Got that whatever BC Moon ?

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:772239bfe8a9b80496be6401940753b1.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

In spite of most others with all of their faith based ulterior motives
and hidden agendas, I care about sharing the plain old truth and nothing
but the truth. Such as sharing in what our somewhat recently obtained
moon has to offer our rather badly failing environment. How about
yourself?

Our "Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus", is no lie, and in
spite of all of their orchestrated mainstream status quo flak and
hypology of their infomercial spewing damage control, it seems there's
renewable energy to burn (sort of speak) while on Venus. To say
"Colonization Of The Stars And Contact With Aliens: The Last False Hope
Of The Secularists" isn't hardly saying squat when there has been
perfectly good evidence and the rational code of physics that's on
behalf of ETs having coexisted upon Venus.

We're past the point of no return when it comes down to smelling them
roses. There may not be Venusian roses, but there's likely damn near
anything else you can imagine. Any such newish planetology as offered
by the likes of Venus has got to be more than a wee bit interesting, and
valuable.

And yet once again and again, I see that we have the usual ongoing
PC/MAC trashing game of Usenet spooks, moles and wise old Jewish fart
MIB wizards deploying their very best browser interactive
spermware/****ware, as obviously the tactical norm of their Old
Testament formulated mainstream status quo ****ology of topic/author
stalking, bashings and banishments. Therefore, we'll just have to keep
updating and reposting our truth worthy topics until a few of them nifty
NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows of their's come home.

It's getting a little bit like The Wizard of Oz on steroids;
Sorry folks, whereas it seems that we haven't quite gotten around to
having walked on our extremely big old and otherwise nearby moon that's
so physically massive in ratio to Earth, as well as being so physically
dark and nasty (hardly Apollo passive guano island like and xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated at that), but so what's the difference if one more
silly lie begets another and another?

Our moon may have to remain as a mostly robotic wonderland, as otherwise
merely that of a nasty realm of local and secondary/recoil energy that's
accessible via a safe looking glass from the moon's L1, whereas
otherwise it's somewhat physically DNA/RNA taboo. Although, Venus isn't
off limits unless you're a certified moron, and VL2 is certainly more
than space station doable as is. Venus shouldn't ever require any
terraforming on our behalf, just damn good CO2--CO/O2 air conditioning
and structural composite basalt as insulation that's worth R-1024/m.

If not in person, I hope to hell we don't summarily screw up Venus via
robotics to the extent that we've accomplished so much dastardly
commercial forms of collateral damage by way of having pillaged, trashed
and the ongoing energy raping of mother Earth without so much as a speck
of remorse.

I obviously care most about Venus, whereas our moon seriously sucks much
worse than Mars. The planet Venus is otherwise more than obviously
where all the serious action of other intelligent life is at, especially
since Pluto got the royal shaft, as seemingly Ceres is getting a similar
official NASA fid, and Mercury is simply too off-world as well as past
the point of return (similar to Mars being so much older than Earth and
about as near planetology death as you're going to get).

At least VL2 is more than cool enough, as to being Russian POOF/(space
depot) doable, and every 19 months it gets to within 100 fold the
distance of our moon. If that isn't the best ever Russian/POOF space
station outpost good news, or what, then nothing is.

While rather quickly roasting our wieners on Venus (a few seconds ott to
do the trick), the only question is how much energy do you folks suppose
a good air conditioning system as part of your CO2--CO/O2 process is
going to demand?

Remember, at that sort of environment pressure you'll not require more
than a 1% O2 factor, and the remainder should be of H2. Thus having 99%
H2 and 1% O2 at 96 Bar is about all the atmospheric displacement of that
otherwise crystal clear and dry CO2 that's otherwise relatively harmless
that you'll ever need. Also remember that you'll be continually
fighting off the lesser gravity of 90.5%, and otherwise having all of
that pesky 64+ kg/m3 of buoyancy to fend off. Of course, if you only
had half a village idiot brain, as such you might as well utilize such
factors as to your benefit.

Say if this habitat were an application per 1000 m3/(interior 10 x 20 x
5 meter abode), and if that Venusian habitat volume were insulated at
R-1024/m2; what's the thermal energy budget of keeping your cache of
beer and vodka icy cold?

That's roughly a surface/foundation area of 264 m2, a portion of what
should be roughly a 828 m2 exterior that's in part exposed to the hotter
than hell surface that's getting rid of 20 J/m2, and otherwise fending
off the somewhat toasty atmosphere that's always cooler than the
geothermally forced surface. Therefore, without question it's nearly
always hot outside and there's just the structural composite basalt
insulated barrier of R-1024/m that's giving way to an inward flux of
thermal conduction that's worthy of having 0.00097656/m2 (0.0977% which
I believe is roughly less than 0.45 K/m2/hr) of having to deal with
fending off that bone dry heat, which seems by all manner of known
physics as being rather manageable, if not a touch overkill.

BTW; Venus is of a newish planetology which has all the raw elements
and the energy for locally processing whatever into the required items
of surviving Venus (except for having enough ice cold beer and pizza).
All that's required is the small factor of applied intelligence or
simply deductive common sense should otherwise more than do the trick.

Is there something other that's specific about accomplishing Venus that
you'd like to review or constructively contribute, such as on behalf of
those nifty composite rigid airships?

How about we review on behalf of defending yourself from those
exoskeletal Cathars that can't seem to take no for an answer? (you're
not alone, you know)

Would you folks like to talk about the Russian VL2 POOF platform/depot,
or how about laser interplanetary communications (much the same as
NASA's deep space network), for making those less spendy local
interplanetary calls that shouldn't take hardly any energy to accomplish
with a quantum binary packet mode of those 425 nm FM/(+/-25 nm) photons
or perhaps something of UV/a doing their extremely efficient thing.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:0a92ae811c593205afbe50abe318017c.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

As I've said this one before; If we're ever going to walk upon that
physically dark and nasty moon of ours, as such we'll need the following
basics for an earthshine illuminated mission that'll demand some banked
bone marrow and possibly a few spare stem cells in order to survive.

A fully mascon mapped moon, plus fully modulated (at least 8 bit
computer fly-by-wire driven) set of those fuel consuming reaction
thrusters (besides the modulated rated thrusters, this should only
require butt loads of nifty sensors and a minimum of four extremely fast
rad-hard computers), plus incorporating a few (at least three) powerful
momentum reaction wheels, as well as having sufficient deorbit and
down-range energy reserves, and something a whole lot better off than a
wussy 60:1 ratio of primary rocket/payload that had nearly a 30% inert
GLOW to start off with (that's not even including whatever spare tonnes
of ice loading).

You folks do realize there's still no such proven fly-by-rocket lander
as pilot rated and crew safe and sane, not even in R&D prototype format.
However, there's still time to get in on that NASA contest, of
demonstrating the first such prototype fly-by-rocket lander.
Unfortunately, thus far every known and what-if trick in the book hasn't
worked out according to plan. Perhaps what they need are those smart
Jewish Third Reich rocket scientist, just like they had way back in them
good old perpetrated cold-war days.

BTW; On behalf of a relatively short exposure worth of defending their
frail DNA and even all of that Kodak film could have used a minimum of
50 g/cm2 worth of shielding, though 100 g/cm2 would have been a whole
lot safer for keeping their mission dosage under 50 rads. Having a
cache of banked bone marrow back on Earth as their plan-B would also
have been a damn wise thing to do, especially since the hundreds of rads
per EVA should have been well past their bone marrow's point of no
return.

BTW No.2; in whatever's your best 3D simulator format, where's Venus as
of missions A11, A14 and A16? (from EVA or from orbit)

What if anything is stopping the very same solar and cosmic flak from
collecting upon and/or penetrating into the moon, as otherwise collects
within our magnetosphere's Van Allen belts?

Shouldn't the gravity and robust substance of the moon itself sort of
outperform our magnetosphere's ability to collect and hold onto such
nasty stuff?

In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right at you from as many as each of
those surrounding 3.14e8 m2, not to mention each of those square meters
having those local gamma and pesky hard-X-rays via secondary/recoil to
share, and for yourself in that wussy moonsuit to deal with.

At any one time it was technically impossible for any such EVA to have
not been continually surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2, and of
course from such a nearby orbit there's nothing but the physically dark
and TBI dosage nasty moon to look at for as far as the DNA/RNA frail eye
could see from being 100+ km off the deck, and that's one hell of a
solar/cosmic and unavoidably secondary/recoil worth of TBI exposure to
deal with, wouldn't you say?
-

NON: "The level of cosmic radiation on the moon is barely different from
the radiation at the International Space Station. They seem to manage
space walks there OK."

They actually do not manage very well at all, whereas ISS EVAs tend to
be relatively short and those EVAs still tend to devour their 50 rad per
mission and subsequently impact upon their career 500 rad dosage limits
real fast, and at that they have to avoid the SAA-05 contour like the
worst known plague. The solar wind that's diverted by those nifty
though lethal Van Allen belts do a fairly good job of defending ISS from
the naked trauma of solar and cosmic influx, and besides the ISS itself
doesn't hardly represent any significant density or amount of
secondary/recoil m2 compared to the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2 that's
existing for the moon landing and EVAs, along with as much as 3.14e8 m2
worth of exposure to all that's reactive and/or radioactive being
entirely possible. ISS is also nearly 50% shielded from whatever's
cosmic via Earth, in that because of Earth's thin but extensive enough
atmosphere is hardly the least bit reactive like our naked moon.

Orbiting our moon from 100 km isn't exactly playing it DNA/RNA safe, nor
more than half the time is it cool.

There is however a fairly substantial sodium atmosphere that reaches out
past 9r (not to mention the comet like sodium trail of some 900,000 km),
but apparently it's not of sufficient density from 100 km down to the
deck as to significantly moderate the incoming or outgoing trauma of
gamma and hard-X-rays. Just the secondary IR/FIR has got to be
downright mission pesky to deal with, especially considering how
efficiently our moon reflects the IR and FIR spectrum, and the matter of
fact that it has to get rid of all whatever it receives, which means
that a good 50% of the solar influx is getting returned to the same half
side of space that a mission orbiting command module has to survive
while getting summarily roasted and otherwise TBI from both directions,
plus a little whatever's earthshine and good old cosmic whatever to
boot.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:0a92ae811c593205afbe50abe318017c.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Instead of the daunting task of accomplishing the moon itself, perhaps
instead we should go for taking the moon's L1 because, that's entirely
doable and extremely valuable as a space depot and science platform.

For your entertainment, I've edited and hopefully improved upon the
following rant:

As I've shared this one before; If we're ever going to walk upon that
physically dark and nasty moon of ours that's via gravity tidal energy
and a touch of IR/FIR keeping our environment as so anti-ice-age extra
warm, as such we'll need the following basics for an earthshine
illuminated mission that'll most likely demand some banked bone marrow
and possibly a few spare stem cells in order to survive the mission
gauntlet.

They'll need a fully mascon mapped moon, plus fully modulated (at least
8 bit computer fly-by-wire driven) set of those fuel consuming reaction
thrusters (besides their modulated rated thrusters, this should only
require butt loads of nifty sensors and a minimum of four extremely fast
rad-hard computers), plus incorporating a few (at least three) powerful
momentum reaction wheels, as well as having sufficient deorbit and
down-range energy reserves, and something a whole lot better off than a
wussy 60:1 ratio of primary rocket/payload that had nearly a 30% inert
GLOW to start off with (that's not even including whatever spare tonnes
of inital ice loading).

You folks do realize there's still no such proven fly-by-rocket lander
as pilot rated and certified as crew safe and sane, not even in R&D
prototype format. However, there's still time to get in on that NASA
contest of demonstrating the first such prototype fly-by-rocket lander.
Unfortunately, thus far every known and what-if trick in the book hasn't
worked out according to plan. Perhaps what they need are those smart
Jewish Third Reich rocket scientists, just like they had to work with
way back in them good old mutually perpetrated cold-war days.

BTW; On behalf of a relatively short mission exposure worth of
defending their frail DNA and even all of that radiation sensitive Kodak
film could have used a minimum of 50 g/cm2 worth of shielding, though
100 g/cm2 would have been a whole lot safer for keeping their mission
dosage under 50 rads. Their having a personal cache of banked bone
marrow back on Earth as their plan-B would also have been a damn wise
thing to do, especially since the hundreds of rads per EVA should have
been well past their bone marrow's point of no return.

BTW No.2; Since there's no argument as to the DR(dynamic range) of
their Kodak film having easily recorded Venus and our physically dark
moon within the same FOV, therefore in whatever's your best 3D simulator
format, where's Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16? (from EVA or from
orbit)

What if anything is stopping or in any way diverting the very same solar
and cosmic energy plus whatever physical flak from collecting upon
and/or penetrating into the moon, as otherwise collects within our
magnetosphere's Van Allen belts?

Honest analogy; Shouldn't the gravity and robust substance of the moon
itself sort of outperform our magnetosphere's ability to collect and
hold onto such nasty solar and cosmic stuff?

In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right at you from as many as each of
those surrounding 3.14e8 m2, not to mention each of those square meters
having those local gamma and pesky hard-X-rays via secondary/recoil to
share, and for yourself in that wussy moonsuit to deal with.

At any one time it was technically impossible for any such lunar surface
EVA to have not been continually surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6
m2, and of course from such a nearby orbit there's nothing but the
physically dark and TBI dosage nasty moon to look at for as far as the
DNA/RNA frail eye could see from being 100+ km off the deck, and that's
one hell of a solar/cosmic and unavoidably secondary/recoil worth of TBI
exposure to deal with, wouldn't you say?
-

NOM: "The level of cosmic radiation on the moon is barely different from
the radiation at the International Space Station. They seem to manage
space walks there OK."

From what I can learn, they/ISS actually do NOT manage very well at all,
whereas ISS EVAs tend to be relatively short and those EVAs still tend
to devour into their 50 rad per mission and subsequently impact upon
their career 500 rad dosage limits real fast, and at that they have to
avoid the SAA-05 contour like the worst known plague. The solar wind
that's diverted by those nifty though lethal Van Allen belts do
accomplish a fairly good job of defending ISS from the naked trauma of
solar and cosmic influx, and besides the ISS itself doesn't hardly
represent significant density or any amount of secondary/recoil square
meters compared to the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2 that's existing for the
moon landing and EVAs, along with easily receiving as much as 3.14e8 m2
worth of exposure to all that's reactive and/or radioactive as being
entirely possible.

A deployed ISS/(Clarke Station) at our moon's L1 would actually be as
much as 97.6% solar and otherwise nearly 100% cosmic nailed, but instead
our existing ISS is nearly 50% shielded from whatever's solar or cosmic
via Earth and rather nicely protected by a substantial magnetosphere,
whereas because of Earth's thin but extensive enough atmosphere is
hardly the least bit reactive substance like our naked moon that's
covered in heavy meteorite debris and of it's own considerable density
that makes for producing secondary/recoil dosage that apparently isn't
the least bit moderated by way of an atmosphere.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf
This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's rather interesting
but otherwise seriously outdated, not to mention way under-shielded for
long term habitat unless incorporating 8+ meters of water plus having
somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or perhaps 16+ meters
of h2o if w/o magnetosphere that's necessary because it's parked within
58,000 km from our physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon
that's providing the not so DNA friendly TBI(total body irradiation)
dosage worth of gamma and hard-X-rays that are only a touch worse off by
lunar day, is simply a downright deficient document about sharing upon
all the positive science and habitat/depot considerations for others
utilizing the moon's L1/MEL1.

As for any mission command module orbiting our moon from 100 km isn't
exactly playing it DNA/RNA safe, nor more than half the time is it
representing a cool orbit or even all that mascon free of all those
pesky side to side and ups and downs because for its size the moon's
gravity is so irregular (possibly suggesting a badly distorted hallow
core).

There is however a fairly substantial sodium atmosphere that reaches out
past 9r (not to mention the comet like sodium trail of some 900,000 km),
but apparently it's not of sufficient density from 100 km down to the
deck as to significantly moderate the incoming or outgoing trauma of
gamma and hard-X-rays. Therefore, just the secondary IR/FIR has got to
be downright mission pesky to deal with, especially considering how
efficiently our moon reflects the IR and FIR spectrum, and the matter of
fact that it has to get rid of all of whatever it receives, which means
that a good 50% of the solar influx is getting returned to the same
sunny half side of space that a given mission orbiting its command
module has to survive while getting summarily roasted and otherwise TBI
traumatised from both directions, plus a little of whatever's earthshine
and of good old cosmic whatever else to boot.

On behalf of moderating whatever's incoming as well as secondary/recoil
outgoing radiation, what our naked moon environment needs rather badly
is an artificially forced atmosphere of almost any sort, even if it's
mostly co2 and a touch Radon toxic.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

snipped

"TheEnigmaMachine" wrote in message


snipped

Silly jewboy, or is it some other born-again pagan faith based crapolla
that you're worth?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"captain." wrote in message
news:KU5yh.35829$Oa.32513@edtnps82
you appear incapable of making even one post that doesn't make you sound
like a nut. would you have prefered the real picture which would have been a
small dot with a bright background (in visible light)?

"Captain Adam" wrote in message

Most of it is probably true. The fact is we are not alone in the universe.
The universe is full of life forms we can not see because they exist in
another dimension.

And I quote: "they exist in another dimension" ??????

And to further imagine, you're the one thinking that I'm being weird
about other life existing/coexisting on Venus, or perhaps you don't like
my notions of relocating our moon our to Earth L1.

Actually yes about "HD 209458b", whereas I would have liked seeing a
fully AI (3D if possible) computer simulation of such a massive
extrasolar planet as "HD 209458b", rather than yet another fully
subjective human infomercial worth of over-blown hypology of yet another
mainstream hocus-pocus worth of eye popping candy and spendy column
inches, in order to impress us into thinking that such extreme SETI or
other far-out forms of astronomy science actually has some hard core
worth to humanity, or on behalf of our badly failing environment. (which
of course it does not)

Along with fill-in lighting (similar to most of our NASA/Apollo Kodak
moments) from that apparent nearby second sun, and otherwise showing us
that impressive 20,000 km thick atmosphere none the less (many other
simulated depictions of a strong comet like trail), whereas others
having given a more realistic 0.1r atmosphere apparently don't count.

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...extrasolar.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_(planet)
http://www2.iap.fr/exoplanetes/index_en.html
"An evaporating extra-solar planet"
http://www2.iap.fr/exoplanetes/LaUneArticle_en.html
In yet another perfectly honest analogy, "HD 209458 b" is apparently a
another example of a captured planet, much like a few planets if not
most all within our solar system. Oddly, we seem to know more about the
composition of its atmosphere than we do of whatever's in orbit about
either of the extremely nearby Sirius stars, or even that of the
atmosphere around Venus.

We look at Venus along with its 0.025r thick atmosphere as representing
a fairly crisp black dot, or little old Mercury as a near micro-dot of a
planet as it passes directly in front of the sun, whereas such a much
larger exoplanet shouldn't be all that impossible to image or at least
computer simulate as simply offering a very much larger and apparently
fast moving black dot, instead of all the fancy hocus-pocus eye candy
and infomercial hype.

In other words, if team SETI were given an extra tax free trillion of
our hard earned bucks to blow on whatever in the next decade, and even
if the best of everything SETI came true; what exactly would that
investment of time and loot buy for the lower 99.9% of humanity, and for
the countless generations from this same lower 99.9% of a mostly
servitude worth of humanity to come?

Or, are you folks only pleased as punch with yourself if merely the
upper most 0.1% of humanity become tax-free multi billionaires? (which
of course they'll need to be, since by then a given unit of their badly
inflated fuel/energy will likely have become worth $1000/gallon)

I guess this also represents that you and others of your kind haven't
come up with that 10,500 BC or whatever BC moon of ours.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

i rest my point.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:b0d7ba459dc599b3f718e146daf5a120.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"captain." wrote in message
news:KU5yh.35829$Oa.32513@edtnps82
you appear incapable of making even one post that doesn't make you sound
like a nut. would you have prefered the real picture which would have
been a
small dot with a bright background (in visible light)?

"Captain Adam" wrote in message

Most of it is probably true. The fact is we are not alone in the
universe.
The universe is full of life forms we can not see because they exist in
another dimension.

And I quote: "they exist in another dimension" ??????

And to further imagine, you're the one thinking that I'm being weird
about other life existing/coexisting on Venus, or perhaps you don't like
my notions of relocating our moon our to Earth L1.

Actually yes about "HD 209458b", whereas I would have liked seeing a
fully AI (3D if possible) computer simulation of such a massive
extrasolar planet as "HD 209458b", rather than yet another fully
subjective human infomercial worth of over-blown hypology of yet another
mainstream hocus-pocus worth of eye popping candy and spendy column
inches, in order to impress us into thinking that such extreme SETI or
other far-out forms of astronomy science actually has some hard core
worth to humanity, or on behalf of our badly failing environment. (which
of course it does not)

Along with fill-in lighting (similar to most of our NASA/Apollo Kodak
moments) from that apparent nearby second sun, and otherwise showing us
that impressive 20,000 km thick atmosphere none the less (many other
simulated depictions of a strong comet like trail), whereas others
having given a more realistic 0.1r atmosphere apparently don't count.

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...extrasolar.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_(planet)
http://www2.iap.fr/exoplanetes/index_en.html
"An evaporating extra-solar planet"
http://www2.iap.fr/exoplanetes/LaUneArticle_en.html
In yet another perfectly honest analogy, "HD 209458 b" is apparently a
another example of a captured planet, much like a few planets if not
most all within our solar system. Oddly, we seem to know more about the
composition of its atmosphere than we do of whatever's in orbit about
either of the extremely nearby Sirius stars, or even that of the
atmosphere around Venus.

We look at Venus along with its 0.025r thick atmosphere as representing
a fairly crisp black dot, or little old Mercury as a near micro-dot of a
planet as it passes directly in front of the sun, whereas such a much
larger exoplanet shouldn't be all that impossible to image or at least
computer simulate as simply offering a very much larger and apparently
fast moving black dot, instead of all the fancy hocus-pocus eye candy
and infomercial hype.

In other words, if team SETI were given an extra tax free trillion of
our hard earned bucks to blow on whatever in the next decade, and even
if the best of everything SETI came true; what exactly would that
investment of time and loot buy for the lower 99.9% of humanity, and for
the countless generations from this same lower 99.9% of a mostly
servitude worth of humanity to come?

Or, are you folks only pleased as punch with yourself if merely the
upper most 0.1% of humanity become tax-free multi billionaires? (which
of course they'll need to be, since by then a given unit of their badly
inflated fuel/energy will likely have become worth $1000/gallon)

I guess this also represents that you and others of your kind haven't
come up with that 10,500 BC or whatever BC moon of ours.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"captain." wrote in message
news:BWYyh.44422$Y6.253@edtnps89

i rest my point.

You had an actual on-topic point?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Probe will go to Phobos to bring back samples of Brad's brain...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6324923.stm

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:51444aaae8eeefab093b433dd32c90db.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"captain." wrote in message
news:BWYyh.44422$Y6.253@edtnps89

i rest my point.

You had an actual on-topic point?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"TheEnigmaMachine" wrote in message
...
Probe will go to Phobos to bring back samples of Brad's brain...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6324923.stm


poor guy. no wonder he's so confused.