|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#681
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
Malcolm Reynolds wrote: 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 just wants to get back to his home planet. tomcat |
#682
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:47:39 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Malcolm
Reynolds" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. It concerns me as well. We had another poster a few years ago who was obviously bipolar. On his good days, he was quite lucid--no more off than most Democrats. ;-) But it was clear that he would go into a manic state on other days, and we often wondered if there was some way to get him help. There were even private email discussions among some of the group elders and mods about it. The problem with Brad is that his problem seems to be pretty continuous (though it is certainly possible that he's getting worse--one has to be a long-time reader to know, and I can't have an opinion, because he's been in my killfile for years now). That's one of the really sad things about Usenet--that you can watch someone mentally deteriorate before thousands of people, and be completely helpless. |
#683
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
Right on. David Bacque wrote: 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 |
#684
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
Rand Simberg wrote: To be more precise, that would be a degree in BS... Right on |
#685
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
Shut up fool. Brad Guth wrote: Nobody cares |
#686
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
Malcolm Reynolds wrote: .... he makes you wonder if he even has a clue as to what reality is. Right on |
#687
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
David Bacque wrote:
"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. I'm not working with one look per pixel, but having 36 looks per pixel, and each of those pixels is thereby a whole lot more truth worthy than by any conventional single look CCD image that's more of a plan view rather than of a nearly 3D perspective view. 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 From the GUTH desk of a "bilge drinking lackey" that obviously has known of and otherwise having had to learn "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". BTW; observationology is not an absolute science about your having to be a geology and astrophysics wizard that's all-knowing. It's perfectly OK to incorporate the best available physics and science of others that have expertise to offer that's without any apparent ulterior motives or hidden agendas to deal with. Sorry about my PC going down (happens all the time whenever I'm contributing to this GOOGLE Usenet that sucks and blows, and often does my poor/dyslexic spellings and syntax that always needs work. As such, I'll try posting this one again. Good Christ almighty on another stick; Folks and 'tomcat', there's simply and absolutely no such thing as that of any fly-by-rocket "burn marks" as having been imaged from any stinking satellite that's so freaking far away. That's not even my science, as it's of what our NASA keeps telling us village idiots all the time, and there's plenty of terrestrial images via satellite that proves as to what can and can not be obtained via a similar CCD resolution, as well as for those NASA/Apollo wizards having stipulated that not even a minor local blast crater was formed (hells bells, there was moon-dust and even moonboot footprints within the dust that somehow remained directly below the main thruster nozzle), much less being of having generated any such large and darkened blast area. Keep yourselves thinking along the lines of impact craters, and as such you might actually get the fuzzy picture. That silly old NASA/Apollo damage-control image via Clementine was obtained from so freaking far away, whereas I've stipulated before that if you're going to photoShop something to death, as such why not at least start yourself off with a 100 fold better image to start with. I don't believe that pathetic enlarged image was even based upon such having been multi-look radar image worthy, now was it? Of any one look per CCD pixel isn't offering nearly as good of pixel truth as the multi-stacked images that astronomy usually applies for achieving their maximum eye-popping candy impact. Therefore, the raw original Clementine image has to be a wee bit more than a stretch, to say the least. The GUTH Venus image was however extracted from a 36 look/pixel format of a composite radar image that has no lens distortions nor weird illumination error factors to deal with, and it was also taken from that of a 43° perspective view that's nearly 3D worthy to boot. As per my qualifications; Yourself and of others on this mostly naysay Usenet that seriously sucks and blows already know more about myself than I do. If not, then you're the only ones that don't. So, tell us what if anything would impress the likes of "David Bacque"? Unfortunately, even a certified village idiot moron with less than half a brain could have and should accomplished what I've managed, that is unless that sorry individual was biologically blind and that of a certified intellectual bigot (in other words, much like yourself). My expertise in observationology is pretty much stuck with having taken my leads from the best available public science as having been made available, and as having been otherwise based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, as for having accomplished my best observationology on behalf of delivering my very best SWAG that hopefully doesn't break too many of those accepted rules that most of us consider important to follow. In other words, I'm your all-around information dot and image pixel connecting messenger from hell that's working honestly to the best of my ability in spite of all your status quo flak, of which it so happens that I have a degree of first hand photographic expertise that's obviously every bit as good as if not somewhat better than most of whatever your NIMA has to work with. The point is, you folks don't need to be a qualified brown-nosed minion of a collaborating wizard to your Third Reich in order to sufficiently interpret such images as I've done. You just have to be a little sober, and it also helps being awake and having at least one good eye that's still connected to at least half a brain that can manage to think for itself. Obviously that represents that none of you folks are the least bit qualified, whereas otherwise you'd have posted all sorts of your image interpretations as having easily proven myself as being wrong. Why haven't you or anyone else ever once posted an image that's been interpreted your way, or in any way that might suggest my observationology expertise is insufficient if not entirely wrong? Show us those fine examples of your best image enlargements that are looking as though depicting of what's intelligent/artificial, but clearly are of merely weird patterns proven as not being the case. - Brad Guth |
#688
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:47:39 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Malcolm Reynolds" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. It concerns me as well. We had another poster a few years ago who was obviously bipolar. On his good days, he was quite lucid--no more off than most Democrats. ;-) But it was clear that he would go into a manic state on other days, and we often wondered if there was some way to get him help. There were even private email discussions among some of the group elders and mods about it. The problem with Brad is that his problem seems to be pretty continuous (though it is certainly possible that he's getting worse--one has to be a long-time reader to know, and I can't have an opinion, because he's been in my killfile for years now). That's one of the really sad things about Usenet--that you can watch someone mentally deteriorate before thousands of people, and be completely helpless. Arnt we being silly again. I suppose that you voted for GW Bush, and see nothing wrong with whatever that Pope did to all of those Cathars and innocent others. Provoking of others is perfectly OK within your little black book/koran of rules. In other words, it's permitted to being a collaborator as long as it's not your butt that's getting nailed. In your case, as with our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), the means always justifies the ends, even if having to ignore the collateral damage and having to step over all of those innocent dead bodies in order to get to that next barrel of Muslim oil. - Brad Guth |
#689
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
tomcat wrote:
Malcolm Reynolds wrote: 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 just wants to get back to his home planet. tomcat We certainly know which side of the fence you're on, don't we. What's the matter, tomcat? Too afraid to admit that you've been snookered by those having "the right stuff"? - Brad Guth |
#690
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth's Credentials
Malcolm Reynolds wrote:
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. Why don't you and most others exist as real persons? Besides Usama bin Laden, what are you folks afraid of? - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Brad Guth's Credentials | Robert Juliano | Policy | 0 | February 19th 06 10:01 PM |
Brad Guth's Credentials | Robert Juliano | History | 0 | February 19th 06 10:01 PM |
Brad Guth's Credentials | AM | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | February 19th 06 02:26 AM |
Brad Guth's Credentials | Tom Randy | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 7th 06 10:37 AM |
Brad Guth's Credentials | Fred Garvin | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 7th 06 02:02 AM |