Enough Already!!!

Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
on Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:25:46 -0600,
Pat Flannery attempted to say .....



Robert Juliano wrote:



This could possibly point to a mental illness,


Most of us in the sci.space.history newsgroup reached somewhat the same
diagnosis years ago after reading around three or four of his postings.


I am truly suprised it took more than one..


I had to give him the benefit of a doubt...

Bob

Tank Fixer wrote:

Most of us in the sci.space.history newsgroup reached somewhat the same
diagnosis years ago after reading around three or four of his postings.



I am truly suprised it took more than one..



It all got started with his "analysis" of things he had seen in the
Magellan radar images from Venus. To us it looked like static, but he
saw bridges, giant airships, roads, and all sorts of other things,
rather like seeing animal shapes in clouds.
Each week would bring new "finds" on that remote and forbidding sphere,
and we thought he was doing a pretty clever parody of a whacko website,
but then realized that he was serious about this.
His posting of a topographical map of Mars and claiming it was Venus
became one of the best laughs sci.space.history ever had, ranking right
up there with the time one of the posters was chased around by an
amorous cow....or maybe it was just angry.
Let's say it was ****ing mad and cover both possibilities.
Speaking of ****ing mad, Guth's postings got stranger and stranger, soon
moving into discussions that I never could understand about cyclopean
Cathar lizards living on Venus.
As to how creatures that lack stereo vision survive (is it a fly at one
inch distance, or a pterodactyl at one hundred feet? You can eat ne, the
other can eat you), as well as why they would follow a medieval
Christian heresy was never explained to my satisfaction.
Anyway, his constant and frenzied writing has resulted in him getting
more verbose with a larger vocabulary over the years, if still
completely incomprehensible.
He also seem to have moved from simple delusions into the realm of
paranoia, but thinking too much about one-eyed lizards is liable to do
that to you. :-)

Pat

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:06:16 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Tank Fixer wrote:

Most of us in the sci.space.history newsgroup reached somewhat the same
diagnosis years ago after reading around three or four of his postings.

I am truly suprised it took more than one..

It all got started with his "analysis" of things he had seen in the
Magellan radar images from Venus. To us it looked like static, but he
saw bridges, giant airships, roads, and all sorts of other things,
rather like seeing animal shapes in clouds.

I have not kill-filter him... yet.

In my entire 8 years in the Usenet I have only ever kill-filtered one
person due to having totally no worthwhile qualities. This in posting
off-topic insane postings by the thousands with totally no feedback or
interaction. And only after complaints to their provider were ignored.

Brad does at least have a few redeeming qualities. Namely being
usually on-topic, somewhat humorous, and providing quite an
interesting discussion.

Just too bad that he spends his time barking up the wrong tree.

I did have an interesting discussion on killer Sednas posing a threat
to Earth with him on my last visit here. He overlooked the probability
factor.

And naturally I am still awaiting for him to prove the science behind
his moon hoax claims. I guess that won't be coming soon.

I will certainly have to check out his postings when NASA does head
back to the Moon, when we all known that such a space voyage is lethal
in Brad's view. Provided he is around then, when having his main claim
disproved may cause him to... fade away.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Robert Juliano (aka root cause),
Of whatever's "lunar conspiracy" worthy is in fact providing a
perfectly good battery of reasons for myself and countless others
before my involvement, in my case to believe that whatever I've
uncovered that's most interesting about our nearest solar system being
encharge of the 105,000 year cycle, about our once upon a time icy
proto-moon (quite salty none the less), of what values the LL-1 affords
as per usage on behalf of the one and only LSE-CM/ISS, or of whatever
intelligent other life had created upon Venus that's in plain sight is
simply never going to see the polluted light of day on your global
warming watch, just like the truth and nothing but the truth as to your
perpetrated cold-war that had been so extensively contributed to by the
NASA/Apollo sting of the century, isn't going down without a WW-III or
worse fight.

Oops! I've identified yet another one of my mistakes. However, this
one only keeps the old Saturn-V fly-by-rocket situation well within the
nearest space-toilet, whereas before I'd been thinking they had
accomplished such massive tonnage deployments of nearly 47t within less
than 3 days, when in fact it took 3+ days of 74.5 Hrs, up to taking as
great as 86.3 Hrs. That makes the most recent argument of 86.3/9 =
9.59 times longer than what New Horizons having accomplished just 0.48t
(that's roughly 1% of the Apollo tonnage) as having used up a
rocket/payload ratio of 1194:1, therefore 1194:1/9.59 = 124.5:1

According to the official 'history.nasa.gov' record; Apollo-16
accomplished their fastest manned translunar deployment at 74.5 hrs,
which further interprets as taking 8.28 fold greater time than New
Horizons 9 hrs. Thus 1194/8.28 = 144.2:1 as the revised rocket/payload
ratio.

Apparently NASA's rocket-science isn't such a science after all. At
least when such an old 64:1 method that's relatively inert massive,
plus hauling a few other drag related and inert mass worthy
compromises, is the same as the newest streamlined possibility of
144:1, that's offered only because of having the least inert mass to
deal with, as well as least otherwise compromised.

Any way you'd care to cut it; Of utilizing the newest and most
effective 144:1 or even of the 124.5:1 form of accounting simply is not
nearly an equal match to what such an old and terribly outdated method
by all supposedly accepted rocket-science high standards and
accountability, as having supposedly transpired on behalf of our nearly
40 year old 64:1 capability that oddly can't be touched by the bestest
rocket technologies of today. Don't look now folks, but lo and behold,
that previous record simply sucks and blows whatever's truth in
rocket-science right out the nearest window for exactly what it
represents, which is a nasty butt-load of pure cold-war crapolla (aka
disinformation) on stick.

Of course, as I've previously suggested, it's actually much worse off
because, that supposed 64:1 accomplishment is not having taken into
account for all of the advancements in regard to the reductions in
inert mass, or of the reduced if any auxiliary impact of
cryogenic-storage related ice loading (due to the superior insulation
R-factors in use today), of the better engine efficiencies to boot, or
that of having a significantly reduced aerodynamic drag, as well as
having a mere fraction of the time dealing with exiting Earth's
atmosphere. In other words, I'm not the least bit convinced that a
200:1 ratio for the old Saturn-V wouldn't have been the case, making at
best 15t doable (not the nearly 47t).

Here's where I've pulled the running time for Apollo tonnage arriving
into lunar orbit.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-08 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: 069:12:27.3

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-10 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 076:01:50.1

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-11 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 075:55:47.90

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-12 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 083:31:15.61

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-13 (N/A) Apparently Apollo-13 never had to bother with any stinking
Lunar orbit insertion since they didn't have to actually go any further
than LL-1.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-14 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 082:02:51.54

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-15 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 078:38:25.06

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-16 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 074:34:42.77

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-17 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 086:20:55.76

I'm assuming their insertion phase of retrothrust cutoff had to have
transpired somewhat prior to reaching any significant distance of their
going past the maximum lunar gravity influence, thus obviously they
weren't previously trying to exit the Earth/moon gravity constraints by
way of zipping their way past LL-1 any faster than they absolutely had
to, whereas if they had allowed for such extra velocity would have
added far too much retrothrust insult to injury (taking away even more
of the available launch energy, which only makes their rocket/payload
ratio as having that extra/spare load of retrothrust fuel added to the
launch and deployment phase of accomplishing their in-orbit worth of
47t, thus obviously making it that much worse off). Therefore, until I
can learn better, I'm sticking with calling Saturn-V no better off than
200:1. Go figure otherwise for yourself.

I can see that your Usenet malware/****ware has been arriving as I
type, and otherwise attempting to interpret and/or interrupt whatever I
copy or type. Image that, it's right back into the same old
MI6/NSA~CIA crapolla of my having to deal with even more of your intent
to terminate my PC. I wonder what's the next mainstream damage-control
gauntlet of MIB going to be like, Bob?
-
Brad Guth

Cardman wrote:

Tank Fixer wrote:

I will certainly have to check out his postings when NASA does head
back to the Moon, when we all known that such a space voyage is lethal

to space science.

I suspect you will be waiting a long time.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org