Brad Guth wrote:
"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:0xrEg.7157$Mz3.5251@fed1read07

Stop inventing terminology. There's nothing "infomercial" or
"conditional" about why expecting anyone to try to fly anything
resembling a real prototype of the Lunar Lander in Earth's g-field
is a priori dumb. The best response you've come up with is insults.
Got any "science" to back up your expectation that a prototype
_could_ fly in Earth's g-field? Hello, does the phrase "not enough
thrust" mean anything to you?

Get rid of all the unessential mass,

There _was_ no "unessential" mass. It had to be lifted all the way
from Earth and that costs ****loads of fuel for every ounce, remember?

having only one operator and
perhaps a 10th the fuel load, and lo and behold you're at something less
than 1/6th the mass.

Assuming that's actually true (and I'd like you to go through the LLM
design and show exactly what should be left out resulting in 1/6th the
original mass and still be flyable), then you have something that will
not fly the same as the fully-configured lander. No point in practicing
on it, which is what the LLTV/LLRVs were for.

Or, no onboard pilot at all, just a wired and/or
radio remote controlled fly-by-rocket prototype lander.

Which removes the intimacy of practicing on the actual hardware.
Remember that the attitude control system's feedback loop went through
the pilot.

Back the **** off there bub, I'm an anarchist. Dubya is exactly as
trustworthy as all other politicians that ever lived, which is to say
not at all.

So why do your actions and those of so many other Usenet lords and
wizards (including those Democrat Jews) remain in full support of that
absolute *******?

I call you on your bull**** and you accuse me of supporting The Man.
Which bunch of *******s are you supporting by distracting us from them
with your bull****?

: However that's almost completely irrelevant; you've been claiming
: that NASA itself has been the source of a ridiculously, in fact
: impossibly unwieldy conspiracy involving thousands of government
: employees _and_ contractors _and_ their employees _and_ their
: consultants _and_ all their families. Face it, we're talking millions
: of people allegedly keeping this secret of yours.

How many loyal/insider follers and brown-nosed minions as official
butt-wipes did the likes of Hitler have to have?

Thousands, many of which yelled as loud as they could at Nuremburg in
hopes of not being hanged for ex post facto whistleblowing. Besides,
that's not a good comparison, because:

How many rusemaster insiders did our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)
require?

The Nazis had nothing to gain and everything to lose by
whistleblowing _before_ Nuremburg. The opposite is true ever since the
Apollo program began; prove it was a fake with inside data and get
instant wealth and fame.

: Now granted that the administrations and legislations that decide
: NASA funding are party-line motivated and could be expected to pass
down
: unpublished agendas for the NASA administration to follow on pain of
: being excluded from any other "cushy" government jobs, especially as
: many of them are party-dependent political appointees, but that
: completely disregards the rank and file NASA employees who are not
: required to have any particular party loyalty and could get a lot of
: mileage out of breaking your alleged NASA Omerta.

I never once said the vast majority of our NASA collective wasn't
perfectly nice and honest. Isn't that a rather important function of
any good perpetrated cold-war game plan?

Doesn't matter; if you're right the evidence has been right in front
of them every day from day one, and NOBODY took advantage of it?

And how about all those contractors' employees, consultants, and
all their families? What do you claim was the mechanism used to keep all
of them silent?

When did I ever mention that we weren't doing everything we could in
order to walk on that physically dark, salty and otherwise nasty moon of
ours?

Yet you claim the known hardware wasn't up to the task even while you
display your total lack of familiarity with it.

Why don't you tell us what kind of hardware _is_ necessary to get the
job done? Please avoid any "infomercial, conditional science".

And where do you get this "salty moon" crap? Why is there no
reflectance spectroscopic data revealing salt on Luna? You ever stop to
think what any proportion of salt in the regolith would do to Luna's albedo?

Then we have stuff like the Australian-national-operated relay
stations that passed non-delayed video from Luna to JPL; what kept the
Aussies silent?

Double Extra Duh! I'm sorry but, you've got to be kidding, as in
"chapel bell" S-band transponder kidding as all get out. That's nothing
but hocus-pocus-101, especially if our Apollo missions were in fact
headed to/from LL-1, as that much I could buy into.

No, I'm dead serious. They had no loyalty to any US agency or
individuals, and have found plenty of motivation to embarass the US
since then. You'd think at least one of them would take advantage.

Sorry, there's just no way to keep millions of mouths shut when,
according to you, any one of them, _for the last forty frigging years_
could have snuck out and presented irrefutable evidence supporting your
claims for a multimillion dollar book/movie/etc. deal and more than
adequate publicity to prevent assassination. Hence, there's no secret to
keep.

Jews still insist they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
getting and/or having allowed Jesus Christ (clearly one of their own
kind) for having gotten put on that stick,

Bull****. Cite or retract.

and the Pope really doesn't want to discuss those nice Cathars.

Popes are warlords in dresses, **** 'em all. Don't get me started.

How about those US Mexican wars,

They lost, we won. So what? **** the Mexican Permanent Kleptocratic
government (the direct descendant of the Catholic Spanish government of
Conquistador days) too.

or that of our 7 failed efforts at TAKING Cuba by force?

I only know of five, all of which AFAICT were deliberately designed
to fail spectacularly. That they were kept from being spectacles merely
indicates interagency infighting in DC. What else is new?

Prior to 911, How many personal letters or that of whatever other
serious communications from Usama bin Laden did our resident LLPOF(GW
Bush) and of those other pricks before his personally corrupt
administration (like his own father), manage to disregard?

Prolly as many as Billary Clinton did. So what?

BTW I'd like somebody to explain why a law prohibiting nice, neat,
low-risk assassinations of foreign leaders is a good idea.


Mark L. Fergerson