The Moon Landing Is A Hoax !

In message , Brad Guth
writes

Since I'm no good at telling my stories,

'Nuff said!

I thought I had you kill filed but I see you've got a new address.
Goodbye!

In article ,
(Brad Guth) wrote:


(Snipped much usual drivel)

You've been gone for a bit, Brad. What? Were your meds working too
well? Please consult your physician regarding these delusions of yours.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
|
| You've been gone for a bit, Brad. What? Were your meds working too
| well?

Like most conspiracy theorists, he ignores questions and lays low for a
while so that his opponents become disinterested and go elsewhere. Then he
comes back with the same old drivel that was shredded previously, hoping for
a new crop of rubes.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brad Guth) wrote:


(Snipped much usual drivel)

You've been gone for a bit, Brad. What? Were your meds working too
well? Please consult your physician regarding these delusions of yours.

Not gone, just busy doing stuff.

BTW; where's some of that basalt lunar rock?

You know, all that dark lunar rock and subsequently clumping sand/soil
that photographed with nearly a 50% reflective index, in comparison to
those 85% reflective moon suits.

A little off topic, but still related to our moon; More often than
not, I've taken more than my fair share of warm and fuzzy flak, only
to discover long standing ulterior motives getting involved. Like all
the flak I've recently taken over the lunar space elevator
(LSE-CM/ISS): http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

Regards, Brad Guth IEIS~GASA / discovery of other LIFE on Venus
Alternate URL: http://guthvenus.tripod.com phone: 1-253-8576061

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| You know, all that dark lunar rock and subsequently clumping sand/soil
| that photographed with nearly a 50% reflective index

I have asked you repeatedly to provided a discussion of where you arrived at
this value. Please provide it.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:07:31 -0700, JGDeRuvo wrote:

NO ONE accusses the
Soviets of faking Gregarin's flight ... or Titov's space walk

Well as far as I know they never claimed Gregarin flew, Gagarin yes, but
not Gregarin.

And Titov never made a space walk, he flew Vostok II and stayed in the
capsule until it was time to eject after reentry. The first spacewalker
was Leonov in Voskhod II.

Rick DeNatale wrote in message ...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:07:31 -0700, JGDeRuvo wrote:

NO ONE accusses the
Soviets of faking Gregarin's flight ... or Titov's space walk

Well as far as I know they never claimed Gregarin flew, Gagarin yes, but
not Gregarin.

And Titov never made a space walk, he flew Vostok II and stayed in the
capsule until it was time to eject after reentry. The first spacewalker
was Leonov in Voskhod II.

As far as I can discover, the USSR did whatever it honestly took,
though snookering wasn't their strong suit as it was ours.

Of course this time around our NASA is going to be starting off from
near scratch, as so far there's absolutely nothing documented from our
past nor of what's in current inventory that has ever worked, or has
potential for getting man to/from any ET surface, much less of the
nastier lunar surface. Christ almighty, half the time we still can't
even get our miniature probes down onto another surface as planned.

I've got just a couple hundred thousand words about our resident
warlord taking us back to the moon, I feel somewhat most strongly like
following in his educational "high standards and accountability"
that's only being recently superseded by his "so what's the
difference" policy.

For starters, it's about time, whereas actually for the first time
we'd be actually doing humanity a terrific sort of favor, especially
if we can get our fearless leader to ride in one of those Apollo
landers and strut about for 36 hours in one of those Apollo moon
suits, as that way we'd stand our best chance ever of getting rid of
the *******, once and for all.

Otherwise I'm all for investing into whatever it takes in establishing
ourselves on the moon before others take possession of all that nifty
He3.

I believe the moon well return a profit within the first year;

Some good readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-Sad...andPirates.htm

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA

"Moon Dirt isn't just Moon Dirt, it's absolutely Everything Dirt"

I have absolutely no doubts that once upon a time Mars had a
sufficient atmosphere, thereby a warmer and radiation protected
environment, possibly even long enough to have sustained either
natural evolution and/or of some well intended terraforming on behalf
of establishing some life similar to human.

Unfortunately, there are certain limits to which life and of it's
DNA/RNA as we know it can coexist within the confines of what Mars has
had to offer for the past few thousand years, and certainly things are
not getting any better. Whereas Venus still offers a survivable
atmospheric buffer zone that's also loaded with all sorts of natural
energy opportunities.

The more the likes of the Mars core cools itself off, the worse
becomes any opportunity for that planet to revive itself, short of
receiving a massive infusion of artificial energy, such as what 1000
terawatts per year as derived from our lunar He3 might have to offer.

Some good readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-Sad...andPirates.htm

The latest insults to this Mars/Moon injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm

Some other recent updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm

Here's another of my positive contributions as for doing our moon
first, instead of Mars or even Europa, though I'll certainly favor any
honest thoughts upon the likes of Venus, of just interplanetary
communications.

"Moon, Mars, Venus, Sirius and Earth (so what's the difference?)"

Our Apollo moon only stinks to high heaven, while Mars sucks away at
critical expertise as well as limited resources, and otherwise
extracting billions away from intellectually as well as physically
starving folks. I wonder which is worse off, being a Cathar or another
NASA hugger that's intent upon skewing morality as well as physics
into the nearest space toilet.

I don't mean to be such a total pest about our unique moon but, even
those moons of Mars rotate as unsynchronized about their home world,
as do all other recorded moons, except for the one orbiting Earth.
Now, I wouldn't be having to do this if folks weren't so absolutely
opposing the notions of there being other life besides what's existing
on this Earth. I mean, give me a break, are these folks actually that
pathetic and anti-life or what?

Phobos mean radius: 21 km (13 mi)
Distance from Mars: 9,380 km (5,830 mi)
Period of Rotation: 0.3188 days

Deimos mean radius: 12 km (8 mi)
Distance from Mars: 23,460 km (14,580 mi)
Period of rotation: 1.2625 days

BTW; the mean density of Mars is: 3.95 grams/cm³
which in itself seems is a whole lot more like the composition of our
moon than Earth.

Jupiter's rotation Period: 9.92 hours
Of the 5 primary and 12 or so other moons of Jupiter, even though
there should have been if not concurrently tidal forces at play, yet
there seems to be none of these moons in synchronization with their
home world. Thus once again our unique moon seems somewhat out of step
with the trend of such things.

Another nagging consideration upon those meteorites and shards strewn
about the surface of Mars, considering the entire lack of any
atmospheric buffer zone associated with our moon, surely the lunar
surface environment must be considerably more intensified with the
same sorts of debris, as clearly similar if not worse to what was
imaged by the Mars pathfinder mission, and only recently being
confirmed by what's being imaged as we speak.

As I've stipulated on other pages, the odds of yourself being impacted
by at least a dust-bunny or a gram worth of micro meteorite of
something that's obviously unimpaired from colliding with the moon is
actually quit good, whereas I've averaged those sorts of impacts at 10
km/s, as you must realize that our moon is traveling through space at
roughly 30 km/s (+/- lunar velocity with respect to Earth) thereby
colliding with numerous debris in addition to that which is simply
targeting the moon and being accelerated at the 1.6 m/s/s as captured
by lunar gravity.

So, according to those Apollo images, that are of potentially far
better resolution than even the most recent Mars images, especially if
those quality negatives and/or transparencies were to be scanned at
9600 dpi or even 19,200 dpi, even though somehow these terrific frames
recorded such damn few meteorites and shards, but mostly that of a
desert like surface reflecting average illumination quite nicely at
roughly 55%, without any perceptible mineral colors at that. So, the
question is, which of these two sources of images (Mars/moon) is true
to life, as surely one of them is skewed.

Mars images: http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/mars/graphics/
http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/...s/80894_fu.jpg

Moon images:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...tt_boulder.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...h_40_5886.html
http://home.arcor.de/yoiks/mondbilde...-107-17446.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-107-17446.jpg

There are certainly far better and worse Apollo lunar photo examples
(depending upon what you're looking for), though you'll still need to
consistantly disregard the total lack of any blast crater, as well as
for those illumination hot spot issues, never minding that for some
unexplained reasons not even the star Sirius could have been imaged,
though apparently careful attention was always given to exclude upon
such horrifically bright stars, not to mention avoiding Venus like the
plague (Venus must have always been on the other side of the sun), and
especially avoiding any of those frames from including Earth along
with a lunar landscape with an astronaut were taboo.

Notice how the final redo issued by NASA on the as16-107-17446.jpg is
rather significantly lesser image quality than of their original, of
which the original includes that infamous "C" rock among a few other
tidbits, but also notice how the background terrain is suddenly so
entirely devoid of meteorite debris, and so nicely illuminating at
that, without ever a single dark basalt rock anywhere within the image
to be seen, much less of any hint of even a vibrant star that still
should have been recorded as a relatively dim point of illumination
(most stars being highly UV worthy and there being no atmosphere to
block/filter such intense UV photons).

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/
Notice how much reflective brightness the lunar surface continually
offers in respect to those 80% reflective moon suits, then notice how
the majority of rocks are actually brighter than their suroundings. I
could certainly go on and on but, what's the point, or perhaps this is
also where we should apply our "high standards and accountability" and
"so what's the difference" factor.

Apparently the fact that there were so few, and otherwise relatively
minimal meteorites and shards strewn about isn't supposed to suggest
anything either. Although, if you'd care to go through any number of
other Apollo images, of which we've all see more than our fair share,
please do offer your notions as to why there's so damn few of those
meteorites and shards, especially when the overall lunar surface had
been so much more so mega impact pulverised and has remained entirely
vulnerable than even Mars. The fact that the lunar surface as
portrayed by those Apollo images seemed to be so darn reflective is
yet another skewed avenue of something that's never been resolved
because, if there were the expected average of 11% reflective index
involved (darkish basalt and meteorite strewn and all), as then the
imaging of those absolutely vibrant stars would have been a rather
simple task, and even somewhat difficult to have avoided and/or pass
up, unless you were an absolute village idiot moron on drugs.

Of course, there's always been a few dozen other pesky issues, as well
as far better qualified folks having their say, where all of which
must be disregarded about their opposing those infamous Apollo
missions on more grounds than I ever imagined. So, all you'll need to
do is skew those laws of physics and to apply whatever conditional
parameters whenever necessary, and lo and behold, as in right out of
that space toilet, in spite of the total lack of whatever rational
sciences, much less independent or even technical expertise support
for those missions, somehow they all happened exactly like our NASA
stipulated, and the last time I'd checked under my pillow, the tooth
fairy left me a million bucks, plus another million of those Halburton
stock options.

Besides all of this pathetically stupid Apollo "yes we did", "no they
didn't" crap, why don't we just cut to the chase by utilizing our
resident warlord's "so what's the difference" WMD policy, and call it
good.

Latest Sirius entry, along with graphics (Feb. 03, 2004):
****** http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-sirius-trek.htm
* http://guthvenus.tripod.com/synchronized-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-earth-venus.htm

Calling Venus;
If you're perchance the least bit interested in the truly hot prospect
of achieving interplanetary communications, as for that quest I've
added lots into this following page;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm

BTW; There's still way more than a darn good chance of there being
other life of some sort existing on Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Some good but difficult warlord readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND
PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-Sad...andPirates.htm

David Sereda (loads of his honest ideas and notions upon UV energy),
for best impact on this one, you'll really need to barrow his video:
http://www.ufonasa.com

The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action
injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-what-if.htm

Some other recent file updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm

Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA

This part is not a Hoax!, as I believe we can place probes in working
order onto if not into the surface of the moon, and that's a fact.

"Deploying dozens of small javelin lunar probes on the cheap"

As just an example;
I'm thinking that of a modern day probe with a suitable battery and
compact PV cell array that's either tightly integral and/or
subsequently deploy able upon impact, that perhaps this form of micro
instrument and of it's data/transponder could be comprised of as
little as 1 kg. Of course, of your vastly superior "all-knowing" probe
can become whatever, 10 kg 1 t.

As for my initial delivery scheme, I'm thinking of involving hydrogen
or whatever gas filled balloons, actually quite a good number of
balloons within one another, and obviously not the least bit for their
buoyancy, but as for spreading out the impact to a rather sizable zone
of perhaps as much as 10 m2, as opposed to the instrument probe impact
zone representing as little as a mere 0.001 m2 (25 mm upper body with
a tapered 25 mm 5 mm spike end), and of what this relatively small
instrument/probe may be looking somewhat like a miniture spear or half
javelin.

1/2*M*V2 = impact energy or equivlent mass, whereas the V = 1.6 m/s/s

In other words, I'm suggesting that the initial impact of this small
probe can be spread conservatively by at least 1000:1, therefore if
the raw velocity at impact were to become 5 km/s, thus a 1 kg/probe
that was surrounded by another kg worth of balloons and sub/micro
balloons that would impact at an overall worth of 25,000 tonnes,
though this energy is subsequently being spread over the 10 m2, thus
the actual javelin probe body of 0.001 m2 should become merely 2.5
tonnes, though applying another 10X fudge factor makes for 25 t.

Any way you'd care to slice it, 25 tonnes worth of probe impact is
still one hell of an impact, though I tend to believe this could be
survivable, especially since the notion of delivering any decent probe
will ideally need to be firmly implanted into lunar soil and rock, the
deeper the better, as long as the upper protion remains exposed for
receiving and transmitting data.

Obviously, if this turned out being the 25 tonnes worth of impact
survival, as representing too much to ask for, then enlarging the
balloon and of increasing the numbers of the smaller balloons within
should further spread this impact, thus decelerating and taking the
brunt of the probe delivery impact. Another avenue is to lengthen upon
the spike end, at the risk of increasing the mass, as the compression
of this semi-hallow javelin will also absorb energy. Obviously the
deployment and desired free-fall vertical positioning will need to be
gyroscopic, though the probe itself could be initially set spinning at
100,000 rpm, adding somewhat a friction drilling attribute to the
probe impact.

The lunar soil (supposedly 11% reflective index and of clumping moon
dirt) should account for another degree of impact deceleration, then
of the penetrated rock and I'll assume some degree of compression of
the javelin probe tip itself should absorb whatever remains. At least
if all fails, the value per micro-probe isn't going to bust the world
bank, nor stress the technology expertise to any breaking point, as if
need be a dozen of every required instrument function can be deployed,
so that if only one survives the delivery, we've accomplished the
task.

Unlike those Apollo landers, every facet of these probe deployments
can be fully tested and confirmed on Earth prior to accomplishing the
real thing.

Of course, having a fully fly-by-wire robotic lander certainly would
be nice, though a wee bit spendy, and I'll suppose that of some day
our crack NASA teams will actually obtain that degree of purely rocket
powered controlled flight capability, as otherwise the next best
technology is obviously what the recent Mars probes utilized in order
to decelerate their impact. Since there's so little difference between
the thin Mars atmosphere and that of the moon, where actually the
lesser gravity of the moon should almost offset this disadvantage, so
that such a well proven method of essentially dropping objects safely
onto such a foreign surface seems almost like way-overkill for the
task of delivering such small (1 kg) probes onto and preferably as
partially impaled into the moon, though dozens of such probes might be
safely deployed by one such velocity breaking maneuver, such as
bringing everything to a vertical velocity of zero at the elevation of
1 km would certainly do wonders for alleviating the horrific impact
that's otherwise faced with the 1.6 m/s/s influence of lunar gravity.

A raw javelin probe of 1 kg, as dropped from 1 km, should impact at
roughly 0.8 t (800 kg), well within survival specifications of even
toys-R-us, which might not even represent sufficient impact for
implanting these lightweight probes.

Keeping in mind that shape and/or size is not a velocity factor, other
than spreading the impact energy over a greater or lesser zone,
whereas the Hindenburg of 242 metric tons and of representing more
than 210,000 m3 will obtain the exact same impact velocity as a
bowling ball or that of a dust-bunny, identical velocity as long as
each were introduced from the same altitude.

Of course, this is all purely "one-way", and never given a second
thought of our retrieving anything but measured data, nor of having to
sustain human or other life by shielding them from the truly horrific
elements of various lunar exposures.

I believe such small/compact probes can be engineered to survive these
sorts of deployment impacts, as well as sufficiently immune to such
horrific radiation, and of their avoiding meteorite impact, as their
odds are greatly improved upon by the sheer fact that these compact
probes represent such a small target, though eventually they'll each
be pulverised by something.

Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA