Brad Guth's Credentials

Right on.


David Bacque wrote:

And don't forget, Brad took a quiz and got a masters degree in
observationology! What could a space scientist in the department of
geological sciences at Brown University or a researcher with the Kharkov
Astronomical Observatory possibly know that Brad doesn't know? I'll bet
they haven't even taken an observationology quiz!

Brad, why is it that when you "process" a photo it can prove life on Venus
but when someone else does, it proves nothing? Sounds like you're full of
"naysayism" to me. I thought you said you welcomed other people's
interpretations.

If you really want to continue this topic, why not discuss the topic and
tell us all about your technical background. And tell us about Marine
Design and Service and how much time and money they spend on space research.
And why some barnacle scraping lackey there would know more about photo
analysis, rocket blast effects and extraterrestrial geological formations
than people who have actual, qualifiable credentials in the fields of
geology and astrophysics.

Of course, if you really don't want to tell us that you're just an
uneducated bumpkin that makes up cool sounding **** to inflate your ego,
then shut up and drift off into the usenet ether.

Dave

Rand Simberg wrote:
To be more precise, that would be a degree in BS...

Right on

Shut up fool.

Brad Guth wrote:
Nobody cares

Malcolm Reynolds wrote:
.... he makes you wonder if he even has a clue as to what reality is.

Right on

David Bacque wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

This topic is not actually about how I'm all that special qualified

Actually the topic is trying to find out if you are qualified at all. The
scientists who released their interpretations of the lunar photo gave their
qualifications, why don't you give us your qualifications to sumarily
dismiss them as being wrong.

not, nor is it of how impossible the LSE-CM/ISS is, but of how totally
important and otherwise doable the LSE-CM/ISS is.

Wrong again Brad. This topic IS about your qualifications.

Why didn't you answer the questions? I'll ask you again:

Why is it that when you "process" a photo it can prove life on Venus but
when someone else does, it proves nothing? Especially if that person is
qualified to do so.
I'm not working with one look per pixel, but having 36 looks per pixel,
and each of those pixels is thereby a whole lot more truth worthy than
by any conventional single look CCD image that's more of a plan view
rather than of a nearly 3D perspective view.


Tell us about Marine Design and Service and how much time and money they
spend on space research. And tell us why some bilge drinking lackey would
know more about photo analysis, rocket blast effects and extraterrestrial
geological formations than people who have degrees in geology and
astrophysics and do genuine research in those fields.

Dave
From the GUTH desk of a "bilge drinking lackey" that obviously has
known of and otherwise having had to learn "more about photo analysis,
rocket blast effects and extraterrestrial geological formations than
people who have degrees in geology and astrophysics and do genuine
research in those fields".

BTW; observationology is not an absolute science about your having to
be a geology and astrophysics wizard that's all-knowing. It's
perfectly OK to incorporate the best available physics and science of
others that have expertise to offer that's without any apparent
ulterior motives or hidden agendas to deal with.

Sorry about my PC going down (happens all the time whenever I'm
contributing to this GOOGLE Usenet that sucks and blows, and often does
my poor/dyslexic spellings and syntax that always needs work. As such,
I'll try posting this one again.

Good Christ almighty on another stick; Folks and 'tomcat', there's
simply and absolutely no such thing as that of any fly-by-rocket "burn
marks" as having been imaged from any stinking satellite that's so
freaking far away. That's not even my science, as it's of what our
NASA keeps telling us village idiots all the time, and there's plenty
of terrestrial images via satellite that proves as to what can and can
not be obtained via a similar CCD resolution, as well as for those
NASA/Apollo wizards having stipulated that not even a minor local blast
crater was formed (hells bells, there was moon-dust and even moonboot
footprints within the dust that somehow remained directly below the
main thruster nozzle), much less being of having generated any such
large and darkened blast area. Keep yourselves thinking along the
lines of impact craters, and as such you might actually get the fuzzy
picture.

That silly old NASA/Apollo damage-control image via Clementine was
obtained from so freaking far away, whereas I've stipulated before that
if you're going to photoShop something to death, as such why not at
least start yourself off with a 100 fold better image to start with.

I don't believe that pathetic enlarged image was even based upon such
having been multi-look radar image worthy, now was it?

Of any one look per CCD pixel isn't offering nearly as good of pixel
truth as the multi-stacked images that astronomy usually applies for
achieving their maximum eye-popping candy impact. Therefore, the raw
original Clementine image has to be a wee bit more than a stretch, to
say the least.

The GUTH Venus image was however extracted from a 36 look/pixel format
of a composite radar image that has no lens distortions nor weird
illumination error factors to deal with, and it was also taken from
that of a 43° perspective view that's nearly 3D worthy to boot.

As per my qualifications;
Yourself and of others on this mostly naysay Usenet that seriously
sucks and blows already know more about myself than I do. If not, then
you're the only ones that don't. So, tell us what if anything would
impress the likes of "David Bacque"?

Unfortunately, even a certified village idiot moron with less than half
a brain could have and should accomplished what I've managed, that is
unless that sorry individual was biologically blind and that of a
certified intellectual bigot (in other words, much like yourself).

My expertise in observationology is pretty much stuck with having taken
my leads from the best available public science as having been made
available, and as having been otherwise based entirely upon the regular
laws of physics, as for having accomplished my best observationology on
behalf of delivering my very best SWAG that hopefully doesn't break too
many of those accepted rules that most of us consider important to
follow. In other words, I'm your all-around information dot and image
pixel connecting messenger from hell that's working honestly to the
best of my ability in spite of all your status quo flak, of which it so
happens that I have a degree of first hand photographic expertise
that's obviously every bit as good as if not somewhat better than most
of whatever your NIMA has to work with.

The point is, you folks don't need to be a qualified brown-nosed minion
of a collaborating wizard to your Third Reich in order to sufficiently
interpret such images as I've done. You just have to be a little
sober, and it also helps being awake and having at least one good eye
that's still connected to at least half a brain that can manage to
think for itself. Obviously that represents that none of you folks are
the least bit qualified, whereas otherwise you'd have posted all sorts
of your image interpretations as having easily proven myself as being
wrong. Why haven't you or anyone else ever once posted an image that's
been interpreted your way, or in any way that might suggest my
observationology expertise is insufficient if not entirely wrong?

Show us those fine examples of your best image enlargements that are
looking as though depicting of what's intelligent/artificial, but
clearly are of merely weird patterns proven as not being the case.
-
Brad Guth

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:47:39 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Malcolm
Reynolds" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Does anyone know if Brad has a family that is aware of his "issues"?

From what I've seen over the past few days his problems seem to
be worsening. It could be a normal cyclical thing, but it also might be
something that's degenerating to the point where he poses a danger
to himself or others.

On a good day, it's fun to poke and ridicule him over his inane gibberish,
but on one of his bad days, he makes you wonder if he even has a clue
as to what reality is.

It concerns me as well. We had another poster a few years ago who was
obviously bipolar. On his good days, he was quite lucid--no more off
than most Democrats. ;-)

But it was clear that he would go into a manic state on other days,
and we often wondered if there was some way to get him help. There
were even private email discussions among some of the group elders and
mods about it.

The problem with Brad is that his problem seems to be pretty
continuous (though it is certainly possible that he's getting
worse--one has to be a long-time reader to know, and I can't have an
opinion, because he's been in my killfile for years now).

That's one of the really sad things about Usenet--that you can watch
someone mentally deteriorate before thousands of people, and be
completely helpless.
Arnt we being silly again. I suppose that you voted for GW Bush, and
see nothing wrong with whatever that Pope did to all of those Cathars
and innocent others.

Provoking of others is perfectly OK within your little black book/koran
of rules. In other words, it's permitted to being a collaborator as
long as it's not your butt that's getting nailed.

In your case, as with our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), the means
always justifies the ends, even if having to ignore the collateral
damage and having to step over all of those innocent dead bodies in
order to get to that next barrel of Muslim oil.
-
Brad Guth

tomcat wrote:
Malcolm Reynolds wrote:
Does anyone know if Brad has a family that is aware of his "issues"?

From what I've seen over the past few days his problems seem to
be worsening. It could be a normal cyclical thing, but it also might be
something that's degenerating to the point where he poses a danger
to himself or others.

On a good day, it's fun to poke and ridicule him over his inane gibberish,
but on one of his bad days, he makes you wonder if he even has a clue
as to what reality is.


Brad just wants to get back to his home planet.

tomcat
We certainly know which side of the fence you're on, don't we.

What's the matter, tomcat? Too afraid to admit that you've been
snookered by those having "the right stuff"?
-
Brad Guth

Malcolm Reynolds wrote:
Does anyone know if Brad has a family that is aware of his "issues"?

From what I've seen over the past few days his problems seem to
be worsening. It could be a normal cyclical thing, but it also might be
something that's degenerating to the point where he poses a danger
to himself or others.

On a good day, it's fun to poke and ridicule him over his inane gibberish,
but on one of his bad days, he makes you wonder if he even has a clue
as to what reality is.
Why don't you and most others exist as real persons?

Besides Usama bin Laden, what are you folks afraid of?
-
Brad Guth

ALL PEOPLE THAT CONTINUE TO CROSS POST THIS GARBAGE- Get a clue.. You all
look like morons!


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
Malcolm Reynolds wrote:
Does anyone know if Brad has a family that is aware of his "issues"?

From what I've seen over the past few days his problems seem to
be worsening. It could be a normal cyclical thing, but it also might be
something that's degenerating to the point where he poses a danger
to himself or others.

On a good day, it's fun to poke and ridicule him over his inane
gibberish,
but on one of his bad days, he makes you wonder if he even has a clue
as to what reality is.
Why don't you and most others exist as real persons?

Besides Usama bin Laden, what are you folks afraid of?
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message

BTW; observationology is not an absolute science

Duh! It's not even a REAL science.

Dave