Apollo moon landings : why is this Mailgate banished?

Mailgate/Usenet is just plain weird, often robo moderated to death, or
simply not worth the trouble since it's so officially media ignored
(much like most everything GOOGLE/Usenet gets ignored, or is so
insider self-moderated to death that nothing much matters).

This mostly Old Testament faith-based Usenet is simply deathly afraid
of sharing the truth and nothing but the truth, especially if there's
another one of their very own cloak and dagger MIB shadows attached.

Clearly our moon has been causing us a rather nasty bout of GW trauma
(not that we humans arnt terribly good at having soot deposited upon
and otherwise polluted damn near everything in sight), that'll soon
enough get forgotten all about once our perpetrated WWIII gets further
under way. So, there's not much point in the daunting task of
relocating our moon into Earth's L1, because by then there will not be
enough souls (much less honest ones) remaining alive on whatever's
left of this GW smoking hot Earth, that'll give a tinkers damn (except
for those of us without high enough ground to call home, and/or not
having the necessary loot for the $100/gallon of fuel and/or affording
the $1+/kwhr of energy).

These seemingly nice folks of this infomercial sucking WWW.naysayvill
of Usenet's anti-think-tank hell on Earth, that insist upon keeping
our mindsets within their Old Testament cloak and dagger ways,
imposing that our badly polluted Earth is their one and only viable
planet as intended for accommodating these mostly Jewish humans within
this entire universe that otherwise sucks againt there being any other
intelligent life to behold, are at best really something special when
it comes down to being so narrow mindset and otherwise so downright
faith-based nasty about enforcing all of it.

I'm not at all certain if I can ever get myself far enough down, as to
meeting their extremely low standards for such inefficient if not
totally pathetic intelligent design, or otherwise qualify on behalf of
their 100+ billion year happenstance of mother/father nature doing its
random evolution thing, that supposedly created us upon this one and
only viable Jewish planet of theirs.

Seems to me that there should actually be lots of nifty but entirely
different than Earth planets and/or moons, upon which smart enough
folks could manage to survive, and of those smarter yet capable of
interplanetary commuting, if not a few species as having been capable
of accomplishing something interstellar worthy.

The others of us thinking a little outside the box, that as of
somewhat recently other intelligent life had existed upon Mars is
equally pushing the outer limits of my mindset. Although I'm not
excluding Martian microbes and/or spore like forms of life that may
even still coexist underground or within sufficient ice, whereas much
larger forms of even the most weird life would be highly unlikely
unless they've evolved into having rad-hard DNA, as well as for having
damn little need of heat or o2. However, as for going back a billion
years seems to suggest that almost anything was possible as derived
from the active geothermal core.

Even if there isn't all that much Mars salt to being had, applied
technology would likely make for human life on Mars doable, at perhaps
a mere trillion dollars per 100 kg/year should do that trick, or
possibly as little as a mere billion dollars per 100 kg if it's
intended as a one-way ticket to ride. That's certainly spendy but
none the less becoming doable as long as spending 1% of that amount
for accomplishing Venus is simply out of the question. God forbid,
they wouldn't want to waste any of their all-knowing talents or
precious resources upon improving or otherwise salvaging our frail
environment, as that too is against their Old Testament status quo of
making the rest of us pay for everything, including with our lives if
need be.

So, if that big old and nearby moon isn't representing or otherwise
offering the least bit of whatever physics worth of GW trauma for us
to worry about, such as our not frearing whatever -.05%/yr loss of
magentosphere, then perhaps nothing is worth so much as another kind
thought, nor so much as another mention until it's too late.
Meanwhile, China, India and Germany are each headed for our moon, and
perhaps even Japan will make an honest run for taking up the moon's L1
position (the absolute holy grail of Star-Wars high ground). We
energy starved Americans on the other hand, whereas we'll still be
trying our best to defend all of our Muslim oil that's within Iraq,
while also nuking Iran on the side, whereas about the only global
energy thing that's left for us to pillage and fight to our deaths
over is yellowcake.

Why to worry our dumbfounded selves over GW, especially if there's the
ongoing demise of WWIII, and of WWIV over the remainders of global
energy reserves to look forward to?
-
Brad Guth

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...

The photography isn't the problem. How does one prove
that the photograph wasn't later raytraced, modeled,
Photoshopped, or otherwise mangled with?

The good news: there's now ample evidence -- which was always there, in
retrospect -- that Apollo 13 had a problem while going to the moon, and
that the other Apollo missions got near to the moon, from amateur
astronomers and from various observatories.

FOX News never had a chance in hell. :-)

Note it was Fox ENTERTAINMENT that ran the show, not the News Division.

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com

In sci.physics,

wrote
on 20 Mar 2007 13:13:38 -0700
. com:
On Mar 18, 10:35 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

The photography isn't the problem. How does one prove
that the photograph wasn't later raytraced, modeled,
Photoshopped, or otherwise mangled with?

The good news: there's now ample evidence -- which was always there, in
retrospect -- that Apollo 13 had a problem while going to the moon, and
that the other Apollo missions got near to the moon, from amateur
astronomers and from various observatories.

FOX News never had a chance in hell. :-)

FOX should have had the likes of myself on their team. I'd have to
say, their big-time loss.

Ah, of course. So...how did you want to explain these amateur
observations of various sky artifacts consistent with rockets going out
into space and approaching the moon?

Granted, proof of landing on the moon would be a tad difficult. The
Hubble's resolution is 100 milliarcseconds, or 485 nanoradians.
The distance to the moon is approximately 3.85 * 10^8 m.
Therefore, the Hubble's resolution relative to the moon is about
187 meters per pel.

Had the astronauts had the foresight (and the budget;
it costs $100,000 per kg) to bring a very large sheet of
aluminum foil (it would have to be 1 km x 1 km or so to
do it right), we might be able to see it today from the
Hubble, and even then, how do we prove that the astronauts
spread it out as opposed to a cybernetic system?

There are 5 corner reflectors now up on the Moon, 4
of which are still functional (one of the Russian ones
apparently fell over or something). But that proves little
other than someone went to the trouble of boosting them
there; the Russians used probles, whereas we used manpower.

At least, that's the standard NASA propaganda line.
But then, no one should trust NASA; they've not told us
the truth about Roswell yet. :-)

But please, don't tell Buzz regarding your confirmations.
You do want to keep your nose straight. ;-)


But it is the ongoing pesky problem that it is. There's an ongoing
lack of any real evidence that's in support of the NASA/Apollo claim
of their having walked upon our moon.

That's because there is NO possible evidence that can
show this. The best one can do is point at a moon rock --
about half a metric tonne's worth -- or some old archival
footage. However, the rocks could also have been brought
back by an automated spacecraft; no way to tell unless
the astronauts left fingerprints thereon, and we could
(somehow) tell that those fingerprints were left on
the gathered rocks *while the astronauts were still on
the moon*.

There are two things against this.

[1] The astronauts probably didn't even touch the rocks as they were
gathering them; presumably, they were stowed in the hold while
said astronauts were still in their space suits. At best, one might
see some fibers from the outer layers of their space suits, if they
actually touched/handled the rocks with their gloves as opposed to
some sort of small shovel, trowel, or pick.

[2] At this late stage, we'd have great difficulty determining the age
of a fingerprint left 40 years ago to within a few days.

As for the archival footage -- it is possible that
if one can locate enough originals one might have a
fighting chance to prove that something happened on, say,
1969-07-20. As it is, the sound stage with the gray rocks
has long since been destroyed. The original Enterprise
is no more, though some of the more interesting gewgaws
might have made it to other sci-fi classics of the era.

It's that freaking simple.
Without their original frames of said film is why they can't possibly
prove squat,

Even with the original frames one can prove little.
Sound stages are excellent places from which one can
generate movie magic. Star Trek in particular was expert
in transforming an empty building into Talos IV (The
Cage/The Menagerie), planet M-113 (Man Trap), Tantalus
(Dagger of the Mind), Gothos (The Squire of Gothos),
Cestus III (Arena), Vulcan (Amok Time), Gamma Trianguli VI
(The Apple), a fair number of unnamed planets which they
run into from time to time, plus the interiors of enemy
and/or foreign spacecraft -- and all additional equipment
(such as boom mikes) necessary to record the dialogue that
was neatly packaged into an episode per week.

whereas Kodak and of other film expertise proves with
replicated science that such images as obtained via an unfiltered
optical lens are anything but those as supposedly having been obtained
from the raw surface of that physically dark and nasty moon.

Just keep asking; where's Venus, and a good half dozen other off-moon
items that were DR worthy enough to behold?

You're right. Star Trek in particular showed stars (both
kinds) every episode. This implies that contemporary
cameras would have no trouble showing said stars either
while recording in a sound stage (the stars are added
in later, in post-optical processing). Why NASA omitted
this detail is not quite clear; perhaps someone thought it
would be more authentic that way. (Either that, or all
the good cameramen and grips were busy making more money
on shows such as the Benny Hill Show, the Bill Cosby Show,
the Dick Cavett Show, etc. Scooby Doo also dates from
that era, which suggests the cameramen also doubled as
stop-frame photographers.)


There's no question that A13 made that one time brief orbit of our
moon.

How do we know that it made it into lunar orbit? We know they
made it into *space*, but that's about it.

So what the freaking hell does that prove?

Nothing.


Sorry to say, there is NOT "ample evidence", only ample lies upon
lies, and of course there's ample snookered dumbass/dumbfounded fools
exactly like yourself to go around and around, and obviously extremely
brown nosed to boot.

Yeah, well, I did see one of the Saturn Vs at one point.
(It was lying on its side in the Rocket Garden.) That NASA
decided to make a mockup of a large rocket to put in its
Rocket Garden but couldn't do the elementary stuff such as
put stars in a traveling shot (which Star Trek, which was
first produced in 1966, had *no trouble at all doing*),
speaks volumes about NASA's competence.



How much were you paid for taking up that silly naysay mindset?

How much are you willing to pay me? :-)

Silly boy! I'll pay a million bucks for each and every mainstream
status quo butt that you manage to kick to hell, and then some.


I was under the impression you wanted to move the lunar
orb in another post. In any event the Moon *does* have
something to do with Earth's L1, though the effect is
presumably rather small.

I never once gave such an impression. So what does that make you?

Curious. :-) What did you want to do with Venus' L1 or L2 point?



I suspect there are also two points. One point would be a
stationary point relative to the rotating coordinate system
centered at the Earth's barycenter and an axis pointing
to the Moon's center of mass; another point might be a
stationary point relative to the rotating coordinate system
centered at the *Sun's* barycenter and an axis pointing
to the Moon's center of mass. The second is probably
far harder to keep stable though I'd have to look; the
Lagrange problem usually postulates two planetary bodies
and a satellite.

In other words, you're getting paid those really big bucks for taking
this topic as far off the main tracks as possible. Silly me, I should
have known.


I fail to see how Venus could be less expensive than going to the Moon.
However, I'd have to do some research. Both look roughly equivalent
regarding initial launch (since one has to escape Earth's gravitational
influence, requiring 11.2 km/s to do so). The trip to Venus, of course,
will take longer, but both trips will be in free flight.

You can't fly-by-rocket land squat upon the moon unless you intend
upon creating an artificial crater. You also don't have sufficient
rad-hard DNA, and even banked bone marrow may not be sufficient. That
moon of ours is worth teravolts of being electrostatic charged (much
worse off than anything Van Allen belt has to offer), as well as being
nearly as sooty dark as coal, and otherwise tens of dusty meters deep
in places to boot.

You have evidence of all this, of course?



Did those MIB get to you or your family?

I'll get back to you on that as soon as I answer that knock
on my door...oh, hello, K, say, what's that silverly thing
you have in your *FLASH*....

At least that sounds about right, and it would pretty much explain why
you're being such a wuss.

Ha. I'll just have to find the re-integrator. Of course
there is the little problem of getting there, as the entire
complex is deep below NY, NY.

-
Brad Guth


--
#191,
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:41:11 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

FOX News never had a chance in hell. :-)

Note it was Fox ENTERTAINMENT that ran the show, not the News Division.

....We still blame Rand Simberg for it, tho.

[Cue Rand for a two-line retort from Killfile Hell]

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
link.net...
Note it was Fox ENTERTAINMENT that ran the show, not the News Division.

Unfortunately, most of the US public doesn't seem to know the difference.
:-P

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:01:07 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Note it was Fox ENTERTAINMENT that ran the show, not the News Division.

Unfortunately, most of the US public doesn't seem to know the difference.

Most of Usenet doesn't seem to, either. Of course, what does one
expect from deluded people who think that I work for it, or ever did?

Too much of what's too easy to nail you on. Better infomercial
spewing luck next time around.

My old physics and replicated science stands as proof positive that we
haven't walked on that moon, and all that you've got is worth less
than the squat of others.

Do you also make good use of the NASA/Apollo used toilet paper?

If so, it's worth more than any moon rocks that were simply picked up
from the surface of Earth.
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics,

wrote
on 21 Mar 2007 10:25:56 -0700
. com:
Too much of what's too easy to nail you on. Better infomercial
spewing luck next time around.

My old physics and replicated science stands as proof positive that we
haven't walked on that moon, and all that you've got is worth less
than the squat of others.

Do you also make good use of the NASA/Apollo used toilet paper?

If so, it's worth more than any moon rocks that were simply picked up
from the surface of Earth.

Prove that they are moon rocks.

-
Brad Guth



--
#191,
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 21, 6:25 pm, wrote:
Too much of what's too easy to nail you on. Better infomercial
spewing luck next time around.

My old physics and replicated science stands as proof positive that we
haven't walked on that moon, and all that you've got is worth less
than the squat of others.

Do you also make good use of the NASA/Apollo used toilet paper?

If so, it's worth more than any moon rocks that were simply picked up
from the surface of Earth.



Untrue. "Moon rocks" (quotes for your benefit) show unusual noble gas
profiles, implanted with radiation, unlike Earth rocks which are
protected from the solar wind by Atmosphere and Magnetosphere. Ditto
with lunar return foils. They were not simply picked up from the
surface of the Earth. You'll need a more elaborate story to deal with
that one.

On Mar 21, 6:32 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

Prove that they are moon rocks.

We can't seem to prove that such terrestrial moon rock isn't from our
moon.

Where the heck do you think the vast majority of whatever secondary
shards of impact displaced moon crater rocks (at least a few
gigatonnes and perhaps teratonnes worth) ended up?

Have you ever done the math on just a few of those large moon craters?

Take the top 10% of crater displacements, then try honestly telling us
that few if any such moon rock hasn't been existing upon Earth to
behold.

There are rock hound or rock collector sites posted on this internet
that are chuck full of such moon rock. So, you obviously don't have
to go to any stinking moon in order to obtain moon rock.
-
Brad Guth