India... life on Moon?

On Dec 28, 12:22*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:09*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 24, 12:06*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 23, 5:25*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 23, 11:52*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.

Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.

Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. *

There is no mistaking when including other plenets from other
missions. For you to think NASA is haphazard about such things makes
you even dumber than you already appear to be.

There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).

Do you have the results of the Navy mission?

btw, *countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.

With long exposures you doofus!

Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's ****
from shinola. *Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.

LRO has proven Apollo to even the most feeble minded. Sorry you missed
it.

If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.

Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.

Your inablility to grasp basic concepts is noted.

Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. *Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.

Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.

Eric

Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
missing in action.

You imply you know what 100% of what the mission should be. Where do
you get that data?

You are a charlatan and everyone knows it. You wouldn't even make
Snake Oil Salesman from the Old West, as your line of bull**** is very
easily seem. *Still trying to figure out how to detect 105,000 year
"annual rings" from the Earth's geology basic upon your bizarre Sirius/
Sol cycle?

hahahahahahaha

At some point you MUST adopt a static frame of reference because you
weren't here from the beginning. Your dymanic frame of reference has
made you a tad mad...

Have a Merry Christmas, Grinch, err Guth...

Your belief that our government agencies are never the least bit faith-
based, never make mistakes, cover their public funded butts or
otherwise pull off any mutually perpetrated cold-war stings, nor ever
use spendy wool to cover our eyes, is noted.

Our govt. was designed NOT to be faith-based. Adminstrations are
another matter. Thank God we have term limits.

There's no such thing as "designed NOT to be faith-based", other than
pretend government.

BTW; what good is "term limits" when we couldn't manage to get rid of
GW Bush and Dick Cheney until it was too late. (I mean too late to
have easily prevented the grand ruse/sting of 9/11)

~ BG

On Dec 23, 12:16*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
:: Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed no such extra
:: exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
:: extremely bright).

: Proof please. *Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
: planet.

I don't have too much problem with that, in principle. *In taking pictures
of the moon from earth, you mainly have to remember that it's exposed to
full sunlight; fractional second exposures for earthtime daylight scenes
work. *Venus should be similar-but-brighter; the main difference would
be how much film area the image covers, and venus would very likely be
wide enough to expose multiple grains (though not clear about the others).. *

But more important imo, afaik, Guth has never demonstrated that any
of those objects would have been in-frame for any of the images from
the moon. *Venus, for example, would be a bit surprising, since it ought
to have been be quite high in the sky, and the interesting images are
towards the horizon. *And there's no particular reason to suppose they
would be, unless they were attempting specifically to *put* them in-frame;
which they may well not have bothered.

And of course the bizarre thing is, what is the motive for this
alleged conspiracy, and even if the thousands upon thousands of
people who worked on the project were in on it, what motive did
folks in other countries have to go along with it?

And *most* important, if the whole world really is ruled by a conspiracy
that could cover this up, let me take this opportunity to request
(hey, they monitor usenet, right) they censor Guth more thoroughly
than he thinks they already are? *Thankyouverymuch.

Well, unless Guth is actually their stooge and/or sockpuppet, intended
to perpetuate the conspiracy by "exposing" it in such a way as to
discredit anybody who actually finds out about it and leaks. *
In which case, "nevermind".

Wayne Throop * *http://sheol.org/throopw

Your persistent mainstream status quo obfuscation is noted.

I've posted hundreds of links to images proving that I'm right, and
you've posted squat outside of whatever's NASA/Apollo approved. So,
where's the other 99.9% of our spendy LRO science that's mostly via
images other than all their narrow monochrome crap that tells us
almost nothing about our physically dark moon?

Also, where's the objective science pertaining to the moon L1(Selene
L1)?

~ BG

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:
Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Under a few meters of that mineral saturated basalt crust, there could
be all sorts of life to behold. Too bad we still don't have
sufficient technology for deploying active surface probes.

~ BG

On Dec 29, 10:50*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:22*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:



On Dec 25, 4:09*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:06*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 23, 5:25*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 23, 11:52*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.

Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.

Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. *

There is no mistaking when including other plenets from other
missions. For you to think NASA is haphazard about such things makes
you even dumber than you already appear to be.

There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).

Do you have the results of the Navy mission?

btw, *countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.

With long exposures you doofus!

Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's ****
from shinola. *Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.

LRO has proven Apollo to even the most feeble minded. Sorry you missed
it.

If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.

Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.

Your inablility to grasp basic concepts is noted.

Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. *Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.

Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.

Eric

Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
missing in action.

You imply you know what 100% of what the mission should be. Where do
you get that data?

You are a charlatan and everyone knows it. You wouldn't even make
Snake Oil Salesman from the Old West, as your line of bull**** is very
easily seem. *Still trying to figure out how to detect 105,000 year
"annual rings" from the Earth's geology basic upon your bizarre Sirius/
Sol cycle?

hahahahahahaha

At some point you MUST adopt a static frame of reference because you
weren't here from the beginning. Your dymanic frame of reference has
made you a tad mad...

Have a Merry Christmas, Grinch, err Guth...

Your belief that our government agencies are never the least bit faith-
based, never make mistakes, cover their public funded butts or
otherwise pull off any mutually perpetrated cold-war stings, nor ever
use spendy wool to cover our eyes, is noted.

Our govt. was designed NOT to be faith-based. Adminstrations are
another matter. Thank God we have term limits.

There's no such thing as "designed NOT to be faith-based", other than
pretend government.

Separation of church and state, and many have practiced it, but not
Bush.


BTW; *what good is "term limits" when we couldn't manage to get rid of
GW Bush and Dick Cheney until it was too late. (I mean too late to
have easily prevented the grand ruse/sting of 9/11)

We manage despite having had them. Just be lucky you don't die in an
auto accident or
from colon cancer, as both of those kill ~50,000 per year.

On Dec 30, 10:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:50*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 28, 12:22*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 25, 4:09*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:06*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 23, 5:25*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 23, 11:52*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.

Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.

Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. *

There is no mistaking when including other plenets from other
missions. For you to think NASA is haphazard about such things makes
you even dumber than you already appear to be.

There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).

Do you have the results of the Navy mission?

btw, *countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.

With long exposures you doofus!

Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's ****
from shinola. *Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive..

LRO has proven Apollo to even the most feeble minded. Sorry you missed
it.

If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.

Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.

Your inablility to grasp basic concepts is noted.

Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. *Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.

Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.

Eric

Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
missing in action.

You imply you know what 100% of what the mission should be. Where do
you get that data?

You are a charlatan and everyone knows it. You wouldn't even make
Snake Oil Salesman from the Old West, as your line of bull**** is very
easily seem. *Still trying to figure out how to detect 105,000 year
"annual rings" from the Earth's geology basic upon your bizarre Sirius/
Sol cycle?

hahahahahahaha

At some point you MUST adopt a static frame of reference because you
weren't here from the beginning. Your dymanic frame of reference has
made you a tad mad...

Have a Merry Christmas, Grinch, err Guth...

Your belief that our government agencies are never the least bit faith-
based, never make mistakes, cover their public funded butts or
otherwise pull off any mutually perpetrated cold-war stings, nor ever
use spendy wool to cover our eyes, is noted.

Our govt. was designed NOT to be faith-based. Adminstrations are
another matter. Thank God we have term limits.

There's no such thing as "designed NOT to be faith-based", other than
pretend government.

Separation of church and state, and many have practiced it, but not
Bush.



BTW; *what good is "term limits" when we couldn't manage to get rid of
GW Bush and Dick Cheney until it was too late. (I mean too late to
have easily prevented the grand ruse/sting of 9/11)

We manage despite having had them. Just be lucky you don't die in an
auto accident or
from colon cancer, as both of those kill ~50,000 per year.

In that case, those WTC structures, including WTC7, were of no
importance other than making the truly rich and powerful all the more
rich and powerful. Whatever insurance fraud need not be investigated.

So what if we caused another spendy round of global inflation?

There's a significant waiting list of cash-cash clients trying to get
their greedy bailout and offshore tax avoidance hands their next 15+
gallons/nm megayacht. These offshore registered Yachts idle along at
3+ gallons/nm, and max out at 20+ gal/nm. Their smallest auxiliary
generators are 100 KW, main generators are 250 KW. They seldom if
ever pay property or sales tax, as well as no employment taxes or
cover any unemployment benefits, and they usually avoid most other
taxations or end-use fees because of their offshore status.

~ BG

On Dec 31 2009, 9:32*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 30, 10:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:



On Dec 29, 10:50*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 28, 12:22*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 25, 4:09*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:06*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 23, 5:25*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 23, 11:52*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.

Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.

Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. *

There is no mistaking when including other plenets from other
missions. For you to think NASA is haphazard about such things makes
you even dumber than you already appear to be.

There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).

Do you have the results of the Navy mission?

btw, *countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.

With long exposures you doofus!

Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's ****
from shinola. *Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.

LRO has proven Apollo to even the most feeble minded. Sorry you missed
it.

If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.

Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.

Your inablility to grasp basic concepts is noted.

Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. *Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.

Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.

Eric

Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
missing in action.

You imply you know what 100% of what the mission should be. Where do
you get that data?

You are a charlatan and everyone knows it. You wouldn't even make
Snake Oil Salesman from the Old West, as your line of bull**** is very
easily seem. *Still trying to figure out how to detect 105,000 year
"annual rings" from the Earth's geology basic upon your bizarre Sirius/
Sol cycle?

hahahahahahaha

At some point you MUST adopt a static frame of reference because you
weren't here from the beginning. Your dymanic frame of reference has
made you a tad mad...

Have a Merry Christmas, Grinch, err Guth...

Your belief that our government agencies are never the least bit faith-
based, never make mistakes, cover their public funded butts or
otherwise pull off any mutually perpetrated cold-war stings, nor ever
use spendy wool to cover our eyes, is noted.

Our govt. was designed NOT to be faith-based. Adminstrations are
another matter. Thank God we have term limits.

There's no such thing as "designed NOT to be faith-based", other than
pretend government.

Separation of church and state, and many have practiced it, but not
Bush.

BTW; *what good is "term limits" when we couldn't manage to get rid of
GW Bush and Dick Cheney until it was too late. (I mean too late to
have easily prevented the grand ruse/sting of 9/11)

We manage despite having had them. Just be lucky you don't die in an
auto accident or
from colon cancer, as both of those kill ~50,000 per year.

In that case, those WTC structures, including WTC7, were of no
importance other than making the truly rich and powerful all the more
rich and powerful. *Whatever insurance fraud need not be investigated.

So what if we caused another spendy round of global inflation?

I think your buddies, the Chinese, have more control over that than we
do.


There's a significant waiting list of cash-cash clients trying to get
their greedy bailout and offshore tax avoidance hands their next 15+
gallons/nm megayacht. *These offshore registered Yachts idle along at
3+ gallons/nm, and max out at 20+ gal/nm. *Their smallest auxiliary
generators are 100 KW, main generators are 250 KW. *They seldom if
ever pay property or sales tax, as well as no employment taxes or
cover any unemployment benefits, and they usually avoid most other
taxations or end-use fees because of their offshore status.

By off-shore, do you mean China?

On Jan 4, 8:55*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 31 2009, 9:32*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 30, 10:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 29, 10:50*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 28, 12:22*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 25, 4:09*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:06*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 23, 5:25*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 23, 11:52*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.

Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.

Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. *

There is no mistaking when including other plenets from other
missions. For you to think NASA is haphazard about such things makes
you even dumber than you already appear to be.

There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).

Do you have the results of the Navy mission?

btw, *countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.

With long exposures you doofus!

Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's ****
from shinola. *Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.

LRO has proven Apollo to even the most feeble minded. Sorry you missed
it.

If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.

Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.

Your inablility to grasp basic concepts is noted.

Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. *Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.

Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.

Eric

Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
missing in action.

You imply you know what 100% of what the mission should be. Where do
you get that data?

You are a charlatan and everyone knows it. You wouldn't even make
Snake Oil Salesman from the Old West, as your line of bull**** is very
easily seem. *Still trying to figure out how to detect 105,000 year
"annual rings" from the Earth's geology basic upon your bizarre Sirius/
Sol cycle?

hahahahahahaha

At some point you MUST adopt a static frame of reference because you
weren't here from the beginning. Your dymanic frame of reference has
made you a tad mad...

Have a Merry Christmas, Grinch, err Guth...

Your belief that our government agencies are never the least bit faith-
based, never make mistakes, cover their public funded butts or
otherwise pull off any mutually perpetrated cold-war stings, nor ever
use spendy wool to cover our eyes, is noted.

Our govt. was designed NOT to be faith-based. Adminstrations are
another matter. Thank God we have term limits.

There's no such thing as "designed NOT to be faith-based", other than
pretend government.

Separation of church and state, and many have practiced it, but not
Bush.

BTW; *what good is "term limits" when we couldn't manage to get rid of
GW Bush and Dick Cheney until it was too late. (I mean too late to
have easily prevented the grand ruse/sting of 9/11)

We manage despite having had them. Just be lucky you don't die in an
auto accident or
from colon cancer, as both of those kill ~50,000 per year.

In that case, those WTC structures, including WTC7, were of no
importance other than making the truly rich and powerful all the more
rich and powerful. *Whatever insurance fraud need not be investigated..

So what if we caused another spendy round of global inflation?

I think your buddies, the Chinese, have more control over that than we
do.


There's a significant waiting list of cash-cash clients trying to get
their greedy bailout and offshore tax avoidance hands their next 15+
gallons/nm megayacht. *These offshore registered Yachts idle along at
3+ gallons/nm, and max out at 20+ gal/nm. *Their smallest auxiliary
generators are 100 KW, main generators are 250 KW. *They seldom if
ever pay property or sales tax, as well as no employment taxes or
cover any unemployment benefits, and they usually avoid most other
taxations or end-use fees because of their offshore status.

By off-shore, do you mean China?

Offshore registered yachts, jets and other spendy toys plus lavish
estates for an American means tax and multiple other fee avoidance.
There are specialty nations that provide this kind of private niche
financial protection service for a reasonably small set-up and annual
service fee. Until lately our IRS has looked the other way, because
it was always so much easier to tax and levy fees upon the rest of us
village idiots. (president BHO has been making some discrete and
perfectly legit interpretation revisions to such matters, that are
nailing a few of those disloyal American perverts [treasonous
*******s] that have seldom paid their fair share)

I think putting them all in prison is a way better idea, and letting
them weither away unless they pay us back every cent along with
penalties and compounded interest.

~ BG

On Dec 14 2009, 8:56 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

For some reason our spendy LRO mission can't accomplish what a Earth
bound astronomy class of color imaging can (in spite of our polluted
atmosphere) by Filipe Alves, including picking up those secondary/
recoil UV fluorescent colors of lunar surface minerals that by right
from the crystal clear low orbit of 50 km should be at least ten fold
better.
http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

~ BG