COMEDY CENTRAL -- Man First Steps on the Moon -- NASA Hoax?????

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:01:42 GMT, Joe Bergeron
wrote:

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

On the other hand, If we went to the moon without any real computers
in 1969, Why is it so hard to do now with 37 years of further
technology and scientific advances behind us?
It would be a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it.


I'm not convinced either way as to whether we actually went to the
moon or not, but the government has an exceptionally poor record of
issuing the truth in their news releases.
They hold onto the truth and almost never mention it.

Do you think all we need is fast computers to make it easy to go to the
moon?

I think we probably can't do it even With fast computers.
There is too much problematic radiation from the sun.

Do you think materials have gotten that much lighter in that time?

Absolutely, Might I mention Kevlar for instance? The best they could
do in the sixties was aluminum and plastic though they had developed
the mighty transistor.

Have rocket propellants gotten any more energetic?

No but that point is on my side, Blasting ourselves all the way to the
moon it is so hard to do that it was probably faked.
There is the 'new" development of magnetically powered rail guns that
might well fire rockets without the explosion and with instant
re-charging for another launch. On board fuel wouldn't be needed until
Earth's gravity had been left behind, making the fuel part of the
problem much less problematic.

It has always seem especially ignorant that we find ourselves trying
to ---Blow Ourselves Off Of The Planet! --- with a rockets
explosive energy. It is simply not the best way.

Magnetic force is cheap when set up in a linear array of
electromagnetic rings, fired sequentially to launch a spacecraft,
There is no explosion that could get out of control.

'Rail guns' are the way to go.

Has engineering and testing advanced spacecraft become a low-cost enterprise?
Yes.
Computers are great at that, and they do make engineering and testing
a relatively low cost enterprise.

Our spacecraft are still made of Earthly materials and are still
powered by rockets. They're still crewed by fragile human beings. Those
37 years of advancements haven't amounted to much when it comes to
space transportation, any more than they've transformed cars or
airliners into anything better than fancier versions of what we had in
the 60s. It would be hugely expensive merely to duplicate the Apollo
hardware.

It would be hugely expensive and dumb as hell to duplicate 38 year old
technology.

I saw their banks of greenish rack mount equipment, plenty of
transistors but almost no memory, no such thing as a hard drive ( all
ancient tape based ) and very few monitors

The tube based computers of the mid sixties ( they had to be made at
least a couple of years before launch) were humongous, had to be
refrigerated to keep the vacuum tubes cool, and were at best, weak.

If your friend developed transistor based computers for the Apollo
mission that's great but how good could they have been without a
modern operating system?
I remember my old "trash 80" computer ten years later having all of
the computing power of a modern wrist watch.

All of the possible computing power they could muster in the early to
mid sixties would be less than what's found in a cheap hand held
electronic game today, I'd hate to try to get to the moon and back
with that.

NASA hopes to do something more ambitious than that. That
will be an extremely expensive enterprise, if it ever gets done at all.

Right If it Ever gets done at all.

In another of your replies, you mention the size of the moon set,
implying that it was too small.
If the government wanted to fake a moon landing, the size of the set
would not be much of an obstacle.

There is thought the problem you raise of Russia going along with the
hoax.That was your best point.
Exactly how would they know what had happened? Spy satellites? A
russian Hubble? Spies at the launch site? Someone on the moon to
report back?

Nah.
They had to get whatever they knew about it mostly second hand from us
and we lie.

Maybe we went to the moon in 1969 but it's more likely that we did
not.
The government lies are piled high and their credibility is very weak.
If they say something fantastic, consider it propaganda and you won't
often go wrong .

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

There is thought the problem you raise of Russia going along with the
hoax.That was your best point.
Exactly how would they know what had happened? Spy satellites? A
russian Hubble? Spies at the launch site? Someone on the moon to
report back?

Nah.
They had to get whatever they knew about it mostly second hand from us
and we lie.

Nonsense. They had radars capable of tracking the spacecraft. As for
the signals, they were recieved with huge high-gain radio telescopes
stationed all over the world. The Russians had such things too. Aim
them at the Moon and you'd get the signals. Aim them aywhere else and
you didn't.

Your arguments reveal massive, fundamental ignorance of the issues of
space flight, physics in general, and the ability of the government to
conduct gigantic frauds involving hundreds of thousands of people who
were either a colossal class of flawless liars or were a bunch of
incredible fools, spending years working on projects which made perfect
sense to them and their engineering knowledge, but which according to
you was all nonsense that couldn't possibly have worked. Too hard to
"blast ourselves all the way to to the moon?" Why don't you take the
known data on engine efficiency, vehicle mass, propellant engergy, and
so forth, perform the calculations, and then let us all know whether it
would have worked or just fallen into the sea? Furrowing your brow and
supposing it's all just too hard doesn't cut it.

Your views are a massive insult to the people weho devoted a large part
of their lives to accomplishing this mission.

--
Joe Bergeron

www.joebergeron.com

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

I saw their banks of greenish rack mount equipment, plenty of
transistors but almost no memory, no such thing as a hard drive ( all
ancient tape based ) and very few monitors

The tube based computers of the mid sixties ( they had to be made at
least a couple of years before launch) were humongous, had to be
refrigerated to keep the vacuum tubes cool, and were at best, weak.

If your friend developed transistor based computers for the Apollo
mission that's great but how good could they have been without a
modern operating system?
I remember my old "trash 80" computer ten years later having all of
the computing power of a modern wrist watch.

What a load of crap. Modern operating system? They weren't trying to
send e-mails and surf the Web. They had to make simple navigational
calculations and monitor the performance of onboard systems. Do you
believe we had nuclear submarines and military jets in the 60s? They
had similar functions and computers of their own. Do you suppose the
mysteries of the moon's motions were such that we couldn't calculate
them in the 60s? And of course the Apollo computers weren't
"tube-based", as I'm sure you could discover with a few minutes of
research. But you prefer to try to shoot down the whole endeavor with a
your idle, uninformed speculations.

Your "Trash 80" computer would have been capable of calculating a Lunar
trajectory if you had known what to do with it.

--
Joe Bergeron

www.joebergeron.com

On 2006-07-03 01:00:49 -0700, Seethis Pass said:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:01:42 GMT, Joe Bergeron
wrote:

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

On the other hand, If we went to the moon without any real computers
in 1969, Why is it so hard to do now with 37 years of further
technology and scientific advances behind us?
It would be a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it.


I'm not convinced either way as to whether we actually went to the
moon or not, but the government has an exceptionally poor record of
issuing the truth in their news releases.
They hold onto the truth and almost never mention it.

Do you think all we need is fast computers to make it easy to go to the
moon?

I think we probably can't do it even With fast computers.
There is too much problematic radiation from the sun.

Do you think materials have gotten that much lighter in that time?

Absolutely, Might I mention Kevlar for instance? The best they could
do in the sixties was aluminum and plastic though they had developed
the mighty transistor.

Have rocket propellants gotten any more energetic?

No but that point is on my side, Blasting ourselves all the way to the
moon it is so hard to do that it was probably faked. There is the 'new"
development of magnetically powered rail guns that
might well fire rockets without the explosion and with instant
re-charging for another launch. On board fuel wouldn't be needed until
Earth's gravity had been left behind, making the fuel part of the
problem much less problematic.

It has always seem especially ignorant that we find ourselves trying
to ---Blow Ourselves Off Of The Planet! --- with a rockets
explosive energy. It is simply not the best way.

Magnetic force is cheap when set up in a linear array of
electromagnetic rings, fired sequentially to launch a spacecraft, There
is no explosion that could get out of control.

'Rail guns' are the way to go.

Has engineering and testing advanced spacecraft become a low-cost enterprise?
Yes.
Computers are great at that, and they do make engineering and testing
a relatively low cost enterprise.

Our spacecraft are still made of Earthly materials and are still
powered by rockets. They're still crewed by fragile human beings. Those
37 years of advancements haven't amounted to much when it comes to
space transportation, any more than they've transformed cars or
airliners into anything better than fancier versions of what we had in
the 60s. It would be hugely expensive merely to duplicate the Apollo
hardware.

It would be hugely expensive and dumb as hell to duplicate 38 year old
technology.

I saw their banks of greenish rack mount equipment, plenty of
transistors but almost no memory, no such thing as a hard drive ( all
ancient tape based ) and very few monitors
The tube based computers of the mid sixties ( they had to be made at
least a couple of years before launch) were humongous, had to be
refrigerated to keep the vacuum tubes cool, and were at best, weak.

If your friend developed transistor based computers for the Apollo
mission that's great but how good could they have been without a
modern operating system?
I remember my old "trash 80" computer ten years later having all of
the computing power of a modern wrist watch.

All of the possible computing power they could muster in the early to
mid sixties would be less than what's found in a cheap hand held
electronic game today, I'd hate to try to get to the moon and back
with that.

NASA hopes to do something more ambitious than that. That
will be an extremely expensive enterprise, if it ever gets done at all.

Right If it Ever gets done at all.

In another of your replies, you mention the size of the moon set,
implying that it was too small.
If the government wanted to fake a moon landing, the size of the set
would not be much of an obstacle.

There is thought the problem you raise of Russia going along with the
hoax.That was your best point.
Exactly how would they know what had happened? Spy satellites? A
russian Hubble? Spies at the launch site? Someone on the moon to
report back?

Nah.
They had to get whatever they knew about it mostly second hand from us
and we lie.

Maybe we went to the moon in 1969 but it's more likely that we did
not.
The government lies are piled high and their credibility is very weak.
If they say something fantastic, consider it propaganda and you won't
often go wrong .

CHRIST STP, I thought you were smarter then this...

You don't need an OS to do what their computers did. Just memory... The
TTL logic circuits could do what was needed for calculating the math.
I'm assuming the data needed was in the form of a solid state device. I
don't know but I doubt any on-board tape was used...

We went to the moon. Plain and simple. The set you mention was just
that. A set to simulate a landing site on the ground to test equipment
and technique. NASA left nothing to chance. They still don't.
Everything is written down and in triplicate. It's a giant bureaucracy
with a CYA tool set. There is NO WAY a hoax could survive. tens of
thousands worked on Apollo, damn it.

Give them the respect they deserve.

also... Our disposable rocket set is limited. Nobody is going to
re-build a Saturn V. They're probably going to use two rockets on the
return mission. Lander and command module meet up in orbit with booster
mounted on the lander rocket most likely, but I don't know.

Moon return isn't Apollo and I'm sure there are many redesigns that
need to be made. Personally I think the manned mission is foolish but
if they Internationalize it maybe it would be a cool thing. It would go
back to being a political rather then scientific mission for its main
reasoning for it.



--
The PREMIER of "An Evening With a Rightard" Part one!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp4o_eHOKF8

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:51:20 GMT, The PretZel
wrote:

On 2006-07-03 01:00:49 -0700, Seethis Pass said:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:01:42 GMT, Joe Bergeron
wrote:

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

On the other hand, If we went to the moon without any real computers
in 1969, Why is it so hard to do now with 37 years of further
technology and scientific advances behind us?
It would be a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it.


I'm not convinced either way as to whether we actually went to the
moon or not, but the government has an exceptionally poor record of
issuing the truth in their news releases.
They hold onto the truth and almost never mention it.

Do you think all we need is fast computers to make it easy to go to the
moon?

I think we probably can't do it even With fast computers.
There is too much problematic radiation from the sun.

Do you think materials have gotten that much lighter in that time?

Absolutely, Might I mention Kevlar for instance? The best they could
do in the sixties was aluminum and plastic though they had developed
the mighty transistor.

Have rocket propellants gotten any more energetic?

No but that point is on my side, Blasting ourselves all the way to the
moon it is so hard to do that it was probably faked. There is the 'new"
development of magnetically powered rail guns that
might well fire rockets without the explosion and with instant
re-charging for another launch. On board fuel wouldn't be needed until
Earth's gravity had been left behind, making the fuel part of the
problem much less problematic.

It has always seem especially ignorant that we find ourselves trying
to ---Blow Ourselves Off Of The Planet! --- with a rockets
explosive energy. It is simply not the best way.

Magnetic force is cheap when set up in a linear array of
electromagnetic rings, fired sequentially to launch a spacecraft, There
is no explosion that could get out of control.

'Rail guns' are the way to go.

Has engineering and testing advanced spacecraft become a low-cost enterprise?
Yes.
Computers are great at that, and they do make engineering and testing
a relatively low cost enterprise.

Our spacecraft are still made of Earthly materials and are still
powered by rockets. They're still crewed by fragile human beings. Those
37 years of advancements haven't amounted to much when it comes to
space transportation, any more than they've transformed cars or
airliners into anything better than fancier versions of what we had in
the 60s. It would be hugely expensive merely to duplicate the Apollo
hardware.

It would be hugely expensive and dumb as hell to duplicate 38 year old
technology.

I saw their banks of greenish rack mount equipment, plenty of
transistors but almost no memory, no such thing as a hard drive ( all
ancient tape based ) and very few monitors
The tube based computers of the mid sixties ( they had to be made at
least a couple of years before launch) were humongous, had to be
refrigerated to keep the vacuum tubes cool, and were at best, weak.

If your friend developed transistor based computers for the Apollo
mission that's great but how good could they have been without a
modern operating system?
I remember my old "trash 80" computer ten years later having all of
the computing power of a modern wrist watch.

All of the possible computing power they could muster in the early to
mid sixties would be less than what's found in a cheap hand held
electronic game today, I'd hate to try to get to the moon and back
with that.

NASA hopes to do something more ambitious than that. That
will be an extremely expensive enterprise, if it ever gets done at all.

Right If it Ever gets done at all.

In another of your replies, you mention the size of the moon set,
implying that it was too small.
If the government wanted to fake a moon landing, the size of the set
would not be much of an obstacle.

There is thought the problem you raise of Russia going along with the
hoax.That was your best point.
Exactly how would they know what had happened? Spy satellites? A
russian Hubble? Spies at the launch site? Someone on the moon to
report back?

Nah.
They had to get whatever they knew about it mostly second hand from us
and we lie.

Maybe we went to the moon in 1969 but it's more likely that we did
not.
The government lies are piled high and their credibility is very weak.
If they say something fantastic, consider it propaganda and you won't
often go wrong .

CHRIST STP, I thought you were smarter then this...


You don't need an OS to do what their computers did. Just memory...
Fine.

TTL logic circuits could do what was needed for calculating the math.
I'm assuming the data needed was in the form of a solid state device. I
don't know but I doubt any on-board tape was used...

Of course not, to bulky and un-necessary.

We went to the moon. Plain and simple.

The set you mention was just that. A set to simulate a landing site on the ground to test equipment
and technique. NASA left nothing to chance. They still don't.
Everything is written down and in triplicate. It's a giant bureaucracy
with a CYA tool set. There is NO WAY a hoax could survive. tens of
thousands worked on Apollo, damn it.

No one knows what happened once the launches were out of sight from
the ground. We have only the governments say and that is tainted to
the limit.

Give them the respect they deserve.

I did.

also... Our disposable rocket set is limited. Nobody is going to
re-build a Saturn V. They're probably going to use two rockets on the
return mission. Lander and command module meet up in orbit with booster
mounted on the lander rocket most likely, but I don't know.

Moon return isn't Apollo and I'm sure there are many redesigns that
need to be made. Personally I think the manned mission is foolish but
if they Internationalize it maybe it would be a cool thing. It would go
back to being a political rather then scientific mission for its main
reasoning for it.

Seethis Pass wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:01:42 GMT, Joe Bergeron
wrote:

In article , Seethis Pass
wrote:

On the other hand, If we went to the moon without any real computers
in 1969, Why is it so hard to do now with 37 years of further
technology and scientific advances behind us?
It would be a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it.


I'm not convinced either way as to whether we actually went to the
moon or not, but the government has an exceptionally poor record of
issuing the truth in their news releases.
They hold onto the truth and almost never mention it.

Do you think all we need is fast computers to make it easy to go to the
moon?

I think we probably can't do it even With fast computers.
There is too much problematic radiation from the sun.

Do you think materials have gotten that much lighter in that time?

Absolutely, Might I mention Kevlar for instance? The best they could
do in the sixties was aluminum and plastic though they had developed
the mighty transistor.

Have rocket propellants gotten any more energetic?

No but that point is on my side, Blasting ourselves all the way to the
moon it is so hard to do that it was probably faked.
There is the 'new" development of magnetically powered rail guns that
might well fire rockets without the explosion and with instant
re-charging for another launch. On board fuel wouldn't be needed until
Earth's gravity had been left behind, making the fuel part of the
problem much less problematic.

It has always seem especially ignorant that we find ourselves trying
to ---Blow Ourselves Off Of The Planet! --- with a rockets
explosive energy. It is simply not the best way.

Magnetic force is cheap when set up in a linear array of
electromagnetic rings, fired sequentially to launch a spacecraft,
There is no explosion that could get out of control.

'Rail guns' are the way to go.

Has engineering and testing advanced spacecraft become a low-cost enterprise?
Yes.
Computers are great at that, and they do make engineering and testing
a relatively low cost enterprise.

Our spacecraft are still made of Earthly materials and are still
powered by rockets. They're still crewed by fragile human beings. Those
37 years of advancements haven't amounted to much when it comes to
space transportation, any more than they've transformed cars or
airliners into anything better than fancier versions of what we had in
the 60s. It would be hugely expensive merely to duplicate the Apollo
hardware.

It would be hugely expensive and dumb as hell to duplicate 38 year old
technology.

I saw their banks of greenish rack mount equipment, plenty of
transistors but almost no memory, no such thing as a hard drive ( all
ancient tape based ) and very few monitors

The tube based computers of the mid sixties ( they had to be made at
least a couple of years before launch) were humongous, had to be
refrigerated to keep the vacuum tubes cool, and were at best, weak.

If your friend developed transistor based computers for the Apollo
mission that's great but how good could they have been without a
modern operating system?
I remember my old "trash 80" computer ten years later having all of
the computing power of a modern wrist watch.

All of the possible computing power they could muster in the early to
mid sixties would be less than what's found in a cheap hand held
electronic game today, I'd hate to try to get to the moon and back
with that.

NASA hopes to do something more ambitious than that. That
will be an extremely expensive enterprise, if it ever gets done at all.

Right If it Ever gets done at all.

In another of your replies, you mention the size of the moon set,
implying that it was too small.
If the government wanted to fake a moon landing, the size of the set
would not be much of an obstacle.

There is thought the problem you raise of Russia going along with the
hoax.That was your best point.
Exactly how would they know what had happened? Spy satellites? A
russian Hubble? Spies at the launch site? Someone on the moon to
report back?

Nah.
They had to get whatever they knew about it mostly second hand from us
and we lie.

Maybe we went to the moon in 1969 but it's more likely that we did
not.
The government lies are piled high and their credibility is very weak.
If they say something fantastic, consider it propaganda and you won't
often go wrong.

Our naked moon is existing much like a solid form of a Van Allen belt,
and lo and behold it's actually offering itself as more of being gamma
and hard-X-ray hot than the worse of any zone within our Van Allen
badlands that's offering upon average 23 rads/hr while being shielded
by 2 g/cm2 (5/16" of 5086 aluminum)...

In addition to all of that bad news, I, Kodak and the regular laws of
physics, plus other hard-science that's easily replicated, can prove
those NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak moments simply could not have transpired
upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours.

BTW; The USSR was very much in on it, and for the same money and power
grubbing reasons as they were in on the perpetrated cold-war. Now
China is going to kick both of our sorry butts.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:

Our naked moon is existing much like a solid form of a Van Allen belt,

Wrong.

and lo and behold it's actually offering itself as more of being gamma
and hard-X-ray hot than the worse of any zone within our Van Allen
badlands

Wrong.

that's offering upon average 23 rads/hr while being shielded
by 2 g/cm2 (5/16" of 5086 aluminum)...

Wrong.

In addition to all of that bad news, I, Kodak and the regular laws of
physics,

Liar.

plus other hard-science that's easily replicated, can prove
those NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak moments simply could not have transpired
upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours.

Wrong.

BTW; The USSR was very much in on it, and for the same money and power
grubbing reasons as they were in on the perpetrated cold-war. Now
China is going to kick both of our sorry butts.

Are you now claiming to be a usenet psychic astrologer, Brad?

-
Brad Guth

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development

hARDick, did you recieve new teachings... you sound just like Roger
from the other group...


Art Deco wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Our naked moon is existing much like a solid form of a Van Allen belt,

Wrong.

and lo and behold it's actually offering itself as more of being gamma
and hard-X-ray hot than the worse of any zone within our Van Allen
badlands

Wrong.

that's offering upon average 23 rads/hr while being shielded
by 2 g/cm2 (5/16" of 5086 aluminum)...

Wrong.

In addition to all of that bad news, I, Kodak and the regular laws of
physics,

Liar.

plus other hard-science that's easily replicated, can prove
those NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak moments simply could not have transpired
upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours.

Wrong.

BTW; The USSR was very much in on it, and for the same money and power
grubbing reasons as they were in on the perpetrated cold-war. Now
China is going to kick both of our sorry butts.

Are you now claiming to be a usenet psychic astrologer, Brad?

-
Brad Guth

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development

Warhol wrote:

hARDick, did you recieve new teachings... you sound just like Roger
from the other group...

You're a kook and an idiot, warslime.


Art Deco wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Our naked moon is existing much like a solid form of a Van Allen belt,

Wrong.

and lo and behold it's actually offering itself as more of being gamma
and hard-X-ray hot than the worse of any zone within our Van Allen
badlands

Wrong.

that's offering upon average 23 rads/hr while being shielded
by 2 g/cm2 (5/16" of 5086 aluminum)...

Wrong.

In addition to all of that bad news, I, Kodak and the regular laws of
physics,

Liar.

plus other hard-science that's easily replicated, can prove
those NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak moments simply could not have transpired
upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours.

Wrong.

BTW; The USSR was very much in on it, and for the same money and power
grubbing reasons as they were in on the perpetrated cold-war. Now
China is going to kick both of our sorry butts.

Are you now claiming to be a usenet psychic astrologer, Brad?

-
Brad Guth

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development


--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development