Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt

"D. Leet" wrote in message
...

"captain." wrote in message
news:9852h.35883$H7.2333@edtnps82...

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:bf5d3a3f4de50bb9b493f554a804ba8f.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"captain." wrote in message
news:QqU1h.35834$P7.8665@edtnps90

as i'd said before, i did not write the above question.

also, i don't care about your syntax or your word selection. you don't
need
to worry about or fix it.

as for me bugging you, well, i only have one thing to say about that...

Being a silly boy again, arnt you. Avoiding anything moon or Venus by
way of keeping this as off topic as possible seems par for the status
quo or bust course.

In other words, you know of things that you're not about to share and
share alike. Is that why you have to use that silly Usenet code name of
"captain"?
-
Brad Guth


i've already given my opinion about venus and the moon. do you want me to
start repeating myself?




You've been repeating yourself for quite some time now.

LOL, LOL, LOL,
LOL, LOL, LOL,
LOL, LOL, LOL,
LOL, LOL, LOL,
LOL, LOL, LOL,


lol

"TeaTime" wrote in message


Fascinating, but can you offer us disbelieving Jews just one shred of
concrete evidence to support any single one of your incredible claims?
Yes, and as you damn well know that I've already been their and done
that. Most folks, including the vast majority of good and perfectly
honest Jews would accept the replicated science that's existing. The
problem is, with much of what's NASA/Apollo simply can not be
independently replicated, and there's simply too much of their own
science that's as stealth as WMD and/or as missing in action as are each
of those 700 boxes worth of their very own supposed expeditions to/from
our moon.

Mere paranoia and/or vivid imagination just won't cut the mustard with us
lot, Brad. Now come on; it's a perfectly reasonable request. You say we
are all avoiding the topic and burying our heads in the sand ... now I'm
asking you to show us something credible.
Obviously you folks don't believe the regular laws of physics are the
least bit credible if applied as per having a different outcome than
published within your all-knowing koran. With that said, so what's the
difference?

For instance; if the moon were here as of prior to the last ice age,
there's be solid geological proof of such, and otherwise various humanly
depicted evidence of those horrific tides, of their surviving and/or
having migrated because of such dramatic seasons, and of their having
depicted that especially big old impressive moon.

For starters, you now state as fact that our moon has only been around since
the last ice age. A possibility yes, but only one of many in scientific
terms. Proof?
Give me that same infomercial hyping budget plus equal access to any one
of those publicly bought and paid for of such massively-parallel
supercomputers, along with all of their nifty interactive 3D worth of
multibody orbital mechanic software that we've also bought and paid for
several times over, and I'll proceed to knock your naysay socks off,
along with 3D animated simulations and custom surround-sound
orchestration to boot.

You've suggested that NASA are withholding truth from us regarding
past/present alien occupation of Venus and the moon. Proof?
How much extra proof that we've been lied too would you like? How many
of those items about our supposed walking upon that moon would be
required in order to support the matter of fact that we've been lied to?
Is not but one lie good enough (should be), or do I have to go through
and prove throughout each and every item on the list?

You claim we could use some sort of airship to cruise through the Venutian
atmosphere - assuming we can keep the interior cool enough to support our
wussy life, won't it also need submarine performance to navigate down to the
surface where CO2 at 92 atmospheres (a cubic yard of that gas weighs about
110 pounds at 900 Fahrenheit) will make it feel like travelling through a
thin soup having 15% the density of seawater? Answers?
I very much like your rather impressive buoyancy factor of "15% the
density of seawater", although the "900 Fahrenheit" wasn't all that
necessary to share unless you're planning upon walking over a geothermal
stoked field of Venusian lava or of some other horrific plastic mud
flows of whatever's absolutely nasty stuff, and that's not to forget all
of those absolutely horrific gas vents contributing their volumes of
CO2, S8 and many other hot and nasty elements.

The ongoing ESA Venus Express mission is confirming that the nighttime
season of Venus is in fact much cooler, especially while cruising
sufficiently above that geothermally active deck.

With the shell of our composite rigid airship having a structural fiber
of 4.84 GPa, plus an insulative R-1024/m factor, I foresee no
insurmountable problems for such rigid airship technology accommodating
our frail DNA, and getting rid of surplus heat certainly isn't a problem
that isn't 100% covered by the regular thermal dynamic laws of physics
associated with such. Physiologically, a constant pressure of nearly
any amount is not outside the ream of what we can tolerate, whereas it's
the change in pressure that needs to be taken seriously and rather
slowly.

I'm not 'banishing' the topic - I'm asking very reasonable questions. Your
turn ...
In the past you've accomplished nothing but topic/author stalking and
bashing, and right now you're not constructively contributing squat, are
you. As per usual, you've been chuck full of those naysay loaded
questions, and otherwise not the least bit into sharing one gram of
anything positive or that could possibly lead us towards anything
positive.

You're all being too naysay mindset for your own good, as well as too
anti ET and/or simply too willing to accept and/or to reinforce upon the
mainstream status quo as is, no matters what the consequences. You're a
very boxed soul of a person and a certified member of that status quo
collective of fools on the hill that haven't a stitch of remorse about
anything to spare.

Unlike yourself and of those you've clearly admired, I'm not nearly as
all-knowing and without error. My limited but honestly deductive
reasoning as based upon the regular laws of physics and of the best
available science seems to have been too much for the likes of your
mindset of denial to appreciate. You also don't believe in pictures
regardless of whatever the milti-look/pixel worth of their being truth
worthy, yet you've more than accepted each and every NASA/Apollo (single
look/pixel or rather per unfiltered Kodak moment) image as though each
having been obtained by God. Sorry about that.
-
Brad Guth


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

"captain." wrote in message
news:2Bd2h.37540$H7.6585@edtnps82

you think that the moon has only been here since the last ice age?
do i dare ask why?

That's right, but apparently it's still a deep and dark
taboo/nondisclosure of a secret unless you can somehow manage to read
through a few thousand of my dyslexic encrypted words.

The moon's orbital energy represents roughly 2e20 joules. Do the math,
and then share as to whatever's your best swag, as to what amount of
that 2e20 J becomes tidal friction induced heat, and that's not to
mention the little extra worth of secondary IR/FIR energy that's derived
from our salty moon that's by far representing the most impressive ratio
of planet:moon in our solar system.
-
Brad Guth



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

"captain." wrote in message
news:9852h.35883$H7.2333@edtnps82

i've already given my opinion about venus and the moon. do you want me to
start repeating myself?

Don't be silly. Of course I want you and your kind to keep repeating
yourself (you know, until a few of them NASA/Apollo cows come home)
-
Brad Guth




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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:4f06b43502ea1abc6576cf2fc41ed746.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...

snip

In the past you've accomplished nothing but topic/author stalking and
bashing, and right now you're not constructively contributing squat, are
you. As per usual, you've been chuck full of those naysay loaded
questions, and otherwise not the least bit into sharing one gram of
anything positive or that could possibly lead us towards anything
positive.

snip

Brad Guth

Well said, Brad. And I thought you had me on your kill-file. Some of your
criticisms are well founded. Much of what I post here is very much
tongue-in-cheek and not always well received by the ubiquitous Usenet
throng. Those that do know me well would tell you that I am openminded and
inquisitive, but sufficiently interested in the sciences to seek
justification for new and exciting claims. I am no expert either, but I
believe in the virtual certainty of alien intelligences in this big old
universe. I also seriously doubt that the movie showing those brave
Americans walking on the moon was shot anywhere but in a studio. That does
not mean that they didn't go there, only that the publicity film was shot
after (or before) the event, at least. A good deal of disinformation was
disseminated during the Cold War on both sides of the fence (and still is).

Regarding your various references to the 'holy scriptures': I am a staunch
atheist and have never had any belief in the existence of a deity in any
form. I find the whole concept of religion to be outdated and baffling. I
respect those that do have faith in any form and if they'd oblige us all by
not using it as a foundation for war and terrorism it would be even more
acceptable.

Concerning the moon's history: yes, it's also possible that the moon joined
orbit with us in relatively recent times. There are several theoretical
descriptions of the 1000 foot tides that would have accompanied the near
miss and capture, but at this time that's all they seem to be: theoretical.
The Ice Age neatly erased a large percentage of whatever artifacts may have
existed so we can hardly use the absence of cave drawings depicting the moon
as solid proof that it wasn't here. The moon certainly seems to be made of
different stuff to us which nay-says the idea that it is a lump that broke
off millennia ago. Again, all things are possible but without more
knowledge and scientific foundation it remains an interesting theory rather
than a fact.

Moving on to ET: I follow the more interesting UFO investigations with
interest. A very small minority of sightings have been backed up by large
numbers of witnesses and remained unexplained. However, I have yet to see
any credible evidence whatsoever for actual alien contact, abductions or
conspiracies relating. Yes, it's possible that they dragged a busted up
spaceship and a dying alien back from the Rosswell event. Yes, it's
possible that superior beings have occupied Venus, the moon, Phobos or
Europa. Yes, it's all possible, but is it probable? The thing we find
hard to digest is how they made the trip from distant star systems - largely
because we don't know how to do it yet. It would be fair to say that I
would dearly love to see such evidence before I shrug off this mortal coil.
I therefore read a lot, ask a lot of questions and am currently thinking
about building an infra-red wide-field telescope with some form of dynamic
signal analysis so I can peer into the clouds. Just maybe I will be lucky
enough to find something other than terrestrial aircraft. If I do, I will
post my findings and evidence here first.

I don't think any of that makes me a nay-sayer or non-constructive. It's
the guys on the fringe that often come up with the goodies. Most here would
probably brand me a nut though.

In message , TeaTime
writes

Concerning the moon's history: yes, it's also possible that the moon joined
orbit with us in relatively recent times. There are several theoretical
descriptions of the 1000 foot tides that would have accompanied the near
miss and capture, but at this time that's all they seem to be: theoretical.
The Ice Age neatly erased a large percentage of whatever artifacts may have
existed so we can hardly use the absence of cave drawings depicting the moon
as solid proof that it wasn't here. The moon certainly seems to be made of
different stuff to us which nay-says the idea that it is a lump that broke
off millennia ago. Again, all things are possible but without more
knowledge and scientific foundation it remains an interesting theory rather
than a fact.

No. It's absolute, total nonsense. The change in day length over several
hundred million years is known with some precision, and the only
plausible explanation for that is lunar tides. Those tidal effects have
been understood for over a hundred years - find out something about
George Darwin. Here's a reference to tides 3.2 billion years ago
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/289/5487/2005c
And I don't know where you get 1000 foot tides - this paper (which is
not the conventional explanation for the Moon's origin) talks about 10km
tides _in the Earth's crust_ and a billion years to achieve a circular
orbit http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998LPICo.957Q..24M

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
No. It's absolute, total nonsense. The change in day length over several
hundred million years is known with some precision, and the only plausible
explanation for that is lunar tides. Those tidal effects have been
understood for over a hundred years - find out something about George
Darwin. Here's a reference to tides 3.2 billion years ago
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/289/5487/2005c
And I don't know where you get 1000 foot tides - this paper (which is not
the conventional explanation for the Moon's origin) talks about 10km tides
_in the Earth's crust_ and a billion years to achieve a circular orbit
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998LPICo.957Q..24M

Yes, well George Darwin suggested that the moon was plucked out of the
Pacific ocean, but his understanding of the 3-body problem did pave the way
to our current model. However, the only reason we know the change in day
length over several hundred million years with some precision is because we
rely on the refined model and interpolate backward. (3.2 billion years ago
the moon would have been about 50,000 miles closer to us and the tides
substantially higher than they are today. The land still bobs up and down
by about a metre, I believe.) The only geological indications of tidal
effect from so long ago only 'appear' to be tidal and are not therefore a
proof of timescale. However, had the moon been captured just prior to the
last Ice Age as Brad suggests, we would surely see evidence of the enormous
deformations you describe. The nightmare image of mount Everest bobbing up
and down by some 10 miles twice a day springs to mind. An ice age would
surely have been rendered impossible for millennia with all that thermal
energy being dissipated. The equatorial zones would be a sea of lava and
the atmosphere predominantly steam.

The origin of the moon still isn't known and neither is it's date of
formation/arrival. Without tongue in cheek, I agree it has to have been
around for a lot longer than 10000 years though.

Here is a good link which theorises the effects of the moon on the earth
from the earliest times, including the slowing down from a 15 hour day to
the present 24 hours:

http://www.astro.oma.be/ICET/bim/text/varga1.htm

It is all based on observations of fossils and rhythmic sedimentation.
Interesting.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:5d3927b6e79f9a83867d5bf963d718d7.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"captain." wrote in message
news:2Bd2h.37540$H7.6585@edtnps82

you think that the moon has only been here since the last ice age?
do i dare ask why?

That's right, but apparently it's still a deep and dark
taboo/nondisclosure of a secret unless you can somehow manage to read
through a few thousand of my dyslexic encrypted words.

The moon's orbital energy represents roughly 2e20 joules. Do the math,
and then share as to whatever's your best swag, as to what amount of
that 2e20 J becomes tidal friction induced heat, and that's not to
mention the little extra worth of secondary IR/FIR energy that's derived
from our salty moon that's by far representing the most impressive ratio
of planet:moon in our solar system.
-
Brad Guth


how does that coincide with the last ice age?

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:9cd51b4cbdc2989fc3ad1d194de34c0d.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"captain." wrote in message
news:9852h.35883$H7.2333@edtnps82

i've already given my opinion about venus and the moon. do you want me to
start repeating myself?

Don't be silly. Of course I want you and your kind to keep repeating
yourself (you know, until a few of them NASA/Apollo cows come home)
-
Brad Guth


people who apply labels to others aren't good for much.
- charles adler.