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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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