Brad Guth's Credentials

Brad Guth wrote:
I mean, you went off the deep end talking about how bad the radiation
environment was, and TOTALLY IGNORE and TALK DOWN, clearly obvious
evidence like the actual record of radiation exposure of the Apollo
astronauts taken on their voyage.
Unlike yourself, I've learned to ignore most all of the "obvious
evidence" via your NASA/Apollo infomercial-science that's related to
their supposed moonsuit naked EVAs. If you can't trust those Kodak
moments, then what can you trust?

Besides, without a viable fly-by-rocket lander that has yet to be R&D
demonstrated or otherwise proof-tested, what's left to trust about much
of anything that's NASA/Apollo?

A nearly 30% inert Saturn 5 GLOW does not get 50+t past LL-1, much less
into orbiting our physically dark and DNA lethal moon within 75 hours.
That sort of cold-war fancy rocket-science simply can not be replicated
without involving a rather serious hocus-pocus extra butt-load of smoke
and mirrors.
-
Brad Guth




The Apollo 15 Mission burn marks have been found on the Moon.

See:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...os_010427.html


This is the best proof yet that the Apollo Missions really took place.



tomcat

tomcat wrote:
The Apollo 15 Mission burn marks have been found on the Moon.

See:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...os_010427.html

This is the best proof yet that the Apollo Missions really took place.

Good grief that's another old and fuzzy image that has been PhotoShop
processed to the max, that which proves nothing but for showing us what
such relatively newish impact craters look like. Can you point to any
one of the NASA/Apollo EVA obtained images showing us the similar 0.035
surrounding albedo as going for a hundred meters in all directions away
from each of their supposed landing sites? I'd also like to see a
little down-range burn pattern prior to impact.

Good grief that's another old and fuzzy image that has been PhotoShop
processed to the max, that proves nothing but for showing us what such
relatively newish impact craters look like. Can you point to any one
of the NASA/Apollo EVA obtained images showing us the similar 0.035
surrounding albedo as going for a hundred meters in all directions away
from each of their supposed landing sites? I'd also like to see a
little down-range burn pattern prior to impact.

Good Christ almighty, their very own words and Kodak moments having
stipulated that there was no such retrothrust impressions, much less
having created any physical burn or even blow-off of the dusty lunar
surface, as each lander seemingly had the very same thin layer of local
moon-dust as still coexisting directly under their rocket engine, as
for the same as the nearby dust where all of those supposed moonboot
foot prints are to be found. There's even an image of footprints that
somehow managed to get directly below that rocket nozzle (that's a
rather neat trick in of itself), and otherwise never once having
indicated a darker landing surface than what's otherwise having
surrounded each of their supposed fly-by-rocket landers. Are we good
at hocus-pocus, or what?

You do realize that the official NASA/Apollo images as having been
obtained from their extremely nearby orbit, as having at the very least
a ten fold better resolution to start with, plus actually offering
another 10 fold resolution boost by way of film being of so much better
off than CCD and via 10X telephoto lens means having easily obtained a
good 100 fold better image resolution than of that pathetic Clementine
obtained image, as for their own efforts having offered absolutely
zilch of each and every one of their own landing sites, that which they
unavoidably passed directly over how many times?

Besides your having ignored the facts and the hard-science truth(s) of
what their very own Kodak images and especially of their more recent
science has had to offer, it seems that you folks obviously don't know
much about body language or vocal stress, do you?

It's certainly obvious that you couldn't even tell by way of the
big-ass smirk on the butt-face of our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush),
of which that sorry ******* having been nothing but a born-again liar
from the very get-go.

There were so many facial ticks and body squirms as Neil Armstrong
replied to that 60 MINUTES interview, and that was ongoing even as he
listened to the various questions, as there were uncontrolled eye and
of other body functions that were those of a guilty soul, so much so
that I'm not sure of what if anything was the truth. After all, I
believe that he'd be quite dead and of his entire family and close
friends sequestered and/or equally terminated before having said
anything else that wasn't approved/scripted. You do know that others
had been eliminated, don't you?

-

Speaking about some of the "assholness" of this anti-think-tank Usenet
from hell;
If Catholics still have no problems with their having mass exterminated
Cathars, plus anyone else within a days's march, then why not allow the
Pope to do the same to any unsuspecting ETs that might exist/coexist on
any other planet or moon, especially if they are merely those of other
Christ like Cathars, whereas Jews or perhaps even Muslims might
seemingly deserve the same demise?

Although, our born-again Christian warlord is actually doing a simply
damn fine job of it as is, so much so that we may not even require the
exterminating expertise of the Catholic Pope if we should run into
those ETs as Venusian heathens.

Actually, Venus could become a good place for Muslims that already seem
to like it dry and hot. They should also get along with whatever
Cathars and visiting ETs that may already be there.

"The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I
reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing." - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005

I totally agree with "Anthony Flew", that the Roman Catholic idea of
such a blood and guts sucking God that otherwise intellectually and
morally sucks and blows (especially within some realms of the Jewish
sector) is of nothing but seriously bad news, especially if that
represents the very best we've got to work with.
-
Brad Guth

In message . com, Brad
Guth writes
tomcat wrote:
The Apollo 15 Mission burn marks have been found on the Moon.

See:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...uchdown_photos
_010427.html

This is the best proof yet that the Apollo Missions really took place.

Good grief that's another old and fuzzy image that has been PhotoShop
processed to the max, that which proves nothing but for showing us what
such relatively newish impact craters look like. Can you point to any
one of the NASA/Apollo EVA obtained images showing us the similar 0.035
surrounding albedo as going for a hundred meters in all directions away
from each of their supposed landing sites? I'd also like to see a
little down-range burn pattern prior to impact.

snip tosh

Brad Guth

You are a very silly person, and boring too.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
ups.com...
tomcat wrote:
The Apollo 15 Mission burn marks have been found on the Moon.

See:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...os_010427.html

This is the best proof yet that the Apollo Missions really took place.

Good grief that's another old and fuzzy image that has been PhotoShop
processed to the max, that which proves nothing but for showing us what
such relatively newish impact craters look like.

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

David Bacque wrote:

And don't forget, Brad took a quiz and got a masters degree in
observationology!



I have a BA in science...mind you it's political science, but anyway....
Near as I can figure, Brad's got a BS degree. ;-)

Pat

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:57:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



David Bacque wrote:

And don't forget, Brad took a quiz and got a masters degree in
observationology!



I have a BA in science...mind you it's political science, but anyway....
Near as I can figure, Brad's got a BS degree. ;-)

To be more precise, that would be a degree in BS...

In message .com, Brad
Guth writes
Peter Twydell wrote:
In message . com, Brad
Guth writes
tomcat wrote:
The Apollo 15 Mission burn marks have been found on the Moon.

See:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...uchdown_photos
_010427.html

This is the best proof yet that the Apollo Missions really took place.

Good grief that's another old and fuzzy image that has been PhotoShop
processed to the max, that which proves nothing but for showing us what
such relatively newish impact craters look like. Can you point to any
one of the NASA/Apollo EVA obtained images showing us the similar 0.035
surrounding albedo as going for a hundred meters in all directions away
from each of their supposed landing sites? I'd also like to see a
little down-range burn pattern prior to impact.

snip tosh

Brad Guth

You are a very silly person, and boring too.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

What part of "up your's" is simply way too complicated for your
infomercial or bust mindset to appreciate?

What's so boring to such a brown-noser like yourself, about the truth
and nothing but the truth?

I find the truth about our salty moon that may very well have once upon
a time had 262 km worth of salty ice on deck, that's now a naked orb
that's physically dark as coal and of a gamma and hard-X-ray
environment that's worse off than any terrestrial GSO environment, as
being just as interesting as the truth is about our extremely nearby
and geothermally active planet of Venus, that's nowhere as physically
hot by the season of nighttime as by the season of day, and only much
cooler yet by way of elevation or via good altitude that's easily
doable, as well as the entire global situation cooling itself off year
by year seems rather extremely interesting. Of course you can't be
biologically blind and intellectually bigoted at the same time if to
fully appreciate much if any of the new and improved science that's
coming through.

Venus EXPRESS is alive, as is the planet, as is Guth
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...m/thread/8f88f
c1c99f0d2fb/c9d18ff06f97bb84?hl=en#c9d18ff06f97bb84

Apparently you think anything that's the least bit truth worthy is
boring as hell, therefore you must be extremely well entertained by way
of our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), in that he typically never
tells the truth.

BTW; why are you bothering to snip out all the really good stuff?
-
The stuff I snipped was way too stupid and boring to actually read in
detail and to attempt to comprehend. Just put it down to experience.

Also, as far as I can tell, the sentence I posted was the only thing
that was actually true.

I did get qualifications in English when at school, and if I were to
produce work with the standards of logic, grammar and spelling in your
posts I wouldn't keep my customers for very long.

There are many truths in the universe and most of the physical ones are
far from boring. Unfortunately your ravings rarely, if ever, come
anywhere near any generally-accepted category of truth.

You are still very silly and boring, and I expect you will continue to
be so even if medical science should ever discover a suitable drug to
treat you with.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:57:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


David Bacque wrote:

And don't forget, Brad took a quiz and got a masters degree in
observationology!


I have a BA in science...mind you it's political science, but anyway....
Near as I can figure, Brad's got a BS degree. ;-)

To be more precise, that would be a degree in BS...

Obviously I am being more than sufficiently honest if not entirely
right, as otherwise you'd be one of the very first to be sharing
specific science that proves that I'm not right. Of the hard-science
that you folks claim to have, of which usually such comes along with
hard-numbers, doesn't it?

So, where the heck are your hard-numbers?

Since you folks have such a cult taboo/nondisclosure policy of
need-to-know, whereas you and your kind share absolutely nothing that
could possibly affect your Third Reich mindset, and/or of that which
only worships your NASA/Apollo pagan gods, whereas such you're the one
and/or of the incest collective of brown-nosed borgs that's dead wrong.

We can clearly see by way of your pathetic response that you're still
unable to individually or as a group constructively contribute to the
topic at hand, and here I'd thought you folks were supposedly smart.
Why exactly is that?

This topic is not actually about how I'm all that special qualified or
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. The same can be said
on behalf of my observationology expertise as applied on behalf of most
any of my pro intelligent life coexisting on Venus topics, whereas such
they're also not about the absolute negatives as being totally
insurmountable as based upon what your NASA koran has to say.

I happen to find the truth about our salty moon, that which may very
well have once upon a time had 262 km worth of salty ice on deck, that
was also most likely ice being chuck full of life as we know it, that's
now a somewhat naked orb that's physically dark as coal, extremely
dusty and having become that of a downright nasty gamma and hard-X-ray
environment that's a tad bit worse off than any terrestrial GSO
environment, as being just as interesting as the truth is about our
extremely nearby and geothermally active planet of Venus, that's
actually nowhere as physically hot by the season of nighttime as by the
season of day, and only much cooler yet by way of taking advantage of
elevation or via good altitude that's rather easily doable via rigid
airship, as well as taking notice that their entire global situation as
having been cooling itself off year by year seems rather extremely
interesting. Of course you can't be biologically blind and
intellectually bigoted at the same time if to fully appreciate much if
any of the new and improved science that's gradually coming through.

Venus EXPRESS is alive, as is the planet, as is Guth
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d18ff06f97bb84

Too bad you're another one that's stuck with being one of them.
-
Brad Guth

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 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.

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