The rigid airship (fat waverider/shuttle) to/from hell:

Once again, besides being continually lied to, I'm being topic/author
stalked and otherwise getting hijacked as for this topic becoming
something other, is what seems about par for the status quo or bust
course of this anti-think-tank mainstream of Usenet that's intent upon
taking all of us to hell, and then some. Not that our warm and fuzzy
governments haven't been accomplishing a damn fine job of their going a
little Fascism postal as of lately, so much so that it's become somewhat
of another "so what's the difference" fiasco of a situation with no
apparent end in sight.

Why not instead of these unhappy campers continually bashing and/or
hijacking a perfectly good topic, just start yourself an entirely new
one, whereas above all using your real name and the real names of those
you've sadly or knowingly dragged along for the ride. Doesn't it make
sense keeping the jest of a given topic as is?

Here's a little something that's at least related as a viable sub-topic
to "The rigid airship (fat waverider/shuttle) to/from hell", as we
otherwise manage to keep getting ourselves global warmed to death my our
extremely large mascon of a moon, plus having contributed loads of our
own soot that's dimming the albedo of Earth.

It seems Carl Sagan was just about done for when those absolutely
terrific SAR obtained images of his hot and relatively dry surface of
Venus were getting sufficiently processed for the rest of us to visually
behold. Unfortunately, there wasn't the likes of myself anywhere to be
found within or even external to the Magellan team, and there certainly
wasn't interaction taking place between Carl Sagan and others of the
Magellan mission, as to whatever was getting so nicely imaged and
subsequently interpreted by those members of such all-knowing wizards as
having been employed on the official Magellan team.

Perhaps that's only because our perpetrated cold-war rusemasters of
MI/NSA~NASA and of their religious puppeteers had so badly wanted to
have nothing but a purely atmospherically green-house roasted and
toasted to death Venus, and not merely derived as any result of a
geothermally active and thereby newish planetology worth of there being
such a hot surface (especially from being caused by active lava and mud
flowing zones), such as having previously been interpreted by the likes
of Carl Sagan, John Ackerman and a few others which never got any credit
for such.

You see, apparently NASA's pagan religiology infested version of Venus
had to be essentially the exact same age as Earth, much like their
version of our moon having to be a touch less old than Earth and of Mars
that can't be any older.

Sadly, you folks are all so snookered and thereby pathetic beyond that
brown-nosed point of no return. Grasping at whatever infomercial hyped
straw and eye candy promoted whatever that demands the use of those
custom NASA/Apollo conditional laws of physics and of your believing in
their infomercial-science that simply can't be independently replicated,
is apparently as good as life ever gets for the likes of such village
idiot fools and status quo minions as yourselves.

How about our creating a little boat rocking by way of discussing the
actual topic or sub-topic that's at least somewhat related to the
physics and science application of viable technology that's on behalf of
accomplishing a rigid airship/shuttle that's made of a tough composite,
involving the use of those high temperature and acidic tolerant binders
for the likes of perhaps using common basalt fibers and microballoons,
which isn't all that unlikely to being way more than sufficient for the
task.

If you'd like to contribute merely as to the robotic airship alternative
as being doable, whereas that's also perfectly fine and dandy for this
application of whatever a composite rigid airship/probe could accomplish
while efficiently cruising extensively within the somewhat cooler
nighttime season of Venus (much cooler yet at good altitudes while
cruising just below such thick and acidic clouds).

Even a few constructive words on behalf of accommodating the interior
structural aspects of this craft can essentially be made of this very
same composite, as created to whatever density suits the stress, loading
and insulation demands on behalf of creating as large of rigid
airship/shuttle (AKA fat waverider) or compact robotic probe as you'd
like. Electro-mechanical items already exist for operation at 811 K,
and CCDs or ICs on SiC or upon C have been proven to function within
similar thermal environments, not to mention miniature vacuum tube
technology that's in some instances better performing as alternatives to
the solid state options.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message

So go ahead and do it. Otherwise ponder why this is a game restricted to
observatories such as Apache Point, with a 2.3 watt laser and a 3.5
meter mirror http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
Don't forget to tell the FAA what you're doing.

A few harmless test shots by either of our 100 MW ABLs would certainly
accomplish a great many returning IR photons, especially of those
photons as efficiently derived from any of those supposed reflectors,
and easily photographed by way of simply 99% masking of KECK's miooros
can boil that raw pixel resolution down to something less than a
meter/pixel (isn't that nifty, or what).

Unfortunately, the physically dark moon itself offers a fairly good IR
albedo factor. Therefore, using something of 407~425 nm might actually
be a whole lot more desirable, and of our spendy ABLs should be able to
accomodate at least a full megawatt CW worth of such as shot as often as
they like from 40,000'.
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


Brad, this is talk.bizarre you're posting to. This is a place where
people post fiction. It's only because you have Ebola that you're
saying this. If you didn't have Ebola, you'd understand just how silly
it is to expect anything in talk.bizarre to matter. Brad, see a doctor
immediately. Ebola can kill you if it's left untreated.

Silly boy. Now that I've gotten myself past the point of having proven
that I'm more than sufficiently right, and that you're one of THEM, as
such what's next on your cloak and dagger agenda?
-
Brad Guth



.... i don't podt fiction!!! everything i post is true!!!

b
ps'
tit


--
This is my post. It's one of the best posts on the net.
I know what you're asking yourself 'did he post 5 or 6
times'? Well in all the confusion I kinda lost track
myself. So you gotta ask yourself 1 question 'do you
feel lucky, huh do ya punk ...'

"beelzibub the reverse psychologist"
wrote
... i don't podt fiction!!! everything i post is true!!!

Silly boy. Apparently you and your extremely brown nose don't consider
a butt ugly lie as fiction, but as being the only truth within your
koran of infomercial-science and hypology that matters.

Perhaps we should all do a Usenet search for each of those warm and
fuzzy contributions by "beelzibub", in order to test your infomercial
cesspool for lies. Obviously you and your kind don't consider the
excluding of evidence as being a lie.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Problem is a) not "anyone" can check this. In
reality only a few observatories in the world have
the necessary equipment.

Based on my work at Qualcomm back in 1995, using
CDMA encoding into your laser signal and to pull the
signal back out of the return, pretty much any
serious astronomy hobbiest should be able to pull
signal down from those reflectors today.

CDMA encoding/decoding can pull signal out of
millionfold louder background white noise.

At the time, lots of independent astronomers at "big
observatories" _were_ capable of checking that the
corner cube reflectors were being placed exactly as
depicted in the mission broadcasts. Pretending that
all the astronomers at all those observatories would
consent en masse to a "fake moon landing"
conspiracy, when they couldn't even consent to
similar political systems, ignores human psychology.

and b) Easy, land an unmanned lander on the Moon
and at the proper time signal it to drop the cover
covering the reflector so it starts working.

Nah. Back in those days we didn't have robots that
worked that well, nor even close; that's even more
unlikely than the reality of the moonwalk.

Face it, Moon-hoax nuts can go to any length to
deny the reality of us landing on the Moon.

I grant you that, but there are lengths beyond which
they shouldn't be believed or allowed to go
unrebuked. A stealth launch which no one observed, an
on which no one _ever_ confessed working, and an
unlikely robot deposition, in contrast and parallel
to a very public launch with ongoing highly visible
(to the amateur astronomer) transit of the manned
vehicle along at least the beginning of its path,
and return after a period of time consistent with
its easily determined moon-circling orbit and plan
of work just doesn't cut the mustard as an alternate
"theory" of how corner cube reflectors "poofed" onto
the moon.

Or so it seems to me.

xanthian.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote:

The other problem is that any number of items as
having impacted and thus vaporised their aluminum
upon the salty lunar deck that's below all of that
other sooty stuff could just as easily accomplish
the same hocus-pocus affect.

Your ignorance of reflection physics from an
irregular surface as opposed to a corner cube
reflector merely adds to all the other idiocy you've
posted, in impugning your rights to say anything
about any niche of science or reality and be taken
serioiusly.

Face it, Moon-hoax nuts can go to any length to
deny the reality of us landing on the Moon.

Don't really have to do much of anything but apply
the regular laws of physics along with accepting
the honest science and of known fly-by-rocket
technology that can be replicated, such as any
number of Kodak moments that'll include our
physically dark moon along with a good number of
other planets and even a few of the brightest of
stars, all at the very same photographic exposure
none the less.

That's gibberish, pure and simple.

BTW; Our NASA/Apollo moon is not a passive Guano
island that's illuminated by the spectrum worth of
a xenon lamp array, and there's lots more where
that came from.

More gibberish.

xanthian.











..


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote:

Trust me a little

You've spent a net career building up such a
reputation for spewing lies that no one with
an IQ above room temperature looks on you as
anything but a fool, and then you say "trust
me"???

That loud noise you hear is the Big Crunch,
as the universe collapses in laughter at you.

xanthian.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote:
"Kent Paul Dolan" wrote:

Brad's thesis gets a whole lot less believable,
when the truth of corner cube reflectors on the
moon is factored into the story. You have to move
that sound stage to the moon to make things work,
and it's way easier just to send some astronauts
instead.

How about discussing the actual topic

Cluebat application for Brad Guth and any other
Usenet impaired participants: I changed the subject
line, a broad clue that I'd changed the subject.

I said above "Brad's thesis"; I should more clearly
have said: "any thesis by Brad Guth".

Brad's argumentation needs always to be brought back
to his reputation for consistently spewing idiocy
onto Usenet. His thesis that the moon landing was
faked, like his thesis that melting-lead-hot Venus
holds intelligent life forms much like those on
Earth, need to be used in judging the merit of any
other equally dubious arguments he brings to Usenet.

Corner cube reflectors on the moon are only one of
thousands of direct physical proofs that Brad is
lying about the moon walk being faked (detailed
analyses of rocks returned from the moon by
scientists working independently of NASA are
another), but they are evidence anyone can check
even today, not at all dependent on those "lost NASA
archives" and other red herrings Brad drags in to
try to weave a conspiracy out of dust bunny quality
evidence.

xanthian.

Brad tries, elsewhere, to drag attention away from
the reality that the evidence of corner cube
reflectors on the moon proves him a persistent liar,
by dragging in red herrings about blasting those
corner cube reflectors with anti-satellite lasers,
a proposition having exactly nothing to do with the
testable reality of those corner cube reflectors on
the moon.

And by the way, if I recall correctly, the European
Space Agency is _still_ doing science with those
corner cube reflectors, daily as observing
conditions allow.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Kent Paul Dolan" wrote in message
news:892b6bbcd752214fd2174106610c057c.48257@mygate .mailgate.org

I grant you that, but there are lengths beyond which
they shouldn't be believed or allowed to go
unrebuked. A stealth launch which no one observed, an
on which no one _ever_ confessed working, and an
unlikely robot deposition, in contrast and parallel
to a very public launch with ongoing highly visible
(to the amateur astronomer) transit of the manned
vehicle along at least the beginning of its path,
and return after a period of time consistent with
its easily determined moon-circling orbit and plan
of work just doesn't cut the mustard as an alternate
"theory" of how corner cube reflectors "poofed" onto
the moon.

It would have taken all of 10 cents on the dollar and at that not
involving any more volume nor imposing 10% the payload mass to have
deployed a one degree focused transponder strobe, capable of delivering
perhaps as little as 10 joules per ms flash (although 100 joules should
have been doable). Obviously you folks can not manage to count such
xenon strobe generated photons because, there'd be so many of them pesky
photons that damn near a naked eye viewing upon an earthshine
illuminated moon could have easily detected.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

I have a side by side computer, in which the other one has nothing
whatsoever to do with my research, and as such it's operating as
perfectly fine and dandy w/o hardly any Internet/Usenet protection
whatsoever.

So the bloody flux hasn't been an indication? Ebola is very serious.
Really, you should see a doctor. My uncle got Klez and nearly died
from it.

I guess that makes you a certified liar and/or another damn snookered
fool that's as brown nosed as you can get, doesn't it!

This is talk.bizarre. Talk.bizarre is ALL ABOUT lies. If you aren't
going to lie, don't post here. If you DO post here, everyone will think
you're lying, because that's what the group is for.

Please don't post the truth, because IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE. This group
isn't for that. It is specifically against the charter to post truthful
things here.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."