Thick Outer Shell of Moon / by Hank Kroll

Hagar wrote:
It's a matter of fact that our moon
for its size offers an unusually thick shell or hull that's
extensively covered in tens of meters worth of highly electrostatic
charged dust, as well as chuck full of those surface mascon issues,
meaning that the lunar core is either of a low density substance
(possibly of a salty brine) or semi-hallow...
Brad Guth / Hank Kroll


... sort of like your brain, eh ...

This is interesting... the outside is rock, and the center is water.
What makes that interesting is that rocks sink in water, so the water
should be on the outside, not inside.

Pat

On Mar 12, 9:58 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Hagar wrote:
It's a matter of fact that our moon
for its size offers an unusually thick shell or hull that's
extensively covered in tens of meters worth of highly electrostatic
charged dust, as well as chuck full of those surface mascon issues,
meaning that the lunar core is either of a low density substance
(possibly of a salty brine) or semi-hallow...
Brad Guth / Hank Kroll

... sort of like your brain, eh ...

This is interesting... the outside is rock, and the center is water.
What makes that interesting is that rocks sink in water, so the water
should be on the outside, not inside.

Pat

I never once said the lunar core was of water, although pockets or
geode like confinements of dense brines or a few other mineralogy
saturated fluids could very well exist. My best SWAG has our moon's
interior as somewhat crystal dry and cavernous.
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 12, 6:32 am, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

This topic isn't nearly as hocus-pocus worthy as having our rad-hard
astronauts as though walking moonsuit butt-naked upon that physically
gamma saturated and dark as coal moon (in many places it's
considerably darker than coal). It's a matter of fact that our moon
for its size offers an unusually thick shell or hull that's
extensively covered in tens of meters worth of highly electrostatic
charged dust, as well as chuck full of those surface mascon issues,
meaning that the lunar core is either of a low density substance
(possibly of a salty brine) or semi-hallow...
Brad Guth / Hank Kroll

... sort of like your brain, eh ...

Speaking about what's within ones head (empty or otherwise):
Yes Hagar, there's more of me than your head full of crapolla can
imagine, whereas stipulated by "Painius" you are the reincarnation of
Carl Sagan, wishful thinking your way along as though the laws pf
physics and best available science that's peer replicated to death
doesn't matter, such as Mars not having squat worth of local energy to
work with, but lo and behold it seems you're not alone, because others
of your silly kind are wishing Mars had life, and not even as of all
that long ago, and that somehow the likes of robust and rad-hard Mars
life could still be found and of other imported life from Earth could
somehow coexist if only we could go there (at great public expense) in
person.

Our 'once upon a time' icy proto-moon is not as interpreted by our
faith-based NASA, but as a now humanly lethal place where only the
best of applied technology would give our frail DNA limited access to
that naked environment without our having to pay the ultimate price.

Our usenet contributor "Mitchell Jones" is by all accounts intelligent
and a very honest sorts of investigative research that so desperately
wants to believe that our NASA put folks with all the "right stuff"
onto the moon without hardly a scratch as based upon the undocumented
worth of our fly-by-rocket expertise, that was actually Semitic Third
Reich expertise from get to go.

More Lakes on Mars? / by Mitchell Jones:
***{As I see it, the prevailing practice of valuing social and
political expediency more highly than truth has already, and
irreversibly, done us in. The economies of the advanced nations of the
West have been looted down to the bare walls, and their industrial
capital has been transferred to nations that lack the cultural
heritage of freedom which is necessary to create and maintain such
assets. Ahead lies a hyperinflationary depression, a collapse of the
present global civilization, and a new dark age. During that dark age,
famine and disease will reduce the human population of the Earth by
billions, and most of those remaining will live in squalor and be
unable to read or write. Quaint notions such as science and freedom
will be long since forgotten, and questions such as whether life
exists on other planets will not cross the minds of average persons in
their lifetimes. The reality is that humans preferred spitting on the
truth to reaching for the stars, and so they are going to get the
future they deserve, rather than the future they expect. --MJ}***

Now we are on the same exact set of tracks, realizing that we are
essentially being snookered by those of us having "the right stuff",
and otherwise sufficiently under-educated and/or formally mainstream
disinformed to the point of our being continually dumbfounded past the
point of no return, is what seems entirely status quo.

It's not that pockets of surface liquid couldn't possibly coexist on
Mars, though of fresh water is pretty much out of the question, and
it's nearly as unlikely of those being of a sufficient brine or
mineral composite for having survived under such cold and nearly that
of a vacuum. Thus far the mineralogy of Mars is sorely lacking in the
remains of common sea salt or be it rock salt, although of other yet
undiscovered salts or possibly even S8(sulphur) may be the norm if
ever liquids are discovered.

***{I'm not a fan of NASA by any stretch of the imagination. I believe
that NASA's managers are petrified by the possibility of life on Mars,
and punish anyone in the organization who interprets the data in a way
that suggests that life there is possible. The idea that there are
locations on Mars that are far enough below "sea level" for lakes of
liquid water to exist scares the hell out of them, because if such
notions caught the attention of the press, there would be a public
outcry in favor of manned missions to Mars. That would trigger another
**** fight for "funding" (loot) in congress between NASA and other
parasitic groups (the welfare lobby, the "environmentalist" lobby,
etc.)
any of which can put more bodies on the street than NASA. NASA would
be guaranteed to lose that fight, just as they lost the **** fight
after the Apollo program.

Let me elaborate a bit.

After the successful moon landings, the interest of the public turned
elsewhere, and a battle began in congress to divert NASA's funding
back to more "important" uses, such as making sure every wino in a
ditch had enough money in his pocket to buy his next bottle, if he
regained consciousness. With the support of the public having
evaporated, NASA was almost killed in that fight, and the lesson was
not lost on NASA's managers: they know that a big public surge which
enables them to put a mission on Mars will be followed by yet another
loss of public interest and support, followed by a collapse of
funding, and they are not about to go down that path. To them, a bird
in the hand is sufficient. They aren't about to go after, or even
think about, the two--or twenty--birds
that are in the bush.
--Mitchell Jones}***

No need to "elaborate a bit" because, I've been there and done that
one at least a thousand fold in regard to Venus and our Moon,
elaborating as to their faith-based analogy that's cloaked as a
pretend-atheism of their being in denial or otherwise naysay to all
that's off-world, in that they can jump as many fences and thus change
sides of most any given war or argument as it takes. Apparently, all
that's off-world has to be of inert eye-candy, meaning that for any
number of their carefully chosen reasons is why there's no possibility
of other viable forms of life to behold, much less of any complex
evolved nature, because in their faith-based mindset only Earth is it
for hosting complex life as we know it, and thereby everything else
has to remain as inert eye-candy.

I believe that a sufficiently advanced form of intentionally deployed
life may very well have given Mars a go for the money, so to speak,
however that era would have been quite some time ago when Mars still
had its magnetosphere, perhaps ten fold more atmospheric density and a
planetary core that wasn't nearly frozen solid.

***"In fact, the possibility of color rebalancing coupled with the
known propensity of bureaucrats and politicians to engage in "spin
control" (i.e., lying), casts a pall of suspicion over all of the
photographs retrieved by Mars orbiters/rovers. The prevalence of spin
control means there is no way to be sure that any particular photo
posted on a NASA or ESA website has not been rebalanced to suit the
desires of upper management. In fact, I am quite sure that in any case
where leaving the balance settings at the calibrated levels would
cause a public reaction not desired by management, the photo will be
rebalanced before publication. Fortunately, the mass of photos being
received is enormous, and in many cases the regions on a photo that
might cause an undesired public reaction are a tiny portion of the
whole, hence likely to be overlooked until after publication. That
scenario very much fits the case we are discussing.
--Mitchell Jones}***

Those terribly pastel (aka low spectral DR) color images of the planet
Mercury are another very good example of our NASA's efforts to
continually snooker and dumbfound each and everyone of us. It's what
they do best, especially if looking at the vast majority of their moon
related Kodak moments that simply do not in any way appear as though
taken from our physically dark moon, much less as unfiltered and oddly
w/o Venus at better than twice the reflective/albedo index of Earth.
So, you are 100% correct that our NASA hasn't been sharing the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, and they continually do this crap
without so much as a speck of remorse or concern for the consequences
of their actions, but then when ever has MI5/CIA shared whole truths
about much of anything.

The deductive science of observationology is worth an honest look-see,
and not just at the likes of whatever official eye-candy pictures have
to offer, but of the 36 look per pixel worth of composite radar
obtained images is also worthy of getting the best attention that our
best expertise can muster, because of what's easily interpreted about
Venus that isn't limited as to inert matters.
.. - Brad Guth

The core of the Milky Way, the solar system, and earth are all denser
than the outer regions... it's displacement... denser stuff sinks.
( Hmm... could that explain quantum gravity ? )

The core of the Milky Way shines with gamma rays ( from anti-matter );
it's an unimaginably powerful particle accelerator,
hydrogen atoms don't stand a chance there.

Likewise,
at the edge of the Milky Way, a hydrogen atom becomes Cold Dark Matter.
Hydrogen atoms are the exception, not the rule.

On Mar 12, 9:15 am, "Painius" wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message

...



Hagar wrote:

It's a matter of fact that our moon
for its size offers an unusually thick shell or hull that's
extensively covered in tens of meters worth of highly electrostatic
charged dust, as well as chuck full of those surface mascon issues,
meaning that the lunar core is either of a low density substance
(possibly of a salty brine) or semi-hallow...
Brad Guth / Hank Kroll

... sort of like your brain, eh ...

This is interesting... the outside is rock, and the center is water.
What makes that interesting is that rocks sink in water, so the water
should be on the outside, not inside.

Pat

Interesting yes, because water tends to seep
down through porous rock "seeking its level".
So how does water determine its level? Does
this have anything to do with "buoyancy"?

Why aren't Earth's oceans just dry beds of
arid, porous rock? Did some supreme being
remember to include a high-grade "plastic
liner" beneath Earth's crust when s/he made
the planet?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

Earth's water, especially of the salty water, was a somewhat recent
deposit, whereas it did not otherwise emerge from within Earth.

If there's anything of any watery fluid or brine worthy substance
within the moon, it too was likely a deposit.

BTW, why is "Jeff$B"%(BRelf" changing the title of this topic?
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 15, 8:18*pm, Fred Hall wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:33:10 -0600, "John \"C\""

wrote:
Rump-Ranger

--

http://honestjohn777.multiply.com/

http://www.coloneljake.com/BAM1BAM/HJC02/

Say what? or rather say nothing. Are you just pretending at being
Hitler?

Is there something dark and scary about our moon that you do not want
to share and share alike?

. - Brad Guth

Thick Outer Shell of Moon / by Hank Kroll
On Mar 7, 11:15 am, BradGuth wrote:
This topic isn't nearly as hocus-pocus worthy as having our rad-hard
astronauts as though walking moonsuit butt-naked upon that physically
gamma saturated and dark as coal moon (in many places it's
considerably darker than coal). It's a matter of fact that our moon
for its size offers an unusually thick shell or hull that's
extensively covered in tens of meters worth of highly electrostatic
charged dust, as well as chuck full of those surface mascon issues,
meaning that the lunar core is either of a low density substance
(possibly of a salty brine) or semi-hallow...
Brad Guth / Hank Kroll

Seems rather odd that the moon's tough crust that's so well populated
with such massive though unusually shallow craters, and otherwise
having those unusual mascon issues, plus on average so physically dark
as coal, electrostatic dusty and unavoidably gamma and X-ray
saturated, as such isn't worth even a good topic rant or two about its
thick or thin crust, or of its unusually low mass interior that could
be semi-hollow, if not containing a low density worth of a salty
brine.

This form of topic/author banishment is almost as bad off as the JAXA
Selene mission getting officially NASA sequestered until someone can
plant a few items upon that physically dark moon, that should at least
at that resolution of 10 m/pixel look as though something bright and
shiny of our Apollo "right stuff" exist, just as previously specified
to us by our NASA.

BTW, Venus is roughly at least twice the reflective/albedo worth of
Earth, and since it's often passing enough nearby and/or as
technically orbiting itself through the same FOV(frame of view) of our
moon, and even at times including Earth, as such it would be nearly
impossible for those terrific HDTV obtained color images as wide or
even as telephoto views of our moon or those of moon+Earth to having
always missed Venus, as for excluding that absolutely vibrant planet
of Venus should actually be a pretty neat trick.

As such, I was just wondering as to what sort of pathetic excuses
they're having to come up with, as to why the likes of Venus is never
to be seen from any given JAXA mission related orbit of our moon, as
seen and easily recorded by that terrific HDTV camera of superior
DR(dynamic range) to film, and with such quality bandpass coated
optics to boot?
.. - Brad Guth

Interesting that you think the regular laws of physics and best
available science that's peer replicated outside of your NASA cult is
"drivel". Must be another one of those pesky faith-based things, of
what other pretend atheists have to go along with, or else.
.. - Brad Guth


On Mar 17, 5:44 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
Drivel? lmao!

Saul Levy

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:43:57 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
Seems rather odd that the moon's tough crust that's so well populated
with such massive though unusually shallow craters, and otherwise
having those unusual mascon issues, plus on average so physically dark
as coal, electrostatic dusty and unavoidably gamma and X-ray
saturated, as such isn't worth even a good topic rant or two about its
thick or thin crust, or of its unusually low mass interior that could
be semi-hollow, if not containing a low density worth of a salty
brine.

This form of topic/author banishment is almost as bad off as the JAXA
Selene mission getting officially NASA sequestered until someone can
plant a few items upon that physically dark moon, that should at least
at that resolution of 10 m/pixel look as though something bright and
shiny of our Apollo "right stuff" exist, just as previously specified
to us by our NASA.

BTW, Venus is roughly at least twice the reflective/albedo worth of
Earth, and since it's often passing enough nearby and/or as
technically orbiting itself through the same FOV(frame of view) of our
moon, and even at times including Earth, as such it would be nearly
impossible for those terrific HDTV obtained color images as wide or
even as telephoto views of our moon or those of moon+Earth to having
always missed Venus, as for excluding that absolutely vibrant planet
of Venus should actually be a pretty neat trick.

As such, I was just wondering as to what sort of pathetic excuses
they're having to come up with, as to why the likes of Venus is never
to be seen from any given JAXA mission related orbit of our moon, as
seen and easily recorded by that terrific HDTV camera of superior
DR(dynamic range) to film, and with such quality bandpass coated
optics to boot?
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 18, 9:32 am, Saul Levy wrote:
As Timberwolf clearly stated: You are making up this crap as you go
along,Brad! lmao!

If you think you're following the laws of physics and best available
science, you truly are an IDIOT! lmao!

The Universe does NOT follow your wishes anymore than it follows the
WartPiggys'! lmao!

All you are producing is DRIVEL!

Saul Levy

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:07:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
Interesting that you think the regular laws of physics and best
available science that's peer replicated outside of your NASA cult is
"drivel". Must be another one of those pesky faith-based things, of
what other pretend atheists have to go along with, or else.
. -BradGuth

On Mar 17, 5:44 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
Drivel? lmao!

Saul Levy

Is that why you and others of your kind keep excluding the following?

sci.space.history, alt.astronomy, sci.astro, sci.space.policy,
soc.history.what-if

What is it about our moon that's so dark and scary?

Why is JAXA under your NASA cold-war thumb?

Is your being a systematic born-again liar having some Third Reich
complications?
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 7, 11:15 am, BradGuth wrote:
This topic isn't nearly as hocus-pocus worthy as having our rad-hard
astronauts as though walking moonsuit butt-naked upon that physically
gamma saturated and dark as coal moon (in many places it's
considerably darker than coal). It's a matter of fact that our moon
for its size offers an unusually thick shell or hull that's
extensively covered in tens of meters worth of highly electrostatic
charged dust, as well as chuck full of those surface mascon issues,
meaning that the lunar core is either of a low density substance
(possibly of a salty brine) or semi-hallow...
Brad Guth / Hank Kroll

"The thick outer shell of the moon" by hank Kroll isn't so much about
our Apollo troops as having "the right stuff", and of their having
gone or not having gone to the moon's surface. However, clearly of
our very own orbital obtained images and especially via those of JAXA
Selene are holding back. The truth about our older than Earth moon
isn't getting told, but then truths about Venus are as equally taboo/
nondisclosure rated because I'm not one of them, and otherwise because
it's not as scripted within their Old Testament.
..- Brad Guth