
by multilateration based on the signal strength to nearby antenna
masts.[1]

Mobile positioning, i.e. location based service that discloses the
actual coordinates of a mobile phone bearer, is a technology used by
telecommunication companies to approximate where a mobile phone, and
thereby also its user (bearer), temporarily resides. The more properly
applied term locating refers to the purpose rather than a positioning
process. Such service is offered as an option of the class of location-
based services (LBS)[2].

It's impossible to put a satelite into space due to UA. Contrary to
unpopular belief, it is very expensive to do the impossible.

Why is it so easy for you to accept what you are told?
Saul Levy - 27 Jun 2009 20:01 GMT
One has NOTHING to DO with the OTHER, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

That you BELIEVE it DOES is another of your WACKO DELUSIONS!

Saul Levy

>GPS works through a system of towers, planes, and high altitude blimps
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Why is it so easy for you to accept what you are told?
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 02:33 GMT
> >>> All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
> >> Oops, your GPS doesn't actually work. It is faked.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Use your GPS in good health.

At times (much of the time) his bipolar and schizophrenia medications
fail to muster up sufficient dopamine.  Otherwise, he has a few weird
notions and zingers that are not half bad for a person that so often
excludes physics and science.  However, at times he does have a valid
point or interpretation to share.

~ BG
Sjouke Burry - 24 Jun 2009 02:44 GMT
>>>>> All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
>>>> Oops, your GPS doesn't actually work. It is faked.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
>  ~ BG
Tskk... wierdo defending schizo....
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 03:00 GMT
> > >>> All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
> > >> Oops, your GPS doesn't actually work. It is faked.
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

..so how much is myth & how much is true...?...

..anybody seen or heard of this...

This is a invitation to the atom bomb believers to post a rebuttal to
the points I will list below illustrating some the reasons I believe
atom bombs are a bogus science and a shameless hoax.

here is the list:

Item 1)

The historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have mysteriously
vanished. If not only for the sake of war-era memorabilia, that
information should have been everywhere in the museums and in the
press. Hiroshima is located in a highly volcanic zone called the
Honshu Arc and those active volcanoes were under constant
seismographic surveillance during that period and log before that. The
so-called atomic blast at hiroshima was estimated to be the equivalent
of 6.2 on the Richter Scale but no seismological outpost in the world
appears to have noted it. The Russians said they exploded the biggest
atomic bomb ever made (50 megatons) at Novaya Zemlya in northern
Russia. That is hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than what
they say exploded over Hiroshima yet again, not one seismic needle
moved at all. How is that possible I ask?

Item 2)

In 1942 Hitler's Lufftwaffe had a plan to bomb Lower Manhatten in New
York City USA. This plan included a special transport behemouth to fly
the package across the Atlantic and deliver it to the target. This is
fully 3 years before Hiroshima yet the so-called atom bomb they said
they were using is the exact yield and deployed at the same height as
the one they say they dropped on Hiroshima. This suggests to me that
the atomic hoaxsters were shopping for a spot to nest the hoax. What
other possible explanation can there be? When the US started using
what they call atom bombs the used the uranuim hammer configurations
but the Hitler model is not specific at that level. So, what is Hitler
doing planning atom bomb attacks before he even had the facilities or
infrastructure to even start planning such late strategies. They never
said what they would replace that bomb with if it fell into the ocean
with the plane. Why would he not have delivered the package by boat
instead. How do we explain these contradictions?

Item 3)

The so-called nuclear industry, be it weapons or so-called
commercially viable nuclear reactors is the hoaxster's paradise. The
whole ripoff scheme is shrouded in national security protocols and
security bonding which means you can't discuss your work outside the
plant if you don't want to incur the wrath of the NSA and risk
jailtime for attempted so-called nuclear terrorism. The whole scam is
compartmentalized so Sam doesn't know what George is up to. Perfect
cover for the atom bomb hoax clusters. So perfect in fact that I
believe the jews could not resist pulling off those massive long-cons
on the people of the world. How can they NOT have done it when the
opportunities, the means and the motives were all there for them to
exploit?

Item 4)

During the so-called billion-dollar east coast of the United States
blackout a good portion of that area was completely without power. How
is this possible when so many so-called nuclear reactors were supposed
to have autonomy? How is that possible that people can shell out 5
billion dollars to build a reactor and it can't light a lightbulb when
the grid goes down. My contention is that the reason the power failure
is so absolute is because the conventional sources are fueling the
hoax reactors. Who would build a distribution grid for electricity
like a superhighway that cloggs up when two cars collide on a country
road? Nobody would design a grid where a reactor can't support it's
customers when the other grid elements are compromised. I say this is
further evidence of the hoax. How can it be otherwise?

Item 5)

The mushroom cloud thermodynamics of the atom bomb hoax have also been
examined. The first problem the competant examiner notices with the
mushroom cloud photographed on the day Hiroshima was attacked is that
the sun is shining brightly overhead at the noon position. The bombing
was said to have been at 8:15 am. I have heard it argued that this was
the Nagasaki cloud but it has been used by the hoaxsters themselves
for Hiroshima and Justin Raimondo had this exact cloud for his essay,
Hiroshima, Mon Amour. Why would the jews want to say it is Nagasaki if
they have nothing to hide? I went to the public library in downtown
Montreal as a youth and I looked at microfilm of newspapers for that
day in 1945 and the picture I enlarged taken from the microfilm was
the cloud at noon and it was Hiroshima indeed. So, more evidence of a
hoax?

Item 6)

The firebombing of Tokyo March 9-10, 1945-100,000 dead. M-69 aimable
cluster firebombs reduced 26 square kilometers of that city to ash
using a few hundred U.S. Air Force B-29 bombers. Aside the cost of the
aircraft when initially built the cost of destroying all that section
of Tokyo was a little more than a million dollars. So, why build
anything that costs billions to destroy a fraction of the land those
B-29 bombers could have destroyed in under less than a million
dollars? Because the atom bomb was a lie and those cities reduced to
ash by M-69 firebombs and that also explains the mysterious vanishing
of the historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are they
hiding the fact that there was no shock wave? Is that why the trees
were still standing charred and many building facades still standing?

Item 7)

Hiroshima was not evacuated and life came back to normal very quickly.
This is inconsistent with the models presented by the experts that
said nothing would grow for 70 years and nobody could live there for a
very long time. One week after the so-called atom bomb, oleanders were
growing everywhere. The hoaxsters started stories of a miracle. More
contradiction and nonsense from the jewish hoaxsters.

Item 8)

The pilot of the B-29 they said dropped the so-called atom bomb on
Hiroshima is a known Hollywood insider and his B-29 crew was totally
segregated on an island with the pilot Commander Tibbits fully in
charge of security and everything. He had full autonomy and
discretion. I believe his crew of talmudic cowards was near 200
aircraft when they sortie'd on Hiroshima then later on Nagasaki.
Another brilliant example of the secrecy and security shroud of
compartmentalization over the whole hoax. Why would this dumbass put
his mother's name on an instrument of utter genocide if it were not
that his mother gloats without end at jewish hoax accomplishments and
mass murder that she would be pleased to figure prominently on the
nose of that beast of destruction and mass murder. How can anyone
believe such a mess of contradictions when it is obvious they would
have been nuts not to exploit the means they had at their disposal
under those circumstances. They pulled it off while everyone on earth
was in a state of shock and would have believed anything the jews said
just to stop the ignited gasoline showers?

Item 9)

Items said to be radioactive have in fact been doped with x-ray
radiation for periods of time corresponding to the hoax expectations.
At the Pantex assembly plant in Amarillo Texas they have a very
powerful x-ray machine they say they use to look inside decomissioned
so-called atom bombs before they open them up. That is totally
rediculous because why would anything be wrong inside a bomb watched
by the military night and day. I say the x-ray machine is there to
dope the materials they assemble so that the x-ray detectors they call
rad meters can read something expected from the mathematical models.
When a rad meter is picking up x-ray radiation it is seemlessly and
logarithmically converting this sampled energy and reporting the
results as rads instead of x-ray energy that it is. When a student
examines a sample said to be radioactive it is a sample irradiated
prior using a high intensity x-ray machine. Again compartmentalization
plays a key role here at the Pantex plant. Coincidentally they are the
only plant in the US authorized to make the final assemblies of so-
called nuclear bombs. What else could they be using that huge x-ray
machine at Pantex if it is not to create illusions of atomic
radioactivity?

Item 10)

Einstein the plagerist. At least a few links provided at my Hiroshima
thread deal with the question of Einstein's honesty in claiming the
authorship of a lot of his predecessor's work. Some say his wife was
more the mathematical genius and coached him a lot. Anyways the
original and official story of the creation of the first so-called
atom bomb says that Einstein gave the letter he wrote to the president
of the United States to a financier in New York that bounced it around
town for a week before giving it to the president. This was a letter
explaining in terms a president could understand that atom bombs can
be made. The story says that everyone was paranoid that Hitler would
discover the plan to build a bomb yet they let the letter concerning
it's so-called feasibility float around town for a week. More
contradiction.

Item 11)

The question of the Tribally Affiliated. Can anyone deny that the
global congregations of tribally affiliated had the means, the
motives, and the opportunities to hoax the world with fake atom bombs
and fake CVNEs and fake DU and the fake nuclear navy? They even faked
moonlandings and NAZIS holocausts. They call their genocides wars and
failed diplomacy. They faked the dinosaurs too it would appear.

Item 12)

Iraq, why did they not find so-called atom bombs there?

Item13)

Suicide bombers, since when can't the underworld aquire atom bombs for
suicide missions if they are not bogus?

Item 14)

Why 60 years without so-called atom bomb accidental explosions or
terrorist explosions? Everything the jews running the government do is
sloppy and anyone with entry level skills can steal a package from the
military and configure it to their likings. Why has this never
occurred with the so-called atom bomb?

Item 15)

The global conspiracy in negotiable instruments run by the jews and
indoctrinated into the minds of the poor youth abandoned to those
pathetic indoctrination centers called public schools worldwide is a
very important factor in the widespread acceptance of the hoax
clusters of the atomic variety by the mainsteam public. The tribal
affiliates monopoly on the mainstream media is also another great
element used to ram the hoax down our throats while we are still very
young and vulnerable to fear. The gobal ring of tribally affiliated
running all the governments of the world and controlling all the
military forces of the planet make the hoax possible also. Who can
deny the influence of the tribe in every country?

Item 16)

So-called nuclear reactors- The buildings and structures as they
appear to the human eye in as much as one is permitted to examine
without special clearance are real enough and cost real money if we
can pretend the money supply is really backed with anything of any
real value. Billions of dollars to build each one. I have worked
building a pair of reactors in Gentilly Quebec so that appeared real
enough at the surface at least. Many people are salaried to work in
these buildings and monitor security, supply and maintenance. All
this, of course, is to be expected if you want anyone to believe the
hoax it has to have at least the appearance of function and form. The
real sham starts in the control room. What is a control room anyways
you might ask, well, it is a representation of variables said to be
operating to achieve the potential predicted in the mathematical
models. The truth is that the control panel is an advanced simulator
running on highly specific top-secret application software developed
secretly a long time ago and refined many times since. So, the
unsuspecting employees work all day monitoring variables fed to them
by sophisticated digital processors geared to simulate a fully
functional reactor core and cooling elements. The fake reactor is
tethered to the grid and the energy from conventional sources is fed
to the brushes of the generators making them instantly motors instead
that circulate the water and perhaps also heat it for effect and
steam. The instruments reading the output from the reactor is actually
reversing the reading of the power pouring in. Who can deny that such
simulator technology was not possible at the time they started those
hoaxes?

Item 17)

The money- now there's a good motive for hoaxing these clusters of
deceit. How many people making big money in that fake industry feel
like letting it all go so the truth be known? They will fight to the
death to keep that salary and income no matter how bogus the industry
is proven to them to be. Who can deny that important obstacle to the
truth? The money stolen because of these hoax clusters is beyond
understanding.

Item 18)

Mushroom clouds do not grow out of radial airbrust explosions. The
mushroom cloud needs to be seeded from the ground. The thermodynamic
conditions caused by a circumferential airburst explosion would
superheat the air all around and send radial shock waves emanating
from the center outwards like the popular festivity fireworks and that
would negate the conditions required for a mushroom cloud to grow
normally. A mushroom cloud grows from the ground up in a predictable
circular pattern that develops and flows through a relatively cool and
stable upper air mass because the explosion was at the ground level.
Who can deny that mushroom clouds can't grow out of radial airburst
explosions?

Item 19)

A total absence of dead birds in all the documentation and photos
related to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Reports claim that
people saw birds exploding in mid-air when the bomb went off yet all
should have been blinded by the incredible flash of light that
preceded the blast.

These are just a sample of the reasons I think the world has been had
by that tribe of compulsive liars and their affiliates worldwide.
Saul Levy - 29 Jun 2009 19:54 GMT
I see that your regular sources are STILL FULL OF sh.t, PIGSHIT!
lmfjao!

See how well we know you?

As for seismograms:  Have you seen the TOILET PAPER the Japanese used
to make?  Those graphs were made from TOILET PAPER!  One WIPE and
they're GONE!

Saul Levy

>..so how much is myth & how much is true...?...
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
>Item 2)
[rest of sh.t deleted, unread as usual]
Warhol - 29 Jun 2009 21:04 GMT
Ha! Finally, an excuse for me to bring out my list of reasons why the
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were FAKE!

1. The bombs yielded between 15 and 20 kilotons, but didn't leave a
gigantic charred blast crater.

2. Supposedly, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 70,000 people
outright. Japan instituted a "Duck and Cover" plan in 1929, but for
some reason didn't use it in Hiroshima.

3. It's impossible to pack 15,000 tons of explosives into a bomb ten
feet long and three feet around.

4. A 500 pound bomb can destroy everything within 20 feet. Therefore,
the Little Boy bomb should have flattened everything in a 114 mile
radius.

5. The primary cause of death from a nuclear explosions are flashing
skeletonizer rays that vaporize people instantly. This didn't happen
in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

6. Most of Hiroshima was flattened, but a building near the center of
the explosion survived except for having all it's glass shattered.

7. The Russians built an atomic bomb in about the same amount as time
as the Americans, which is completely ridiculous considering their
vast technological superiority.

8. The burn shadows caused by the heat of the fireball are almost
always non-parallel.

9. The intense heat of the explosion would have melted film for miles
around, and yet people were taking photos of the destruction within
hours.

10. The radiation caused by the bombs would have created a permanent
radioactive bubble around Japan which no one could enter unless
shielded by six feet of lead.

11. The bombs themselves were so unstable they would have flown back
towards their B-29 and exploded.

12. One of the first Atomic Bomber Prototype Test Planes crashed
during testing. The ABPTP was too dangerous too fly, and yet they
built more than 4,000 production aircraft!

13. If atomic bombs could be dropped on cities 60 years ago, we would
still be dropping them today.

14. Computing power was insufficient to guide the bombs to their
targets.

15. In a 2003 Gallup poll, 98% of Americans doubted that nuclear
weapons even existed.

16. The photos of the destruction are remarkably similar to the 1984
BBC television film Threads, and unsurprisingly, most of the
photographs of the bombing's aftermath didn't start appearing until
the mid 80s.

18. No one could see any stars in the sky the night after the bombing.

19. Some of the shadows created by the heat of the fireball aren't
completely black.

20. The movement of crew members aboard the Atomic Bomb Dropping Plane
would have changed it's center off gravity, knocking it off-balance.

21. Many survivors never heard the sound of the explosion, which is
completely absurd.

22. If you speed the footage of the blast four times, it's obviously
just a small bomb filmed in extreme close-up.

23. All of the photos taken after the bombing are perfectly framed and
exposed.

24. If the bombings were real, Truman would have had General
Eisenhower and Robert Oppenheimer killed in a fire for opposing them.

25. A feather dropped from a plane at 30,000 feet would take longer to
hit the ground than an atomic bomb.

26. The ABDP had two bomb bays in the center of it's fuselage. There's
no way the crew could have accessed the rear compartment with them in
the way.

27. The state of technology was so bad in 1945 rifles still had
bayonets on them. Are we supposed to believe they could make an atomic
bomb?

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=othertheories&thr
ead=2197&page=1#64897


the Truth of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

The papers in Japan reported that Hiroshima was firebombed by several
aircraft on the day the so-called atom bomb went off. Also, I would
invite you to do a little research on the question of the draconian
censorship protocols imposed by the Americans and decide for yourself
the worth of those testimonials. The atomic bombing was so obvious the
US had to drop millions of pamphlets to convince the locals that it
was not a regular firebombing.

What about the people who were inflicted with enough radiation
poisoning that it rendered thousands into hospital patients years
after the blast? A volcano can't do that.

But the carcinogens in jellied petrol can make people very sick and
petrol is known to cause all kinds of cancers. The citizens of Tokyo
that were bombed with M-69 amiable cluster jellied petrol bombs had
cancers and suffered all manner of skin diseases.

Surprisingly enough my sources are the official records and the
incredible amount of contradiction contained within.

> I see that your regular sources are STILL FULL OF sh.t, PIGSHIT!
> lmfjao!
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> [rest of sh.t deleted, unread as usual]
BradGuth - 29 Jun 2009 21:39 GMT
> Ha! Finally, an excuse for me to bring out my list of reasons why the
> atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were FAKE!
[quoted text clipped - 110 lines]
> Surprisingly enough my sources are the official records and the
> incredible amount of contradiction contained within.

Good grief, it's kind of physics-101.

Those original nukes were triggered at high altitude for maximum
lethal affect to human and other DNA, and otherwise actually rather
dirty bombs because so little of their nuclear explosives got utilized
(I read somewhere that only 5% of their weapons grade fuel ignited).
New thermal nuclear explosive are relatively efficient and thus
extremely compact and not nearly as dirty.

Yes, mother nature has just as badly killed off at least a good ten
fold more than the worse of modern warlords combined.  However, you
really need to get out more often, and be with regular folks that
might better understand and even take care of you.

~ BG
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 02:24 GMT
> > > All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> I Don't Have Faith to Believe in fake Miracles... Science Tricks of
> the Anti Christ

I wouldn't exactly give our NASA as much credit as being the Anti
Christ.  They've made far too many human mistakes for being Anti
Christ worthy.

~ BG
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 03:03 GMT
> > > > All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

They LIE... as their Father the Master of all LIES.
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 16:33 GMT
> > > > > All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> They LIE... as their Father the Master of all LIES.

I can't entirely argue against that, as old and modern day humans tend
to protect their own kind regardless of the mostly negative
consequences to others.  However, from time to time there is a glimmer
of hope and truth to behold.  You just have to be vaguely smart enough
and open minded in order to extract those few and far between truths.
Your mindset is however rather closed and otherwise on an extremely
narrow set of faith-based tracks that simply can't see the obvious
means to the grand solution that's at hand and otherwise before our
mostly heathen eyes.

In other words, with the warm and fuzzy likes of yourself in charge,
we'd still be naked and living in caves.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 24 Jun 2009 18:44 GMT
PIGSHIT DOES LIVE IN A CAVE, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

He's SO SCARED OF EVERYTHING!

DEATH FROM ABOVE!

Saul Levy

>In other words, with the warm and fuzzy likes of yourself in charge,
>we'd still be naked and living in caves.
>
> ~ BG
Father Haskell - 25 Jun 2009 04:52 GMT
> Never did any Soviet Union or US "spacecraft" leave the orbit of the
> Earth.

Not a problem.
If you can make it into orbit, all you need to do to
leave is to lightly tap the gas pedal.
Saul Levy - 24 Jun 2009 02:34 GMT
Mine's very accurate!  lmfjao!

Something must be WRONG with YOU!

Saul Levy

>> All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
>
>Oops, your GPS doesn't actually work. It is faked.
>
>Damn funny how accurate it is for being a fake.
OM - 24 Jun 2009 05:20 GMT
>I just love it when 2 bona-fide loons carry on a conversation, outdoing
>each other in their stupidity and totally nonsensical drivel.

...And we hate it when someone who obviously knows better not only
replies to the catamite bastards, they quote them as well.

                              OM

--

 ]=====================================[
 ]   OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld   [
 ]        Let's face it: Sometimes you *need*         [
 ]          an obnoxious opinion in your day!           [
 ]=====================================[
BradGuth - 23 Jun 2009 22:33 GMT
> > > it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...
>
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6jRPpHzwCE

I can't argue that we're not being systematically snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded to death.  No child left unsnookered and
undumbfounded sounds about right.  In other words, a policy of give an
inch and take a mile.

~ BG
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 01:39 GMT
> > > > it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...
>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

a.. new rigorous defeat....
..the "Moon-Marionettes".

People argue when they disagree. When they agree they don't say too
much. In other words your work is bringing the truth to the masses and
they like it and believe you. You should be happy when a thread gets
quiet like this. Especially when it is jam packed with truth.

What can the shills do? Every time they open their trap they sink
further into the quicksand. Thanks to the work done in this thread the
moonlanding claims have become indefensible.

Now, there are a lot of people with egg on their faces that would like
to see this gem slide off the cliff in the kill file.

That is the crossroads we are at in this thread. A killer thread on a
tyrant's boards. Not a good combination.

Of course I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts on this
hoax but this is not a privilige they give me because they cherish
free speech. They wanted to see this thread in it's fullest content so
they can get shills working on the next generation of lies to thwart
the skeptics.

In other words they wanted to see our hand before folding the thread
and disposing of it. You watch and see BG. They have the IPs of every
computer that latched on to this thread so they have a precise fix on
the body of skepticism out there.
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 02:17 GMT
> > > > > it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...
>
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
> computer that latched on to this thread so they have a precise fix on
> the body of skepticism out there.

I believe that we've accomplished better than LEO, although not all
that much of anything manned.  Possibly A-13 accomplished that one
lunar orbit, and otherwise they went to/from the Earth-moon L1 (Selene
L1).  It's actually pretty hard to tell when so much of our spendy R&D
plus Apollo mission and science data is oddly taboo and/or missing in
action, so to speak.

Next they're going to say that some sneaky bastard (most likely from
another Muslim sleeper cell) absconded with all of their original
Kodak film.

~ BG
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 02:45 GMT
> > > > > > it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...
>
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

one word only FEAKE..

....FREAKING FAKE AND NOTHING ELSE
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 05:46 GMT
> > > > > > > it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...
>
[quoted text clipped - 122 lines]
>
> ....FREAKING FAKE AND NOTHING ELSE

Our USAF could have proved otherwise as of nearly 40 years ago, using
a quality satellite spy camera and super telephoto lens could have
resolved 0.1 meter, and having accomplished such for 10% the cost of
one Apollo mission.

~ BG
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 14:51 GMT
> > > > > > > > it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...
>
[quoted text clipped - 129 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

Remember those Spanish kids with their 100$ camera and a few Balloons
produced more better quality pictures then Nasa ever has done with
Billions of $...
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 15:21 GMT
> > Our USAF could have proved otherwise as of nearly 40 years ago, using
> > a quality satellite spy camera and super telephoto lens could have
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> produced more better quality pictures then Nasa ever has done with
> Billions of $...

That's not entirely true.  Those spendy cameras of what our NASA and
USAF get to play with are far better than we're being allowed to
realize.  The amount of spectrum which exceeds human vision, and their
superior dynamic range, along with nifty optics that are truly
exceptional to say the least, is what simply can not be so easily
ignored.

I will not bother you with the difference in their technical
specifics, because you don't believe in physics or science.  Nor
should I repeat as to why we're only allowed to see limited results in
order to exclude certain visual and/or scientific information that
could upset the mainstream status quo.

What I'm saying is that we've been selectively lied to by those of us
having "the right stuff".  What you are saying is that your perverted
God was in charge of allowing such lies.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 24 Jun 2009 18:31 GMT
Does this ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING, GOOFBALL?  lmfjao!

It doesn't MEAN A DAMN THING TO ME!

Sounds like an INSANE FUCKTARD MOUTHING OFF!

Saul Levy

>The amount of spectrum which exceeds human vision, and their
>superior dynamic range, along with nifty optics that are truly
>exceptional to say the least, is what simply can not be so easily
>ignored.
>
> ~ BG
Saul Levy - 29 Jun 2009 20:03 GMT
You LIE again, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

Those kids photos are BORING and NOTHING NEW OR SPECIAL!

Saul Levy

>Remember those Spanish kids with their 100$ camera and a few Balloons
>produced more better quality pictures then Nasa ever has done with
>Billions of $...
Saul Levy - 27 Jun 2009 20:04 GMT
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Very funny, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

Totally WRONG, but VERY FUNNY!

You HAVE NO THOUGHTS, ASSWIPE!  Can a CAMEL think about ANYTHING
except sex and food?

Saul Levy

>a.. new rigorous defeat....
>..the "Moon-Marionettes".
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>computer that latched on to this thread so they have a precise fix on
>the body of skepticism out there.
OM - 06 Jul 2009 18:33 GMT
>All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.

...Oh, go f.ck yourself with Guthball.

<PLONK>
                              OM

--

 ]=====================================[
 ]   OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld   [
 ]        Let's face it: Sometimes you *need*         [
 ]          an obnoxious opinion in your day!           [
 ]=====================================[
BradGuth - 06 Jul 2009 19:19 GMT
> >All of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.
>
> ...Oh, go f.ck yourself with Guthball.
>
> <PLONK>
>                                OM

Old and cranky, aren't we.

Too bad you didn't take better care of your fat self.

~ BG
Father Haskell - 25 Jun 2009 04:49 GMT
> this is the Japanese proof that they went too the Moon... While I am
> still wondering how they got throe the Van Allen belt... Van Allen
> Belt radiation would destroy all electronics...

Everything anyone ever sent into deep space
made it through just fine.
jason - 26 Jun 2009 00:37 GMT
> this is the Japanese proof that they went too the Moon... While I am
> still wondering how they got throe the Van Allen belt... Van Allen

I think in organic material can get through just fine. it is the organic
that you need to be wondering about. did the use ever really go to the moon?

Signature

God is really a pink elephant with television rabbit ears.... think I am
wrong?
Prove it

Assume nothing; expect everything

--

God is really a pink elephant with television rabbit ears.... think I am
wrong?
Prove it

Assume nothing; expect everything

Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 28 Jun 2009 02:20 GMT
The radiation belts are movie myth. The idea of gamma rays being
'trapped' is lubricous; can you trap light in jar of water? There is
an electric current between the Earth and Moon, but not these silly
radiation belts.

> > this is the Japanese proof that they went too the Moon... While I am
> > still wondering how they got throe the Van Allen belt... Van Allen
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Assume nothing; expect everything
BradGuth - 28 Jun 2009 02:45 GMT
On Jun 27, 6:20 pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The radiation belts are movie myth. The idea of gamma rays being
> 'trapped' is lubricous; can you trap light in jar of water? There is
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> > Assume nothing; expect everything

True, as it takes some kind of reactive mass in order that secondary/
recoil photons to emerge, similar to an anticathode is necessary for
the likes of gamma and X-rays to materialize out of nowhere, so to
speak.

Those Van Allen badlands can give you 2e3 Sv/year(23 rads/hr) while
shielded by 5/16" aluminum, and it should be as every bit bad off or
worse while on the naked moon, because the surrounding moon surface
itself provides the necessary anticathode.

A thick layer of low density or fluffy kind of uncompacted dust is
what moderates that gamma and X-rays down to a dull roar of perhaps at
least a few rads/hr of gamma and X-rays, unless it's a bad kind of
halo CME day that'll terminate the bulk of your frail DNA within an
hour.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 28 Jun 2009 22:24 GMT
Just a BIT anti-science too?  lmfjao!

You are a WACKO NUTJOB!

Saul Levy

>The radiation belts are movie myth. The idea of gamma rays being
>'trapped' is lubricous; can you trap light in jar of water? There is
>an electric current between the Earth and Moon, but not these silly
>radiation belts.
Saul Levy - 27 Jun 2009 18:51 GMT
After ObaMAO, YOU are the greatest HOAX ever created, PIGSHIT!
lmfjao!

You don't fool us, you LYING FRAUD!

Saul Levy

>it crashed on the dark side of the Moon...
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Conclusion: Space travel and science remains a fake Miracle... a world
>wide Hoax.
BradGuth - 22 Jun 2009 18:12 GMT
> > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> where  is that Japanese probe that was entented to crash on the moon
> one of this days? would we see that explosion from Earth?

I'll have to recheck and see exactly what happened.  Their intended
impact should have been within plain view, and having generated a
fairly impressive impact at that.  At just one degree, it should have
bounced a few times, whereas instead it just kind of went thud and
sank out of sight.

The recent made for TV stuff isn't offering very good physics or
science, but it's certainly terrific eye-candy and what-if food for
thought.

An icy Selene becoming our moon could have sucker punched Eden/Earth
without destroying all life.  If it happened today, perhaps at least
1% of the human species could be saved, and the lower 99% would likely
parish.  However 12,600 some odd years ago, perhaps 10% of the
primitive humanity of that era should have survived because of their
having already survived in the nude and off the land as is.

Today, most folks might die off if they lost use of their cell phone,
Blackberry or iPod.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 22 Jun 2009 18:37 GMT
But such sh.t makes YOU and PIGSHIT sh.t THEIR PANTS, GOOFBALL!
lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>The recent made for TV stuff isn't offering very good physics or
>science, but it's certainly terrific eye-candy and what-if food for
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> ~ BG
Warhol - 23 Jun 2009 05:47 GMT
> > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

People should stop dreaming of space travel... since it does not
exist... the only truth is that science is a fake miracle ... based on
Hoax on Hoax.

Here we have the ISS with bubbles.

International Space Station Hoax : Space Walks Simulated in A Massive
Water Pool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ynHKGzplQ&feature=channel

See it is basic facts like this, that make the space travel believers
look really stupid and lacking basic common scientific sense, I feel
sorry for them, I really do. Living in a delude fantasy world must be
quite lonely for them.
BradGuth - 23 Jun 2009 17:56 GMT
> > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
> sorry for them, I really do. Living in a delude fantasy world must be
> quite lonely for them.

Unfortunately for your mindset, LEO stuff does exist, as well as L1,
L2 and polar orbits and those off-world explorations are in fact
taking place.  As I'd said before, you really need to get out of your
confinement/isolation cell a little more often.

At the very least, you've got a secure job at DARPA, NSA, CIA or even
within the FBI as a triple agent kind of spook/mole.  If you didn't
already exist, they'd have to invent a Warhol as well as the likes of
Art Deco, Saul Levy and even William Mook to boot.  Try to remember
that 99.9% of Usenet/newsgroups are in fact populated with bogus folks
doing their best cloak and dagger and brown-nosed clown stuff of
spewing disinformation and otherwise obfuscating their Bog like butts
off.

~ BG
Warhol - 23 Jun 2009 23:14 GMT
> > > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 87 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

truth is terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible

One must remember; Every event is a carefully-crafted symphony.

It is ALWAYS good to be prepared.

As to hurricane Katrina for example, I wonder how many people did
actually prepare for that? Those who didn't, suffered tremendously.
BradGuth - 23 Jun 2009 23:30 GMT
> > > > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 96 lines]
> As to hurricane Katrina for example, I wonder how many people did
> actually prepare for that? Those who didn't, suffered tremendously.

Local natives suffered the least, because they were smarter than
most.  The commercial and fishing fleets that went out to sea had
minimal damage.  FEMA and of course the dregs of their national guard
was a joke.  The USCG did a damn fine job, especially considering they
were pretty much on their own.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 24 Jun 2009 12:03 GMT
I don't think I was INVENTED, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

I'll accept CONCEIVED!

That YOU were CONCEIVED seems hard to BELIEVE.  Now that RHYMES!

Weren't you HATCHED?

Saul Levy

>At the very least, you've got a secure job at DARPA, NSA, CIA or even
>within the FBI as a triple agent kind of spook/mole.  If you didn't
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> ~ BG
Saul Levy - 27 Jun 2009 18:58 GMT
vtcapo believes in UFOs, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

You have a PROBLEM WITH THAT TOO?

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You simulate having a BRAIN, SHITPIGGY!  Same thing, isn't it?

Saul Levy

>People should stop dreaming of space travel... since it does not
>exist... the only truth is that science is a fake miracle ... based on
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>sorry for them, I really do. Living in a delude fantasy world must be
>quite lonely for them.
BradGuth - 21 Jun 2009 17:19 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
> JAXA and ISRO missions).

JAXA and ISRO are not certain of anything, and China is just into
keeping most everything of their lunar mission a big dark secret,
although they each suspect via remote instruments that frozen water
could still exist on our naked and unavoidably reactive moon.  Oddly
99.9999% of their public funded mission science isn’t publicly
accessible, and of what little has been published isn’t of their best
data nor well enough presented.  It’s as though JAXA and ISRO simply
do not know how best to organize their public funded data and how to
best utilize the www as their public science archive.

However, our very own LRO and LCROSS missions do not seem to be of any
interest to those claiming we’re been there and done that Apollo
thing.

“LRO; Apollo impacts and their debris soon to be identified”
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/2201e1417c4ad633?hl=en#

The LROC of 0.5 meter resolution should more than do the trick,
especially with having such a wide spectrum for detecting lunar
minerals, deposits and with extreme dynamic range giving more than
enough earthshine illumination sensitivity for even the mostly dark as
coal surface.  Of whatever the optical cameras of LRO do not pick up,
the SAR imaging and multiple other instruments will.

Even if there’s scant amounts of solid water or any damp/frozen
crystals of mineral saturations hiding within deep and continually
dark polar craters shouldn’t go unnoticed, although at 3e-15 bar I’d
have my doubts, in that anything resembling raw ice or frozen brine is
more likely going to have to be sequestered deep within geode pockets
having solid (vapor tight) shells.

Too bad that after 4 decades of our best hocus-pocus and supposed
technological advances, we still do not have any viable fly-by-rocket
lander that can safely manage a controlled decent, downrange and soft
landing.  Instead we get yet another spendy impactor kind of probe,
and at that not even a LUNAR-A kind of surface penetration probe, or
any other capable kind of surviving impactor.

~ BG
Dave - 22 Jun 2009 19:39 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
> shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
> electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.

Won't you just claim that the pictures were doctored or faked when LRO
imagery DOES show Apollo landers on the moon?
BradGuth - 22 Jun 2009 20:30 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Won't you just claim that the pictures were doctored or faked when LRO
> imagery DOES show Apollo landers on the moon?

I invented the science of observationology, of deductively
interpreting whatever's potentially there that's most likely
artificial as opposed to being of whatever should otherwise be
perfectly natural.  Too bad that most of the higher resolution via
LORC imaging is limited to monochrome, whereas otherwise at least
eight fold better image interpretations could be accomplished.

The adding or subtracting of pixels per given image is nowadays 5th
grade capability, so thereby it's entirely possible to produce and/or
fudge whatever image you like, as well as including or excluding
whatever color/hue of the visual spectrum that makes you a happy
camper.  Without public access to the original unprocessed images,
there's no valid objective way of anyone telling truth from fiction.
I wonder if the public is even going to see more than 0.1% of the
obtained science from these two probes, because in the past it hasn't
always been the case.

What could have been and should have been done as of our Apollo era,
that would have easily made everything objectively and independently
as peer proof-positive that we were in fact standing upon our
physically dark and unavoidably reactive moon, is a downright shame on
us.  Perhaps only in America can so much of our best ever R&D plus 700
large boxes of mission data get so discarded and/or lost, as though it
had little if any meaning.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 23 Jun 2009 02:04 GMT
So you mean that your INSANITY is ARTIFICIAL, GOOFBALL?  lmfjao!

It still looks NATURAL to me!

Saul Levy

>I invented the science of observationology, of deductively
>interpreting whatever's potentially there that's most likely
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> ~ BG
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 01:51 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Won't you just claim that the pictures were doctored or faked when LRO
> imagery DOES show Apollo landers on the moon?

Here whats its all about
"A Frog on the Moon" original NASA video

if you watch closely, starting on the right side of the astronaut, you
can see the frog hoping left to right of the screen as the astronaut
comes closer. Oops!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=281_1188609464

...so now ..the Naza has.. the irrefutable evidence..that..
there is life on the Moooonn..........
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 02:07 GMT
> > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> ...so now ..the Naza has.. the irrefutable evidence..that..
> there is life on the Moooonn..........

Double IR worthy and rad-hard DNA to boot.  There's actually a certain
terrestrial island that was ideal for hosting this kind of spoof
project, and no doubt there were frogs on that island.

~ BG
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 03:39 GMT
> > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

Will someone please explain to me what in Gods' names a frog would be
doing on a Moon hoax set?

Great expectations forever unfulfilled
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/25/20090519073419.jpg

So, now the yellow affiliates are getting in on the treasury bleeding
game:
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1589/20090518095808.jpg

Their space shuttle plans are remarkably sophisticated:
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5841/20090519061400.jpg

But doesn't paper catch on fire as it re-enters the atmosphere? Isn't
that typical of the frugal Japanese space program to want to save the
people a lot of money by using paper in their space shuttle designs.
Or will they charge the public for a regular full sized shuttle made
of all the so-called required material and send up a paper shuttle
instead? So many questions.
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 15:32 GMT
> > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> of all the so-called required material and send up a paper shuttle
> instead? So many questions.

Life is just plain silly, isn't it.

Perhaps it's your lack of physics and science that's in charge of
those things, as why would other folks be any different than yourself?

The Boeing 787 composite aircraft is getting further delayed because
of using paper/(carbon fibers), so to speak.  So, perhaps we should
remain focused upon terrestrial matters that'll save lives and
otherwise improve our quality of life.

BTW,  would your God ever permit intelligent life to exist/coexist on
Venus, or on any other planet or moon?

~ BG
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 16:13 GMT
> > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

You right BG time to focus terrestrial matters... we still have to
spend some time in this world... but...

In 22 millions years the virgin Venus shall be terraformed and then we
all will go to live on Venus... when we leave this doomed world for
ever, just like we left Mars for this Mother Earth 244.000 years ago
by Star Gates.

The Moon is a dead born world... and Gran'Da'Dy used its reflection
only to fight darkness...
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 16:22 GMT
> > > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
> The Moon is a dead born world... and Gran'Da'Dy used its reflection
> only to fight darkness...

But you do not believe on the laws of physics, much less in science.
So, who are you kidding, but yourself.

What about right now and/or before now as having intelligent ETs
living/working on Venus?

You do believe that your God created intelligent life other than just
upon Eden, don't you?

You do believe that other intelligent ET life couldn't possibly be as
corrupted, snookered and dumbfounded as humanity, don't you?

But why of course, since them pesky laws of physics are apparently
meaningless and you don't believe in science is a wee bit of a
problem, isn't it.

~ BG
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 16:58 GMT
> > > > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> But you do not believe on the laws of physics, much less in science.
> So, who are you kidding, but yourself.

What I know we only have technology to stay stuck on this low fallen
world... All what is shot up comes down... the only laws of physics I
heave learned so far...

> What about right now and/or before now as having intelligent ETs
> living/working on Venus?

Its still to hot on Venus BG... Man can't survive the High
Temperatures

> You do believe that your God created intelligent life other than just
> upon Eden, don't you?

Of Course... that means yes, on every solar system there is Life...
Our Solar system isn't unique.

> You do believe that other intelligent ET life couldn't possibly be as
> corrupted, snookered and dumbfounded as humanity, don't you?

In the Holy Writings they Talk about 666 low fallen worlds that
revolted against the Lord of Heaven...  So now there are 666 worlds
under embargo from heaven, because man has fallen very low, without
grace, even consorting to lies and murder... Now they are like
prisoners stuck on the rock of Alqsar till Judgment Day

> But why of course, since them pesky laws of physics are apparently
> meaningless and you don't believe in science is a wee bit of a
> problem, isn't it.
>
>  ~ BG

Man left Eden by a Star Gate and populated the universe by Star
Gates... and this technology is Hidden from our eyes by the ancient of
time, till the Lord of the Universe will show up and send the evil
ones into the Lake of Fire with his Plank.
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 17:25 GMT
> > > > > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
> world... All what is shot up comes down... the only laws of physics I
> heave learned so far...
Everything is in a natural orbit around something.  Artificially we
can force a satellite or probe to ignore gravity for as long as the
onboard cache of fuel or whatever propulsion energy holds out, after
which the item in space travel simply falls back into the natural
realm of orbiting something, including possibly returning to Earth
unless some other source of gravity and/or electrostatic force takes
over.

> > What about right now and/or before now as having intelligent ETs
> > living/working on Venus?
>
> Its still to hot on Venus BG... Man can't survive the High
> Temperatures

It's only too hot and otherwise nasty for naked heathens of the most
snookered and dumbfounded kind.  Besides, you don't believe in the
regular laws of physics or in the best available science, so how the
hell would you know that it's too insurmountably hot for even
intelligent folks to cope with?

You do realize that with such a terrific local cache of mostly
renewable energy and every bit the same or better minerals and
elements than Eden has to offer, that pretty much anything you or I
could imagine is technically possible, don't you?  (or doesn't your
faith believe in energy?)

> > You do believe that your God created intelligent life other than just
> > upon Eden, don't you?
>
> Of Course... that means yes, on every solar system there is Life...
> Our Solar system isn't unique.

Terrific, as by rights that should fairly apply to other planets and
moons within our solar system that are technically survivable and even
eventually livable.  However, you do realize that the regular laws of
physics and science has to get involved, don't you?

> > You do believe that other intelligent ET life couldn't possibly be as
> > corrupted, snookered and dumbfounded as humanity, don't you?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> grace, even consorting to lies and murder... Now they are like
> prisoners stuck on the rock of Alqsar till Judgment Day

No argument there.  We're kind of stuck here, and there's terrestrial
folks in charge of making damn certain that none of us ever escapes
this world (mentally or physically).  You seem to be one of those in
charge of keeping us snookered and dumbfounded.

> > But why of course, since them pesky laws of physics are apparently
> > meaningless and you don't believe in science is a wee bit of a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> time, till the Lord of the Universe will show up and send the evil
> ones into the Lake of Fire with his Plank.

Don't need no stinking "Star Gate" or special conditional laws of
physics or any hocus-pocus science in order to get safely to/from
Venus.  So, what's your God's excuse for that one?

~ BG
Warhol - 24 Jun 2009 17:54 GMT
BradGuth a écrit :

>>>>>>>>>> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
>>>>>>>>>> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 111 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
that have the propulsion force to leave earth's attraction... let me say
till today the sky is the limit... beyond that we dont have the engines
to do so.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1917/proof.html

argument consists of two parts:

   1. No object weighing 1 kg or more has ever moved with a greater
speed than 4,000 km/h.
   2. Speeds of at least 28,000 km/h are required for space travel.
BradGuth - 24 Jun 2009 20:41 GMT
> The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> speed than 4,000 km/h.
>     2. Speeds of at least 28,000 km/h are required for space travel.

Exceeding 7.8 km/sec is certainly not a problem.  Just ask any of our
DARPA Zionist Nazis that got loads of stuff into orbiting and
impacting our naked moon.  Many other probes have since gone off to
other worlds and their many moons, as such each had to escape the
gravity of this wussy little insignificant planet we call Eden/Earth
and manage to pull away from the sun unless headed inward, and most of
those missions have obviously far exceeded 11 km/s.  At 10,000 km up,
the escape velocity falls off to roughly 7 km/sec, but the fly-by-
rocket trick is always of how to first get whatever craft or probe to
that altitude of 10,000 km to begin with.

In order to escape the gravity of our sun is quite another matter, in
need of 42+ km/s to start off with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

~ BG
Warhol - 25 Jun 2009 14:18 GMT
> > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

The question is that none has ever delivered the proof is that they
can obtain the speed needed to escape earth attraction... and the
velocity of the
space shuttle does NOT EXCEED 300mph... although a velocity of
17000mph
is needed for space-travel around the earth.

what is it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE&feature=related

Bubbles in Space?

its all a hoax, there was no moon landing or space travel! A
monolithic lie!!!
BradGuth - 25 Jun 2009 15:00 GMT
> > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> its all a hoax, there was no moon landing or space travel! A
> monolithic lie!!!

As I said before, if you didn't already exist they'd have to invent a
Warhol, as another part of their ruse/sting on behalf of our mutually
perpetrated cold-war.  You do appreciate that our cold-war was
entirely bogus (Zionist contrived) though becoming somewhat testy and
spendy on both sides, don't you?

~ BG
Warhol - 25 Jun 2009 16:12 GMT
> > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

Every hoax has it's museum. The dinosaurs, the atom bomb, the nuclear
reactors, the holocaust, and the moon landings:

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3097/20090517091226.jpg

Oh yeah, before I forget, you have a telegram from the moon:
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8069/20090517024717.jpg

It's in Lunar Alphabet so you will need the Lunar Alphabet Chart:
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3373/20090517025033.jpg

If you want to send them back a reply you can use my NASA-approved
lunar typewriter:
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4554/20090517025245.jpg
BradGuth - 25 Jun 2009 16:19 GMT
> > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> If you want to send them back a reply you can use my NASA-approved
> lunar typewriter:http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4554/20090517025245.jpg

At least you've got a terrific sense of humor, which is a whole lot
more than most have going.

~ BG
Warhol - 25 Jun 2009 17:10 GMT
> > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

Thank BG... He is the man who can formulate with accuracy..the..
motives of and the exact interpretation by sources I`ve linked to...
and brought ... copied & pasted... here of Studies conducted and
researched by dedicated scientist... BG... is the main man who should
have the credit... of
spreading the message of The Fake of Century...

BG, Usenet readers have decided that you deserve a little something
for your great work in the service of truth in the question of the so-
called moon landings. You will be the first skeptic to be paid in
Lunar Dollars, congratulations man. If I were you I would frame my
first lunar dollars cause that's all you will ever get from there...
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8770/20090517022309.jpg
BradGuth - 25 Jun 2009 18:33 GMT
> > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
> Lunar Dollars, congratulations man. If I were you I would frame my
> first lunar dollars cause that's all you will ever get from there...http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8770/20090517022309.jpg

With corruption and inflation as bad off as it is, what’s a lunar
dollar worth?

As undeniably fakey and otherwise special interest unpoliced as this
century has become, what’s next?

How about forking over another fake God, or perhaps several. (they’re
all tax exempt)

If your God had any remote sense of decency and a gram worth of
remorse for having screwed up Eden, he/she or his/her partners in
crimes against humanity would have been right here kicking those
Zionist Nazi butts as of decades ago, as well as long before then.

What’s with all the hocus-pocus delay? (is your God too busy screwing
up other worlds and civilizations?)

Are you and others of your faith-based kind waiting to be nailed to a
stick, so that we can worship your sorry dead a.ses? (it kind of
worked for those Zionist Jews, didn’t it?)

Perhaps worshiping the almighty dollar is the only right kind of faith-
based thing to be doing.  Perhaps we should all become Rothschilds and
Ponzi Madoffs, protected by our very own Zionist Nazi SEC and the
private/cabal Federal Reserve. (what could possibly go wrong if the
rich and powerful keep getting richer and more powerful?)

Other than persistently posting doom and gloom (most of which doesn’t
seem to materialize), do you have any better plan other than getting
great glee from the traumatizing and suffering of others?

~ BG
Warhol - 25 Jun 2009 23:07 GMT
> > > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 111 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

We are "getting closer", they'll come! ...

patience is one of the most valuable virtues of life.... It has never
been easy to be patient, but it's probably harder now than at any time
in history.

The Quran states that "It is not righteousness that you turn your
faces towards East or West. But it is righteousness to believe in
Gran'Da'Dy and the Last Day,

The imminent arrival of the end is clear in James 5:7-9. Be patient …
until the coming of the Lord. Like the farmer we must wait, but the
wait is short—the judge is standing at the doors. Likewise, it is
common to consider the crown of life in James 1:12 to be a future
prize, promised to those who endure trials, but promised at some
future time. In the last part of Revelation 2:10: Be faithful until
death, and I will give you the crown of life. Here it is clear that
endurance, even unto death, will be rewarded later with the crown.

And this is no science fiction film.

All things will work in perfect timing with Gran'Da'Dy's plan and so I
will be patient as I keep watch.

You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near.
Double-A - 25 Jun 2009 23:25 GMT
> > > > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 137 lines]
>
> You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To
visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
himself unspotted from the world."  --  James 1:27.

Double-A
OM - 26 Jun 2009 00:18 GMT
>"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To
>visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
>himself unspotted from the world."  --  James 1:27.

"Anyone who quotes a psychotic troll like Brad Guth in entirety and
adds something totally stupid will go to Hell and not only burn for
all eternity, they'll also be spending that time sucking Brad Guth's
dick." -- The Book of OM, 12:91

                              OM

--

 ]=====================================[
 ]   OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld   [
 ]        Let's face it: Sometimes you *need*         [
 ]          an obnoxious opinion in your day!           [
 ]=====================================[
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 00:08 GMT
> > > > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 137 lines]
>
> You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near.

In other words, I shouldn't be holding my breath.  Whenever it gets
right down to it, it seems that you're really no fun at all.

Does this Lord/God of ours do zingers? or is there no sense of humor
in the vast cosmic realm that he/she/it created, or rather messed up.

~ BG
Double-A - 26 Jun 2009 00:22 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 145 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

God does have a sense of humor.  After all, he created you!

Double-A
Warhol - 26 Jun 2009 01:22 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 149 lines]
>
> Double-A

thats the great wisdom Double-A...

Something to think about, I am curious to see what the minds of Usenet
come up with.

Plus the moon thing, damn, life is weird.

remember all, rise out of the compartmentalized conditioning.

Look at the bigger picture.
BradGuth - 30 Jun 2009 14:52 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 160 lines]
>
> Look at the bigger picture.

The big picture doesn't have this Eden and all of its life as worth
more than a cosmic dust mite.  Eden can not peacefully sustain 12+
billion hungry and angry souls.  God and those of his ET minions has
got to take responsibility for this mess, and the sooner the better.
Locally, the Zionist Nazis want global domination and ultimate say in
everything, even if it means running a thousand more of those SEC
approved Ponzi Madoff scams, and WWIII to boot.

~ BG
BradGuth - 30 Jun 2009 14:43 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 149 lines]
>
> Double-A

And having created all of those Zionist Nazis (mostly republican none
the less).  How's that for a laugh?

~ BG
BradGuth - 10 Jul 2009 20:10 GMT
> > > > > > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 149 lines]
>
> Double-A

And yourself, as well as Zionist Nazis like rabbi Saul Levy (aka Art
Deco).

~ BG
Saul Levy - 10 Jul 2009 23:30 GMT
I think you created yourself, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

Could god be that CRUEL?

Saul Levy

>And yourself, as well as Zionist Nazis like rabbi Saul Levy (aka Art
>Deco).
>
> ~ BG
Warhol - 12 Jul 2009 04:04 GMT
And I Created You... pig.

> I think you created yourself, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> > ~ BG
BradGuth - 12 Jul 2009 17:00 GMT
> And I Created You... pig.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> > > ~ BG

Shame on you, for creating the likes of rabbi Saul.  What the hell
were you thinking?

~ BG
Saul Levy - 12 Jul 2009 17:39 GMT
Which one was it created me, GOOFBALL?  lmfjao!

Far as I can tell it was my PARENTS!  Something RAGHEADS won't admit
called SEX!

Maybe god was that cruel to create YOU!

Saul Levy

>> And I Created You... pig.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> ~ BG
Saul Levy - 27 Jul 2009 22:54 GMT
You CREATE WHAT EXACTLY, PIGSHIT?  lmfjao!

I've NEVER SEEN YOU CREATE ANYTHING!

LOSER!

MORON!

UNEDUCATED FOOL!

RAGHEAD LOSER!

You couldn't even CREATE a PIG!  Pig tastes YUMMY!

Saul Levy

>And I Created You... pig.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>> > ~ BG
Saul Levy - 26 Jun 2009 11:33 GMT
It's very true that YOU certainly were VERY MESSED UP, GOOFBALL!
lmfjao!

Is that RIGHT FROM CONCEPTION?

Saul Levy

>In other words, I shouldn't be holding my breath.  Whenever it gets
>right down to it, it seems that you're really no fun at all.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> ~ BG
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 23:59 GMT
> > > > > > > The Star Gate is the fastest way to over bridge two distant points...
> > > > > > > true no need for a Star Gate to go to Venus, but do you have the engines
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
> Lunar Dollars, congratulations man. If I were you I would frame my
> first lunar dollars cause that's all you will ever get from there... http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8770/20090517022309.jpg

Here’s a better reply (nothing personal), that others might get a kick
out of.

With corporate and government corruption and their systematic global
inflation as bad off as it is, what’s a lunar dollar worth nowadays
days?

As undeniably fakey and otherwise special interest unpoliced as this
century has become, what’s next?  Are we going to have to put another
dark-skinned Jew on a stick, or perhaps gang pillage, plunder and rape
Mother Teresa, then use Gondi as our toilet paper?  In other words,
how far below the surface of our intellectual cesspool are we striving
for?

As long as our Lord is apparently never coming to our direr salvation,
how about forking over another fake God, or perhaps several. (after
all, they’re all as equally tax exempt as any offshore banking account
or SEC approved Ponzi Madoff scam)

If this Lord/God of ours had any remote sense of common decency, and a
gram worth of remorse for having screwed up Eden, he/she/it or his/her/
whatever partners in crimes against humanity would have been right
here kicking those Zionist Nazi butts as of decades ago, as well as
long before then.  Does our Lord/creator get pleasure out of seeing so
much avoidable collateral damage and carnage of the innocent?

What’s with all the same old hocus-pocus delay? (is this Lord/God/
creator of doom and gloom too busy screwing up other worlds and
civilizations?)

Are you and others of your faith-based kind waiting to be nailed to a
stick, so that the rest of us can worship your sorry dead a.ses? (it
kind of worked for those Zionist Jews, didn’t it?)

Perhaps worshiping the almighty dollar is the only right kind of faith-
based thing to be doing.  Perhaps we should all become Rothschilds and
Ponzi Madoffs, protected by our very own Zionist Nazi SEC and the
private/cabal Federal Reserve that gets to do anything it wants in
total exclusive privacy, and thus what could possibly go wrong if the
rich and powerful keep getting richer and more powerful?

Other than yourself persistently posting such holy doom and devout
gloom (most of which doesn’t seem to materialize) do you have any
better terrestrial plan of action (other than getting great personal
glee from the traumatizing and suffering of others)?

~ BG
Saul Levy - 26 Jun 2009 11:47 GMT
That's just plain LOONY, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

Not surprising coming from YOU!

Saul Levy

>> Oh yeah, before I forget, you have a telegram from the moon:http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8069/20090517024717.jpg
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> ~ BG
radian - 25 Jun 2009 17:18 GMT
> Every hoax has it's museum.

So now you're a museum?

And here I had thought you were merely a
run-of-the-mill troll.

Got your 501c3 forms up to date? Here's a
little contribution I send your way.

*<BURP>*
Saul Levy - 30 Jun 2009 06:33 GMT
Obviously you are INSANE, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

See how simple the cause is to find?

Saul Levy

>The question is that none has ever delivered the proof is that they
>can obtain the speed needed to escape earth attraction... and the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>its all a hoax, there was no moon landing or space travel! A
>monolithic lie!!!
radian - 24 Jun 2009 22:57 GMT
I can think of a lot better uses for the computing machine
emulating a human poster "Warhol." Sorting mail, perhaps?
BradGuth - 25 Jun 2009 01:44 GMT
> I can think of a lot better uses for the computing machine
> emulating a human poster "Warhol." Sorting mail, perhaps?

Don't knock that sorting of the US Mail, because those errors are few
and far between.  I keep getting my unsolicited and public subsidized
junk mail like clockworks, with almost the annoying efficiency as
those illegal robo-phone calls that we private citizens also get to
subsidize, as well as wasting our precious time answering.  Only in
America can a private citizen be so systematically screwed by their
own government, attached along with a customary smiley ‘happy face’,
exactly like the SEC kind of happy face that was in charge of allowing
Ponzi Madoff to rip everyone off for more than a decade.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 24 Jun 2009 18:50 GMT
gran'sappy'pappy is obviously to blame, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

FUCKIN' FALSE GODS OF THE PIGSHIT!

TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE!

Saul Levy

>> Man left Eden by a Star Gate and populated the universe by Star
>> Gates... and this technology is Hidden from our eyes by the ancient of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> ~ BG
Saul Levy - 30 Jun 2009 00:27 GMT
There AREN'T any STAR GATES, JACKASS!  lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>Man left Eden by a Star Gate and populated the universe by Star
>Gates... and this technology is Hidden from our eyes by the ancient of
>time, till the Lord of the Universe will show up and send the evil
>ones into the Lake of Fire with his Plank.
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 30 Jun 2009 04:32 GMT
The universe is folded up and embedded in an higher dimension. You can
make a worm hole were two points in our universe are coincident,
otherwise not. You cannot make a wormhole between just any two points.
When particle move at the speed of light, they operate in a universe
that collapses one spatial dimension making many more points
coincident. That's why systems in a single quantum state can
apparently exceed the speed of light.

> There AREN'T any STAR GATES, JACKASS!  lmfjao!
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> >time, till the Lord of the Universe will show up and send the evil
> >ones into the Lake of Fire with his Plank.
BradGuth - 30 Jun 2009 05:26 GMT
On Jun 29, 8:32 pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The universe is folded up and embedded in an higher dimension. You can
> make a worm hole were two points in our universe are coincident,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> > >time, till the Lord of the Universe will show up and send the evil
> > >ones into the Lake of Fire with his Plank.

Perhaps the nearby Great Attractor is just such a wormhole, at least
an exit wormhole/stargate, because it doesn't appear that any galaxy
has ever emerged from within the Great Attractor.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 30 Jun 2009 00:26 GMT
That's VERY KOOKY, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

You are REALLY TRYING TO f.ck YOURSELF IN THE a.s!

You succeeded very well!  lmfjao!

f.ck sappy'pappy too!

Saul Levy

>You right BG time to focus terrestrial matters... we still have to
>spend some time in this world... but...
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>The Moon is a dead born world... and Gran'Da'Dy used its reflection
>only to fight darkness...
Saul Levy - 27 Jun 2009 20:07 GMT
That "frog" must have FLOPPED OUT OF YOUR a.s, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

Makes perfect sense to me!

Maybe GOOFBALL put it up there?  He is from Venus.

Saul Levy

>Here whats its all about
>"A Frog on the Moon" original NASA video
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>...so now ..the Naza has.. the irrefutable evidence..that..
>there is life on the Moooonn..........
BradGuth - 23 Jun 2009 02:17 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
> JAXA and ISRO missions).

Apparently the LRO/LCROSS missions are in some kind of media stealth
mode, similar to our media breath holding and turning blue, because
apparently there’s no sure thing of this spendy mission locating and
imaging our Apollo mission remainders of sufficiently large, bright
and shiny stuff that’s situated upon the nearly dark as coal surface
of our naked and dusty old moon.

JAXA and ISRO have not been certain of anything, and China is just
into keeping most everything of their lunar mission as a big dark
secret, although they each suspect via remote instruments that frozen
water could still exist on our naked and unavoidably reactive moon.
Oddly 99.9999% of their public funded mission science has been need-to-
know (meaning we get to see all of one bit out of a million), and of
what little has been published isn’t of their best data nor well
enough presented.  It’s as though JAXA and ISRO simply do not know how
best to organize their public funded data and how to best utilize the
www as their public science archive.

However, our very own LRO and LCROSS missions of sufficient resolution
do not seem to be of any interest to those of Usenet/newsgroups
claiming we’ve been there and done that Apollo thing as of 40 years
ago.

The LROC of 0.5 meter resolution should more than do the trick,
especially with having such a wide spectrum capability for detecting
lunar minerals, deposits and with extreme dynamic range giving more
than enough earthshine illumination sensitivity for even the mostly
dark as coal surface without benefit of sunlight.  Of whatever the
optical cameras of LRO do not pick up, the SAR imaging and multiple
other instruments will.

Even if there’s any scant amounts of solid water or even damp/frozen
crystals of mineral saturations hiding within deep and continually
dark polar craters shouldn’t go unnoticed, although at 3e-15 bar I’d
seriously have my doubts, in that anything resembling raw ice or
frozen brine is more likely going to have to be sequestered deep
within geode pockets as having solid (vapor tight) shells.

Too bad that after 4 decades of seeing our best hocus-pocus and
supposed technological advances, we still do not have any viable fly-
by-rocket lander that can safely manage a controlled decent, downrange
and soft landing.  Instead we get yet another spendy impactor kind of
probe, and at that not even a LUNAR-A kind of surface penetration
probe, or any other capable kind of surviving hard landing probe.

~ BG
Father Haskell - 25 Jun 2009 04:56 GMT
> Apparently the LRO/LCROSS missions are in some kind of media stealth
> mode, similar to our media breath holding and turning blue, because
> apparently there’s no sure thing of this spendy mission locating and
> imaging our Apollo mission remainders of sufficiently large, bright
> and shiny stuff that’s situated upon the nearly dark as coal surface
> of our naked and dusty old moon.

2nd brightest object in the sky.
BradGuth - 25 Jun 2009 05:16 GMT
> > Apparently the LRO/LCROSS missions are in some kind of media stealth
> > mode, similar to our media breath holding and turning blue, because
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> 2nd brightest object in the sky.

Exactly as a mostly dark basalt plus meteorite and carbonado dust
covered orb that's nearly as sooty dark as coal should look.

Moon albedo = .11
Coal albedo = .1

Imagine what a large Apollo item as having an albedo of .80<.9 should
look like against such a relatively dark average surface of .11 (11%
reflective), especially at solar angles below 45 degrees.

~ BG
Father Haskell - 25 Jun 2009 07:05 GMT
> > > Apparently the LRO/LCROSS missions are in some kind of media stealth
> > > mode, similar to our media breath holding and turning blue, because
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

The copper foil sheathing the lander would produce
a recognizable spot of color.
BradGuth - 25 Jun 2009 14:53 GMT
> > > > Apparently the LRO/LCROSS missions are in some kind of media stealth
> > > > mode, similar to our media breath holding and turning blue, because
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> The copper foil sheathing the lander would produce
> a recognizable spot of color.

Very much so, and with a narrow bandpass filter would make that kind
of highly reflective foil stand out like a sore thumb or a diamond
gleaming in the sun against a relatively dark background.  But then,
that could have been accomplished as of four decades ago, such as with
their very own metric terrain format camera, and a whole lot better
resolution via USAF spy/reconnaissance camera and terrific telephoto
lens of that era that could have been flown independently at less than
10% the cost of one Apollo mission.

"The Apollo Mapping (or Metric) camera flew on three missions, Apollos
15, 16, and 17"

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/browse/thumbnails.php?mission=AS15&cam=metric

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/

~ BG
Father Haskell - 26 Jun 2009 01:31 GMT
> > > > > Apparently the LRO/LCROSS missions are in some kind of media stealth
> > > > > mode, similar to our media breath holding and turning blue, because
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> lens of that era that could have been flown independently at less than
> 10% the cost of one Apollo mission.

10% is still billions of dollars.  You'd call those
images faked, as well.
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 02:14 GMT
> > > > > > Apparently the LRO/LCROSS missions are in some kind of media stealth
> > > > > > mode, similar to our media breath holding and turning blue, because
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> 10% is still billions of dollars.  You'd call those
> images faked, as well.

Why would the USAF fake anything?

Unless they too happen to like Zionist Nazis, what would be their
motive?

Since the original large format film (undeveloped) would have been
handed over to a composite team of private and peer qualified
individuals that we'd all trust with our lives, what on Earth could
possibly go wrong?

~ BG
Saul Levy - 26 Jun 2009 11:29 GMT
Please explain who AREN'T ZIONIST NAZIS, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

Are there any in that WARPED MIND OF YOURS?

Seems that EVERYONE is calling you a VILLAGE IDIOT!  Therefore, you
call EVERYONE a ZIONIST NAZI!

We DO understand YOU, MORON!

Saul Levy

>Why would the USAF fake anything?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> ~ BG
BradGuth - 25 Jun 2009 20:24 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

LRO = 1965 kg? (perhaps with fairing)
Deployment rocket at liftoff (GLM) = 546,700 kg
Time of 4.5 days getting this package into lunar orbit.
LRO 1846 + 1043 (upper stage) = 2889 kg
2889/546700 = .528%

Why are such modern rockets so terribly inefficient? (Saturn 5 wasn’t)

~ BG
Warhol - 25 Jun 2009 23:14 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

All the Saturn Rockets have fallen into the Atlantic Ocean... I heave
heard ones in Tanger, my Home town, that a American Saturn Rocket had
fallen not far from the town... thats how far those Saturn Spaceship
ever got.
Father Haskell - 26 Jun 2009 01:14 GMT
> > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> fallen not far from the town... thats how far those Saturn Spaceship
> ever got.- Hide quoted text -

That's just the booster.  There were 2 more stages,
plus the command, service, and landing module
stack. They made it to the moon.  The service
module and capsule made it back home.

Most of the launch mass was fuel and fuel tank.
Once the fuel was burned off, they were dead
weight, and jettisoned.
Warhol - 26 Jun 2009 01:48 GMT
> > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Once the fuel was burned off, they were dead
> weight, and jettisoned.

Never they went farther then that one accident when Saturne V
practically felt on the roof of my Family house in Tanger... the rest
they did was cheap Magic that made you believe what you shaw on the
screen of your TV set is the reality...

NASA's "Vomit Comet"
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8060/20090515121852.jpg

NASA uses this airplane to simulate outer space "zero gravity"
conditions on earth. They say they use it to train future astronauts.
The name "Vomit Comet" was given to this airplane because the zero "g"
parabolic flight manouvres induce motion sickness.

Here is a graph showing the dynamics of this zero-"g" flight pattern:
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/9890/20090515122523.jpg

The formula:
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5613/20090515122845.jpg

The effect...in the picture below we see Mercury astronauts training
onboard NASA's zero-"g" simulator aircraft, the Vomit Comet:
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/9730/20090515122752.jpg

Next we see the zero-"g" aircraft used as a movie set:
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8301/20090515123053.jpg

This the way they fake shuttle and space station videos and media
clips where we see astronauts they say are in space? The readers can
correct me if I'm wrong here but as I recall the video clips I saw
over the years where the astronauts are floating around inside the
shuttle or space station never seemed to last more than a few seconds
before ending or switching scenes. Each clip or delay between scene
cuts corresponding with the zero-"g" aircraft parabolic arcing
summits. Do they make a spacecraft mockup inside those zero-"g"
aircraft and stage the space exploit from there? One thing for certain
is that it is very doable, they have the technology to make earthbound
simulator flights look like outer space.
Saul Levy - 01 Jul 2009 07:25 GMT
And here I thought you ALWAYS believed everything you SAW on a SCREEN,
PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

Have you been LYING to us again?

Saul Levy

>Never they went farther then that one accident when Saturne V
>practically felt on the roof of my Family house in Tanger... the rest
>they did was cheap Magic that made you believe what you shaw on the
>screen of your TV set is the reality...
Warhol - 01 Jul 2009 12:34 GMT
http://nwo.11syyskuu.net/possu.jpg My..buddy & I proudly present...

Nothing is ever that simple in life. By your own definitions most
writers of encyclopedias and novels have no idea what they are talking
about. Every movie that lasts more than five minutes is overdoing
it..you see how that sounds? Just admit you have a very short
attention span and detailed explanations confuse you. This thread is
an exhaustive work and you see people flocking to it. Some people out
there appear to think that depth of review is very important when
looking at complex issues. You are the only one complaining as far as
I can see. Not to say that you are not entitled to your opinion just
don't expect everyone to share your optimism about the joys of
draconian brevity.

> And here I thought you ALWAYS believed everything you SAW on a SCREEN,
> PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> >they did was cheap Magic that made you believe what you shaw on the
> >screen of your TV set is the reality...
Saul Levy - 04 Jul 2009 17:16 GMT
I guess you can't COUNT HIGHER THAN ONE, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

I knew you were UNEDUCATED!

Saul Levy

>Nothing is ever that simple in life. By your own definitions most
>writers of encyclopedias and novels have no idea what they are talking
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> >they did was cheap Magic that made you believe what you shaw on the
>> >screen of your TV set is the reality...
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 01:45 GMT
> > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> fallen not far from the town... thats how far those Saturn Spaceship
> ever got.

They got a little further than that, at least the second and third
stages did.

~ BG
Father Haskell - 26 Jun 2009 01:18 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Why are such modern rockets so terribly inefficient? (Saturn 5 wasn’t)

New Horizons crossed lunar orbit within 12 hrs
of launch.

Efficiency really isn't that important.  Once you're
up to speed, cut the engines and coast, and let
momentum push you the rest of the way.
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 01:40 GMT
> > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> up to speed, cut the engines and coast, and let
> momentum push you the rest of the way.

Right, lets not bother with those pesky laws of physics or of any kind
of objective science that can be independently peer replicated.

~ BG
Father Haskell - 26 Jun 2009 01:57 GMT
> > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Right, lets not bother with those pesky laws of physics or of any kind
> of objective science that can be independently peer replicated.

Newton's first law of motion, accepted since
1687.
BradGuth - 28 Jun 2009 02:14 GMT
> > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Newton's first law of motion, accepted since
> 1687.

There you go again with the apples and oranges thing.  Anything with a
budget for sufficient boosters and packing the least amount of inert
payload can get to the point of zooming past that moon within 12
hours.  With a nuclear rocket we could do it within one hour, plus if
given an Earth assist plus a sufficient array of Rn222 ion thrusters
might get this trek down to a few minutes.  So, what's your point?

~ BG
Warhol - 26 Jun 2009 02:44 GMT
> > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> up to speed, cut the engines and coast, and let
> momentum push you the rest of the way.

Warhol  Investigation...

28.000 KM/Hour is needed to get to the moon..
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1150/05UCMGrav/Sat.html

Action = Reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_momentum#Conservation_of_linear_momentum

Impossible Saturn V went to the Moon.
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=398

PS... The Moon Walker Died Tonight (Michael Jackson)
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 05:24 GMT
> > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> PS... The Moon Walker Died Tonight (Michael Jackson)

It went at least to our Selene/moon L1, roughly 60,000 km from the
moon.  Actually it just sent the third stage and those Apollo modules
coasting towards the the earth-moon L1 (Selene L1), and from that
point I'm not exactly certain what happened outside of remote flown
and/or robotic options that orbited the moon and having impacted the
moon as a termination to their function in this grand ruse/sting of
our mutually perpetrated cold-war.

If there was ever any controlled deorbit, downrange and soft landing,
there's still no official R&D documentation nor any terrestrial
prototype or as-built and valid proof-tested documentation on film or
paper, and of those directly involved (mostly those of our DARPA
Zionist Nazis) are nowhere to be found. (perhaps they were from Mars,
or better yet from Venus)

~ BG
Warhol - 26 Jun 2009 08:24 GMT
> > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

They went nowhere BG...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYwlRH7R6DE

...OOhh...what..I forgot...

Quote:
Do we need protection from ultraviolet light?

Without an atmosphere to remove the high frequency ultraviolet light
from the sunlight, human skin and eyes would be damaged quickly.
However, one of NASA's videos show an astronaut wandering around on
the moon in the sunlight without his tinted visor.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/a17v_1650025_VisorNotInUse.JPG

You can see this and other videos at the NASA web site.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17.html

Eventually somebody at the control center on earth suggests that he
lower his tinted visor.

Many visitors to Tanger are more concerned about ultraviolet light
than the astronauts. The astronauts were behaving as if they were on a
theater stage, not in a mysterious and potentially dangerous
environment.
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 14:43 GMT
> > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 78 lines]
> theater stage, not in a mysterious and potentially dangerous
> environment.

I agree, but for a few different technical reasons that involve those
basic laws of physics, and otherwise involves the best available
science that simply doesn't support the Apollo scripted version.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 26 Jun 2009 17:07 GMT
Isn't it more like YOUR EMPTY HEAD that doesn't support ANYTHING REAL,
GOOFBALL?  lmfjao!

And other EMPTY HEADS OUT THERE...

Saul Levy

>I agree, but for a few different technical reasons that involve those
>basic laws of physics, and otherwise involves the best available
>science that simply doesn't support the Apollo scripted version.
>
> ~ BG
Warhol - 26 Jun 2009 17:24 GMT
> > > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

Look at this sentence:

Man did not go to the moon because he failed to prove irrefutably his
claim by placing a visual beacon on the lunar surface we can see from
earth.

That is a little one liner that says a lot.

How about this one now:

If man could survive the rigors of space travel and make it to the
moon with a camera could he take pictures of the lunar silhouette from
the night side looking into the day side and capture the bright
clusters of stars in the same picture?

That was one sentence too.

You see its when the shills take the model of simplicity and ask you
to elaborate for clarity you have to go above warholian protocol of 3
sentences. No choice. Does not mean a person is clueless. Not in the
least. They say the devil is in the details not in the warhol's arse.

The teaching how to condense the complexity of the world into 3
sentences or less and quite frankly I'm having fun...

If atom bombs really existed man would have detonated one near the
face of the moon to create a light we could see from earth and prove
irrefutably that he was there near the moon and the atom bombs really
exist.

See, just one sentence. If you add up these one liners you get three
and that is within the warhol zone of compliance. I'm starting to
think this fish is onto something.
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 19:33 GMT
> > > > > > > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > > > > > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> and that is within the warhol zone of compliance. I'm starting to
> think this fish is onto something.

There's all sorts of better science that would have been totally
objective, as well as easily independently peer replicated if we'd in
fact walked twelve brave men for a total of multiple days on our
physically dark moon.

Speaking of dirt cheap, quick and downright nifty missions that could
have been and should have been.  It seems we already own the shuttle
bay SAR imaging equipment, that with minor upgrades and getting that
already spendy sucker deployed around Venus could yield 0.75 meter
resolution (100 fold better than the original Magellan mission, plus
two fold improved dynamic range), or perhaps as good as 0.15 meter if
doing our moon from 50 km.

Lord forbid we should merely scrap everything that’s bought and paid
for with our hard earned loot, instead of reutilizing, because we sure
as hell wouldn’t want the general public that’s paying for everything
and in debt to the tune of trillions, to ever get their hard earned
moneys worth.

~ BG
Warhol - 01 Jul 2009 12:46 GMT
> > >  ~ BG
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

If NASA manufactured tricycles instead of space rockets:
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9042/squarebikewheel.jpg

One thing this selectively curious fellow neglected to consider is the
effect of x-rays on photographic emulsion. When x-rays fall on photo
film it clouds it and ruins it. This clouding done in controlled
conditions in medicine allows us to discern tissue densities and
determine the damage done to bones.

When NASA said those astronauts took pictures on the moon they said
the cameras used were Hassleblads. I believe the one sitting in the
Smithsonian Institiute shows clearly the absence of thick lead
shielding of any kind. In other words the Kodak Ectochrome film that
melts at 140 degrees was fully exposed to the 260 degree daylight
surface of the moon.

Besides all that it's impossible to shield a camera against x-rays
because you need to let the light rays come in to take a picture in
the first place.

Every NASA picture they say was taken on the moon is perfectly clear
of x-ray clouding. Another smoking gun exposing those lying bastards.
BradGuth - 01 Jul 2009 14:34 GMT
> > > >  ~ BG
>
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> conditions in medicine allows us to discern tissue densities and
> determine the damage done to bones.

According to our Apollo "right stuff", there's hardly any X-ray or
much less gamma radiation to worry about, perhaps because of the
magical shield that exist between Earth and our moon, as well as
surrounding the moon itself is almost as good as it gets.  Should we
believe them?

> When NASA said those astronauts took pictures on the moon they said
> the cameras used were Hassleblads. I believe the one sitting in the
> Smithsonian Institiute shows clearly the absence of thick lead
> shielding of any kind. In other words the Kodak Ectochrome film that
> melts at 140 degrees was fully exposed to the 260 degree daylight
> surface of the moon.

The film might only start to distort at 140 degrees, and should
noticeably deform at 260 degrees, which is not quite the same thing as
melting.

> Besides all that it's impossible to shield a camera against x-rays
> because you need to let the light rays come in to take a picture in
> the first place.
>
> Every NASA picture they say was taken on the moon is perfectly clear
> of x-ray clouding. Another smoking gun exposing those lying bastards.

There is no original film to ever see or much less thoroughly test.
We just have to take their word on it.  After all, our government
never lies unless they are conscious.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 04 Jul 2009 17:18 GMT
I can see an x-ray of your head, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

It's EMPTY!  Your head I mean...

Saul Levy

>One thing this selectively curious fellow neglected to consider is the
>effect of x-rays on photographic emulsion. When x-rays fall on photo
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>Every NASA picture they say was taken on the moon is perfectly clear
>of x-ray clouding. Another smoking gun exposing those lying bastards.
Saul Levy - 02 Jul 2009 01:24 GMT
This just shows what a LUNATIC you are, PIGSHIT!  lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>Man did not go to the moon because he failed to prove irrefutably his
>claim by placing a visual beacon on the lunar surface we can see from
>earth.

>If atom bombs really existed man would have detonated one near the
>face of the moon to create a light we could see from earth and prove
>irrefutably that he was there near the moon and the atom bombs really
>exist.
Saul Levy - 26 Jun 2009 11:35 GMT
Shove one up YOUR a.s, LIGHT IT OFF and FIND OUT, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

You will QUICKLY KNOW the answer!

Saul Levy

>Why are such modern rockets so terribly inefficient? (Saturn 5 wasn’t)
>
> ~ BG
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 02:17 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
> JAXA and ISRO missions).

Any time now, our NASA and their LRO team are going to finally
identify each of those Apollo sites, as remainders of landers plus
various equipment, and/or as nifty impact craters as they scan that
moon to death, looking for minerals and elements that we already know
are there, and water/ice that we already know can’t possibly be there
without looking deep underground.

LRO = 1965 kg? (perhaps with fairing)
Deployment rocket at liftoff (GLM) = 546,700 kg
Time of 4.5 days getting this package into lunar orbit.
LRO 1846 + 1043 (upper spent stage) = 2889 kg
2889/546700 = .528%

This pathetic payload ratio is even worse if the specified GLM of
546700 kg didn’t happen to include the payload mass of 1965 kg.

Why are such modern and supposedly advanced rockets getting so
terribly inefficient? (Saturn 5 certainly wasn’t)

Saturn V(5) GLM = 3,038,500 kg (+ a few tonnes of ice loading)
Payload delivered into lunar orbit = 47,000 kg.
Time of <3.5 days getting this hefty package into lunar orbit.
47000/3038500 = 1.547% (not incl. spent upper stage of 14.7 t)
incl. spent upper stage becomes 47000+14700/3038500 = 2.031%
The overall GLM inert ratio of Apollo was worth roughly 30%

It seems Saturn 5 was on fly-by-rocket steroids by offering 4 times
more all-inclusive payload efficiency, as well as having cut roughly
more than a day off the trip to boot, of which takes a great deal more
energy to go there faster and then having reserve energy in order to
slow down once arriving at the moon.

If this LROC is half of what it’s cracked up to be, it should be
capable of resolving those upper stage impact craters in terrific
resolution, because smacking that lunar surface with 14.7 tonnes (of
mostly bright aluminum and one powerful rocket engine) has got to
leave quite a substantial mark as it encounters that physically dark,
crystal dry, electrostatic charged and otherwise extremely dusty old
surface at 2.6 km/s or better, as it vaporizes and coats everything
within at least  km or more with all of that aluminum.  How hard can a
2 km wide crater that has exposed those brighter lunar minerals plus
having coated everything with aluminum, be to find?

It seems a little off that terrestrial astronomy observations can’t
seem to identify any such horrific impact sites, even though our best
having near100 meter resolution.  Our National Science Foundation's
(NSF) Arecibo Telescope in Arecibo,  plus the Green Bank telescope
offers 13 cm radar obtained images of 20 meter resolution, as having
existed since early 2005, with that resolution capability existing as
of years before then.

Apparently our recently serviced and extensively camera upgraded
Hubble is dead to us, because otherwise it too could perform rather
nicely via earthshine illuminating those Apollo related sites, and
especially of impact craters that apparently Muslims have hidden from
view.

~ BG
Father Haskell - 26 Jun 2009 02:23 GMT
> If this LROC is half of what it’s cracked up to be, it should be
> capable of resolving those upper stage impact craters in terrific
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> 2 km wide crater that has exposed those brighter lunar minerals plus
> having coated everything with aluminum, be to find?

Look for giant, crushed beer cans.
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 05:33 GMT
> > If this LROC is half of what it’s cracked up to be, it should be
> > capable of resolving those upper stage impact craters in terrific
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Look for giant, crushed beer cans.

Yes, though mostly vaporized unless they plowed into 100+ meters of
lose soil and crystal dry dust.  A good many newish craters are in
fact deeper than they are wide, suggesting a relatively soft or lose/
uncompacted surface layer of considerable depth.

~ BG
Warhol - 26 Jun 2009 08:13 GMT
> > > If this LROC is half of what it’s cracked up to be, it should be
> > > capable of resolving those upper stage impact craters in terrific
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

This one goes out to all those propaganda spewing Apollogists out
there in OZ!!

ALL NASA FOOTAGE USED IN THIS FILM IS PUBLIC DOMAIN. THE USE OF ANY
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS USED UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF "FAIR USE" IN
TITLE 17 § 107 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE. SUCH MATERIAL REMAINS THE
COPYRIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL HOLDER AND IS USED HERE FOR THE PURPOSES OF
EDUCATION, COMPARISON, AND CRITICISM ONLY. NO INFRINGEMENT OF
COPYRIGHT IS INTENDED.

Category: Komedi.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNEurUZ15zw

...the next pics comes from a finnish site...

Quote:
..*..Sionistit kuvasivat Apollo-lennot studiossa
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Finnish/Apollo-inisde-job-1FI.jpg

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Finnish/Apollo-inisde-job-2FI.jpg

heading= *...(..."zionist pictured Apollo-flyings at Studio..)..
BradGuth - 26 Jun 2009 17:13 GMT
> > > > If this LROC is half of what it’s cracked up to be, it should be
> > > > capable of resolving those upper stage impact craters in terrific
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> heading= *...(..."zionist pictured Apollo-flyings at Studio..)..

Studio and/or remote/isolated guano island (Nauru) filming and their
use of xenon lamp illumination was a dead giveaway, not to mention no
sign whatsoever of Venus or any other planet except Earth.

Our moon does not have an average surface albedo of .65, as so often
depicted and otherwise much less having any surface that's remotely
close to an albedo of .75, as many frames of their unfiltered and
apparently rad-hard plus thermally immune Kodak film recorded.

Those white moonsuits of 0.85 albedo are simply another dead giveaway
as to their artificial lunar surroundings, not to mention a total lack
of any UV reactive fluorescence as to anything natural or artificial.

Where the hell did the raw/naked solar UV energy go?

~ BG
BradGuth - 27 Jun 2009 05:25 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

A public funded 60 day commissioning phase seems more than a bit odd,
more like another tactic of public media damage control, of moderating
each and every image and scientific measurement to death and/or
obfuscating as to whatever doesn't comply to their Apollo script.

Means, motive and opportunity all rolled up in one.  Once again we'll
be lucky to see 0.1% of the science.

~ BG
BradGuth - 28 Jun 2009 16:58 GMT
LRO is up and away.  Finally, there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever
for not detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright
and shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal. The
undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should by rights
knock our socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be
entirely sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation
at less resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally
assign false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer >0.5
meter resolution.  Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

Any time now (starting as of 60 days from now), our NASA and their LRO
team of crack observationology wizards are going to finally identify
each of those Apollo sites, as hosting remainders of all those bright
and shiny landers plus various other substantial equipment, and/or at
leas as nifty impact craters as they proceed to scan that moon to
death, looking for minerals and elements that we already know are
there, and the great hunt for water/ice that we already know can’t
possibly be there without having to look deep underground.

LRO = 1965 kg? (perhaps with fairing)
Deployment rocket at liftoff (GLM) = 546,700 kg
Time of 4.5 days getting this package into lunar orbit.
LRO 1846 + 1043 (upper spent stage) = 2889 kg
2889/546700 = .528%

This pathetic payload ratio is even worse if the specified Atlas 5 GLM
of 546700 kg didn’t happen to include the payload mass of 1965 kg.

Why are such modern and supposedly advanced rockets getting so
terribly inefficient? (Saturn 5 certainly wasn’t)

Saturn V(5) GLM = 3,038,500 kg (+ a few tonnes of ice loading)
Payload delivered into lunar orbit = 47,000 kg.
Time of <3.5 days getting this hefty package into lunar orbit.
47000/3038500 = 1.547% (not incl. spent upper stage of 14.7 t)
incl. spent upper stage becomes 47000+14700/3038500 = 2.031%
The overall GLM inert ratio of Apollo was worth roughly 30%
And no solid fuel boosters were utilized (as used by Atlas 5)

It seems Saturn 5 was on fly-by-rocket steroids by having offered at
least 4 times more all-inclusive payload efficiency, as well as having
cut roughly more than a day off the trip to boot, of which takes a
great deal of extra energy in order to go there faster and then having
reserve energy in order to slow down once arriving at the moon.

If this LROC is half of what it’s cracked up to be, it should be
capable of resolving those upper stage impact craters in terrific
resolution, because smacking that lunar surface with 14.7 tonnes (of
mostly bright aluminum and one powerful rocket engine) has got to
leave quite a substantial mark as it encounters that physically dark,
crystal dry, electrostatic charged and otherwise extremely dusty old
surface at 2.6 km/s or better, as it vaporizes and coats everything
within at least a km or more with all of that aluminum.  How hard can
a 2 km wide crater and surrounding field of debris that has exposed
those brighter lunar minerals plus having vapor coated everything with
aluminum be to find, especially while surrounded by such a physically
dark as coal surface.

It seems a little off/odd that terrestrial astronomy observations
can’t seem to identify any such horrific impact sites, even though our
best having near100 meter resolution.  Our National Science
Foundation's (NSF) Arecibo Telescope in Arecibo,  plus the Green Bank
telescope offers 13 cm radar obtained images of 20 meter resolution,
as having existed since early 2005, and with that resolution
capability existing as of years before then.

Apparently our recently serviced and extensively camera upgraded
Hubble is dead to us (perplexing computer lock-up glitch), because
otherwise it too could perform rather nicely, even via earthshine
illuminating those Apollo related sites, and especially of impact
craters that apparently Muslims have hidden from view.

~ BG
BradGuth - 28 Jun 2009 22:33 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever
> for not detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
> illuminating those Apollo related sites, and especially of impact
> craters that apparently Muslims have hidden from view.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0qsEEzz4IrwJ:www.nasa.gov/pdf/360020main_LRO
_LCROSS_presskit2.pdf+lro+orbit+km/s&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

2.25 tonnes impacting at 2.5 km/s, if according to the plan of
arriving at 65 degrees should by NASA interpretation excavate 350
tonnes, offering a dust plume up to 10 km, making a crater of 20
meters by 4 meters deep.

The large volume of a Saturn 5 upper stage worth 14.7 inert tonnes, as
impacting at 2.6 km/s and 65 degrees should excavate and/or cause
<15,000 metric tonnes to move or displace, with the bulk of its
electrostatic charged dust as an expanding plume reaching upwards of
25 km.  The mostly lose and crystal dry soil/rubble and dust
displacement of the impact crater and it’s surrounding fallout field
of bright/reflective debris can be <2 km by <200 meters deep, or that
of a smaller diameter pattern and deeper formation depending on the
available depth of lose/uncompacted soil and micro fine dust
(obviously a smaller diameter of <200 meters and much shallower crater
<10 meters if this spent upper Saturn stage encounters a mountain or
mound of solid basalt.  However, most of our Selene/moon surface is
not of naked/exposed dark basalt bedrock).

Remember that nothing of that lunar soil/rubble and otherwise
deposited dust is the least bit naturally clumping or compacted, and
therefore the average cubic meter density can be extremely low and of
hardly any surface tension, with most all of its heavier elements
having migrated or shifted down to lower levels if not all the way to
bedrock.

Of course, according to all things of our Apollo “right stuff”, our
moon is hardly all that dusty, and there’s no places covered to any
significant depth by any lose soil or deposits that can’t be safely
driven upon and otherwise walked upon without fears of sinking out of
sight, and otherwise apparently the moon isn’t as nearly crystal dry
or electrostatic charged because there’s a truly magical force field
of highly conditional physics that’s keeping the bad kinds of cosmic
and solar energy at bay, and even fending off Earth’s magnetotail of
charged particles from directly interacting and/or reacting with its
otherwise naked surface, and therefore we’ve supposedly got hardly any
local radiation to contend with.

In fact, according to all things Apollo, when you accomplish an
extended downrange and soft land via fly-by-rocket lander, apparently
there’s so little dust that it’s almost like a terrestrial landing
upon a compacted guano island of terrestrial soil, and of what little
dust there is apparently worthy of such natural interlock clumping
that it doesn’t even budge from directly under the main thruster, as
though it’s being magnetically held in place.  Also their average
surface for as far as an unfiltered Kodak eye (meaning camera lens)
can see was reflecting at 65% or better in direct comparison  to
referencing those 85% reflective moonsuits and any number of other
known reflective items as part of their mission, and thus is why
there’s such minimal contrast and absolutely no color to deal with
(shaded items or within shaded areas are never all that dark even
though everything else is getting spot source illuminated by the one
and only extreme intensity of the sun that apparently puts off the
exact same passive spectrum as that of a commercial xenon arc lamp),
and as well as why there’s no weird color/hue saturations or any sign
whatsoever of UV secondary/recoil fluorescence photons, and otherwise
its so extremely cold in the shade of anything because, oddly there’s
apparently no secondary/recoil photons of IR to contend with either.
Even those official moon rocks are not the least bit basalt dark as
depicted in their studio or custom landscaped simulations, and they’re
not even the least bit paramagnetic or much less directly magnetic.
Is this lunar conditional physics and geology weird moon of ours
ideally nifty and magical, or what?

There’s a bit more to say about robotic technology and especially of
humans having to survive the gauntlet of micro meteors and dust
(including dark carbonado) that’s exceeding 30 km/sec (comets are
known to exceed 70 km/s) +/- whatever the lunar direction and velocity
is in respect to the incoming or passing debris, as well as always
that pesky element of sodium that’s pretty much everywhere there’s
vacuum, heat and radiation considerations in addition to the
electrostatic factors that’ll loft moon dust above 100 km.  But then
it’s all becoming somewhat different than Apollo reported, so what’s
the difference?

Perhaps 60 days from now we’ll start to know a whole lot more, that is
unless it’s still a need-to-know and/or nondisclosure kind of public
funded mission that where we only get to see whatever little they
might care to share.  At 1.25 hr/orbit is 60 commissioning days worth
of having orbited 1150 times (sounds about right if you’re trying to
bluff or cover something up)

Lunar World Record 2009 (slower than hell, piss poor dynamic range,
and don’t even bother using dialup)
http://www.lunarworldrecord.com/image.php

The Moon (Selene, at a thousand fold faster download / 300 meter
resolution)
http://www.avertedimagination.com/moon_1.htm

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Paul Hovnanian P.E. - 28 Jun 2009 23:29 GMT
Those are just some props in the Universal Studios back lot. ;-)

Signature

Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D
man quit ^C ^c  ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."

BradGuth - 29 Jun 2009 06:08 GMT
> Those are just some props in the Universal Studios back lot. ;-)
>
> --
> Paul Hovnanian     mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com

One can never have too many props.  After all, what would religion or
government be without their props.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0qsEEzz4IrwJ:www.nasa.gov/pdf/360020main_LRO
_LCROSS_presskit2.pdf+lro+orbit+km/s&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

2.25 tonnes impacting at 2.5 km/s, if according to the plan of
arriving at 65 degrees should by NASA interpretation excavate 350
tonnes, offering a dust plume up to 10 km, making a crater of 20
meters by 4 meters deep.

The large volume of a Saturn 5 upper stage worth 14.7 inert tonnes, as
impacting at 2.6 km/s and 65 degrees should excavate and/or cause
<15,000 metric tonnes to move or displace, with the bulk of its
electrostatic charged dust as an expanding plume reaching upwards of
25 km.  The mostly lose and crystal dry soil/rubble and dust
displacement of the impact crater and it’s surrounding fallout field
of bright/reflective debris can be <2 km by <200 meters deep, or that
of a smaller diameter pattern and deeper formation depending on the
available depth of lose/uncompacted soil and micro fine dust
(obviously a smaller diameter of <200 meters and much shallower crater
<10 meters if this spent upper Saturn stage encounters a mountain or
mound of solid basalt.  However, most of our Selene/moon surface is
not of naked/exposed dark basalt bedrock).

Remember that nothing of that lunar soil/rubble and otherwise
deposited dust is the least bit naturally clumping or compacted, and
therefore the average cubic meter density can be extremely low and of
hardly any surface tension, with most all of its heavier elements
having migrated or shifted down to lower levels if not all the way to
bedrock.

Of course, according to all things of our Apollo “right stuff”, our
moon is hardly all that dusty, and there’s no places covered to any
significant depth by any lose soil or deposits that can’t be safely
driven upon and otherwise walked upon without fears of sinking out of
sight, and otherwise apparently the moon isn’t as nearly crystal dry
or electrostatic charged because there’s a truly magical force field
of highly conditional physics that’s keeping the bad kinds of cosmic
and solar energy at bay, and even fending off Earth’s magnetotail of
charged particles from directly interacting and/or reacting with its
otherwise naked surface, and therefore we’ve supposedly got hardly any
local radiation to contend with.

In fact, according to all things Apollo, when you accomplish an
extended downrange and soft land via fly-by-rocket lander, apparently
there’s so little dust that it’s almost like a terrestrial landing
upon a compacted guano island of terrestrial soil, and of what little
dust there is apparently worthy of such natural interlock clumping
that it doesn’t even budge from directly under the main thruster, as
though it’s being magnetically held in place.  Also their average
surface for as far as an unfiltered Kodak eye (meaning camera lens)
can see was reflecting at 65% or better in direct comparison  to
referencing those 85% reflective moonsuits and any number of other
known reflective items as part of their mission, and thus is why
there’s such minimal contrast and absolutely no color to deal with
(shaded items or within shaded areas are never all that dark even
though everything else is getting spot source illuminated by the one
and only extreme intensity of the sun that apparently puts off the
exact same passive spectrum as that of a commercial xenon arc lamp),
and as well as why there’s no weird color/hue saturations or any sign
whatsoever of UV secondary/recoil fluorescence photons, and otherwise
its so extremely cold in the shade of anything because, oddly there’s
apparently no secondary/recoil photons of IR to contend with either.
Even those official moon rocks are not the least bit basalt dark as
depicted in their studio or custom landscaped simulations, and they’re
not even the least bit paramagnetic or much less directly magnetic.
Is this lunar conditional physics and geology weird moon of ours
ideally nifty and magical, or what?

There’s a bit more to say about robotic technology and especially of
humans having to survive the gauntlet of micro meteors and dust
(including dark carbonado) that’s exceeding 30 km/sec (comets are
known to exceed 70 km/s) +/- whatever the lunar direction and velocity
is in respect to the incoming or passing debris, as well as always
that pesky element of sodium that’s pretty much everywhere there’s
vacuum, heat and radiation considerations in addition to the
electrostatic factors that’ll loft moon dust above 100 km.  But then
it’s all becoming somewhat different than Apollo reported, so what’s
the difference?

Perhaps 60 days from now we’ll start to know a whole lot more, that is
unless it’s still a need-to-know and/or nondisclosure kind of public
funded mission that where we only get to see whatever little they
might care to share.  At 1.25 hr/orbit is 60 commissioning days worth
of having orbited 1150 times (sounds about right if you’re trying to
bluff or cover something up)

Lunar World Record 2009 (slower than hell, piss poor dynamic range,
and don’t even bother using dialup)
http://www.lunarworldrecord.com/image.php

The Moon (Selene, at a thousand fold faster download / 300 meter
resolution)
http://www.avertedimagination.com/moon_1.htm

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 29 Jun 2009 18:20 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
> JAXA and ISRO missions).

Any time now (actually of all goes will starting as of 60 days from
now), our NASA and their LRO team of crack observationology wizards
are going to finally identify with more than sufficient resolution and
terrific dynamic range for seeing each of those Apollo sites, as
hosting remainders of all those bright and shiny landers plus various
other substantial equipment, and/or at least as viewing those nifty
Apollo impact craters as they proceed to scan that moon to death,
looking for minerals and elements that we already know are there, and
the great hunt for water/ice that we already know can’t possibly be
there without having to look deep underground.

LRO = 1965 kg? (perhaps with fairing)
Deployment rocket at liftoff (GLM) = 546,700 kg
Time of 4.5 days getting this package into lunar orbit.
LRO 1846 + 1043 (upper spent stage) = 2889 kg
2889/546700 = .528%

This rather pathetic payload ratio is made even worse if the specified
Atlas 5 GLM of 546700 kg didn’t happen to include the payload mass of
1965 kg.

Why are such modern and supposedly advanced rockets getting so
terribly inefficient? (Saturn 5 certainly wasn’t, and it was 30%
insert to start off with)

Saturn V(5) GLM = 3,038,500 kg (+ a few tonnes of ice loading)
Payload delivered into lunar orbit = 47,000 kg.
Time of <3.5 days getting this hefty package into lunar orbit.
47000/3038500 = 1.547% (not incl. spent upper stage of 14.7 t)
incl. spent upper stage becomes 47000+14700/3038500 = 2.031%
The overall GLM inert ratio of Apollo was worth roughly 30%
And no solid fuel boosters were utilized (as used by Atlas 5)

It seems Saturn 5 as of 40 years ago was on some kind of fly-by-rocket
steroids, having offered at least 4 times more all-inclusive payload
efficiency, as well as having cut roughly more than a day off the trip
to boot, of which takes a great deal of extra energy in order to go
there faster and then having reserve energy in order to slow down once
arriving at the moon.

If this LROC equipment is half of what it’s cracked up to be, it
should be capable of resolving those upper stage impact craters in
terrific resolution, because smacking that lunar surface with 14.7
tonnes (of mostly bright aluminum and one powerful rocket engine) has
got to leave quite a substantial mark as it encounters that physically
dark, crystal dry, electrostatic charged and otherwise extremely dusty
old surface at 2.6 km/s or better, as it vaporizes and coats
everything within at least a km or more with all of that aluminum.
How hard can a 2 km wide crater and surrounding field of debris that
has exposed those brighter lunar minerals plus having vapor coated
everything with aluminum be to find, especially while surrounded by
such a physically dark as coal surface.

It seems a little off/odd that terrestrial astronomy observations
can’t seem to identify any such horrific impact sites, even though our
best having near100 meter resolution.  Our National Science
Foundation's (NSF) Arecibo Telescope in Arecibo,  plus the Green Bank
telescope offers 13 cm radar obtained images of 20 meter resolution,
as having existed since early 2005, and with that resolution
capability existing as of years before then.

Apparently our recently serviced and extensively camera upgraded
Hubble is dead to us (perplexing computer lock-up glitch), because
otherwise it too could perform rather nicely, even via earthshine
illuminating those Apollo related sites, and especially of those
recent Apollo impact craters that apparently Muslims have hidden from
view.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0qsEEzz4IrwJ:www.nasa.gov/pdf/360020main_LRO
_LCROSS_presskit2.pdf+lro+orbit+km/s&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

2.25 tonnes impacting at 2.5 km/s, if according to the plan of
arriving at 65 degrees should by NASA interpretation excavate 350
tonnes, offering a dust plume up to 10 km, making a crater of 20
meters by 4 meters deep.

The large volume of a Saturn 5 upper stage worth 14.7 inert tonnes, as
impacting at 2.6 km/s and 65 degrees should excavate and/or cause
<15,000 metric tonnes to move or displace, with the bulk of its
electrostatic charged dust as an expanding plume reaching upwards of
25 km.  The mostly lose and crystal dry soil/rubble and dust
displacement of the impact crater and it’s surrounding fallout field
of bright/reflective debris can be <2 km by <200 meters deep, or that
of a smaller diameter pattern and deeper formation depending on the
available depth of lose/uncompacted soil and micro fine dust
(obviously a smaller diameter of <200 meters and much shallower crater
<10 meters if this spent upper Saturn stage encounters a mountain or
mound of solid basalt.  However, most of our Selene/moon surface is
not of naked/exposed dark basalt bedrock).

Remember that nothing of that lunar soil/rubble and otherwise
deposited dust is the least bit naturally clumping or compacted, and
therefore the average cubic meter density can be extremely low and of
hardly any surface tension, with most all of its heavier elements
having migrated or shifted down to lower levels if not all the way to
bedrock.

Of course, according to all things of our Apollo “right stuff”, our
moon is hardly all that dusty, and there’s no places covered to any
significant depth by any lose soil or deposits that can’t be safely
driven upon and otherwise walked upon without fears of sinking out of
sight, and otherwise apparently the moon isn’t as nearly crystal dry
or electrostatic charged because there’s a truly magical force field
of highly conditional physics that’s keeping the bad kinds of cosmic
and solar energy at bay, and even fending off Earth’s magnetotail of
charged particles from directly interacting and/or reacting with its
otherwise naked surface, and therefore we’ve supposedly got hardly any
local radiation to contend with.

In fact, according to all things Apollo, when you accomplish an
extended downrange and soft land via fly-by-rocket lander, apparently
there’s so little dust that it’s almost like a terrestrial landing
upon a compacted guano island of terrestrial soil, and of what little
dust there is apparently worthy of such natural interlock clumping
that it doesn’t even budge from directly under the main thruster, as
though it’s being magnetically held in place.  Also their average
surface for as far as an unfiltered Kodak eye (meaning camera lens)
can see was reflecting at 65% or better in direct comparison  to
referencing those 85% reflective moonsuits and any number of other
known reflective items as part of their mission, and thus is why
there’s such minimal contrast and absolutely no color to deal with
(shaded items or within shaded areas are never all that dark even
though everything else is getting spot source illuminated by the one
and only extreme intensity of the sun that apparently puts off the
exact same passive spectrum as that of a commercial xenon arc lamp),
and as well as why there’s no weird color/hue saturations or any sign
whatsoever of UV secondary/recoil fluorescence photons, and otherwise
its so extremely cold in the shade of anything because, oddly there’s
apparently no secondary/recoil photons of IR to contend with either.
Even those official moon rocks are not the least bit basalt dark as
depicted in their studio or custom landscaped simulations, and they’re
not even the least bit paramagnetic or much less directly magnetic.
Is this lunar conditional physics and geology weird moon of ours
ideally nifty and magical, or what?

There’s a bit more to say about robotic technology and especially of
humans having to survive the gauntlet of micro meteors and dust
(including dark carbonado) that’s exceeding 30 km/sec (comets are
known to exceed 70 km/s) +/- whatever the lunar direction and velocity
is in respect to the incoming or passing debris, as well as always
that pesky element of sodium that’s pretty much everywhere there’s
vacuum, heat and radiation considerations in addition to the
electrostatic factors that’ll loft moon dust above 100 km.  But then
it’s all becoming somewhat different than Apollo reported, so what’s
the difference?

Perhaps 60 days from now we’ll start to know a whole lot more, that is
unless it’s still a need-to-know and/or nondisclosure kind of public
funded mission that where we only get to see whatever little they
might care to share.  At 1.25 hr/orbit is 60 commissioning days worth
of having orbited 1150 times (sounds about right if you’re trying to
bluff or cover something up)

Lunar World Record 2009 (slower than hell, piss poor dynamic range,
worse than 500 meter resolution, and don’t even bother using dialup)
http://www.lunarworldrecord.com/image.php

The Moon (Selene, at a thousand fold faster download / 200~300 meter
resolution)
http://www.avertedimagination.com/moon_1.htm

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 01 Jul 2009 23:59 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 171 lines]
>
>  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

With penetrating radar and seismic methods at their disposal once
again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
that's otherwise terrestrial based as remote data gathering via laser
cannons and big radar, as such is going to help to discover just how
hollow our moon actually is.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 02 Jul 2009 00:34 GMT
It's your HEAD that's HOLLOW, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>With penetrating radar and seismic methods at their disposal once
>again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> ~ BG
BradGuth - 02 Jul 2009 05:46 GMT
In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
that's otherwise terrestrial based, as remote data gathering via laser
cannons and seriously big radar, as such is going to help discover
just how hollow our moon actually is.

~ BG

> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 171 lines]
>
>  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Father Haskell - 03 Jul 2009 22:36 GMT
> In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
> penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
> again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
> that's otherwise terrestrial based, as remote data gathering via laser
> cannons and seriously big radar, as such is going to help discover
> just how hollow our moon actually is.

How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?
BradGuth - 03 Jul 2009 23:03 GMT
> > In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
> > penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

I didn't say it was 99% hollow, nor have I insisted the interior
density is 1 kg/m3 (although sodium is kinda low density).

If the paramagnetic basalt crust and many of those heavier minerals
are near the surface, not to mention meteor deposits of carbonado and
heavier elements, how about considering a 10% hollow moon (2.2 billion
cubic kilometers)?

How many safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units.  Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for infrastructure is still going to offer
1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

~ BG
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 04 Jul 2009 06:45 GMT
An aluminum foam could also be low density and resistant to pressure.

> > > In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
> > > penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>  ~ BG
BradGuth - 04 Jul 2009 07:30 GMT
On Jul 3, 10:45 pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An aluminum foam could also be low density and resistant to pressure.
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> >  ~ BG

Here's something else to think about.

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls

~ BG
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 04 Jul 2009 09:30 GMT
That's only true of gravity follows an inverse squared rule.

> On Jul 3, 10:45 pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
>  ~ BG
BradGuth - 04 Jul 2009 15:08 GMT
On Jul 4, 1:30 am, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's only true of gravity follows an inverse squared rule.

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls

This wouldn't apply unless the hollow was a sphere at nearly dead
center, but it's still worth considering, and especially if the bulk
of lunar mass is held within its thick crust.  Gas bubbles could
easily have created such geode hollows or pockets of crystal lined
volumes within the moon.

~ BG
BradGuth - 04 Jul 2009 03:12 GMT
> > In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
> > penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

I have never once suggested a lower mass, or that our moon was 99%
hollow, nor have I insisted the interior density as low as 1 kg/m3
(although the element sodium is kinda low density at .97 g/cm3).

If the thick and paramagnetic basalt crust plus many of those heavier
lunar elements are situated near the surface, not to mention meteor
deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and of course those much heavier
metallic elements, how about considering a 10% hollow moon (2.2
billion cubic kilometers)?

How many interior safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units.  Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for infrastructure is still going to offer
1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

Even if we’re talking 1% hollow is still offering an off-world habitat
that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along with 55%
still going for infrastructure.  Seems more than adequate if such a
semi-hollow moon were to be utilized as an interstellar survival craft
(aka lifeboat), and better yet if it became heavily iced over along
the way.

Along with my LSE-CM/ISS is what makes the to/from aspects of
utilizing our Selene/moon rather simple and energy efficient.
~ BG
Father Haskell - 04 Jul 2009 04:55 GMT
> Even if we’re talking 1% hollow is still offering an off-world habitat
> that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along with 55%
> still going for infrastructure.  Seems more than adequate if such a
> semi-hollow moon were to be utilized as an interstellar survival craft
> (aka lifeboat), and better yet if it became heavily iced over along
> the way.

How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
BradGuth - 04 Jul 2009 05:50 GMT
> > Even if we’re talking 1% hollow is still offering an off-world habitat
> > that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along with 55%
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?

Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/
gateway, and otherwise direct shipments of fish and rice via North
Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo Space Port) .

As I'd said, roughly 55% as infrastructure should provide enough
volume as industrial greenhouse and whatever assortments of chickens,
turkeys and pigs.  You know, Earth isn't ever going to be very far
away, and I can think of all kinds of ways for a continuous supply of
just about anything, in exchange for He3 and any number of other
precious elements that would be mostly robotic mined, processed and
exported to Earth, or effectively stored for future needs.

Obviously we'd need at most fewer than 10 billion units as habitats,
leaving 95% as infrastructure if working with a 1% hollow moon.

Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth
becomes a thriving plant and animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of
humans. (perhaps 1% stays with Earth, to repair/salvage the frail
environment and help feed the folks living within the moon)

Trust me, I have a plan.  It's complex and not perfect, but at least
it's a whole lot better than most any other plan.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 04 Jul 2009 20:03 GMT
A RUBBER ROOM is a better plan for you, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/
>gateway, and otherwise direct shipments of fish and rice via North
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> ~ BG
Saul Levy - 04 Jul 2009 16:41 GMT
I hope you realize that that's ABOVE GOOFBALL'S PAYGRADE!  lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>> Even if we’re talking 1% hollow is still offering an off-world habitat
>> that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along with 55%
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
BradGuth - 04 Jul 2009 19:29 GMT
> > In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
> > penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

Here’s another edited food for thought;
Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls

This zero gravity environment of course wouldn't apply to our naked
Selene/moon interior unless that hollow was a substantial sphere at
nearly dead center, but it's still worth our considering, and
especially what-if worthy when the bulk of lunar mass is being held
within its thick and paramagnetic basalt crust.  Natural/geothermal
and isotope generated gas bubbles could easily have created such geode
hollows or pockets of trapped mineral brines and perhaps as having
become crystal lined volumes or geological anomalies as voids within
the moon, as well as the continual pull of Earth’s gravity may have
significantly offset the interior core, leaving a substantial hollow/
void towards the backside, as well as for a Earth and Selene
lithobraking encounter should have caused something to shift within.

I have never once suggested a lower than 7.35e22 kg mass, or that our
moon was 99% hollow, nor have I ever insisted the interior density as
low as 1 kg/m3 (although the element sodium is kinda low density at .
97 g/cm3).  So don’t get yourself all huffy about any of this.

If the thick and paramagnetic basalt crust plus many of those heavier
lunar elements (supposedly derived from the core of Earth plus
whatever having impacted Earth) are situated or somehow having been
compounded near the surface, not to mention a bazillion meteor
deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and of course always those much
heavier metallic elements including thorium, iron, nickel and loads of
titanium, how about our considering a 10% hollow moon (2.2 billion
cubic kilometers worth)?

How many interior safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 actually worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units.  Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for a rational (meaning intelligent)
infrastructure is still going to offer 1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

Even if we’re talking of a 1% hollow Selene is still offering an off-
world habitat that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along
with 55% still going for infrastructure.  Seems more than adequate if
such a semi-hollow moon were to be utilized as an off-world shelter or
interstellar survival craft (red supergiant and helium flashover
lifeboat), and of course better yet if it became heavily iced over
along the way.

Along with my LSE-CM/ISS is what makes the to/from aspects of
utilizing our Selene/moon rather simple and energy efficient, though
most likely as owned and operated by China and India (so expect to pay
a hefty toll).

> Father Haskell:
> How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/
gateway, and otherwise direct fly-by-rocket shipments of fish and rice
via North Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo
Space Port).

As I'd said, roughly 55% as infrastructure should provide enough
volume as industrial greenhouse and accommodating whatever assortments
of chickens, turkeys and pigs.  You know, Earth isn't ever going to be
very far away, and I can think of all kinds of ways for a continuous
supply of just about anything, in exchange for He3 and any number of
other precious elements that would be mostly robotic mined, processed
and efficiently exported to Earth, or effectively stored for future
needs.

Obviously we'd need at most fewer than 10 billion units as lunar
habitats, leaving 95% as infrastructure if working within a 1% hollow
moon.

Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth
becomes a thriving plant and animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of
humans and their industrial scale polluting. (perhaps 1% stays with
Earth in order to repair/salvage the frail environment and help feed
the other 99% of folks living within the moon, and subsequent visiting
of Earth would become a highly restricted privilege).  However, if
WWIII gets all out and downright nuclear dirty, plus otherwise
chemical and biologically lethal, there may be few if any safe places
on Earth worth risking genetic mutations to your frail DNA.

Trust me, I have a plan.  It's rather complex and certainly not
perfect, but at least it's a whole lot better constructive option than
most any other plan of humanity (mostly the rich and powerful)
surviving off-world while the rest of us village idiots get to tough
it out and otherwise end up paying for everything that primarily
benefits these rich and powerful individuals.
~ BG
Saul Levy - 04 Jul 2009 19:51 GMT
WOW, GOOFBALL, your BRAIN is FRIED!  lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>As I'd said, roughly 55% as infrastructure should provide enough
>volume as industrial greenhouse and accommodating whatever assortments
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>benefits these rich and powerful individuals.
> ~ BG
BradGuth - 04 Jul 2009 22:52 GMT
> > > In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
> > > penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
[quoted text clipped - 93 lines]
> benefits these rich and powerful individuals.
>  ~ BG

Somewhat related to this hollow moon notion;  If a BH were merely that
of an event horizon shell of whatever horrific mass and density, say a
swarm of tightly packed electrons or positrons orbiting and sustaining
a core of antimatter or whatever makes you a happy camper:
Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls
~ BG
BradGuth - 03 Jul 2009 20:13 GMT
Was JAXA/Selene blinded by the reflected light coming off our bright
and shiny Apollo stuff, that was situated on that nearly dark as coal
surface?

Was JAXA/Selene unable to see those multi-hundred meter impact craters
cause by each of those 14.7 tonne upper Apollo stages?

~ BG

> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 171 lines]
>
>  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 03 Jul 2009 23:31 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 171 lines]
>
>  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

I have never suggested that our moon was 99% hollow, nor have I
insisted the interior density as low as 1 kg/m3 (although the element
sodium is kinda low density).

If the thick and paramagnetic basalt crust plus many of those heavier
lunar elements are near the surface, not to mention meteor deposits of
carbonado and much heavier metallic elements, how about considering a
10% hollow moon (2.2 billion cubic kilometers)?

How many safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units.  Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for infrastructure is still going to offer
1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

Even if we’re talking 1% hollow is still offering an off-world habitat
worthy community of safely hosting 100 billion units.  Seems more than
adequate if such a moon were to be utilized as an interstellar
survival craft, and better yet if it became heavily iced over.

With my LSE-CM/ISS makes the to/from aspects rather simple and energy
efficient.
~ BG
BradGuth - 05 Jul 2009 13:25 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 169 lines]
> resolution)
>  http://www.avertedimagination.com/moon_1.htm

At 575 orbital passes per month, mapping nearly every square meter of
the lunar surface with such good optics and terrific dynamic range,
should make each of those Apollo remains and their upper stage impact
craters stand out like gleaming diamonds that are resting on a nearly
dark as coal surface.  Even those previous hard landings of our
smallest deployed instruments, as well as those of Russian technology
shouldn't go unnoticed.

Perhaps breath holding is in order, as we wait to see those original
raw images of whatever remains of our multiple surface treks that were
anything but stealth or otherwise hidden.

Exactly how much electrostatic charged moon dust along with whatever
our magnetotail could muster, and those subsequent meteor deposits has
managed to cover those Apollo landing sites?

 ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 06 Jul 2009 00:00 GMT
Apollo: “Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture the full
dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”
http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/09/back_to_the_moondigitally.html

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We needed this effort as of nearly 4 decades ago, or even as of one
decade ago.

The DR of their LORC KLI-5001G image detector is worth 66 db

Imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leagilewg2008/presentations/oct28pm/Vondrak.pdf

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/productsummary/Linea
r/KLI-5001ProductSummary.pdf


~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 10 Jul 2009 20:08 GMT
> At 575 orbital passes per month, mapping nearly every square meter of
> the lunar surface with such good optics and terrific dynamic range,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> our magnetotail could muster, and those subsequent meteor deposits has
> managed to cover those Apollo landing sites?

What’s new <http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse>, and otherwise of
what’s old is better late than never;  at least images robotically
obtained from the Apollo era of numerous lunar orbits are finally
getting their badly needed digital scans, to be compared with the LRO
images of the exact same terrain in order to see what if anything has
changed in 40 years.

Apollo: “Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture the full
dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”
http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/09/back_to_the_moondigitally.html

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We certainly needed this effort as of nearly 4 decades ago, or even as
of one decade ago.

The DR of their LROC KLI-5001G image detector is worth 66 db (film and
the typical lens offers roughly <10 db to work with, possibly 11 db on
their large format terrain mapping, making the dynamic range of this
LROC 55 db better than film)

Imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leagilewg2008/presentations/oct28pm/Vondrak.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/productsummary/Linea
r/KLI-5001ProductSummary.pdf


LROC / terrific images that apparently our local NASA and those
wizards of Google Usenet/newsgroups doesn’t want to share with us.
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As they get our spendy LRO fully established in its 50 km circular
orbit, all things of terrific observationology should sharpen up
considerably, as well as offering color/hue composites of crisp
digital images and loads of secondary fluorescence data that’ll begin
telling us what kinds and to some extent of how much of a given
element is exposed.  After all, our Selene/moon is only physically
dark but otherwise not a passive monochromatic geology environment,
nor is it nonreactive to the UV spectrum.

The LRO radar imaging should be half as good of resolution but
otherwise far better pixel truth worthy because of the number of radar
confirming looks per pixel.

In these initial monochrome images we simply need to know how much of
the overall spectrum and/or which of the 7 narrow bandpass spectrums
are being utilized or intentionally excluded.  In other words, LROC
and of its other cameras are actually performing as a visual
spectrometer, and even though the full color spectrum of 400 to 750 nm
(12 bit DR/channel) is getting recorded within 7 specific channels
worth, however, thus far we only get to see their results in
monochrome.  There’s also a UV camera that’ll further extend their
color and secondary fluorescence spectrum, although of less resolution
and false color to us because the human eye simply doesn’t record
direct UV, nor do most of us correctly process those secondary/recoil
photons for what it truly represents.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 10 Jul 2009 06:50 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
> JAXA and ISRO missions).

< http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse > and otherwise better late than
never;  at least images robotically obtained from the Apollo era of
lunar orbits are finally getting their badly needed digital scans.

Apollo: “Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture the full
dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”
http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/09/back_to_the_moondigitally.html

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We certainly needed this effort as of nearly 4 decades ago, or even as
of one decade ago.

The DR of their LORC KLI-5001G image detector is worth 66 db (film and
a typical lens offers roughly 10 db to work with, possibly 11 db on
large format camera mapping, making the dynamic range of this LORC 55
db better than film)

Imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leagilewg2008/presentations/oct28pm/Vondrak.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/productsummary/Linea
r/KLI-5001ProductSummary.pdf


LORC / terrific images that apparently our local NASA and those of
Google Usenet/newsgroups doesn’t want to share with us.
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As they get LOR fully established in their final 50 km circular orbit,
all things of observationology should sharpen up considerably, as well
as offering color/hue composite images and loads of secondary
fluorescence data that’ll tell us what kind and to some extent of how
much of a given element is exposed.

In these initial monochrome images we simply need to know how much of
the spectrum and/or of which narrow bandpass filters are being
utilized.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 10 Jul 2009 20:06 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
> JAXA and ISRO missions).

What’s new <http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse>, and otherwise of
what’s old is better late than never;  at least images robotically
obtained from the Apollo era of numerous lunar orbits are finally
getting their badly needed digital scans, to be compared with the LRO
images of the exact same terrain in order to see what if anything has
changed in 40 years.

Apollo: “Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture the full
dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”
http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/09/back_to_the_moondigitally.html

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We certainly needed this effort as of nearly 4 decades ago, or even as
of one decade ago.

The DR of their LROC KLI-5001G image detector is worth 66 db (film and
the typical lens offers roughly <10 db to work with, possibly 11 db on
their large format terrain mapping, making the dynamic range of this
LROC 55 db better than film)

Imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leagilewg2008/presentations/oct28pm/Vondrak.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/productsummary/Linea
r/KLI-5001ProductSummary.pdf


LROC / terrific images that apparently our local NASA and those
wizards of Google Usenet/newsgroups doesn’t want to share with us.
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As they get our spendy LRO fully established in its 50 km circular
orbit, all things of terrific observationology should sharpen up
considerably, as well as offering color/hue composites of crisp
digital images and loads of secondary fluorescence data that’ll begin
telling us what kinds and to some extent of how much of a given
element is exposed.  After all, our Selene/moon is only physically
dark but otherwise not a passive monochromatic geology environment,
nor is it nonreactive to the UV spectrum.

The LRO radar imaging should be half as good of resolution but
otherwise far better pixel truth worthy because of the number of radar
confirming looks per pixel.

In these initial monochrome images we simply need to know how much of
the overall spectrum and/or which of the 7 narrow bandpass spectrums
are being utilized or intentionally excluded.  In other words, LROC
and of its other cameras are actually performing as a visual
spectrometer, and even though the full color spectrum of 400 to 750 nm
(12 bit DR/channel) is getting recorded within 7 specific channels
worth, however, thus far we only get to see their results in
monochrome.  There’s also a UV camera that’ll further extend their
color and secondary fluorescence spectrum, although of less resolution
and false color to us because the human eye simply doesn’t record
direct UV, nor do most of us correctly process those secondary/recoil
photons for what it truly represents.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 11 Jul 2009 00:49 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
> JAXA and ISRO missions).

What’s new <http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse>, and otherwise of
what’s old is a whole lot better late than never;  at least images
robotically obtained from the Apollo era of numerous lunar orbits are
finally getting their badly needed digital scans, to be compared with
the LRO images of the exact same terrain in order to see what if
anything has changed in 40 years.

Old Apollo stuff: “Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture the
full dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”
http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/09/back_to_the_moondigitally.html

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We certainly needed this effort as of nearly 4 decades ago, or even as
of one decade ago.

The newest stuff of the dynamic range(DR) of their LROC KLI-5001G
image detector is worth 66 db (film and the typical lens offers
roughly <10 db to work with, possibly 11 db on their large format
terrain mapping, making the dynamic range of this LROC 55 db better
than film), and a good digital scan of that old film might pull out as
much as another db, making that film worth 12 db and not likely the 14
db as suggested.

Imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leagilewg2008/presentations/oct28pm/Vondrak.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/productsummary/Linea
r/KLI-5001ProductSummary.pdf


LROC / terrific images that apparently our local NASA and those
wizards of Google Usenet/newsgroups doesn’t want to share with us.
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As they get our spendy LRO fully established in its 50 km circular
orbit, all things of terrific observationology should sharpen up
considerably, as well as offering color/hue composites of crisp
digital images and loads of secondary fluorescence data that’ll begin
telling us what kinds and to some extent of how much of a given
element is exposed.  After all, our Selene/moon is only physically
dark but otherwise not a passive monochromatic geology environment,
nor is it nonreactive to the UV spectrum.

The LRO radar imaging should be half as good of resolution but
otherwise far better pixel truth worthy because of the number of radar
confirming looks per pixel.

In these initial monochrome images we simply need to know how much of
the overall spectrum and/or which of the 7 narrow bandpass spectrums
are being utilized or intentionally excluded.  In other words, LROC
and of its other cameras are actually performing as a mostly visual
spectrometer, and even though the full color spectrum of 400 to 750 nm
(12 bit DR/channel) is getting recorded within 7 specific channels
worth, however, thus far we only get to see their results in
monochrome.  There’s also a UV camera that’ll further extend their
color and secondary fluorescence spectrum, although of less resolution
and false color to us because the human eye simply doesn’t record
direct UV, nor do most of us correctly process those secondary/recoil
photons for whatever it truly represents.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 12 Jul 2009 18:28 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> well as other science data may have to remain as need-to-know (same
> as the JAXA and ISRO missions).

What’s new <http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse>, and otherwise of
what’s old is a whole lot better late than never; at least of images
robotically obtained from the Apollo era of numerous lunar orbits are
finally getting their badly needed digital scans, to be compared with
the LRO images of the exact same terrain in order to see what if
anything has changed in 40 years.

http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/09/back_to_the_moondigitally.html
Old Apollo stuff:  “Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture
the full dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We certainly needed this digital scan forensics as of nearly 4 decades
ago, or even as of one decade ago would have been nice, even if
applied only on behalf of a dozen or so images.

The newest stuff of superior dynamic range(DR) via their KLI-5001G
image detector is worth 66 db (whereas film and the typical lens
offers roughly 10 db to work with, and possibly 11 db on their large
format terrain mapping, making the dynamic range of this LROC 55 db
better than film), and a good digital scan of that old film might pull
out as much as another db, making that film worth 12 db, though
possibly <13 db but not likely 14 db as suggested, perhaps because as
far as we now there is no original Apollo film to work from.

LRO imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leagilewg2008/presentations/oct28pm/Vondrak.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/productsummary/Linea
r/KLI-5001ProductSummary.pdf


LROC / terrific monochrome images that apparently our local NASA and
those wizards of Google Usenet/newsgroups doesn’t want to share with
us.  Within this month there will be another 575 orbits of various
observationology levels by which to interpret from.
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As NASA and ASU gets our spendy LRO fully established in its 50 km
circular orbit, all things of terrific observationology should sharpen
up considerably, as well as offering color/hue composites of crisp
digital images and loads of secondary fluorescence data that’ll begin
telling us what kinds and to some extent of how much of a given
element is exposed.  After all, our Selene/moon is only physically
dark but otherwise not a passive monochromatic geology environment,
nor is it nonreactive to the UV spectrum as suggested by most of the
Apollo obtained images.

In these initial monochrome images we simply need to know how much of
the overall spectrum and/or which of the 7 narrow bandpass spectrums
are being utilized or intentionally excluded.  In other words, LROC
and of its other cameras are actually performing as a visual
spectrometer, and even though the full color spectrum of 400 to 750 nm
(12 bit DR/channel) is getting recorded within 7 specific channels
worth, however, thus far we only get to see their results in
monochrome.  There’s also a UV camera that’ll further extend their
color and secondary fluorescence spectrum, although of less resolution
and false color to us because the human eye simply doesn’t record
direct UV, nor do most of us correctly process those secondary/recoil
photons for whatever they truly represent.

The LRO Sandia mini-SAR radar imaging should be capable of somewhat
less than a tenth as good of resolution (25 m/pixel, resampled >5 m/
pixel), but otherwise far better pixel truth worthy data because of
the number of radar confirming looks per pixel, as well as nothing of
solar illumination, secondary IR, UV fluorescence or any of their
pesky shadows to contend with.  In other words, just the soft to hard
and mineralogy facts of what that dusty old surface and its depth of
crystal dry dust has to offer.

IR imaging is just more of the same technical extension of
observational science, via spectral data that’s telling us how much
extra secondary/recoil reflectance and otherwise IR emissivity hot the
moon is, even in the shade.
Diviner Lunar Radiometer:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2255.pdf

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 13 Jul 2009 13:11 GMT
I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.

> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
>
>  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 13 Jul 2009 13:54 GMT
On Jul 13, 5:11 am, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
> given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.

True, and perhaps why I'd never once having suggested such, although
the Apollo missions having smacked their 14.7 tonne upper stages, plus
multiple other bits of hefty equipment, into the moon with hardly any
notice whatsoever, almost as though they'd each sunk out of sight or
shortly thereafter having been covered up by the dust of their own
impact.

How about bombing the moon with frozen blocks or cylinders of highly
saline water, say frozen 10% brines of 10 tonnes each? (upon impact
this should vaporize the basalt which might create a little extra
atmosphere as well as exposing surface minerals that's otherwise
covered by a thick layer of physically dark and crystal dry dust)

The thick crust of our moon is where the bulk of its mass resides, and
who knows what extent of lower density and/or semi-hollow interior
there is.

If we could eventually relocate <0.1% of Earth's salt water to the
moon would be a good thing, you'd think.

~ BG
bob haller - 13 Jul 2009 14:10 GMT
> On Jul 13, 5:11�am, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> �~ BG

in the 1960s the military wanted to detonate a nuke on the moon as a
demo of american power
BradGuth - 13 Jul 2009 14:49 GMT
> > On Jul 13, 5:11 am, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> in the 1960s the military wanted to detonate a nuke on the moon as a
> demo of american power

Sounds like a viable plan of action.  If correctly targeting a likely
spot where a cavern or labyrinth of underground passages could be
exposed, as such would give quick cover and safety for those planning
on any surface EVAs.  Of course it would be much easier to simply use
the existing airlock entrances to whatever lunar interior labyrinth.

~ BG
HVAC - 13 Jul 2009 16:39 GMT
>in the 1960s the military wanted to detonate a nuke on the moon as a
>demo of american power

A great idea!  The f.cking moon sucks anyway.

Nuke it.
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 13 Jul 2009 21:44 GMT
The moon is about to make its own demonstration. The mares are the
molten remains of an ancient modulator. The reactors that powered the
modulator melted down through the lunar soil. The fissile metals have
be assembling over the years into precritical mass. John Kennedy was
warned about this; he started a program to push technology so that
humans could disassemble the deposits before they went critical.
However you humans got distracted with your petty wars. Now instead of
solving the problem, your hurling chunks of metal and the Moon to make
it worst. When the deposit go critical and melt down, it will shift
the Moon's balance again changing its orbit. Due the gravity coupling
the Earth will undergo apocalyptic tectonic effects.

> > On Jul 13, 5:11 am, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> in the 1960s the military wanted to detonate a nuke on the moon as a
> demo of american power
BradGuth - 13 Jul 2009 21:52 GMT
On Jul 13, 1:44 pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The moon is about to make its own demonstration. The mares are the
> molten remains of an ancient modulator. The reactors that powered the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the Moon's balance again changing its orbit. Due the gravity coupling
> the Earth will undergo apocalyptic tectonic effects.

What's the purely objective geothermal IR temperature of our moon?

In other words. how much of its own internal heat is it getting rid
of?

Example; the planet Venus has been and is currently losing 20.5 w/m2.

~ BG
Hagar - 13 Jul 2009 22:38 GMT
On Jul 13, 1:44 pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The moon is about to make its own demonstration. The mares are the
> molten remains of an ancient modulator. The reactors that powered the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the Moon's balance again changing its orbit. Due the gravity coupling
> the Earth will undergo apocalyptic tectonic effects.

What's the purely objective geothermal IR temperature of our moon?

In other words. how much of its own internal heat is it getting rid
of?

Example; the planet Venus has been and is currently losing 20.5 w/m2.

~ BG
           ********************************
The Moon is as dead as a door nail, GuthBall.  No internal heat
generated. There never was any internal "heat", with the exception
of the homogenous heat due to the Moon's creation (friction)
between the early Earth and a second body it collided with.
The impact was agonizingly slow, since both bodies were
traveling in the same direction, the Earth just slightly slower than
the other body.  Has all been simulated on computers.
Case closed.
BradGuth - 13 Jul 2009 23:37 GMT
> On Jul 13, 1:44 pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> the other body.  Has all been simulated on computers.
> Case closed.

Yes Sir, Hitler, case closed, Sir, as in no other way possible, Sir,
as in period and end of all other possible physics, Sir, as in spite
of orbital mechanics or whatever interactive Newtonian dynamics,
Sir... Yes Sir!

Screw whatever Sirius B lost of its dynamic tidal radii grip on, Sir,
yes Sir!

Screw whatever deductive alternative interpretations, Sir, yes Sir
Lord Hitler.

Screw however Eden/Earth got its arctic ocean basin and its seasonal
tilt, Sir!

Screw however our Selene/moon got its south polar crater that's
actually a pretty darn good match to that of our arctic ocean basin,
Sir!, double yes Sir!

Screw the matter of fact as of 11,711 years ago we suddenly reverted
from the last ice-age that Eden/Earth w/moon will ever see, Sir,
triple yes Sir!

Screw the other dozen some odd deductive reasons that'll suggest
otherwise, Sir, freaking yes Sir!

Heil Hagar

~ BG
Hagar - 14 Jul 2009 15:27 GMT
On Jul 13, 2:38 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> the other body. Has all been simulated on computers.
> Case closed.

Yes Sir, Hitler, case closed, Sir, as in no other way possible, Sir,
as in period and end of all other possible physics, Sir, as in spite
of orbital mechanics or whatever interactive Newtonian dynamics,
Sir... Yes Sir!

Screw whatever Sirius B lost of its dynamic tidal radii grip on, Sir,
yes Sir!

Screw whatever deductive alternative interpretations, Sir, yes Sir
Lord Hitler.

Screw however Eden/Earth got its arctic ocean basin and its seasonal
tilt, Sir!

Screw however our Selene/moon got its south polar crater that's
actually a pretty darn good match to that of our arctic ocean basin,
Sir!, double yes Sir!

Screw the matter of fact as of 11,711 years ago we suddenly reverted
from the last ice-age that Eden/Earth w/moon will ever see, Sir,
triple yes Sir!

Screw the other dozen some odd deductive reasons that'll suggest
otherwise, Sir, freaking yes Sir!

Heil Hagar

~ BG
           ***********************************
If there ever was a candidate for the gas chamber, you're it.
Your innate stupidity cannot be allowed to procreate and further.
Since all the camps are closed, retro-active abortion may be the
only way to rid the world of total loons like you.
BradGuth - 14 Jul 2009 17:04 GMT
> On Jul 13, 2:38 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> Since all the camps are closed, retro-active abortion may be the
> only way to rid the world of total loons like you.

There we go, admitting to giving folks the only option as "the gas
chamber" fits right along with your closed mindset, as well as with
your continued obfuscation as to anything that rocks your faith-based
boat.  You, Hitler and Zionism think exactly alike.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 05 Aug 2009 11:33 GMT
Just accept Hagar's WONDERFUL suggestion, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

COMMIT SUICIDE!

Saul Levy

>> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> If there ever was a candidate for the gas chamber, you're it.
>> Your innate stupidity cannot be allowed to procreate and further.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> ~ BG
Saul Levy - 05 Aug 2009 11:23 GMT
Your INSANITY is SHOWING, GOOFBALL!  lmfjao!

I'd be MORE CAREFUL if I was YOU!

Saul Levy

>Yes Sir, Hitler, case closed, Sir, as in no other way possible, Sir,
>as in period and end of all other possible physics, Sir, as in spite
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> ~ BG
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 14 Jul 2009 03:53 GMT
There will be very little heat until it forms a critical assembly. By
then it will be too late.

> On Jul 13, 1:44 pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>  ~ BG
BradGuth - 14 Jul 2009 17:07 GMT
On Jul 13, 7:53 pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There will be very little heat until it forms a critical assembly. By
> then it will be too late.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> >  ~ BG

You could be right, however, the degree of public funded science that
we get to see perhaps all of 0.1% of, isn't telling us enough about
our Selene/moon.

If humanity stays on this auto-destruct, environmentally unfriendly,
anti-green and anti-biodiversity policy, and otherwise remains
politically passive/dumbfounded as well as forever stuck in faith-
based denial upon denial to boot, eventually we may have few options
but to consider abandoning ship, so to speak.  Having our semi-hollow
Selene as our extremely robust lifeboat may not be as far fetched as
one might care to think.

For the honest argument sake of showing how easily a slight/minor
shift in average density gives us that 1% hollow moon of 7.345e22 kg.

Paramagnetic basalt density via cobalt, iron, thorium, uranium, radium
and nickel can easily become worth <5g/cm3, as opposed to nearly pure
terrestrial basalt >2.7 g/cm3.  Using an average density of 3.38 g/cm3
seems perfectly reasonable, as well as 3.71 g/cm3 isn’t entirely out
of line.

Radius
1738.0 km = 2.1991e19 m3
 869.0 km = 2.7488e18 m3
434.5 km  = 3.4360e17 m3
374.45 km = 2.1992e17 m3 (1% volume)
173.8 km = 2.1991e+16 m3 (.1% volume)

At zero hollow, solid volume:  2.199e19 & 3.34e3 kg/m3 = 7.345e22 kg
At 1% hollow, solid volume offers 2.177e19 m3 x 3.38e3 = 7.336e22 kg
* 10% hollow, solid volume offers 1.979e19 m3 x 3.71e3 = 7.343e22 kg

So, which is it? (or is it worth more than 10% hollow?)

~ BG
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 14 Jul 2009 01:58 GMT
Wow man, I need some of what you're smoking.

Signature

Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

The moon is about to make its own demonstration. The mares are the
molten remains of an ancient modulator. The reactors that powered the
modulator melted down through the lunar soil. The fissile metals have
be assembling over the years into precritical mass. John Kennedy was
warned about this; he started a program to push technology so that
humans could disassemble the deposits before they went critical.
However you humans got distracted with your petty wars. Now instead of
solving the problem, your hurling chunks of metal and the Moon to make
it worst. When the deposit go critical and melt down, it will shift
the Moon's balance again changing its orbit. Due the gravity coupling
the Earth will undergo apocalyptic tectonic effects.
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 14 Jul 2009 03:54 GMT
Smoking leads to suboptimal operations which damages the collective.

On Jul 13, 5:58 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
<mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
> Wow man, I need some of what you're smoking.
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> the Moon's balance again changing its orbit. Due the gravity coupling
> the Earth will undergo apocalyptic tectonic effects.
Pat Flannery - 14 Jul 2009 05:46 GMT
> Wow man, I need some of what you're smoking.
>  

"Mares"? Obviously, we now know what's pulling the chariot of Apollo.
On the other hand, having the radioactive deposits on the Moon explode
does offer interesting possibilities in regards to a TV series. :-D

Pat
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 14 Jul 2009 08:05 GMT
The actual event will not be that interesting. Maybe some heat plumes
and increased radiation. As the deposits go critical they melt to the
core, changing the balance of the Moon again. Because of the gravity
coupling to the Earth it will have interesting effects on the earth as
all that change of angular momentum tears the crust apart.

> > Wow man, I need some of what you're smoking.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Pat
Saul Levy - 15 Jul 2009 06:51 GMT
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN as usual!  lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>The actual event will not be that interesting. Maybe some heat plumes
>and increased radiation. As the deposits go critical they melt to the
>core, changing the balance of the Moon again. Because of the gravity
>coupling to the Earth it will have interesting effects on the earth as
>all that change of angular momentum tears the crust apart.
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 15 Jul 2009 14:55 GMT
Volcanoes never explode, and tidal waves never drown people. You are a
negative person. Go away.

> NOTHING WILL HAPPEN as usual!  lmfjao!
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> >coupling to the Earth it will have interesting effects on the earth as
> >all that change of angular momentum tears the crust apart.
BradGuth - 15 Jul 2009 15:19 GMT
On Jul 15, 6:55 am, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Volcanoes never explode, and tidal waves never drown people. You are a
> negative person. Go away.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> > >coupling to the Earth it will have interesting effects on the earth as
> > >all that change of angular momentum tears the crust apart.

Most of us consider rabbi Saul as a kosher black hole.

~ BG
BradGuth - 17 Jul 2009 00:45 GMT
On Jul 14, 12:05 am, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The actual event will not be that interesting. Maybe some heat plumes
> and increased radiation. As the deposits go critical they melt to the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> > Pat

No crust tearing, just internal heat within the moon.  Same mass
remains in orbit, unless it explodes.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 14 Jul 2009 05:40 GMT
Total WACKO NUTJOB NONSENSE, 6of9!  lmfjao!

You keep getting MORE AND MORE LOONY!

The Moon keeps moving SLOWLY away from the Earth due to TIDES.  That
is all!

Saul Levy

>The moon is about to make its own demonstration. The mares are the
>molten remains of an ancient modulator. The reactors that powered the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>the Moon's balance again changing its orbit. Due the gravity coupling
>the Earth will undergo apocalyptic tectonic effects.
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 14 Jul 2009 08:08 GMT
The Moon is tidal locked because the side facing the earth is heavier
than the other. Think what will happen when that weight melts down to
the center.

> Total WACKO NUTJOB NONSENSE, 6of9!  lmfjao!
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> >the Moon's balance again changing its orbit. Due the gravity coupling
> >the Earth will undergo apocalyptic tectonic effects.
BradGuth - 14 Jul 2009 14:33 GMT
On Jul 14, 12:08 am, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
<sixofnineorhalfdozenoftheot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Moon is tidal locked because the side facing the earth is heavier
> than the other. Think what will happen when that weight melts down to
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> > >the Moon's balance again changing its orbit. Due the gravity coupling
> > >the Earth will undergo apocalyptic tectonic effects.

If there's anything melting going on inside, it's getting cooled off
by an unknown law of physics.  However, when has our government that's
in charge of all public funded science ever told us the whole truth
and nothing but the truth?

~ BG
Saul Levy - 05 Aug 2009 11:29 GMT
Unknown law of physics, GOOFBALL?  lmfjao!

It's NOT like YOU to just sit there; MAKE UP SOME NEW ONES!

LIAR B would!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You won't get a Nobel either!  lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>If there's anything melting going on inside, it's getting cooled off
>by an unknown law of physics.  However, when has our government that's
>in charge of all public funded science ever told us the whole truth
>and nothing but the truth?
>
> ~ BG
Hagar - 05 Aug 2009 15:35 GMT
Sure he'll get a Nobel ... as soon as they add an "Insanity" category ...

> Unknown law of physics, GOOFBALL?  lmfjao!
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>
>> ~ BG
Saul Levy - 05 Aug 2009 17:22 GMT
Are the Swedes THAT STUPID, Hagar?  lmfjao!

The so-called PEACE PRIZE is!  Usually.

I SURE HOPE NOT!

Saul Levy

>Sure he'll get a Nobel ... as soon as they add an "Insanity" category ...
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>>
>>> ~ BG
Saul Levy - 15 Jul 2009 06:52 GMT
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN as usual!  lmfjao!

Saul Levy

>The Moon is tidal locked because the side facing the earth is heavier
>than the other. Think what will happen when that weight melts down to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>
>> Saul Levy
Saul Levy - 14 Jul 2009 06:02 GMT
Too bad that the UNIVERSE does that EVERY f.cking DAY, 6of9!  lmfjao!

To what effect?  NOTHING IS HAPPENING!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Saul Levy

>I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
>given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 14 Jul 2009 08:12 GMT
The last major lunar impact until now was in 1178.

> Too bad that the UNIVERSE does that EVERY f.cking DAY, 6of9!  lmfjao!
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> >I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
> >given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.
Saul Levy - 15 Jul 2009 07:03 GMT
831 years ago is hardly RECENT, FOOL!

You mean the creation of the crater Giordano Bruno (diameter 20 km.).
It occurred on June 18th of that year.

See:  http://www.weblore.com/richard/june_18_1178_impact_crater.htm

What major craters were formed on the UNSEEN SIDE before or since
then?

Why pick on poor Giordano?  I told you THAT METAL HITS THE MOON EVERY
f.cking DAY!  Your SILLY argument (HA!) is MEANINGLESS!

Saul Levy

>The last major lunar impact until now was in 1178.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> >I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
>> >given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.
Scott Miller - 16 Jul 2009 15:23 GMT
> I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
> given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.

Seeing that metal-laden meteorites have been hitting the Moon for
billions of years, I am not sure I understand your concern.
BradGuth - 16 Jul 2009 17:38 GMT
> > I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
> > given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.
>
> Seeing that metal-laden meteorites have been hitting the Moon for
> billions of years, I am not sure I understand your concern.

That’s true enough, as many/most meteors are paramagnetic and
otherwise loaded with heavy metallic elements, including a few of
those radioactive ones.  The unusually thick crust of our physically
dark Selene/moon is also that of a much denser basalt and mineral
composite.

The secondary/recoil fluorescence of our lunar surface as imaged by a
verity of old and new kinds of remote satellite obtained science is
further proof positive as to the extensively metallic mineral or ore
content of what the lunar surface has to offer.

~ BG
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 16 Jul 2009 19:02 GMT
And every nudge as being slowly aligning the deposits. Add in a few
big hits and the deposits will align into a critical mass and melt
down. That will change the balance of the moon.

> > I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
> > given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.
>
> Seeing that metal-laden meteorites have been hitting the Moon for
> billions of years, I am not sure I understand your concern.
Nomen Publicus - 16 Jul 2009 19:44 GMT
> And every nudge as being slowly aligning the deposits. Add in a few
> big hits and the deposits will align into a critical mass and melt
> down. That will change the balance of the moon.

Space 1999 was a fictional TV program...

>> > I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
>> > given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.
>>
>> Seeing that metal-laden meteorites have been hitting the Moon for
>> billions of years, I am not sure I understand your concern.

Signature

Aldous Huxley: Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

BradGuth - 16 Jul 2009 20:01 GMT
On Jul 16, 11:44 am, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk>
wrote:

> > And every nudge as being slowly aligning the deposits. Add in a few
> > big hits and the deposits will align into a critical mass and melt
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> --
> Aldous Huxley: Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Ignoring the best available truths has been an American policy and
subsequent mindset ever since before our first world war, and praise
the lord, apparently nothing has changed for the better.

On Jul 16, 7:23 am, Scott Miller <jsfmil...@netzero.net> wrote:

> > I don't think hurling chunks of metal at the moon is such a good idea
> > given the precarious state of the precritical mass in the lunar soil.
>
> Seeing that metal-laden meteorites have been hitting the Moon for
> billions of years, I am not sure I understand your concern.

That’s perfectly true enough, as many/most meteors are paramagnetic
and otherwise loaded with heavy metallic elements, including a few of
those radioactive ones.  The unusually thick crust of our physically
dark Selene/moon is also that of a much denser basalt and complex
mineral composite that’s rather unlike anything Eden/Earth has to
offer.

The secondary/recoil fluorescence of our lunar surface, as having been
imaged by a verity of old and new kinds of remote satellite obtained
science, as well as via terrestrial and satellite radar, X-ray and
gamma spectrometry (mostly kept secret or need-to-know by simply
obfuscating and/or excluding whatever it takes), is further proof
positive as to the extensively metallic mineral deposits and the local
ore content of what that naked lunar surface has to offer.

~ BG
Saul Levy - 16 Jul 2009 21:21 GMT
6of9 is FAST FADING INTO FICTION too!  lmfjao!

Just another WACKO LOON.
Lost in Usenet space.

Just look at GOOFBALL for another one.

Saul Levy

>> And every nudge as being slowly aligning the deposits. Add in a few
>> big hits and the deposits will align into a critical mass and melt
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>> Seeing that metal-laden meteorites have been hitting the Moon for
>>> billions of years, I am not sure I understand your concern.
Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher - 16 Jul 2009 23:24 GMT
What was it? Is it relevant?

On Jul 16, 11:44 am, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk>
wrote:

> > And every nudge as being slowly aligning the deposits. Add in a few
> > big hits and the deposits will align into a critical mass and melt
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> --
> Aldous Huxley: Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
BradGuth - 13 Jul 2009 13:58 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 103 lines]
> Diviner Lunar Radiometer:
>  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2255.pdf

LRO at 575 orbits per month, and taking the LROC surface scan of 5 km
is per month covering 2875 km worth (roughly 26%) of the 10920 km
lunar circumference.   In other words, within four months it’ll have
obtained something greater than 100% coverage.  The extent of such
overlapping observationology science and especially of the secondary/
recoil data (including mineral fluorescence) should be downright
impressive.  The 66 db worth of the LROC CCD dynamic range gives us
yet another significant advantage over film.

Unless the added IR punishment, electrostatic charged dust and those
pesky surface mascons cause insurmountable problems, whereas otherwise
only the extent of sodium and local dosage of hard-X-rays and gamma
can shorten the duration and/or reduce the quality of the LRO and
LCROSS science.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 13 Jul 2009 21:41 GMT
> > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> can shorten the duration and/or reduce the quality of the LRO and
> LCROSS science.

For the honest argument sake of showing how easily a slight shift in
average density gives us that 1% hollow moon.

Paramagnetic basalt density via cobalt, iron, thorium, uranium, radium
and nickel can easily become worth <5g/cm3, as opposed to nearly pure
terrestrial basalt >2.7 g/cm3.  Using an average density of 3.36 g/cm3
seems perfectly reasonable, as well as 3.7 g/cm3 isn’t entirely out of
line.

Radius
1738.0 km = 2.1991e19 m3
 869.0 km = 2.7488e18 m3
434.5 km  = 3.4360e17 m3
374.45 km = 2.1992e17 m3 (1% volume)
173.8 km = 2.1991e+16 m3 (.1% volume)

At 1% hollow, the solid volume offers 2.177e19 m3 x 3.36e3 = 7.315e22
kg
At 10% hollow, the solid volume offers 1.9792e19 m3 x 3.7e3 = 7.32e22
kg

So, which is it?

 ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 15 Jul 2009 19:27 GMT
> > > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> can shorten the duration and/or reduce the quality of the LRO and
> LCROSS science.

At 575 orbits per month, and with multiple instruments looking at and
recording most every conceivable spectrum; where's anything Apollo or
Russian/Soviet LUNA?

Within 4 months of LRO we've got 100+% coverage to work with, or isn't
that going to be good enough?

There's no objective proof the moon isn't hollow, but there's every
deductive good enough reasons to believe that it is at least partially
enough to count, and otherwise I've never stipulated as to the
specific amount or locations of such pockets or voids, but then our
DARPA and NASA has never objectively proven their Apollo missions.

For all we know, portions of our Selene/moon interior are hollow (even
our NASA lunar seismic research has that likelihood nailed).  There’s
no indications of any iron, thorium or other heavy element saturated
core, and if anything the interior mass of relatively low average
density has been significantly offset towards Earth, improving the
odds of having a backside matrix of geode hollows, if not a massively
cavernous interior to work with, as protected under a thick and
mineral saturated crust of mostly basalt (<100 km).   In other words,
this moon of ours is one unusual but tough cookie.

If humanity stays on this auto-destruct, environmentally unfriendly,
anti-green and anti-biodiversity policy, and otherwise remains
politically passive/dumbfounded as well as forever stuck in faith-
based denial upon denial to boot, eventually we may have few options
but to consider abandoning ship, so to speak, and having our semi-
hollow Selene as our extremely robust lifeboat may not be as far
fetched as one might care to think.

For the honest geology argument sake of showing how easily a slight/
minor shift in average density gives us that 1% hollow moon of
7.345e22 kg, the following what-if should suffice.

Paramagnetic basalt density via cobalt, iron, thorium, uranium, radium
and nickel can easily become worth <5g/cm3, as opposed to nearly pure
terrestrial basalt >2.7 g/cm3.  Using an average density of 3.38 g/cm3
seems perfectly reasonable, as well as 3.71 g/cm3 isn’t entirely out
of line, especially when dealing with such a thick and heavy mineral
saturated basalt crust.

Radius
1738.0 km = 2.1991e19 m3
 869.0 km = 2.7488e18 m3
434.5 km  = 3.4360e17 m3
374.45 km = 2.1992e17 m3 (1% volume)
173.8 km = 2.1991e+16 m3 (.1% volume)

At zero hollow, solid volume :  2.199e19 & 3.34e3 kg/m3 = 7.345e22 kg
At 1% hollow, solid volume offers 2.177e19 m3 x 3.38e3 = 7.336e22 kg
* 10% hollow, solid volume offers 1.979e19 m3 x 3.71e3 = 7.343e22 kg

So, which is it? (or is it worth something more than 10% hollow?)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Hagar - 15 Jul 2009 20:25 GMT
< snip GuthBall drivel >
Radius
1738.0 km = 2.1991e19 m3
 869.0 km = 2.7488e18 m3
434.5 km  = 3.4360e17 m3
374.45 km = 2.1992e17 m3 (1% volume)
173.8 km = 2.1991e+16 m3 (.1% volume)

At zero hollow, solid volume :  2.199e19 & 3.34e3 kg/m3 = 7.345e22 kg
At 1% hollow, solid volume offers 2.177e19 m3 x 3.38e3 = 7.336e22 kg
* 10% hollow, solid volume offers 1.979e19 m3 x 3.71e3 = 7.343e22 kg

So, which is it? (or is it worth something more than 10% hollow?)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

       *****************************************
GuthBall, no one really gives a sh.t about your "The Moon is hollow"
ranting. Perhaps all the cheese has been mined by Aliens and that activity
left sort of a "Swiss Cheese" pattern, as full of holes as your wild
imagination, within the lunar structure.  Trust me, it's irrelevant.

What is exciting, however, is the fact that we will soon have undeniable
proof of man's activities on the lunar surface, complete with the discarded
landers, vehicles and possibly tracks, should the resolution be sufficiently
discerning.

Pray tell, what are you "Moon Hoax" loons going to do then, hmmm?
I can already hear the cries of "PhotoShop" emanating from the braindead
lunatics and "Coverup" from the mentally challenged loons, who would rather
cut their nose to spite their face, then to acknowledge they were wrong once
again.
BradGuth - 15 Jul 2009 21:03 GMT
> < snip GuthBall drivel >
> Radius
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> cut their nose to spite their face, then to acknowledge they were wrong once
> again.

Why would any self respecting individual reject independently obtained
objective evidence that's so easily replicated?

Seems only the most faith-based closed mindsets and those Zionist
Nazis are the only ones at risk.

If there's nothing to hide, then we should have always had 100% access
to all 100% of our public funded research, and otherwise not having
been limited as to such highly selective science that's carefully
modified and at best not worth 0.1% of the total.

~ BG
Hagar - 15 Jul 2009 22:17 GMT
On Jul 15, 12:25 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> once
> again.

Why would any self respecting individual reject independently obtained
objective evidence that's so easily replicated?

*** Ok, that was in Lunatic language ... try it in English now.

Seems only the most faith-based closed mindsets and those Zionist
Nazis are the only ones at risk.

*** Totally meaningless babble ... someone remove your pacifier ??

If there's nothing to hide, then we should have always had 100% access
to all 100% of our public funded research, and otherwise not having
been limited as to such highly selective science that's carefully
modified and at best not worth 0.1% of the total.

*** The evidence has always been there, un-cut and un-altered, but you
fruitloops saw studio sets, Death Valley landscape and gawd only knows what
else your THC ravaged brains conjured up.

Say, GuthBall, if you can't reply in coherent sentences, don't reply at all.
BradGuth - 16 Jul 2009 00:41 GMT
> On Jul 15, 12:25 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
>
> Say, GuthBall, if you can't reply in coherent sentences, don't reply at all.

I never saw any such specific things as you’ve suggested.  Talk about
“fruitloops”, as in double fruitloops right back at you.

You and so many other mainstream status quo fruitloops and brown-nosed
clowns simply haven’t addressed many of my interpretations that are
100% physics and otherwise best available science backed (such as;
where’s Venus?).  It’s called obfuscation, and you’re good at it.

This far, from LRO we haven’t seen 0.0001% of the original data
(that’s only giving us one bit out of every million), including
nothing of the Selene L1 data.  Besides your right stuff of flaming
flatulence and “totally meaningless babble”, what’s holding it up?

Even looking at those impressive original metric mapping images,
there’s nothing that’s even remotely close to depicting any one of
their unusually dust free and highly reflective landing sites.  They
must have been using really crappy film and a plastic/toy camera lens,
unless everything of those Apollo landing sites was getting
camouflaged by Muslims that know best how to hide massive stockpiles
of WMD and all of its infrastructure in plain sight.

Once again;  Why would any self respecting individual reject
independently obtained objective evidence that's so easily proof-
positive replicated? (such as by the USAF as of 40 years ago could
have delivered sufficient resolution and loads of other science data)
Seems only the most faith-based closed mindsets and of those Zionist
Nazis are the only ones at risk of allowing the truth to be told.
If there's nothing to hide, then we should have always had 100% access
to all 100% of the original public funded research data, and otherwise
not having been limited as to such highly selective science (third/
fourth generation image copies) that's carefully modified, and at best
never worth 0.1% of the total data and image archive.
~ BG
BradGuth - 16 Jul 2009 19:40 GMT
How metallic is our moon?

On Jul 16, 7:23 am, Scott Miller <jsfmil...@netzero.net> wrote:
> Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Seeing that metal-laden meteorites have been hitting the Moon for
> billions of years, I am not sure I understand your concern.

That’s perfectly true enough, as many/most meteors are paramagnetic
and otherwise loaded with heavy metallic elements, including a few of
those radioactive ones.  The unusually thick crust of our physically
dark Selene/moon is also that of a much denser basalt and complex
mineral composite that’s unlike anything Eden/Earth has to offer.

The secondary/recoil fluorescence of our lunar surface, as having been
imaged by a verity of old and new kinds of remote satellite obtained
science, as well as via terrestrial and satellite radar, X-ray and
gamma spectrometry (mostly kept secret or need-to-know by simply
obfuscating and/or excluding whatever it takes), is further proof
positive as to the extensively metallic mineral deposits and the local
ore content of what that naked lunar surface has to offer.

~ BG

> At 575 orbits per month, and with multiple instruments looking at and
> recording most every conceivable spectrum; where's anything Apollo or
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
>  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 17 Jul 2009 19:03 GMT
> Exactly how metallic is our moon?
>
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
>
> >  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

The really dark and scary side of our mutually perpetrated cold-war
founded DARPA and of its civil service populated NASA has its past
Zionist Nazi leaders and devout OT thumping army of brown-nosed
minions and clowns, exactly like OM and so many other public funded
individuals.

Those monthly 575 over-lapping (5 km wide) scans of our physically
dark and otherwise mineral and meteor saturated surface should be
covering those Apollo landing/impact sites as of any day now (actually
these first few scans are of nearly 15 km wide until the 50 km
circular orbit is fully established).  Within 4 months having 100+%
coverage via multiple instruments of recording most every conceivable
spectrum in reflectance and secondary/recoil fluorescence (including
radar, X-ray and gamma spectrometry).

Don't you think we that pay for everything should be allowed to at
least see and to otherwise review all 100% of that public funded LRO
data, instead of the less than 0.1% that's moderated and/or filtered
in order to best suit their own PR eye-candy and infomercial hype?

~ BG
BradGuth - 05 Aug 2009 16:35 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
>
>  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

ASTRONOMY  September 2009 (Vol. 37 Issue 9), page 39

Why is it that we keep getting these intentionally pastel images, of
such limited DR(dynamic range), in that my old cell-phone camera has
better DR and even better color/hue range including purple and violet
sensitivity?

It seems LROC has even worse DR.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 18 Jul 2009 14:15 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
I've already seen this, and for the first time it's looking good.  At
least it's the best indications thus far of our substantial equipment
upon the lunar deck.  Within a few days or weeks there should be those
0.5 meter or better resolution results that can be reviewed by
independent methods, and of course those 100% original image files
from LRO should not be the least bit inaccessible, modified or missing
any digital bits, much less excluding any of those narrow bandpass
filtered pixel channels.

Every 4 months is another 100+% worth of overlap mapping coverage of
every square meter, as well as UV, IR and everything of reflectance
and fluorescence in between.  With such superior resolution and
dynamic range in chromography, plus the added benefit of radar
imaging, by rights should not leave much for the imagination.  Each of
those 14.7 tonne upper stage impact craters should also be impressive.

ASU should also have had this exact same full access to all those
original raw pixels, including each of the LRO color/hue spectrum
channels that would give us an even better interpretation of whatever
that physically dark terrain surrounding each of those landing sites
has to offer.  Of course our NASA or anyone on their behalf can’t use
digital resampling or any form of PhotoShop enlarging or sharpening,
because that would be exactly what we’ve all done with images of other
planets and moons (including those terrific radar images of Venus),
and of course it’s also what image stacking is all about delivering
the best eyecandy that’s nothing like the near monochrome and
otherwise poor resolution of what the naked eye sees.  Take away
chromography from Hubble or most any from of astronomy observations
and you’ve got a form of color blindness that eliminates a large
portion of what our deductive observationology is otherwise capable of
interpreting.

Now all we need is a new and greatly improved Saturn 5 of considerably
less inert mass, plus an actual fly-by-rocket lander w/o momentum
reaction wheels, just like those as-built and undocumented ones of our
Apollo era, except a whole lot bigger and ten fold as much payload.

~ BG
BradGuth - 19 Jul 2009 16:28 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>  ~ BG

It's certainly looking better and better as the LRO gets into its
final mapping position for obtaining those 0.5 m/pixel resolution
images.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

However, the original images from our Apollo archives don’t seem add
up to what the LROC is currently imaging.  Perhaps the moon geology as
well as its unusually thin and highly reflective dust covering that’s
crystal dry and having otherwise offered terrific surface tension and
thereby so nicely clumping, plus that of it’s otherwise unusually
light guano kind of grayish basalt and otherwise naked mineralogy has
changed (possibly another weird affect of global warming or somehow
getting bleached out by the sun, because Mount St. Helens ash was
actually of a darker gray)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/mission/?16
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?16

The 200+ combined metric mapping orbits of course unavoidably covered
their landing sights each time around, so there should be some
extremely good examples at a low enough solar angle for a direct
overlay or stacked composite of more than sufficient dynamic range
that’ll match perfectly for at least each of those three (A15, A16 and
A17) missions.  At the time our USAF spy/reconnaissance imaging
cameras could have accomplished at the very least ten fold better
resolution at less than 10% the cost of an Apollo mission, but
obviously that never happened.

For some typically slow and spendy reasons, the digital rescan of the
original image archive is going to take at least another two years,
because apparently they can’t just do any specified dozen as related
to any one of those original landing sites, much less of scanning a
few of those terrific Metric Mapping frames.  Apparently it’s all or
nothing.

http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/09/back_to_the_moondigitally.html
Old Apollo stuff:  “Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture
the full dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We certainly needed this kind of digital scan forensics as of nearly 4
decades ago, or even as of one decade ago would have been rather nice,
and even if applied only on behalf of a dozen or so selected/specified
images.

The newest stuff of superior dynamic range(DR) via their KLI-5001G
image detector is worth 66 db (whereas film and the typical lens
offers roughly a little better than 10 db to work with, and possibly
11 db on behalf of their large format terrain mapping, making the
dynamic range of this LROC 54 db better than film), and a good digital
scan of that old film might pull out as much as another db, making
that film worth 12 db, though possibly <13 db but not likely 14 db as
suggested, perhaps because as far as anyone objectively knows there is
none of the original Apollo film to work from.

LRO imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leagilewg2008/presentations/oct28pm/Vondrak.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/productsummary/Linea
r/KLI-5001ProductSummary.pdf


LROC / terrific monochrome images that apparently our local NASA and
those wizards of Google Usenet/newsgroups doesn’t want to share with
us.  Within this month there will be another 575 orbits of various
observationology levels by which to interpret from.
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As NASA and ASU gets our spendy LRO fully established within its 50 km
circular orbit, all things of terrific observationology should sharpen
up considerably, as well as offering color/hue composites of crisp
digital images, along with loads of secondary fluorescence data
that’ll begin telling us what kinds and to some extent of how much of
a given element is exposed.  After all, our Selene/moon is only
physically dark at the average albedo of slightly better than coal,
but otherwise it’s not going to be a passive monochromatic geology
environment, nor is it entirely nonreactive to the UV spectrum as
suggested by most of the original and unfiltered Apollo obtained
images.

In these initial LOR monochrome images we simply need to know how much
of the overall spectrum and/or which of the 7 narrow bandpass
spectrums are being utilized or intentionally excluded.  In other
words, LROC and of its other cameras are actually performing as our
highly advanced visual spectrometer, and even though the full color
spectrum of 400 to 750 nm (12 bit DR/channel) is getting recorded
within 7 specific channels worth, however, thus far we are only
getting to see their results in monochrome.  There’s also a UV camera
that’ll further extend this color and secondary fluorescence spectrum,
although of less resolution and false color to us because the human
eye simply doesn’t record direct UV, nor do most of us correctly
process those secondary/recoil photons for whatever they truly
represent.

The LRO Sandia mini-SAR radar imaging should be capable of somewhat
less than a tenth as good of resolution (25 m/pixel, easily resampled
>5 m/pixel), but otherwise far better pixel truth worthy data because
of the number of radar confirming looks per pixel, as well as nothing
of solar illumination, secondary IR, UV fluorescence or any of their
pesky shadows to contend with.  In other words, SAR imaging is just
the soft to hard and mineralogy facts of whatever that dusty old
surface and its depth of a crystal dry and electrostatic charged
composite has to offer.

IR imaging is just more of the same technical extension of deductive
observational science, via the thermal reflectance and secondary
spectral emissivity data that’s telling us how much extra secondary/
recoil reflectance worthy and otherwise IR emissivity hot the moon is,
even in the shade.  In other words, an RTG would have to be operating
extremely hot, as such its artificial thermal area of measurably
warming at least 100 m2 should rather easily stand out from all the
natural surroundings (especially in earthshine or total nighttime).
Diviner Lunar Radiometer:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2255.pdf

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 28 Jul 2009 02:17 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 146 lines]
>
>  ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

Good freaking grief, now my kosher shadow (aka Usenet stalker) is
going postal against Warhol, though only within "alt.astronomy".

BradGuth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”
BradGuth - 05 Aug 2009 18:25 GMT
> LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
> JAXA and ISRO missions).

ASTRONOMY  September 2009 (Vol. 37 Issue 9), page 39
Why is it that we keep getting these intentionally pastel images, of
such limited DR(dynamic range), in that my old cell-phone camera has
better DR and even better color/hue range, including purple and violet
sensitivity?

It seems LROC has even worse DR, and where exactly are those color/hue
saturated images of the mineral fluorescence and those of SAR, X-ray
plus gamma spectrometry of our physically dark Selene/moon?

When are we ever going to start getting our public funded moneys
worth?

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth - 09 Aug 2009 04:56 GMT
> > LRO is up and away.  Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
> > detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> When are we ever going to start getting our public funded moneys
> worth?

So, thus far we get to see 0.1% of the LRO science, and even that much
isn’t offering the entire spectrum or dynamic range.  Perhaps the
saturation of lunar sodium, its naked environment of solar wind and
electrostatic charged dust, loads of double IR and X-rays by day plus
always gamma is too much for the LRO mission to deal with.

Speaking about moon and planet anomalies (including weird monoliths)
that could somehow benefit us in more ways than just nifty eyecandy.
The “Stepping Stone To Mars” article by James Oberg in DISCOVER
magazine is as good as any, suggesting how a low delta-V is always a
good thing, though better yet if the objective planet or moon offered
an atmosphere, and of course better yet if there’s already an
available tarmac and adjoining township or ET outpost (such as on
Venus).

Contributed from our nearly robo infomercial spewing Pat Flannery:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2572537/Mars-monument-proof-of-life.html
Monolith on Phobos also?
Buzz thinks so.
Here's a photo of it:
http://palermoproject.com/Mars_Anomalies/PhobosAnomalies1.html
... bit round for a monolith. Looks more like a rock that was in the
same orbit as Phobos and settled onto its surface.
But nope, it is a monolith:
http://palermoproject.com/Mars_Anomalies/PhobosAnomalies2.html
It's crap like this that makes you really appreciate Neal Armstrong
keeping his mouth shut, unlike the Buzzer.

His closing qualifier of “crap like this” says it all about the
bipolar mindset of our Pat Flannery.

-

Phobos, the odd little captured and thoroughly pulverized moon of Mars
that’s of such low average density and yet “nearly dark as coal” (at
roughly an albedo of 7% is just a reflective/albedo rating of being 4%
less reflective than our much odder Selene/noon at 11%).  Depending on
illumination angle, surface coarseness or nearly soot like dusty
crystallization and of course water and various mineral composition,
terrestrial coal offers a visual reflectance range of 0.05 to 0.15
(5%<15%), excluding whatever a polarized filter can contribute towards
surface darkening.  Also, it seems with the terrific dynamic range of
the modern CCD camera can offer the deductive eyecandy of mineral
fluorescence, of which our physically dark moon has even more of such
complex minerals and collected deposits to offer.  However, add in the
near 50 story item of a vertical rectangular anomaly that’s nicely
parked on Phobos (possibly deployed from that extremely long and
narrow ET probe that the Russian Phobos-II mission encountered), and
you got yourself a very interesting rock of an extremely dusty and
otherwise low density substance of darn little gravity (minimal to/
from delta-V).

Of course our 1%<10% semi-hollow Selene/moon is so much way better
yet, and the Selene L1 (accommodating my LSE-CM/ISS) offers an ideal
to/from delta-V of zero.  The same applies for my logistically cool
POOF City at Venus L2 that offers yet another near zero delta-V for
accommodating our Venus Gateway/Oasis and/or interplanetary staging
depot..

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.