author: Brad Guth

subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Since the likes of "Matt Wiser" and "Damon Hill" insist upon stalking
and thus bashing a given topic/author for their usual blood-sport, and
otherwise the rest of you borgs seem to like taking things as far
off-topic as possible, in that case here's something that's actually
topic related;

Here's another wee bit more of an updated lunar tidbit, as to what I
believe our moon is actually good for, of which I do not think that all
of whatever European influx is going to become worth 10% of what the
likes of Russia/China can't possibly afford not to toss at the moon.

Moon Physics via Russian LSE-CM/ISS and He3 update:

In spite of our best perpetrated cold-war efforts, as to know thy enemy
and to snooker thy humanity, it seems Russia and now China have
retained just about everything else under the sun to work with
(certainly having been a whole lot more rocket-science smarter than we
are), so I'd have to honestly speculate they have whatever it takes for
accomplishing a fusion reactor, or at least they'll soon have such
fully established by the time their first shipments of lunar He3
arrive.

However, as for their getting whatever safely and energy efficiently
to/from the lunar surface needs to first deal with securing the basis
of their establishing a good Lunar Space Elevator, which has been
technically doable within existing laws of physics and well as within
existing technology and of products that unlike spendy nano-tubes are
insead of mostly continuous basalt fiber, thus dirt/rock cheap and
basically off the shelf as being 100% capable of being provided by way
of the moon, via raw basalt processing along with usage of all the pure
solar energy of what's way more than sufficient for the task of
producing such unlimited composite fibers on behalf of creating tethers
without taking another kg worth of Earthly substance nor energy.

This is not a joke, whereas a robotic deployment of applied technology
that's perfectly capable of processing upon the local basalt and
whatever other elements, as processed via solar farm of perhaps 1e6 m2
should be capable of deriving 1e9 j/m2 worth of process heat that's
happening within a near vacuum with only the purity of Argon and a few
other clean and obviously dry gasses to deal with, which should only
improve upon the basalt foundry process while insuring the ultimate
fiber of 4.84 GPa, if not a whole lot better.

Getting folks and of whatever robotic stuff and of exporting products
safely away from the LSE-CM/ISS that's being tether held just slightly
towards Earth gravity isn't 1% of the risk factor nor of is it taking
1% the overall energy/kg as per having to fly-by-rocket such items and
folks directly to/from the lunar surface. A se of counter balance
elevators and electromagnetic breaking actually becomes another energy
generating consideration. Terraforming the moon with itself becomes too
obvious, as from the high-ground of 62,000 km is from where any number
of methods for artificially impacting the moon becomes exceedingly
efficient and safe.

Here's another brief (less wordy) rundown on the LSE-CM/ISS, of which
since others can't seem to be bothered and/or would rather not be
implicated in disclosing the truth and nothing but the truth, thus I've
given my less than ideal math another lose cannon shot in the dark
because, I know as a matter of physics fact that I'm essentially right,
and just because my math hasn't been up to your standards isn't a
disqualification of the truth that's here to behold, it's just proving
that I'm a whole lot more right about so much other that's been related
about our moon, as well as per the ulterior motives and hidden agendas
of so many as having been running us amuck for decades, as every bit as
much as I'd thought possible, and then some.

I'd thought honest folks already knew about the LSE-CM/ISS, whereas
this Lunar Space Elevator as outfitted with a rather sizable (1e6 m3)
ISS abode within, as being situated roughly 62,000 km off the highly
reactive lunar deck (perhaps +/- a few thousand km) depends upon how
the tethers are having to tensioned, along with the deployed dipole
element and the CCM aspects as providing methods of interactively
keeping the CM/ISS gravity-well usage situation within the relative
safety and energy efficiency of approprately taking advantage of the
EM-L2/ME-L1 sweet-spot, though perhaps having to reside a sufficient
distance towards mother Earth is the most likely solution that could
have the CM/ISS residing as much as 66,000 km off the lunar deck.

(E)------>EM-L2=322,400 km>------><CM/ISS><--<ME-L1=62,000 km<--(M)

Beside gravity issues, there's a slight but quite usable factor of
Centrifugal or Apparent Force of revolution as based upon a period of
27.3217 days.
Whereas 655.728 hrs/revolution = 2.3606e6 seconds/revolution
Circumference @1r of 1738 km = 10.9202e6 meters
Surface (1r)velocity = 10.9202e6/2.3606e6 = 4.626 m/s (roughly 1% of
Earth)
1r = (10.92e6 m)= 4.626 m/s
2r = (21.84e6 m)= 9.252 m/s
4r = 18.504 m/s
8r = 37.008 m/s
16r = 74.016 m/s
32r = 148.032 m/s
ME-L1+ @35.673r (62,000 km) = 389.5575e6 meters circumference = 165.025
m/s

Actually, if that 62,000 km CM/ISS position were taken from the lunar
surface becomes an average of roughly 2.2 km towards Earth, thus if
anything there's a slight Earthly pull upon the CM/ISS, although since
everything is supposedly interactive and adjustable, there's absolutely
anything you'd care to create in terms of tether tension. However, for
my basic calculations and of limited math is where I've come up with
the following data that can obviously be computer modeled to any point
of being 3D and as much interactive worthy of absolutes as necessary.
Speeding up the computer model by 1e6:1 should be quite entertaining at
2.36 seconds per revolution, or 2.55 seconds/Synodic period.

Centripetal force calculation of the CM/ISS as 50,000 t at 62,000 km
traveling at 165 m/s
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
The centrifugal or Apparent force of the LSE-CM at 50,000 tonnes = 2239
kg

2239 kg worth of centrifugal or apparent force applied onto the tether
is rather obviously in of itself insufficient for tensioning the
primary tethers as anchored into the moon, thus placing the CM/ISS a
bit further away from the moon is option No.1 (@50,000t each 0.001G =
50 tonnes), increasing the overall mass of the CM/ISS to 100,000 t or
even 500,000 t becomes option No.2, and/or of having deployed a fairly
substantial tether dipole element as headed directly towards mother
Earth, as perhaps reaching that element to within 50,000 km (closer if
you'd dare since there's a +/- 22,000 km variable to deal with that can
also be made fully interactive so as to regulate the platform distance)
and of that dipole element having the substantial termination pod or
platform of hosting a dozen or so of those nifty star-wars 100 GW laser
cannons, whereas perhaps this item affording yet another sizable ISS
abode and DoD star-wars outpost worth 5,800t becomes worth 100 t of
tether pull, whereas 58,000t is still doable at creating something less
than 1,000t of apparent average gravity force while situated at the
range of 50,000 km, that plus having to accommodate 272,500 km worth of
a robust composite tether weighing in at perhaps 1 kg/m is 272,500
tonnes. However, because of it's average distance of 161,200 km from
Earth shouldn't represent more than 272,500/605 = 500 tonnes of
apparent force. Thus a given design 500 tonnes + 1000 tonnes = 1500
tonnes extra primary tether tensioning as pulling upon the CM/ISS
towards Earth.

BTW; this LSE is not imposing any significant threat to the rescssion
and/or orbit of our moon, whereas I'd been previously informed or
perhap intentionally misinformed by others having been fooling with my
head as to believe that roughly 5 terajoules of tidal and velocity
sustaining energy is responsible for sustaining the current velocity
and recession of 38 mm/year. Obviously this amount seems in error if
we're talking about the entire moon being worth 7.35e22 kg, and of
moving that sucker away at the velocity of 38 mm/year.

Thus how about the apparent velocity of .038/31.536e6 = 1.205e-9 m/s
7.35e22 * 1.205e-9 = 88.5675e12 joules without having included for
whatever Vt/slug drag coeficient which should place that moon recession
and maintaince of velocity at something better than 100 terajoules.
Even dividing that energy equally between Earth and the moon = 50
terajoules.

Another confusing method for my dyslexic brain but otherwise suggested
by the likes of an online "ENERGY UNIT CONVERSION CALCULATOR" of
work/energy calculation as based upon the kgf.m/s of a 7.35e22 kg moon
that's moving itself off supposedly via tital energy by 0.038 m/year
seems to have come up with 868.53 TJ. Thus either way we're looking at
way more than whatever influence an LSE and tether dipole element can
apply. In other related words of my limited wisdom; if you wanted to
terraform a given hot and nastly planet with that of an icy proto-moon,
such as ours being perhaps worth 4000 km upon arrivial, whereas such
godly or whatever astrophsics happenstance of such items going bump in
the night, it seems that ours (meaning on behalf of terraforming mother
Earth) is about as good as it gets, plus having left us with a nifty
hulk of a de-iced moon that's just hanging aound for us village idiots
to do something with.

Another energy related thought; each 1000t of tether force/m/s =
9.80665 MJ
Even though there's an average transition of +/- 17.34 m/s (thus +/-
170 MJ/1000t) associated within every 29.5 days, that's obviously a
give and take situation that month by month should nullify.

As purely another suggestion; the primary tethers might be at least
twice the mass as per the dipole element, thus 62,000 km = 124,000
tonnes worth of basalt/silica composite tethers that isn't hardly worth
anything because of the 1/6th gravity of the moon to start off with,
then being an average distance 31,000 km represents a gravity force
reduction of 318:1, thereby 124,000/6/318 = 65 tonnes of tether mass
pulling down upon the 50,000t CM/ISS. Thus perhaps it'll be a good
notion of making the primary tethers four fold tougher than the dipole
element (better safe than sorry).

It's certainly a bit more complicated than all of that, being that I
have an available nearby CCM(counter-counter mass) element placed as an
interactive(vertically moving) moonward pulling compensation element,
that plus whatever the final CM/ISS mass, and/or of it's linear
placement and of the tether dipole element are entirely adjustable in
terms of their overall mass and of their linear placements, so that
there'd be no possible situation that couldn't be fully R&D engineered
to suit and/or robotically accommodated while on the fly. The only part
of the plan that'll require being regulated or floating at nearly the
exact ME-L1/EM-L2(zero gravity) is of the massive counter-rotating
energy storage flywheels, whereas them massive and powerful energy
storage suckers should not affect tether tensioning either way unless
this active energy storage element were utilized as to replace the
interactive CCM component.

As usual, I'll have to keep working this one over a bit in order to
update into a few of my previously established external pages as having
been pertaining to the Lunar Space Elevator. Any feedback as viable
contributions and whatever math corrections will certainly be
appreciated and given the fullest of credits for your efforts, which
obviously excludes 99.9% of such all-knowing USENET folks that are
simply far too cloak and dagger brown-nosed to give an incest cloned
borg's worth of a tinkers damn about any of this, or of anything other
that'll honestly benefit humanity, or otherwise they wouldn't dare
contribute squat (other than MOS of their dog-wagging flak) out of
lethal fears as per their Skull and Bones nondisclosure enforcements by
those MEN-in-BLACK that took care of JFK and of that whistle-blowing
NASA safety engineer and of his entire family to boot.

Actually, I believe the MI5/NSA Whistleblowing Code is a code of
nondisclosure/silence, or else.
~

Life on Venus, Township w/Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
"In war there are no rules" - Brad Guth


author: mitcheroo

subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
LOL

very good

good thing hardly anyone listens to them anymore


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
mitcheroo,
If it's supposedly possible to safely fly-by-rocket in order to land
tonnes worth of machinery and of the humanity within upon the moon,
then why hasn't there been one R&D/prototype worth of any such
demonstration as film recorded as functioning upon Earth, nor on behalf
any other application getting whatever deployed upon another planet or
moon?

It's actually not all that hard to discard sufficient airframe mass and
to have reduced the fuel load as to accomplishing the equal amount of
controlled down-range flight management proof-testing that's equal to
1/6th gravity, on behalf of what has to 100+% function or else end up
killing it's crew, on a live radio and perhaps even televised feed none
the less.

It seems that not even those dirty rotten Russians have squat worth of
any such film documentation nor R&D/prototype of their supposed
robotic/AI fly-by-rocket lander to demonstrate because???????

If we'd landed and walked upon such a reactive and otherwise rather
nasty surface of dark basalt having a thick layer of carbon, iron and
titanium worth of a thick dust covered moon, then why didn't their own
Kodak moments of whatever an unfiltered lens worth of a photographic
effort fail as to record not even as to match up with any of those
images as obtained from their 100 km orbit of the moon and, when
situated upon the fully exposed (nearly zero atmosphere) surface as per
having to take on the unfiltered solar influx of 1.4 kw/m2, whereas
having a great deal of UV energy over that of any terrestrial filtered
environment, whereas why was there no near-blue or any other
secondary/recoil worth of recorded photons?

Instead, everything looked exactly as a xenon lamp illuminated terrain
should, although the 55+% albedo seems a wee bit skewed in addition to
having a somewhat subdued level of blue spectrum to work with.

There's no question that our perpetrated cold-war efforts as to
accomplishing our moon weren't without honest intent and best efforts
applied, but does that have to represent that we'd accomplished
everything as NASA/Apollo outlined?

Not really all that complex, especially once establishing the 'chapel
bell' transponder(s) as having been situated within the EM-L2/ME-L1
mutual gravity-well as our cloak and dagger method of transferring damn
near any amount of data as though such were originating from the moon
itself. Actually, that nullification zone isn't all that insurmountable
for the entire Apollo crew to spend a few days, whereas at least
they're not getting nearly as TBI as per orbiting at merely 100 km off
the reactive lunar deck.

I'm fairly certain that we've managed to robotically orbit and thereby
having obtained those absolutely super terrific close-up telephoto
images, as Kodak moments obtained from such a nearby orbit of our moon.
Oddly, even the MI5/NSA~GOOGLE ruse/sting of their zoom-in moon map as
supposedly depicting all of those supposed Apollo landing sites didn't
even bother utilizing any of those vastly superior resolution images,
which BTW still don't offer us squat worth of anything except depicting
zones of various nasty impacts.

Right back at you sucker; "So many words, so much effort, yet so little
meaning."

Obviously you're either 100+% snookered and thus quite easily
dumbfounded or, you're a whole lot more dumb and dumber than you look.
Which is it?

BTW; I didn't realize there was any such "UN Lunar Truth Commission". I
thought the truth of what Kodak physics has to offer about their
photo-chenical reactions to such large amounts of near-UV and of the UV
secondary/recoil photons is way more than good enough. Besides all of
the secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays, where in the heck did the
likes of Venus and the Sirius star system vanish to?

Perhaps the likes of Venus and the horrifically near-blue or somewhat
blue-white nature of the Sirius star system as viewed by the naked
Kodak eye as from the moon was hiding within the same stealthy place as
Osama bin Laden and all of those WMD.

Calm yourself down, you're going postal. You're right about the
available vertical energy as being mostly kinetic, although besides
4+bar/km there's a good 10°K/km that's also adding a touch of thermal
energy into this nifty green/renewable energy pot.

BTW; the "infatuation with Venus" is that at times it's damn nearby and
rather easily obtainable compared to that of Mars and, though
relatively hot and nasty for the likes of naked humans, it's not nearly
as insurmountable. Of course, there's my observationology aspects of
interpreting as to what still looks a whole lot more artificial than
not, which isn't exactly eliminating any options of other life that I
can think of.

BTW No2; I've studied physics duh-101, as in extra double duh credits
and, having accomplished a masters degree in "I'll believe it when I
see it and/or touch it".
Have you seen or touched any of those perpetrated cold-war lost Apollo
cows?
Have you seen and/or touched any of the original moonsuit/EVA obtained
Kodak images?
Have you accomplished the square of the distance in reverse
engineering, as to estimating the TBI dosage of the highly reactive
nature of a fully raw solar illuminated surface?
Do you realize how many megatonnes worth of moon rock is already upon
Earth?
Do we even have a hard-science clue as to what's inside the moon?
You do realize that the first perpetrated lie (especially on this
scale) only begets another and another?
~

Don't look now: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated within the
ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
[email],
Thanks for contributing such positive topic feedback, whereas obviously
yourself and many others had previously realized and/or known the truth
but were as unable to confess anything without taking the vast brunt of
whatever the mainstream spooks and moles of MI5/NSA~NASA could toss at
you. Clearly as of once upon a time, I too had been 100+% snookered and
every bit as dumbfounded as was the next good little American village
idiot. As of prior to 6 years ago I'd still believed that we'd walked
upon and somehow having survived essentially unscaved in every possible
way from the harsh lunar environment.

After reviewing recent years of NASA screw-ups and somewhat oddly
limited worth of their applied lander technology of rather crudely
getting stuff onto the much easier surface access of Mars, it seemed
almost as though our vastly more complex NASA/Apollo treks of decades
earlier never transpired.

Researching back into the fundamental laws of photographic physics
plus, going by some of my personal expertise in photographic efforts
seemed even more improbable that such thermally and near-blue sensitive
Kodak film was so entirely unscaved, even as to having recorded sceens
as having been somewhat spotty artificial xenon illuminated in order to
have obtained the level of subdued blue and then absolutely zilch worth
of secondary/recoil near-UV and/or a total lack of any secondary/recoil
near-blue spectrums to boot. I'd had previously assumed a good level of
optical spectrum cut-off filtration and/or that of applied band-pass
optical filtration was the root cause but, lo and behold there was
nothing of the sort applied, except that of a quality but otherwise
standard polarised filter utilized, which in of itself should have made
all of whatever was getting directly solar illuminated upon as either
of natural and/or artificial reflective surfaces somewhat darker by
nearly 50%, though otherwise relatively of a nutural or non
color/spectrum shift.

I had to ask myself a few questions;
What exactly existed upon the moon that went so terribly wrong with
Kodak and optical physics?

How the heck did the raw solar energy of 1.4 kw/m2 get skewed so far
away from the near-blue and near-UV spectrums?

Where did all of the raw solar UV energy/m2 go?

Where and/or how did all of the natural and artificial substances
manage as to lose essentially all of their secondary/recoil worth of
photons?

Due to a reactive nature of a lunar surface of such substances as dark
basalts along with deposits of iron, carbon and titanium as being of
dust in places meters deep and not very likely as all that clumping,
whereas besides the entire lack of any UV secondary/recoil worth of
near-blue photons, at the other end of the spectrum begs as to how did
the greater reflective IR spectrum not even skew upon a damn thing in
the upper/far red color, nor having offered any measurable thermal
impact whatsoever upon the plastic film that really doesn't appreciate
all that much heat, nor as to aspects of sub-freezing (especially if
it's film that's having to be tightly rolled) and, of hard-X-rays that
had to exist are usually considered as yet another film hazard if there
ever was something to being easily recorded, and that's if you wanted
such affects or not.

Even the earthshine environment of the lunar surface isn't exactly all
that end-user/moonsuit friendly.

Of course no matters what, you first have to get yourself there and
then back in order to have lived to tell about it and, hopefully
accomplishing such without need of that banked bone marrow transplant,
and that's pretty damn hard to accomplish when all you've got working
for yourself is a thin shell of a spacecraft as having been devised
within a few prior years worth of fly-by-rocket crash and explode
episodes under your extremely bulky and thus highly restrictive
moonsuit belt, hardly of anything top-gun certified as any fly-by-wire
form of such fly-by-rocket sorts of confidence building, to say the
least.

There's still nothing even on paper that'll computer silulate as a
fly-by-rocket solution, much less of any R&D/prototype way back then or
even as of today we simply haven't squat worth of anything that's
sufficiently fly-by-rocket worthy, much less of our seeing any
USSR/Russian robotic/AI fly-by-rocket technology that's doable. Smoke
and mirrors is certainly one thing, however there's only so much
nondisclosure of certain cloak and dagger aspects of actually having to
place a live and valuable crew insiside of any such flying coffins that
are only insurted as to vaporise upon impact, which isn't exactly the
sort of PR "right stuff" that I'd be asking of even terminal patiants
to accomplish on behalf of their country, much less of any couple of
highly publisized family guys as for their being orchestrated while on
essentially a live radio feed none the less.

I'm not making light of their situation and/or accomplishments because,
just getting our crew into a reasonably safe station-keeping mode at
EM-L2/ME-L1, then having the remainder of their mission as accomplished
as best could under a fly-by-radio-remote form of mission control is
still way more than having been accomplished by any USSR/Russian
efforts, and every bit as damn spendy and risky as anyone could have
afforded at the time.

Our part of a mutually perpetrated cold-war was every bit tied to the
space-race portion of our having to orchestrate disinformation via our
best spookology and rusemaster talents and expertise of whatever
infomercial aspects as having been published as the supposed truth,
being exactly of what our cloak and dagger rusemasters could have
managed to pull off, and it essentially worked to our advantage by
proving that we could seriously out-send in order to essentially
out-snooker them dirty rotten Russians on their own turf.

The ongoing problem with your statement of "You are only fooling
yourself" is that once you've become 100+% assimilated into the borg
collective, as such you're no longer able to function as a human nor
reason to any level of realizing upon just how snookered and thus
dumbfounded you've become, especially if there a lethal nondisclosure
policy in affect and enforceable via those men in black. I'm not
certain the life-support plugs could be pulled without far reaching
catastrophic impacts transpiring across the board.
~

Don't look now: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated within the
ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Not an excuse.  Supporting evidence for a very valid argument.  In
insisting that Apollo was a hoax, you are almost literally saying you
are more of an expert than the thousands upon thousands of engineers
and scientists all over the world, let alone Russia. I am extremely
skeptical of that.

That's one smelly fish you're flinging around there.

Have you?  Have they said anything?

But I do!  Their history and their language, too.

It's hardly original thinking to point out obvious conundrums.

Indeed I would. It's just extremely unlikely the Russians would
arrive at the same conclusions you have.  And they apparently have not.

Back in the 60's and 70's, some in the Kremlin leadership, baffled over
America's prosperity and resilience and relying on the
pseudo-scientist Karl Marx for their understanding of economics,
actually believed the U.S. had a secret economic command center that
made it all work, a kind of American super-Politburo.  With that kind
of thinking, how could the USSR overlook the possibility of a hoax, and
not bend the necessary and more-than-capable-enough resources to rule
it out?  I doubt they overlooked anything.

I agree.  The problems happen when evidence of veracity is ignored.

Whoa!  Back up.  How is it nonsense?

Not relevant. Do lawyers ask judges to throw out indictments because
none of the jurors "were there"?   We talk of evidence here, not
personal experiences.

Ah, now you're off the deep end here.  I recommend you abandon this
line of argument.  (Or is it your entire argument?  In which case, I
think we're done here.)  Hoax or not, it violates no physical laws,
is well within the means of most industrialized states and was within
U.S. capability by 1960, if not by the mid-1950's.

"Limited capabilities".  Limited how?

You still haven't told me why it's nonsense.  (And, "people like
me"?)

I agree, and that's why we haven't sent people to Jupiter or
Saturn.

However, astronauts in capsules and shuttles have made rendevous with
other Earth-orbiting satellites many times; we had the technique almost
down pat by 1967.  (I have *seen* it done.  As a teenager in New Jersey
I watched an Apollo capsule/CSM cross the early morning sky, not yet
docked with the brighter Skylab, moving with it and about a degree
away.)

Isn't the Moon a kind of satellite?  If an Apollo can rendevous with
a Skylab, then why not with the Moon? What would it take?  Some extra
fuel, a little more food and water and oxygen, a flight plan modified
but no different in principle, some extra equipment. And, of course,
money. There are no insurmountable challenges here, and there were
none.

In fact, there are (or were) very practical plans to use the Space
Shuttle to ferry a moon lander to lunar orbit.  The idea has been
shelved as of late, but it wasn't for any aspects of "nonsense".

[Snip].  No new ground here, no new points made, how climbing Everest
is a poor analogy and I agree, but I don't see the point ... and then
you mock my own standards of evidence, blah-blah blah.

Agreed.

No: it does not "feel the same".  Photographs are poor simulations
of experience.  But they are excellent guides and excellent evidence.

Granted, faking them is a relatively easy thing to do.  Making fakes
that evade detection after decades of worldwide analysis and study ...
well, that's something else altogether.  The Apollo-hoax crowd keep
pointing out interesting things in the photos that have long been
dissected and explained.

(Well, at least you admit we have actual space activity *somewhere*.
We're making progress here!)

No one ever said any of it was "easy".  Some of it is considerably
more expensive, a bit harder to do, and lacks the political will to
keep the effort maintained.  Remember, the rationale for Apollo was
driven as much by politics as it was by science. When the political
will and public interest for Apollo dried up, so did the money.  But it
was, and is, enough in our national interest and in the interest of
local economies ("pork barrel", if you will) to keep a space-faring
capability and presence.

One may "realize the truth" through preconceived notions and
prejudices, then apply it to explain observations of the world.   I
prefer to derive truth from observation.  What truth have you realized?

Nope, not anytime soon.  A truth!  But what's your point?

How?  How is it more challenging?  You keep citing impossibilities.
What on earth are you talking about?

What will you say when and if the Chinese make good on their intent to
colonize the Moon?  Call it a hoax? Another NASA conspiracy, this time
with an international bent?  Boy, I can't wait!


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
mitcheroo;

Don't be all that skeptical because, the likes of "loote" and I'll
certainly change my tune just as soon as the hard-science comes back to
us via some of those NASA/Apollo cows.

Obviously you're quite anti-truth and otherwise pro-LLPOF resident
warlord or bust without a stitch of remorse. No freaking wonder you
can't trust anyone.

Then why the heck did not someone take to recording a few honest Kodak
moments while strolling upon the highly reactive and extremely dark and
dusty moon?

Brother, what an absolutely pathetic wag-the-dog LLPOF spook if there
ever was. Are you just a regular cloned bigot or are you another
certified incest cloned fool of a borg as derived from yet another bad
seed of Hitler?
~

Life on Venus, a Township, Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


author: Matt Wiser

subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
"lensman1955" <[email]> wrote:
That does show that Mr. Guth is a Luddite, pure and simple. Folks like him can stay on Earth
for all I care; the rest of us are going to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
36 years later and the best excuse you can cook up is because the
Russians haven't said anything, or if they have you weren't listening.
Not like we imagine you actually care what the Russians think about
anything, but at least it's original, no one could accuse you of
mindlessly parroting BS, you aren't saying that because someone told
you to, you actually are interested in what the Russians say, and if
they decided it was fake, you would be the first to care. To question
the veracity of the Man on the Moon is like questioning anything,
because if you can be made to believe in this nonsense about flying to
the Moon, you can be made to believe anything. Perhaps if it took place
in Iraq you could be fooled but not the Moon! You've never been to the
Moon and you never will go there either. You think after 35 years
someone might have noticed the discrepancy between their claims they
could do the impossible and their real incredibly limited capabilities
which we can see demonstrated every day. Fooling people like you isn't
rocket science, you need to believe in this nonsense. Sending people to
the Moon isn't the same as sending a robot to Jupiter and Saturn. Mount
Everest is only a few miles high, it's just like a Sunday walk, how
many times have they conquered Everest since 1959, but thats an unfair
comparison because we all know how mountain climbing has taken off,
especially with all the high tech gear they have nowadays. The
important thing is that you believe, any reason will due, I was there,
along with thousands of other eyewitnesses, that really was the Moon. I
could tell the difference. In the end it really is only a measure of
your ignorance, that's the real legacy of Apollo. If you want to redeem
yourself all you have to do is realize the truth before NASA clues you
in. You can make up the past 4 decades of credulity in an instant and
there is no hurry because the public outcry is for NASA to defend the
lie. You are only fooling yourself, what is the real reason you
believe, you don't even say, it's because the pictures look so
realistic, isn't that what the Moons like? Taking a photogragh isn't
the same as being there, it just feels the same. If flying to the Moon
was so easy we wouldn't have confined our space activities to only 300
miles above the Earth. The advantage of realizing the truth is that it
explains the real World where you actually are living, You aren't
flying to the Moon, despite whatever bold pronouncements  either
president Bush makes nothing will come of it, because real Space travel
is far more challenging than the Apollo show makes it appear.


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
But... it CAN be done, right? Can't it?

Only 290,000 miles of vacuum between us and the Moon. The ISS sails
through that kind of distance about every 16 hours.  So what's the big
deal?  The Russians did it.  Photographed the back of the Moon, they
did, a first.  Then later remotely retrieved their own samples.

Have you no faith in the arts of engineering?

Apollo 11.

Apollo 12.

Apollo 14.

Apollo 15.

Apollo 16.

Apollo 17.

That's a lot of hoaxes! What a superb machine of secrecy! What are we
missing here?

All those witnesses, from the men who claimed they walked there to the
thousands in the crowds and across Florida who watched the rockets go
up. (You'll have to admit at least that, won't you, Brad? That
something huge DID go up into the vacuum, again and again? Now think
carefully on that one.)

And yes, what *about* the Russians?  And the Chinese!  And the French!
Wouldn't they love to prove Apollo all a monstrous hoax! Really rub our
noses in it!  Who needs Brad Guth?

Yet they haven't.  The Russians, the very pioneers of rocket theory:
what is it that you know, Brad, that for thiry-six years has sailed
past the best in astro-physics and intelligence-gathering born of that
Motherland?  That China could produce?  How could the French and the
Cubans and your fans in Pyong-Yang all be so stupid and inept, leaving
you in the lurch?

A hoax?  Not completely impossible, I suppose, but Brad, denial that
there is proof of any one thing can go so far it amounts to denying
there is proof of anything.  (Ever read Orwell's "1984"?)  You are very
close to the edge of that cliff.  Like those nuts who deny there was a
Holocaust.

Where is the UN Lunar Truth Commission?  Where is Ramsey Clark when you
really need him?

They would just LOVE to know.  Go tell them, why don't you?  Or are you
afraid of the CIA-planted bugs in your tooth-fillings?

LLPOF?

How do you know? Offered to who? Exploitable by who? Vertical energy?
You mean, "potential kinetic energy"? What the hell are you talking
about?

Have you ever studied physics? What HAVE you studied? (How about
English Composition? I think you slept through that.)

Possible you suggest - but did it come to be?  What IS this infatuation
with Venus?  I just don't see it.  Awful place.

OK, Brad, you're going to have help with what followed the above. Can't
make heads or tails of it.

Something you spotted on a Magellan image that doesn't fit with the
environment? Don't like how NASA dismissed it as a natural feature?
And, just what exactly is suggested as being "entirely [your] own
doings"?

(What, Lassie? Timmy? What's that? Timmy's hurt? Needs our help? Good
boy - find Timmy! Take us to Timmy!)

So many words, so much effort, yet so little meaning.

If you want the dignity of consideration as an estimable crackpot, hone
and refine what you pen. Otherwise, you will never hit your target.

(You'll not hit it anyway, as there is nothing there to hit, but, oh,
the fun you'll have.)


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
OM wrote:

I use Google because it gives me an easier interface to search for
responses. The downside is that there is no killfile feature. Mind you,
I very rarely open his files because he reminds me of an old 8-bit
program I played around with once where you typed a group of odd
statements into a data base, then ran the program and it would randomly
select the statements and present them in an essay format that _almost_
seemed to make sense! I was just curious if he had any actual
creditials to be making comments on the reflective abilities of the
Moon!


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Brad Guth wrote:

OK, what experience do you have exactly? BTW, take a basic course in
writing to avoid these bizarre runon sentences that meander all over
the place, would you?

First off, we've seen the LEM. You choose not to believe in it, that's
your problem, not mine. Secondly, who brought up Mars? Obviously
they'll have to be research and development to create a Mars lander,
but that wasn't even in the topic of conversation, you just seemed to
pull it out of nowhere!

um What?

I don't know what you're talking about here. And I didn't mention Venus
anymore than I mentioned Mars.

Oh, the old "the stars aren't in the picture" bit.

Where did you get information as to what sort of film they used? Or are
you just making presumptions?

Again, it's your supposition that the lunar deck was "hot and downright
nasty." In order for your theory to be taken seriously, first you have
to show that your facts are in order and not just presented as if it
were common knowledge. "By God, it's obvious that Columbus faked his
trip to the "New World" because everyone knows they should have fallen
off the edge!"

I never said I wanted to go to Venus. If you want to, by all means be
our guest!

I've seen your pictures. They are grainy and low-res. You could make
the argument that the mesas in the Midwest appear to be ancient
skyscrapers by the same arguments.


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Clearly you're not from this LLPOF and perpetrated cold-war Earth, are
you?

Why are you anti-ET and thus anti-God?

Why is your nose so gosh darn brown?

I've built my case many times over and over. It's yourself that can't
read nor decipher squat. Why is that?

BTW; Why are you calling Kodak corporate liars?

And, why are you such a LLPOF pervert about that LEM that simply
doesn't exist any more than the Russian fly-by-rocket robotic/AI
lander?

Where's the film documentation upon all of your LEM R&D/prototypes?

What's man-made isn't upon the surface of the moon, but rather nicely
impacted into the moon. Go figure otherwise.

BTW No2; Venus is not a STAR because, it's way too god damn bright and
relatively nearby. The likes of Sirius is rather horrifically vibrant
as to the unfiltered Kodak eye, whereas your bigoted white cane
obviously can't even find the nearest space-toilet, so you'll have to
keep crapping in your pants until them Apollo cows come home.
~

Don't look: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems there's
been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated within the
ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Brad Guth wrote:

LLPOF? ...and I've probably been here longer than you my friend.

OK, that one qualifies as a major howler.

Why is your thinking capacity so small and narrow focused?

You've produced screen after screen of doubletalk and gobbledegook,
that's all.

Why are you such a clown that makes assertations that simply don't
work?

What, do you think someone at NASA has to keep everything in public
view in case Brad Guth goes on a binge and demands to see it?

You haven't proven this to me or anyone else on this newsgroup.

You are a nasty little child aren't you? Again, I never mentioned
Venus. I am aware Venus isn't a star. I am aware Sirius is. You simply
haven't shown why any stars should show up in the film just because YOU
say they should!

An your pictures simply don't show this.


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
lensman1955;
What's narrow focused about utilizing our moon or going for at least
calling Venus?

What's double talk about the photo-chemical truth and nothing but the
unfiltered Kodak truth?

Why can't you show us your film footage of all of those supposed
R&D/prototype lunar fly-by-rocket landers?

I believe in the regular and not those conditional laws of physics,
plus of what a little hard-science and/or rather odd lack of a great
deal of supposed moon-surface related hard-science proves myself right,
and all others dead wrong.

Obviously accomplishing whatever math for you is asking too much, that
is unless it reinforces upon your bloody pagan and perpetrated cold-war
ruse/sting of the century, as then you'll accept absolutely anything
that the snookered public has already bought and paid for. Even used
mainstream toilet-paper seems to suit yourself just fine and dandy.

BTW; a 75+% reflective Venus is going to be a downright nasty bright
orb within the extremely black lunar sky, especially as situated above
the nearly coal-black surface of carbon. iron and titanium dust that's
meters deep and damn reactive at that.
~
Don't bother looking: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated within the
ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Brad Guth wrote:

Y'know. I liked it better when you were ranting about "incest Borg
clones." Seriously, you remind me of the people who claimed it's
impossible for the bumblebee to fly, Orvile and Wilbur were never going
to get that contraption up in the air and those new-fangled "Iron
Horses" (railroads, not automobiles) were never going to catch on
because people would be crushed in their seats at the unholy speed of
50 miles an hour.


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
lensman1955,
Unlike yourself being pro-NASA and thus pro-snooker-thy-humanity at any
cost, that's always out and about looking for something/anything to
take entirely out of context, in order to utilize such against a given
topic that's burning your perpetrated cold-war bridges; yes I do have
photographic expertise and I do believe team KECK and a few thousand
other astronomy groups haven't been exactly lying to us about the
average 11~12% lunar albedo that matches up with even the telephoto
images as obtained from those unmanned Apollo orbits of the moon (at
least there's still no hard-science of whatever proof-positive that any
of those Apollo missions even orbited the damn moon in person, whereas
robotically having been quite doable).

Besides what the likes of "tj Frazir" seems to know about our moon; do
you perchance have any independent documentation as to the
R&D/prototype fly-by-rocket landers as would have been required of any
such manned or robotic/AI moon landing and, otherwise in support of
nearly if not somewhat more so demanding of accomplishing any Mars
landing as having to involve a multi-tonne fly-by-rocket craft at
roughly twice the gravity and certainly not all that much greater
atmosphere than of our moon?

How would your moon landing team of crack wizards manage to escape all
of the highly reactive aspects of a fully solar illuminated lunar
environment, as opposed to an obviously much cooler earthshine
environment that's considerably less of a reactive/TBI situation?

If a view of Venus were above the nearly coal like dark and thick dust
covered horizon (as was the case in at least two of the Apollo
missions), how the heck would you have gone about excluding and/or
avoiding that horrifically vibrant and relatively nearby orb of 75~85%
albedo from being photographed?

A similar question for the strong amount of near-blue (425~450 nm) and
even another greater intensity portion of near-UV (375~425 nm) spectrum
worth of what the Sirius star system had to offer, as such being viewed
above the dark lunar horizon and of that intensity being well within
one of the most sensitive photo-chemical spectrums worth of your
unfiltered (naked) Kodak film, as such how would such an extremely
bright spot be continually excluded?

If having to utilize the same Kodak transparency and much higher
resolution as well as somewhat more UV sensitive B&W films, what sort
of optical/spectrum band-pass filters would you have applied in order
to reasonably compensate for the rather bluish photographic
illumination shift, as having been provided by the raw solar influx of
1.4 kw/m2, especially since having next to nothing of any vapor related
atmosphere as filtering out squat (argon and obviously dry CO2 is
hardly offering much of an optical filter), plus always having to deal
with secondary/recoil photons as being derived off most everything in
sight (off so many of the man-made items and obviously of those
highly/extra reflective pure-white moonsuits of your EVA expeditions)?

BTW; what's your version of the sunny-side-up worth of secondary/recoil
radiation intensity of hard-X-ray TBI (total body irradiation) as
derived from the nearby orbit of being just 100 km off the hot and
downright nasty reactive lunar deck?

If to forget all about our moon as due to being somewhat of an
insurmountable lost cause, as instead for going towards the surface of
Venus, or at least on behalf of contemplating a short stay of cruising
about efficiently within the nighttime season of such a highly buoyant
and retrograde atmosphere; how much extra/spare energy per mission kg
are we talking about (I'd assume we'd need a few extra tonnes of
H2O2/C12H26 plus a few SBRs) for the task of surviving and getting
yourself back home?

You'd have to think that at 91% the gravity of mother Earth and thereby
nearly 60 fold the buoyancy should be quite helpful.
~

In spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems there's been other
life on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The ESA Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
moonlandinghoaxreligious@yahoo.com,
Not all that surprisingly, the incest cloned borgism, as a mutated
mainstream cesspool collective that supposedly knows all there is to
know, as such they're pretending they either don't understand whatever
it is that I have to say or, via evidence exclusions pretending they
either don't know or can't appreciate squat about the fundamental and
extremely well established physics of photo-chemical dyes, or perhaps
photon collecting grains as situated upon such heat and hard-X-ray
sensitive film that should actually be thought of as having at least
4096 X 4096 density of analog photon buckets that are capable of
recording at better than 256 bits per pixel. Actually their B&W film
can be upgraded as having 8192 X 8192 of those as being worthy of 512
bits per photon buckets worth of pixels and, I do believe that still
isn't half bad even by the most advanced CCD standards.

The fact that the blue spectrum sensitive dye is in fact extremely
sensitive to the near-blue of 400-425 nm and, it's still quite a bit
sensitive to less than 375 nm doesn't even ring a "chapel bell"
transponder worth hard-science. That's too gosh darn cloak and dagger
bad because, that means they're not only heathen bigot liars but,
clearly biologically color-blind and anti-truth heathen bigots at that.
~

In spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems there's been other
life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The ESA Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Fat chance in hell since there's still no such lunar fly-by-rocket
landers (manned or AI/robotic) and, Kodak corporate simply isn't going
to help one stinking bit worth of salvaging their LLPOF butts.

You can't prove squat as to the hard-science about the actual surface
of our moon, at least not more so than from the megatonnes worth of
deposited moon rocks as to being found upon Earth.
~

BTW; Life upon Venus offers loads of vertical as well as geothermal
energy to burn, even though as such it will not actually burn within
such an O2 starved environment as having been hosting a perfectly
rational township of a community that includes a bridge and a few of
your standard rigid airships plus that nifty UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The ESA Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

BTW No2; I've come to realize that other life must have been possible
upon Venus, at least as of nearly 6 years ago when I'd first
interpreted upon one of so many radar images (especially of what the 36
look/pixel and of an 8-bit/pixel worth of roughly 225 m/pixel
resolution), as to what honestly looks quite community like, although
there's also somewhat other most interesting natural aspects from such
images that doesn't quite doesn't jive with the purely hot and nasty
sort of roasting world as having been artificially painted and
otherwise infomercial hyped by our MI5/NSA~NASA rusemasters that would
like you to believe this is entirely my own doings without having a
shred of evidence nor having made multiple efforts as to sharing with
others from the very get-go. Of course, I've since come to perceive
that our NASA summarily sucks, among other nastier if not despicable
sorts of things.


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
No Venus, No Sirius = No Apollo (at least not as upon the surface of
the moon).

Unfiltered Kodak moments simply do not lie. Only people lie, especially
those having motive, means and opportunity, along with a good deal of
perpetrated cold-war bigotry to boot goes without saying.
~

Without Venus nor Sirius as easily and unavoidably imaged from the
nearly coal like dusty darkness and reactive lunar surface, not to
mention a lack of any R&D/prototype fly-by-rocket lander plus the
highly unreasonable lack of secondary/recoil near-blue and absolutely
zilch worth of near-UV recorded photons via unfiltered Kodak moments,
as such there's a wee bit of an insurmountable problem that's proving
squat on behalf of those Apollo missions. However, there's been other
life upon Venus as having absolute loads of vertical as well as
geothermal energy to burn, even though as such it will not actually
burn within such an O2 starved environment as having been hosting a
perfectly rational township of a fairly substantial community that
includes a bridge and a few of your standard rigid airships plus
accommodating that nifty UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The ESA Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
[email] wrote:

Pity, I would have bought it. You would all have dismissed it as a
further hoax, so it wouldn't have done any good. But I would have
bought it.


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Without Kodak corporated onboard the MI5/NSA~NASA locomotive from hell,
there's no freaking way that lord NASA could support their phony
baloney fiasco, none more so than we can accept the perpetrated
cold-war(s) as anything other than what it was, as an extremely grand
and nearly WW-III class of ruse/sting of the century.

If you're allowed to be thinking ET positive, as in outside of the
mainstream borg status quo box; as such you might care to check out and
contribute into either of the following topics, or start up another
topic as extracted from my new and improved topic list <gv-topics.htm>.

The ET UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac of Venus
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.astro.seti/browse_frm/thread/177c9b03ce228299/8a956800773f237e?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=3&hl=en#8a956800773f237e

ET Interstellar UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac of Venus
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.scientists/browse_frm/thread/a18977bafb151823/0faf596c9c6ec2c7?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=2&hl=en#0faf596c9c6ec2c7

What Social Culture, other than the USofA LLPOF Culture
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.russian/browse_frm/thread/60b63045f872ac17/de89a56d842bac41?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=13&hl=en#de89a56d842bac41
~

Life upon Venus offers energy to burn within a Township, Bridge and
ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The ESA Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated
within ME-L1/EM-L2
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus another updated topic list; Brad Guth /
GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

The intentions of this continuing rant is besides if not in spite of
our NOT having walked upon the moon;
There has nearly always been other significant life that's perfectly
capable of their having been situated upon Venus (at least on behalf of
accommodating ETs), and otherwise of that little issue about our moon
that's actually perfectly good for so many things once the LSE-CM/ISS
is up and running and of sufficient robotics having been efficiently
and safely deployed, as for those items functioning on behalf of
science, clean energy and for the very salvation of humanity. Unlike
what we've been told over and over by all of those folks supposedly
having 'the right stuff', there's nothing the least bit insignificant
nor without good if not of essential cause and rewards pertaining to
our moon, and unlike those opposing absolutely anything and everything
that represents change, I simply can't hardly think of anything but
positive thoughts about our moon as well as for Venus as being yet
another perfectly good thing for the greater salvation of Earth and
advancement of humanity. How can anything pertaining to our moon or
that of Venus become such a taboo/nondisclosure negative that which
such topic/authors deserve getting stalked, bashed and/or banished?


author: OM

subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
On 23 Jul 2005 01:11:05 -0700, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

...Now, if only we could cancel your *life* as easily as we punt your
willingly molested ass from view.

<PLONK>

...Amazing how someone who willingly bent over and took several from
his perverted uncle *without* demanding candy first can grow up to be
such a psychotic troll.

				OM


author: Scott Hedrick

subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
"mitcheroo" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

It hasn't worked for him in all this time, yet, like the impotent wank he is
(as shown by his confusing Mars with Venus), he's just too stupid to invent
a new argument.

(Or is it your entire argument?  In which case, I

Well, duh! Just add him to your killfile.

Simple- you're one of "them".

Because *your* standard is so much more higher than his. Your standard is
that of an average, somewhat reasonable person, and his is that of someone
desperate for his life to have meaning. It's far easier for him to believe
in a conspiracy than to accept that he, personally, is useless.


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
"lensman1955" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

He doesn't know the difference, anyway.


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
"Brad Guth" <[email]> wrote:
(Drivel and Insults deleted)

Yawn. Same-old Same-o. Son, how much does one have to tell you: when your delusions
clash with reality of modern space travel, space science, and astronomy, your delusions
come out on the wrong end of things. I'll take NASA astronauts, the space science guys at
JPL (among other institutions), and any major university's astronomy department over some
delusional thought that Venus had life and came from Sirius any day. Take your meds, calm
down, and wait for the fellas in white suits and the butterfly net to come and escort you to a
padded cell. Additional meds likely needed. Take them. At least the above people and
organizations have proof. You've got what's in your head and that's it.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Matt Wiser and mitcheroo,
Obviously your being equally certified as NASA's official LLPOF incest
cloned borgs of the mainstream status quo suits yourselves to a bloody
T. This is essentially what I'd previously offered to yet another of
NASA's commecial infomercial as contributed by spook/wizard "moonpans".

Dear Mike Constantine (AKA moonpans),
I see that you've finally gotten around to PhotoShop cranking up the
otherwise subdued (xenon illuminated) blue of the American flag, but
you still have that nearly entirely 55+% albedo moonscape that's
somewhat impossible, and still nothing whatsoever of the horrifically
bright Sirius star system, or that of a nearby and intensely (75+%)
reflective Venus that must have been rather intensely annoying on at
least two of the Apollo missions.
http://moonpans.com/a11neilmesa.htm

Being that the moonsuits were typically 80 some odd percent reflective
(perhaps 85% reflective if sufficiently dust free), it seems that the
average albedo worth of 11~12% of the raw solar illuminated and via a
polarised filter at that should have been nearly coal like, and
certainly depicting as a whole lot more of carbon, iron and titanium
dusty to moonboot.

I especially like the official looking page of those autographed photos
that are nearly of lunar white-out zones as having absolutely zilch,
nada as in zero worth of secondary/recoil photons of anything the least
bit near-blue, much less offering any hard-X-ray dosage as having been
proven a matter of hard-scientific fact by even terrestrial satellite
instruments.
http://moonpans.com/signed/

Any chance you could get Kodak Corporate to inform us village idiots as
to exactly how their photo-chemical (color sensitive emulsion dyes)
worth of your skewed/conditional physics works entirely differently
upon the moon than upon Earth?

2nd reply; Dear Mike Constantine,
I'd forgotten to ask of your lord/wizard "moonpans" expertise and of
any others about where the heck had all of the secondary/recoil photons
gone, since the photographic Kodak moments were essentially unfiltered
(in other words of being essentially wide open band-pass of accepting
375~875 nm), yet absolutely none of those extreme intensities of
photons or of anything whatsoever worth of secondary/recoil managed to
get recorded regardless of whatever the shaded and/or fully solar
illuminated environment. It's almost exactly as though we're looking at
an artificially xenon lamp illuminated terrain and, from the original
scanned official archive of such images as having depicted such scenes
as a somewhat subdued amount of blue spectrum at that. What is it about
the lunar atmosphere that so nicely filtered out even more of the
near-UV (375~425 nm), and excluded that of the UV spectrum than for
here on Earth?

How is it that secondary/recoil photons that seem to occur quite nicely
here upon Earth but not upon our moon?

BTW; Where the heck was good old Venus hiding and that of the extremely
bright near-blue and near-UV intensity worth of the Sirius star system
(of which I'm not referring to the human visual intensity, as that's
not worth 1% of what the unfiltered Kodak eye was capable of
recording)?
~

Don't look: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems there's
been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Proto-moons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
On 29 Jul 2005 12:41:00 -0700, "lensman1955" <[email]>
wrote:

...Actually, the only photographic experience is his hand-held 1Mpx
digital camera, and the photos he took of him blowing his dog that he
submitted to "I Shot Myself". If those weren't grosser than a peek
into "scott grissom's underwear drawer", I'd post the links here.

...Do us a favor, Lens - killfile the retarded dogsucking bastard and
put him out of our misery. The entire *world* knows Brad Guth is a
total nutcase. He proved this years ago when he posted a picture of a
cheese pizza, claimed it was Venus, and it actually looked more like
Mars.

				OM


author: "Trakar"

subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
"lensman1955" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Last I heard, Oberg was still doing the project. Although it is now an
unofficial publication with alternative funding. The book is supposed to
deliver a point-by-point rebuttal of the Lunatics.


author: Pat Flannery

subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Scott Hedrick wrote:

That's still one of the all-time classic slips.
In case lensman doesn't know what we are referring to; Brad once put op
a multicolored elevation map view of Mars on his website, and claimed it
was a map of Venus based on radar imagery from Magellan.
People were truly amazed to see that Venus had a set of volcanos that
were dead ringers for the ones in Mars' Tarsus Regio. :-D

Pat


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax-Prove It or shut up!

text:
"Brad Guth" <[email]> wrote:
(drivel deleted)
Son, please explain to someone who takes astronauts (like I said earlier-have you even
bothered to meet and talk with an astronaut? I have), NASA and other space agencies,
JPL and similar institutions, and just any university's astronomy department seriously, why
one should even consider your delusions. Astronomers knew since the 1930s about the
temperatures on Venus, and its CO2 atmosphere, not to mention its atmospheric pressure.
(If you go there, you can die in any one of three ways: cooked by the hellish temperatures,
crushed like an eggshell by the atmospheric pressure, or dry-cleaned by the CO2.-more
likely, all three in combination will kill you.) The Soviet Venera, U.S. Mariner and Pioneer
Venus probes confirmed the data, and Magellan used radar to peer thru the clouds-no
photography possible. Every model of solar system formation indicates that Venus formed in
its orbit-so explain how an ET civilization could move a planet across the light-years. They
MIGHT be able to fly here, but moving a planet? If you believe that, then I have beachfront
property for sale-in New Mexico!(BTW the Condon Report, which debunked UFOs and told
the USAF to get out of the UFO business, still had 30% of its cases listed unknown, including Lakenheath/Bentwaters, the Trent photos, Montana film, and the RB-47 radar/visual
case.) ET may be coming here, but I don't think they can move a planet...Take your meds,
calm down, and wait for the guys with the butterfly net to come for you. A nice padded cell
awaits, along with additional meds.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


subject: Re: moon landings were a hoax

text:
Matt Wiser,
If you and others really cared about salvaging our NASA, in that case
you'd kick some serious butts, including your own sorry butt while
you're at it.

It seems as though you're mostly all about being your cloak and dagger
self, plus MOS anti-ET, or otherwise having to be another all around
wizard/expert upon ET intelligence (mostly as to their lack of having
any intelligence), of their biological evolution that apparently sucks
and of whatever learned expertise that isn't worth squat, at the same
time you're having to continually mainstream status quo disregard by
way of evidence excluding upon the available pressure, density and
enormous amounts of available green/renewable energy that Venus seems
to offer way more than it's fair share of.

Please explain as to why the regular laws of physics-101 not usable
upon our moon or that of Venus?

Is this some degree of conditional physics requirement that supposedly
had our crews walking moonsuit naked upon the moon and somehow living
as to tell us about it?

Why are your ETs having to be so pathetically dumb and dumber than the
likes of humanity?

Why does Venus have to become the least bit suitable for accommodating
mere humans, naked no less?

Don't you folks realize there are environments of such extremes as bad
if not worse off upon Earth, in which we've survived via applied
technology? And to think, at best we're not even half as ET smart.
-
In another recent reply to Warhol; What do you consider as "urgent
things first..."?
Firstly; I'd have to agree upon and promote the notion that ETs have
been here and are probably pitching a serious fit right about now,
perhaps via usenet spooks and moles accomplishing as much wag-the-dog
and performing as much damage-control as possible. At least if I were
an ET that's exactly what I'd be doing.

Secondly; I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be getting along with
accomplishing our moon, especially for establishing the LSE-CM/ISS,
thus accomplishing a great deal of good on behalf of Earth-science as
well as moon-science and, thereby directly benefiting future astronomy
as well as the greater portions of humanity in so many ways that most
folks can't even imagine. I'm also not suggesting that we should be
going to in person to visit upon the surface of Venus, at least not
when the likes of a relatively small and thus efficient in terms of
cost as well as energy of what TRACE-VL2 would more than suffice as
residing in a halo-orbit within the Venus-L2 gravity-well or somewhat
of an interactive nullification zone which would enable our keeping a
good track upon the nighttime season of Venus, tremendously improving
upon whatever odds of interplanetary communications and/or of
transferring data to/from surface deployed kiosks of interactive
audio/video and other science related instruments.

Eventually sending in a capable robotic rigid airship that could
essentially stay aloft for months on end would give us a terrific
interactive look-see at whatever the nighttime surface of Venus has to
offer, as to better realizing whomever or whatever calls Venus home. A
mix of radar and optical CCD imaging from an altitude of 25 km and of
utilizing such sensitive CCD imaging as 0.001 lux or better, whereas
each method being capable of delivering less than 1 m/pixel via radar
and less than 0.1 m/pixel via optical at perhaps 16 bits/pixel would
become downright sufficient, especially at not 10% the cost of our
continually orbiting and imaging upon Mars, and of otherwise we'd be
accomplishing all of this Venus exploration within a fraction of the
time as for getting whatever into such close observation mode.

Just because Venus is a touch too geologically hot for naked humans,
especially those of us that are still certified as being dumb and
dumber and thus easily snookered into being dumbfounded over just about
anything that represents change, doesn't mean the Venus locals or
visiting ETs as having been camping out couldn't be managing just fine
and dandy.
~

Nondisclosure/Taboo: in spite of evidence exclusions, it seems there's
been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Proto-moons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


author: Damon Hill

text:
"Matt Wiser" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

You can explain to Brad all day and all night but
he's committed, perhaps involuntarily, to his
fantasies and contrarian point of view.  Nearly
everyone else here simply ignores him, from long
experience with his behavior.

Such is kookness.

--Damon


text:
Matt Wiser,
I believe Kodak Corporate and of their photo-physics just proved in
more than ten ways that our incest cloned astronauts (LLPOF bigots in
moonsuits) never set a TBI moonboot worth of a hot-foot upon the nasty
and reactive lunar surface. Of course, you're into evidence exclusions
whenever something rocks your boat that chuck full of other brown nosed
borgs as having been equally incest cloned on behalf of the Skull and
Bones cultism that you're not about to give up.

This is what "tj Frazir" had to say about our moon (actually he's
offered us a good thousand other lines);
As you fools should already know, I couldn't possibly agree more with
"tj Frazir", whereas I do believe that we went towards the moon, at
least having robotically orbited the damn thing, having sent a few
sections of Apollo stuff into essentially impacting the moon (though
we'd honestly been hoping for a soft fly-by-rocket landing which some
day might actually happen), took many pictures from orbit (not actually
requiring such photo efforts as being manned) and obviously returned to
mother Earth with some really nifty photos that are today still every
bit as good as it gets, showing us a somewhat reddish dark golden brown
lunar surface that really sucks in more ways than you or I can shake a
flaming stick at.

As a sub-topic to terraforming our moon on behalf of getting robotics
efficiently onto the nasty deck, it seems there's a perfectly good
chance that our Apollo crews spent their relatively safe stay within
the EM-L2/ME-L1 zone (roughly 62,000 km away from the moon), as still
quite a nasty spot but a whole lot more survivable as based upon the
short amount of exposure while slightly shielded by their Apollo craft
(although that in of itself created it's own amounts of
secondary/recoil photons). Of those having actually orbited the moon is
where the math gets a wee bit fuzzy, in that doing the reverse formula
on the secondary/recoil dosage of hard-X-rays that were cerated and
available from the raw solar influx upon the unshielded lunar surface
as being reactive is quite deffinetly involving a somewhat DNA/RNA
compromise that's potentially red-line dosage (50~100 Rads/mission if
there's nothing all that nasty coming off the sun), thus if need be
survivable but not by all that much.
-

Another repeat of this next warm and fuzzy topic update is being
contributed for all those MI5/NAS~NASA incest cloned borgs that are
simply too dumb and dumber as to even realize that their good ship
LOLLIPOP is sinking right smack dab in the middle of the mainstream of
their very own status quo perpetrated cold-war worth of absolute
infomercial crapolla that's been responsible for getting folks quite
dead, and as of lately pushing the rest of us into WW-III over fossil
fuel.

This being MOS info as to my way of summarily butt-kicking those
MI5/NSA~NASA's disinformation-R-us bastards, of our having to deal with
their evidence exclusions that continually sucks and blows intellectual
flatulence chunks at the same time. What more can possibly be said of
such folks having "the right stuff" (that being a serious butt-load of
LLPOF crapolla in their pants)?

There's certainly been a rather nasty stink-pot of a space-toilets
overload with the sorts of LLPOF trouble as to found within their River
City because, Apollo-13 may have been staged (our perpetrated cold-war
spooks were certainly capable of accomplishing that much) or perhaps
not but, either way the facts remain that in no freaking physics-101
way upon Earth or in hell upon or moon have folks in synthetic
moonsuits walked essentially butt-naked upon the moon, and that's a
Kodak Corporate recorded photographic moment worth of the truth and
nothing but the truth.

I'd like to impose another of my own sub-topic questions, as to asking
what has Venus to do with the moon?
Perhaps it's all because of all the liars upon liars that have been
telling us their buttology lies upon lies until those Apollo cows come
home, either that or until their fat lady sings.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/
Obviously the official archives of those original images as having been
obtained from orbit (robotically or manned) are of absolute
proof-positive that of those near white-out zones of cornmeal and
portland cement that were artificially illuminated via xenon lamps,
upon scenes that were no more dusty than for being accommodated here
upon Earth (nicely clumping none the less), nor the least bit raw solar
influx worthy of that environment having been photon reactive as to the
degree of secondary/recoil photons that should have been easily
photo/Kodak moment recorded is simply proof-positive that folks
protecting their NASA butts are either entirely dumb and dumber, as in
dumbfounded into being snookered or, it's that perhaps they're one and
the same rusemasters of this masterful ruse/sting of the century. Which
is it?

I especially like this next official looking page of those autographed
photos that are nearly of lunar white-out zones as having damn few if
any meteorite remains nor of secondary impact shards, then absolutely
zilch, nada as in zero worth of secondary/recoil photons of anything
the least bit near-blue, much less as having offered any hard-X-ray
dosage as per otherwise having been since established as a certified
hard-scientific matter of fact by terrestrial satellite instruments as
for being quite a nasty situation. http://moonpans.com/signed/

Forget all about the fact that there's still no viable fly-by-rocket
lander (US or Russian);
In no explainable physics way possible would the dark golden brown
(reddish tint of what titanium and iron dust that's got a good amount
of carbon blended in) as color and low albedo of the lunar surface have
been so extensively altered by way of folks being situated upon the
surface, as opposed to orbiting at 100+km off the deck. There are
simply too many direct comparisons of true color and of the raw
intensity or reflective albedo to work with. If anything, the
unfiltered EVA/moonsuit obtained Kodak moments as having been
supposedly obtained upon the surface should have recorded substantial
amounts of secondary/recoil photons, so much so that within shadows and
especially upon the items brought along for the ride should have
provided a noticeable degree of a near-blue cast of secondary
illumination, plus having obtained an overall green~bluish skew which
the film was certainly extremely sensitive to recording of such unless
having been extensively spectrum band-pass filtered in order to have
reasonably corrected for such. Even the initial raw Kodak moments as
obtain from their fully robotic Apollo-8 are certainly giving folks
with half a brain a clue as to the color/spectrum shift and surface
albedo considerations that existed. Later missions from orbit (manned
or robotic applied appropriate filters in order to obtain what's so
perfectly natural about the moon color and albedo that simply doesn't
shift simply because of being situated upon the surface as armed with
only a polarised filter that if anything should have made the lunar
surface darker, and certainly not the least bit lighter nor having
excluded remains of crisp meteorites along with the various spectrums
of natural color to boot.

Forget all about the stinking moon and even try really hard as to
forget all about those MI5/NSA~NASA individuals and spooks as having
"the right stuff" that so many seem to think are so freaking wonderful.
I might also suggest that folks should desmirk their silly faces the
way our resident warlord(GW Bush) did, and to wipe off their extremely
brown noses, then just per using the regular laws of physics and of the
available hard-science that's been available about Venus, similar to
what the likes of John Ackerman and F.W. Taylor had to work with and lo
and behold, gosh darn if there's not all sorts of perfectly nifty
things about Venus become possible, if not easily doable, and certainly
a whole lot more humanily obtainable as well as survivable than Mars.

My observationology about Venus is just exactly what it is, an honest
to God subjective interpretation of what looks far more likely as for
being artificial than not, thus either having been constructed by
Venusians (possibly prior to Venus getting itself so hot and nasty upon
arriving into our solar system) or of ETs as having been involved with
their taking of whatever away from Venus. Since these all-knowing
wizard like spooks and their friends can't even detect upon any of our
fairly robust and brightly reflective Apollo remains as situated upon a
nearly coal dark and nasty moon, that which should have been offering
an environment as having been covered in a cosmic morgue worth of crisp
meteorites and impact related shards of dark basalt, all of which
coated with that nasty composite dust of carbon, iron and the likes of
titanium up to meters deep in places, thus obviously these incest
cloned borgs and their MI5/NSA spook friends are not the least
qualified to challenge my interpretations of whatever's on Venus.

Other than damage-control, why otherwise are they being so closed
minded, so mindset upon self destruction/imploding or bust while
focused upon taking as much of hymanity as they can along for the ride
of our lives to hell?
~

Life on Venus, a Township, Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
"In war there are no rules" - Brad Guth

Because I'm such a nice sport, or perhaps as their worst possible
messenger from hell, I should add this closing rant:
Not that folks encharge of publishing and acting upon our past, present
and future would actually give the lower 99.9% (scum of the Earth) of
humanity a tinkers damn, nor share a gram worth of remorse; but,

There has obviously been damn good cloak and dagger reasons as to why
our MI5/NSA~NASA rusemasters haven't published squat worth of those
as-is natural color Kodak moments as having been obtained from orbit
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/), whereas such
images are certainly of sufficiently true to life color and of the
expected 11~12% albedo, as well as per their being obtained as near
enough to the moon, typically just a bit more than 100 km which
represents along with a 10X telephoto lens as accommodating 38,400 fold
mafgnification and, as having been applied onto essentially that of an
8192 X 8192 pixle per B&W frame and worth 4096 X 4096 upon color film
that was also worth at least 256 bit color/contrast depth that's easily
offering us a terrific look-see that's a good 100 fold better off than
the best of whatever team KECK has to work with as of today, and tht's
well above whatever it should have taken for quite nicely enlarging
upon their Apollo landing sites, especially since their CM had to have
pasted multiple times directly over each of those sites respectively
upon each and every mission, that which did not even require such as
for those being manned as for their accomplishing such images via
orbiting the moon, although manned orbits were certainly doable as
humanly survivable though perhaps at an elevated TBI factor that might
suggest having been close to their red-line of requiring banked bone
marrow upon their return, especially if they'd actually spent any
EVA/moonsuit butt-naked time upon the reactive surface.


text:
There's obviously damn good cloak and dagger reasons why our
MI5/NSA~NASA rusemasters haven't published squat worth of those as-is
natural color Kodak moments as obtained from Orbit
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/), whereas such
images are certainly of sufficiently true to life color and albedo, as
well as per their being obtained as near enough to the moon, typically
just a bit more than 100 km which represents along with a 10X telephoto
lens as accommodating 38,400 fold mafgnification and, as having been
applied on essentially that of an 8192 X 8192 pixle per B&W frame and
4096 X 4096 upon color film that was worth at least 256 bit
color/contrast depth that's easily offering us a look-see that's a good
100 fold better off than the best of whatever team KECK has to work
with as of today, and tht's well above whatever it should have taken
for quite nicely enlarging upon their Apollo landing sites, especially
since their CM had to have pasted multiple times directly over each of
those sites respectively upon each and every mission, that which did
not even require such as for those being manned as for their
accomplishing such images via orbiting the moon, although manned orbits
were certainly doable as humanly survivable though perhaps at an
elevated TBI factor that might suggest having been close to their
red-line of requiring banked bone marrow upon their return, especially
if they'd actually spent any EVA/moonsuit butt-naked time upon the
reactive surface.
~

Life on Venus, a Township, Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


text:
Matt Wiser, (MI5/NSA drivel included)

BTW; why are your diverting back into your cloak and dagger spookology
borg mode of all in one paragraph story telling?

The regular laws of physics seem to more than back up my
observationology, as well as to my subjectively interpreting upon what
looks somewhat if not entirely artificial about Venus. Equally my focus
upon our moon seems to beg for the truth and nothing but the truth
which obviously isn't possible until your fat lady sings and them
Apollo cows come home.

BTW No.2;
I never suggested that ETs specifically moved an entire planet into our
solar sustem. Though I'd suppose if two solar systems were sufficiently
nearby one another, having a good Oort to Oort contest of wits and will
to survive, and if ETs could have taken advantage of that opportunity
as to improve upon the odds of safely transferring a planet and perhaps
sharing a spare moon or two over to our less testy solar system, then
I'd suppose it's possible that ETs had something to contribute that's
part of whom we are.

It's true that Venus is geologically hot (thereby not entirely
greenhouse hot) and otherwise somewhat humanly nasty to boot, which has
absolutely nothing to do with others as locals or perhaps ETs making a
go of it because, it's simply not too hot and nasty for applied physics
to survive, even on behalf of assisting other forms of local life as
having evolved in order to have survived in spite of our being so
continually dumbfounded. Venus wasn't always that hot and nasty,
whereas the craters we see simply didn't transpire after having to get
all the way through that much of a surrounding atmospheric ocean as for
defending the surface from all but the platinum class of meteors, which
may have existed, although 8~9 g/cm3 is most likely the sort of density
which would hardly have made a noticeable dent, much less a significant
crater after getting itself through that thick soup of the day.

Temperature and pressure are each relative to your frame of existence.
naked humans, such as is the same analogy applies for us humans looking
at the life thriving within our deep oceans isn't exactly reassuring as
for that wet and nasty environment sustaining our form of life as under
such lethal amounts of water, that which somewhat sucks because we've
humans have got to deal with the incest mutation likes of GW Bush and
the fish do not.

Besides failing to contribute as to resolving any good number of
issues, instead you're the one that's continually going out of your
less than godly ways and means as per excluding viable evidence and,
otherwise skewing even your own conditional laws of physics in order to
suit your pagan mainstream mindset of dastardly motives and hidden
agendas. I have no such ulterior motives nor hidden agenda, though what
I do have is a serious minion gap. How about yourself?

Key words being "every model" should have given you a freaking clue
that we do NOT know all there is to know, but then you keep spouting
your intellectual buttology flatulence as though you do, or as though
those which your extremely brown nose favors know all there is to know.

I'll also agree that ETs may have been here and done just about
everything you and I can imagine, though I'll not exclude their
capability of influencing a given planet and/or that of a spare icy
proto-moon into being carefully diverted and/or gently maneuvered along
the way for the task of their good intentions of terraforming another
world. At least my super-computer that has all of three dyslexic
functioning brain cells to work with offers all sorts of viable models
that makes it entirely possible for contributions from the Sirius star
system to have merged (good or badly) along with our populations of
planets, moon and the billions of Kuiper/Oort zone items that have got
to be worth something to someone. Thus as for intentionally moving an
entire planet isn't exactly all that likely, although influencing it's
path as all of holy Oort zone hell breaks lose and the alignment of the
major items of gravity gets further involved seems perfectly doable.
I'm also not excluding pure happenstance of some holy crapshoot as
being a good part of the answer, although why would any ET worth their
salt ignore such an interesting opportunity as to share and share alike
as long as our two solar systems remained sufficiently near one
another?
~

In spite of an ongoing orchestrated status quo, it seems there's been
other life as coexisting upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian and China's LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as
interactive within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of many things Sirius, proto-moons, Venus, Earthly ETs & somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


text:
"Brad Guth" <[email]> wrote:
(Drivel snipped)
Son, I'll take NASA and other space agencies, JPL and their counterparts in
Europe and Russia, every university astronomy department, AND the entire Astronaut corps
(current and retired) any day over some delusion that Venus is some tropical paradise.
A spacesuit won't work-atmospheric pressure crushes space probes, let alone suits, then
you're baked by the heat (avg surface temp is 855 degrees F), and the CO2 atmpsphere
dry-cleans your insides. Chances of life: ZERO. Ask any astronomer or planetary scientist-
you'll get the same answer. And what's your fixation with Sirius anyway? Seen "V" too
many times? (The lizards in V came from Sirius in the TV show and miniseries) If you want to keep claiming the space program is a hoax, go ahead. The meek (like you) can have the
earth. The rest of us are going to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Count on it. Oh, and one
last word: PLONK.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


text:
Matt Wiser,
What has Venus to do with the moon?
Perhaps it's because of all the liars that have been telling us their
buttology lies upon lies until those Apollo cows come home.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/
Obviously the official archives of those original images as having been
obtained from orbit (robotically or manned) are of absolute
proof-positive that of those near white-out zones of cornmeal and
portland cement that were artificially illuminated via xenon lamps,
that were no more dusty than for being accommodated here upon Earth
(nicely clumping none the less), nor the least bit raw solar influx
worthy of having been photon reactive as to the degree of
secondary/recoil photons that should have been easily photo/Kodak
moment recorded is simply proof-positive that you're either entirely
dumb and dumber, as in dumbfounded into being snookered or, it's that
perhaps you're one of the rusemasters of this masterful ruse/sting of
the century. Which is it?

Forget all about the fact that there's still no viable fly-by-rocket
lander (US or Russian);
In no explainable physics way possible would the golden brown (reddish
tint of what titanium and iron dust that got a good amount of carbon
blended in) as color and low albedo of the lunar surface have been so
extensively altered by way of folks being situated upon the surface, as
opposed to orbiting at 100+km off the deck. There are simply too many
direct comparisons of color and of the raw intensity or reflective
albedo to work with. If anything, the unfiltered Kodak moments as
having been supposedly obtained upon the surface should had an enormous
amounts of secondary/recoil photons to deal with, so much so that
within shadows and especially upon the items brought along for the ride
should have provided a noticeable degree of a near-blue cast of
secondary illumination, plus having obtained an overall green~bluish
skew which the film was certainly extremely sensitive to recording of
such unless having been extensively spectrum band-pass filtered in
order to have reasonably corrected for such. Even the initial raw Kodak
moments as obtain from their fully robotic Apollo-8 are certainly
giving folks with half a brain a clue as to the color/spectrum shift
and surface albedo considerations that existed. Later missions from
orbit (manned or robotic applied appropriate filters in order to obtain
what's so perfectly natural about the moon color and albedo that simply
doesn't shift simply because of being situated upon the surface as
armed with only a polarised filter that if anything should have made
the lunar surface darker, and certainly not the least bit lighter nor
having excluded the various spectrums of natural color to boot.

Forget all about the stinking moon and even try really hard as to
forget all about those MI5/NSA~NASA individuals and spooks as having
"the right stuff" that you seem to think are so freaking wonderful.
Desmirk your silly face the way our resident warlord(GW Bush) did, and
wipe off your brown nose, then just per using the regular laws of
physics and of the available hard-science that's been available about
Venus, similar to what the likes of John Ackerman and F.W. Taylor had
to work with and lo and behold, all sorts of perfectly nifty things
about Venus become possible, if not easily doable, and certainly a
whole lot more humanily obtainable as well as survivable than Mars.

My observationology is just what it is, an honest to God subjective
interpretation of what looks far more likely as being artificial than
not, thus either having been constructed by Venusians (possibly prior
to Venus getting itself so hot and nasty upon arriving into our solar
system) or of ETs as having been involved with their taking of whatever
away from Venus. Since you and your all-knowing wizard like friends
can't even detect any of our fairly robust and brightly reflective
Apollo remains as situated upon a nearly coal dark and nasty moon, that
which should have been offering an environment as having been covered
in a cosmic morgue worth of crisp meteorites and impact related shards
of dark basalt, all of which coated with a nasty composite dust of
carbon, iron and the likes of titanium up to meters deep in places,
thus obviously you and your friends are not the least qualified to
challenge my interpretations of whatever's on Venus.

Why are you being so closed minded, so mindset upon self
destruction/imploding or bust?
~

Life on Venus, a Township, Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


author: Bill Smith

subject: Re: What is Earthquake Weather?

text:
ABrad94101 wrote:

Electromagnetic forces are carefully defined so that they can be
described
to others.  Electromagnetic forces do not generate ions.  Ions are also
carefully defined so they can be described by others.  Why do you bandy
about these terms without first discovering what they really are (to the
extent that information about them has been discovered!)
Electromagnetic
radiation is known as non-inonizning radiation below the frequency of
light.

This is a prime example of why bad information is so very bad.  People
who
have a genuine interest in understanding phenomina read in earnest bad
information and thus become malinformed.  A past example is the belief
people used to hold that the earth was flat.

There is quite a bit said here.

1. What we do is affected by unbalanced serotonin/dopamine.
2. Serotonin level (?) is disrupted due to electromagnetic forces.
3. Serotonin imbalance is implicated in migrates/headaches.
4. Anectodal reports of migranes are present prior to earthquakes.

According to this inference, then what we do must be affected prior
to earthquakes.  I don't know of any evidence to support this
supposition, but would be interested in learning more.

This infers there are no false myths or actions.  I wish this were true.
This infers that every assumption has an element of truth.  The world
is not flat, and there are many examples of situations which have
the appearance of fact while the truth lies elsewhere.  Magic tricks
make much use of our perceptions as a simple example.

When considering every myth, every action, one must include the
interpretation of an observer who may be another person.
The possibility of misinterpretation is unfortuately very real
when another person is involved.

Then, again, if hundreds of years has yielded no results, then there is
equally the possibility that the evidence points to a distractor.

Science is one (and only one) method of communicating information and
experience.  Science is predicated upon setting up conditions so that
if one person can experience a phenomina, then any other interested
person can also experience the phenomina.  If any other person cannot
verify a phenomina, then either there is something wrong with the
prescribed conditions or there is something wrong with the information
communicated.  Science is simply one way to communicate.

"Science" isn't anything but a collection of information.  It is not a
conspiracy, organization, or anything that can't be located in the
public
domain.  Anyone can perform a scientific experiment, propose a theory,
and try to get others interested in duplicating and verifying the
information.  But if it can't be verified, then others will likely
return this information, or if the theory is in conflict with
pre-established information, then it may be difficult to get others
to find any interest.  Further, if the theory isn't described well
enough to be duplicated or tested elsewhere, then there isn't any
real communication, and no real information has been conveyed.

Ann, I hope you can develop your conjecture into something we can all
enjoy and understand.


subject: Re: What is Earthquake Weather?

text:
Bill Smith <[email]>wrote:

ABrad94101 wrote:

described to others.
about these terms?

Discussing what I read and putting it in a ng is not bandying. Your use of
that term in this context is patronizing, uncalled for and rude. It is
perfectly acceptabe for you to respond with  a correction based on your
interpretation of the knowledge base, but you don't have to "bandy' your
words about either.

Because there is no time in most of our lives to fully reference very
statement. I didn't see any references from you  - how do I know these are
"facts" if you don't provide proof?

people used to hold that the earth was flat.

No. this is NOT a prime ex - especially since I stated clearly that I had
no proof. You need to pick your examples better. Even rather intellectually
challenged people could re-read my statement and get the gist. I hardly
think anyone is going to consider what I wrote as universal as
the flat earth story.

reports of migraines prior to eq's.

I can get the researchers name. I also have a friend who has several years
of NIH affiliated work done on neurotransmitters. The literature on
neurobalancing is tremendous. Glad you're interested.

No. I may have IMPLIED that - you made the inference.
Myths are myths - by definition they are neutral on the "truth" scale.
LOL - it does no such thing! I didn't even imply that!

You must have more time than I.

how do you know? who tested?
Ann