|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
tomcat wrote:
Here is a direct quote from BRAD GUTH: "These 'name calling posts' clutter up the Usenet, making real discourse difficult." I am in full agreement, Brad. I haven't been able to get a word in edgewise in two weeks. tomcat What? I can't hear you. -- Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy Official Agent of Deception Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005 "An applied ripple action implies time and momentum reciprocal dependent directed surface tension not instantaneous field wide reaction." -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
Here's yet another two cents worth of mine that you can quote;
This topic of "Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review" is about my taking a some time as to review the possibilities, that of ETs having in the past taken a perfectly logical advantage of our potentially hollow moon. As such, I can't hardly exclude anything without hard-science, and because we seem to have so damn little hard-science about our nearby moon, therefore the barn doors are remaining wide open for whatever could be the case of our once upon a time icy and relatively salty proto-moon, that may have been derived from our very own Oort zone or taken from the nearby Sirius Oort zone, if not having been extracted away from Venus when the two of those items more recently arrived into this solar system, or perhaps it's simply from the happenstance of when we arrived into their solar system. Too bad after 4 decades and counting, that we still have not established one interactive science instrument as deployed upon our moon. Isn't that absolutely pathetic or what? - Brad Guth |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
Brad Guth wrote: Here's yet another two cents worth of mine that you can quote; This topic of "Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review" is about my taking a some time as to review the possibilities, that of ETs having in the past taken a perfectly logical advantage of our potentially hollow moon. As such, I can't hardly exclude anything without hard-science, and because we seem to have so damn little hard-science about our nearby moon, therefore the barn doors are remaining wide open for whatever could be the case of our once upon a time icy and relatively salty proto-moon, that may have been derived from our very own Oort zone or taken from the nearby Sirius Oort zone, if not having been extracted away from Venus when the two of those items more recently arrived into this solar system, or perhaps it's simply from the happenstance of when we arrived into their solar system. Too bad after 4 decades and counting, that we still have not established one interactive science instrument as deployed upon our moon. Isn't that absolutely pathetic or what? - Brad Guth An observatory on the Moon could have a telescope many, many times more powerful than Hubble. An ELINT (ELectronic INTelligence) unit on the Moon could canvass enormous areas of either the Earth or Deep Space, not to mention the Moon itself. A mining operation on the Moon could mine Titanium, Aluminum, He-3, and H2O. And, with H2O you have, of course, both hydrogen and oxygen, as well as water. So, why haven't we been on the Moon for the past 30+ years? I can't answer that. I can simply say that we should get up there as soon as possible and establish a presence. tomcat |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
On 9 Apr 2006 13:53:37 -0700, "tomcat" wrote:
Here is a direct quote from BRAD GUTH: "These 'name calling posts' clutter up the Usenet, making real discourse difficult." I am in full agreement, Brad. I haven't been able to get a word in edgewise in two weeks. Really? You actually support Bratty's name-calling? How silly of you. ESL! -- Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast) Clue-Bat Wrangler Keeper of the Nickname Lists Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order Monthly Hammer of Thor award, October 2005 "I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely "****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot." "ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI." - Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/ http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html WWFSMD? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote: Here's yet another two cents worth of mine that you can quote; This topic of "Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review" is about my taking a some time as to review the possibilities, that of ETs having in the past taken a perfectly logical advantage of our potentially hollow moon. As such, I can't hardly exclude anything without hard-science, and because we seem to have so damn little hard-science about our nearby moon, therefore the barn doors are remaining wide open for whatever could be the case of our once upon a time icy and relatively salty proto-moon, that may have been derived from our very own Oort zone or taken from the nearby Sirius Oort zone, if not having been extracted away from Venus when the two of those items more recently arrived into this solar system, or perhaps it's simply from the happenstance of when we arrived into their solar system. Too bad after 4 decades and counting, that we still have not established one interactive science instrument as deployed upon our moon. Isn't that absolutely pathetic or what? - Brad Guth An observatory on the Moon could have a telescope many, many times more powerful than Hubble. An ELINT (ELectronic INTelligence) unit on the Moon could canvass enormous areas of either the Earth or Deep Space, not to mention the Moon itself. A mining operation on the Moon could mine Titanium, Aluminum, He-3, and H2O. And, with H2O you have, of course, both hydrogen and oxygen, as well as water. So, why haven't we been on the Moon for the past 30+ years? I can't answer that. I can simply say that we should get up there as soon as possible and establish a presence. Free clue -- your hero Brad Guth believes the Moon hoax conspiracy babble. -- Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy Official Agent of Deception Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005 "An applied ripple action implies time and momentum reciprocal dependent directed surface tension not instantaneous field wide reaction." -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
If there's still Aliens squatting on our moon, in which case I have
just the ticket for rocking their boat. Of course, we could also utilize this same opportunity for pretty much eliminating any trace of our Apollo impacts. First of all, I'm usually a very eristic sort of guy that just so happens to have a few lose cannons on my poopdeck. However, those cannons seldom get utilized unless I'm being topic/author stalked by way of those having no intentions of their constructively contributing squat. Like my most recent considerations given on behalf of terraforming our moon and of terminating a potentially lethal asteroid (Apophis/99942 2004 MN4) at the same time hasn't exactly received the warm and fuzzy Usenet stamp of approval. Thus saving humanity plus having greatly improved our environment, at the same time as having given our salty moon a touch of atmosphere, whereas this notion still isn't sufficient cause for others that usually claim as knowing all there is to know, as to sharing a damn thing on behalf of accomplishing this nifty task. As early as 2021, 24e18 joules worth of head-on slamming our moon with everything that's "Apophis" seems perfectly doable. If we miss that opportunity, 2029 and then 2036 gives us two extra tries at nailing our moon before that asteroid (AKA minor planet) nails us. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...7a46fd744d5b9c Due to the expected cratering(deep surface deformation), as well as for the displaced primary and secondary tonnage of shards that'll be going every which way but lose (I'm assuming a few tonnes that'll be leaving lunar orbit), plus given the fairly massive amount of thermal energy that's essentially vaporising a great deal of most everything (including the asteroid) into becoming atmospheric elements, is why much of the asteroid's kinetic impact energy shouldn't contribute to lunar Dv unless it's density is sufficiently greater than that of the moon. Therefore, I'm thinking the impact reaction energy is perhaps seldom going to exceed 10% of the full kinetic potential, even if having been a direct hit. A mostly nickel-iron asteroid that's worth 7.8t/m3 could obviously manage quite nicely at delivering a greater percentage of it's KE into becoming lunar Dv, whereas Apophis/99942 is supposedly a third of that density as based upon the current swag of available infomercial-science, and as such there shouldn't be hardly any physical remains of that wussy substance once having merged with the 3.1+g/cm3 of lunar basalt. The supposed ballpark density of Apophis/99942 is merely 2.681t/m3 The density of a mostly nickel-iron meteor or asteroid is 7.856t/m3 Pure nickel alloy can reach 8.9t/m3 Pure cobalt alloy can reach 8.8t/m3 Magnetic shield alloy density is 8.25~8.75t/m3 Common nickel-iron alloys can easily exceed 8.1t/m3 Of pure iron and nickel crystals become 7.775 and 8.953t/m3 Obviously there are a few concentrations of heavier elements out there. This is my current swag as to Dv of impactor reaction potential, as based upon the angle of the impending asteroid as the impactor which targets our moon. 0.0° = 10% Dv (dead on center impact, +/-1°) 22.5° = 5% Dv 45° = 2.5% Dv 67.5° = .625% Dv 90° = .156% Dv (glancing blow that's mostly going into rotational torque) My suggested maximum impact reaction Dv = Mb/Ma * V2 * % /2 Dv = lunar velocity shift or reaction in m/sec (in this case = increase in velocity) Ma = primary mass of 7.35e22 kg Mb = secondary mass of 4.6e10 kg V2 = Velocity squared, (12.5e3)2 = 156.25e6 % = 10% if taken at 0.0° (direct hit within +/- 1°) The reactive Dv could however represent a reduction in lunar velocity if given a head-on or even that of an external (backside) impact, which I believe technically can be arranged. With some practice, I believe we could put this sucker into whichever front, back or side-pocket we'd care to arrange, or we could also manage to minimize the impact energy by way of targeting a lunar rear-ender that should extract nearly a km/s from the velocity tally, and much slower yet if you folks would not mind our using the gravity and upper atmospheric drag of Earth as a method of moderating the velocity of that sucker. The hard-science obtained from this could be rather impressive, in that we'd establish a great deal of knowledge and expertise as to what our moon is actually made of, as well as demonstrating our capability of defending mother Earth from other NEOs. Just learning the hard facts about orbital mechanics, such as how well associated and/or attached that moon is to our existance. For instance, I'd like to learn of exactly how much LSE-CM/ISS tonnage of pulling upon the moon towards Earth would offset the supposed 34 mm/yr of recession. One method is to impact the moon with a substantial asteroid and then take notice of what the impactor accomplished in causing Dv. - Brad Guth |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
On 12 Apr 2006 09:10:19 -0700, "Brad Guth"
wrote: If there's still Aliens squatting on our moon, in which case I have just the ticket for rocking their boat. Of course, we could also utilize this same opportunity for pretty much eliminating any trace of our Apollo impacts. First of all, I'm usually a very eristic sort of guy Yes, you are very given to employing specious arguments , Brad. Thanks for admitting it. that just so happens to have a few lose cannons on my poopdeck. However, those cannons seldom get utilized unless I'm being topic/author stalked by way of those having no intentions of their constructively contributing squat. Like my most recent considerations given on behalf of terraforming our moon and of terminating a potentially lethal asteroid (Apophis/99942 2004 MN4) at the same time hasn't exactly received the warm and fuzzy Usenet stamp of approval. Thus saving humanity plus having greatly improved our environment, at the same time as having given our salty moon a touch of atmosphere, whereas this notion still isn't sufficient cause for others that usually claim as knowing all there is to know, as to sharing a damn thing on behalf of accomplishing this nifty task. As early as 2021, 24e18 joules worth of head-on slamming our moon with everything that's "Apophis" seems perfectly doable. If we miss that opportunity, 2029 and then 2036 gives us two extra tries at nailing our moon before that asteroid (AKA minor planet) nails us. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...7a46fd744d5b9c Due to the expected cratering(deep surface deformation), as well as for the displaced primary and secondary tonnage of shards that'll be going every which way but lose (I'm assuming a few tonnes that'll be leaving lunar orbit), plus given the fairly massive amount of thermal energy that's essentially vaporising a great deal of most everything (including the asteroid) into becoming atmospheric elements, is why much of the asteroid's kinetic impact energy shouldn't contribute to lunar Dv unless it's density is sufficiently greater than that of the moon. Therefore, I'm thinking the impact reaction energy is perhaps seldom going to exceed 10% of the full kinetic potential, even if having been a direct hit. A mostly nickel-iron asteroid that's worth 7.8t/m3 could obviously manage quite nicely at delivering a greater percentage of it's KE into becoming lunar Dv, whereas Apophis/99942 is supposedly a third of that density as based upon the current swag of available infomercial-science, and as such there shouldn't be hardly any physical remains of that wussy substance once having merged with the 3.1+g/cm3 of lunar basalt. The supposed ballpark density of Apophis/99942 is merely 2.681t/m3 The density of a mostly nickel-iron meteor or asteroid is 7.856t/m3 Pure nickel alloy can reach 8.9t/m3 Pure cobalt alloy can reach 8.8t/m3 Magnetic shield alloy density is 8.25~8.75t/m3 Common nickel-iron alloys can easily exceed 8.1t/m3 Of pure iron and nickel crystals become 7.775 and 8.953t/m3 Obviously there are a few concentrations of heavier elements out there. This is my current swag as to Dv of impactor reaction potential, as based upon the angle of the impending asteroid as the impactor which targets our moon. 0.0° = 10% Dv (dead on center impact, +/-1°) 22.5° = 5% Dv 45° = 2.5% Dv 67.5° = .625% Dv 90° = .156% Dv (glancing blow that's mostly going into rotational torque) My suggested maximum impact reaction Dv = Mb/Ma * V2 * % /2 Dv = lunar velocity shift or reaction in m/sec (in this case = increase in velocity) Ma = primary mass of 7.35e22 kg Mb = secondary mass of 4.6e10 kg V2 = Velocity squared, (12.5e3)2 = 156.25e6 % = 10% if taken at 0.0° (direct hit within +/- 1°) The reactive Dv could however represent a reduction in lunar velocity if given a head-on or even that of an external (backside) impact, which I believe technically can be arranged. With some practice, I believe we could put this sucker into whichever front, back or side-pocket we'd care to arrange, or we could also manage to minimize the impact energy by way of targeting a lunar rear-ender that should extract nearly a km/s from the velocity tally, and much slower yet if you folks would not mind our using the gravity and upper atmospheric drag of Earth as a method of moderating the velocity of that sucker. The hard-science obtained from this could be rather impressive, in that we'd establish a great deal of knowledge and expertise as to what our moon is actually made of, as well as demonstrating our capability of defending mother Earth from other NEOs. Just learning the hard facts about orbital mechanics, such as how well associated and/or attached that moon is to our existance. For instance, I'd like to learn of exactly how much LSE-CM/ISS tonnage of pulling upon the moon towards Earth would offset the supposed 34 mm/yr of recession. One method is to impact the moon with a substantial asteroid and then take notice of what the impactor accomplished in causing Dv. How many times will you be poasting that word salad, Guthboi? ESL! -- Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast) Clue-Bat Wrangler Keeper of the Nickname Lists Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order Hammer of Thor award, October 2005 "I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely "****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot." "ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI." - Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of Hitler. - Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead. WWFSMD? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
On 9 Apr 2006 22:00:27 -0700, "tomcat" wrote
in alt.fan.art-bell in message .com: And, with H2O you have, of course, both hydrogen and oxygen, as well as water. Really??? Goddam, YOU'RE SMARD!! I am in AWE of your scientifical nollij! -- V.G. "i would blame them it they went on a holy jhiad and killed off all the infidels, would you?" - AssLexa's "200+" alien-implanted IQ jumps the rails and crashes into a grade school, killing all inside. Change pobox dot alaska to gci. Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
tomcat wrote:
Art Deco wrote: When will you be presenting the evidence for your discovery? fpfpppmmm pfmpffppffpmmffmpmmppmpm mpfppfpff ppffmffmpmfpppffmffmmmpp pmmppfmfpppp fmpppf pfmmpppffmpfppfpffppm mfpmfffmm pfmfmmffmpmffpmmffmmm pfmfmmfmfpmfpmfmfffpmmmmppp mmmmmffmp I have already presented evidence. The JPL pictures. If you do as I have already done and enlarge them and erase shadows you will see what I see. You have to take the pictures of about 3 megabytes to get a clear view. What is "fpfpppmmm pfmpffppffpmmffmpmmppmpm . . ."? -- more decpetion? tomcat And what chemical aids did you consume to see this martian? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review
Brad Guth wrote: Perhaps once upon a time aliens may have utilized our once-upon-a-time icy proto-moon for a nifty pitstop, or perhaps that of an interstellar lifeboat as they migrated and/or accommodated their expeditions to/from their nearby Sirius star system, that which our solar system is essentially being pulled along in a very elliptical (100,000 some odd years) orbit by the massive gravity influence of what the combined Sirius star system amounts to as roughly 3.5 sol. At least there's no known laws of astrophysics or of any other physics that's keeping us apart. The "UPN Moon UFO mystery" may be suggesting to us of there being sufficient reason for our having another good look-see, that which those items as having been pointed out by this "UPN Moon UFO mystery" can be quite nicely outdone by our KECK team, that which the KECK methods have already been more than capable of accomplishing this task with better than sufficient resolution. At this point in the grand ruse/sting of the century, our NASA is willing to do whatever it takes in order to convince even the UFO cults that we've been there and done that. Unfortunately, other than having obtained those absolutely terrific telephoto images from such a nearby orbit (which has long been proven by our NASA as per having the capability of such images being robotically obtained) is about as good as it gets. If you'd like a run-through of the following archive, as to what's perfectly believable and of what isn't, just ask and I'll deliver the goods. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/ BTW; if ETs wanted a sufficiently nearby base of operations, as such there's absolutely no question that Venus has by far been offering the better alternative for an absolute ET butt-load of perfectly good reasons, which may in fact be of what's depicted in the image(s) that I've identified as such. Unlike the supposed alien moon bases that we have obtained such extremely poor quality if hardly any worthy images to go by, whereas my observationology as a deductive interpreted image of what's quite easily extracted and as replicated to your heart's content from the official Magellan archives, of especially that taken from one specific image file that's absolutely chuck full of what's easily identified as a significant community of large scale structures and of a highly rational infrastructure, are offering us 10+ fold better image quality and 100 fold better complexity of artificial looking content than of the supposed moon bases that are wussy by comparison. Would you like to see? - Brad Guth Thanks for the reference, Brad. But I discovered a disturbing picture taken by the Lunar Orbiter. It shows what might be water/ice but it is a liitle to far North of the South Pole. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lu...info.shtml?642 Perhaps, it is 'something else'. Whatever it is is big. And the circular bright whtie images don't look like mountain tops in the Sunlight either. Anybody have suggestions? tomcat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is the Moon Hollow? Sleuths? | Imperishable Stars | Misc | 46 | October 8th 04 04:08 PM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | UK Astronomy | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Misc | 10 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The Apollo Moon Hoax FAQ v4.1 November 2003 | Nathan Jones | Misc | 20 | November 11th 03 07:33 PM |